• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I dislike liberal arrogance

Both liberals and conservatives often posit that some boogie man is responsible for the many ills present in society and both propose (bigger) federal government solutions. No matter whether the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government is in charge at the moment the federal government grows in both power and cost.

As the country and its economy grow, so does the government and the money needed to run it. You can't run the US in the 21st century with the same budget and size that you ran 13 colonies in the 18th.
 
This is one area I can agree with the populist right wing about and for which I hope against hope that the leftist and progressive movements can do some soul searching about in the coming months. The reason so many independent voters who fall in the working poor and middle class are fed up with liberals is the elitism and PC culture that has permeated the movement. Liberals used to calmly embrace the nuance and ambiguity of complex sociopolitical issues like race, religion, and civil rights but now many seem as dogmatic as the religious right and intolerant of views that do not perfectly coincide with their own. They are now often the people who sue bakers who won't make a cake for a gay wedding when they can just use another baker or call someone a "racist" because they support law enforcement over violent protesters.
Agreed.

I find both sides have arrogant people. Unfortunately the arrogant types seem to be driving discourse. Not a good situation at all.
 
You have listed policy differences. What is being discussed is elitism and arrogance.

When a group of people elect someone with the intelligence, sophistication, education, vocabulary, and grammar of a 5th grade schoolyard bully to represent our nation, it's hard not to feel a little elitist and arrogant towards them. And no, we will never be tolerant of overt intolerance and bigotry.

Here is Richard Rorty, the late Professor emeritus of philosophy and the humanities at Stanford, and former chair of the American Philosophical Association, to explain where this sense of liberal arrogance and elitism comes from.

"It seems to me that the regulative idea that we – we wet liberals, we heirs of the Enlightenment, we Socratists – most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of ‘needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions’. This is the concept the victorious Allied armies used when they set about re-educating the citizens of occupied Germany and Japan. It is also the one which was used by American schoolteachers who had read Dewey and were concerned to get students to think ‘scientifically’ and ‘rationally’ about such matters as the origin of the species and sexual behavior. It is a concept which I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.

[…] The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire ‘American liberal establishment’ is engaged in a conspiracy...These parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students. […] When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank. The racist or fundamentalist parents of our students[…] will protest that these books are being jammed down their children’s throats. I cannot see how to reply to their charges without saying something like “There are credentials for admission to our democratic society […]. You have to be educated in order to be … a participant in our conversation … So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours.”"
-Richard Rorty
 
Last edited:
E.g., Opioid addiction is a national crisis, but let’s gut the hell out of the two programs that supply the most funding toward treatment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Excellent example, thank you.

We have to address the real, society-wide problems. We cannot simply say we'll fix them, without saying how, and then ignore them.
 
The truth is that liberal once meant open minded, tolerant, and allowing people to be who and what they are. But in modern day America, 'liberalism' now too often embodies the worst kinds of close mindedness, intolerance, and requiring people to accept and conform to their demands--be politically correct--or else. And the scary thing is, they cannot recognize this in themselves.

The truth is that conservative once meant compassionate, respectful, and in pursuit of freedom. But in modern day America, 'conservatism' now too often embodies the worst kinds of lies, ignorance, forced nationalism, and arrogance--worship the president in every way--or else. And the scary thing is, well, you know.
 
The truth is that conservative once meant compassionate, respectful, and in pursuit of freedom. But in modern day America, 'conservatism' now too often embodies the worst kinds of lies, ignorance, forced nationalism, and arrogance--worship the president in every way--or else. And the scary thing is, well, you know.

Which is why you can reasonably conclude there is a rot infecting both conservatism and liberalism.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Ok, let me address this meme of "liberal elitism" head on. Conservatives want to cut taxes for the rich; reduce regulations, such as environmental, safety and labor regulations; slash the social safety net that financially protects the poor and middle-class, all for what? Did I say cut taxes for the rich?

Liberals want to provide for the poor and middle-class, so they can be productive, live in dignity and have healthy lives. Rich liberals don't mind paying higher taxes for the good of the country.

So, it's liberals that represent the interests of the elites? Some truly live in a fantasy.

Modern Day American conservatives want the tax code to be to the best advantage of the people instead of empowering those in government to use their positions to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. Conservatives want the tax code to encourage those with the ability to expand and grow their businesses, hire people who need good paying jobs, and thereby create a healthy economy that benefits all, most especially the poor and middle class. The intellectually honest know that any tax cuts for the so-called 'rich' are aimed at promoting just that kind of scenario. And relaxing or eliminating UNNECESSARY regulation is intended to accomplish the same thing. Conservatives hold to the Founding principles that a truly free people will govern themselves to everybody's advantage far better than any authoritarian government is able to do so. Government should be limited to securing, protecting, and promoting our rights and liberties and otherwise allowing us to live our lives.

Conservatives look to the results and/or consequences of policy instead of what sounds and feels good.

Liberals SAY they want to provide for the poor and middle class, but continue to promote policies and regulation that most hurt the poor and middle class while the very wealthy laugh all the way to the bank. There is no more wealthy large group of people anywhere in the world than what exists in the permanent political class in Washington and they fight tooth and nail to prevent ANYTHING that interferes with their accumulation of more power and personal wealth.

And despite the clear fact that the poor and middle class have not prospered despite ever more leftist policies and initiatives, the left continues to think the stated MOTIVE makes something righteous and refuse to consider the negative consequences of liberal policies.
 
Which is why you can reasonably conclude there is a rot infecting both conservatism and liberalism.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I don't see it that way. The complaining about college "free speech" was inexorably linked to right wing provocateurs like Milo and Shapiro. Fact is, starving college kids shouldn't be forced to fund security for trolls to give speeches. That's not a speech issue, students aren't being expelled or suspended for stating their minds.

It's mostly left wing fringe stuff that's associated with antifa and the like, those tactics aren't endorsed by mainstream liberal leadership.

On the other hand, we have President Trump and the majority of the GOP getting onboard some shockingly corrupt, hypocritical, and asinine rhetoric and policy.
 
Conservatives want the tax code to encourage those with the ability to expand and grow their businesses, hire people who need good paying jobs, and thereby create a healthy economy that benefits all, most especially the poor and middle class.

But history shows that without any regulations or oversight, the pure free market and low taxes don't do that. Business owners just keep all the money themselves, and only pay their employees enough to stay alive and come back to work the next day. There's no trickle down. There's no rising tide lifting all boats.

There was a time when we didn't have any regulations on our free market here in the US and very low taxes on businesses and the wealthy. It was the industrial revolution, the gilded age. You had factory owners who were making more than the GDP of entire nations. And yet they still employed child labor: hiring children as young as 8 to work 80 hrs/wk on the factory floor with dangerous equipment and chemicals. And, left alone, the problem was getting continuously worse, not better.

childlabor.jpgchildjustice.jpg

The problem only got better when there were some basic common sense regulations and laws passed: child labor laws, minimum wage laws, overtime laws, workplace safety laws, etc...

Conservatives like to point to the collapse of the Soviet Union as an example of why pure communist and socialism don't work. Of course they have a point. But they forget that their own country provided the first example of why pure capitalism doesn't work either, long before that. That is why most developed nations in the world today are mixed economies, a dynamic and sometimes precarious balance and blend of capitalism, with some socialist basic safety nets and regulations and safeguards. It's not because all these countries are all ignorant of history and only American conservatives know better.
 
Last edited:
Conservatives look to the results and/or consequences of policy instead of what sounds and feels good.

Which is why they were only one vote shy from passing a healthcare bill which satisfied not a single policy outcome objective (and would substantially alter the function of the Senate for generations to come), but did satisfy donors and the incessant need to defend against being primaried (or in the President’s case, a signature so he could be a big man).

Please, if there is anything I’ve learned from state government, watching this fiasco, or talking with the average voter, most people are totally ignorant of public policy and react out of some instinctual need for tribalism.

You are all equally helpless and deluded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
I don't see it that way. The complaining about college "free speech" was inexorably linked to right wing provocateurs like Milo and Shapiro. Fact is, starving college kids shouldn't be forced to fund security for trolls to give speeches. That's not a speech issue, students aren't being expelled or suspended for stating their minds.

It's mostly left wing fringe stuff that's associated with antifa and the like, those tactics aren't endorsed by mainstream liberal leadership.

On the other hand, we have President Trump and the majority of the GOP getting onboard some shockingly corrupt, hypocritical, and asinine rhetoric and policy.

Student groups and universities should invite more worthwhile conservative speakers and researchers, but that doesn’t mean students need to stop anyone else from attending or learning.

They can do what the rest of us do: don’t go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
This is one area I can agree with the populist right wing about and for which I hope against hope that the leftist and progressive movements can do some soul searching about in the coming months. The reason so many independent voters who fall in the working poor and middle class are fed up with liberals is the elitism and PC culture that has permeated the movement. Liberals used to calmly embrace the nuance and ambiguity of complex sociopolitical issues like race, religion, and civil rights but now many seem as dogmatic as the religious right and intolerant of views that do not perfectly coincide with their own.

The right hated Obama with an intensity and breadth that was irrational and anything but calm. 100% intolerance of Obama. The term Obama Derangement Syndrome was used to describe the right. Where was your outrage against Republicans when they were not in power?

Urban Dictionary: Obama Derangement Syndrome
The state of paranoia in which people fear President Obama so much, they stop thinking logically and stop using common sense. Usually a direct result of watching too much Fox News.

Of course, the right is good at taking that and then making their own version "TDS", but they see neither any reason to be shy about simply copying the (justified) opposition, nor the difference in *why* Trump is more of a concern than Obama was in the first place.

But you're surprised then when the right elects a [$#!%] like Trump, that they are not a bit outraged themselves?

They are leading you by the nose. Here be outraged at liberals over the NFL/knee, over Christmas opposition, over calling white nationalist fine people...
All the while seemingly oblivious to the fact that these are not national issues of significance, and they are trotted out in a coordinated effort by the right wing media to lead you down that path.

That frustrates people, sure.
 
Student groups and universities should invite more worthwhile conservative speakers and researchers, but that doesn’t mean students need to stop anyone else from attending or learning.

They can do what the rest of us do: don’t go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Those students are free to protest.

The concerns for student safety are more important than concerns for hosting an extracurricular event.

I don't see liberal leadership endorsing violent protest in any meaningful capacity, so i don't see it as a uniquely liberal phenomenon in any meaningful way.
 
Those students are free to protest.

The concerns for student safety are more important than concerns for hosting an extracurricular event.

I don't see liberal leadership endorsing violent protest in any meaningful capacity, so i don't see it as a uniquely liberal phenomenon in any meaningful way.

They are free to protest, but they mostly shouldn't. Do something else with your time, so you don't embarrass yourself or the university.

There ought not be concern for student safety to begin with. It's a person talking--perhaps ignorantly or with foolish amounts of bombast, but it's talking all the same.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Liberals used to calmly embrace the nuance and ambiguity of complex sociopolitical issues like race, religion, and civil rights but now many seem as dogmatic as the religious right and intolerant of views that do not perfectly coincide with their own.

Not all issues have nuanced views. Sometimes there actually is a right and a wrong answer. There are facts and then there are opinions, and then there are these things called logical conclusions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Logical conclusions can be judged as better or worse, logical and illogical, valid or invalid, and in many cases right and wrong. Increasingly in this country the Republican party isn't just offering an alternate perspective that is equally valid. They are wrong. Flat wrong. They are outright lying, and it can be objectively proven.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, discrimination...... these things are wrong PERIOD. There are no two ways about it. The United States of America was founded on the principle that All Men are Created Equal. That wasn't considered an opinion by the founding fathers. That was considered a self-evident truth. It is an axiom. Any person who rejects that belief is by definition un-American.

They are now often the people who sue bakers who won't make a cake for a gay wedding when they can just use another baker
Discrimination is wrong, and it is illegal for a reason. For god sake man at least when we had segregation in the south, you had to serve black people. You may have been allowed to serve them in a different section of your resturant, they may have had to sit in a different part of the bus, but you had to at least serve them. What your asking for is actually worse than that even if you're not capable of grasping it.

or call someone a "racist" because they support law enforcement over violent protesters.
Everyone supports law enforcement over violent protestors, but just because a few are violent that doesn't give you a right to murder them all. There are procedures that police are required to follow for a reason. Just because police think someone has committed a crime doesn't give them free license to beat the **** out of them or murder them. We should not need 75 HD quality videos of every brutal arrest for people to start believing black people when they say they're being treated like ****.

You do not give police the benefit of the doubt just because they are police. You do not allow them to get away with murder just because you think they murdered someone who was probably a criminal. That is unnacceptable and irrational. I realize that being a police officer is dangerous and difficult, but that's the job. If you don't like it you can quit. Black people can't quit being black, therefore it is our responsibility to make sure we're not treating them differently for that reason alone.
 
This is one area I can agree with the populist right wing about and for which I hope against hope that the leftist and progressive movements can do some soul searching about in the coming months. The reason so many independent voters who fall in the working poor and middle class are fed up with liberals is the elitism and PC culture that has permeated the movement. Liberals used to calmly embrace the nuance and ambiguity of complex sociopolitical issues like race, religion, and civil rights but now many seem as dogmatic as the religious right and intolerant of views that do not perfectly coincide with their own. They are now often the people who sue bakers who won't make a cake for a gay wedding when they can just use another baker or call someone a "racist" because they support law enforcement over violent protesters.

And blacks can just use another restaurant when they see a "whites only" sign. I see where you are going and it is down the rabbit hole.
 
It really is a case of which elitism you prefer. I see no obvious difference between what people refer to as "PC culture" and the rights own push for things like the "War on Christmas" or the latest anthem controversy going around. I do agree with the OP that the working class is largely more fed up with the left's version of elitism, but that may have something to do with what personally affects them more.

Or that the right is spending more money on propaganda.
 
They are free to protest, but they mostly shouldn't. Do something else with your time, so you don't embarrass yourself or the university.

There ought not be concern for student safety to begin with. It's a person talking--perhaps ignorantly or with foolish amounts of bombast, but it's talking all the same.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

The problem for me is that when someone attacks "feminism", for example, they are attacking part of the social contract in the fourteenth amendment.

Milo, in particular, was coordinating his positions with known white supremacists:

In early October 2017, BuzzFeed News published leaked email chains from Yiannopoulos' tenure at Breitbart. According to the report, Yiannopoulos and his ghostwriter Allum Bokhari regularly solicited ideas for stories and comments from people associated with the alt-right and neo-Nazi movements.[8] Among the figures Yiannopoulos contacted were Curtis Yarvin, a central figure of the neoreactionary movement;[133] Devin Saucier, the editor of the white supremacist magazine American Renaissance;[134] Andrew Auernheimer, the administrator of neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer;[134] and Baked Alaska, a commentator known for his anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi tweets.[135] Yiannopoulos also was in contact and received suggestions and texts from individuals in "traditionally liberal professions" such as entertainment and media. Mitchell Sunderland from Vice News emailed Yiannopoulos a link to an article by Lindy West of The New York Times, and requested: "Please mock this fat feminist."[136][137] The report also included a video of Yiannopoulos singing "America the Beautiful" at a karaoke bar, where a crowd of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, including Saucier and Richard B. Spencer, cheered him with the Nazi sieg heil salute.[8][138]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos

This man is free to speak his mind. However, he is not entitled to an unlimited supply of taxpayer/student funded, high-security platforms to do so.

So i don't see it as a free speech issue. I see it as an attempt to reject the state of being forced to host a professional troll.
 
This is one area I can agree with the populist right wing about and for which I hope against hope that the leftist and progressive movements can do some soul searching about in the coming months. The reason so many independent voters who fall in the working poor and middle class are fed up with liberals is the elitism

I would like you to do a little soul search for yourself and consider the possibility that you may actually just be incredibly insecure. Are you truly angry about elitism, or are you afraid you might actually be foolish and don't like being made to feel that way? Is it possible that all these well educated liberals actually do know something you don't or haven't figured out yet? Is it possible that we're not really arrogant at all, and that you're actually just ignorant and stuborn? Is it possible that maybe the right answers are just so obvious to us that your stuborn unwillingness to see reason gets frustrating to us?

Is it possible that you're behaving like a three-year-old who refuses to put their shoes on when it's time to go and we are just the parents that are sick of dealing with it? That's what your complaint sounds like to me. You expect un-ending patience, yet you refuse to even show signs that you're learning. What if we're right, and you really did elect a narcacist lunatic facist with the tempermant of a three year old? Do you expect us to just chill out and be nice to you while we wait for innocent people to be hauled away on trains to enternment camps?

In 1930's Germany do you not think there were people just like you? People who said don't worry Hitler will do a great job and Make Germany Great Again. There were people just like you who claimed arrogant liberals were freaking out and calling people anti-semites just because they made Jews wear a star of david on their jackets. What's the big deal you said? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion right? Learn some nuance.

The saying goes "ignorance is bliss." I implore you to consider the possibility that the reason you're not freaking out about what the right-wing in this country is doing is that you don't understand the damage they are causing and we do. We are not arrogant, you are ignorant, and we need you to wake up to reality soon before it's too late. In every great tragic moment throughout history there have always been "independent" minds who thought everything would be fine, and "arrogant" people like us who saw it coming.
 
When the right's policy goals are incongruent with their rhetoric, condescension is justified. You confuse condescension for arrogance.

No, leftists are both condescending and arrogant. As you just demonstrated. If there is an incongruity between goals and rhetoric, point it out. The arrogance of the left has to do with their misguided belief in their own political and intellectual superiority. You know better than the rest of humanity what is good for them. If they are too stupid to agree with you, you just impose your will on them.
 
When a group of people elect someone with the intelligence, sophistication, education, vocabulary, and grammar of a 5th grade schoolyard bully to represent our nation, it's hard not to feel a little elitist and arrogant towards them. And no, we will never be tolerant of overt intolerance and bigotry.
If the left only became arrogant and sanctimonious with the election of Trump, you might have a point. But they didn't. And you don't.
 
No, leftists are both condescending and arrogant. As you just demonstrated. If there is an incongruity between goals and rhetoric, point it out. The arrogance of the left has to do with their misguided belief in their own political and intellectual superiority. You know better than the rest of humanity what is good for them. If they are too stupid to agree with you, you just impose your will on them.

Simply attempting to point out the incongruences in a matter of fact can be perceived as arrogance.

I don't consider myself to be superior. I have the same essential tools that virtually anyone else has. Actually, i think it is the right who believes the poor are inferior, that blacks have no room to complain, that women should not have freedom over their pregnancies; these positions are profoundly arrogant.

We've seen the right gloat about their historic election sweep for quite some time. It's hard for me to see that as anything other than arrogance.
 
They are now often the people who sue bakers who won't make a cake for a gay wedding when they can just use another baker

Well, given the scourge of PC, which is destroying everything, of course militant gays are waging war against Christians.


:D

or call someone a "racist" because they support law enforcement over violent protesters.

That didn't happen. Everyone supports law enforcement over violent protesters. Does everyone get called a racist? No. So something else is going on there. What are you apologizing for?
 
This is one area I can agree with the populist right wing about and for which I hope against hope that the leftist and progressive movements can do some soul searching about in the coming months. The reason so many independent voters who fall in the working poor and middle class are fed up with liberals is the elitism and PC culture that has permeated the movement. Liberals used to calmly embrace the nuance and ambiguity of complex sociopolitical issues like race, religion, and civil rights but now many seem as dogmatic as the religious right and intolerant of views that do not perfectly coincide with their own. They are now often the people who sue bakers who won't make a cake for a gay wedding when they can just use another baker or call someone a "racist" because they support law enforcement over violent protesters.

All you partisan****heads sound alike. Vote fer Don if you’re arrogance averse? Yeah, that makes perfet sense don't it.
 
Back
Top Bottom