Having put together my own thoughts on the problems of the prevailing philosophy recently, I would add one word to his: "Modern Liberalism is a philosophy of hate."
Being curious, I wondered if any real attempt had been undertaken to support or disprove the view. Thus, this piece from Michelle Malkin in January 2008 entitled The statistical proof of liberal intolerance.
When I was on the book tour for Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, critics predictably countered by playing the moral equivalence card. Show them how intolerant, racist, sexist, hateful, conspiratorial-minded, and violent the Left can be, and they sputter “B-b-b-b-b-ut the Right is just as bad.”
Spend anytime in the blogosphere and it’s clear that the two sides of the political galaxy are not created equal. One side burns effigies of American soldiers and craps on the American flag. The other does not. One side wraps itself in assassination chic. The other does not. One side indulges in vicious Sambo photoshops, rank religious bigotry, death wishes, gloating over the illnesses of public figures, and fill-in-the-blank derangement syndrome. The other does not.
Now comes fascinating statistical evidence that the Left is indeed more hateful than the Right. Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks writes in the WSJ today about annual surveys that shed light on just how unhinged liberals really are:
7 comments:
Thanks for the link, and the support!
I would revise the statement to read: "Modern partisan politics encourages a philosophy of hate."
Sorry Nod, but a decidedly conservative columnist citing examples of liberal hate is not enough to convince me that both sides are not guilty of outrageous statements, acts, and general stupidity.
I'm not siding with the left here, but I'm not siding with the right either. Too many blowhards on both sides.
Patrick, to claim that the two sides are equal is to side with the left.
Spend anytime in the blogosphere and it’s clear that the two sides of the political galaxy are not created equal. One side burns effigies of American soldiers and craps on the American flag. The other does not. One side wraps itself in assassination chic. The other does not. One side indulges in vicious Sambo photoshops, rank religious bigotry, death wishes, gloating over the illnesses of public figures, and fill-in-the-blank derangement syndrome. The other does not.
How can you respond to that? All of these things are true. The right does not do any of these things. The right does not do anything like as bad as these things. I could lengthen the list.
I repeat: to say that both sides are equally guilty is to side with the left.
Paul - I guess it is a good thing I didn't say that both sides are equal, isn't it?
All I said is that the right is also guilty of hate speak and outrageous acts. Is the left guilty of more? Maybe. Show me some actual scientific data and I'll believe that. I won't accept anecdotal evidence from an admittedly one-sided source. A neutral party studying the rhetoric from both sides would be interesting. Good luck finding a party that either side will accept as "neutral."
Now, to say that the right is NOT guilty of their own hate speak and outrageous acts would be disingenuous, at best. That's not what you're saying, is it?
No, Patrick, you were given a list of examples. You opted not to offer counterexamples.
Yours is the point going unsupported here.
Now you want "scientfic" data. Risible.
"A neutral party studying the rhetoric from both sides would be interesting."
Now, that would be interesting. I wonder if that would be something that someone like Language Log would be interested in?
To be civil, did anyone read the referenced WSJ article (not the Malkin article) by Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, and the attendant 2004 University of Michigan's American National Election Studies (ANES) survey?
Is the WSJ Op-ed "too conservative"? (It won't hurt my feelings either way.)
@Paul - I feel no desire to play the part of liberal defender, but at the same time I won't blindly accept a few clearly extreme examples from a conservative pundit. I know plenty of liberal thinkers who would be appalled by all the items listed by miss Malkin. Is an ideology defined by its extremists?
I find it upsetting that somebody with similar values (from what I've seen on your blog) to mine feels the need to be dismissive and confrontational with their comments when I'm only trying to engage in thoughtful discussion.
@Nod - Thanks for your level-headedness. The WSJ article is an interesting read. Do I think it is "too conservative?" Definitely not. Is it conservative-leaning? It would seem that way, but at least Brooks presents some statistics that support his theory. I'm not convinced of the validity of a "feeling thermometer", but it's certainly better than nothing.
I'm of the opinion that it is ridiculous for either side to claim that the other has a monopoly on hate.
Post a Comment