Image 01 Image 03

“Why are liberals so rude to the right?” (Reader Poll)

“Why are liberals so rude to the right?” (Reader Poll)

That’s the question asked in a column at The Guardian, Why are liberals so rude to the right? (via Instapundit),

Why is it that liberals feel no qualms about being rude? Far too many people who are  perfectly polite and courteous, otherwise, think nothing of insulting you for not sharing their political opinions. They look at us with disdain, thinking we’re unenlightened conservatives and never hesitating to say so.

As the lone conservative at the tennis courts, I cringe at the Sarah Palin jokes and the jabs at Mormons….

Liberals have no shame. A dinner guest in our home stood up at the table, clinked his wine glass and said, “It shows how stupid the American people are, they voted for Bush twice.” He turned to me, smirking, and said, “I know you voted for him.” A biochemist who had been too busy learning liberal doctrine instead of the basic manners of being a guest.

We also had dinner with a couple who spent the evening trashing Rudy Giulliani, claiming that the former mayor of New York had nothing to do with turning the city around, even though he took office in a crime-ridden city and stepped down when it was safe. It would have happened anyhow, they said. As we said goodnight in the driveway, one said with a grin, “We like you even if you are Republicans.” …

It’s cool to be rude if you’re a liberal. But it isn’t cool for the country.

Wouldn’t it be better for America if liberals really were liberal, and listened to other points of view?

Poll open until Midnight tonight 3 p.m. Eastern on Monday.

I deliberately did not give you the choice of “All of the Above” — this is a time for your choosing one answer.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


They’re not liberals, that’s why. Born and raised on violent video games, attending schools where ‘everyone is gifted’ and cheered on by lefty teachers and media, these guys are dangerous far left creatures.

Hubert Humphrey was a liberal, these guys are savages.

    Donald Douglas in reply to Chicklet. | June 2, 2013 at 12:04 pm

    They’re smug assholes with a false sense of self-superiority. They never respond on point in debate and can only preen with arrogance when speaking of Americans of the soil. Screw the so-called “liberals.”

    Paul in reply to Chicklet. | June 2, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    What they need are some severe a ss kickings for this behavior. In my experience that’s the best way to make a thug stop acting like a thug.

1. They are not liberal. Don’t debase the language by calling them that. 2. Power corrupts.

    Pablo in reply to Reticulator. | June 2, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Right. There’s nothing liberal about them. They’re progressives. They’re Marxists. Let’s call them what they are and refrain from sullying the fine word “liberal” by connecting it to these bastards.

    Paul in reply to Reticulator. | June 2, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    Agreed. “Proggie” is my preferred term for them

    They’re not liberals, at least not in the classical sense of of the word. Today liberalism means socialism-lite. In the 18th and 19th C the word liberal stood for individualism and restraint of government action. Liberals then were promoters of “negative” rights (restrictions on govt action), today they champion “positive” rights (what government can do for you – health care, etc…).

Most of my academic liberal friends simply cannot understand how a “fundamentally honest, educated, caring person,” their words, can be a Conservative. It is just taken as a given that you must be evil, perhaps Evil, to be a Conservative. Of course, in most cases I am the only Conservative they know.

    Easy. NONE of my ‘ fundamentally honest, educated, caring’ NYC UpperWestside ‘academic liberal’ friends have EVER been to or even know the subway line that goes to the Projects in the South Bronx or Brooklyn. None can tell me the what New York’s medicaid budget is, what we spend on foodstamps, crime rates, number of dropouts, teen parents in the neighborhoods that Democrats keep as virtual petting zoos so that they can feel good about themselves at everyone else’s expense.

    No one dares to crack a Sarah Palin, Republican, Tea Party joke around me anymore because they know I’ll give them a New York minute.

      Well, there aren’t any subway lines to the Red Hook projects.

      You can take the F line takes you to the Wycoff (sp) projects; the 3 to get to New Lots and East New York; the A and C will take you to Bed-Sty and the Rockaways; the J and Z will take you to Cypress Hills.

      But then again, I’m a Classical Liberal – not a Progressive-Liberal. :’)

        You must be a native Brooklynite. Who else would know about the projects in Reed Hook, Bed-sty and Wyckoff Gardens. You missed the Farragut Houses on the fringe of Dumbo where I used to work with the fashionably Left who preach sanctimoniously about helping the poor but don’t have the guts to board the York St. Station for fear of getting assaulted and mugged.

        Come hang with us. We got a little boutique group in NYC for Classical Liberals.

        You can find us on meetup under ‘NYCIR’ or Indie Republicans (10 miles within of New York, NY)

I went to the Guardian and read the full article and about 25 comments or so… heh.. the liberals can’t help themselves in proving the authors point. Unending ridicule and smug superiority. The antithesis of liberal. … and we know why.. they’re not liberal, they’re progressives!

When you’re a Jet,
You’re the swingin’est thing:
Little boy, you’re a man;
Little man, you’re a king!

Liberal no longer means liberal. Projection? Sure, they do that, but what they are projecting isn’t liberalism, it’s the crushing, big government, oppressive mindset that they’ve come to love. Fear? Sure, but it’s fear of being exposed for the thugs that they are and losing the power they’ve amassed. Lack of confidence? Sure, because the less sure you are of your argument, the louder you proclaim it and the more you seek to silence the argument, and liberals certainly must know deep down inside that they’re not arguing for liberty. Because they can? Sure, we all get away with what we can, and liberals have watered down the meanings of words and impact of ideals through relativism and redefinition of terms and political correctness.

But, the bottom line is, they are no longer liberals. The other choices hinge on that departure from the celebration of individual liberties in preference for the collective that they assume they can always control.

The phrase, “Liberals have no shame,” translates to me that they must shriek nonsense in order to deflect detection of their shortcomings.

Let’s face it, the “no shame” criteria was paramount in the election of the fake Indian, the phony governor in RI, Pelosi, Reid, Durban, Schumer, Boxer and a host of others.

It certainly gives some credence to enlisting a loud offense as opposed to a good defense…

If you know any of these people personally and fairly well one of the things that they have in common most often is a an absolute necessity to always to be right and superior. Not only are they bigoted, elitist, and intolerant they are terrified of their own shadow. They are insecure.

I agree that “liberals” often act illiberally and are condescending.

But let’s not pretend that conservatives do not also engage in demonization.

It’s the result of the Mutz Paradox and what occurs from living in a bubble.

Still, it is hard to watch people who are supposed to stand for caring and tolerance of others belie these principles in a repugnant way.


Michele Bachmann and her supporters are attacked as “neocon Nazis”. How, rationally, does anyone arrive at that when looking at a lady and movement (the TEA Party) that work to limit government, and oppose socialism in all its forms?

Who BUT the Collective LOVES and fosters monopolies, while pretending they are evil incarnate?

Who BUT the Collective sustains law and policy that openly mandates various forms of discrimination, including racial discrimination?

Who BUT the Collective seeks to impose a religious orthodoxy on “science” in the name of “climate change”?

Who are the open, unabashed enemies of the 1st Amendment in modern America EXCEPT the Collective?

Who seeks to destroy choice at every turn…from light-bulbs to self-defense to health-care…while pretending to champion choice?

Who BUT Collectivists look FIRST to skin color, gender, age, earnings, etc. in assessing a person?

They hate us because they are Master Projectionists.

Alex Bensky | June 2, 2013 at 11:26 am

Anyone who thinks Michelle Bachmann is a neoconservative has no idea what the word means. For that matter, anyone who thinks she’s a Nazi has no idea what that word means, either. Try spicing up the conversation by pointing to the obvious protofascist elements of Obama’s economic program. See what happens.

It’s not a lack of confidence. Quite the opposite. The progressive mind’s structure is based on the idea that it is morally superior to other ideas and entitled to express that superiority to the less enlightened. They don’t accept the possibility of being wrong because they can’t; the dissonance will be too much to bear.

    snopercod in reply to Alex Bensky. | June 2, 2013 at 11:34 am

    The progressive mind’s structure is based on the idea that it is morally superior to other ideas and entitled to express that superiority to the less enlightened.

    Bingo! See my Stacey McCain quote below…

    Aarradin in reply to Alex Bensky. | June 2, 2013 at 12:04 pm

    I have done, many times. What I’ve discovered is that Progressives are pefectly willing, eager even, to defend fascism. If the NAZI’s weren’t so evil, Progressives would be calling themselves fascists.

    Just a week ago I had a Progressive try to convince me that the NAZI’s were ‘wildly popular’ when they came to power in Germany. That they came to power, and stayed in power, based on the popularity of their social program.

    The person telling me this is intelligent, mid-40’s, fully employed (in banking), from southern OH.

legalizehazing | June 2, 2013 at 11:28 am

Why they’re so rude? It’s because it’s their identity. Mostly they’re insecure groupies that cling to that identity because they can’t forge a private one. Probably they heard, “if your parents are mean forget them. The loving understanding government will manage all responsibility.” Sold.

I’ve formulated a lot of theories about just what “Liberals” are. I think the keys are the debasement of the dollar, destruction of free cooperative markets, the attack on religion, and the attack on families. When a person cannot plan for the future as is the case with inflation and dominating government … When a person’s foundations of family and faith are ridiculed … they’ll naturally look for something that promises security and stability and low and behold “Liberals” come promising a warm and snugly Government blanket.

The “average” progressives (cannot call them liberals…true liberalism died with HHH)are essentially lazy, content to shout the words put into their mouths rather than think things through for themselves. They do not understand that their masters hold them in the same contempt they project onto indies and conservatives.

As a former tongue speaking evangelical, conservatives need to learn the art of the Swift and Stinging Rebuke. Preach it like it is. Spare the rod, spoil the child.

Most of your left wing lemmings do not have moderating influences in their lives. Its our moral duty to be the scolding uncles of society.

Stacey McCain posted a wonderful quote about liberals about a week ago at In Search of a Liberal Principle (emphasis mine):

Arguing with liberals is nearly always a waste of time, and I seldom bother, as there are usually more enjoyable ways to waste time.

Any argument with a liberal will quickly descend into name-calling, as the entire point of being a liberal is to imagine yourself morally and intellectually superior to others. The purpose of any argument, to a liberal, is never to discover truth — if they cared anything about truth, they would not be liberals, quod erat demonstrandum — and so whatever the supposed point at dispute, the proposition the liberal wishes to demonstrate is always the same: “Resolved: I am an enlightened being, and anyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant bigot.”

    I have identified as a liberal forever and argue with progressives and conservatives all the time. It’s not just the “liberals” that engage in name calling.

    Look at the comments here as evidence. Just as you will see if one goes to a “liberal” blog. Each side believes it has the high moral ground.

    I will agree that many progressives have been schooled in activism and this can take precedence over their own principles.

      On many internet forums both sides engage in namecalling and the same degree of rudeness.

      In social situations leftwingers are entirely comfortable with making snide remarks about Reagan, Bush, conservatives, the right, and have been that way for decades. Conservatives have learned to be gracious about it and ignore it. But if a conservative makes a snide, in-passing remark about lefters in the same social situation, all hell breaks loose.

      I think that’s what the article was about.

        I do not hand out with many conservatives, but the active ones I know and have spoken depict the other side negatively, even if with more grace, and some are downright scary.

        I think this is a phenomenon that each side could greatly improve upon, and I do not excuse the progressives in any manner.

      talking amongst ourselves is vastly different then doin git to perfect strangers in the public.
      this is the issue, they have no problems acting like this face to face to someone where many conservatives (not me, I am really an a$$h*le) will just walk away instead of personally insulting them.

        snopercod in reply to dmacleo. | June 2, 2013 at 4:35 pm

        You’re not an a$$h*le for throwing leftist hatred back in their faces. I’m sure you realize that the left counts upon the fact that most conservatives are too polite to fight back. We were taught by our parents “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.”

        But the left doesn’t play by those rules so by remaining silent you just give them the sanction of the victim. Your sanction is what they want. Think about it.

        snopercod in reply to dmacleo. | June 2, 2013 at 4:57 pm

        In other words, liberal use your own virtue against you.

I would argue that ‘because they can’ is really nothing more than a subset of ‘liberal no longer means liberal.’

I went with projection, but I believe the correct answer is “Liberal no longer means liberal.” Liberalism is the fascism. Liberalism is totalitarianism. Why else are they are so hateful of those who dissent and wishing harm on those who dissent.

It requires a level of self delusion and hive mentality to be progressive. It is not a political affiliation – it is a mental state of dependence. Progressives rely on the affirmation of their peers in every aspect of thought and are incapable of facing the reality of their own limitations.

The very existence of people who stand for an opposing outlook is terrifying to the progressive because it undermines their own manufactured self image and word view.

To accept even the possibility that conservative views have value is to admit these flaws to themselves.

All you need to know is that they are scared little people who fear you for not being just like them.

Was it Michelle Malkin who said “Liberalism is a mental disorder”?

I believe she is right! Except that she used the term ‘liberal’ instead of the more accurate ‘progressive’.

One last thought …. progressives …. are anything but. Being more inclined to regress in every sense of the word.

Rude? No — wrong word. It’s a practiced and deeply held contempt. They can be superficially polite in their contempt, so “rudeness” isn’t adequate; it triviliazes the issue.

    terimwal in reply to raven. | June 2, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    Exactly. Case in point – Douglas Shulman’s sneering contempt of Congress when he stated he went to the White House for Easter egg rolls. He could just as well have said “I don’t have to answer your stupid questions.” That was really what he meant.

By the way, the poll needs an “all of the above” option. Because it is all of the above.

Raven is onto something when he says contempt rather than rude. They are the Ruling Class, and ruling classes learn to hate those whom they rule, just as the Slaveowning Class learned hate and contempt for those they ruled. Well, maybe not “just as.” But the contempt and hate are in proportion to the level of power each social class exerts (or exerted).

“Because They Can”. They never get called out on their rudeness. There’s no downside to it for them.

We treat people with respect, even when they don’t deserve it, and liberals take advantage of that.

No one comfortable with their own world view is compelled to harangue others who do not share that view. They are threatened and frightened that their choice- which they were told by others with the same view point was “enlightened” was actually made out of laziness, ignorance and blind emotion- much like buying a time share condo.

Henry Hawkins | June 2, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Politics is argument, criticizing opponent positions and defending your own. Liberal rudeness is expressed almost entirely with ad hominem attacks, as required by those who cannot argue on merits. The anger is because the tactic doesn’t work very well.

Among consistently rude liberals there is a childish attraction to idealistic grand plans, like Ending Hunger or Educating Children, and pitching these brings little argument – who would argue against ending hunger or educating kids? Feeling no opposition, the less intellectually mature liberal believes it is because his position is unassailable. It is in explaining and defending the details of how to achieve their lofty goals that liberals invite overwhelming logic-driven counterargument against which they have no effective rebuttal. On merits, they get their asses whipped routinely.

The rude liberal doesn’t experience political cognitive dissonance. The rude liberal experiences political emotive dissonance, a conflict of feelings brought on by arguing for policies the liberal knows are True, Good, And Right while forced to acknowledge to himself that he has no argument, no answer to criticisms. This means he must turn instead to logical fallacies. While the straw man argument is indispensable to defending liberal policies and positions, the ad hominem attack is Argument #1. By definition it is rude.

Liberalism = Intellectual Laziness + Argument By Volume – Argument On Merits

LukeHandCool | June 2, 2013 at 12:24 pm

As has been said, Obama didn’t need to give direct orders for the IRS to start going after ordinary, patriotic people.

IRS employees observed him demonizing his opponents and calling them out by name in public. That created an influential atmosphere.

Contemporary pop culture acts in the same way. Anyone espousing the opposite of pop culture’s pieties is seen as beyond the pale and deserving of rude indignation.

    Browndog in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    Besides, there was absolutely no contact between the Bush IRS guy and the political campaign staff.

    We know this, because Stephanie Cutter, Deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign said she knows it for a fact, because she was in those meetings!

They are rude because they believe that the conservative position ipso facto is mean and rude.

They believe that conservativatism is essentially white supremacist, anti-sex, anti-homosexual, anti-women’s rights, anti-equality, anti-nonbeliever, anti-environment, and in favor of the exploitation of labor and others. They believe this.

For some liberals this is personally threatening, while others like to perceive themselves as champions of the oppressed.

radiofreeca | June 2, 2013 at 12:48 pm

From having dealt with people who have psychiatric disorders: if you want to get them really angry, present evidence that the world they live in isn’t real. That’s why Liberals are rude to Conservatives when talking politics – they KNOW that the evidence proves them wrong, and so they have to personally attack the messenger, since they can’t argue with the truth being delivered.

In summary: Rudeness is the only defense-mechanism they have. and they’ll fight to the death to preserve their illusions, because they’d otherwise be ostracized by their own ilk, and have to come to terms with all the things they’ve done in the name of their illusions. Kind of sad.

great unknown | June 2, 2013 at 12:53 pm

The thrust of this post is that liberals “have a reason” for their rudeness. This makes the same mistake as saying that the “low-level” IRS employees decided independently to use totalitarian tactics against their political enemies.

The truth is closer to what Issa said today about Carney: he’s a paid liar. The liberal establishment is deliberately being rude in order to defame and degrade those who disagree with them. Truth or justification have nothing to do with this technique of the big lie. And by “liberal establishment” I mean the entire DNC, the WH, and most MSM.

On the street level, the “low-level” liberals are simply taking their cues, if not their marching orders, from the “liberal establishment.” When we talk about “low-information voters” we have to realize that this includes most of academia, credentials notwithstanding. Do you think Hawking could defend his boycott of Israel in a one-on-one debate?

Which is where, I suspect, the vitriol behind the rudeness comes from. A liberal feels justified in being rude because she is following his opinion-leaders. When confronted with her ignorance, she has no choice but acting like a cornered skunk – because she has no rational defense. [Note the egalitarian gender choice there]

LukeHandCool | June 2, 2013 at 12:57 pm

We say they’re rude.

They’ll say it’s us.

The tie breaker:

My wife. A foreigner who is not interested in politics. She is a dispassionate observer. What conclusions has she drawn?

She looks at people on the left and says they are nuts. She tells our children not to mention anything about Daddy being a Republican in public because she fears backlash from their friends’ parents and teachers at school.

When we leave our uber-progressive home and go on vacation somewhere more conservative (just about anywhere), she marvels at how polite and friendly people are compared to where we live.

She laughed when a mother at our childrens’ elementary school came up to her with tears streaming down her face the morning after Obama’s first presidential election victory in 2008 and, hugging my wife, sobbed, “Now there is hope in America.” As she laughed telling me this after returning home, she asked, “How did American people become so creepy?”

“These aren’t Americans, Honey. These are liberals.”

She marvelled at dinner one night how, accompanying our son on a school field trip earlier that day with a group of other mothers, she listened as they debated who was a better choice for the 2008 Dem nomination, Barack or Hillary.

They asked her, “Does your husband support Obama or Hillary?”

She told them I wasn’t very interested in politics (haha!!) and she wasn’t sure.

As she said at dinner that night, it didn’t even occur to them for a second that maybe, just maybe, I wasn’t a Democrat and I wasn’t supporting either of them.

It’s fascinating seeing the perspective on all this from an outsider with a fresh set of eyes.

Verdict: The Left is rude, intolerant, and exceedingly self-righteous and self-centered. That’s not me saying that. That’s from an outsider who isn’t much interested in politics … but who just calls it like she sees it.

    snopercod in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 2, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    “These aren’t Americans, Honey. These are liberals.”

    That bears repeating. Liberals oppose every single idea upon which America was founded.

    Life? They hate it.

    Liberty? They want to end it.

    Pursuit of Happiness? Only for them but not for you.

    Governments instituted among men to protect those rights? Pure Heresy!

no longer liberal.

I argue that liberals are rude because they are incapable of logically defending their positions. Their defenses are predominately emotional and they cannot control their emotions. Once they determine they cannot defend their position, the haul out the ad hominems and hope the objector will go away.

I still think they’re behavior is a manifestation of a deeply rooted fear.

Further, I think the choice “”Liberal” no longer means “liberal” is misplaced.

Changing of the term used to define a certain group does nothing to explain their behavior.

LibraryGryffon | June 2, 2013 at 1:32 pm

I went with “Because they can”. Yes, they are afraid, and the rudeness helps hide their cognitive dissonance from themselves. Yes, as part of that cognitive dissonance, they subconsciously recognize that they aren’t right (as in correct) and realizing that they are hiding the truth from themselves is somewhat bad for their true self-esteem. Yes, they aren’t “liberal” anymore but rather progressive/communist/fascist. But none of those require them to be rude. I’ve known some very polite and socially savvy communists. I’ve known some folks who are very afraid, but because they are afraid they don’t want to call attention to things if they know they are going to face any opposition, and the same for lack of self esteem.

They are rude because we let them. If society as a whole treated anyone who was rude, no matter their personal belief system, as we used to 50/60 years ago and more, people wouldn’t do this, no matter what they thought privately.

It’s an outcome of permissive parenting, letting our little snowflakes do and say whatever they want so that we don’t stunt them. Conservative parents don’t believe that tripe, and so we raise our children with manners. Liberal parents were most likely raised permissively and were never called on bad behaviour, so they raise more little snowflakes just like them who think that everyone wants to know exactly what they think all the time, and no one important is ever going to mind (and may indeed praise them for continuing to “stick it to the man” and “speak truth to power”.)

    Browndog in reply to LibraryGryffon. | June 2, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    Good post-

    Yes, as part of that cognitive dissonance, they subconsciously recognize that they aren’t right (as in correct) and realizing that they are hiding the truth from themselves is somewhat bad for their true self-esteem.

    Which is why the first thing “liberals” do is remove “right and wrong” from the conversation, and hopefully the conscience.

    The liberal mantra “who are we to judge”, sounds….liberating, to the naked ear. It has a much more sinister purpose.

    janitor in reply to LibraryGryffon. | June 2, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    And Hollywood too? (Mostly liberal). Its not an accident that the “culture”, from music to movies to advertising, is permeated with verbal filth, and gratuitous violence and sex.

Liberals,by and large,display the same characteristics as a BULLY.Think about that for a bit! All bullies are not picking on people smaller than them,but they are picking on people,that they think that they can get away with. So use SHOCK AND AWE on them,like you would,when seeing a big kid picking on little ones. The liberal sees others thru their own motivation,they are not able to understand someone else,s point of view. Projection? Yes,very so. Because they can? Again,yes.

oldschooltwentysix “I agree that ‘liberals’ often act illiberally and are condescending.”

You err in your use of the word “illiberal” as it assumes that there is something liberal about liberalism. In truth there is not. It is totalitarian to the core–which explains why so-called liberals are often so rude and nasty.


I must post this comment from the article:


@TheLastClassWarrior –

Quite. People aren’t rude to Sarah Palin because she is a right-winger, but because she is catastrophically stupid – and there is an element of hysteria in the laughter given that one of the major parties wanted to put her within a sick old man’s heartbeat of the Presidency.

Likewise, people were not rude to Dan Quayle because he was a right winger, but because he could not spell a common word. People were not rude to Bush because he was a right winger but because he was dumb as a box of rocks.

However, there does seem to be a strong correlation between being very, very stupid and being a right-winger; something that no references to a slip of the tongue (57 states) or a lie (teleprompter) will ever eclipse.

The Progressive mindset, in my observation, is rooted in anger. I’ve never encountered one that was not downright fitful over every aspect of their life. They view us with disdain……..because we are happy.

Subotai Bahadur | June 2, 2013 at 3:23 pm

It is a combination of all the factors PLUS:

by whatever label they are called; Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, or whatever, they are enemies of this country, its people, and its Constitution. They seek to establish a dictatorship that controls the lives of everyone, and every one of the “fatherless offspring” sees themselves as part of the ruling elite.

Had a encounter last night. Went to a local live music performance. Admittedly, as is my wont, wearing a provocative T-shirt:

While waiting in line to order drinks, in front of me was an older couple who saw the shirt; and immediately went into a screaming fit about how because they voted Democrat, they would get free healthcare for life, while those who voted for Romney would not because they wanted to take away a “WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE” [italics and capitals indicate the volume and rise in pitch]. And how they were leaving part of their estate to Planned Parenthood, and wanted the country to go to a single payer, government run, healthcare system “that would be fair”.

I kinda count that sudden encounter as a victory. Their 5 minutes or so of high volume fame had everybody there looking at them like the Leftist Barking Moonbats that they are. They weren’t from around here, being from the Democrat stronghold of Pueblo.

It illustrated what we are facing. I don’t think that they realize that if they ever lose power; having destroyed the rule of law and the mutual tolerance needed to compete peacefully in a constitutional republic, that they will be treated with the same or worse consideration as they treat us. Until we establish a new social contract, it is going to get downright Hobbesian. Since we cannot coexist any longer, I am rather looking forward to the clarity of it.

Subotai Bahadur

    snopercod in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | June 2, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    Reminds me of A Man For All Seasons

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

    Lefts are good at dishing it out, not so good at taking the kind of stuff they dish out.

In my humble opinion, progressive liberals are rude, use Ad Hominem attacks, feign moral superiority and generally use intolerance as a bludgeon, is because the totalitarian mind recognizes that power coupled with force gains submission. The progressive liberal has no real concern for truth, morality, or virtue, they simply desire power and control. They decry conservatives forcing their morality on them yet to legitimate the states claim to authority its progressive High Priests make pronouncements that any who oppose the moral teachings of the state (abortion on demand, sexual promiscuity, homosexual marriage and moral relativism ) are homophobes, bigots, racists, or just plain intolerant. The progressive liberal totalitarian state cannot abide a challenger, therefore the progressive liberal has a need to end all debate by shouting down any opponent.

It’s a defense mechanism. Similar to the aggressive behavior exhibited by diminutive individuals, dogs, etc. The likelihood of proactive behavior is directly proportional to physical, mental, and circumstantial differences between individuals.

Life is an exercise in risk management. The aggressive posturing of certain “liberals”, as well as other high-esteem, but low self-confidence, individuals, is a tactic to mitigate risk. As with all emergent bullying behaviors, the antagonist must be confronted in order to curb their disharmonious behavior.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | June 2, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    The corollary to this observation is that “liberals”, and the Left generally, do not enjoy democratic leverage. This implies that the outcome of the election was misrepresented, and their leverage was not earned through democracy but other means. It could also indicate a schism on the Left, which diminishes their effectiveness, thereby exposing them to progressive risk.

With some exceptions and not including Hollowood, where fake people PLAY fake people on the tube and in movies

This represents the United States map to elitist ‘liberals’, the rest is just “flyover country”..

Add me to the “because they can.” Conservatives as a group have allowed liberals to constantly express their disdain in rude, insulting terms because we believe in trying to be civil. How many times do I hear “don’t sink to their level” when what I want to do is pound their empty head into tiny pieces?

They idolize nasty people – why else would they treat Bill Maher as paragon of wisdom? IMO liberals are like bullies – they will misbehave until they realize it will result in them getting their rear ends handed to them.

    I agree, but we don’t need to return the attitude in kind. We can be firm, we can stand our ground. We don’t need to hate them, as people. It’s their ideas we dislike.

My question is why do we allow it? I would no more break bread with a liberal (commie) than I would kiss satan’s hooves.

I voted “because they can.” They have always felt this way. They are now just emboldened to show it without reservation. The next question probably ought to be “why” they are like this, which is addressed by some of those above.

Forgive my lack of nuance with the answer to the poll..

Because they are assholes.

We think they’re wrong. They think we are evil.

Callipygian1 | June 2, 2013 at 7:57 pm

I see it as a discernable lack of traditional education.

Doug Wright | June 2, 2013 at 8:43 pm

Analyze how the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are used today and for those with a sense of history, the way those two terms are used is ass backwards from what they meant back when our English Language was much less corrupted by incessant idiocy.

Today’s so called conservative can be one who believes in individual rights, individual freedoms, and the rule of law, especially for us Yankees, that means Constitutional Law.

On the other hand, what does today’s so-called Progressive Liberal believe in: who in the heck really knows; Maybe the power of the Collective and the the State, with everyone, except for those privileged few, who would enjoy the fruits of everyone’s labor, bowing down to those on high. Some of those animals truly are more equal than others! 😉

BannedbytheGuardian | June 2, 2013 at 10:25 pm

Hehe. Those were the days my friend …..

Just about all of my NY liberal friends are of the “gauche caviar” variety. They really never, ever practice what they preach. And I interpret their behavior as a form of bullying. Whenever any cause is spouted it’s wrapped in emotion. Fear is right beneath the surface.

BannedbytheGuardian | June 2, 2013 at 11:19 pm

You are all missing the obvious – it is obviously written by a staff writer pretending to be a’conservative’. And a British one at that.

A Britishman conservative is not remotely similar to the self labelled Americans.They are definitely not Republicans. – they are Royalists . Democrats are not the Labour Party. There is another Euro style Liberal Democrat or Social Democrat thing with someone called Clegg propping up wooden benches. Then there is UKIP at 25% of recent local voting.

The Guardian is moving both 100% online due to unsustainable e losses & have targeted an American revenue stream by setting up in Ny & goading.

You fell for it.

fulldroolcup | June 3, 2013 at 12:25 am

“Britishman conservative”? Royalist? Seems to me you’ve been reading some article about 10th centurey definition about liberals and conservatives.

Is that all you got, sirrah?

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to fulldroolcup. | June 3, 2013 at 5:26 am

    The Conservative and Unionist Party – aka Tories.- established 17th century. They are for conservation of the traditions of England – which are not the traditions of the USA . Douglas Wright will tell you of the glorious revolution against All that was England.

    The Conservative party joined with the Liberal party in 1880s.

    So if that is not evidence these terms mean something different in Britain – I can’t explain it anymore.

    In Britain conservative & Liberal are one & the same. The opposition is The Labour Party – the party of the working man.

    That tradition is also evident in the 2 main parties being the Labor Party & the Liberal Party . The latter are sometimes referred to as conservative s & yes they are the Royalists. The former tend to favour a Republic but are not particularly worried.

    And again- the Guardian is British.

Deirdre McCloskey in her book Bourgeois Dignity relates that the key to understanding the 16 fold plus explosion of economic growth in the West after the 17th century was due to words and specifically the words that people used to describe businessmen or merchants and that word, in a word, was “gentlemen” an honorific.

It has been the job of Progressives in the West at least since the late 19th century and possibly before to use words to tear down that respect and finally, in Barack Obama we have the culmination of all those pejoratives, with the weight of state power behind him, to glibly say to the risk takers “You didn’t build that, somebody else did.”

Manners and mannerisms matter, we are verbal creatures, and yes, words do indeed inspire and they do indeed injure. George Lackoff certainly has discovered the truth of that injury, as did Saul Alinsky, and others have, that words that injure are more powerful to their purposes than words that inspire. To tear down a way of looking at and understanding the world which emerged from the rediscovery of history and its professionalization after Marx requires the indoctrination of generations to a lie as truth. And that is why there is such a violent reaction to conservative and libertarian ideas and ideals.

    Mike Butler in reply to Steven H. | June 4, 2013 at 7:13 am

    SteveH: Your quote was taken out of context. Allow me to correct it for you:

    “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | June 3, 2013 at 10:28 am

Psychologists have studied that – what U.S Leftists do now everyday as non-nonchalantly as Nazi did everyday when they were in dictatorship.

Haters get into a psychological “flow” hating others and doing violence to others.

I suppose it is a literal, “high” as adrenaline and other hormones rush through the body of haters.

    As JFK is alleged to have said (sometimes attributed to Kissinger), “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” There is erotic stimulus to be had in beating up conservatives and/or making them obey regulations they don’t like. That’s the only logical explanation for much leftwing behavior.