Are Liberals, liberals because they've lead Pampered Lives?

[Werewolf]

Up until 4 or so years ago (which coincidentally is when I discovered THR and later APS) I never wasted much time nor many brain cells thinking about political labels. All I knew was that I wasnt a liberal anymore and hadnt been for a very, very long time. Now, thanks to forums like THR and APS Im savy enough to know that Im pretty close in politcs and values to what most would call a small L libertarian and have evolved into that over the past 33 years.

Lately, though, I have been wasting brain cells wondering why liberals are liberals and how/why did I evolve out of that horrid state?

Ive been thinking about that because there was a time in my younger days  like until I was about 22 or so, (I am now 55), that I was what would be described today as a liberal. You know - socially progressive, tax the rich and give to the poor, peace, love, brotherhood, head in the clouds and the world ought to be this way instead of the way it is kinda liberal. My only departure from that mold,  was that I believed in a strong national defense and the military (which in the late 60s and early 70s wasnt a very popular attitude for a young male to have  it sure didnt help me any in the getting laid department thats for sure). I didnt see the military as being anti-peace at all but as a tool to maintain it and thats the only value that was in opposition to most of my liberal brethren of the time.

That led me to examine my own life experiences and how they may have been influential in my evolution from a liberal to a small L libertarian/conservative.  You see, I spent 15 of my 55 years in places other than the USA, many of them not all that nice or friendly; Europe, South America, the Middle East, West Africa, North Africa, Central America  all places Ive lived or spent more than a few weeks in. Because I was there courtesy of the US Armed Forces (3 years Army, 10 years Navy) I probably got a jaded view of all those places but my experiences in them did little to convince me that mankind is fundamentally good, which, in my opinion, it is not, and much to convince me that the view liberals have regarding the fundamental nature of mankind is flawed.

What I came to believe as a result of my travels is that mankind as a whole is competitive at best and combative at worst, a nature that is based on a natural need to not only survive but to prosper and if that means at the expense of others then so be it.  This nature has resulted in there being at the highest level two basic types of human being, masters (most liberals fall into the master category) and subjects. Theyre called different things in different places but the behaviors unique to each of the two types is the same regardless of where they may live.

Subjects just want to be left alone to get along as best they can and if that means at the expense of others then so be it as long as they minimize the risk to themselves. Masters, too, want to get along as best they can but they believe they can best do that by controlling those around them (be they subjects or other masters). The motivation behind a masters desire to control and how much a subject really wants to be left alone is what determines the difference between an evil totalitarian dictatorship like Soviet Russia under Stalin (subjects are fodder, master is god), a European nation like Socialist Germany (subjects dont want to be totally left alone and the masters let them believe they are being taken care of) or the USA (subjects do want to be mostly left alone and the masters let the subjects believe they are mostly left alone). Its just a matter of degree.

Long story short I came to the conclusion, based on my own personal experiences, that liberals in America and probably every where, are what they are because theyve lived pampered and protected lives and have never been directly exposed to the evil that men can and do perpetrate, poverty, stupidity, the daily grind of doing the same thing day after day with no hope of ever getting out of the rut. Liberals do know that these things exist at an abstract level but cannot, or will not, fathom the why of it all  its all just too foreign to them. When liberals think about the why of what IS, assuming they think about it at all, they reject any conclusion that says mankinds state is the result of his fundamental nature, a nature that is competitive at best and combative at worst, a nature that is based on a natural need to not only survive but to prosper and if that means at the expense of others then so be it.  A liberals world view cannot accept that state of affairs because their life experiences are so different from the reality that everyone else experiences on a regular basis.

Simply put  because a liberal hasnt experienced what the rest of us have then there must be something wrong with the rest of us and it is their duty to fix us and make us better even if we dont want them to. (That is what makes most liberals pretty much fall into the MASTER category).

What say you? Are liberals, liberals, because their life experiences are wanting, because theyve lived pampered and protected lives or is it something else?

[mtnbkr]

Must be something else, because I've known "liberals" who lived anything but a pampered, easy life.  I've also known "conservatives" who've never done a day's worth of real labor in their lives.

Chris

[Bogie]

Many "liberals" are that way because it is diametrically opposed to how their parents do things...

You also get a LOT of theoreticians... Believers in utopian societies, etc., etc... These are the ones who _believe_ that you can reason with folks... Even when you or I know that there's no way...
 
What gets me are the ones who believe in absolutes... "Peace at any price," all that stuff... You ask them questions like "So, if a big country is killing off people in the small country adjacent to it, what should you do?" Odds are you get "Send in the peacekeepers." To which one replies: "Oh, you go to war?"
 
It's really trippy... You can almost watch their heads start to explode, before they mentally drop the "thought absorption rods" and stop the reaction.
 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

I agree with Werewolf, having come to the same conclusion over the past year or two.  Conservativism is the result of actual expereince of what works best, given the reality of human nature.  Liberalism is the result of whishful thinking of what human nature ought to be in a perfect world.  The richer and more decadent society becomes, the less people are exposed to the base aspects of human nature (because with less shortage, there is less selfish behavior), and the more liberalism arises.

Though there are many exceptions, I believe this is the general rule.

[Bogie]

With some of them you hear the word "believe" a lot... Stuff like "I don't believe in guns" or "I don't believe in violence." I think they are subconsciously trying to wish things that they don't like away. Rather than actually doing something about a problem.
 
I don't believe in fairies.
 

[wooderson]

God knows you never hear conservatives speak about "belief," huh?

The notion espoused in the title and first post is really too ridiculous to respond to.

[Bogie]

Theoretician!

[Werewolf]

The notion espoused in the title and first post is really too ridiculous to respond to.

Well then shouldn't you enlighten us with why you believe liberals are what they are and dispell the notion that they are what they are because they've lead pampered lives and never had to experience the real world.

I await your reasoning with baited breath and an open mind ever willing to be corrected and learn something new each and every day.

[mtnbkr]

Well then shouldn't you enlighten us with why you believe liberals are what they are and dispell the notion that they are what they are because they've lead pampered lives and never had to experience the real world.

I thought I did that in Post #2.  I've known plenty blue collar liberals (ever been around a bunch of union flunkies?) and white collar conservatives.  If it were merely about lifestyle, you'd expect the opposite.

Chris

[roo_ster]

The thesis in the OP is true for some liberals(1), but not all, and is not a trustworthy guide.

I am not comfy assigning a singular cause to the political beliefs of great swaths of Americans.  I get especially antsy when folks try to use psychology to pigeonhole folks.  Not too many steps from such speculation to forcibly confining folks in mental hospitals for incorrect political thoughts.  We already have examples of the use of psychology as a club to beat on those with "incorrect" political beliefs here in the 'States.  Of course, it is the liberals doing the clubbing, but the principle holds true.

I can get into all the assumptions required for liberal ideas to be valid, but arguing those with an actual liberal is like discussing physics with my dog.  Neither care about what has happened in the past and are incurious as to the provenance of their current belief system.  Many liberals are what I consider "Year Zero" types(2). 

It might be a bit more fruitful to discuss what can be gleaned from data, rather from speculation.

So what can be said of liberal & conservatives, causally?  Outside of individual case studies, I am loath to speculate.  However, data has been collected such as the Pew study on happiness.  Remember, correlation is not causation.

Pew Report:
HTML abridged version http://pewresearch.org/pubs/301/are-we-happy-yet
PDF complete version http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/AreWeHappyYet.pdf

Will Wilkins Blog post:
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/14/republicans-are-happier/

Pct Happy vs Ideology


Pct Happy vs Party Over Time (Using Party Affil As Proxy for Ideology)


I think that there is some validity to some of the OP's points, but I will repeat that the overall OP thesis is not one I agree with. 

(1) For the sake of this debate, "liberal" does not equate to classical liberalism, but to 20th & 21st century Rousseau/Marx/Fabian-influenced liberalism we see nowadays.

(2) "The world began when I was born, Year Zero.  Nothing that has occurred before has validity or meaning, especially tradition or the thoughts of men who were born, lived, and died before I graced the planet's surface."  The logical outcome of such Year Zero types can be seen in the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia. 

[CAnnoneer]

A colleague of mine has an alternative theory. He maintains that at least some liberals tend to be young people who don't possess much and are not invested in the system. That's why they tend to be eager to redistribute and equalize others' property, ending up with a surplus change themselves. Also, they want social reforms because they are still at the end of the pecking order, so any change will likely be an improvement for them. When people establish themselves, gain experience and possessions, advance up the social chain, and end up having more to lose in redistribution and reform, then they switch to being more conservative.

I think he has a point. However, his stipulation does not explain rich fatass liberals like Kennedy, Kerry, and Pelosi. Are they true believers, fools, or Marian political opportunists? It also does not explain why so many rich kids, who do not have political ambitions, still are quite liberal.

My additional explanation is more in line with Werewolf's analysis. When kids have it easy and have material possessions for the asking, they tend to be isolated from how the world works, and whatever small exposure they have, they tend to blame on "the man". That is why colleges are such breeding grounds for liberalism - isolation plus heady theoretical idealism without the benefit of experience.

From my experiences, the most flaming liberal were usually the weakest students. The better students were already planning how to grow professionally within society, rather than worry about radicalizing it. Ergo the investment argument.

[Werewolf]

Well then shouldn't you enlighten us with why you believe liberals are what they are and dispell the notion that they are what they are because they've lead pampered lives and never had to experience the real world.

I thought I did that in Post #2.  I've known plenty blue collar liberals (ever been around a bunch of union flunkies?) and white collar conservatives.  If it were merely about lifestyle, you'd expect the opposite.

Chris

Maybe... In my case I was a pampered upper middle class kid and was a classic bleeding heart liberal till I got out of college and got smacked in the head real hard by real life.

RE: Blue collar liberals: They're the subjects who don't mind having someone else taking care of them like a union or the government. Being a liberal in that case is more a function of personal temperament and a total lack of respect for or need of personal responsibility.

Rich white guys that got that way due to hard work, ability etc are not going to be liberal because they do understand real life. They may be pampered now but weren't always.

Rich white guys that are liberals were probably born rich and there are many examples of same.

[CNYCacher]

I await your reasoning with baited breath and an open mind ever willing to be corrected and learn something new each and every day.

I learned that eating worms gives you an open mind.

*ducks*

[HankB]

One of my old high school buddies went up going to medical school in the Dominican Republic. (Insert ethnic joke here.) While we were both in grad school, we kept in touch via letter writing. (You know, pieces of paper and envelopes with stamps, the things people used before email.)

His first few letters to me expressed shock and dismay at the standard of living people experienced down there.

After a while, his letters expressed disappointment at absence of ambition - nobody down there wanted to do anything for themselves, if it involved work, yet they expected Uncle Sam, of all people, to send people down to "take care" of them, clean up their neighborhoods, etc.

By the end of his first year, my buddy was inventing his own racial/ethnic epithets to espress his disgust at the lazy, dishonest, lazy, stupid, lazy, shiftless, lazy, booze and drug addled lazy locals.

Interesting transition . . .

[wooderson]

Well then shouldn't you enlighten us with why you believe liberals are what they are and dispell the notion that they are what they are because they've lead pampered lives and never had to experience the real world.

Because you're arguing about a homogenity that simply does not. As noted, there are blue-collar liberals and upper-middle class conservatives. And blue-collar fiscal liberals and social conservatives. And white-collar fiscal conservatives and social liberals. The most solid voting bloc for 'liberal Democrats' are urban African-Americans - who, by socio-economic standards, do not (collectively) qualify as part of the "pampered class" by any stretch of the imagination.

Your premises are flawed and the rest of your statements are therefore meaningless.

Are there some liberals who've led "pampered upper-middle class lives"? Of course - we call them NPR donors. (rimshot please). And there are an equal number of conservatives who've done so, and don't know the 'value of hard work' because they grew up without ever having to do any.

(some irony here - this "get out of college and get bitch-slapped by the real world" stuff is a basically a word for word version of the common knock on, wait for it... libertarians.)

[grampster]

I was a child of Depression era parents.  Thrifty folks.  Dad was a factory worker, mom part timed at the drugstore.  Social Security was just about the only social program of the day.  Health insurance was mostly non existent.  The union movement was beginning to pick up steam. 

My dad lost his factory job when they packed up the factory and moved south, almost overnight.  Dad was in his 40's and there were not many jobs as a recession was in full bloom after Korea.  One's age had a lot to do with not being hired in those days, no matter your experience.  After being unemployed for nearly a year he got into the Post Office because of his intelligence and his being in the military as well as a POW during WWII.

Security of the family and person was a buzzword as a result.  I was somewhat politically aware in my early teens because my dad was very inquisitive and my brother and I became so because of him.  Dad had no formal education beyond the 10th grade.  But he taught himself many things by reading books late at night.  I was a Kennedy Democrat.  I thought Goldwater was dangerous.  My folks were both democrats, even tho my dad railed against Roosevelt for spending SS money almost as soon as he started it up.  Dad also hated Truman, as did most people in those days.  Go figure.   My only liberal leanings (by today's standard) was I believed in SS and I went to work as a police officer (government job with civil service protection) because I figured that even tho the pay was lower, the benefits were good and the job secure.  Job and family security was paramount.

When I left the PD, I turned into a republican and later on a conservative (by today's standards) once I became a entreprenurial sales person and began to earn decent money and discovered I had to support myself and my family.  My destiny and ability to better myself was in my hands.  I began to see how we the people had turned the government over to socialists and how the democrats were leaning ever more in that direction.  The most despicable thing the democrats were doing was creating a class of people that would be dependent on the government.  It was necessary for the dems to do this to maintain political power.  All the things the democrats were touting as a reason for our country to be more socialistic to cure, were things that they created.  After 50 years, all the things the dems claim they want to do away with (which in many ways they created in the first place) they have made more of.  They have solved nothing and created an underclass.   

In fact, one could say we are at war in Iraq and A'stan because of the policies put together by the dems starting with Roosevelt.   Carter began to solidify them by creating the great self hatred we now have along with the fact that our energy policy is basically non existent because of the democrat (and rino) obstructionism.  There would be no terrorism nor adventurism in our national interests if we were energy self sufficient.  If we had started on that course domestically with Reagan, we would be self sufficient today.  None of us would give a damn about the Eastern Hemisphere except to give aid and comfort to Israel.  But the dems and rino's have obstructed every energy bill that made any sense.  Now their only answer is putting our food in the gas tank.  How crazy and stupid is that.

Iraq is not Bush's war, it belongs in the lap of the democrats generally and liberals specifically.  I digress...

The irony with most liberals is that they are educated, indolent, arrogant people for the most part, and should know better.  (Some neocons are not much better.)

 

[wooderson]

And, of course, the entire argument is just the usual sniping between 'enemies.' "My opponent is too stupid to have reached his stated beliefs through a process of rational choice," thus they are a product of This Easy and Insulting Explanation.

Do not confuse (your) disagreement with being right.

[wooderson]

Hey grampster, you ever look at donations from 'big energy' broken down by party lines?

[Monkeyleg]

I've known many so-called liberals who have had nothing resembling pampered lives. Some grew up in poverty, others saw real combat.

People can go through very similar situations and adopt entirely opposite mindsets. For example, the parents of one of the members of the Wisconsin state assembly were murdered execution-style at their restaurant in Chicago, an event similar to that of Suzanna Gratia Hupp of Texas. Instead of embracing concealed carry as Hupp does, this representative opposes the idea. The execution of her parents made her more anti-gun than ever.

[Joe Demko]

Why don't we just have a single "Libtards are teh suck becoz..." thread to which you guys can post when you get one of these little inspirations instead of opening a new thread for each and every one?
This kind of thing is so simpleminded that it's depressing to read.  Liberals (whatever that even means anymore) are not a homogenious group.  They did not come by their beliefs all in the same way.  They do not all believe exactly the same thing.  Threads like this one pander more to a desire to feel superior to somebody else than to any real examination of political beliefs and their origins.

[Bogie]

A lot of liberal politicians (as opposed to the guys who you see sitting around in campus student centers...) seem convinced that they are dedicating their lives to public service. And they say things like "We have to do this for The People" with a vague undertone that they also think that The People are not qualified to do it for themselves... The Clintons, especially the young Clintons, remind me of this... As they age, they become fiscally conservative, at least as pertains to themselves (not a whole lot of paupers in the bunch...), but they remain happy to spend Other Peoples Money to make their lives theoretically better.

[Parker Dean]

One of my old high school buddies went up going to medical school in the Dominican Republic. (Insert ethnic joke here.) While we were both in grad school, we kept in touch via letter writing. (You know, pieces of paper and envelopes with stamps, the things people used before email.)

His first few letters to me expressed shock and dismay at the standard of living people experienced down there.

After a while, his letters expressed disappointment at absence of ambition - nobody down there wanted to do anything for themselves, if it involved work, yet they expected Uncle Sam, of all people, to send people down to "take care" of them, clean up their neighborhoods, etc.

By the end of his first year, my buddy was inventing his own racial/ethnic epithets to espress his disgust at the lazy, dishonest, lazy, stupid, lazy, shiftless, lazy, booze and drug addled lazy locals.

Interesting transition . . .

To a large extent this echoes my experience with "the poor", less the racial/ethnic epithets. I mean, I'm a poor, lazy, bastard too, so getting all high and mighty would be the pot calling the kettle black. But at the same time, I don't hold my hand out for government money or assistance, and wouldn't feel too good about it if I did have to take it.

A lot of the "poor" people I know are nice enough, but would rather work at getting someone else to support them than going out and being industrious. In fact they'll go so far as to give up jobs they already have in order to stay on the dole, or in public housing. Some take it a step further and do work on the side so that they make even more money than you'd think.

So IMO, liberalism is the result of a failure to  properly understand people as they are, with the acceptance of some sort of utopian idea of humanity as the truth instead. I'm not averse to helping somebody out through a rough patch, but making a lifestyle out of living on the dole is another matter.

[Nitrogen]

A big problem I have with debates like this is that for some reason, it gets personal.
(i.e. the term "libtards", etc)

Differences of opinion serve noone once they get personal.

Liberals are Liberals because they believe that helping to uplift others, we uplift ourselves as a society.

is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. Magna Carta is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism enfranchises all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or economic status.

What this means is, trying to make the playing field as equal for everyone as possible. 

Now, what passes for liberalism these days is usually called "Social Liberalism", which shares the beliefs of classical liberals, but push things farther left.  Its this wing of liberalism where things like market regulation, anti-trust laws, etc.

Liberals (both kinds) believe in individual freedom as the endpoint, as the objective.  The main reason liberals push for these things is the belief that lack of economic opportunity, health, education, are all threats to liberty.

Real liberals, in my opinion, want to make sure everyone gets off the starting block at the same place.

In my belief, today's liberals go too far to keep trying to push those who lag behind, ahead.

Everyone should get an oportunity to get a good education, be in good health, etc.  The main liberal belief, in my opnion, is that, the more individuals that do well, the better we all do.

It doesn't come from being pampered; it comes from feeling a responsibility for your fellow man; a responsibility that can end up going too far toward socalism/communism.

EDIT:

So IMO, liberalism is the result of a failure to  properly understand people as they are, with the acceptance of some sort of utopian idea of humanity as the truth instead. I'm not averse to helping somebody out through a rough patch, but making a lifestyle out of living on the dole is another matter.

Parker Dean made a great point; but I don't think the fault is with liberalism insofar as it is particular people.  Everyone needs to know that sometimes people need a little help to get going, but also need to realise that people will take the path of least resistance.

[grampster]

Hey grampster, you ever look at donations from 'big energy' broken down by party lines?

No, but I imagine they donate as they do because they are aware of the fact one particular party actually would like to exploit the resources that we have in and around us so that we are not in thrall to those who would bring us down.

(By the way Wooderson, what kind of a horse do you ride as you come and go from your mud hut?  You seem to believe big energy (eg: oil) is some kind of villain.  I don't imagine you'd use any of it to get around, to feed yourself or to warm or cool yourself as well as firing up what makes the world go round, economically.)

So it would make sense to try and influence decisions by those who are like minded. Our system is based on that notion, thank goodness.  It seems to me that it would be better for the citizens of our country to invest within the friendly confines of home rather than supporting those who use our money to work against us.  I suppose the opposition party doesn't take any donations from questionable sources, (can you say China?) while giving away strategic position as well as technology?  Can you say China?

As for the rest of your comments, I'm reminded of a saying that goes something like this' "...can't see the forest for the trees."  It's not very worthwhile wrestling over the issues with folks who can't seem to grasp what the argument is about.   

One size never fits all, to be sure.  We could change the names from liberal to statist and conservative to federalist. But it wouldn't change the basic philosophical differences.  Sadly, both political parties have drawn closer to each other over time regarding the aspect of statism.  Both parties are more socialist than capitalist: ergo, our country has become a socialist country in many ways.

  Cripes, just listen to what the Hillary, Obama and Edwards are proposing?  Have you no ears?  They don't say one dang thing about what is important, just pander to slogans and giveaway programs that solidifies their hold on those who depend on government rather than themselves.  Have you heard one proposal about energy policy?  Guess what?  No energy, no America.  A country can't grow when all is being proposed are more programs that produce nothing.

On the other side of the coin, I don't like any of the repubs for many of the same reasons.  There is only one guy fit to be president and he's not running.

I should not even post this because it's not going to solve anything or change anyone's mind.  I'm just sorry that I willingly let myself get dragged into these conversations because I get so frustrated at the direction we are going as a nation that I can't help myself sometimes.  Sorry if I jabbed you Wooderson, but your comment 

And, of course, the entire argument is just the usual sniping between 'enemies.' "My opponent is too stupid to have reached his stated beliefs through a process of rational choice," thus they are a product of This Easy and Insulting Explanation.

Do not confuse (your) disagreement with being right.

sort of pissed me off because you were doing exactly what you accused me of doing.  And that's the way it goes, doesn't it?

[wooderson]

No, but I imagine they donate as they do because they are aware of the fact one particular party actually would like to exploit the resources that we have in and around us so that we are not in thrall to those who would bring us down.

Wouldn't it have been easier to type "Yeah, overwhelmingly they fund Republicans"?

(By the way Wooderson, what kind of a horse do you ride as you come and go from your mud hut?  You seem to believe big energy (eg: oil) is some kind of villain.  I don't imagine you'd use any of it to get around, to feed yourself or to warm or cool yourself as well as firing up what makes the world go round, economically.)

Huh? I asked you a very simple question in response to your diatribe about Democrats and 'energy policy.'

I made no statements that expressed or implied a value judgement about energy producers/sellers, or about proper energy usage.

sort of pissed me off because you were doing exactly what you accused me of doing.  And that's the way it goes, doesn't it?

I didn't accuse you of doing anything, and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.