The Way It Is: Are Liberals Disgusting?

Many people who call themselves "conservatives" and who should know better use the word "liberal" as a pejorative noun, as if it's disgusting to have an interest in political, social, and economic justice. Conservatives say that the old way is usually the best way, and that if there's any change it needs to be slow because rapid change can be dangerous.

So the conservative argument is that it's not change that's disgusting but rapid change. Disgusting? Yes, the emotional conservative response to the idea of rapid change is that any rapid change in the order of things is frightening and even repulsive. Certainly the French Revolution is considered by many conservatives to have been repulsive. And the American revolution? American conservatives usually pass to another subject--or tell us about the special circumstances of the American revolution. But there were really no special circumstances--wanting rapid change, the colonists dumped the home country to fend for themselves.

So is rapid change really repulsive? A hundred years ago, many thousands of women in Britain and America decided they had waited long enough for political justice and they joined the Suffragette Movement--the movement to get their all-male governments to allow women to vote in elections. Conservatives had their stock answer: The old way was the best way--only men were clear-headed enough to have political power. So they arrested suffragettes whenever the women demonstrated and put them in prison like ordinary criminals. And when the suffragettes in prison went on hunger strikes to protest that they were political prisoners and not ordinary criminal prisoners, the men in power shoved feeding tubes down their throats and force-fed them the way patients in insane asylums were force-fed when they refused to eat.

A generation later the Soviet Communists would put people who opposed the social order in insane asylums. In 1909, the British did not put suffragette women in insane asylums, they simply put them in prison and forced tubes down their throats as if the women were mental patients who refused to take nourishment.

Forced-feeding was a 19th century habit in European and American insane asylums, ostensibly to keep people alive, but more often as a punishment. The most common method of forced feeding in the 19th century involved the use of a stomach tube. After soft rubber tubing became available, forced-feeding became routine--maybe too routine, since there is no doubt that with recalcitrant patients and a busy hospital staff forced feeding by stomach tube was a simpler technique than attempts to verbally cajole a patient into taking nourishment. There were certainly many asylum patients abused by vindictive attendants, and forced feeding with a stomach tube was certainly one technique of abuse.

Stomach tubes could be dangerous, and some asylums tried to avoid their use. Stiff rubber tubes often damaged the larynx and pharynx, and if by mistake the tube was pushed into the trachea instead of the esophagus, fatal aspiration pneumonia could result from the error. There are no records to tell us how many 19th century asylum patients were killed by aspiration pneumonia resulting from forced feeding. What we do know is that in the 1860s approximately one patient in ten who refused food died as a consequence--either from starvation or from a complication of forced feeding.

The suffragettes demanded rapid change. In the years immediately preceding the World War I, militant suffragettes in Britain were arrested in great numbers and imprisoned. Between 1905 and 1913, approximately 1000 British suffragettes were incarcerated and treated not as political prisoners but as ordinary criminal prisoners. Beginning in 1909, many of these women went on hunger strikes in prison and they were force-fed. The British government, supported by many conservative physicians, rationalized the forced feeding by citing the success of forced feeding in insane asylums. Here is a description by a suffragette of her forced feeding in prison:

"I was fed by nasal tube. Knowing what to expect I braced up my nerves and sat quietly in the chair instead of struggling and fighting ... The passage of the tube through the nose caused me but little inconvenience ... but its further passage caused me to retch, vomit, shake, and suffocate to such an extent that in the struggle for air I raised my body till I stood upright in spite of three or four wardresses holding me down, after which I sank back in the chair exhausted. When the tube was withdrawn I seemed to be afflicted with chronic asthma and could only breathe in short gasps. To take a deep breath caused me excruciating pain. Two wardresses helped me back to my cell where I lay in agony, the pain becoming worse every moment."

The forced feeding of suffragette prisoners continued for several years and apparently left many women physically and mentally wrecked. In 1912 a committee of three physicians, including the eminent neurologist Victor Horsley, investigated the forced feeding of imprisoned suffragettes and interviewed many of the women. The committee concluded that the forced feeding of these women was a form of "prison torture" and had to be stopped: "We are confident that were the details of the statements we have read and cases we have examined fully known to the [medical] profession, this practice, which consists in fact of a severe physical and mental torture, could no longer be carried out in prisons of the twentieth century."

We have little certainty about the motivations of the British establishment a hundred years ago. The suffragettes started their hunger strike not to reduce or end their imprisonment but to insist they be treated as political prisoners and not as ordinary criminals. The idea, proposed by the government, that experience demonstrated that forced feeding was harmless, was a convenient myth. The government most likely knew that forced feeding was a painful procedure that often caused both biological and psychological damage. Who was it who wanted the suffragettes to be explicitly treated as ordinary prisoners? The conservative establishment, of course, and especially the King. The decision to use forced feeding was taken by the Home Secretary, Herbert Gladstone, after he received a message sent on behalf of the King, Edward VII. The message was clear: "His Majesty would be glad to know why the existing methods, which must obviously exist for dealing with prisoners who refuse nourishment, should not be adopted." Public outrage soon stopped the forced feeding of suffragettes.

Maybe a Martian anthropologist visiting the Earth a hundred years ago would have thought it was the old conservative men who were disgusting and not the liberal suffragettes who wanted the right to vote.

Our current American commotion concerns conservative versus liberal attitudes about health care. What would a Martian anthropologist think of the idea of maintaining health care as a profitable business at all costs rather than as a public necessity? Maybe the anthropologist would be puzzled that the idea even exists.

What a sad thing it is that our public necessities are the military, the coast guard, the postal service, the police, the fire department--but not health care for everyone, especially the preventive health care so crucial to the strength of any society. The apparent reason is that health care as a public necessity might diminish the profits of health care providers. The offered argument is that public health care would be too expensive. But everyone knows that's a fallacious argument and that the covert reason for the opposition to public health care is a desire for private profits.

The idea of public health care is said to be a "liberal" idea--the accusation spoken into media microphones with the usual smirk, the same smirk offered to the suffragettes a hundred years ago. The suffragettes were told that political justice for women was not feasible. The American people are now told that universal public health care is not feasible. What would our Martian anthropologist think of all of this? In our current health care cacophony, who is it that seems disgusting?

 

 

Follow Dan Agin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danaginzz

Comments

[S1m0n]

Forced feeding still going on, and still being used as a punishment, according to the international Committee of the Red Cross and the ACLU.

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/nationalsecurity/38277prs20090109.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4321324.stm
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/06/hbc-90005110

[SelenicMagick]

It's done in hospitals and nursing homes EVERY day with nary a whimper from those who call it "torture". I am loath to point this out but it is nothing short of hypocrisy to call it "torture" in one instance and "necessity" in another.

Wrong is wrong... if it is wrong to do it to one setting then it is wrong to do it in ALL settings... anything less is hypocrisy.

[LeftRight]

Actually, it's not that it was wrong to do it in that circumstance, it's that the METHOD of doing it was wrong, and would be in any circumstance!

[jsgaetano]

Just going by US history, EVERYTHING which makes America great and respected... as well as the institutions which just plain work... ALL were created by liberals.

The only thing conservatives have to contribute is taking away people's right and terrorism (with the former usually being the aim of the latter). The kind of contributions conservatives make we don't need.

[SelenicMagick]

Ahhhh Yes...

A Liberal Democrat by the name of Andrew Jackson and his equally liberal Vice President by the name of John C. Calhoun brought us such "forward thinking" things as the "Bureau of Indian Affairs", Removal of tribes from their homes, forced marches of Indigenous Americans from East of the Mississippi to West of the Mississippi, terrorism and genocide...

I'm THRILLED you think THOSE things make the United States "great".

Of course what Democrats of today don't know is that a fellow by the name of Martin Van Buren, with help from his friends in Philadelphia and Richmond, revived the old Republican Party, gave it a new name as the Democratic Party. Amusing bit of history, wouldn't you agree? Guess all those folks who claim that Democrats are really Republicans are being factually correct after all.

[LeftRight]

Why don't you go back and re read the post. He didn't say that everything that liberals have done is good, he said that everything good in this country came about from liberal thinking. I can't actually say that he's right, but he's more right than the opposite.

And as for calling Andy Jackson a liberal, that shows that you don't understand that the parties have changed. At the time that Andrew Jackson was President, the Democrats were a CONSERVATIVE party, and there was no real liberal party for another 30-40 years or so.

[seawolf77]

Perception is a means to an end for these people. When you are perceived as disgusting or repugnant or worthy to be made fun of or sub standard or whatever perjorative as rapidly diminsihing in stature of your self esteem as possible it is FAR easier to screw you over, both in business but especially in pleasure. The trick is to turn the tables on them as quickly and convinvcingly as you can muster. They only have 2 moves. That's it. "YOU STINK. HA HA HA YOU"RE STUPID HA HA HA " pregnant pause ..... "What you don;t believe me?" and a bewildered puupy dog look on their face.

[oldgeek1]

Liberals are disgusting - perhaps.
Conservatives are dangerous- perhaps.

I would rather be disgusted.

[dfranz]

In modern times the conservatives have gotten away with labeling anyone who disagrees with them since the Regan years. Liberal, commie, subversive etc. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot they say it's name calling or unpatriotic. They seem to be particularly good at that. The current Republican Party, led by Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Oreilly and a host of talking heads has ramped up this rhetoric to a new level. They have one goal and one goal only. Make President Obama lose at any cost.

It matters not that Obama was voted in by what amounts to a landslide and they lost seats and their political clout. They selectively have forgotten about the results of their actions the past 8 years. Today, watching the Republicans cheer when the United States lost it's Olympic was perhaps the most disgusting thing I have seen in years. It is clear that they do not have the best interests of the country at heart. In fact I now must surmise that they really are anti-American and unpatriotic. I now know that in my lifetime I will never again be able to vote for or support another Republican candidate. I only hope they reach a level of insignificance that makes it impossible for them to ever be in charge again. I believe in the two party system, but they do not deserve to be in the conversation.

[JuliaRain]

Many liberals want their taxes to go to health care. On the other hand, many cons want their money to go to w arefare.

Oversimplification but slogans seem to work for some.

[SelenicMagick]

I'm ALL FOR universal health care... AND I'm willing to pay higher taxes for it.

BUT there ARE conditions beyond specifying what is and is NOT covered.

First... IHS (The Indian Health Service) MUST be either Abolished or FULLY funded and FULLY staffed.

Second... ALL advertising by the pharmaceutical industry is banned

Lastly... only those drugs that have been independently tested are approved for use.

[PlaceboStudman]

Seconded

[ECBA88]

Agreed!

And you know it's a good idea when Placebostudman and I can agree without reservation.

[LeftRight]

Sounds good to me. Course, if we were to institute honest to god health care reform, there'd be no need for things like IHS, or Medicare, or VHA....

[thatguy2009]

Mr. Agin,
I agree with you that we need a responsible public healthcare system and agree that your hypothetical alien anthorpologist would be confused by the current status of our healthcare. But you lost me with the force feeding the suffrageis­t/conservi­tive vs liberal argument. I guess I don't see the conection. The analogy seems like a major stretch at best.

[PlaceboStudman]

To those below trying to reply to me:

Let me make this simple. Political affiliation aside, as a terminally ill man (and don't say you're sorry for something you had no hand in causing...BigPharma is responsible for THAT fact), and as a disabled man before that, having lived for 30+ years with Spina Bifida, I wholeheartedly resent the fact that this country as a whole seems to care more about lowering the cost of insurance than about improving the quality of the Health Care we receive WITH that insurance.

This is not a Health Care debate. This is a Health Cost debate

The biggest piece of Health Care legislation has already gone through with the grants to the NIH. But hardly anyone even noticed that, because you are all worried about how to pay for something that isn't even there yet, that you don't even know that you'll need, meanwhile millions of us DO need things that just aren't there, even when we CAN afford to pay for them

[ForObamaInDallas]

If you're so concerned about cost, let me ask you this: are you for a single payer system?

On a philosophical level:
Wouldn't it have been really cool to know that the people of your community cared enough to help contribute to a system that could help you in your time of need when you need it? i.e. health care.

I'm not talking about hand outs or welfare. It'd be a system where we all paid into it for the betterment of those who need it when they need it and while they need. And those same people would also be paying into it should they be able to.

And btw, you're not the only one who needs lowered health care costs. I'm going with out myself because, even though I have insurance,it doesn't cover it and I can't afford. Same with my boyfriend who has multiple sclerosis. So please. Get off the cross, we need the wood.

[PlaceboStudman]

So concerned about cost? Where did I say anything about cost? I talked about care, and quality of care. I don't care one iota about costs. I care about quality, at any price.

Philosophically:

Yes, it would have been nice to know people in my community cared enough to help contribut to a system that could help me in my time of need. In fact, my community, my friends and family HAVE contributed a great deal to my health and welfare. Sadly that only amounts to a handfull of people, and not everyone has the sphere of influence i have

Case in point, how much money have you donated to the MS foundation or the NIH for a cure for MS compared to how much you pay for insurance? If you pay more for insurance than you pay in contributions to have MS eradicated, then YOU are the one who cares more about COST than a CURE

[WilliamBradford]

Why is it so difficult for today's "liberals" to understand the difference between a freedom and an entitlement? The tenets of the Constitution are not old-fashioned ideas. They are remarkably resilient guidelines for a successful, flexible, stable form of government.

The right to vote is a freedom. In order to be free, you must have the ability to participate in the election process. Suffragettes suffered and died for this basic right and they are heroes.

The military and the police are constitutionally established to protect us from enemies "both foreign and domestic". In order to be free, you must have some assurance that there are rules about other people harming you and a reasonable expectation of enforcement of those rules.

Having the government provide for your medical care is an entitlement. It is not difficult to make this distinction. If you are asking the government to give you, as an individual, a product or service for which you have not provided compensation, that is an entitlement. It may be nice. It may even make sense, but it is intellectually silly to equate the right to health care with the right to vote.

Change is not bad. Nanny state is bad.

[JuliaRain]

Right to an attorney is "entitlement" too?

[WilliamBradford]

The right to an attorney is a corollary to your right to "due process" since this is a personal protection against persecution, it makes sense for this to be subsidized. Not an entitlement.

[wildedge]

As a matter of fact yes. "You have a right to an attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will appointed for you."

[Octoberluna]

Do you honestly believe that in those countries that do provide socialized or government managed health insurance that it is strickly a matter of the government pulling the cash out of its person private coffers to just freely hand it over willy nilly for healthcare? It sure sounds that way...We pay cold hard tax cash for our free care plus extra for hospital and dental and don't you forget it. Nanny state? Do you think I need to check in with the babysitter before I partake of a doctor's advice? My grandfathers fought for freedom as hard as as yours did (even a little more and certainly a little longer) and the freedom we enjoy the most is the freedom to not go broke over an appendectomy! I wish you would realise that America hasn't been the land of the free for some time and that many other autonomous nations enjoy far more personal liberties than you could ever imagine. You just go on beleiving USA is #1 over all evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong - I generally love America (except for the last 8 years) and I want you be able to reclaim even a modicom of your former glory.

Peace and afforable healthcare coverage for all!

[WilliamBradford]

I didn't actually say anything about the USA being better than any other country.

And you're right, an entitlement involves the government taking money from people who have it and handing it back out as they see fit.

And "the freedom to not go broke over an appendectomy" is not a freedom. If you have insurance, then it is a right that you paid for. If you don't then it would be an entitlement.

I am not opposed to real health care and health insurance reform. I just think it's important to use the right words and avoid silly analogies.

Your country sounds like a good place!

[Romeover]

An "entitlement" is something to which one is entitled. Of the several definitions Merriam Webster supplies, the most applicable seems to be "b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract". So, your wages are an entitlement. A court-appointed lawyer is an entitlement. When the fire department shows up at your house, that is an entitlement. Public schooling is an entitlement. Public roads are an entitlement. Entitlements are rights.

In order to be free, you must be protected. You must be educated. You must be able to travel about and communicate with other people. You must be alive and healthy, not dead or bedridden. The right to vote is meaningless if you are in a coma. To separate the various rights as though you can exercise one without the others is silly.

Change is not bad. Deciding as a nation that we will take care of each other is not bad. "Nanny State" is a pejorative term applied for the most part to excessive protection of the individual against accidental harm. To apply it to socialized medicine is (I thought long and hard about what word to end this sentence with, and couldn't find a good alternative to:) stupid.

[WilliamBradford]

For the purpose of this discussion, you have to go beyond the dictionary definition. Let's clear it up: as Americans, we have certain rights but we are not "entitled" to anything.

Public infrastructure - including police and fire department - are not entitlements. They are services paid for by (mostly local) taxes because they benefit the community as a whole. As an analogy: we use tax money to create parks where we plant trees and pretty flowers. That's a public good. We don't use tax money to plant trees in your front yard. That would be an entitlement - since then everyone would want some free trees.

Education is your best argument. As a country, we did decide that standardized public schools were a good thing. One could have a long argument as to the success of this endeavor, but it's important to remember that this is (mostly) a locally funded effort.

Nothing about freedom implies that you have the right to be educated, or to travel, or to not be in a coma. Nothing about freedom implies that you have the right to food, or housing, or medical care. Just because you have the right to walk down the street, the government is not required to buy you some comfortable walking shoes.

Socialized medicine is the ultimate example of the Nanny state. What better example is there?

[sfdoomed]

While I respectfully disagree that sensible government regulation of the greedy insurance industry, as well as offering a reasonable public option, amounts to a "nanny state" (buzz word), I do commend you for offering an opinion that doesn't resort to name-calling and vitriol.

Is social security an entitlement? Public schooling? What are the overall benefits to society as a whole when dealing with such entitlements?

[WilliamBradford]

Social Security is an entitlement. It was meant to be a redistribution of savings so that the very poor older people would have support. It has grown into a nationalized retirement fund that has had horrible return on "investment" and a questionable future.

By the way, I am not opposed to sensible, increased regulation of insurance companies. That is smart and necessary. I don't think a "public option" which will quickly become national insurance is a good idea,

[satanlite]

Those who use the term "Nanny State" are usually just this side of going off against the hated liberals, Democrats, the disenfranchised, the poor, the children of the poor. They won't define a "Nanny State". It is indeed a perjorative term.

[WilliamBradford]

I officially apologize for the use of the buzzword "nanny state".

The concept, though, is relevant. I believe that the "state" should not assume the role of father or mother. When it does this, it is usually destructive and expensive.

[ForObamaInDallas]

I hope you don't have children. And if you do, I certainly hope that you're not taking any tax breaks. That's an entitlement right there, buddy.

Liberals do understand freedoms. It is the conservatives who want to curb them.

And before you pull the "it's not in the constitution" b.s.

I also hope you're not one of those "right to life" people. Because what you have essentially just said is that living is an entitlement.

Get this through your thick conservative skull: liberals are not asking for an entitlement with health care. We are more than willing TO PAY into a system that would PROVIDE a service WE HAVE PAID FOR.

eesh. It's like talking to a brick wall. I'd probably get better responses from a brick.

[WilliamBradford]

Come on, it's not that complicated. You have a right to life. This means you have a right not to be killed. It doesn't mean you have a right to a good life - that is up to you.

Tax deductions for children are not an entitlement. Since taxation is a limit to your freedom, a tax deduction is just returning a little of your freedom. The concept is based on the fact that, since you are raising children - which is good for society but not something that society should pay for - we give you a small break on the amount of tax you pay. Only through the liberal lens could a tax break be seen as an entitlement!

Are you claiming that no liberals want health care coverage to be universal, and paid for through the federal tax system? Does that mean you don't want to cover all the people who can't afford coverage? I don't believe that's the case.

[skatscan]

The right to a gun isn't in the Constitution, nor the right to a pistol, or a semi automatic. But we allow people to possess them.

[cybexg]

Re: Placebo… and others


I’m not sure you actually understand the issue with health insurance. There is a class of social problems that are simply too unpredictable and expensive to effectively be able to manage (without great wealth) on a single person basis. As such, society has created structures where the cost of management of these problems can be pooled (yielding both better predictability since you are working with a group, not an individual and opportunities for cost savings). As such, discussions over the pooling mechanisms used are a valid part of the discussion of the overall problem. This is why discussion over health insurance reform is a valid part of the discussion of health care in general.

Now, I will add that in the 60’s, the social mathematician Arrow (and his partner Lind) gave a proof that strongly indicates that private pooling of risk for health care is a bad idea. His work that he presented in The Economist (1963, December issue I believe) gave most of a proof indicating that private pooling would always be at odds to providing effective coverage for the population at large.

[PlaceboStudman]

Yes, insurance reform is a valid part of the discussion, but it should be the FINAL STEP in the discussion, not the *only* step. And no one is talking about other steps, other than a handful of doctors, most of whom get dismissed when they say something that makes no reference to Single Payer or Medicare for All (both FORMS of insurance)

And IF insurance is the only thing people care about, fine, then let's call this discussion what it is, Health COST. But, if that's the case, then let's force the NIH to give back the $5B in grants they just earned, and put that money into TARP so people can have their jobs back to get their insurance, and people can go back to spending money on Rogaine and Botox and Collagen and Liposuction while millions of men women and children suffer and die from disease and disability.

if both aspects are important, then why are both aspects not being discussed? Why worry about having to pay for something that theoretically doesn't exist, and trying to distract ourselves with meaningless stuff that does exist like Rogaine etc?

[SelenicMagick]

People do not understand the difference between insurance and ACTUAL MEDICAL CARE.

IS the person who died WITH insurance any LESS DEAD than the person who died WITHOUT insurance? Insurance is merely a payment vehicle and is NO guarantee that you will RECEIVE actual medical care. NONE.

Don't believe me? ASK the 2.2 Million Americans who rely on the Indian Health Service for medical care whether or not they RECEIVED medical care when they NEEDED it. Overwhelmingly you will be told "NO" and yet they, by both definition and by LAW "have access" to medical care. What they do NOT have is ACTUAL MEDICAL CARE.

[PlaceboStudman]

Don't expect a reply, cause in this country, Indiginous Americans matter LESS THAN the disabled

[ForObamaInDallas]

Yes, we DO understand the difference between insurance and actual medical care.

It is YOU who keeps melding the two together by bringing up "actual medical care."

We are talking about distinct areas of the whole here.

[ForObamaInDallas]

One more thing:

It depends on what sort of medical care they receive. If they are not receiving it, then THAT system is flawed.

What about the VA? What about people on medicare? Is the Indian Health service as funded as these other two programs? Is the health care (the ACTUAL CARE as you like to scream about) as easily available as VA and medicare? If not,why not?

[chlai88]

In the 21st century and the age of the Internet, conservatism will become a myth.

[WilliamBradford]

Yes, Twitter is proof that all traditional beliefs are silly. Tweet.

[Libarchist]

So be it.

[gayleg]

Can you explain why you've conflated feminism with liberalism?

[cybexg]

Re: Placebo… and others

To me, Liberalism is about correcting issues in society so that a nearly level playing field is achieved, permitting optimal bargains (exchanges representing the true value of the goods in a low-cost exchange overhead environment). Conservatism is about permitting inefficiencies in the market place to continue to exist, leading to malfunctioning markets.

In fact, for the last 40 years the dominant business strategy has been a form of hyper competitive practices where actual competition is frowned upon (traditional competition is not as profitable as avoiding competition). These practices ultimately lead to the distortion of markets.

Experts in this form of business strategy (Richard D’Aveni is one such expert) have consistently stated that the voting records of the so called conservatives have been greatly helpful in creating a situation where the markets can be manipulated and distorted. I believe it was D’Aveni who even has gone as far as stating that proper functioning capitalism requires a liberal agenda (because a liberal agenda is likely to provide sufficient regulation to help prevent market distortion).

But, I’ve replied with informative content to your posts before and you never seem to even read.

[Libarchist]

Exactly...fairness is good.

[cybexg]

I'm not sure about "good" but fairness does yield superior market performance...Why conservatives ignore basic market theory is beyond me.

[SelenicMagick]

Fairness is completely immaterial. In addition to being completely nonsensical.

FAIRNESS says that the Paha Sapa (Black Hills for those too ignorant to learn the ACTUAL name of the place) be RETURNED forthwith to the ACTUAL owners (Indigenous Americans)... REALITY says that it will NEVER happen due to the undeniable fact that "There's Gold in them thar hills" (Uranium, Silver and several OTHER things as well).

FAIRNESS says that NO Indigenous space with religious significance is to be desecrated... and yet non-indigenous Americans are going to court so that they can (literally in some cases) defecate all over those spaces with religious significance. IF we were WHITE it would be ILLEGAL. Because we are NOT it is perfectly LEGAL for you to spray sh*t (in a very literal sense) all over our religious spaces so that you can "make snow".

[Chernynkaya]

One of the best understandings of Right-wing thinking is Max Blumenthal's Republican Gomorrah.

While conservatives always claim they are the Party of personal responsibility, they are in reality the opposite. In Republican world, things happen--God does it. Satan does it. The government does it. No Republican actually believes he is an agent of his or her own success or failure. The consequence of this lack of responsibility is an absolute sense of powerlessness leading directly to an absolute will to power.

Blumenthal points out how many Evangelical Christians were beaten and abused as children. Their point is to establish the powerlessness of the child. His absolute fear of thinking for himself. There is safety only in two things--conforming to a group and, as a part of that group, dominating and even destroying other groups.

The Republican h8s his powerlessness and he also accepts that power is what defines this life. That is why they respond to fear tactics, use fear, and thrive on fear—they were raised on it. They need authoritarian government, even though they claim they are opposed to it. They confuse personal responsibility with following orders.

Liberals, on the other hand, truly love freedom, and see it as a personal –as well as social--re­sponsibili­ty. We are not afraid of liberty, but we do fear the tyranny of Christian and Right-wing domination.

[elkabong]

Well said.

[EasyCheese]

Not all conservatives believe as you say they do. I know for a fact that my life is completely in my control.

My success is due to my willingness to learn and work hard. My failures are a result of my own decisions.

Your broad statement just shows your ignorance to the world (well, the people who read Huffington post anyways)

[zjr909]

Speaking of "broad statements," EasyCheese, how about yours that willingness to learn and hard work lead to success? You should tell that to a peasant in Bangladesh, who, I would be willing to bet, works much harder than you do and has far less to show for it. In fact, he's probably so busy working just to survive that he has no time to learn very much. The point being that "work" is totally meaningless as the measure of a man. In fact, for most of human history, not having to work was proof of success: it meant you had others do the work for you, while you reaped the rewards. Oh, wait. That's also a definition of capitalist. Never mind.

[duhtruth]

There are many who thought that way once upon a time in America. Today it becomes easy to lose everything, even if you are willing to work. 1M bankrupcies in 9 months. Yikes!!!
Catastrophic illness has resulted in bankrupcies for many. These folks then, even thought they want to work, can't. Lose a job and you may have great trouble finding one in this economy. We are never in total control That is a fact! Go down to the Salvation Army, Rescue Mission or Homeless Shelter in your area. You will find it an eye opening experience. You will definitely change your self-made man attitude.

[Prudens]

You are taking a lot of liberties alright, but with the lives of people who have faith in a deity. Liberty is generally associated with negative liberty. Meaning a person is free as long as no one forcibly interferes with their activities. Especially if the person in question is not violating someone else's liberty or property.

If you truly supported liberty, you would not support mandatory taxes, healthcare, conscription, laws relating to drugs, guns or sexual behavior. Nor would you support seat belt laws as they take choice and freedom away from the driver. The drivers decision to wear a seat belt only affects the drivers health. My point is, laws for the greater good, whether the patriot act, or eminent domain or forcing someone to buy health insurance or go to jail, violates personal liberty. So do you really support liberty? Im not saying Republicans do, but Democrats arent good examples of liberty defenders either. I speak of these parties in general, not of all individuals.

[JuliaRain]

Sorry, drunk driving laws? Greater good.

As for that free loading driver who won't pay taxes but abuses the commons.... Get the h e ll off the highway.

[Ken Freedom]

You are conflating a certain concept of freedom -- lack of limitations -- with liberty. Liberty is the freedom to do what you want so long as it is ethical. Laws that mandates ethical behavior are not an imposition on your LIBERTY, but rather on your FREEDOM. Unlimited freedom is neither good nor desirable.

You erroneously claim that the "decision to wear a seat belt only affects the drivers health," which ignores the realities of accidents. Not using a seat belt increases the chances of a fatality, etc. This increases the costs of cleaning up the accident -- which may in turn result in a greater costs to society. Especially if you die with insufficient assets to pay. While wearing your seat belt while driving creates a negligible limitation on your freedoms, not wearing a seat belt generates externalities that are imposed on others.

Wearing one's seat belt is the ethical thing to do. Mandating that you act in an ethical manner (i.e. wear your seat belt) is not an imposition on your liberty, because liberty does not include the freedom to act in an unethical manner. Demanding that your seat belt be red or green would be an imposition on your liberty, because the color of your seat belt is an aesthetic choice, and aesthetic choices are by definition not ethical choices.

[WilliamBradford]

Where is this "tyranny of Christian domination" that liberals fear so much? I have heard about it for many years, but never understood what it is you fear.

I guess you would use gay rights and abortion as examples of the way that evil Christians have tried to control your freedom. I don't think religion has any place in either of these debates.

[JuliaRain]

"Where is this "tyranny of Christian domination" that liberals fear so much?"

Historically they have ruled women with such gross disrespect and tyrannical abuse.

[Chernynkaya]

Stem cell research, Terry Schaivo, teaching creationism, abstinence-only legislation, tax-exempt status of churches, C Street ( Google it!), and of course, the two biggies you mention. In addition, the amount of anti-American h8 speech from so-called Christians like Michelle Bachman, SarahQuitter, et al.

[SelenicMagick]

How convenient that we forget a Christian fellow by the name of Andrew Jackson who did such lovely things as force march Seminole, Creek and Cherokee Indians across the United States... Who did such things as create the "Bureau of Indian Affairs"...

How convenient that we forget the men on the Supreme Court who claimed that it was the "Christian Duty" of white people to "take care" of Indians by confining them to what are, in reality, concentration camps...

I'd say that the last 517 years PROVE rather conclusively that the "tyranny of Christianity" with regards to Indigenous People in the US is verifiable fact rather than mere allegation.

[LeftRight]

Wow.... Look down in Alabama where just recently the state Supreme Court decided that a law banning the sale of sex toys was Constitutional in the name of "public morality"..... Now then, I can't think of a single atheist who has Christian attitudes towards sex or masturbation. I can't think of very many agnostics who has Christian attitudes towards sex or masturbation.

In fact, the ONLY people who consider those shops immoral are the religious nuts who want to impose their OWN ideals on the rest of us!

If you want more, I've got a million of 'em! The fact of the matter is that YOUR side is the one trying to impose on OUR freedoms, while we are simply trying to ensure that we ALL have freedom and a bare minimum of survivability!!!!

[LeftRight]

And one more point, to claim that religion has no place in the debates on gay rights an abortion sounds good to me! Oh, wait, that means that there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO ARGUMENT AGAINST EITHER GAY MARRIAGE OR ABORTION!!!!!

[LeftRight]

Actually, you're wrong. No Republican or Conservative ever believes that a FAILURE is his fault, but he's going to ensure that he gets ALL the credit for anything that goes RIGHT!

Just as an example, when Al Qeada bombed the WTC in February of 1993, one month and six days after Bill Clinton took office, that was ALL Bill Clinton's fault. On the other hand, when Al Qeada attacked us on 9/11, eight months and 22 days after Bush took office, it was ALSO all Bill Clinton's fault.

[been2there]

The majority of Americans do want public health. The others are pitiful, and if the want to keep their dysfunctional system, they may. I want something better for myself, my loved ones, and my offspring.