A question I see being asked more and more in conservative, independent and libertarian (as those of us who are truly liberals must now describe ourselves,) websites, newspapers and magazines is “How Did Hatred Became a Liberal Value.” A notable feature of the comment threads under these posts, almost as prominent as the progressives and lefties hate messages aimed at anybody who does not agree absolutely with every detail of their agenda, are calls for “civility” from the people who, having described as murderers, anti — science lunatics, woman haters or homophobes anyone who questions climate science, opposes same sex marriage, finds ‘affirmative action’ a questionable practice or believes it is not a good idea to make state funded late term abortion the preferred method of birth control for women.
A comment thread under any article dealing with these or similar leftist ‘sacred cow’ topics on any left leaning site will show a remarkable level of intolerance towards differing opinions from people whose poolitical position as for decades been associated with pleas for tolerance.
The smug self righteousness is reminiscent of those “hate is not a family value” bumper stickers so popular a few years ago, but why do the people who behave like this while calling themselves ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ imagine they occupy the moral high ground and are beyond criticism?
Could it be perhaps there is little or no diversity among the people who tell us we should embrace diversity? The heartland of soft — leftism is less intellectually diverse than any other sector of society, metropolitan elites live in a monoculture in fact. To even consider ideas that are not part of the orthodoxy, to suggest, for example, that same sex marriage is a trivial issue which affects only a small minority, that maybe immigrations controls are necessary, or that vaccines are known to cause serious harm in rare cases is to invite ostracism. We are all aware of high profile cases in which the careers of respected professionals have been trashed for simply suggesting these and other politically correct ‘causes’ ought to be the subject of ongoing debates.
Individuals in any large conservative or independent community, in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and in Europe are bombarded by a constant stream of left leaning propaganda, from the media, government information, the education system and entertainment. The entire cities of New York, London, Chicago, Sidney, Toronto, Manchester and Washington, D.C. are less politically diverse than a small British market town would have been fifty years ago.
There’s an old joke;
Q: “Why do teenagers only listen to other teenagers?”
A: “Because they’re stupid.”
Q: “Why are teenagers stupid?”
A: Because they only listen to other teenagers.”
Substitute leftie, liberal or progressive for teenager and that just about sums up the political ‘left’. There is no diversity of opinion, unorthodox ideas are frowned on and deviation from the dogma (going off message) is an unforgivble sin.
Don’t believe me? I did some checking on American elections, In 2008, McCain/Palin won 73 percent of the Evangelical/born-again vote. By contrast, San Francisco gave Obama/Biden 84 percent of its votes. All the boroughs of New York City (except Staten Island) went for Obama by wider margins than 73 percent, with Manhattan giving Obama 85 percent of its votes. There were similar numbers for Philadelphia and Washington D.C.. In other words the average Evangelical Christian community in the USA showed more diversity than those diversity worshipping lefties and progressives in the cities.
Elsewhere in 2005 it took 33,500 votes to elect a Labour MP to the UK Parliament, 41,000 to elect a Conservative and 120,000 to elect a member for the third party, The Liberal Democrats (still a more centerist party than the increasingly authoritarian US Democrats,) A similar bias towards traditionally left voting urban constituencies exists in Australia thus a huge majority of the popular vote would only win conservatives a slender majority in government. Canada seems to escape this trend. A 1999 article in the Harvard Law Review entitled “The Law of Group Polarization” posited a simple thesis:
In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problem are likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming. This general phenomenon — group polarization — has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions. It helps to explain extremism, “radicalization,” cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the Internet; it also helps account for feuds, ethnic antagonism, and tribalism.
It is a truism of modern life that unless conservatives and libertarians turn off all technology and head for the hills to live as hermits or emulate sects like the seventeenth century Levellers (who lived in exclusive religious communities), they will be exposed to a tsunami of Cultural Marxist thought and ideas — in education, television, movies, and the Internet every day. Liberals, by contrast, can and often do live lives isolated from conservative, libertarian or religious thought, and their ignorance of other groups ideas is all too often embarrassingly obvious.
I was first exposed to left wing ignorance of conservatism way back in the late 1970s. Ken Hargreaves, a former Conservative member of Parliament and lifelong friend of my wife’s family ended up next to me at a public meeting I was representing the Liberal Party. The subject was a new shopping centre for our town which Conservatives and Liberals thought would be a White Elephant as in this heavily populated area our smallish town is surrounded by bigger urbanisations, all with bigger shopping centres. Ken and I both asked the government minister leading the meeting why our town with it’s quirky, traditional shops was throwing away it’s main attraction, free car parking, in order to follow the crowd?
The big man looked at us with contempt. “The Labour Government is funding this development and neither we nor the local authority think we have any business supporting people who own motor cars,” he said. This ‘progressive’ dinosaur was still living in the era in which a popular music hall song complained of “The rich man in his Motor car, the poor man on the bus.” The Labour movement considering it had no business supporting the rich, elitist bastards who owned motor cars? In 1978? Was he not aware that construction workers, factory staff, nurses and ‘rude mechanicals,’ to borrow a term from Shakespeare were aspiring to own cars if they were not already car owners? Progressive left my arse.
I am not a conservative and never have been but I am well informed enough to know that the main plank of conservative philosophy is not to preserve the status quo at all cost but to take an evolutionary approach to social reform. The inevitability of gradualness it is called. Just as species evolve gradually changing imperceptibly from generation to generation so do human societies. Forcing the pace of change leads to social decay and a breakdown of values as we have seen over the past fifty years. The left, the ‘progressives’ always want ‘radical change now’ which is why socialist societies, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China and North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe, and the failed socialist governments throughout the twentieth century in Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and elsewhere have always left a legacy of social breakdown and economic collapse when they were thrown out of office. Mention any of this to the progressives and they will look at you pityingly and explain that in fact the Soviet Union and communist China would have been huge successes had the western democracies not undermined these closed and repressive regimes.
A favourite mantra of lefties goes: “Ignorance breeds hate.” I couldn’t agree more.
Jew hating Leftie Students Union In New Anti-Semitism Row Those anti Semites of the The National Union of Students (NUS) are at it again. [ … ] Hypocrisy and double standards are the stock in trade of the ‘new left’ of course and the anti — Semitism of Labour voters and other younger lefties (University dumbed down airheads who are too historically illiterate to be aware of the role Britain’s Jewish communities played in establishing the Labour Party
Left’s Authoritarian Drift The left’s self confidence has had a hint of desperation about it for a long time. From their constant whines about the sexism, racism and homophobia of the working class who happen to be the party’s core constituency to the substitution of smearing UKIP for policies in the European Election this is a party of arrested adolescents throwing a hissy fit because people are laughing at them.