Liberals think that Conservatives are close-minded people who are unwilling to accept progressive changes in society. Let us concede that for the sake of argument. The irony is that Liberals turn out to be equally guilty of closed-mindedness. What is unequivocally false is that Liberals provide reasoned arguments for any and all of their views. The closed-mindedness of Liberals is no more virtuous than the close-mindedness of Conservatives. And Liberals are just as besotted with their views as Conservatives are with their views.
Liberals, of course, associate Conservatives with bigotry. And we know that there is a straightforward respect in which, at one point in time, Liberals were right on target. Some of the most high-profile Conservatives in the United States—(the early) George Wallace and Jesse Helms—have been bigots.
The problem, alas, is that Liberals are just as sanctimonious, self-righteous, and unreflective with respect to their own views. For example, Liberals extol the virtues of diversity while eschewing religion. But how does it turn out that diversity is a good except when it comes to religious perspectives?
After all, once we get pass the ideal of racial equality, Liberals believe in a wealth of things for which they have woefully inadequate arguments. Indeed, a great many Liberal arguments are based upon mere feelings, the famous “I just feel that” locution.
I mention this because the average Liberal’s disgust with religious convictions is that they are based upon feelings and not facts. Well, by that measure it turns out that a lot of what Liberals believe should also be cast aside. Here are three examples.
2. Liberals take it as gospel that abortion is justified simply as a matter of personal preference. But there has never ever been a satisfactory argument to show this. Indeed, Liberals are no less capable ignoring claims which they find inconvenient as Conservatives are. For example, in the most famous philosophical argument for abortion ever written, Judith Jarvis Thomson’s essay “A Defense of Abortion,” Thomson explicitly claims that if a fetus should survive an abortion, one many not turn around and kill it. To hear Liberals discuss her essay, one would think that either she never made that assertion or that she was on crack (or whatever) when she did.
2. Contrary to what Conservatives think, Liberals will go on and on about how violence in the media does not really have a deleterious impact upon how children behave. This Liberals will do even as companies are spending millions upon millions of dollars on advertisement. Either the people heading these companies are fools in this matter or Liberals are fools in this matter. Clearly, the latter are. That is no impediment, however, to Liberals go on about how they feel about the matter.
3. Liberals attach a lot of weight to romantic partners being there for one another—and doing so in a manifestly obvious way. The surprise is that adults who feel this way about adult-adult relationships seem to hold that it is quite all right to have their child be primarily cared for by professional caretaker. Indeed, this is thought to be actually better for the child. Effectively, then, Liberals feel that adult-adult romantic relationships are more important than the parental-child relationship. This is so preposterous that one might as well that people fall up instead of down.
Now, it would be one thing if Liberals did not impose their views. But, notoriously, this is precisely what they do. That is, Liberals typically impose views that are woefully lacking in adequate argument. Colleges and Universities are replete with faculty members doing precisely that. Any college student will tell you that for the most part professors will not tolerate those who challenge the prevailing Liberal dogma about one thing or another. That is, the very professors who believe in free speech and diversity of view points will not tolerate those who do not mouth the prevailing dogma. Most assuredly, these professors believe, with Emerson, that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
In steadfastly opposing racism, Liberals most certainly had the high-road. The problem is that Liberals seem to have supposed that being unquestionably right in their opposition to racism lent enormous credence to the view that their moral vision of society in general thereby has considerable plausibility.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Racism and child care are two fundamentally different moral issues, as are racism and abortion. Indeed, racism itself is a quite multifarious issue. So being right that racism is wrong is perfectly compatible with being wrong in a multitude of ways about how exactly one should solve the problem of the wrong of racism. And Liberals are.
The close-mindedness of Liberals has been a considerable impediment to their seeing that Conservatives can no longer be construed as simply bigots. The close-mindedness of Liberals has been a formidable impediment to the rigorous examination of their own views.
Indeed, there is a very straightforward sense in which Liberals have become quite religious like. Liberals proselytize with a vengeance; they hold their hold their views with an unshakable faith in them. In fact, they do not submit them to critical examination. Instead, they simply come together to reinforce their views.
The reason, then, for why Liberals are so very hostile to religion may be none other than that when Liberals look in the face of the deeply religious it turns out that Liberals see none other than their very own reflection.
Interesting article, but I’ve never once met a liberal who condoned violence or swearing on television. I only know people who believe it’s a free speech and parenting issue on the liberal side. I’ve met a lot of people who spend hours a day on live leak and watching cable news for the raw grisly footage, yet complain about things like satirical programming because it makes America look bad. These people tend to identify as ‘conservative’ in Indiana.
Aside from my personal observations running contrary to your observations, much of what you said should be considered. Unfortunately it won’t. The loudest morons from the internet will find things to whine about, and real communication will again be impeded.
Interesting piece. I don’t agree with all of your arguments–I don’t think that liberals condone violence on TV, and I don’t agree with the generalization that liberals can’t back up any of their beliefs with solid arguments. There are plenty of good reasons to keep abortion legal (cases involving rape or potential health risks to the mother, for example) or to abolish the death penalty (studies have been done to show that it is not an effective deterrent of crime). That said, I do agree with you that a lot of liberals do proselytize and don’t really consider other points of view, even though they supposedly espouse open-mindedness. I think both liberals and conservatives are guilty of becoming too emotionally entrenched in their own points of views to truly consider the other side of the debate.
Great main point, but terrible examples.
What you attribute to Liberals is something I have not heard from most of my Liberal friends. You are basically, attributing beliefs to a group that is not supported by the philosophy (I once heard someone say does not = equal the entire political philosophy). If you are serious about showing the close-mindedness of Liberals you would do well with sticking to representing ideas that liberals would actually mostly agree on or should agree with. When it can be quite easy to find issues that liberals have a hard time defending logically, you don’t even attempt to do that. You basically, take what you believe (did you actually check to see if you assumptions resemble reality?) the liberal person view is. If I may assume you are not aware of this fact, then I would like to warn you you are doing something you may have heard about…
You article is a classic example of a strawman argument. Make a “imaginary” liberal and attribute beliefs (usually false or made up specifically for the chore of teraing it apart) and then proceed to deconstruct the “strawman” via agruing against that which you are attributing to “Liberals”.
I say this because I have talked to many people with varying views and I have never heard ANY of you arguments put the way you expressed them. I have heard they are on the side of the argument that stated, but not for any of the reasons you stated.
2)”Liberals will go on and on about how violence in the media does not really have a deleterious impact upon how children behave.” I have never heard this statement or anything similar from anyone other than a libertarian. In fact most people, regardless of political affiliation state the exact opposite.
3)” Effectively, then, Liberals feel that adult-adult romantic relationships are more important than the parental-child relationship.” I cannot even believe you seriously think this is how anyone thinks, let alone a whole group. This last one exposes your witch hunt. You have to attribute such a rediculious notion based entirely on your fantasy to demonize a group.
The fact that you could not attribute one real view to those you are supposed to be writting about, is very telling. Depsite your last statement “think both liberals and conservatives are guilty of becoming too emotionally entrenched in their own points of views to truly consider the other side of the debate.” You show this not by the example in your article but the article itself.
I hope you do not really consider this a serious article on the cognitive dissonance of political philosophies. You can dress up this hit piece all you want it still shows you inability to reconcile your belief in the evil of the “other” even when attempting to write a open-minded article.
Ironically, though I think its a great article because the consluion is not only true (but you really failed to show it with the “facts”) but because it gives a clear example of such close-mindedness even when trying to pretent to be open.
The fact of the matter is it is very human to become more entrenched in our beliefs and so to truely remain open minded you have to work at it. The human brain would rather you live with comfortables lies than constantly have to decipher the turth of matters. I pride myself on holding my own in a debate amoung my conservative, liberal and libertarian firends. If I even attempted to pull the horrible whack job you do in this article I would be ashamed and my argument disregarded as the logical fallocy it is.
I don’t what is more disturbing. The fact taht you may actually believe what you are associating with the “Other” in this case liberals. Or
“Laurence Thomas is Professor in the Department of Political Science and the Department of Philosophy at Syracuse University”
My god you lack the basic psychological understanding and understand of the Liberal Political Philosophy yet you got a degree and are a professor? How did you get through your education with such a propensity to ignore, deny and make up facts? Nepotism must be rampant at SU.
As for you rant (which is what it really is). You shouldn’t have to make up facts or strawmen to make your point. But you really do need to do it don’t you to justify your view? The fact of the matter is that three main reasons that political discourse is so abhorent is that HUMANS (regardless of affiliation or beliefs) are 1) A you stated but could only bring yourself to point at the the “other” as close minded (your BS attempt to have your title cover for the contents obvisou bias is flagrant and insulting to the reader). We humans view things through a filter. If you bothered to care you would know this as it is quite well know for anyone that even casually studies cognition. 2) Politics is emotional. The brain uses the emotional areas of the brain when working out views. For those that understand how the differing parts of the brain process information this has huge consequences, dogma being the most prevelant. 3) Lastly both side are right and wrong for differing and similar reasons. See unlike our ideologies and viewpoints, the world is a very complex place and several things exist at once. Making a choice one way is rejection of the benefits any other choice would have brought and vice versa. The biggest problem is that there are very no real right or wrongs in the objective world. This because right and wrong is a judgement and a judgement has to be measured against something(s) to be judged. Change the thing(s) you are measuring for and you will get arguments on the right or wrongness by those using a different base of measurement.
You should know this as a professor but I wonder do you know this or did you already have a conclusion before your studies?
Thank you for your time. I always enjoy these discussions and as nonaffiliated person, I am constantly marveling at the sides not only attacking eachother in ignorance but failing to even consider that what they see in the “other” is present in themselves. Or as the saying goes…me thinks they protest to much. Watching people such as yourself project and call it understanding is also fascinating. Take care and be well.
“Liberals attach a lot of weight to romantic partners being there for one another—and doing so in a manifestly obvious way. The surprise is that adults who feel this way about adult-adult relationships seem to hold that it is quite all right to have their child be primarily cared for by professional caretaker. Indeed, this is thought to be actually better for the child. Effectively, then, Liberals feel that adult-adult romantic relationships are more important than the parental-child relationship. This is so preposterous that one might as well that people fall up instead of down.”
Were you trying to break some kind of world non-sequitur record? First off, what does “romantic partners being there for one another, in a manifestly obvious way” even mean? Do conservatives believe staunchly that once a child is born, a marriage should no longer have a romantic component, and if there is one, it should be locked away in secret?
Am I to believe there has actually been a study that shows that those adults who hold your awkwardly-worded concoction of a romantic concept think their children should be raised by nannies and babysitters? Link, please.
Personally, I think it would be pretty creepy to grow up with parents who didn’t show any outward affection towards one another.
I have been amazed at the closed mindedness of my “liberal” friends, so I wrote them a letter posted here:
http://thoughtsofasimplecitizen.blogspot.com/2010/09/conservative-close-minded.html