Liberal attitudes

[Tigermike 3,039]

Liberal attitudes

Thomas Sowell

April 5, 2005

Liberals may think of themselves as people who believe in certain principles but, if you observe their actual behavior, you are likely to discover that most liberals have a certain set of attitudes, rather than principles.

Liberals may denounce "greed," for example, but in practice it all depends on whose greed. Nothing the government does is ever likely to be called "greed" by liberals.

Even when the government confiscated more than half the income of some people in taxes, that was not greed, as far as the left was concerned. Nor is it greed in their eyes when local politicians across the country bulldoze whole working class neighborhoods, destroying homes that people spent a lifetime sacrificing to buy, and paying them less than the market value of those homes through legal chicanery.

Even when the land seized under "eminent domain" laws are turned over to casinos, hotels, or shopping malls -- places that will pay more taxes than working class homeowners -- liberals can never seem to work up the outrage that they display when denouncing "greed" on the part of businesses whose prices are higher than liberals think they should be.

It is not the principle of sacrificing other people's economic interests to your own that causes liberals to denounce greed. It is a question of who does it and what the liberals' attitudes are to those segments of the population.

Politicians who ruin local homeowners, in order to get hold of more tax money to finance programs that will increase the politicians' chances of being re-elected, are just meeting the "needs" of the community, as far as many liberals are concerned.

Whatever the issue, it is usually not the principle but the attitude which determines where liberals stand. Just rattle off a list of social groups -- the police, blacks, environmentalists, multinational corporations -- and you will have a pretty good idea of which way liberals are likely to lean, even if you have no idea what particular issue may arise.

Recent liberal denunciations of federal intervention to over-ride Florida law in the Terri Schiavo case were made by the same people who supported recent federal intervention to over-ride the laws of more than a dozen states when the Supreme Court banned the execution of murderers who were not yet 18 years old.

You can count on the same liberals to cheer if the federal courts over-ride both state laws and referenda opposing gay marriage. It is not the principle. It is the attitude.

"Diversity" has become one of the crusades of liberals, especially academic liberals. But, in a country that is pretty closely divided politically, it is not at all uncommon to find a whole academic department -- sociology, for example -- without a single Republican today or for the past three decades.

Academia is virtually a liberal monopoly but they show no misgivings about the lack of diversity of ideas on campus. It is only physical diversity that arouses the passions of liberals because that engages their attitudes toward particular social groups.

Liberals have often been critical of college fraternities for being exclusive but have seldom been critical of all-black student organizations or even all-black dormitories. Liberals have succeeded in virtually eliminating all-male colleges but applaud the role of women's colleges.

Again, it is not principles but attitudes.

Among liberals' most cherished views of themselves is that they are in favor of promoting the well-being of minorities in general and blacks in particular. But here again, it all depends on which segments of the minority community are involved.

Black welfare recipients or even black criminals have received great amounts of liberal political and journalistic support over the years. However, the great majority of blacks, who are neither criminals nor welfare recipients but are in fact their main victims, have their interests subordinated to the interests of their unsavory neighbors who are more in vogue in liberal circles.

Whatever the merits or demerits of liberal principles, those principles are often far less important than the attitudes which have become the hallmarks of contemporary liberalism.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20050405.shtml

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Liberal attitudes

Thomas Sowell

April 5, 2005

Liberals may think of themselves as people who believe in certain principles but, if you observe their actual behavior, you are likely to discover that most liberals have a certain set of attitudes, rather than principles.

Liberals may denounce "greed," for example, but in practice it all depends on whose greed. Nothing the government does is ever likely to be called "greed" by liberals.

Even when the government confiscated more than half the income of some people in taxes, that was not greed, as far as the left was concerned. Nor is it greed in their eyes when local politicians across the country bulldoze whole working class neighborhoods, destroying homes that people spent a lifetime sacrificing to buy, and paying them less than the market value of those homes through legal chicanery.

Even when the land seized under "eminent domain" laws are turned over to casinos, hotels, or shopping malls -- places that will pay more taxes than working class homeowners -- liberals can never seem to work up the outrage that they display when denouncing "greed" on the part of businesses whose prices are higher than liberals think they should be.

It is not the principle of sacrificing other people's economic interests to your own that causes liberals to denounce greed. It is a question of who does it and what the liberals' attitudes are to those segments of the population.

Politicians who ruin local homeowners, in order to get hold of more tax money to finance programs that will increase the politicians' chances of being re-elected, are just meeting the "needs" of the community, as far as many liberals are concerned.

Whatever the issue, it is usually not the principle but the attitude which determines where liberals stand. Just rattle off a list of social groups -- the police, blacks, environmentalists, multinational corporations -- and you will have a pretty good idea of which way liberals are likely to lean, even if you have no idea what particular issue may arise.

Recent liberal denunciations of federal intervention to over-ride Florida law in the Terri Schiavo case were made by the same people who supported recent federal intervention to over-ride the laws of more than a dozen states when the Supreme Court banned the execution of murderers who were not yet 18 years old.

You can count on the same liberals to cheer if the federal courts over-ride both state laws and referenda opposing gay marriage. It is not the principle. It is the attitude.

"Diversity" has become one of the crusades of liberals, especially academic liberals. But, in a country that is pretty closely divided politically, it is not at all uncommon to find a whole academic department -- sociology, for example -- without a single Republican today or for the past three decades.

Academia is virtually a liberal monopoly but they show no misgivings about the lack of diversity of ideas on campus. It is only physical diversity that arouses the passions of liberals because that engages their attitudes toward particular social groups.

Liberals have often been critical of college fraternities for being exclusive but have seldom been critical of all-black student organizations or even all-black dormitories. Liberals have succeeded in virtually eliminating all-male colleges but applaud the role of women's colleges.

Again, it is not principles but attitudes.

Among liberals' most cherished views of themselves is that they are in favor of promoting the well-being of minorities in general and blacks in particular. But here again, it all depends on which segments of the minority community are involved.

Black welfare recipients or even black criminals have received great amounts of liberal political and journalistic support over the years. However, the great majority of blacks, who are neither criminals nor welfare recipients but are in fact their main victims, have their interests subordinated to the interests of their unsavory neighbors who are more in vogue in liberal circles.

Whatever the merits or demerits of liberal principles, those principles are often far less important than the attitudes which have become the hallmarks of contemporary liberalism.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20050405.shtml

154980[/snapback]

Like most of you "conservatives" on this board, Sowell doesn't have the foggiest idea what "liberals" believe. He has his cartoon view which assumes everything he opposes, "they" are for. It is a simplistic, naive and unexamined view of the world that resembles a cartoon more than reality. Imminent domain misused for casinos is a "liberal" view? It is usually a local government view tied to tax revenue or campaign contributions. Got any links to prominent "liberals" espousing the prinipled virtues of buying out poor people's houses for casinos and such?

I don't know if Sowell is really such a mindless nut or if he just keeps throwing out the red meat to you guys, knowing you will eat it raw and he'll keep making money doing it.

[Tigermike 3,039]

I would also say that anyone who elicits a response such as yours from a liberal is probably 99.99% correct.

I would have to say that anyone who could and would write this book is pretty insightful.

I would also have to say that someone with his credentials is more than a cartoon character writer.

Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy

The Hoover Institution

Stanford University

Stanford, California 94305

THOMAS SOWELL

Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem. As with many others in his neighborhood, he left home early and did not finish high school. The next few years were difficult ones, but eventually he joined the Marine Corps and became a photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service, Sowell entered Harvard University, worked a part-time job as a photographer and studied the science that would become his passion and profession: economics.

After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college. Moreover, much of his writing is considered ground-breaking -- work that will outlive the great majority of scholarship done today.

Though Sowell had been a regular contributor to newspapers in the late '70s and early '80s, he did not begin his career as a newspaper columnist until 1984. George F. Will's writing, says Sowell, proved to him that someone could say something of substance in so short a space (750 words). And besides, writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing.

In 1990, he won the prestigious Francis Boyer Award, presented by The American Enterprise Institute.

Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BIOS/cbsowell.html

[TexasTiger 12,958]

I would also say that anyone who elicits a response such as yours from a liberal is probably 99.99% correct.

I would have to say that anyone who could and would write this book is pretty insightful.

I would also have to say that someone with his credentials is more than a cartoon character writer.

Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy

The Hoover Institution

Stanford University

Stanford, California 94305

THOMAS SOWELL

Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem. As with many others in his neighborhood, he left home early and did not finish high school. The next few years were difficult ones, but eventually he joined the Marine Corps and became a photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service, Sowell entered Harvard University, worked a part-time job as a photographer and studied the science that would become his passion and profession: economics.

After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college. Moreover, much of his writing is considered ground-breaking -- work that will outlive the great majority of scholarship done today.

Though Sowell had been a regular contributor to newspapers in the late '70s and early '80s, he did not begin his career as a newspaper columnist until 1984. George F. Will's writing, says Sowell, proved to him that someone could say something of substance in so short a space (750 words). And besides, writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing.

In 1990, he won the prestigious Francis Boyer Award, presented by The American Enterprise Institute.

Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BIOS/cbsowell.html

154984[/snapback]

I would also say that anyone who elicits a response such as yours from a liberal is probably 99.99% correct.

Okay, but that is a pretty simplistic way of thinking: "If the liberal (whatever that is) disagrees, he must be 99.9% correct." And it's pretty circular reasoning.

Besides, what views of mine on issues have you found to be so "liberal?"

I would say that 15-20 years ago, Sowell was an often insightful writer and commentator. More recently he's just tossing red meat to the masses and collecting his check.

[Auburn85 432]

Modern liberal attitudes:

Anything that a conservative succeeds at, it gets under their skin

If a conservative brings it up, prepare for insulting , filibustering, and a hitler analogy

[Tigermike 3,039]

I would also say that anyone who elicits a response such as yours from a liberal is probably 99.99% correct.

Okay, but that is a pretty simplistic way of thinking: "If the liberal (whatever that is) disagrees, he must be 99.9% correct." And it's pretty circular reasoning.

Besides, what views of mine on issues have you found to be so "liberal?"

I would say that 15-20 years ago, Sowell was an often insightful writer and commentator. More recently he's just tossing red meat to the masses and collecting his check.

154986[/snapback]

Are you saying that you can't describe a liberal?

I would say that Mr. Sowell is collecting his check that he works for. Which really pisses the bed wetters off. Good Lord an intelligent, successful, working, conservative black man! How much more "unliberal" can you get.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

I would also say that anyone who elicits a response such as yours from a liberal is probably 99.99% correct.

Okay, but that is a pretty simplistic way of thinking: "If the liberal (whatever that is) disagrees, he must be 99.9% correct." And it's pretty circular reasoning.

Besides, what views of mine on issues have you found to be so "liberal?"

I would say that 15-20 years ago, Sowell was an often insightful writer and commentator. More recently he's just tossing red meat to the masses and collecting his check.

154986[/snapback]

Are you saying that you can't describe a liberal?

I would say that Mr. Sowell is collecting his check that he works for. Which really pisses the bed wetters off. Good Lord an intelligent, successful, working, conservative black man! How much more "unliberal" can you get.

154996[/snapback]

Typical "conservative" response. Nonresponsive and unexamined. Just keep throwing rocks at the "liberals", whatever they are.

I don't mind Mr. Sowell collecting his check at all. I just wonder how much he laughs at you guys when he cashes it.

[Auburn85 432]

Kind of like Krugman tossing Blue Meat to the masses

[DKW 86 7,429]

Tex, Thomas Sowell is probably one of the better minds in America, even disregarding that he is black. The guy is so bright that sometimes he must water down his real intellectual capacity just so some of us can keep up.

After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

When you have something like these credentials then you can criticize him, okay?

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Tex, Thomas Sowell is probably one of the better minds in America, even disregarding that he is black. The guy is so bright that sometimes he must water down his real intellectual capacity just so some of us can keep up.

After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

When you have something like these credentials then you can criticize him, okay?

155016[/snapback]

Not sure what this means:

Thomas Sowell is probably one of the better minds in America, even disregarding that he is black.

But you don't really know my "credentials", do you? And are you suggesting a Harvard man is superior to an Auburn man?

I've never understood this kind of thinking:

When you have something like these credentials then you can criticize him, okay?

Ideas, logic, and reasoning all either stand on their own or they don't. Very elitist of you.

So I guess you would never criticize a small-town boy who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to be a Georgetown grad, Rhodes Scholar and go on to Yale Law school?

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

So I guess you would never criticize a small-town boy who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to be a Georgetown grad, Rhodes Scholar and go on to Yale Law school?

155023[/snapback]

No, not unless he was later elected President, discraced himself and the country with his behavior while in office and became the only directly elected President in history to be impeached, and then was stripped of his law license in his home state. That would be my only criteria for criticizing him. But that's just me.

[Tiger Al 0]

Tex, Thomas Sowell is probably one of the better minds in America, even disregarding that he is black. The guy is so bright that sometimes he must water down his real intellectual capacity just so some of us can keep up.

After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

When you have something like these credentials then you can criticize him, okay?

155016[/snapback]

So I guess criticizing football players, coaches and anyone else who would not be considered a professional contemporary is off limits, too? Wow, that's gonna really limit the posts on this website.

[Auburn85 432]

Wow, Texas Tiger, I guess you wouldn't be able to criticize Bush anymore

[DKW 86 7,429]

Just saying that if you want to criticize him, then you better be very deep in your own intellectual accomplishments.

I will start another thread in a few hours with some real shocking info.

Stay tuned....

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Just saying that if you want to criticize him, then you better be very deep in your own intellectual accomplishments.

I will start another thread in a few hours with some real shocking info.

Stay tuned....

155249[/snapback]

My garbage man may have a third-grade education, but if he can point out flaws in my arguments, I'm hardly gonna point to my degrees and GPA.

[bammanmr 0]

I've recently started to read some of the things on this board again and I've been pleasantly suprized at the moderate attitudes of most things I've read.

Before I comment on Sowell's piece, let me say that I have no problem being classified as a liberal and being bashed as a commie for my views on gun control, gay marriage, and my deep, undying hatred of the religious right, but keep in mind I am strongly in favor of the death penalty, getting rid of most workers unions, welfare, and disagree with the extreme left on many, many occasions.

On to Sowell. I must say that his piece here is the biggest bunch of bullsh** I've read in a while. If I am a liberal (and since I usually vote democrat, that's exactly the label the conservative right puts on me), then how dare he state that I don't oppose government greed. Government greed is the REASON we have greed all the way down the street, from EXXON, WAL-MART, and ENRON, to the mom and pop stores on our corners and in our neighborhoods, down to myself and all of you. Government waste and corruption is one of the main reasons that I am what I am, and for this prick to tell me it's and my attitude and not my priciples...... It may be that way for the trust-fund hippies and some other tree-huggers, but not me and he can kiss my over-educated, underpaid a**.

And his little comment about diversity in academia. If you're so pissed about it Sowell, and it's sooooooooooooo unfair to the conservatives, go and take a low-paying, no-respect, constantly-ridiculed position as a Sociology instructor and create some diversity. Oh, sorry you're too busy telling us how all liberals have no principles. What a jerkoff!

[Tiger Al 0]

And Dr. Bamman unleashes...the nuclear option! Nice post Mike!

[WarTim 3,456]

Let me get this straight. You are opposed to "Big Govt." intruding into the lives of individuals. Me too!

Welcome to the Republican Party!

[Tiger Al 0]

Let me get this straight. You are opposed to "Big Govt." intruding into the lives of individuals. Me too!

Welcome to the Republican Party! 

155359[/snapback]

What happened in Pinellas Park, Fla. just recently?

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Let me get this straight. You are opposed to "Big Govt." intruding into the lives of individuals. Me too!

Welcome to the Republican Party! 

155359[/snapback]

What happened in Pinellas Park, Fla. just recently?

155366[/snapback]

Business as usual happened. War Tim is like most "Republicans". He stopped paying attention at least 20 years ago.