Why Liberals Lie About What They Believe

townhall.com ^ | June 27, 2008 | John Hawkins

[Free ThinkerNY]

Once you've watched liberals long enough to understand how they think -- scratch that, how they feel -- they become extraordinarily predictable.

To begin with, the liberal agenda is, in many respects, the same as it was in the thirties. Whether you call it communism, fascism, socialism, liberalism, or progressivism, the only real difference is how much they believe they can get away with, the way they sell it to people, and the latest trendy name for what they believe.

So, once the liberals pick a policy from their stale program to push, the next step is to get it implemented. This is where liberals have problems because whether a policy makes sense, is practical, or actually improves people's lives is of secondary importance to them. What is important to liberals is whether supporting or opposing that policy makes them feel good about themselves.

This is why liberals continue to support dysfunctional policies that have been failing miserably for decades and why they often oppose common sense programs that have been proven to work time and time again -- because it isn't about whether it works or not, it's about how it makes them feel.

In other words, a liberal will almost always prefer a policy that's extremely expensive, is difficult to implement, helps almost no one, but seems "nice" -- to a policy that is cheap, simple to implement, extremely effective, and seems "mean."

However, since most Americans make decisions about policies based on whether or not they believe the policy makes people's lives better or worse, liberals have had to become habitually dishonest about what they believe and want to do to get their ideas put into action.

[MosesKnows]

helps almost no one, but seems "nice"

"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good." --Thomas Sowell

My observations of liberals over several decades caused my "Theory of Liberals".

Without going into detail, my theory is that a liberal is a person who lacks the gene required by humans to process the reality of a situation. The empirical evidence supporting the theory’s premise is overwhelming.

[The_Republican]

Because they believe in winning.

[Grunthor]

“Why Liberals Lie About What They Believe”

Same reason that some fat or ugly girls “put out.”

[the anti-liberal]

Because they believe in whining.

Bookmark

[ETL]

Why Liberals Lie About What They Believe

Do they have any other choice?

[Steely Tom]

Name got mangled, but an earlier thread.

[Jeff Head]

They lie because:

1) They lust for power and know that the majority will not buy into their true beliefs.

2) They are hopelessly compromised morally and know that they must lie in order to hide who and what they are.

3) They are completely corrupted by their feeding off of (pilfering) the public largess and they will not give it up.

4) They honestly and naively belief the liberal/marxist swill of a utopia and their commitment to this vision (nightmare) trumps all other reality.

IOMHO, that is why most liberals (and RINOs) lie about their true political and moral motivations and ideology.

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

[Red_Devil 232]

Think 68 Million Acres that are leased but not drilled. Then look at what is leased by PXP and Exxon off the coast of Calif. They can't drill it because of Liberals! But I bet that acreage is included in the Dem. talking points. How many more acres of the 68 Million are off the coast of Fla. that are leased but can't be drilled?.

The Fed. Gov. leased acreage to oil companies and when it turned out to be productive they banned drilling there because of Liberals!

[FreedomProtector]

Why Liberals Lie: Liberals don't have any foundation for truth, to a liberal everything is evolving, changing, morality is relative, so lying must be ok....

[Ouderkirk]

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice.

They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character.

None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism.

In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

[ETL]

Why Liberals Lie About What They Believe

Of course they do occasionally slip up and tell the truth!

Maxine Waters warns Shell president in House committee hearing

Posted: May 23, 2008
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A report by Fox News, captured in a clip posted on YouTube.com (Must see video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ) , showed Waters challenging the president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, to guarantee the prices consumers pay will go down if the oil companies are allowed to drill wherever they want off of U.S. shores.

Hofmeister replied: "I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress, ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down."

The Shell exec said paying $5 at the pump "will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies."

Waters responded, in part, "And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …"

The congresswoman paused to collect her thoughts [for about 5-6 seconds this went on, while her colleagues behind her laughed].

"...would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …"

The oil executives responded, according to Fox News, by saying they've seen this before, in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

Congresswoman threatens to nationalize oil industry Maxine Waters warns Shell president in House committee hearing:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65111

_____________________________________________________________

Chávez vows to nationalize all energy - International Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/14/business/chavez.php

Venezuela's Chavez says government could nationalize supermarkets, food storage facilities:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/15/business/LA-FIN-Venezuela-Nationalizations.php

Chavez to nationalize telecom, utilities:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16530241/

U.S. blasts Chavez plan to nationalize electricity, phones:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-01-08-venezeula-usat_x.htm

[phillyfanatic]

Socialist pacifism: has been the Left’s trend since the ‘30’s. No matter what issue, policy or agenda, it is always the same. As Rush would say, ‘what is bad for America is good for liberals.’ The real problem is that over thes 80 years, their view has been slowing prevailing in spite of the Reagan-Newt years, ‘94 et al. The non-productive are slowly outstripping the productive. The race,culture, poverty, energy pimps are winning the war if not every battle. To allow any more wins by the Left will doom this nation to at least a generation of leftism. I cannot fathom who would be left to stop them. Certainly not some 3rd Party whack jobs. Not a Party where the BASE is already having their brains, souls and spirits sucked out by the MSM and even Pubs who should know better.

[Billthedrill]

...This is why liberals continue to support dysfunctional policies that have been failing miserably for decades and why they often oppose common sense programs that have been proven to work time and time again -- because it isn't about whether it works or not, it's about how it makes them feel.

True enough, although the author is painting with an awfully broad brush. Liberals who are civil libertarians enough actually to study the topic instead of use it as a sounding board for their feelings tend to be pretty good allies when it comes to issues such as free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and yes, the freedom to keep and bear arms. These are liberals in an older sense.

I think the real dichotomy is between those for whom the individual is the repository of political rights, and those for whom that repository is some sort of collective, class, or group. There are very few conservatives in the latter wing. Those liberals who are, are the ones fond of such collective approaches as hate speech, special rules and benefits not for oppressed individuals, but for oppressed classes, and the ultimate supremacy of state activities over those of individuals with respect to economy. This isn't actually very "liberal" by any classical definition but it's where the Great Divide has led us.

Many who support dysfunctional policies (and yes, because they look or feel good rather than work) do so out of simple historical ignorance as much as the fond illusion that history will vindicate them because it can progress only in a single direction. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Alas, when it is so easy simply to change history instead there tends to be an awful lot of re-learning.

It works like this - those whose theoretical understanding or emotional yearning leads them to conclude that communes are more congenial living arrangements than villages, for example, are welcome to find one to live in. That isn't easy to do. And the reason it isn't easy is because they don't work very well. One can either modify one's theoretical understanding or emotional yearning on that basis or one can continue to bang one's head against the wall of ideology versus practical experience. The problem only arises when they insist that the rest of us bang our heads as well.

A lot of us have attempted to dispense with the phrase "liberal" because it so little resembles its original meaning. We seem to be bouncing our heads against a wall in that regard too. Looks like the word is going to be with us for awhile.

[griswold3]

I am a classic liberal, who now must be identified as a traditonal conservative.

The progressives want utopian perfection.

It’ll get us all killed!

[MrB]

One of the most predictable responses of a lib is the following:

If you state that the poor are poor because of their choices,

a lib will immediately blow their stack and “reframe” your position as “how dare you say people choose to be poor!”.

[calex59]

True enough, although the author is painting with an awfully broad brush. Liberals who are civil libertarians enough actually to study the topic instead of use it as a sounding board for their feelings tend to be pretty good allies when it comes to issues such as free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and yes, the freedom to keep and bear arms. These are liberals in an older sense.

He is using the term liberal as it is applied today, you are using it as it was meant to be applied and was for years until the communists preempted it. I used to call my self a liberal until I realized what it had evolved into, now I call myself a conservative because that term, as applied today, embodies my beliefs in personal, individual freedoms and rights. I do not think any true "liberal" as the term is used today, believes the way I do. Some Democrats(as witnessed yesterday on DU)believe in the right to keep and bear arms and were happy with yesterdays decision, but at the same time they couldn't reconcile the fact that liberal justices were the ones who voted against it, it just didn't register with them.

There is no talking to progressives, liberals, communist, stalinist, marxist, go ahead you pick a name, but there simply is no reasoning with them. They either have the light come on or they don't.

[MrB]

The progressives want utopian perfection.

And they're more than willing to use force to make you conform to their idea of perfection.

[Tamar1973]

They know that Americans can't stomach the real truth of the DNC platform.

[2nd amendment mama]

You’ll love the 1st sentence of this article....LOL

[PRO 1]

Liberals lie about what they believe because inherently they know that what they believe is criminal, depraved, substandard, and self centered. Else they would not go about sneaking and hiding their goals and methods.

The criminal knows he is a fraud that is why they lie.

[Ouderkirk]

a lib will immediately blow their stack and “re-frame” your position as “how dare you say people choose to be poor!”.

When they try that re-framing the question I respond, "certainly nobody consciously chooses to be poor". I remind my libtard interlocutor that it is not the conscious choice, but the totality of their choices which results in becoming poor.

[oneamericanvoice]

3) They are completely corrupted by their feeding off of (pilfering) the public largess and they will not give it up. They do so because they feel entitled to. No one bothered to tell them that life doesn't owe them anything. It is a vicious cycle for the liberal...feel entitled to something, then feel guilty upon receipt, so have to get the same for everyone else. As conservative satirist/pundit Evan Sayet puts it, "Everyone has to have a cookie."

[Seaplaner]

Fascinating topic and exceptionally good thread.

I would add that even though liberals/Marxists/Democrats often know they are lying, when they repeat a lie often, and when they hear others repeat the same lie, they believe it.

And so, their lives are the essence of true hysterica.

[dan1123]

a liberal is a person who lacks the gene required by humans to process the reality of a situation.

I agree with the conclusion but not the premise. I believe a liberal deliberately ignores the reality of a situation because they have a religious desire to use government to make them a "good person". See my tagline.