The Liberal Psychosis
If you are a conservative, you have almost certainly had the following experience: against your better judgment, you got dragged into a political discussion with a liberal. You tried to have a calm, rational discussion in which you mentioned established facts, and you refrained from making accusations. As you thought you were making some progress, with virtually no warning, your liberal friend began to have a tantrum, accused you of being (take your pick) a fascist, a right-winger, a racist/sexist/homophobe, etc., accused you of being unable to have a discussion without making personal attacks, and walked out of the conversation extremely upset. Sound familiar? It used to happen to me all the time. The only reason it doesn't continue to happen all the time is because I have largely given up having any kind of serious discussion with liberals. It's a waste of time because their psychoses get in the way of their ability to hear truth and deal with reality.
The most concise description of this phenomenon I have seen is in Witness. In the course of describing those (liberals) who most viciously tried to destroy him when he began to testify against Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers wrote:
They were people who believed a number of things. Foremost among them was the belief that peace could be preserved, World War III could be averted only by conciliating the Soviet Union. For this no price was too high to pay, including the price of wilful historical self-delusion. Yet they had just fiercely supported a war in which one of their ululant outcries had been against appeasement; and they were much too intelligent really to believe that Russia was a democracy or most of the other upside-down things they said in defense of it. Hence like most people who have substituted the habit of delusion for reality, they became hysterical whenever the root of their delusion was touched, and reacted with a violence that completely belied the openness of mind which they prescribed for others.
(emphasis added). Nowadays, merely voicing disagreement with the liberal dogma of the day will generate the knee-jerk accusations of fascism, etc. But it's the recitation of facts that refute the liberal dogma that will unfailingly unhinge the liberal with whom you have the misfortune to be speaking.
If you have had this experience, and derived some entertainment out of it, please feel free to comment.
5 comments:
I can't believe the garbage people in your position spew!!! You are a fascist, right-wing, racist, sexist, homophobe AND MORE!!!!
DEATH TO TYRANTS! VIVA JANE FONDA!!!!
You are absolutely right, I too have long since given up on rational discussion with knee-jerk liberals...
But to be fair, the right has its set of touchy psychoses-driven comebacks as well, eg. anti-Patriot, anti-Christian, etc. I'm thinking of the Sean Hannity type here.
All in all, politics grosses me out because of this inability for people to talk rationally. Not like they have to agree or even compromise, but the whole strum-und-drang is a bore.
Excellent blog, don't stop posting.
Hi,
I found this post very interesting because, as a liberal, I've had the same experience with conservatives. :)
I think it's just difficult to find people with strong convictions who are also thoughtful and willing to invest the time and energy in answering the actual, specific concerns and valid points raised by opposing viewpoints. It's much easier to call someone a name like "communist" or "racist" then to exist in the uncomfortable zone of imperfect complexity. And it's particularly frustrating when there's no mutual or common goal behind the conversation. What's the point?
But there are some important moments when great conversation can happen: either when both parties are interested in exploring the other viewpoint in order to improve their own arguments (think respectful intellectual fencing) or, even better, when both share a common goal and the possibility of consensus offers a win-win situation.
Also, some people just don't have a sense of humor when they are dealing with unfamiliar persons of a type they have learned to mistrust. If it makes you feel any better, I'll share a story with you: when I was about 16 I was in a debate with a kid in my class and he spit on me and called me communist C-word. Nice.
so, you see, it goes both ways.
But sometimes only one side can win. In such cases, cross-conversation may very well be pointless. And in those instances, I hope my commie-lefty butt kicks yer conservative agenda off the table. :)
I have found liberals to be extremely open minded--as long as you agree with them.
@Anonymous 7/23/2010: Yes, diversity is a good thing only when applied to skin color. It's VERY VERY BAD (!!!) when applied to ideas. To the extent they are aware of its existence, the 1st Amendment exists only for liberals.
Post a Comment