The Problem With Democrats: The Progressive Liberal Moral Continuum
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to The Rawness RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
As a conservative, I must admit that I am truly enjoying the current freakshow that is the Democratic nomination process. Between Hillary’s shrill rallying cries and Obama’s vague talk of change, it’s great to see the two candidates tear each other apart to the overall detriment of the party.
I think there is a recurring problem with the Democratic party, and this race has really brought it to the forefront. Many Obama and Hillary supporters that I meet don’t really know much about either party’s stances on various issues outside of extremely broad strokes.
The biggest problem the average Democrat has is that they tend to make all their major decisions using a thought process based on emotion. They focus first and foremost on what sounds and feels good rather than what may or may not be factually true. A beatuiful, reassuring fiction always trumps a harsh and unpleasant truth in their minds. I like to call this thought process the Progressive Liberal Moral Continuum, and it is as follows:
- Poverty is inherently more noble and morally superior to wealth
- New money is inherently more noble and morally superior to old money
- Darker skin victimology is inherently more noble and morally superior to lighter skin
- Modern feminist values and matriarchy are is inherently more noble and morally superior to masculine values and patriarchy
- Internationalism is inherently more noble and morally superior to patriotism
- Working class is inherently more noble and morally superior to the moneyed classes
- Quasi-socialism is inherently more noble and morally superior to free-market capitalism
- Secularism and athiesm are inherently more noble and morally superior to religious devotion
- Anti-military is inherently more noble and morally superior to pro-military
- Baby Boomer hippie cred trumps any preceding or succeeding generation’s credentials
- Anything European is inherently more enlightened than anything American (this is why many of them , even those who usually have no interest in sports, work hard to pretend to like soccer, because the simple fact that most of America doesn’t get it automatically makes it more attractive to them)
- Eastern values are inherently morally superior to Judeo-Christian western values
- Gay men are automatically more noble and enlightened than straight men
This checklist is the way they analyze everything. When you see progressive liberal columnists discuss the candidates, they spend most of the time analyzing them on how authentic their blackness, populism or feminism are. How is their charisma? How “authentic” and “likeable” are the candidates? How well do they pay lip service to the poor? Even on the rare occasions where issues are explored, they are explored according to this checklist. A conservative will talk about the tax cuts by trying to discuss the economic principles behind them. Whether you agree with the economic rationales, the point is that there is at least an attempt to discuss the matter economically. When Democrats go into the issue of tax cuts, they oppose them mostly using an emotional appeal to anti-rich sentiments: tax cuts must go because they may help rich people. Don’t let the rich people get one over on you.
Note that I didn’t just say darker skin is better than lighter skin, but specifically said darker skin victimology is better than lighter skin. Having darker skin is not enough, or else liberals would be able to admire the accomplishments of black conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele and Larry Elder. But they don’t like these blacks because they preach personal accountability and don’t encourage a victim mindset. Being black is not enough, you must also claim to be a constant victim of racist discrimination.
Also note that I said modern feminism is morally superior in the Continuum rather than using the word “woman.” Being a woman alone is not enough, otherwise progressive liberals would be able to muster up more support for the likes of successful women like Elizabeth Dole, Condi Rice and Laura Bush. But these women do not give off emasculating vibes, are demure and not shrill and are openly content with taking a backseat to men. A woman has to subscribe to modern feminism to claim moral superiority on the Continuum, meaning she has to embrace competing with men by acting more like a man, all the while paying lip service to tearing down patriarchy.
This is the reason why Obama vs. Hillary is causing such turmoil for the party faithful. Because nothing in the Progressive Liberal Moral Continuum has given them a clear cut victor in a battle between candidates like Obama and Hillary. Obama is a black person that subscribes to victimology, which is better than white according to the Continuum. But Hillary is a feminist woman, which means she is better than Obama, who is a man. Yet Hillary is not a good feminist in some eyes because she stood by her man through his infidelity, while Obama in some ways has more feminist cred because he lets his wife openly disrespect him and put his down in public, giving him a henpecked beta male husband image that many modern feminist admire in today’s men. Yet Hillary is a true baby-boomer hippie, which wins her a lot of points since modern liberals tend to deify hippies as the greatest generation ever. But Obama thanks to his heritage has a lot more cred in the areas of internationalism and eastern values thanks to his Muslim and Ghanan background. And so on and so on.
You can see how this confuses many progressive liberals, as nothing in their playbook discusses how to compare these things to each other. Who has inherent moral superiority when comparing a black victimologist to a white female feminist (not a redundancy as there are male feminists too)? Who has inherent moral superiority when comparing an authentic baby boomer hippie to an internationalist with Eastern roots? And given the binary nature of their thinking, the fear is that if they declare one person the winner, they are making a moral judgment on the other person’s traits, thereby alienating a significant part of the Democrat constituency in the future. Does choosing Obama as a nominee make white feminist women inferior to black victimologists, thereby making feminists not want to vote Democrat this election? Does choosing Hillary make black victimologists inferior to white feminist women inferior to black victimologists, thereby making many minorities and Muslims abstain from voting Democrat this election?
You can see why the powers-that-be in the Democratic party are dragging their feet on this one, as a lot is at stake. There’s no clear cut winner under their usual criteria of the Progressive Liberal Moral Continuum. By creating an environment where not voting for a black man must mean you are a racist and can’t possibly be disagreeing with him based on his stances on issues and creating an environment where not voting for a woman means you are a misogynist and can’t possibly be disagreeing with her based on her stances on issues, they’ve eventually paralyzed themselves in a race where a black man runs against a white feminist, because they’ve reduced their choices to “What is the lesser of two evils, outing myself as a racist or as a misogynist.” The crude simplicity of their thought process that previously made all their life decisions ridiculously simple is the exact mechanism that is making their current dilemma such an excruciating choice.
Which leads us to Obama’s secret weapon: Michelle Obama. By being more shrill than Hillary and emasculating Obama on several occasions and refusing to look like a doting, Republican Stepford wife stereotype, she eliminates Hillary’s feminist advantage, which was already damaged thanks to her tolerance of her husband’s philandering. They can get both black victimology and modern feminism with Obama thanks to his wife’s persona, thereby eliminating one of Hillary’s major advantages.
Until the Democratic Party can evolve past this crude thought process of race, gender and class checklists, they will continue to face these problems in future elections.
(6 votes, average: 2.83 out of 5)
Loading ...
wow. There’s alot here that I can sink my teach into. But before I do, some quick background. I hesitate to call myself either progressive or conservative. Politcial views are too multifaceted to be easily labeled (ie: socially progressive, fiscal conservatism, economics, federalism, military policy etc). And moderacy just strikes me as too much as a cop-out.
Oddly enough, though I harbor an antagonism to our currect two-party system and hardly believe either party holds a complete answer to any of our nations problems I do tend to lean Democratic for reasons that i hope will become clear soon.
Re: your Progressive Liberal Moral Continuum
I would tend to agree with the various items you outlined and I might even agree with the stands that progressive liberals generally take on each issue, but I have to disagree with your evaluation and analyses of them.
Most of my criticism comes from your use of the term “inherently.”
I think you are right when you say PLs tend to fall on one side of these continuums but i don’t think these prejudices developed in a vaccum.
I don’t think that poverty is inherently more noble than wealth. Both are just plot points along a normal curve. But I see the “nobility of poverty” as more of an outgrowth of a protectionist view of government (whether right or wrong) and the view that that poverty is/was a function of unfair/inequitable/immoral actions/forces on the part of the wealthy (or pwerful).
A similar argument can be made for some of the other “victim-related” continuums (Race, Feminism etc). Now this isn’t to say that these groups are best served by the creation of welfare or protectionst state, but rather that these sides of the continuum are somewhat logical conclusions given the aforementioned premises.
As for the other continuum items (Internationalism, anti-militarism, secularism, east vs. west) they too didn’t not develop in a vaccum. Rather they were reactions (in some cases overreactions) to various ideologies and policies that were either proven or interpreted as being failed or problematic.
Antimiltarism was a reaction to perceived failures of the Vietnam and Cold wars.
Internationalism a reaction to the unilateralism of our current gulf war, ESPECIALLY when compared to the perceived success of the previous gulf war.
Secularism, while nominally a fundamental tenet of our current democracy, gained an added cache with our communal revelation to past horrors committed in “the name of religion.” I do not for a second believe that these histories had anything to do with true religious division or disctinction. But that isn’t the point. The point is that this is/was a fear that had enough of a reality to warrant inclusion into our constition. This fear gained traction with the revelation of each generation’s defining tragedy.
My ultimate point is not that PLs are correct in their views re: any of these issues (I would argue that most of these continuums don’t even address any issues of true worth). I submit that instead PLs have formulated a platform based on their own logistical premises that were functions of our shared political histories. And that this is no different than what is done on the Conservative side of the debate. In otherwords, you’ve described PL as practiced in the US and similar criticisms can be leveled against(neo)Conservatism as practiced in the US.
I think I hear the pot calling the kettle irrational…
The problem I find with the conservative thinking I’ve encountered is that they so frequently resort to logical fallacies. I’m not sure whether it’s just bad reasoning or outright sophistry. I guess it depends on the person.
Let’s start with hasty generalization. What evidence do you have to support such a claim against Democrats as a whole group? If it’s a commentary on the bloggers you personally have read, then say so. But that’s not an adequate sample of Democrats as a whole.
How about false dichotomy? You know, the black and white, with us or against us type of thinking. To argue that there are only conservative and liberal thought processes ignores the wide range of political thought even within the Republican and Democratic parties, to speak nothing of the alternatives outside the two main parties.
Let’s add the straw man fallacy: that’s when you exaggerate your opponents position to appear ridiculous. Then when you topple the straw man, you can pretend you’ve refuted the opponents arguments when you have in fact not touched it at all. No liberal democrat I know holds all these “beliefs” you’ve listed, and if they hold any of them it’s not based simply on emotional reactions. There are usually reasons and facts that are part of their perspective. Oh, and wait–just because you aren’t convinced by those reasons or are skeptical of those facts doesn’t automatically mean that they are poor reasons and facts. Your judgment is not infallible. Merely dismissing an opponents reasoning is not refuting it.
Now let’s look at the good old abusive ad hominem fallacy. That is when you insult a person to distract from their reasons and to ridicule as a way to undermine their credibility rather than to refute reasons. The entire premise that a liberal’s thought process is merely emotional is an ad hominem attack. You have offered no reasons to not to believe that this thought process is mistaken but merely assume that it is (oh, that’s begging the question!). Furthermore, you simply name-call and insult Barack and Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton. No reason not to vote for them other than your personal dislike of them.
Which brings me to the last of my points. Do you seriously believe that conservatives are more rational in their thought processes than liberals? Sadly, American citizens seem not to be particularly skilled in critical thinking, otherwise the current administration would have been publicly called on their lies and fallacies long ago. Considering the amount of fear mongering, xenophobia, and homophobia the Republican party has employed in the past few elections and apparently how well it worked for them, I think it difficult for you to support a claim that Republicans and conservatives are any more rational in their thought processes. Based on the content of your post, this claim can only be based on self-delusion or hypocrisy. (Wait, I don’t want to be guilty of a false dichotomy; there are other options, like stupidity, projection, ignorance, and so on.)
this seems to be just a total misinterpretation of general liberal ideology. maybe its a reaction to the way the media has been covering this race, which is completely tiresome and usually misguided as well (jeremiah wright, etc).
all the bullet points are valid general subject points, but reducing them to “one is inherently better than another” is not only pointless and simplistic, in many of your examples its just not something most liberals would agree with.
the whole black vs. woman thing is great and all, and makes for an easy posting to write, but their gender/race have very little to do with this race. they are both very qualified so it’s a close race. hillary technically is moreso, as far as “experience”, but shes also very much the establishment. barack represents the true and mostly unfiltered ideals of most proud liberals, though hes definitely had to ‘play the game’ and provide lip service to some lame non-issue that the media tells us we should care about (again, jeremiah wright).
anyway, liberals have always rallied behind rich white men in the past, usually with pretty similar ideals as the two candidates this year. its not about ‘being rich is evil so you tax them and being poor is good’, thats fucking retarded. its about not cutting taxes to people who dont need it - AT LEAST not during war - though i know that has done loads to help the economy. its about serious issues like health care and education. you know, improving our own society instead of cartoonishly absurd ideas like starting a unilateral war in iraq, while cutting taxes, and making us less safe in the world by doing so, in the guise of making us more safe.
being a republican is for stupid people who dont sweat the details, which is OK and all when your country can afford to ignore its own health and blow some shit up for entertainment…but lets just be adults for a minute and realize that we have some serious shit to deal with. more of the same isnt gonna help. good luck with a 71 yr old though.
I think a good way to solve this would be to come up with a some formulas so we can quantify which trumps which. let’s not forget that bill clinton was inducted into the black hall of fame, and went so far as to get some brain in the oval office by a chubby white woman. surely hillary gets some residual points from this, by osmosis alone. right? additionally, after barack’s mom and dad split, she hooked up with an indonesian. does barack lose ghetto cred for this? how about his comical attempts at keepsin it real? i guess he cant fool the sort of black people who wont vote, but not white liberals, whose vote he’s counting on anyway. so he should be ok.
my favorite part of this primary is that whoever loses wins! same with the presidential election! i can see it now, repeated ad nauseum:
“If there’s one thing we’ve learned from this election, it’s that equality for [black people/women] is not nearly as progressive as Americans pretend it to be.”
the democrats had a prime chance to seize the whitehouse, and they blew it. why? see T’s continuum.
Liberal/conservative divide is retarded to begin with.
RV - solid response but you are guilty of ad hominem yourself. But I agree with your message, I sorely miss rational debate. To be emotional is to betray that you are overly attached to the issue you are arguing for.
And lastly, argument from fallacy - just because T does not prove any of his observations, making his reasoning fallacious to begin with, does not necessarily entail that his observations are wrong.
It does seem that many liberal (in today’s sense) “beliefs” stem from an undercurrent of guilt, just as it also seems that conservative “beliefs” intimate insecurity.
its really not so much “guilt” as it is caring about someone other than yourself exclusively.
Great post, your analysis of liberals is spot on.
But I’d like to point out some ways that even a conservative guy (like me) may have a moral continuum that is very similar to that of liberals. When you look at things with my level of insight, you realize –
1. My poverty (as an unemployed blogger) is inherently more noble and morally superior to feminist lawyers’ wealth
2.Darker-skinned Brazilian and Middle-Eastern women are inherently more noble and morally superior to lighter-skinned, fat slobs i.e. American women
3. Modern Alpha values and player-archy are inherently more noble and morally superior to emasculating Beta values and pussy-archy
4. International sex toursism is inherently more noble and morally superior to patriotic American women fucking
5. Non-working class is inherently more noble and morally superior to the moneyed classes
6. Quasi-socialism (as in freeloading off your father) is inherently more noble and morally superior to free-market capitalism
7. Self worship is inherently more noble and morally superior to religious worship
8. Not serving in the military and pretending that you did (chicks dig it!) is inherently more noble and morally superior to having to be in the military and doing stuff you regret on those lonely nights
9. My Gen X hippie cred trumps any preceding or succeeding generation’s credentials
10. Middle Eastern values are inherently morally superior to Judeo western values
DooshVs last blog post..Stud or Scrub
Wait…so progressive liberals have a monopoly on caring for others than themselves exclusively? That’s quite the self-serving delusion you have there, buddy. That’s like saying that a only a mother cares for her children because she coddles them, while a father doesn’t because he gives them tough love.
i dont remember saying “progressive liberals” have a monopoly on it. i was simply correcting the false idea that “guilt” had anything to do with the motives behind many liberal ideals.
Can’t it be both a case of caring about someone other than yourself AND feeling guilty? I don’t really see how they are mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, I’d argue that a level of empathy for others is a prerequisite for guilt to begin with. You can’t feel guilty about anything in the first place if you only care about yourself.
rick:
all the bullet points are valid general subject points, but reducing them to “one is inherently better than another” is not only pointless and simplistic, in many of your examples its just not something most liberals would agree with.
the issue is not whether liberals agree with these dicta, but, rather, whether they act in accordance with them.
the answer to the latter is a resounding yes.
to infer the true motivation behind an observed pattern of behavior, even when that motivation contravenes stated principles, does not a logical fallacy make.
or:
actions speak louder than words.
sure it can be both of them. im sure many liberals (conservatives too) have some sort of “white guilt”, for example. you know, with slavery, colonialism, and all that. i just disagree that it is like the whole - or even most of the basis for all liberal thought.
I agree that it’s not the basis for all liberal thought. That’s why I tried to use the word “progressive” as often as possible, because I am talking about a specific type of liberal (as opposed to, say, a classical liberal or moderate liberal). The progressive liberal is the one that sees that sees western traditions as primarily having a legacy of exploitation, oppression, misogyny, repression and intolerance. These are the Michael Moores and Al Sharptons of the world, the type that believe that the western tradition is primarily something to be apologized for, not something to celebrate. Unfortunately this is the exact type of liberal that has been playing a bigger and bigger in the Democratic party with each passing year.
Great examples of progressive liberals can be seen on Stuff White People Like.
Regarding Stuff White People Like - hilarious blog, but as you point out, it really should be called “stuff upper class white liberals like”.
But yeah I see the difference you are pointing out with those that are more progressive, but I also think its an overly defensive position to take - one that is common among conservatives and fox news fans these days.
I think there is a great amount worth celebrating about the American tradition. Unfortunately, the current administration represents most of what IS to be apologized for. To be slightly simplistic, the reason the terrorists hate us and exist is because of the “foreign policy” that we are currently involved with. Zero diplomacy.
Other than misogyny, which i dont find particularly relevant these days, I think exploitation, oppression, repression and intolerance are all things that we should acknowledge are part of our history and we should try to avoid moving forward. To ignore them, or deny them would only ensure, as we have seen in the past 7 years, that they be repeated and even fucking encouraged.
Have you ever read Michael Blowhard’s Arts Litany? He trends on a similar topic, but focuses more on the artsy types.
Razib also wrote a good post about Liberalism and Conservativism.
Just fyi.
Good article. However, it would be more effective if you checked your grammar and spelling. Auto spell-checkers don’t catch everything, you know.
One stream-of-consciousness draft and I’m done. I don’t even bother with the auto spellcheck. As long as the ideas get across I’m cool.