Liberal Hypocrisy

[x359594]

Excerpt: " 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed. Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process."
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/singleton/#comments

[ArseCynic]

Just to clarify, the term "Liberal" in this context represents the extremely moderate "Left" yes?

[x359594]

...the term "Liberal" in this context represents the extremely moderate "Left" yes?

Correct. It's talking about the mainstream layer of liberalism, the layer that identifies with the Democratic Party.

[Comrade Auldnik]

It's always the ostensible progressives that let overt fascism slip through the cracks in the mask of democracy.

[Prometeo liberado]

Its an oversimplification but I have found liberals to be cowards when it comes to understanding certain truths. Neither hot nor cold they tend to run to the right in time of need. Fuck 'em.

[Lee Van Cleef]

It should be obvious to everyone that liberal hypocrisy runs a lot deeper than that.

In "progressive" and academic circles, liberals love to talk about all manners of oppressed groups, and changing society so that everyone is included in the prosperity of modern society.

The entire school of post-modern philosophy basically exists as an attempt to "fix" the inherent problems of pre-war liberalism. In reality, it is easy to see that this is merely paying lip service to the powerless.

Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. This is why the centers of capital are the strongholds of liberal thought, and why the ideology is generally more popular with intellectuals. It also explains why, despite all the apparent compassion for various types of identity politics, liberals are unabashedly classist.

[Renegade Saint]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/424661_875502159607_11606562_36910363_44425617_n.j pg


Screen-capture from Il Gattopardo sums up liberals pretty well.

[Tim Finnegan]

Am I the only one who gets sick of these circle-jerk threads? It's not "what are the implications of this?" or "how do we change their minds?", it's "aren't they all so stupid, and aren't we so much better?". It's fucking pathetic.

[x359594]

...It's not "what are the implications of this?" or "how do we change their minds?"...

One can hope that after the initial self-righteous responses are exhausted we can go on to examining the the implications of the shift in attitude from condemnation of detention without due process under Bush to acceptance of the same under Obama.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Am I the only one who gets sick of these circle-jerk threads? It's not "what are the implications of this?" or "how do we change their minds?", it's "aren't they all so stupid, and aren't we so much better?". It's fucking pathetic.

Pretty much this.

Also, liberalism in the US - though i'm not an expert - seems to be defined by two camps: those who support the Democratic Party and helping it, and those who do not. Not sure if there's a cut off point or if that's entirely correct.

I don't really mind a bit of 'liberal bashing' i.e. bashing the Democratic Party (kinda like putting UK Labour Party supporters who call themselves 'left-wing' in their place), but the trend of calling anybody who isn't an overtly authoritarian Stalinoid tankie a 'liberal' is juvenile. And, given the sorry state of the left, and some of the idiotic positions taken by 'anti-imperialists', triumphalism with regards to the political views of liberals is both mis-guided and profoundly presumptious!

[Sendo]

A great liberal hypocrisy is decrying racism. We all know about Hollywood movies that have inter-racial relationships, but they are always ABOUT the fact that inter-racial stuff is okay. It's never just presented as is. Could you imagine if a movie simply had even a hetero-normative romantic comedy with a yellow American man and a white American woman? The colored-male/white-female relationship has actually gone DOWN in frequency.

Liberals love to posture, but when things are in flux, when its most necessary to apply rational politics, we hear them talk about the need to stand with their countries, we see them wave flags, and they consider anti-imperialism to be naive. Then they smugly say they were against Iraq/WW1 all along and mock the conservatives. Or, if war continues, they rationalize it and find something else to feel superior about.

While education and privilege causes individuals to see past racism (while possibly being ignorant of institutional racism or being able to use the belief to their advantage) I think James Loewen had it right about the well-off and the educated. They identify as liberal, but always side with power in the important areas and deny it in hindsight.

His surveys showed that well-educated people during Vietnam were FAR more supportive of the imperialist venture and that in the 90s, the well-educated overwhelmingly thought their predecessors were as anti-Vietnam as they were.

The problem with modern liberalism is that it allows the better off to embrace the system that benefits while letting them feel better morally or intellectually (like saying I may be a serial killer, but I don't piss on the corpses of my victims like those other serial killers, or I am too smart to be a mafia kingpin--people who do that are too stupid to see that it's bad for society and they could get richer as CEOs). It distracts people from the root problems and frames the debate, channeling all non-Republican thought into the Democratic party line.

I think the reason, in my experience, that your typical Democrats are so stubborn, but that many conservatives can be swayed by re-education and facts, is that many liberals are doing as well in capitalism as they would be under socialism. They have a part of them that knows that the system is works in their favor and they are not alienated from it and will try to uphold the system. Professors at private universities, volunteers and workers for the Democratic Party, upper-middle managers, etc.

Think of the co-worker who mysteriously stops complaining about the boss when he or she is made second-in-command or shift manager or whatever. It's hard to convince people to abandon an ideology that pays them. When you're being directly rewarded, even meagerly, for upholding the status quo, you're not going to go against it.

What the survey shows is that the battle is against mis-guided petty-bourgeois types who think they can go on like this forever. As one of the commentators points out, people don't identify with any party as much as they used to. The ~60/70% of Democrats who are pro-Gitmo/Iraq/etc are out of a small segment of America, but one which frames the left side of the debate you will see or hear in academia or on the 11 o'clock news.

[MarxSchmarx]

Here's the reformist bloviator cenk uygur's rant calling out the supporters of obama on this:

pl_HGEXq_aM

"I've done story after story saying why it's a bad idea ... even so-called 'liberals' approve the strikes 55-35 on US citizens ... It's pathetic man. Unfortunately, so many people play team Democrat versus team Republican... How dare you criticize Obama - don't you know he's our dear and great leader ... you trust him because of that to execute citizens without due process".

Guess a broken clock is right twice a day.

[NewLeft]

53% of liberals don't know what a Guantanamo is.

[godlessfilthycommiedog]

Sure, nobody likes liberals :P but aren't they the best chances of pushing a rational agenda in Congress? I mean, maybe I'm misinformed, but if we can't have CPUSA representatives in Congress, isn't the Democratic Party at least the better of two evils? The Dems, although yes, imperialists and hypocrites, are helping push gay marriage, health care, and other semi-socialist agendas. (Gay marriage is simply a matter of equality, which I'm sure all of us are in favor of :) And nationalized health care is also semi socialist, no? )

[Lucretia]

Pretty much this.

Also, liberalism in the US - though i'm not an expert - seems to be defined by two camps: those who support the Democratic Party and helping it, and those who do not. Not sure if there's a cut off point or if that's entirely correct.

I don't really mind a bit of 'liberal bashing' i.e. bashing the Democratic Party (kinda like putting UK Labour Party supporters who call themselves 'left-wing' in their place), but the trend of calling anybody who isn't an overtly authoritarian Stalinoid tankie a 'liberal' is juvenile. And, given the sorry state of the left, and some of the idiotic positions taken by 'anti-imperialists', triumphalism with regards to the political views of liberals is both mis-guided and profoundly presumptious!

Liberalism in the US consists of those who happily support the Democratic party, and those who angrily support it (because Santorum is soooooooo crazy!!!!!). Hell, even some self-proclaimed socialists here are in favor of voting for the Dems.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yeah, some liberals are hypocrites. You know who were also hypocrites? The many communists who ignored equal rights for gays because being queer was too bourgeois for them. Or the Communists who decry the exploitation of labor by capital but wholeheartedly support the unemancipated exploitation of labor by a supposedly Leftist state. Or the Communists who complain about police brutality in whatever country they live in while cheering it in other countries like Syria.

Shit, some liberals are ignorant, but liberals don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy. A more mature response would be to look at the philosophical assumptions of liberalism and socialism, and try to explain to liberals how socialism is based on superior reasoning. Insulting people with intellectual differences or making blanket statements about them doesn't help to convince people to fight for change.