Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Are ‘Modern Liberals’ fit to be free?

Posted by DNW on 2014/05/08


We’ve mooted this issue before in the course of some heated exchanges on the old “Commonsense Political Thought” blog.

So, it’s not a new question, but it remains one worth considering on its own: Are political progressives, those human biological expressions we term modern liberals, in some way radically unsuited for life in the system of political liberty once bequeathed to us by our ancestors? Are they, modern liberals, in some ways and on average congenitally defective, or maybe “just fundamentally different” with regard to the possession of the (“lower case”) kind of self-governance and self-reliance capacity which presumptively (according to our Founders’ theories) makes participation in Self Government in a (“Upper Case”) political sense, a workable proposition?

Are modern-liberal hedonic utilitarianism and values nihilism even, say, the mere result of biological dispositions or attributes, rather than intellectually arrived at conclusions?

Perhaps, as Hoagie suggested the other day, while he was exasperatedly engaging in a bit of unapologetic invective, modern liberals really are, in a statistically meaningful sense, a distinct sub-population within this polity: a politically co-existing but distinguishable population of humans who have certain kinds of distinct behavioral or psychological or even morphological traits (or deficits) which make life in a constitutional polity – a limited republic – very unpleasant, un-meaningful, and even frightening for them.

The answer is probably unfolding before our very eyes.

“Men who are strong are more likely to take a right-wing stance, while weaker men support the welfare state, researchers claim.” Daily Mail | UPDATED: 19:39 EST, 16 May 2013

Given Their Manifest Natures, that is to say the somatic, the morphological and psychological manifestation that constitutes “them”, perhaps a classically liberal constitutional polity suitable for self-directing individuals just doesn’t fit with what they are capable of or able to appreciate in life.

The Depressive and Anxious Liberal

Perhaps the most revealing difference is the enhanced tendency that Liberals have for depressive and anxious disorders. We stumbled onto this phenomenon in our Spring 2005 survey, and filled in some of the details in our Summer 2005 survey.

Liberals report higher rates of major depression, mild depression, bipolar disorder, agoraphobia, OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and general anxiety. This is true for both males and females. Liberals also report higher stress levels and lower confidence levels (both soon to be reported).

Liberals are also much more likely to use anxiolytics and antidepressents. Liberals report more difficulty in maintaining attention during conversations. Liberals on average spend more time in “negative” emotional states. By “negative”, we mean mental states that seem to be contrary to their own self-interest. They also report lower rates of involvement in pair-bond relationships. Neuropolitics.org Ezine February 2006

Now we might take this too far, and certainly racists in the past have. They did so by imagining for example, that they could discern an invariable and universal gene link between somatic expressions and character traits which manifest as morally evaluable behavior.

But that seems to me to be a rather different proposition than to notice that, say, feminized males and masculinized females for instance, tend to identify as political progressives; whereas conservatives are more strongly sexually dimorphic.

Multiple research disciplines have found evidence that our male ancestors used physical aggression to compete for status. The evidence shows how this competition led to the evolution of numerous physical and psychological sex differences. Sell and team’s review highlights the sheer number of physical and mental features that show evidence of special design for physical aggression in men, compared to women. These features include abilities to dissipate heat, perceive and respond rapidly to threats, estimate the trajectory of thrown objects, resist blunt-force trauma and accurately intercept objects.
While fighting ability was undoubtedly essential when man was a hunter-gatherer, how important and influential is it today? According to Sell and colleagues’ work, man’s fighting ability is still a major influence on his attitudes and behavioral responses. Springer Select New York / Heidelberg, 10 April 2012 in “Why are action stars more likely to be Republican?”

Just how that actually works itself out in detail, is another matter.

For example, whether people who are marginalized or who feel marginalized for whatever reason tend to be more politically “liberal” on what are pretty obvious socially motivating grounds, or, whether the physical phenomenon or trait itself is what prompts a “liberal” social attitude, is a question I don’t pretend to have an answer to.

Maybe it is a mixture of both … first, congenitally divergent interests among people who find themselves associating in a political arrangement with strongly divergent others, and second, a particular strategy for jockeying for place, and status, and for the distribution of economic spoils, within that polity.

But the difference seems to researchers to be as plain as the nose on your face:

” … when it comes to female politicians, perhaps you can judge a book by its cover, suggest two UCLA researchers who looked at facial features and political stances in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record,” said lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.

The researchers also found the opposite to be true: Female politicians with less stereotypically feminine facial features were more likely to be Democrats, and the more liberal their voting record, the greater the distance the politician’s appearance strayed from stereotypical gender norms.

In fact, the relationship is so strong that politically uninformed undergraduates were able to determine the political affiliation of the representatives with an overall accuracy rate that exceeded chance, and the accuracy of those predications increased in direct relation to the lawmaker’s proximity to feminine norms. Science Daily
September 27, 2012

Nonetheless, whatever the details, I think we see an interesting phenomenon developing in the United States, as the progressive programmatic invariably passes beyond the achievement of transactional dominance in the public realm, and relentlessly seeks to percolate all the way down to every last private relation and interpersonal transaction.

Who, or whatever these people are, it does not appear they are prepared to recognize any limits.

Now, yes, admittedly, this totalizing impulse on the part of leftism is historically well-known. It even follows from an explicit tenet of Marxist theory: base and superstructure, which rejects the realms of civil society and political society as legitimately distinct from each other – viewing such a distinction as creating a disjunction or a break in the life of the whole man.

It – classical political theory – does this they [Marx] claim[s] by formally granting man the status of a political peer or “citizen” wherein he is entitled to experience the impartial operation of the public law and to participate in public affairs, but nonetheless remains liable to the contempt of and exclusion from others within the private realm. This possibility results from allowing those potentially excluding others [through the concepts of the private family and property, and through other forms of private relations] a socially unregulated access to the material world, and to “selfishly” benefit from their “unearned personal powers”; which, in the end, gives these persons an opportunity to advantage and distance themselves from those whom they may view as unappealing or unworthy of self-sacrificial solidarity, for whatever reason or reasons.

Thus man’s nature, is itself a problem to be socially addressed through social, and other, engineering. Eventually, you may wind up with this:

“So that just as. to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a -temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) seizure of control of human fertility – the new population biology as well as all the social institutions of child-bearing and child-rearing. And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality Freud’s ‘polymorphous perversity’ – would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would born to both sexes equally, or independently of. either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally. The division of labour would be ended by the elimination of labour altogether (through cybernetics). The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.” Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex, http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm

With then, the quote above, we have obviously passed beyond the simple question of whether “modern liberals, [are] in some way unsuited for life in the system of political liberty” to one of whether they are inevitably aiming toward another kind existence altogether. At which point the question of a shared polity becomes perhaps, the least of the questions requiring our attention.

But even the original question seems unlikely to survive as a “moral” question, if the research continues toward the conclusions which it at present seems pointing.

Ironically, the issue may have been most recently framed along these lines by political progressives themselves when they announced that “The personal is the political”

Yes, well, ideology and revolutionary rhetoric aside, we may be on the verge of finding out just how personal the political really is.

12 Responses to “Are ‘Modern Liberals’ fit to be free?”

  1. AOTC said

    Im still lurking. However I’m lurkimg from hot sunny Florida. Disney,. no less! Having a great vacation with my family. . Kids having a blast. 🙂

    Like

  2. Yorkshire said

    To AOTC: Just there on a full package from Apr 6th to the 12th. The whole family, eight of us went and stayed at the Animal Kingdom Lodge. First time I flew since the Legectomy.

    Like

  3. Yorkshire said

    On a Blog Site in the LinkedIn Venue of Networking in “Construction Business Training” this popped up

    An Open discussion on future construction industry objective under regulation
    Bruce KellarConstruction Management, Project PM and Supervision, Claims, Owners Representation, Open to New OpportunityTop Contributor

    Let us embark. I am trying to get this thing to post linkedin.com
    In the not so recent past the world embarked on an effort to bring societies into a uniform and more cohesive posture to provide unity and encourage discussion rather than war. Hence the United Nations was born. In that framework came groups of planners each of whom had the task to organize for implementation various structures of society. That will be our agenda. AGENDA 21

    Richard Seufert
    Agenda 21 is UN Control. Run from it.

    Bruce Kellar responded

    Richard,
    While you are exactly right about the UN control we are now quite incapable of running from it my friend.

    Almost every major municipality being influenced by federal policy has revamped their policies to incorporate Agenda 21. It has overtaken the entire education system and is permeating our agriculture industry as well as our constitutional freedoms. The teachers who teach our children have fallen under the spell that began to take hold in the sixties.

    I never understood what happened in the sixties. When I returned from Vietnam the world was in total turmoil and I had been left behind for many reasons. It wasn’t until I read the mandate quite by accident that I understood finally what happened, is still happening and will continue to happen at an ever increasing rate.

    Common Core education would be the one that was mentioned in all our spheres of information today. The Muslim religion would be a major part of the message we are being indoctrinated with. We should be standing on the rooftops to announce this takeover but folks are so apathetic they wont listen because it requires them to sacrifice a few minutes everyday and more importantly to oppose what is happening in our government.

    The entire agenda is laid out for anyone or everyone to read but instead they choose out of ignorance to declare that we who have read and understood are conspiracy theorists bent on anarchy which is contrary to everything I believe.

    This could be a lively discussion group if all were not so ignorant in the face of this destruction to our nation and freedom.

    Kudos to you for your cognizance.

    Here is the site with a few know nothings on Agenda 21
    https://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&item=5867354133782089729&type=member&gid=4901443&trk=eml-b2_anet_digest-null-8-null&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=1-kCT7NfqJXSc1

    I did respond to this, but it’s “under Review” and it outlined the Progressive Movement from Wilson to BO, The FIAT money producing Federale Reserve, and inflation as a tactic of the Federale Reserve. When and if it is posted, I will post it here.

    Like

  4. a said

    York, we have 17 here for the week. Its been great fun. This vacation was supposed to happen last November. Mr AOTC was in the hospital several times and we had to scrap those plans. It has been especially great to be here considering the circumstances of that last planned trip. We never even think to complain about lines or heat. Awesome.

    Like

  5. […] Truth Before Dishonor, DNW asks if modern liberals are fit to be free. Your Editor wonders if it’s the right question, given […]

    Like

  6. Yorkshire said

    They are not fit to be Free or Govern. The Modern Liberal is akin to a Crime Syndication.

    Like

  7. Yorkshire said

    Oh, A Over & Under – Have a good time.

    Like

  8. Yorkshire said

    How to Ease the Crushing Costs of Federal Regulations

    “You can look at the federal budget and see what we spend. There is nothing like that with respect to regulations. I tabulate the annual cost of regulation to be about $1.8 Trillion. Any regulation that is expected to cost over $100 million is supposed to get a cost-benefit analysis. Obama added $20 billion in new regulatory costs just last year. Every year there are over 3,500 new rules that come out of the federal government. Do you know how many rules got a cost-benefit analysis last year? Fourteen!”

    more here, but the bottom line cost of regulations is $1,800,000,000,000.00

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2014/05/02/how-to-ease-the-crushing-costs-of-federal-regulations/

    Like

  9. Yorkshire said

    Why we’re in the Mess We’re In:

    What happened in 1964, actually 1913 was the beginning of the end. 1913 introduced us to constant inflation and Fiat Money through the Federal Reserve. Think of your spending power 30 years ago to today and see where you are. I laugh (sarcasticly) at myself when I think that in 1974 I bought my house needing 25% down and had a 9.75% mortgage at $200/mo for 30 years on a house that cost $30K. I could make the payments with little leftover every month. At the end it was spending spare change or a cheap auto loan. I could sell the house for maybe $150K+ but there is no more there when we bought it. And some poor slob will be hit with a monster mortgage. Money today has no more buying power, just there is more of it.

    Now in 1964, LBJ started his guns and butter program. He fought two disparit wars at the same time, Viet-Nam and Poverty. Several Trillion Dollars later, it brought us debt, a useless war Kennedy didn’t want, a cynical society and still the same amount of poverty.

    Now what to notice is Wilson was our first Progressive, brought us the Federal Reserve, and the issue of constant inflation. Must add our second Progressive was FDR and we bought another war, then the next Progressive, LBJ brought us inflation, spending, deficits and War, even the Bush’s had progressive tendancies and war, and now BO, with hidden inflation, Progressism, poverty and walking or running to war.

    Now why is all this important? With massive amounts of spending, comes with Regulations. Right now we spend Billions complying with regulations, with regulations comes the controllers, (a w** dream for progressives). And in the end, Progressive Controllers are in constant need of controllees (us). Remember it wa Progressives giving us the UN. Wilson tried it first with the League of Nations. WW2 brought about the UN with the controlling countries (winners of WW2) with the underground Progressives. 1964 brought us Viet-Nam, and Anti-War Effort (run by Progressives, think Bill Ayers) and a gradual march to control everything. I think we may be at or over the tipping point. And now Agenda 21 shows up which is the ultimate in world wide control.

    And one other thing, the US almost (but probably will) lost control of the internet. Think of Agenda 21 and the Chinese controlling the internet?

    And Let Us Not Forget it was Wilson who gave us the Regressive Income Tax Sytem where everyone pays an unfair share.

    Like

  10. Hoagie said

    DNW asks: “Are ‘Modern Liberals’ fit to be free?”

    Well, if you believe as I do, that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, then the answer must be , yes. Our problem is the leftists do not believe this philosophy and would not be so willing as we to believe we Conservatives have that right. It must be almost impossible for atheists and agnostics to understand let alone believe in a political, cultural and social premise which created America from the seeds of the Christian faith and based in the Protestant ethic of the Reformation. It was said that America was created for a “moral” people unfortunately there is nothing moral about modern leftism.

    That is one reason gay marriage was so forcefully and unrepentantly massaged into the American psyche. The left just calls it Marriage, but we know it as Holy Matrimony and a Christian Sacrament. They therefore needed to remove the institution from the dominion of the Church and place it into the hands of the state in order to bastardize the entire concept.

    This is also they call the act of abortion “choice”. Again, they cannot justify the killing of children so they call them fetuses. All three of these are immoral acts but the left takes the morality out and places the power into the hands of the state. They then sit back and declare it “settled law”. As if, some how bad laws cannot be undone.

    The left employs a giant group of rich movie stars, writers, journalists, pundits, educators, crony capitalists and most importantly lawyers, judges and politicians. They bin turn pass legislation and regulation and turn it over to their minions of bureaucrats to administer. We do not elect bureaucrats and have now say in how they enforce laws. You know, like the IRS laws, or the NSA, laws and now the ACA laws. The bureaucrats dictate and we must obey. And the “legislators” get a pass because nobody ever gets blamed for the screw-ups.

    Now all these rich elites on the left make tons of money in their elite little fiefdoms. And at the bottom are the “poor” who these elites pay tax money to for voting for them. In the middle are We the People. The middle class guy trying to earn a living while being screwed by taxes, regulations and bureaucracy created and administered by the left. Then, and here’s the beauty part of it, these same elite leftists complain about the “income inequality” they and their taxes and regulations and entitlements caused and get to blame it on us. Gotta love these insidious, immoral bastards.

    But all men deserve to be free. Perhaps I need to rethink whether or not some are “fit”. But if they’re not fit to be free then they are not fit to be president, or congressmen, or supreme court justices. Because not being fit to me means not being moral. And not being moral means not to be trusted. After all, what would America look like if the president and congress and the secretary of state or the attorney general or the IRS or the veterans administration was no more than a bunch of immoral, unfit liars?

    Like

  11. DNW said

    Hoagie said
    2014/05/16 at 21:54 e

    DNW asks: “Are ‘Modern Liberals’ fit to be free?”

    Well, if you believe as I do, that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, then the answer must be , yes. Our problem is the leftists do not believe this philosophy and would not be so willing as we to believe we Conservatives have that right. It must be almost impossible for atheists and agnostics to understand let alone believe in a political, cultural and social premise which created America from the seeds of the Christian faith and based in the Protestant ethic of the Reformation. It was said that America was created for a “moral” people unfortunately there is nothing moral about modern leftism. ….

    … all men deserve to be free. Perhaps I need to rethink whether or not some are “fit”. But if they’re not fit to be free then they are not fit to be president, or congressmen, or supreme court justices. Because not being fit to me means not being moral. And not being moral means not to be trusted. After all, what would America look like if the president and congress and the secretary of state or the attorney general or the IRS or the veterans administration was no more than a bunch of immoral, unfit liars?

    “After all, what would America look like if the president and congress and the secretary of state or the attorney general or the IRS or the veterans administration was no more than a bunch of immoral, unfit liars?”

    You deliberately threw that question right across the middle of the plate about thigh high, didn’t you … LOL… Call it “rhetorical”, then.

    Yeah, after a moment it becomes clear that I don’t mean to ask if modern liberals are deserving of freedom, but rather whether they are constitutionally [ In the sense your grandmother might have used when she said: ‘Old Joe had a strong constitution’] well adapted to life in a polity where their ability to own property is not impaired, but their ability to attach themselves to unwilling others, is.

    I think it is clear enough that they have come to the point where they, or many of them, freely admit that they “don’t want that much liberty”; as one of them stated regarding a choice between self-directive freedom on one hand and the fascism that is the Obamacare individual mandate on the other.

    I’ve been doing quite a bit of research, or better collecting, of documents related to the passage of Social Security act. Again. I’m even going to have to start up an old computer and make sure that the documents that seem no longer currently available online can be added to my new files. That is just in case I ever decide to do a short post on this topic which emphasizes the fascistic underpinnings and ideology that motivated many of those most ardently pushing for and trying to shape the form of the act.

    In fact, I’ve had to engage in some rather atypical or roundabout means of accessing files that are still on servers, but apparently not directly accessible through the systems home and title pages and links. Had to do some keyword Googling based on past knowledge of key names and documents, and then kind of slide in sideways, using some still working internal links, and trying out the changing of html address page numbers and the like. Kind of odd.

    But, I think that you don’t really have to go into the National Archives chasing unpublished internal reports on social insurance in Mussolini’s Italy or Stalin’s Russia, or through some side door of the SS Administration servers to access other historical docs, in order to state without fear of contradiction that a central element of many pushing for the act was to institute and foster in the United States a system of social solidarity and a stance of assumed interdependence: and not merely, to provide vulnerable individuals with a government backed means of ensuring their own security.

    The authors of the act sold it as “insurance” in order to get it passed. But as we all know, they well knew the difference between actuarial insurance and “social insurance”, or even government backed accounts and social insurance, but hoped through the use of intentionally misleading propaganda to slide that difference past skeptical Americans by making reference to “their accounts”, and so forth: just as if you had a real account, and just as if you actually had an enforceable legal claim to “your money”. That would be a claim that was not completely and absolutely subject to the whims of Congress; which it in fact is.

    Right from the start then, it was driven by a type of person who consciously and deliberately sold citizens “security” through false premisses as the means of insinuating a left-fascist society shaping program into the American body politic.

    That of course, is what left-wing vermin does, and does perhaps, because that is what it is.

    As I have said before, it appears that: A Democrat is to freedom, as a dog is to a fiddle. And that is part of what I mean to explore when I ask if modern liberals are fit(ted) to be free.

    Like you, as far as I am concerned, the narrow-shouldered, glabrous-armed, neurotic, modern-liberal-sons-of-bitches are perfectly welcome to all the self-reliance, and self-direction, and self-governance, and voluntary and non-compulsory association they can stand. The trouble for us all is, that it seems they cannot stand enough to successfully live in a constitutional polity …

    Like

  12. AOTC said

    There is something unoriginal about the modern liberal “mind” or worldview . That would explain why it has no use for that which is individual or unique.

    When i say “unoriginal” I mean inauthentic, or “other “

    Like

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: