Thoughts on the damaging effects of liberal points of views

Here’s a thought I had:

Recently, I have repetitively remarked that liberal points of views are damaging to society.  It seems, at least to me, that many social problems nowadays can be traced to liberal points of views and its effects.  It has also caused many political and legal problems.  In fact, much of the absurdity of modern law can often be traced to liberal thinking.  In my opinion, it is undermining society in general.  This is not to say that it is all bad . . . it means well.  It does have some good qualities, and has done some good, but it has developed a very destructive side over the years.

The liberal point of view is an attitude or point of view about things, a particular stance.  To me, it is not necessarily “liberalism” as a political system, though that originates from this point of view.  A person can take liberal points of view without being a “liberalist”.  Often, it’s not uncommon for a person to take a liberal point of view only toward specific subjects.  Other people may go so far as to take the liberal point of view toward everything, almost making a religion out of it.  Most certainly, the later group have reflected some of the worst sides of the liberal point of view and it is in this group that most of the damage has been done.  

The liberal point of view, at least as I see it, has a very strong quality of “our great cause is everything (and lets turn a blind eye to everything else)”.  There is a complete lack, it seems, of ‘getting the whole picture’ which seems very dominant with this point of view.  It’s as if it is near-sided.  In addition, it is known for glorifying a “cause” and, as a result of this, it creates a point of view that is overly, almost obsessively, idealistic to this cause (as opposed to ‘realistic’).  The emphasis on the “cause” often helps the cause, which may do some good, but often at the expense of something else.  Its narrow point of view tends to neglect other things in life which causes an undermining of these things.  A good example is how many liberally minded make a single issue a determining factor in who they vote for, such as abortion, as if that is the only thing there is in the world and the only issue there is.

In the beginning, the liberal point of view was just a point of view, an attitude that looked at things a little bit differently.  It had origins in Christianity, the Middle Class, and Humanism which gave it a quality of being “humane” or concerned about the human person.  It’s a point of view that ‘grew up’ alongside many social and historic problems.  Because of this, its viewpoints tended to be a reaction to these problems.  This is why it tends to be a point of view that tries to “correct” the problems of current issues, and as if “reminds” us to be “humane”.  As a result of this stance, it developed a ‘secondary philosophy’ quality, as its point of views are always in relation to something else (usually a problem).  It is also why it tends to take the point of view that it offers the ‘solution’, often for the high cause of being “humane” or something similar.

In the 1800’s it started to seep into government where it made many changes, which were often good and beneficial.  But it wasn’t really til the cold war (about the 1970’s, especially) that it became increasingly associated with politics, law, and society.  In fact, the conditions of the cold war gave it a power and legitimacy that it never had before, all in the cause of ‘freedom and democracy’.  This new power allowed it to “force” its point of view and to infiltrate government and law and society like a disease.  In effect, the cause of ‘freedom and democracy’ turned the liberal point of view from a “point of view” to a political/legal “theory” with power. When it made this jump the liberal point of view, in my opinion, went beyond its capabilities.  This is because the liberal point of view is not a “theory” that has the substance to carry the weight of a political or legal theory.  Its whole basis of existence is as a ‘secondary philosophy’, standing in relation to something else.  It is not an actual independent political or legal theory.  We must also remember that it took an unusual historic event to give it any real power at all (the threat of nuclear annihilation!) and, in a way, it received an ‘abnormal’ justification as a result of this ‘abnormal’ condition.  In that sense, it developed a ‘pretend authority’ that has made it into something like a “pseudo-political/legal theory”.  To this day, liberally minded people conjure up ‘cold war justifications’ (ideas and ideals coming from the cold war) to justify and give itself authority . . . peace, love, caring for environment, civil rights, etc., etc.  It gives it the illusion that it is more than it is . . . but the fact is that it still remains a ‘secondary philosophy’ with a limited viewpoint of things that STILL are not sufficient or broad enough in its scope.  What it often does with this new ‘pretend authority’ is sort of like trying to make the idea of “we must love another” into an ‘official’ political/legal theory.  If we did that then we would have to distort human nature in an attempt to make everyone “love” one another, creating pseudo-crimes and silly laws (which the liberal-point-of-view-as-politics-and-law has already done to some extent!).  It all sounds good but its not practical or realistic.

Originally, as a point of view, the liberal point of view was helpful and made many good benefits.  In fact, I feel that the liberal point of view is best when it is a point of view, and certainly not as a political/legal theory.  When it’s used as a political/legal theory its failures become apparent, such as:

  • It is blindly idealistic.  They don’t live in ‘reality’ but in an almost fantasized world of what they would like things to be.  As a result, everything is compared to this fantasy world.  This tends to make the whole point of view somewhat unrealistic.  Its like trying to make a common unpleasant human emotion, such as “hate”, into a crime because it doesn’t fit their fantasized world.
  • Its not practical and realistic.  They often want unreasonable things.
  • It tends to think it is above nature, often denying the natural order.  They often act as if the whole world should change to their point of view.  I’ve seen many acts of denial of nature by people who take this point of view.  I’ve even seen some liberally minded people, for example, say that things such as a lion killing a gazelle is “bad” or a shark killing a seal is “not right”.
  • It has a narrow conception of things.  It tends to look at things from a single angle, seldom putting forth effort to see other points of view.  Most liberally minded people, in my experience, never consider other points of view.
  • It displays little wisdom.  There is little knowledge of the ways of the world and what it takes to live in it. 
  • It does not foresee the consequences of its decisions.  They typically only think about the effects of what it wants to do at the moment.  There is usually very little consideration for the effects of its decisions and what it will do. 
  • It tends to be concerned only about immediate concerns.  Often, they only care for the issue they are looking at, as if it is the only thing in the world.
  • It tends to be petty-whim based.  Liberally minded people tend to have a reputation for being concerned about trivialities and petty concerns.  Often, their stance on things is based on small details.
  • It tends to be self-righteous.  They seem to think that they are the voice of god or some good that makes whatever they say automatically right.  For this reason, they often get wound up with some ‘high cause’. 
  • The liberal point of view often has a quality of “forcing” its point.  Though they may condemn tyranny, it seems that many liberal-based principles are tyrannical . . . just look at the many stupid liberally oriented laws that are forced on us! 
  • They often think that the answer to most problems is change, as if that will solve everything.  It often seems to worship change, as if it is a god that will help us all.  The problem is that change is often nothing but a form of destruction and undermining.  In fact, I’ve seen some that are so maniacal about change that this is all they want . . . change this! . . . change that!  This can go to the point that it becomes blind, creating a condition a point of view of wanting blind endless change.
  • It tends to destroy things but does not create things to replace what it destroyed.  I’ve seen few liberally minded people who create things.  They’ll destroy the family unit, for example, but offer nothing in its place.  If they do offer something it’s usually an ‘ideal’, seldom anything realistic or solid.
  • It tends to seek to destroy anything that irritates them or that they don’t like.  Whether its good or bad, things they don’t like or fit into their views are often targets for their condemnation.
  • It tends to be reactionary.  Many of its actions are often a reaction to some thing, often a current crisis.  This is why I consider it a ‘secondary philosophy’, as its reacting to something else.
  • It tends to be obsessive about certain issues and things.  This can be done to the point of ridiculousness.  Some liberally minded people are obsessed with certain issues, practically making a religion out of it (such as abortion or the environment).
  • The liberal point of view does not stand on its own but only in respect to something else.  It as if needs some other condition in order to survive.  Often, all it does is criticize and condemn or seek to change another point of view.  This is another reason why its a “secondary philosophy”.
  • It tends to use and manipulate things to get their way.  They have greatly distorted politics and law as a result, all with the intent of using it to get its way.  This further shows that it is a ‘secondary philosophy’, as it continually uses the means of something else to get its way.
  • They have a history of distorting society and law in the name of their cause.  Another example of how the cause is everything and how they don’t see the consequences of what they do.
  • It tends to have no self-discipline.  Seldom does its solution entail change of oneself (self-discipline) but in condemning or changing something else.
  • It tends to see threats everywhere.  As a result, it often has a paranoid quality.  In fact, “fear” seems to run rampant in the liberal point of view. 
  • It tends to moan about things.  With some people, the liberal point of view seems nothing but an avenue of moaning and groaning in life.

These are attitudes that are not conducive to the functioning of politics, law, or society.  This is part of the reason why, as a political/legal theory, it is undermining and destructive.  In many ways, the problem of the liberal point of view is that it has been taken too seriously and made out more than it is. 

This entry was posted in Government and politics, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, The U.S. and American society and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s