An interesting article : "Why do Liberals bleed"

[BlueTrain]

My take on this is going to be a little different.

My impression of people here, possibly including myself, is that they aren't exactly conservative but more like going on radical, conservative being a highly elastic term, as is liberal. After all, you don't want conservative gun laws, you want liberal gun laws. Likewise, I don't get the impression that many people here support the police at all, in spite of a lot of them sounding like they'd like to be a policeman. The policeman being an arm of the government. And finally, there is a lot of people here also sound like they think they're victims of something or other.

There's more. When Nixon was president, if you recall, there were references to the "silent majority," and sometimes references to the people in the middle. I don't know if it's good or bad but honestly, I don't think there is anyone in the middle anymore, if there ever was.

And another thing: this business of showing the flag, "supporting the troops," and so on. That's what I call flag waving and amounts to phony patriotism. It costs nothing and does nothing. That American flag decal on the back of your Toyota won't get you into heaven, either. People who support the troops should be buying war bonds, only I'm not sure anyone is selling them. We've still got the ones issued in Richmond.

 

[Al Norris]

A two second Google search, pulls up this, from American Thinker.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Heh...after reading those essays, I'm astonished that militant Berkeley-ites haven't tarred and feathered "Robin", burned out her psychotherapy office, and ridden her out of Berkeley on a rail!!

She's a psychological insurgent!

Holy Death-From-Within!

 

[LouPran]

To be fair she admits in this year old article that she's becoming conservative after a life of liberalism.

Her very first article there was this one ... Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley

So I'm apt to believe my initial impressions. That she was in fact a life long Liberal, that became Conservative. She also has that former smoker syndrome.

As such, for me personally, the article has merit. As I said earlier, I've known others that had the same attitudes and then later on changed them.

I myself am actually an example of this, so I relate somewhat to her view, albeit from a male perspective. I was very anti-gun all through school years. I grew up in a home that never saw a gun. I wasn't so much liberal, as just centrist, which I still am.

I do not believe she's being intellectually dishonest. Just enthusiastic about her new perspective. It's like someone that discovers religion. They want to tell everyone what they see/know now.

 

[Uncle Billy]

Upon reading the catalog of stuff that comes up on taking that link to "American Thinker", it seems to me it ought to be called "Neo-Conservative American Non-thinker", but that's redundant.

... But I'm acquainted with a fair number of L/L/P intellectuals, and they often demonstrate a trend towards looking at a heinous crime and noting that the perpetrator was a victim as well; a disenfranchised and deprived individual who was structurally channeled to behave as s/he did by the repressive societal structure that exists in the U.S. today. They can explain in great detail the extent to which the perpetrator is a product of a series of external stressors, familial disintegration, economic disparity, and societal marginalization, until the discussion reaches a point where the perpetrators behavior is deeply understood to be a logical product of long-standing systemic failure. In fact, taken to it's extreme, the perpetrators behavior was very nearly pre-determined by this historic and synergistic confluence of causation - to a point where the perpetrator is not really responsible for their own behavior at all. The perpetrator is, rather, a product of their environment; and must be viewed as such.

But that isn't to say they weren't guilty for what they did and thus should escape justice and/or society's actions to protect itself from their behavior. You seem to be claiming that the factors you list are only "excuses" that liberals use to decriminalize anti-social behavior rather than relevant "causes" of it, which they are, and that lacks intellectual integrity because research has shown them to be where criminal attitudes begin; the tacit accusation that liberals excuse such behavior from society's actions to bring justice and/or actions protect itself is also a stereotypically uninformed judgment of liberal ideology.

Are you saying that such an analysis is inaccurate and a pile of liberal baloney and so has no credibility? Then as a conservative, where do you suppose criminal behavior comes from- what causes it? If you say "failure of personal integrity" or "a lack of religion" or some such simplicity and leave it at that, you haven't answered the question in any useful way.

As for the OP- She's a liberal no longer (if she ever was one at all, and I'll bet Berkeley was picked because it was thought to be the epicenter of liberalism about 40 years ago), and not much of a psychologist either, which is probably also a fraud. It sounds way too much like it was written by someone of neo-conservative emotions (I'm reluctant to call them "ideas") and is a sham, a fiction whose purpose is to denigrate "liberal" perspectives for the entertainment of non-liberals in a blatant performance of "preaching to the choir". Only those who hate liberals and really don't objectively understand what they stand for would take it seriously.

 

[Buzzcook]

Paradigms change. I've never seen someone go liberal, it may happen but I've never seen it. I've known mild liberals who've gone off the deep (communist) end at liberal colleges. On a few occasions I've seen adults and young adults go conservative, but never the other way around.

Perhaps you should read this then

http://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-David-Brock/dp/0812930991

Following the link Antipas provides gives me more confidence in my belief that this is conservative posing as a former liberal.

Take this gem.

He informed me that I'm getting more attention from liberals, though not the venerating kind. Luckily, he spares me the real ugly missives (the main reason, by the way, that I don't post my email address;

First, what adult, let alone a person in a college town doesn't know how to set up a separate Gmail or yahoo mail account just for the purpose of getting junk or hate mail?
Second that she feels the need to be protected by her editor and trusts him to be her filter is simply unbelievable for anyone with liberal credentials. Fear of hate mail is not something we would expect from a modern adult.
It's not as if she's going to be getting thousands of missives by posting on a small conservative web site.

Then there is this. Emphasis mine.

Most of the nastygrams are in the form of trolls. The concept of "trolling" is news to me, as is everything these days.

Please, she is unfamiliar with trolls and trolling? Is it possible for anyone to have been on the web for any length of time without understanding the concept? I say no. The author is over playing the role of naif a bit much.
This is from someone that supposedly is old enough to remember the Vietnam war.

These quotes are from this article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/an_open_letter_to_liberals.html

After the above quotes she trots out the old chestnut "Bush derangement syndrome".
The author hits conservative talking points with a hammer through out. This less than a year after her come to Jesus moment. Wouldn't one expect that there would be at least a vestige of liberal beliefs remaining? Is it believable that within that short time frame someone would so completely internalize so many rightwing talking points?

I am a liberal and have been all my adult life. Given the information I've gleaned from the various articles I've read, the author and I are about the same age, grew up in the same socio-economic strata, and have about the same level of education.
By the time I was 40 my life experience and education had pretty much confirmed for me that liberalism was the better political philosophy of the options available. Certainly with new information I might (and have) changed my perspective on specific issues. But to abandon the whole framework would be absurd.

Ask yourself if there is one incident that would make you abandon everything you believe.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Buzz,

I would think that that might depend on the foundational beliefs upon which the rest of my belief system depends.

If, for example, I truly believed that mankind was fundamentally good, and that humans were not inherently prone to acting in their own best interest in all things, but instead acted in moral and ethical ways as a near-instinctual response, I might be shattered to discover that this was not so - especially if the price I paid for the discovery was dear.

Doc

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Uncle Billy --

Let us place things in context.

The article posted by the OP noted examples of violent behavior, which were (purportedly) responded to with observations that the perpetrator of the violence was a victim as well.

My comments were in response to a poster who noted "..."liberal" is defined by straw-man positions that have little to do with what most people on the left actually believe."

My statements offered my opinion that, based on having discussed the matter with folks who define themselves as liberals, it has freqently been my observation that they do indeed regard perpetrators as not entirely responsible for their own actions. In this respect, at least, the author's experiences appeared to substantiate my own.

With respect to your comments, then --

"...the tacit accusation that liberals excuse such behavior from society's actions to bring justice and/or actions protect itself is also a stereotypically uninformed judgment of liberal ideology.

Are you saying that such an analysis is inaccurate and a pile of liberal baloney and so has no credibility?"

I will make no claim to understand "liberal ideology". As Buzzcook noted, I am uncertain that anything such as one discrete, monolithic "liberal ideology" may be said to exist.

But I will offer two opinions. First, it is intellectually dishonest to claim an empirically-proven conclusion, when that conclusion is insufficient. To be credible, 'liberal analysis' must explain why the same conditions that "cause criminality" do not do so universally. Why do some individuals from deprived and marginalized environments NOT become criminals?

If 'liberal analysis' is to prove a valid 'cause/effect' relationship between economic & social marginalization => criminal behavior, it must address the matter more thoroughly. I reject a conclusion that any of us are not responsible for the choices we make and our own behavior.

Second, and more to the point, (IMO) such an analysis is irrelevant.

A lesson many learn in maturity is that there are things one may control, and things that lie outside of one's control. In any population bell curve, there will be individuals who fall more than three standard deviations from the mean. Social remedies are unlikely to be perfectly effective in resolving all instances of violent criminal behavior. In the abstract I would support efforts to better the lives of my fellow citizens, however, I would not expect that such efforts would be universally effective.

Therefore, should I suddenly be confronted with a mortal threat, I do not care why my attacker is motivated to behave in such a manner. The fact that he was deprived in childhood is irrelevant, as are any other facts regarding his poor education, his poor job skills, and that fact that he may have made poor life choices for any of a number of reasons.

Why he is assaulting me is irrelevant.

The fact that I am being assaulted, however, may be something that falls within the sphere of things over which I have some control, and I prepare accordingly.

JMHO. YMMV.

Doc
'

 

[LouPran]

I think you're all over thinking this thread and certainly turning it from the intended message which had more to do with losing the victim mentality and taking up personal responsibility.

As I said ... her first story (IF TRUE) Tells the tale of her transformation to becoming a conservative. BUT That isn't what the thread is about. It was about a gun ownership mentality transformation.

I can see though this thread is now destined for close as some continue to opine the legitimacy of her political affiliation.

A fairly wise psychoanalyst once said ... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[elkman06]

Interesting read about a "liberal" conversion or revelation as the case may be.

Being slightly left of center myself, I am one of those confused people to some on the right. Some used to be called Blue Dog Democrat, etc. It's interesting to me since I have a rather far left daughter, in college. I have teased her for sometime about being my little femi-nazi.
All that being said, we got into a conversation a while back about registration, her position being that she would hope for solid registration, playing toward my fatherly instincts about the possible tragedy of her rape and or murder and the inablility to track the perp. My only reply was that the real tragedy would be my failing to train her in situational awareness and her ability to defend herself in all situations. I was rather surprised that this completely made sense to her. She didn't debate it anymore. Interesting too since she is on the university debate squad, travelling nationally and being very exposed the the "Left" more than the average person. She simply shut up. We also were out putting about 300 rounds through her 9mm the next day. All in all, I know the values that she has and where she will be in years to come concerning these issues.
To whomever said it, take a liberal shooting, train them in the value of it, go ahead and play upon their common sense to make your point. It seems to work.
elkman06

 

[markj]

we don't need a left vs. right or a democrat vs. republican or conservative vs. progressive or pink vs. blue or communist vs. patriot or red vs. blue or anything like that. We need to all just be Americans and debate issues and problems as Americans, instead of as some arbitrary side.

I also feel this way. Devisive politics are not what we as a country needs. We are all in this boat so we all need to work together or we sill sink as a country. I keep thinking to win divide your foe, so who is really wanting America to be divided and conqored?

Cant we fire all of them and start over with a new bunch?

 

[Uncle Billy]

First, it is intellectually dishonest to claim an empirically-proven conclusion, when that conclusion is insufficient. To be credible, 'liberal analysis' must explain why the same conditions that "cause criminality" do not do so universally. Why do some individuals from deprived and marginalized environments NOT become criminals?

...and why do some individuals not from deprived and marginalized environments become criminals? If there is no link recognized except an absolute one- such as if all marginalized people were criminals and no non-marginalized people were, which is ludicrous, then nothing is known until all is known, and that, while ideal, is impossible and useless because it stalls the expansion of understanding. Finding a "conclusion" only in absolutes (all or none) when that's not what the situation presents, and ignoring less-than-absolute data is poor reasoning. There is plenty to learn from less-than-absolute data- the discoveries of science come from less than absolute, less than total data.

It isn't invalid to draw expectations from data and experience (empiricism) and rate how strong the expectations are, that's how science is done- it calls its expectations "theories"and virtually every part of our understanding of the mechanics of the universe is expressed as a "theory". For instance, on Earth one reasonably expects a thing to fall if it isn't supported, which supports the theory of Universal Gravitation (Isaac Newton devised that theory but called it a "law", a term modern science finds to be too absolute and so calls it a "theory". Science is very skeptical and cynical about proofs of things and won't jump to conclusions or call things "absolute" without meeting a nearly impossible standard of proof. It's comfortable with "probabilities" of varying certainty which lead to predictions of corresponding certainty).

The only way to disprove that theory is for there to be 2 adjacent masses that don't draw on each other, and that requires putting all the masses in existence next to each other one a time and seeing that there are none among all of them that don't attract each other. That of course is impossible, but there is virtually no expectation of 2 masses not pulling on each other in human-scale events. Nonetheless, absent being able to do that and thus shadowing the certainty of the principle, modern science calls the operating principle a "theory".

It's science that speaks of the link between marginalized circumstances and crime, using the data at hand, and puts forth a theory of there being a connection, which is supported by the human psychological mechanisms that construct attitudes from experiences. The numbers show that deprived and marginalized environments, as you call them, produce more crime than do non-marginalized and resourceful environments- you know, the poor parts of town that you don't go into unless you're CCW which you don't need to do as certainly in other parts of town. The data show that when people are able to better their circumstances they tend to be less criminal; if they grow up in stable, nuclear families with some minimum of resources, they tend to be less anti-social than if they grew up in lesser circumstances.

I reject a conclusion that any of us are not responsible for the choices we make and our own behavior.
...
Why he is assaulting me is irrelevant.

I entirely agree. Why one performs criminal acts, and what those acts are and how society responds to them, are two different things. Read what I wrote again- I wrote "...But that isn't to say they weren't guilty for what they did and thus should escape justice and/or society's actions to protect itself from their behavior. You seem to be claiming that the factors you list are only "excuses" that liberals use to decriminalize anti-social behavior rather than relevant "causes" ...the tacit accusation that liberals excuse such behavior from society's actions to bring justice and/or actions protect itself is also a stereotypically uninformed judgment of liberal ideology."

If you aren't accusing "liberals" of pandering to criminals with your recitation of what you've heard "liberals" say about the sources of crime, then what was your purpose in quoting them?

 

[Doc Intrepid]

"If you aren't accusing "liberals" of pandering to criminals with your recitation of what you've heard "liberals" say about the sources of crime, then what was your purpose in quoting them?"

Forgive my repeating myself:

My comments were in response to a poster who noted "..."liberal" is defined by straw-man positions that have little to do with what most people on the left actually believe."

My statements offered my opinion that, based on having discussed the matter with folks who define themselves as liberals, it has freqently been my observation that they do indeed regard perpetrators as not entirely responsible for their own actions. In this respect, at least, the author's experiences appeared to substantiate my own.

"I entirely agree. Why one performs criminal acts, and what those acts are and how society responds to them, are two different things."

It's gratifying that we agree, fundamentally, on personal responsibility for one's actions forming an important philosophical foundation.

I suspect that if we were having a discussion of this nature over coffee, we might find that we agree more frequently than we disagree. Perhaps not.

Ultimately my opinions are not the focus of the thread. Clearly I find repugnant any response to a victim of a violent attack which is dismissive of the personal indignity or harm the victim suffered, and instead notes that the perpetrator is a victim too.

But the focus of this thread was the essay posted by the OP. My participation in the thread was to contribute my opinion that whether the author of the essay (Robin of Berkeley) is or is not a "liberal" or "recovering liberal", regardless, IMO she did indeed capture in her essay the essence of a paradigm that other self-proclaimed liberals have in fact expressed to me.

Regards,

Doc

 

[BillCA]

Once I read that she'd been assaulted and robbed, her diatribe almost perfectly fit the old adage...

A liberal is a conservative who has not yet been mugged.​

Her message dovetails well with the experiences I've had with "liberal-left" thinkers who have experienced a personal assault.

So did her statement about being in the back-seat and daddy driving and protecting.

I won't relate to you the long story of "T", a young Berkeley student I knew in the 80's. Suffice it to say that the day a young gangsta type punched her in the face and dragged her into the bushes to rape her, formed a cruicial turning point in her thought processes.

It was hard for her to adjust because suddenly the world contained more threats than she could deal with all at once (her opinion). Her ideology today is more that of a libertarian than "conservative". She says she "woke up" to the harsh reality of the world all at once. Now she can't stand the thinking of her former classmates (the few who didn't abandon her).

 

[MTT TL]

Ask yourself if there is one incident that would make you abandon everything you believe.

There are. But I am open minded.

Extremists tend to have made up their minds and have no interest in examination of facts that challenge their world POV. This indicates failure to continue growing as a person. The more extreme the more suspicious they are about things that do not conform to their world POV.

For example, a life long "liberal" who "converts" to "conservatism"? Pee-shaw, obviously a fraud.... she must be outed. Let us build up "evidence" to disprove her as a person rather than examine the beliefs and why they became such. I imagine the same would be true if the opposite occurred.

 

[Uncle Billy]

Clearly I find repugnant any response to a victim of a violent attack which is dismissive of the personal indignity or harm the victim suffered, and instead notes that the perpetrator is a victim too.

If it's your contention that liberals cannot speak of the perpetrator as a victim of his circumstances without concurrently dismissing the harm he has done to the one he victimized, then you've got a lot to learn about liberal thought. That's the sort of thoughtless assumption that's typical of conservative "reasoning".

If, for example, I truly believed that mankind was fundamentally good, and that humans were not inherently prone to acting in their own best interest in all things, but instead acted in moral and ethical ways as a near-instinctual response, I might be shattered to discover that this was not so - especially if the price I paid for the discovery was dear.

That so oversimplifies and misunderstands liberal thought that it's clear there's nearly a total absence of understanding it.

But it's typical of conservative ideologues to be 100% positive they know what liberals think and only about 0.02% correct. The entire theme of the OP's essay is flawed with that assumption, which clearly shows what "she" wrote to be a conservative fabrication because it misunderstands a true liberal's perspectives. But other conservatives buy it as truth because they are equally out to lunch about the nature of liberal thought and ideology, and how a liberal would handle having been mugged, beginning with the certainty that they wouldn't abandon ALL of their liberal values. They might decide to arm themselves in their own defense, which has happened much, much more often than conservatives could be comfortable with, and not always requiring a mugging first. You'll find a large number of such people here on this forum- the debate about the NRA's evangelical neo-conservative identity and how that misrepresents a large and growing number of gun enthusiasts, the poll on whether Fox Network is fair and unbalanced, and other threads here indicate a lot more participants with liberal values than the conservatives here would expect, and it's clear they don't like it.

If you think that "a liberal is a conservative who has not yet been mugged", you've way overestimated the effects and made a hopeful but wholly inaccurate assessment of the result of being mugged. It's reasonable to suggest that "an anti-gun perspective is really a pro-self-defense perspective that hasn't been mugged", but a broader change in attitudes than that is a hopeful conservative fantasy. As Buzz wrote, "...Certainly with new information I might (and have) changed my perspective on specific issues. But to abandon the whole framework would be absurd. Ask yourself if there is one incident that would make you abandon everything you believe." Not likely, conservatism is totally without any appeal that would induce a liberal to convert to its principles and prejudices.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Lets not take this so personal...

"If it's your contention that liberals cannot speak of the perpetrator as a victim of his circumstances without concurrently dismissing the harm he has done to the one he victimized, then you've got a lot to learn about liberal thought. That's the sort of thoughtless assumption that's typical of conservative "reasoning".

Uncle Billy,

Let us focus for a moment -- I personally am not contending anything. I am responding to a statement in the essay posted by the OP, the 13th paragraph from the top, where the author (Robin of Berkeley) writes:

"Witness the response of a left wing friend, Judy, when I told her I was mugged. She said, and I quote, "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too." (Maybe it's a good thing I wasn't armed back then.)"

It would appear, unless the entire essay is nothing but someone's fantasy, that a "left wing friend" who lives in Berkeley manifested a disregard for the victim of a mugging, and simultaneously expressed a belief that the perpetrator was a victim as well.

I contend absolutely nothing about "liberal thought" as a result of this episode (assuming it occurred). It is my opinion, however, that that's a pretty cold response for a "friend".

I personally would find such a response "repugnant" because it seemingly transfers personal responsibility for the harm caused from the person who violently assaulted the author to some ambiguous, vague 'other factors'.

Candidly I do not consider my response to be either 'conservative' or 'liberal'. It would seem to me that a more friendly response would have been to comfort the person who was bleeding, commiserate with them, and support any acts they might take to regain a feeling of personal power after having been violated...but that's just my definition of "friendship".

It is certainly true that studies link disadvantaged backgrounds and crime, no doubt, but I suspect - based on your posts above - we would agree that just because a criminal's background is disadvantaged, this does not excuse the fact that the criminal chose to commit a violent crime. (But I could be reading into your posts here...please let me know if I'm mistaken.)

"...it's typical of conservative ideologues to be 100% positive they know what liberals think and only about 0.02% correct. The entire theme of the OP's essay is flawed with that assumption, which clearly shows what "she" wrote to be a conservative fabrication because it misunderstands a true liberal's perspectives."

Because, as you may have guessed, I am not a true liberal, it is entirely possible that I misunderstand a true liberal's perspectives. (My wife reminds me frequently of the depth and breadth of the many issues I misunderstand.)

If Robin of Berkeley's essay, posted by the OP, is flawed by a similar misunderstanding, I confess it escapes me. I would be grateful if you would provide me with a true liberal's perspective (within the limitations of this medium, of course - I understand we're talking thumbnail sketches).

What are a true liberal's perspectives with regard to violent criminals, victims of violent crime, and society?

 

[Uncle Billy]

The simplest answer to all of this is to realize the OP essay is an obvious and oversimplified fabrication by a conservative author who has tried to write of the conversion of someone with liberal ideologies (and by implication ALL liberals) to one of conservative ideologies as the result of one negative experience and the dialogue of one thoughtless liberal (and by implication ALL liberals) using inaccurate conservative stereotypes of liberals, a clear misunderstanding of the passion with which representative liberals hold their views, the dumb assumption that everyone with liberal ideologies is concurrently anti-gun and anti-gun rights, and that changing one's mind on one issue from a typical stereotypical liberal slant to a stereotypical conservative one infers similarly changing their views on all issues and would include simplistic conservative derision and crude oversimplification and characterization of "the Left".

Thus this fairy tale is unrealistic, based on a consummate misunderstanding of liberal thought and those who hold with it, and representative only as a catalog of how inaccurately this conservative author understands those he obviously hates.

Any conservatives who believe this to be an accurate representation of the juxtaposition of "liberal" and "conservative" is equally uninformed and deluded. It makes a pleasing story for those of conservative ideologies anyway, because it fits with all their misconceptions and misunderstandings and paints a derisive, dismissive picture of "the Left" that, while amusing to "the Right" shows them to be out to lunch about their political and social opposites.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Thus this fairy tale is unrealistic, based on a consummate misunderstanding of liberal thought and those who hold with it, and representative only as a catalog of how inaccurately this conservative author understands those he obviously hates.

Interesting analysis, but I think he is a she.

 

[MTT TL]

The simplest answer to all of this is to realize the OP essay is an obvious and oversimplified fabrication by a conservative author who has tried to write of the conversion of someone with liberal ideologies (and by implication ALL liberals) to one of conservative ideologies as the result of one negative experience and the dialogue of one thoughtless liberal (and by implication ALL liberals) using inaccurate conservative stereotypes of liberals, a clear misunderstanding of the passion with which representative liberals hold their views, the dumb assumption that everyone with liberal ideologies is concurrently anti-gun and anti-gun rights, and that changing one's mind on one issue from a typical stereotypical liberal slant to a stereotypical conservative one infers similarly changing their views on all issues and would include simplistic conservative derision and crude oversimplification and characterization of "the Left".

You would also have to disprove the existence of Ted Turner and John Paul Stevens. Watching TBS and reading some of JJPS rulings kind of define simplistic liberal ideologies, as well as a crude oversimplification of the right.