Liberal: Dumb Fool or Intelligent-Minded Person?

[Brewdomia]

I've heard many times by conservative commentators constant argument against liberals, who they consider buffons. As an Centrist Democrat, I think it is unfair, but then again i haven't fully seen liberal commentating either? I want see what you guys think, both arguments are welcome.

[Conserative Morality]

Liberals are people with a certain political viewpoint. Intelligence is irrelevant to politics.

[L3 Communications]

Always in moderation.

[Grays Harbor]

Liberals are people with a certain political viewpoint. Intelligence is irrelevant to politics.

is intelligence even included in politics?

[Conserative Morality]

is intelligence even included in politics?

Intelligence has no impact on politics, and political views. Education can be argued as such, but it has the problem of correlation /=/ causation.

[Filafia]

Liberals are people with a certain political viewpoint. Intelligence is irrelevant to politics.

is intelligence even included in politics?

Not if you're running for office.

[Lizardiar]

Liberals are people with a certain political viewpoint. Intelligence is irrelevant to politics.

I mean look at Bush and Buchanan. They were Presidents for (Whatever you swear by's) sake!

[SaintB]

Liberals are people with a certain political viewpoint. Intelligence is irrelevant to politics.

is intelligence even included in politics?

Not at the highest levels.

See, many conservatives call more liberal people baffoons because they have no actual reasoning for how they want things to run so they simply insult the opposition hoping nobody questions their motives.

[Malibus]

Liberals are people with a certain political viewpoint. Intelligence is irrelevant to politics.

is intelligence even included in politics?

Not at the highest levels.

See, many conservatives call more liberal people baffoons because they have no actual reasoning for how they want things to run so they simply insult the opposition hoping nobody questions their motives.

Apply it equally. Liberals do the same thing to conservatives, especially here in the US.

Conservative to Liberal: "Tax and Spend Socialist!"
Liberal to Conservative: "Redneck Racist!"
etc., etc., etc.

It's not just one side who calls the other names, so don't make it appear as such.

[SaintB]

is intelligence even included in politics?

Not at the highest levels.

See, many conservatives call more liberal people baffoons because they have no actual reasoning for how they want things to run so they simply insult the opposition hoping nobody questions their motives.

Apply it equally. Liberals do the same thing to conservatives, especially here in the US.

Conservative to Liberal: "Tax and Spend Socialist!"
Liberal to Conservative: "Redneck Racist!"
etc., etc., etc.

It's not just one side who calls the other names, so don't make it appear as such.

I was simply answering the OP as to why conservatives call liberals baffoons, if he would have asked why liberals call conservatives baffoons the answer would have been pretty much the same.

[Northern Franktopia]

It's clearly not an either/or situation for any position in the political spectrum. There is stupid everywhere. I just happen to think American liberals tend to be more correct about certain issues. This does not mean conservatives are lacking in intelligence, I'm just suggesting their problem-solving abilities have succumbed to their problem-creating abilities.

[Kyronea]

I've heard many times by conservative commentators constant argument against liberals, who they consider buffons. As an Centrist Democrat, I think it is unfair, but then again i haven't fully seen liberal commentating either? I want see what you guys think, both arguments are welcome.

How about instead of broad-brushing groups of people, we acknowledge that the political viewpoints have no inherent intelligence factor to them, and that one's intelligence does not impact their political beliefs?

One's education certainly does, but that's separate from one's intelligence.

[NERVUN]

Standard trick, de-humanize and insult the person you're fighting with. It makes it easier to ignore any points that they may bring up (NSG in a nutshell there).

[Russia Untied]

I will say dumb fool. They go against the very thing they are for.

Correct me if I am worng, but the left in Amercia are for socialism right? Yet they seem to be more Individuals, not the country as a whole. Yet socialism is not about what is right for an indvidual but what is right for the countries as a whole. They also go on about human rights and how everyone is entilited to certain things but in communism and socialism there are not entilitements. If you want something you have to work for it. If you don't and do not play a postive role in soicity than you ae out of luck. You are seen as a waste and willl be left to die.

[Soheran]

Correct me if I am worng, but the left in Amercia are for socialism right? Yet they seem to be more Individuals, not the country as a whole. Yet socialism is not about what is right for an indvidual but what is right for the countries as a whole. They also go on about human rights and how everyone is entilited to certain things but in communism and socialism there are not entilitements. If you want something you have to work for it. If you don't and do not play a postive role in soicity than you ae out of luck. You are seen as a waste and willl be left to die.

Not all of us (or even most of us) are for socialism. And those of us who are do not accept, and certainly do not support implementing, your conception of it.

[The Tofu Islands]

I will say dumb fool. They go against the very thing they are for.

Not really.

Correct me if I am worng, but the left in Amercia are for socialism right?

Some of the left wing may be pro-socialism, but not all liberals are left-wing.

Yet they seem to be more Individuals, not the country as a whole.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here...

Yet socialism is not about what is right for an indvidual but what is right for the countries as a whole.

Nope, wrong. Socialism is more about equality & social justice. What you suggested is much closer to nationalism.

They also go on about human rights and how everyone is entilited to certain things but in communism and socialism there are not entilitements. If you want something you have to work for it. If you don't and do not play a postive role in soicity than you ae out of luck. You are seen as a waste and willl be left to die.

Nah, there are more forms of communism then just that, and you've still completely missed what socialism is.

[Russia Untied]

Correct me if I am worng, but the left in Amercia are for socialism right? Yet they seem to be more Individuals, not the country as a whole. Yet socialism is not about what is right for an indvidual but what is right for the countries as a whole. They also go on about human rights and how everyone is entilited to certain things but in communism and socialism there are not entilitements. If you want something you have to work for it. If you don't and do not play a postive role in soicity than you ae out of luck. You are seen as a waste and willl be left to die.

Not all of us (or even most of us) are for socialism. And those of us who are do not accept, and certainly do not support implementing, your conception of it.

Thats how it always works out in the end and how it was ment to be.

[Grave_n_idle]

I will say dumb fool. They go against the very thing they are for.

Correct me if I am worng, but the left in Amercia are for socialism right? Yet they seem to be more Individuals, not the country as a whole. Yet socialism is not about what is right for an indvidual but what is right for the countries as a whole. They also go on about human rights and how everyone is entilited to certain things but in communism and socialism there are not entilitements. If you want something you have to work for it. If you don't and do not play a postive role in soicity than you ae out of luck. You are seen as a waste and willl be left to die.

A lot of 'liberal' people are for individual freedoms - which I'm guessing is what you're talking about? like the right to choose your own sexual partners, make your own decisions about sex and drugs and alcohol, etc... to varying degrees. Those same people could also be 'for' creating better social support structures, greater equality - especially in terms of economics and opportunity.

There is no conflict there. Just because, for example, I want you and me to have equal opportunity to get a certain job, doesn't mean I want people whoa re poor to go without healthcare...

I'm really not actually sure what you were trying to say, to be honest - so maybe I'm answering an imagined version of your point.

[Grave_n_idle]

Correct me if I am worng, but the left in Amercia are for socialism right? Yet they seem to be more Individuals, not the country as a whole. Yet socialism is not about what is right for an indvidual but what is right for the countries as a whole. They also go on about human rights and how everyone is entilited to certain things but in communism and socialism there are not entilitements. If you want something you have to work for it. If you don't and do not play a postive role in soicity than you ae out of luck. You are seen as a waste and willl be left to die.

Not all of us (or even most of us) are for socialism. And those of us who are do not accept, and certainly do not support implementing, your conception of it.

Thats how it always works out in the end and how it was ment to be.

What is how what is supposed to be?

[Soheran]

Thats how it always works out in the end

If you're a Leninist-minded authoritarian, maybe....

and how it was ment to be.

Really?

I think Marx would disagree, e.g.: "All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it."

The whole point of socialism is to free the workers from dependence on the dictates and requirements of masters--and the whole point of communism is the abolition of economic compulsion as such, with its restriction on the capacity for the free development of the individual.

Seeing people as instruments of production, things that must have a "positive role" (in some authority's eyes) or otherwise constitute a waste, is one of the evils of capitalism that socialists have sought to eliminate.

[South Lorenya]

From what I've seen, conservatives help the upper class more often, while liberals help the lower class[es] more often. Now, people disagree about where exactly the upper/middle/lower class divide is, but unless you ask a zimbabwe resident, the US has a lot more lower class people than upper class. No, that's not the only difference between liberals and conservatives, but it's one of the significant ones, as the upper class usually votes republican while the lower class usually votes democratic (thus leaving the middle class as the decider).

[Grave_n_idle]

From what I've seen, conservatives help the upper class more often, while liberals help the lower class[es] more often. Now, people disagree about where exactly the upper/middle/lower class divide is, but unless you ask a zimbabwe resident, the US has a lot more lower class people than upper class. No, that's not the only difference between liberals and conservatives, but it's one of the significant ones, as the upper class usually votes republican while the lower class usually votes democratic (thus leaving the middle class as the decider).

Traditionally, the 'conservative' spectrum in America deals with people who can afford to make big donations, and the 'liberal' spectrum deals with people who can make large numbers of small donations.

I'm sure people in both camps are really into ideology, also - but for the most part it's a matter of putting the right label on the product to make the sale at the right price.

[Russia Untied]

I will say dumb fool. They go against the very thing they are for.

Correct me if I am worng, but the left in Amercia are for socialism right? Yet they seem to be more Individuals, not the country as a whole. Yet socialism is not about what is right for an indvidual but what is right for the countries as a whole. They also go on about human rights and how everyone is entilited to certain things but in communism and socialism there are not entilitements. If you want something you have to work for it. If you don't and do not play a postive role in soicity than you ae out of luck. You are seen as a waste and willl be left to die.

A lot of 'liberal' people are for individual freedoms - which I'm guessing is what you're talking about? like the right to choose your own sexual partners, make your own decisions about sex and drugs and alcohol, etc... to varying degrees. Those same people could also be 'for' creating better social support structures, greater equality - especially in terms of economics and opportunity.

There is no conflict there. Just because, for example, I want you and me to have equal opportunity to get a certain job, doesn't mean I want people whoa re poor to go without healthcare...

I'm really not actually sure what you were trying to say, to be honest - so maybe I'm answering an imagined version of your point.

I will try to clear up what I mean.

Amercian socialism really isn't socialism. They take the individual freedoms way too far. Communism and socialism. It is about what is good for the people, not the individual. If individual freedoms start to hurt the common good for the country than it will be taken away. For exemple abortion. If abortions out way briths this is very bad for the country. The goverment has to step in and stop it for the common good. It inst about what is right or worng for an individual but is best for people as a whole.

Same with healthcare. If the country spends millions to keep somebody alive that will never be able to give back to soicity than the State is not going waste recources on that person. Correct me if I am worng, but dosent Amercians on the left wing support the idea of the State helping all no matter what? If someone palys a negtive role in soicity the goverment won't care and will use recourses to help that person. That goes against the very idea of communsim. If a person cannot not work than the goverment dosent care about you. You play no role to help better the country, so the country will not waste money to help keep you alive. That is how real communsim is, it is not as great as Amercains make it seem.

[Grave_n_idle]

I will say dumb fool. They go against the very thing they are for.

Correct me if I am worng, but the left in Amercia are for socialism right? Yet they seem to be more Individuals, not the country as a whole. Yet socialism is not about what is right for an indvidual but what is right for the countries as a whole. They also go on about human rights and how everyone is entilited to certain things but in communism and socialism there are not entilitements. If you want something you have to work for it. If you don't and do not play a postive role in soicity than you ae out of luck. You are seen as a waste and willl be left to die.

A lot of 'liberal' people are for individual freedoms - which I'm guessing is what you're talking about? like the right to choose your own sexual partners, make your own decisions about sex and drugs and alcohol, etc... to varying degrees. Those same people could also be 'for' creating better social support structures, greater equality - especially in terms of economics and opportunity.

There is no conflict there. Just because, for example, I want you and me to have equal opportunity to get a certain job, doesn't mean I want people whoa re poor to go without healthcare...

I'm really not actually sure what you were trying to say, to be honest - so maybe I'm answering an imagined version of your point.

I will try to clear up what I mean.

Amercian socialism really isn't socialism. They take the individual freedoms way too far. Communism and socialism. It is about what is good for the people, not the individual. If individual freedoms start to hurt the common good for the country than it will be taken away. For exemple abortion. If abortions out way briths this is very bad for the country. The goverment has to step in and stop it for the common good. It inst about what is right or worng for an individual but is best for people as a whole.

Same with healthcare. If the country spends millions to keep somebody alive that will never be able to give back to soicity than the State is not going waste recources on that person. Correct me if I am worng, but dosent Amercians on the left wing support the idea of the State helping all no matter what? If someone palys a negtive role in soicity the goverment won't care and will use recourses to help that person. That goes against the very idea of communsim. If a person cannot not work than the goverment dosent care about you. You play no role to help better the country, so the country will not waste money to help keep you alive. That is how real communsim is, it is not as great as Amercains make it seem.

If your birthrate isn't keeping pace with your mortality rate, then your base population will shrink, yes. And that can have a serious knock-on economic effect, some years down the line.

But that isn't automatically 'bad for the country'. The real problem is a negative birthrate/mortality ration COMBINED WITH tight borders and poor immigration. If a nation is attrctive for immigration, you can have an aging base population, a lower birthrate, and STILL have an increasing population of productive citizens.

Looking at countries in Europe, looking at Canada - as examples of nations with 'socialist' healthcare - people get healthcare and it's not considered a 'waste of resources'.

You seem to be suggesting that a nation with socialist policies MUST prioritise every decision as one OR many, but it's not intrinsically true. Instead, you can analyse every decision as one OF many.

[UNIverseVERSE]

I will try to clear up what I mean.

Amercian socialism really isn't socialism. They take the individual freedoms way too far. Communism and socialism. It is about what is good for the people, not the individual. If individual freedoms start to hurt the common good for the country than it will be taken away. For exemple abortion. If abortions out way briths this is very bad for the country. The goverment has to step in and stop it for the common good. It inst about what is right or worng for an individual but is best for people as a whole.

Same with healthcare. If the country spends millions to keep somebody alive that will never be able to give back to soicity than the State is not going waste recources on that person. Correct me if I am worng, but dosent Amercians on the left wing support the idea of the State helping all no matter what? If someone palys a negtive role in soicity the goverment won't care and will use recourses to help that person. That goes against the very idea of communsim. If a person cannot not work than the goverment dosent care about you. You play no role to help better the country, so the country will not waste money to help keep you alive. That is how real communsim is, it is not as great as Amercains make it seem.

That's actually completely contradictory to basically every formulation of communism or socialism ever proposed. But don't let that stop you.