The American left has been very active over the past 20 years (at least in my lifetime of following politics), in demonstrating their beliefs of tolerance and forgiveness. It is without question that liberals are extremely forgiving people, especially toward those who consider themselves democrats and liberals.
Reading and watching the news has allowed me to make some general observations of the left and their rules for tolerance. In order to make sense of the liberal mindset, it's important to read the words they chose to convey their beliefs.
Some examples I have found repeatedly over the internet include:
"You don't support gay marriage because you're a homophobe! You obviously just hate gays."
"You judge people so you are no Christian."
"You don't want more taxes because you hate the poor and you're greedy."
"If you don't support abortion, you are simply showing everyone that you hate women."
"If you weren't evil, you'd be liberal."
Of course, most of you know that this is a very small sampling of statements that are commonly uttered on liberal blogs and social networking sites. In some cases the statements are much worse but I will assume that those are made by people representing more of a fringe rather than the norm. Now, let's ask ourselves, what is the first thing we see when we look at these types of statements?
1) False dichotomies. A false dichotomy is described as a statement that is meant to lead a person into believing there are only two options of choice and reasoning. Let's use the first example, "You don't support gay marriage because you're a homophobe! You obviously just hate gays." If you don't support A, you are B. In their minds, it is simply not possible for someone to be C, D, E, etc., because they are telling us they simply haven't thought passed the one conclusion.
2) No sense of reasoning. Since they have not allowed themselves to be exposed to other explanations in a positive way, they simply cannot make sense when someone makes an attempt to define another reason for their beliefs. To many it is unacceptable to say that you believe homosexuality to be immoral or that you object to the government supporting a lifestyle that is destructive on both a physical and spiritual level. In fact, any other reason that you try to present to them is dismissed because they now view you as a bigot. They are unable to find reasoning in your views because they lack the curiosity to engage in understanding.
3) Judging is reserved for the left. "You judge people so you are no Christian." Now of course the obvious problem with this statement is that anyone who has read the Bible knows full well that we are called on to judge behavior as being moral or immoral. Furthermore when a person refuses to gain insight into positive and negative judgments they are subject to continue making poor judgments that can hurt themselves and others around them. While condemning people for judging, they then turn around and make a judgement concerning a person's relationship with their G-d in the very same statement. So the issue here is not judging because the modern left has no problem doing this; it is merely that they have a disdain for conservatives who make judgments.
4) Irrational and ignorant of cause and correlation. "If you don't support abortion, you are simply showing everyone that you hate women." The very sentiment is irrational and not supported by any logic but it also tells us that those on the left have difficulty in understanding the cause and correlation. They are suggesting that there is a direct link to hating women and being against abortion. This is not fact based and one could easily say the exact opposite -- people who care about women are against abortion.
5) Consistently inconsistent. "If you weren't evil, you'd be liberal." Here we can see that many on the left not only disagree with conservatives but that they actually believe that our views are founded by evil people. Interestingly the left has repeatedly engaged in slandering people on the right while encouraging and enabling the same behavior, if not worse, demonstrated from their own leaders.
6) Huge egos. The modern left is a collective ego that is fueled with the many individual egos that make up the whole. We know this to be true because of the inconsistency issue I listed above. When a person is conflicted in such a way that they are unable to ascertain their selective outrage. Ultimately it is their egos that stand in the way of allowing themselves to be confronted and questioned. It's much easier for someone with a false ego to dismiss information by calling names, attacking sources, appealing to authority, and acting superior.
After all, they still decided to elect a former klan wizard into the Senate for years; they still supported Ted Kennedy who allowed a woman to drown and made active attempts at covering up the accident; they didn't blink an eye when their party tore a black man apart for being nominated to the Supreme Court; they still believe that Clinton did nothing wrong and was only impeached over a sex act; they don't even bat an eye when their former president
Carter makes hateful statements about Israel, and I will discuss more later on but, the point is simple - they do not have any problems with immoral behavior; they just have problems with
any behavior demonstrated from the right.
Understanding these observations might be insightful but is there a way we can use this information to better communicate with people on the left? Is there a way to get passed the childish statements and offer them a new or different perspective?
Sometimes I look at those on the left and I get frustrated that they still don't "get it." What more information do they need in order to help them understand the dangers in their beliefs? We have years of history to help us understand that when a government becomes too cozy offering its citizens cradle-to-the-grave "protection" they become corrupted and ultimately end up slaughtering millions of people. For whatever reason these facts do not deter people on the left because they have convinced themselves that "true socialism" never existed and we just "haven't done it right" before.
For a sample demonstration of how liberals try to rationalize information, click
here. The article is clearly conveying how the current administration has been able to rely on the media to either suppress information or distort it in someway that protected the administration from being rightly scrutinized. If we go down to the comment section however, we can see a poster going by the name of "jharp" who actually suggests that Clinton was impeached over a sex act. Of course we can see other posters trying to explain that the Clinton scandal had nothing to do with that but rather lying under oath. He also tampered with witnesses and attempted to hide physical evidence. The liberal poster, "jharp" immediately rejects the information and moves on to suggest that Benghazi was not a cover-up, that the Obama administration had nothing to lie about, and the administration did not lie about it. If we continue reading we see people trying to explain what went wrong with Benghazi, giving facts and information about the event but, alas they are met with the same hateful rhetoric and a person determined to ignore anything that doesn't support his beliefs. Did this guy even bother to watch the hearings where testimony proves the consulate had repeatedly asked for more security weeks before the attack? Does it occur to him that 9/11 is also the anniversary of one of the most horrific days in America, yet Obama claimed to be unaware of potential problems? It couldn't be more obvious that Obama lied but, this is ignored completely.
Communicating to people who have such little understanding and depth of issues is reminiscent of trying to explain a calculus problem to someone who has never taken algebra, geometry, or trigonometry (all of which are needed). It is up to us to simplify our positions in order to ignite curiosity. This in turn may provide us the opportunity we need to further explain our position on issues without being met with the initial unwarranted hostility.
We must remember that we are not speaking with these people directly but rather trying to converse with an ego that is unreasonable. The ego is a manifestation of information absorbed by the person during the course of their lives. Ultimately the far left and others who are radical in their beliefs have consumed a great amount of negative feedback in their lives. This feedback has turned many of them into very bitter and angry people who separate themselves from others simply by feeling a certain way and those feelings turn into thoughts that are harmful to themselves as well as others.
It is possible that many liberals have found anecdotal evidence to support their ideology, such as a rich CEO acting abusively towards those he has employed. This in turn pushes them to believe that all CEO's or people who are engaged in business on an executive level are evil or harmful people. This thought alone gives them the idea that they should support the "little guy"
only but, they fail to see that the CEO and the "little guy" are part of the same whole. They might see an injustice brought about through racism so they pledge support for the minority and ignore the fact that the minority is a part of the whole and not separate from the majority. This is the genesis of us/them, either/or rhetoric. It comes from a divided mind that lacks clarity in understanding how the world is connected. They seem to think that actions occur in a vacuum, that changing or fixing up one area will not harm or change other areas or policies. For instance they might support special rights for minorities but lack the ability to understand that those special privileges can and have worked against the very people they were initially trying to help.
Egos are a part of everyone's life but if we ever expect to grow and learn, we must first recognize their damage and only then can we begin to start making connections between both the individual and systems that the individual is a part of.
If we truly expect to help the "little guy" we must first recognize that the "big guys" are the ones that have the power to help the "little guy." We must understand that the success of an individual is a success for all of us. This is why it is so important for government and the private sector to have balanced approaches in our problem solving decisions.
When someone believes things like, "the rich need to pay their fair share," and, "there's no reason for this person to make so much money" they are telling us that they see the rich as people who are separate from them and not a part of them. The fallacy in this thinking should be obvious but, for those on the left it's as if they never had time to think about the absurdity of their claim. Without encouraging success from all people, we limit ourselves as well as others. In countries where "fairness" policies have been implemented we can clearly see that there always remained a wealthy class but much fewer in number. This in turn meant that less people are able to invest in businesses, ultimately a smaller number of people determining which services and products that can be purchased. Since there are less services and products to chose from, prices can continue to rise, less money is placed into the hands of individuals creating greater strain on those who are on the bottom, which will in turn call for more government money and help from politicians, greater restrictions are placed upon businesses making it almost impossible to hire or fire people, which drives down the quantity and quality of production. Greater resentment is created between the now two classes (uber-rich and extremely poor), that are created through this philosophy.
It is no wonder that the ego creates a wall between a person's true self and the reality they have chosen to live in -- a prison inside their mind. Masters and victims are what they chose to focus on so creating more victims only further helps to fuel this destructive mentality.
All of this leads us back to finding a better way to communicate with people who are in arrested states of development, both mentally and spiritually. It is not only important for us to analyze the left and their so-called tolerance, we must help them analyze their own tolerance. If we can try to break through the ego and get them to question themselves, it might prove to be successful. One thing we must accept is that our words and reasoning will almost never make any instant changes. The reality is the process of understanding truth must come from within and that change could take years and years to occur so, the best we can hope for is planting some seeds where we can.
I believe we must focus on the root of why conservatives believe what we believe and that is love. Love is the force that drives us because it is love that helps us recognize the importance of the individual and supporting a moral culture. Love is what allows us to understand truth and drives us to understand that not all tolerance is love. Some tolerance is actually harmful and we know this as fact. This is why we need not worry about defending anything. The truth can, will, and must stand on its own. If we can approach our conversations with love in our hearts, we can see through the ego, ignore the insults, and stay firm while remaining honest.
I've given up trying to beat a dead horse with someone since it is just a fact that my words will take a long time to penetrate through the inflated and false egos but, maybe somewhere down the line, maybe by some miracle my words will be remembered for a later time in life.
How about you? Have you had any success breaking through with someone? What did you do or not do that was different from before? How do you see the left's selective tolerance? Tell me your stories; I'd love to hear from you.
