Liberals ought to be more optimistic about opportunities for success in the U.S.

Thank you for posting this, HandsOff. I look forward to a good debate. There are a few arguments I will be offering as rebuttals. I cannot pretend to speak for "liberals" as a group (except in the most general sense,) but only for myself and a few friends and acquaintances. But, as HandsOff has spoken of generalities in his first comment, which formally should be ignored (unless he wants to allow me debate supplements in the comments section, in which case the debate might never end) but which I choose to allow on the grounds of his good intent, it should not be a problem even if I do speak more broadly than is usual. Although most of my views would classify me as liberal, I personally try to avoid that label. "Liberal" isn't so much of a political philosophy now as it is a stereotype (which I will let go, as I may have to use the label "conservative") for those that allegedly want: more taxes, bigger government, institutionalized socialism, peace, free rides, a society of godless and immoral (or amoral) robots, to save trees by embracing them, and have their hearts release blood onto any nearby surface. We can go ahead and add the poor and most modern intellectuals to that list. Regardless of the truth-value of the preceding statements, I venture it is fair to say that this is what conservatives think of when they speak of liberals. 1.1)Optimism or pessimism is a matter of temperament, not politics, philosophy, or reason. Even then, one can be a cheerful pessimist or a gloomy optimist. 1.2)Either way, there is little to no correlation between temperament and "strictly economic" success, excluding the polar extremes of self-destructive behavior and complacent arrogance. Example: A pessimist and an optimist both go to a job interview. The pessimist is more qualified than the optimist, but *thinks* he will not get the job. The optimist is less qualified, but *thinks* he will get the job. Other things being equal, which would any reasonable employer hire? The candidate which is more qualified, I would think. 1.3)"Ought" implies "can," and if someone is by temperament an optimist or a pessimist, it is futile to say that they "ought" to be different from what they are. 2)Differently, if pessimism/optimism were not a matter of temperament, but of circumstance, and one is a pessimist, *why* should they necessarily change their outlook? "In the game of life, a man can only lose so many hands before he begins to think that losing is the natural consequence of his playing." 3)If most liberals are pessimists, as you claim, it is not only on account of their economic situation, though that may be part of the equation. A chief difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals do not equate success with purely economic success. The debate is on economic success, I understand, but it had to be said. I am not claiming that HandsOff said differently, either; just making a general observation from my own experience. 4)What you mistake for pessimism may in fact simply be a kind of existential melancholy, a longing for something different and better but is unachievable, per the masses of very poor liberals. The poor and uneducated are trapped in the cycle of poverty, and while some may get out, the large majority do not. To paraphrase Warren Buffet: 'Is there class warfare in this country? Of course. My class won.' 5.1)Now, I do not consider myself an optimist or a pessimist, but rather a realist. And the reality is not good for myriad people, regardless of their political persuasion or whether they are optimistic or pessimistic. 5.2)Regarding HandsOff's statement, "It seems to me that, for the most part, they have a contempt for our capitalistic society and believe it stifles opportunity rather than offers the most access to it." Contrary to popular belief, I am not a socialist, but I am contemptuous of the modern form of capitalism we have in our society; that of corporate welfare, crony capitalism, corporatism, and the culture of conspicuous consumption and consumerism that it promotes. At present, individuals are nothing more than consumers. If they choose not to be a consumer, they are automatically worthless to capitalists. Capitalism is fine; it is our "brand" that disgusts me. 6)Concerning "chances for *personal* economic success": I have already said I am not a pessimist or an optimist, but really, I probably should be an economic Schopenhauer. I am disabled and cannot work, own no assets or real property, have no wealth, and have no inheritance coming. Barring me winning the lottery or something similar: Tell ME I ought to be more optimistic about my chances for economic success. That is as "personal" as I can be. Britt