From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:38:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.115945.2018@wkuvx1.bitnet>, barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> Most liberals nowdays don't want the name liberal.

How were they polled, and when?  Where are the results tabulated?

> I say we call [liberals] what they are - hypocrites (only the ones who are).

Well, that certainly seems fair.  In fact, I'll go 'way out on a limb
and say we should call ALL hypocrites "hypocrites," regardless of party
affiliation.  But only the ones who are, of course.

> I put them in the same category I do David Duke - they refuse to come
> out and say what they really believe, that morality is wrong, that 
> if you tell someone they're wrong you're intolerant and bigoted, 
> that if you have any sense of decency at all you're some kind of 
> neo-Nazi.

Perhaps the reason they won't come out and say they believe these things
has something to do with the fact that they don't actually believe these
things.  Claiming to believe something when you don't really believe it
would be hypocritical, right?

Which liberal text asserts that "morality is wrong?"  I seem to have
misplaced my copy of the Official Liberal's Handbook and Hidden Agenda,
but I don't remember that from the indoctrination classes.

As for saying that dissidents are "intolerant and bigoted," that depends
on how well the dissident view is supported.  Calling people names when
you disagree with them is, well, intolerant and bigoted.  Demonstrating
factual or logical errors in someone's position is called "criticism,"
and is a highly useful way of advancing everyone's understanding of the
issues regardless of how it all comes out in the end.

The mere fact that tolerance excludes intolerance is hardly enough to
support a charge of hypocrisy, although it does have the potential to
confuse shallower intellects.  Oops, how bigoted and intolerant of me.

As for the equation of decency with neo-Nazis, well, I suppose that
would depend on what precisely one means by "decency."  There are people
who believe that there's something "indecent" about black people
asserting equal status with white people, or about women who have the
temerity to insist on equal pay for equal work.  Some people think it's
"indecent" for Jews to have any place in gentile society.  Before we can
have any meaningful discussion about "decency" and Nazism, we'll have to
get a better definition of what you mean by "decent."  The positions and
values of the Nazis are reasonably well-documented, so once you tell us
what "decent" means to you, it should be quite straightforward to decide
whether there's any congruence with Nazi beliefs.

> God help us if [Democrats] get the Presidency as well.

Maybe He will.  Divine favor certainly seems to have been in short
supply during the past decade of Republican oligarchy.

>   One more thing - Albert Gore.  The biggest "tax-and-spender"

As opposed to what?  The fine old fiscally-conservative tactic of
borrow-and-spend?  Spend-and-let-somebody-else-figure-out-how-to-pay-for-it?

> The only reason I'd vote for [Gore] would be to get him out of Tennessee.

So go for it!

> God gave you the ability to chose; use it with care and wisdom.

Unless you're female, of course.  Then give it back, and fetch me another beer.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?