We all know the conservative/republican/right wing--whatever you want to label it--has a well-oiled and effective propaganda machine in place that has been demonizing and distorting 'Liberal' beliefs for over 30 years.
We see the results of this daily a hundred times over in every comment thread where any self-professed 'true conservative' posts a furious outraged comment/insult about the president, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the ACA, or any other perceived Liberal transgression against "Real Americans®." Mostly, you probably shrug them off just as I do. 'They're just low-information voters,' we think. Inevitably, their outrage and fear is based on something either untrue or completely fabricated.
But this is the crux of the current intense polarization of our country. The belief that we are pure evil and seek to destroy them and that they must fight back to the death even if it means destroying everything in the process. And that polarization is the base strategy of the corporate forces bankrolling the machine: "Divide and Conquer."
As anyone of us can attest, attempting to correct their facts or emotional reaction on any particular issue or event is utterly impossible. They just dig in their heels and become all the more enraged and stubborn and turn the conversation into circular shouting match of "your'e so stupid and deluded, stop drinking the kool-aid" that is never ending.
However, I've always wondered if there was any way to correct the bigger picture of what we, Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, the Left, really want for our country. Certainly, it's insane to believe we want to destroy America and bring on a totalitarian atheistic communist dictatorship, but they do believe that. We've now seen how this blanket accusation is even leveled at their own party members (the dreaded RINOS!) to include anyone who even talks or works with Democrats to stop disaster from happening such as the recent debt ceiling standoff.
Are there any reasonable conservative thinking people out there who are open to understanding and listening to us and learning what it is we actual stand for and want to accomplish? Is there anyone who can accept what we tell them we believe and not insist that we believe something else that is now ingrained into their own belief system about us?
I thought I found one. I still hope to dissuade him from his inaccurate vision of what it is "we" believe, what our core values and ideology are.
Not too long ago I presented him a link to this list of 50 quotes.
50 Liberal Quotes Which Americans Should Remember
He was very impressed and agreed pretty much across the board, even reposted it on his Facebook. I was thrilled. I'm making headway, I thought.
Yet he still tried to draw the distinction between these values and 'current modern Liberals.'
Today I presented him with this link to JFK's speech back in 1960:
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
His response:
I read your link, it appears to be from what? 1960? I was born in 1973, to me JFK is a historical figure, no different than George Washington or Abe Lincoln, in fact he is of much less interest to me. From all I've read about him he didn't really accomplish much in his limited time in office, and is best known for getting assassinated. The views expressed in that speech may well have been the predominant liberal views at the time, and are admirable, but do not reflect the views of the very vocal modern liberal.
Even despite my insistence that these are still representative of our core beliefs he maintained his point of view, the pretty much classic point of view of the conservative, that liberals want more control of citizens lives, want to take from the hard working and give to the lazy...you know the stereotype.
Pressed for where and why he believes that, he pointed to the 'liberal media' and our 'mouthpieces.' Since I don't listen to TV or radio, I was at a loss. I pressed on for specifics. He pointed to "liberal radio." Not having listened to or even aware there was any such thing since the demise of Air America, I was curious and also concerned. Are there 'liberal' voices out there promoting what he says they're promoting?
Long story short, he's referring specifically to:
If you want to hear for yourself tune in to XM 127, or look up their websites. Mark Thompson, Ed Shultz, Stephanie Miller, Mark Malloy, Ari Rabenhavft (?) are popular liberal hosts.
Now I don't listen to these folks, but I have seen the occasional clip online and I hear them promoting traditional liberal values for the most part.
So the question is and remains, are they promoting his takeaway (referring to President Obama as the default Liberal):
His ideological stance seems to be that the government has a direct responsibility to provide for its citizens. I believe the opposite, that the government has the responsibility to create conditions that allows citizens to provide for themselves. He seems to want to emulate the European social democracies. He seems to have the typical modern social liberal philosophy of the governments role in a citizens life. That would be more government control=higher standard of living. That the wealthy are morally responsible for the rest of us, and that the less wealthy have been victimized.
I pointed out the fallacy of guilt by association in the case of Obama, but he's having none of it. I provided solid classic examples of definitions of Liberal beliefs, he's having none of it. I insisted that Obama is not a Liberal, nor has he presented himself as one, but he is a Moderate Centrist, much to the chagrin of most Liberals of all persuasions.
He maintains that he is justified in forming his opinion of what a 'modern liberal' is and believes from what those radio personalities and unnamed 'administration associates' and other known "Liberals" have said. While I can't dispute his right to do so, I strongly dispute his interpretation of what they say and advocate for.
First question, has anyone ever heard any of these folks supporting anything resembling his takeaway?
Eventually I suggested a poll.
Liberals believe:
A. Government should control individuals and restrict freedom, punish success, steal from hard working people through taxes so that it can condone laziness and reward/enable it with free stuff.
B. The typical modern social liberal philosophy of the government's role in a citizens life would be more government control = higher standard of living. The government has a direct responsibility to provide for its citizens, the wealthy are morally responsible for the rest of us, and the less wealthy have been victimized.
C. The government has the responsibility to create conditions that allow citizens to provide for themselves. A higher standard of living for all is possible when opportunity is available and the power of great wealth to influence government or markets for their own narrow interests is restricted. Without government regulation and just laws, the less wealthy will often be victimized through discrimination in employment, education, and other opportunities. The wealthy have a moral responsibility to give back their fair share to the commonwealth via taxes, and this will in turn enrich us all. By investing in education and infrastructure and other public assets, government can help to nurture and enable the ability for all citizens to provide for themselves. In the advent that circumstances beyond their control cause citizens to be unable to feed and house themselves, such as massive layoffs in an economic crash, the community, through the power and direct action of government acting on our behalf, can and should help the people in greatest need to survive, the people being the country's greatest resource, so that they can have another chance to contribute when conditions improve. Government should actively work to help those economic conditions improve through carefully applied financial stimulus when the private sector is unwilling or unable to correct itself.