Psychologist Analyzes Liberals
Recently I attended a lecture explaining the “Liberal Mind” by PhD. psychologist, Timothy C. Daughtry. He gave his explanation as to how such a minority (30%) in the United States has been able to impose its politics on the majority. When using the word Liberal below we are talking about the political Liberal.
Liberals dominate our institutions, i.e., the schools, universities, media, arts, cinema, nonprofits, government bureaucracies, etc. Anyone challenging their monolithic views is ruthlessly attacked to be silenced.
Daughtry stated there are two types of liberals. First are the hard liners. He suggested one is wasting his time trying to convince them of anything since they will not or cannot think about their underlying contradictory assumptions, for example, their contradictory belief in equality for all and affirmative action, i.e., special preferences for a favored group.
If you try to discuss facts, they generally respond with personal insults, try to marginalize you by getting a group of like-minded individuals to condemn you, demonize you by suggesting you have dark motives, make you a laughingstock, etc. Sara Palin comes to mind. One can always tell who in the mainstream that Liberals are frightened of by the ferocity of their personal attacks.
The second type of liberal is the uninformed liberal. That person may listen and analyze factual information if you can get them away from their monolithic liberal group.
In his overview Daughtry explained that the liberal character is all about dominance and power. They use the rules and the goodness of their opposition against them. For example, most people do not like conflict.
So the liberal lives on the offensive. They are intense; they demand, whine, blame, accuse, threaten, intimidate, escalate and have tantrums so there cannot be a discussion of the facts.
Just watch any cable news show debate. The liberal is virtually always the one interrupting the mainstream person. They don’t debate, they attack.
In order to avoid conflict, the mainstream gives in a little at a time. The result has been an erosion of our liberties. The Liberals always demand 100% of the pie, but they take whatever they can get and come back to get more of the pie that was not theirs in the first place.
Liberal tactics are about breaking the rules, causing a ruckus, polarizing, playing the victim, playing one group off another, dividing and conquering. Arizona passed a law to address the overwhelming number of illegals in their state because the liberal run federal government refuses to do it.
Liberals responded by saying the law is racial profiling even though the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. And prohibiting racial profiling in this case is politically correct ridiculousness because over 90% of illegals in Arizona are Mexicans. It just makes the job harder.
Liberals use words that mean nothing, for example, hope, change, equality, diversity, unfair, racist, sexist, hater, greedy, etc. When you are called this it is because you made a liberal angry because he had no logical answer for your fact-based argument.
They hide their real agenda. For example, Rep. John Dingell, D. Mich., slipped when asked about the new health care program and responded, in essence: It will take a number of years to get the systems in place to “CONTROL” the people.
The Judeo-Christian culture that made the United States the most powerful generous country in history believes in absolutes, reality, right and wrong, people who are responsible for their actions, and that the Golden rule is a check against man’s natural narcissism. Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
For the liberal, reality is subjective. There are no absolutes, yet they are so dogmatic.
Liberals see God when they look in the mirror each morning. Remember when Barack Obama said, we will be ready to “RULE” on day one. He didn’t say “govern.”
Liberals believe that if something goes wrong, someone else has to fix it. Therefore we got Obama care, even though high medical costs are directly attributed, in large part, to high administrative costs caused by government imposed regulations and mandates.
Dr. Daughtry said that the story below that had I shared with him was an excellent example to illustrate the points one must keep in mind when discoursing with a political liberal. Some years ago, I went back to a Cornell University class reunion. Like just about every university, invited speakers tend to be alumni who have made a mark in the world.
This particular speaker was an African-American graduate of Cornell who had been appointed by then-President Clinton to be administrative head of the First Federal District Court, the one that encompasses the New York area. He gave a 45-minute speech, during which he spoke about, among other things; his job was to make sure that everyone in his district was treated equally before the law. He also spoke of the importance of affirmative-action for minorities.
This was the time during which there was a big discussion about New Jersey policemen racially profiling black men on the New Jersey Turnpike. Interestingly, he declared that racial profiling was an abomination against justice, except that it was ok to use against Muslims, due to their known terrorist activities.
When the question-and-answer time came, I asked him “Could you clarify something for me. Do you believe in affirmative-action or do you believe in equality before the law?’ I assumed that he had had this question hundreds of times before and I was curious what kind of sophist reply he would give.
His reply startled me. He boomed, “You cannot out debate me! I was head of Cornell’s debate team! I was a member of Harvard Law Review!” I replied,” There is nothing to debate. You are either for one or the other. It cannot be both. Which is it?”
Like the brilliant attorney that he was, he changed the subject and went on the attack. “What do I tell my four-year-old son when me, one of the most powerful lawyers in the country, gets pulled all over by a policeman on the New Jersey Turnpike and is frisked like a common criminal, me, in my $2,000 Armani suit driving a BMW?”
I replied surprisingly calmly since the audience was overwhelmingly liberal and hostile to my question,”You should tell your son the truth.”
“And what is the truth?” he replied with dripping sarcasm.
“Tell your son that the reason you were pulled over by a policeman was that black men constitute about 6% of the United States population and commit close to 45% of all aggravated assault. Therefore if a policeman pulls over a black man, he has about an 800% greater chance of stopping a criminal then pulling over an 80-year-old woman.” You should also tell your son that if he and the majority of black youth grow up like you did and have very responsible jobs, that racial profiling will disappear.”
Visibly furious, trying to change the subject again, and go on the offensive, he asked me in a clearly threatening manner “What is your name?” I replied, “Would you also like my Social Security number so you can sic the IRS on me?”
He stormed off the stage and came right at me. “You have no idea what it’s like to be a minority!” he spit at me with visceral hatred. I responded, “You are right, but my wife and children are minorities so I am quite aware of prejudice.” He stormed off.
The lessons from this little exchange are:
(1) Stay on point. Do not let them change the subject.
(2) Stay calm, not always that easy when you’re been attacked.
(3) “Give irrefutable facts.”
(4) Do not let them put you on the defensive, intimidate you, or box you in.
(5) Do not let them bully you. This is especially difficult for men when the person bullying is a woman, because when you stand up to them, they will claim you are bullying them or they may get hysterical or change the subject by claiming to be a victim.
Understand that most of us feel bad when someone shows us that we are wrong. And some of us will get angry for having been made to look bad and will go on the attack to get even. It’s hard not to take it personal (like the attacks I get for writing this column), but that’s what we have to try to do.
James F. Davis is the president of Accuracy in Academia.
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=7941