American Thinker - Why Do Liberals Bleed?

[N6ATF]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/why_do_liberals_bleed.html

Written by a psychotherapist in Berkeley, cross-posted courtesy of asbrand at LJ Guns (http://community.livejournal.com/guns).

I've been thinking about learning how to fire a gun, maybe even buying one. Now if you are a lifelong conservative, Red State dweller, and NRA member, you might be thinking, "Big yawn. What's next? She'll be telling us what she had for breakfast?"

So let me try to convey to you the enormousness, the Alice in Wonderland quality of my even posing the question, something I've never, ever considered in my life. No one I know owns a gun. I've never seen a gun (well on a holster of a police officer but I never wanted to get up close and personal with it). I have given lots of good money over the years for gun control. Learning to fire a gun seems as ludicrous as deciding to take up brain surgery.

But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west. continued on site...

Comments page: http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/346207.html

[KCM222]

This reminds me of right after 9/11 when all the news broadcasts were saying "don't retaliate against Muslims. Don't retaliate against Arab people." and everyone thought to themselves "You're kidding right? Who would actually do that? Any rational person can make that distinction."

The answer: the people of Berkeley.

A good friend of mine went to Berkeley for her undergrad and her wake-up call (simliar to this woman's who wrote the article) was seeing the so-called open minded people in her community running through the streets smashing Arab business' windows and destroying the cars of Muslim and Arab people in the community.

Most people didn't see anything about this in the news. My friend got to see it out her living room window.

[SCMA-1]

Great read! Send the link to all your liberal acquaintances.

SCMA-1

[SCMA-1]

I think this should be moved to "Off Topic" btw. It would get much more exposure also.;)

SCMA-1

[N6ATF]

Yeah, maybe.

Funny, 3 replies, 0 views according to my control panel.

[Tyrius]

I always think it's interesting to see these stories about someone who identified as "X," had some kind of traumatic experience, and now firmly identifies with "Y." It strikes me as odd that one experience that contraindicates a specific and relatively narrow aspect of contemporary "liberal" ideology (gun control, in this case) would lead to a complete reversal of self-identity. Did getting mugged change her views on economic policy? Immigration reform? Foreign relations? If the answer is no, then why is she calling herself a conservative? Why not just call herself "a pro-gun liberal," or somesuch? And if the answer is yes, then... well, quite frankly, it seems to me like she must not have been very secure in her "liberal" ideology to begin with, when it can be so thoroughly undermined. She admits that there is "not a single thing that [she] believed, that [she] held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs." I think it's good that she's willing to reexamine any one of her beliefs in the face of new evidence, but I wonder if she's not too quick to discard everything and cling to something new.

Maybe I'm being unfair. I don't know. The use of pseudo-religious conversion language with regards to shifting political ideologies seems to me to be indicative of a person who blindly accepted the tenets of their political party without ever stopping to reflect on what they truly believed.

[7x57]

It strikes me as odd that one experience that contraindicates a specific and relatively narrow aspect of contemporary "liberal" ideology (gun control, in this case) would lead to a complete reversal of self-identity.

...

Maybe I'm being unfair. I don't know. The use of pseudo-religious conversion language with regards to shifting political ideologies seems to me to be indicative of a person who blindly accepted the tenets of their political party without ever stopping to reflect on what they truly believed.

Yes, you're being unfair. While what you suggest is possible and must happen, it seems to be the opposite of what the writer is describing.

The opposite of blind acceptance is fully understanding at a conscious level the presuppositions of your position and the reasoning process by which those presuppositions lead to specific conclusions. If then we find that a necessary conclusion of our worldview is false as a matter of fact, then either our reasoning was incorrect, our assumptions were false (or both). How drastically one responds depends on whether we believe the presuppositions were in error or not.

If we simply reasoned poorly, then no drastic change of worldview is necessary, because likely other conclusions are correct and consistent. We simply take care to re-examine the logic and find the correct conclusion. In this case, this will probably lead one to be a pro-gun liberal, as you say.

On the other hand, if the reasoning is airtight, then the assumptions must be wrong, and as every conclusion is to be derived from the same assumptions that calls into question *every* conclusion ever drawn within the system. That seems to be the writer's position; she believes that given her former assumptions, the conclusion that guns are a source or vector of evil is an inevitable consequence. Therefore, one or more of her former assumptions are simply wrong, and that causes her to question every conclusion she ever drew from those assumptions.

As an irrelevant aside, this is why up until maybe a century or so ago geometry was a requirement for a liberal education. It was the tool to teach reasoning itself, including everything I used above.

7x57

[Merc1138]

If the answer is no, then why is she calling herself a conservative? Why not just call herself "a pro-gun liberal," or somesuch? And if the answer is yes, then... well, quite frankly, it seems to me like she must not have been very secure in her "liberal" ideology to begin with, when it can be so thoroughly undermined. She admits that there is "not a single thing that [she] believed, that [she] held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs." I think it's good that she's willing to reexamine any one of her beliefs in the face of new evidence, but I wonder if she's not too quick to discard everything and cling to something new.

Dunno if my personal experience from conversations with liberals applies to others(there actually are a couple in the various circles of friends I have) and it's always seemed that they only feel strongly liberal about 1-2 issues, and couldn't care less about everything else.

"So you voted for obama, like government spending when it means taxing higher paid people more, think waterboarding is evil torture, believe an armed society is an honest and polite society, big government is bad, voted for prop 8, against abortion(and you're a woman), and you're a "liberal"?"

"Yeah"

It seriously seems like some people are just "liberal" because it's the cool thing to do, when conservative republicans are all just crotchety old white guys in their 50's on up.

[yellowfin]

The old joke "What's a conservative? A liberal who just got robbed last night" has some element of truth in it, as we see here. My hat's off to her. She's finally getting it and admitting so. Not everyone has the fortitude to do that.

[dustoff31]

Not a bad article. But I have to admit I clicked on it because I thought it asked "Why do liberals breed?"

[Bad Voodoo]

As a good, loyal liberal, I always expected others to take care of me. If I gave my unqualified loyalty to the system, I could sleep well at night. But now, with victims left bleeding, a dangerously naive government, and sheep like masses, I see the absurdity of my thinking.

I heard a philosopher once say that one of the biggest existential tasks of life is giving up the fantasy of the ultimate rescuer. Liberalism reinforced this fantasy for me, as it does for so many others. Now I see the truth: We come into this world alone, and we will leave it alone. When we live our lives in the back seat of the car expecting Daddy to drive us, we only have a child's view of the world.

As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking ONLY to myself for protection is another step on my journey.

Fixed that last part for her, otherwise she learned the common sense associated with personal responsibility. Too bad she was battered in order to realize it.

[st.clouds]

A good read, but why does it take a violent incident to wake her up? :(

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[hill billy]

Not bad. She's still a moron, but she's coming around.

[Tyrius]

7x57, I think I see the error I made in interpreting the piece. I see know that the real issue here isn't her stance on gun control or her experience being mugged, but how living a Berkeley, a "liberal" city, has slowly chipped away at her belief that if she puts her faith in the government to do right, the government will protect her.

I suppose my problem with this piece, others like it, and the jokes about "What's a conservative but a liberal that had something terrible happen to them?" is that it seems to me like too sweeping a change to be made based solely on one issue. Merc1138 pointed out people he's known that call themselves "liberals" because of their opinions on just a few issues. I've known people like that as well, and I've known them to suddenly call themselves "conservatives" as soon as one of their beliefs is shaken or proved false. I've seen conservative-to-liberal shifts, too. My point is that too often, it seems like such a rapid shift in what ideology one professes to follow is less a product of serious consideration, and more the result of changing your label being easier than sitting down and honestly asking yourself what you believe in.

The more I think about it, this doesn't seem to be the case here, since it sounds like her shift in identity is the product of years and years of negative experiences in Berkeley and serious contemplation. Even so, I wonder if she really believes the exact opposite of everything she used to, or if she's simply come to believe that individual citizens have a right and a duty to protect themselves, and certain policies and beliefs lead to criminals being coddled instead of being held accountable for their actions.

Yikes, that was way longer than I intended it to be. Guess my brain's still in essay-writing mode.

[bulgron]

My impression of the article is that she's someone who has questioned her political beliefs over many years, and as a result has been drifting away from liberalism and towards conservatism. If there's a titanic shift in world view presented here, based on a single incident (her mugging), then it is only on the issue of gun control.

Many people will drift from one political ideal to another over the course of their lifetimes, depending upon the evidence presented to them. There is nothing particularly noteworthy in the article, nor does it present any new information to me.

Other than I should never go to Berkeley unarmed.

Scratch that. I should never go to Berkeley, period.

[Glock22Fan]

My impression of the article is that she's someone who has questioned her political beliefs over many years, and as a result has been drifting away from liberalism and towards conservatism. If there's a titanic shift in world view presented here, based on a single incident (her mugging), then it is only on the issue of gun control.



If you ask me, she is someone who is belated learning to think for herself.

As someone said (I forget whom for sure but it might be Samuel Johnson, and I'm probably paraphrasing) "If you are not a liberal in your youth you do not have a heart. If you remain a liberal when you grow up, you do not have a brain."

[luvtolean]

^^^

Winston Churchill

[sb_pete]

Yeah, Churchill. Here's the full quote:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

[nick]

Well, she probably just grew up. Reminds me of that phrase attributed to Churchill (he didn't say that, I believe, but it's attributed to him, anyway):

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head."

[nick]

Yeah, Churchill. Here's the full quote:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Thanks for beating me to it :(:)

[phamkl]

One aspect of conservatism, the ideology rather than the associated political party, is the idea that the individual is responsible, with the government being as small as possible, just to keep a couple of clean lines. When she came to think that she needed to defend herself, I think that was an explosion that converted her into thinking that she needs to take care of business herself. That's where the conservative conversion came from.

[Citizen Snips]

One aspect of conservatism, the ideology rather than the associated political party, is the idea that the individual is responsible, with the government being as small as possible, just to keep a couple of clean lines. When she came to think that she needed to defend herself, I think that was an explosion that converted her into thinking that she needs to take care of business herself. That's where the conservative conversion came from.
That's where the saying "a Republican is a Democrat who's been mugged" comes from :D

[taloft]

Some people when confronted by the real world are forced into a paradigm shift. They don't necessarily want to change their outlook on things but, can't deny the truth of what they have experienced. Violent crime is a major catalyst for such a shift. You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle. Just like you can't unknow that there is no Santa Clause. Once you know, you can't unknow.

Such an epiphany can be quite dramatic. It isn't that they didn't hold their beliefs dear or that they didn't give full consideration to their political ideology. It is more a sudden realization that the basic foundation on which those beliefs are based is false. In her case it would appear that over time Cognitive Dissonance continued to grow until the mugging brought it all home. She found it an untenable situation to try and go back to her original ideology.

The rose tinted glasses had been removed. Once this occured, every aspect of her life would appear different. She has a new set of "eyes" with which to view her world. For some, this results in a great change in thinking. For others, it will lead to denial or possibly some other form of mental illness. IMHO

[Spabs]

Been a long-time lurker here, but this thread piqued my interests enough to throw in my 2 pennies as, I guess you'd call me, a "pro-gun liberal". Though lately I'm not even sure about the liberal part anymore.

Living in LA for 21 of my 23 years, I've been mugged twice, pick-pocketed several times and have faced intimidation that would have probably escalated if not for other people being around. This occured mostly on/around the public bus system here (the MTA has quite a large number of unsavory characters). However, I was relatively young when this all happened (about 15-17). For me, it wasn't these events that changed my outlook, it was simply getting older. As the world around me became more than "parents, girls and exams", as my friend likes to refer to pre-18 life, the ability to think for one's self opens up more than ever. To me it was common sense that upholding 2nd Amendment rights was paramount to being an American citizen. It was common sense that told me all the FUD propagated by the anti-gun nuts about ARs falling into the hands of criminals and gun crime rates being high was due to poor gun control and that more regulation was needed. I immediately thought to myself, "How many felons walk into a gun shop asking for an uzi? How many people wanting to commit a crime are going to register a gun in their name? Don't they watch 'Law and Order'? Don't they know the paper trail is the easiest trail to follow?"

Ignoring the fact that I was under 18 at the time of the incidents, any time I look back on it now, I wonder what would have happened if I had anything to protect myself? If more people protected themselves, would some punk from Fairfax High have the balls to pull an ice pick on a random passenger? And once again, these questions to me seem like common sense. The "shift" didn't happen then as a result of violence, it's only after the "shift" that I apply this "new" way of thinking of mine to a past event.

Oh well, sorry for the long rant. I wanted to share my personal experience as a "liberal turned not", I guess. That and it's 5am, I can't sleep and I'm out of bourbon. A bad combo.

[Tyrius]

Welcome to the party, Spabs, and thanks for sharing your insight. Sounds like you and the author have a bit in common, except you had the good fortune to see the benefits of self-defense and personal responsibilty, and the outright absurdity of most forms of gun control, far earlier in life than she did.

Phamkl, if you look at the history of liberalism, it meant something far different to our forefathers than it does to us today. Back in the day, liberalism was all about self-determination, minimal government, equitable treatment, and so on. This was "liberal" because at the time, the king ruled with God's blessing, you did what the Church said, and eff no, you weren't equal, get back to work. In this original sense, we're all liberals, being citizens of a constitutional democracy, as opposed to a monarchy or a fascist dictatorship (fun fact: liberal parties in Europe, where the term hasn't come to mean "social liberalism," look a lot like our conservatives.)

I dunno. It always irks me to think that the terms liberalism and liberal have been co-opted from their original meaning into the forms they so often take today.

[Steveo8]

when conservative republicans are all just crotchety old white guys in their 50's on up.

Hey I resemble this remark :)

[highpowermatch]

One aspect of conservatism, the ideology rather than the associated political party, is the idea that the individual is responsible, with the government being as small as possible, just to keep a couple of clean lines. When she came to think that she needed to defend herself, I think that was an explosion that converted her into thinking that she needs to take care of business herself. That's where the conservative conversion came from.

Well said.... +1

[demnogis]

I read the article and despite what she used to believe, she's realized that .gov is not the holy protector thought to be in places like Berkely.

I've only visited that dumpster twice. Once was enough.

There's also an essay that's made mention of. I'd suggest giving it a read:
A Nation of Cowards (http://www.supertrap.com/ST_Downloads_files/NationOfCowards.pdf) by Jeffrey R. Snyder

[Merc1138]

Yeah, Berkeley is a dumpster alright. Been there maybe 3 times, haven't been there in over a decade. Some people just don't understand why I refuse to go there for anything.

Berkeley was the first time I had ever seen a drive-thru window consisting of a bullet proof box that could only be opened rom one side at a time made out of panels of 2" thick glass. The cashier opened our side, we set our money in, they shut it, opened their side, stuck the bag of food in, shut it, opened our side, and we were on our way.

Now, I'm obviously familiar with the slot under the glass at the gas station, but this? This was ridiculous. And still out of all of the places I have ever been for one reason or another, Berkeley is STILL the only place I've seen it(not even in some of the crappier parts of oakland and richmond). The only places that aren't an area where I think I might get shot at just for being there, is the university which is full of just as many insane non-students as it is students(seriously, half of those people need to be locked up), or the areas around the university full of head shops and hippies that fill with drunken homeless people at night that seem to have a running competition going for who can come up with the funniest sign to ask for change. When you can walk down a street with 30 filthy drunk/drugged people begging for change and jumping in your way on the sidewalk to hassle you for money, and watch a cop car just roll past you on the street...

Has anything ever personally happened to me in Berkeley? No. I don't even personally know anyone off the top of my head that's had anything happen to them there. But I still refuse to go. It's really funny when friends/family out of state mention going to berkeley to visit, and I ask them if they're out of their minds, and then I have to explain why and the usual reaction is just shock/horror.

And even if I could get a CCW(no reason I couldn't I suppose other than the Alameda sherrif just saying "no"), I'm still not going to Berkeley.

[madmike]

I can't imagine anything ever being in Berkeley that would be worth going to Berkeley for. That place is beyond horrible.
On the up side, it does keep a large amount of crazy confined to one place...

-madmike.

[barrym66]

Great find! Thanks.

This is a great read...fortunately some Libs are (logically) coming to the conclusion that when society is unarmed (as Leftists like Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, etc. desire and are working towards), only the criminals will be in control. This gives me some hope (there's that favorite Lib word again) that all is not yet lost!

Then again, there are still plenty of naive citizens that still think like the friend of the writer of this piece, in hearing about the writer's violent mugging episode, opined that "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too.".

Incredible.

[Pont]

I think the issue is what I call "first born child of liberal." They are *not* liberal. They conservatively cling to ideals they inherited, they do not question those ideals, and they react aggressively to people who do question those ideals -- just like their bible-thumpers-who-haven't-actually-read-the-bible conservative counterparts.

The idea that some criminals are victims of a society that sets them up to be criminals was **brilliant** and revolutionary. Understanding and addressing the root cause of poverty and crime is a better solution than just waiting for people to commit a crime and punishing them. But doing it right is beyond the capability of people who have stopped thinking critically.

Being pro-2A in California *is* liberal.

[pointedstick]

*Warning! Über-post coming up…*

First of all, when we talk about liberals here, we are of course referring to academic, intellectual, university-educated, foreign travel, animal rights liberals as opposed to pro-union, pro-life, factory-working, deer-hunting liberals because the groups are very distinct (the latter are really independents). Most conservatives and libertarians I've found are referring to the ivory tower group when they speak of "liberals". I am a lapsed ivory-tower liberal, myself, and it is this group of people that I will be referring to. These views are the result of my observation with from within and without.

These liberals love the word "should."

"The weak should be protected from the strong."
"Everyone should have free health care."
"Violence should be unnecessary."
"All people should be made equal."
"Nobody should fear his neighbor."

Modern liberalism consists at its core of a set of principles stating how the world should ideally work. It sets out a utopian view of a world without want or strife — and then goes about asking, "how do we bring this about?" The end goal is the creation of a harmonious society free of what liberals view as the drivers of misery and poverty: fear, greed, and violence. These three things are hated the most by liberals, and against them they strive the hardest in their quest to banish them from this earth.

To this end, they support any policy whose stated goal is to reduce the amount of fear, greed, or violence in the world.

With this in mind, it becomes obvious why liberals are often so oblivious to the consequences of their policies — any short-term consequences don't really matter as long as the policies themselves are obviously pointed in the right direction with respect to the long term, i.e. that their stated goal is to reduce fear, greed, or violence.

Liberals care an enormous amount about the end goal of a harmonious world, but hardly at all about the immediate consequences of trying to bring it about.

In other words, the ends justify the means to liberals. As long as a policy appears to be lessening the amount of fear, greed, or, violence in the world, it should be pursued no matter the cost, damn the torpedoes!



Needless to say, this philosophy is fairly childish. There are several ways in which it can be reconciled by otherwise reasonable people:

The philosophy is diluted
Many reasonable people pick and choose elements of liberalism that appeal to them and only vaguely believe in the ability of the government to bring about a harmonious utopia. These people will frequently be for gay marriage, abortion rights, affirmative action, or other liberal causes that require them to do little themselves. These same people might be for the Iraq war or even gun rights (in the mountain west and midwest especially). The reason for these disconnects is that these people are usually not very politically-motivated, they they likely adopt the political beliefs and opinions of their friends and family. Their general disinterest in politics prevents them from breaking down their beliefs to core assumptions and having to challenge the inherent contradictions (between, for example, freedom and equality).

These people are very easy to convert. Most of their positions are based on ignorance or apathy, and if you happen to be their friend, you can often sneak in political tidbits that they'll likely agree with ("Boy wasn't it fun to shoot that Mini-14? Now look at this one; it shoots just the same, and just as fast, but it looks a whole lot scarier. But they only tried to ban one of these guns; isn't that strange?").



The believer's views haven't really been challenged
Many of these people are college students who can hold whatever views they want, as long as those views are liberal. In college, there are few consequences, and few ways of testing these theories. The college bubble insulates students from the real world and allows them to talk in the abstract about a utopian world completely absent the constraints of money, time, willingness, and sincerity on the part of those who would actually be doing the legwork. Some of these people get so addicted that they become professors of philosophy, Keynesian economics, ethnic studies, and the like.

These people are the ones most likely to have explosive conversions when a life experience forces them to come to terms with the fact that their philosophy cannot explain what has happened. For example, in a world supposedly made safe by gun control, how could a woman be robbed or raped at gunpoint? How could a supposedly benevolent government allow a child to be strip-searched for drugs at school? Etc.



The believer is mentally ill
People can hold nonsensical views that are constantly challenged, but if they are prone to denial or hypersensitivity, they can throw up defensive walls that shield their philosophy from rational analysis. Many of these people live happy, productive lives, but if you happen to mention the words "state sovereignty" they'll start yelling about southern racism and the civil war and jim crow and the KKK and how Republicans are all cousin-humping rednecks and that'll be the end of that political discussion. They will refuse to listen to you because the preservation of their worldview is of paramount importance to them for some reason.

These people cannot be changed.

[mtptwo]

The whole "must be mentally ill" thing is making me laugh. Die hard followers of any philosophy can be said to be mentally ill, be it liberalism, conservatism, or religion.

[7x57]

The whole "must be mentally ill" thing is making me laugh. Die hard followers of any philosophy can be said to be mentally ill, be it liberalism, conservatism, or religion.

Quite the contrary--they tend to be people who are willing to live the implications of their convictions. The mentally ill people as a group are people willing to live with a hundred mutually contradictory ideas in their heads simply because those ideas happen to be socially respectable. In a sense their beliefs don't matter much because they never face the logical consequences.

The problem with the first group isn't a question of pathology--it is a question of truth. The consequences of mistakes are far larger, simply because their beliefs actually *matter*. Are their convictions *true*? If so, then the best thing is to pursue the full implications--to be a "die hard believer," in your language, in reality. On the other hand, if their convictions are false, then they suffer from the full consequences of their errors simply because they are *not* mentally ill, but rather consistent.

It is rather fortunate that this is so, in fact, because essentially we are self-selected "die hard believers" in the Right to Arms and in self defense. Are we mentally ill? No, I claim, and the reason is quite crudely that we are right. Those who are most wrong are also consistent, and they become the Sarah Bradys of the world. Those in the middle are wrong about some aspects of reality ("nobody needs those evil *assault weapons*") but not on so many topics ("OK, I can see that a pistol might be OK") simply because they don't think through and live through the full consequences.

Rather than "mentally ill," however, I'd prefer to call it intellectual cowardice or sloth. There was a time people knew very well that simply going with conventional wisdom is lazy, cowardly, or both.

If you're in the middle, you can't help but be wrong one way or the other. I guess you'll be popular socially, though. I'll attempt to be right, and take the consequences when I make mistakes.

7x57

[thegratenate]

What I see in that write up is a ray of hope, a beautiful flower growing through an industrial parking lot. This woman has the full monty of education, lives in berkely and by all reason should be a lock step liberal, yet even she was able to pry her eyes open and see the light.