Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
Liberals' Desire To Be Loved Is Their Achilles' Heel
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



I have spent a good part of my life trying to understand people I disagree with, whether on the right or the left, whether members of my own religion or of other religions or of no religion.

In particular, I have wanted to understand people who hold leftist positions. Many people who hold them are personally decent, some very much so -- yet they hold positions that I believe increase cruelty (e.g., advocating withdrawal from Iraq); increase criminality (e.g., more lenient attitudes toward punishing criminals); hasten the decline of Western society (e.g., pushing multiculturalism); and undermine liberty (e.g., expanding government, passing more and more laws, taking away ever larger percentages of citizens' money).

They also panic easily (e.g., heterosexual AIDS in America, carbon dioxide emissions leading to global catastrophe); and the further left one goes, the more morally confused they are (e.g., the inability to label the Soviet Union an "evil empire"; the exaggeration of America's flaws -- it is sexist, imperialist, racist, homophobic -- and the undervaluing of its virtues).

Why is this? Why do so many good people hold bad positions?

There are many reasons. I believe that naivete about human nature and about evil heads the list. But high up there as an explanation of liberal and leftist thinking is the desire to be loved.

All normal people want to be loved -- and that is a very good thing when the love is sought from good people with whom we have close relationships.

But many people want to be loved by far more than friends and relatives. For example, most celebrities ache for the love of the public, and while that is a psychological problem for them -- since the love of the public is not personally fulfilling and one then craves it more and more -- the yearning of celebrities for an adoring public has no negative impact on society.

The yearning to be loved becomes a major problem, however, in most other instances. It becomes a problem, for example, when in raising children parents are guided by a desire to be loved by them. Parents cannot properly raise a child if they are unwilling to be disliked, even occasionally hated, by their child.

Sometimes what we have to do to raise a good child means not being loved at that moment (or even for extended periods over the course of years). That is one of the major reasons it is so difficult to raise children.

The liberal view of child-rearing over the last generation or two has placed love well above discipline, let alone punishment. The expressed reason is never that the punished child will not love the parent, but it is probably a factor in some liberal parents' mode of child-rearing.

But there are two areas where liberals do express a yearning to be loved, and these have macro, indeed, global, ramifications. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
You too can critique a column!
Lib Style Critique!

Step 1: Act like you're smarter than everyone around you because you're liberal.

Step 2: Subtly(overtly mostly) insult anyone without your worldview while not putting forward anything substantial.

Step 3: Feel smug about being better than everyone and knowing that you know what's best for people.

Step 4: Dream up the next "utopian" nightmare to force upon everyone.

Acting through Principal
Mr. Prager never seems to contemplate what directs most liberals--Principal. While it is impossible to please all the people the all the time, if one acts according to principal people will know what to expect from you and will respect you. Especially when we have the power to destroy the world in a matter of seconds we should strive to stick to our principals and show a consistent face to the world.

Garbage
This is typical Prager: sanctimonious, schoolmasterly, totally lacking in real logic.

He says that he tries to understand people he disagrees with: it's obvious that his tries have bore no fruit.

Militant leftie
Which principal is that whom you'll show to the world? From high school, middle, or elementary school?

Van: I think it might be "have borne" no fruit.

As to the content of the article: My lib family members--at least the women--do tend to be needy for love. I don't think that proves anything about this tendency for all libs, just the ones I know. But it's a possibility.

Good points all around particularly about raising children. Adults need to follow through with the rules and risk being unloved for a time. An adult who's not afraid to parent continues to love that child and is there when the child is ready to stop misbehaving.

And yes, the world doesn't love the U.S., but come a world war or a tight spot and they'll be scurrying to us for help, just like the prodigal son.

At the very least they'll be asking for cash and the car keys.



Libs...
Can any of you spell or use proper grammar? Ah, the fruits of public education. We are inundated with a horde of semi-literate nitwits.

Your premise seems flawed.
Mr. Prager, if liberals yearned to be loved, they wouldn't be so venomous toward their political adversaries.

It's Republicans who are done in by the desire to be loved. Look at all the compromises Republicans routinely make to get a few Democrats "on board" with some bit of legislation. Look at the way Republicans are always waffling about their convictions to get a few lines of approbation from the Old Media. Look at the way President Bush, a good and decent man, has repeatedly conciliated Ted Kennedy, a moral monster, for little cooperation and nothing but derision in return.

Liberals yearn for confirmation of their assumed moral superiority. That's why they adopt all those anti-social mascots. And, of course, they yearn for power over others. But love? Why should they want love from persons they despise and seek to rule?

Francis W.
You can spell. You use proper grammar. You express yourself well. You make sense.

I may be wrong but...clearly you are no liberal!

Francis W.
You can spell. You use proper grammar. You express yourself well. You make sense.

I may be wrong, but...clearly you are no liberal!

Not a big fan of Prager
As a conservative I am not a big fan of Prager. He takes the long way around the barn instead of tackling issues head on.

This column is a good example. Prager talks about the desire to be loved and an "Achilles heel". Compare this to Reagan, who simply put it like this. "The problem with our liberal friends is not that that don't know anything. It's that they know so much that isn't true."

Militant Leftist
Militant Leftist obviously has no idea how conservatives see Leftists as standing for NOTHING EXCEPT INCREASING THEIR OWN POWER OVER PEOPLE AND ELITE RULERSHIP. If Leftists actually had values such as valuing women's rights, and homosexual or should is say LGBT rights, or freedom, or democracy, or freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, they would support Israel. Instead they are pro Islamist, pro the enemies of America, anti Israel, anti Zionist, anti Semitic.

Actually
None of the above is correct.

It is true that "traditional liberals" want to be loved, but then so do many traditional conservatives. Both believe that by being "good people" by their own definitions, they can make this happen. However, this is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The present crop of "progressives" have no interest whatever in being "loved", except insofar as a deity is "loved" by those who worship it. For worship is what they crave. They want, in fact demand, to be obeyed, admired, and emulated by others.

And when anyone disagrees with them, points out their errors, or simply expresses what they regard as insufficient interest in playing their game by their rules, they do indeed behave like deities. In the sense of the Greek and Roman pantheons.

They become jealous, cruel, spiteful, and destructive. In the manner of willful, vindictive children.

This does handily explain why they never see the dichotomy in their own behavior. They are literally blinded by their own belief in their infalliability, perfection, and general wonderfulness. Ii also explains why typical "progressives" are confused and angered when they are not deferred to. To them, it means that those who should be bowing to them are committing apostasy instead.

I think it would be better for all concerned if the rest of us simply accepted that "progressives" will never make sense to any sane, normal person. Just as the ancient Greeks accepted the vindictiveness and capriciousness of their gods.


After all, no sane, reasonable Athenian of the Periclean Age would have expected rational behavior from Zeus. He would have just accepted that, sooner or later, the Father of the Gods would start throwing thunderbolts for no readily apparent reason.


cheers

eon

No one
wants to be loved more than these conservative republicans we have in congress and the white house. I don't see Schumer or Harry Reid wanting to be love.
However, Bushie boy, along with Lott et.al...spend their time backstabbing their supporters and kissing liberal behinds. What a stupid article.....liberals love foolishness.

Disconnect?
Prager says, in re to liberals: "They also panic easily (e.g., heterosexual AIDS in America)."

He ought to read the anti-condom use rants I saw on other pages of this web site. Besides, AIDS has become a straight disease, and is spread primarily through needle (i.e. drug) use. It is tearing through the inner cities.

Mary C.

Principal v. Principle
Militant Leftie, like most leftists I know, you are stunningly stupid. There is a difference between "principal", which you use in your first post, and "principle" which is the word you should have used. Did you pass your high school civics class? If you did, was your teacher worth a darn? Prager is correct. Not only do lefties want their country to be loved, they think it is OK for their country to become a third-world cesspool like most of the countries we (liberals) are courting.

It is not necessary to be happy
It is necessary to do right. Old Chinese Proverb.

Fact check? I think not
"the yearning of celebrities for an adoring public has no negative impact on society."

Wow, Dennis sure is willing to let sleeping gods lie (in a gutter in this case) when he doesn't have an immediate gripe with them. I guess Hollywood will be responsible for all of next week's conservative setbacks (back o' the line, Baldwin!).

You know, I'd never heard of Lindsay Lohan until I saw pictures of her u-know-what (rhymes with angina). And no, not in a reputable pornographic publication, but in a tawdry gossip magazine!

I know what you're thinking: seen one, seen them all. But no, this one is apparently attached to a role model for young women - she was in a movie and allegedly the rest of her is quite pretty (yeah, whatever). I've still only ever seen her in magazines and mugshots (no pun intended).

Coke-snorting, drunk-driving, bits-flashing, parole-violating role models (and she isn't the only one) have no negative impact on society? If you say so Dennis, I just hope you don't have daughters.

Of course, you'll never know, even if you visit the delightful http://www.dennisprager.com. Which is well worth a visit, for all sides. Two things stood out: the absolute scrupulous absence of humility (the bible only vaguely recommends it anyway), and absolutely nothing is for free (charity begins at home, not on your website!) Lovely picture of Dennis though.

I wish a liberal poster
Would a lib please explain to me why they spend so much of their precious time (which could be put to so much better use kissing up to the Michael Moore's) reading the columns in TH which anger them so much. I personally have never read a liberal blog - it would only anger and infuriate me with its lies. Here in TH we have day after day excellent columns (yes, libs,Dennis Prager too) presenting ideas and concerns that libs can't refute except to attack the column or writer. Are the libs lives so empty of reading about their own ideas in liberal blogs that they must spend their time reading TH and disparaging its usually inspiring and pointed ideas? Libs lives must be miserable, they hate life so much. Did you ever see any post by a liberal that had a positive point?

Mary C
AIDS is primarily a disease of the gay population in the U.S. Second in percentage are drug users and those hetersexuals having sex with numerous partners. Prager's point is well taken - do not be deceived by equating the strong risk of gay AIDS as opposed to the nearly non-existant chance of getting AIDS if you are heterosexual. The U.S. has taken the lead in AIDS research, mainly at the behest of the libs hated enemy, George W. Bush. If you are heterosexual, stay with one partner or spouse and do not use drugs, your chances of getting AIDS are practically nil. Yes, while AIDS started in the U.S. in the 70's in the gay community, it definitely has crossed over into the straight population, but unless you engage in the risky behavior I enumerated above, you almost never will get AIDS. The AIDS virus is not floating around through the air - you only get it when you get into one of the behaviors listed above.

Judging from the breathless, . . .
. . . inane, and angry responses from the lefties here, it would appear that Mr. Prager has hit the nail squarely on the head. Good work, sir!

You, too, can write satire
If you really write satire instead of spewing angry invective and ad hominem attacks. I know Loyal Democrat really chaps your gluteals, Loyal Conservative, but at least s/he does it with wit and intelligence. Your attempt to ape her/him is laughably inane and immature.

Desire?
I guess Vitter & now Craig must be liberals since they too seem to have a desire to be loved.

El Negro Pero
“Liberals desire fairness and justice.”

The only reason you say that is that you refuse to see examples where they DON'T desire fairness and justice. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, they were angered and upset by this brutal and flagrant violation of international law, right? No, of not. They were angered and upset by the fact that we, the big bully, were going to do something about it. And how about the Duke lacrosse rape case? All the libs did was make asses of themselves on that one.

Or here’s another one. It’s from a leftist professor who was astonished to see his fellow leftist professors acting so callously. It was a decade ago when the jobs crisis in academia was at its height. Things were so bad that teaching assistants at Yale went on strike. How did their leftist professors react?

“Sara Suleri, a brilliant postcolonial critic whose work I have taught in my own courses, urged disciplinary action against one of her teaching assistants who joined [the union's] 1995 decision to withhold undergraduate grades until Yale agreed to negotiate. Nancy Cott, a widely admired labor historian, spoke out against the union, and David Brion Davis, a distinguished historian of slavery, sought college guards to bar his union-identified teaching assistant from entering the room where undergraduate final exams would be given...." [Cary Nelson, Manifesto of a Tenured Radical, p. 143]

Yup, they sure were interested in fairness and justice, weren’t they.

I could give countless examples like these.

Black Dog
Yes, let's talk about the 2-4 million Vietnamese killed by US bombs. First- citation please. Second- How many of those were combat troops or irregular troops? Third-How many were executed by Pol Pot after we left? Fourth- How many killed by communism in the last 70 or so years? Fifth- Define "Fairness". Who determines what it means and who insures that it occurs? This is pure fantasy. You can legislate equality of opportunity but can not legislate the outcomes. Some people simply work harder than others. And, yes, the libs overwhelmingly appear to need the adulation that the MSM so willingly supplies.

Desire to be right
"There are many reasons. I believe that naivete about human nature and about evil heads the list. But high up there as an explanation of liberal and leftist thinking is the desire to be loved."

Of course there is an alternative theory. Those on the left are driven by empirical, reasoned conclusions, rather than faith.

Eon
Very well said!

@ Francis W. - I think you have it half right, the current crop of Republicans seem to have an inferiority complex, thinking that if they compromise their principles for supposed gains and "bipartisan" agreement, they can prevail.

George W. is particularly susceptible to this in re his behavior with Teddy, but I don't think he wants Teddy to love him, he just takes the admonition "turn the other cheek" a bit too far.

In that case, he does lose (or fail to gain) the respect of liberals, but they will never respect him no matter what he does. In fact, libs don't respect anyone including themselves, so it's a Sisyphean task to even try to earn their respect.
The biblical injunction "love one another as you love yourself" means you cannot love someone UNLESS you love yourself. Therefore, libs cannot ever love someone, because they don't love themselves.

http://www.countrymanscorner.blogspot.com

Desire for Love No Achilles Heel
Dennis uses the wrong metaphor to call the desire to be loved an "Achilles Heel". It is simply aother fatal flaw. Liberals are week in all areas of their thinking. I cannot think of any issue, where they are not wrong. They place sentiment over justice, mercy or charity. Their focus on intent rather than actions or results are neurotic at best. They would abort a child to assuage a woman's discomfort of 9 months and social embarrassment of copulating with a total stranger or casual acquaintance. They misunderstand the nature of homosexual male sex and seek to in a odd way "mainstream" it into mimicking quasi-marriage in a heterosexual mode. In the end, when talk fails, humans will come to blows. Liberals will not have the strength or resolve to actually resist armed combat agaisnt their enemies within a nation or the enemies from without. When bullets fly they will likely fade into the shadows to prove they cowards or afterwards write purple hearts for themselves.

Uber
"Those on the left are driven by empirical, reasoned conclusions"

ROTFLMAO!!
That is soooo good, you should be a standup comic!

http://www.countrymanscorner.blogspot.com

Eon
Bravo bravo. Your comment should be published!!

Wow! Was that well said.

Uber
"Those on the left are driven by empirical, reasoned conclusions, rather than faith"

ROTFLMAO!!
That is sooo good, you should be a stand-up comic!

http://www.countrymanscorner.blogspot.com

Ye gods...
Between Robert and Black Dog and Loyal Democrat, I am started to get confused; which ones are the loony Lefties, and which ones are the parodists? It is getting a bit difficult to tell the difference...

Eon
Bravo! Bravo! Your comments should be published. Boy did you get it right and communicate it too!


This blog
This blog is acting weird. I post a comment. I don't see it. I post another comment, then the newest comment I posted does not appear but the one I didn't see suddenly shows up.




Ok
Ok I think we got caught up with a repeat comment to boot. It appears to be posting in groups rather than one at a time.


Liberals are our superiors.
What would we do without their brilliance? We mortals could never manage our dismal lives without the dictates of our self-annointed* masters. The least we can do is love, honor and adore them.

Love may be too limiting of a word. Libs are in constant need of affirmation and acceptance(why else do entertainers have so many award shows?.

Libs gain popularity by rarely taking a tough stance on any issue. They are society's 'yes men', fostering victimhood, and offering solutions with no cost to the beneficiaries. They are no different than the parent who panders to every demand of a spoiled child vs. the parent who is willing to say NO).

Judging by the lib responses, Prager has nailed the issue.

*Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent book, 'Visions of the Annointed'.


Militant leftist
Which principles are you talking about?

Principle 1: Never stereotype. But isn't this what you guys are doing when you say everyone in the world hates us? Because that just isn't true.

Principle 2: Respect other cultures (multiculturalism). Those other cultures love sports like soccer and cricket (there's a billion cricket fans in south Asia). So tell me, please, how exactly leftists in this country show their respect for those two sports? Most leftists my age sneer at those sports.

Principle 3: Listen to those at the bottom. Whenever the talk here turns to global warming, sooner or later a liberal leftist will bring up peer-reviewed articles. The reason they do that is because leftist academics at the top love peer review. Those of us at the BOTTOM hate peer review and think it's unfair and corrupt. When are you going to listen to those of us at the bottom?

I could go on and on about how leftists betray their own principles. This is just a sample.

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis
You always give the Lefties the benefit of the doubt, and that is why we love you.

But I don't believe that the Left are always motivated by a desire to be loved. I think that very often they are motivated by some inexplicable seething inner hate, and a toddler-like desire to rebel against "the Man."

Working in Hollywood, I am often reminded of that commercial where the guy in the suit says: "I'm going to stick it to the Man," and his assistant replies: "but, you ARE the man!"

El Negro Pero
"it was the LEFT that faced police dogs and fire hoses to fight for fairness and to end Jim Crow."

Hmmm, I seem to recall the Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Robert Byrd, filibustering AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, along with the majority of his Democrat buddies in Congress, while the Republicans pushed it through when they were in the minority.
Get your facts straight.

http://www.countrymanscorner.blogspot.com

Black Dog
Why reverse the tax cuts? Foolish class warfare! The tax cuts (much like those proposed by JFK and instituted by LBJ) have stimulated the economy, increased gummint revenues and increased the share the top 10% pays (from 64 to 66%). But, yes, let's go back to the 1970's and do more with less just so we can "stick it the rich". You know- those people that provide employment, work 20 hour days (and weekends, and holidays) and generally take all of the risks so that the "little guy" never has to think about where his paycheck is coming from as long as he shows up and puts in some effort.

More about "sticking it to the Man"
I used to work for many years at a major Hollywood studio, which shall remain nameless, but specialized in Family Entertainment and had a corporate logo of the rodent variety.

As time went by, we kept getting more and more executives who seemed to hate traditional family entertainment, and appeared to want to erradicate it from the company.

This used to be a puzzlement to me. Why would someone want to work there if they hated our products so much?

It took years for the answer to come to me.

They worked there BECAUSE they hated the company and wanted to change it. They saw that particular company as a vehicle to brainwash children in Leftism, just like what they accomplished when they hijacked the school system.

El Negro Pero writes:
Liz says:
"However, Bushie boy, along with Lott et.al...spend their time backstabbing their supporters and kissing liberal behinds. What a stupid article.....liberals love foolishness."

Such butt kissers those republicans - I mean, Democrats ask him to get out of iraq and he just packed up and left...

And reversing those tax cuts! He rolled over like a puppy!

1st If the Dems want out of Iraq they can cut off the funds.

2nd Tax and spending bills originate in Congress or did you miss that part in civics class.

The fact is GWB did abandon many of the core conservatives once he got to the White House. For this he was paid back in the 06 election when many of those voters stayed home in protest. As of killing all of the Viets you ignore the fact that North Vietnam invaded the South not the other way around. As of who killed the most people that award goes to the commies. Do yourself a favor before placing posts on this site; do a fact check. People here are a little more intellegent than the typical Air America lister.




Yes Principle not principal
I am sorry about the misspell.

If liberals really wanted to be loved they would say.

You never have to pay taxes or be responsible for anyone but yourself.

We would say that you as an individual need to do nothing for the war on terror besides "shopping". That you will neither have to pay more taxes or participate in the any productive way.

We would say that we would scrap the constitution and Geneva conventions for the the "bad guys", regardless of the effect that his will have on the troops. After all, if you know that you will spend the foreseeable future being tortured if you are captured, you might just fight to the death

RightStuff: Principal v. Principle
I noticed that Freudian slip too.

Liberals have been brainwashed by the activist Left who have taken over the school system and preach hatred for the United States.

They probably have had their minds taken over by some Leftie Principal, and not any real Principles.

The only difference between the hate taught in the Madrasas and the hate taught in the Universities is that Lefties don't blow themselves up.

L A M E
Let's see, I have no unique insights to write about today. I suppose I'll just appeal to the lowest common denominator. Boy that was easy.

Liberals are gods
They only intend to consolidate their superior intellects and power into government for our own good. Why don’t all of the citizens of America realize this and humble themselves as appropriate?

Well I see...
...the Little Black Poodle is off his medication again.

Very wrong Denis
The libs do have a desire to be loved, but not by everyone.

They love eveil more than good.
Deciet more than honesty and integrity.
Darkness more than light because their deeds are evil.

Look at the coverage of things like wire tapping.
Look at how the left will try and use the constitution to protect abortion but ignore it when it comes to gun ownership. How they want to extend rights to non citizens and deny rights to citizens....

You hinted at my points in your opening paragraph, when you spoke about criminality. They left loves the crinimals more than the victims. Not only is the left very wrong on many issues but also very evil

Anthony Thomas writes:
"This isn't a "liberal Lament" it's just the truth. The American egotism of GWB and those who support his policies has caused us to lose many allies; Allies that could be helping us on the war on Terror. Even Britain has pulled most of its troops out of Iraq."

Please. It IS a liberal lament. The bottomline is that there are too many spineless weasels with power in the world's countries (as well as these nations' citizens) who are so impotent and cowardly that they can't do the right thing. Hence, when the US is doing the right thing, we are "hated" because of it. Your PC-infected world view distorts actual truth and destroys your ability to discern right and wrong. Which is the reason for your moral relativism.

Love might be up there, ...
.
...but I think it’s the liberal’s innate defiance of authority that is more basic.

Loyal Conservative
So tell me: are generalizations all bad? Or is it only the generalizations of the Right you have a difficulty with?

I have a great many debates, with a great many people on the left, and I have constantly heard the mantra that, "the world hates us" in one form or another. You call that a straw man argument. Why? Because not all people of the left feel that way? I suggest you take a little informal poll of those you know, who lean to the left. If you find that 80 percent hold that view, would you then recant your idea that it is a straw man argument?

And what was the deal with the absurd, "not all liberals" assertion of your post? Of course not all liberals feel exactly the same way. You seem to think that fact somehow destroys Prager's argument. Here is a little tip about debating: It is virtually impossible to make any argument without some degree of generalizing. When certain folks on the left DO lament that we are hated by most of the world, is that not a generalization? Of course it is.

Not Love...self-righteousness
It isn't so much that liberals want to be loved, it is that they think they have the high moral ground, and what they think as their 'neutral minded' judgement. Liberals/Secularists/Atheists...they think of themselves as "neutral", thats why they promote a "humanist" type religion in schools, because they think of it as neutral, and to them christianity is incapable of being "fair"...etc...

Loyal Conservative
So tell me: are generalizations all bad? Or is it only the generalizations of the Right you have a difficulty with?

I have a great many debates, with a great many people on the left, and I have constantly heard the mantra that, "the world hates us" in one form or another. You call that a straw man argument. Why? Because not all people of the left feel that way? I suggest you take a little informal poll of those you know, who lean to the left. If you find that 80 percent hold that view, would you then recant your idea that it is a straw man argument?

And what was the deal with the absurd, "not all liberals" assertion of your post? Of course not all liberals feel exactly the same way. You seem to think that fact somehow destroys Prager's argument. Here is a little tip about debating: It is virtually impossible to make any argument without some degree of generalizing. When certain folks on the left DO lament that we are hated by most of the world, is that not a generalization? Of course it is.

sorry for the double post
Sorry folks, I somehow posted the same thing twice. It was not intentional. My bad

Not Loved -- POPULAR
This is High School writ large, this attitude of the Liberal to be Popular ... think back if you dare to the torment of your four years in high school trying to cram yourself into that Procrustean bed labeled POPULARITY and pattern yourself on the vacuous blond in the expensive clothing who was voted Miss Popularity year after year ... this is what the Liberals want more than anything else: to be one of the In Crowd, the Cool Kids, the Elite.

This is why they march together, chant pre-programmed rhymes together, wave focus-group-vetted signs that are handed to them by their Popular Masters, and show up in mobs when the MSM tells them that the Popular Kids Are All Going To Be There.

They are stuck in High School. They want to be Popular. And to my mind there is nothing sadder than that kid who spent high school being shut in his locker and given wedgies by the Popular Crowd, still yearning to hang around the fringes of that clique and be thought One Of Them.

Unless, perhaps, it is the long-faded Popular Girl who still thinks life is High School.

Love? I don't think so.
The desire of liberals to be loved is insignificant compared to their demand to be in power. And accordingly the only time they want the US to be loved is when a Democrat is in the White House.

In fact, the only thing that could take their current BDS to the next level would be if the US gained 'love', respect, and adulation around the world while W was still in office.

I mean, look how nutty they got when the Soviet Union went belly up? And Reagan was retired by the time his plan to defeat them came to fruition.

libs in general
there is this inate smugness amongst libs that they are not only right but they always know what is best for everyone else. The current high priestess of liberalism, the missus clinton, wants to be called progressive as her handlers have told how poisoness liberaism has become to the diologue. When her notion of the common good calls for confiscated profits from corportations, and increased tax rates for the producers in this country to fund her utopia of cradle to the grave govt programs one must ask what do these libs/progressives really believe in. The fact that many are signing on to missus clinton with her scanty resume but an entire adult life living off of govt welfare one must ask how does she understand reality. Living off the taxpayers in arkansas, the american people while residing in the white house and being a senator and the many dollars that she and bubba have stockpiled from selling his presidentcy from any and all who would throw dollarts at the clintons to gain their favor. How does someone living such as isolated life from reality truly understand the day to day living, the making ends meet and coping with the unexpected emergencies that ordinary people face. Yet this is who the libs/dims are placing all their hopes on to lead them into their future vision of nirvana. The country deserves better and the dims certainly should have a better person to carry their banner

libs in general
there is this inate smugness amongst libs that they are not only right but they always know what is best for everyone else. The current high priestess of liberalism, the missus clinton, wants to be called progressive as her handlers have told how poisoness liberaism has become to the diologue. When her notion of the common good calls for confiscated profits from corportations, and increased tax rates for the producers in this country to fund her utopia of cradle to the grave govt programs one must ask what do these libs/progressives really believe in. The fact that many are signing on to missus clinton with her scanty resume but an entire adult life living off of govt welfare one must ask how does she understand reality. Living off the taxpayers in arkansas, the american people while residing in the white house and being a senator and the many dollars that she and bubba have stockpiled from selling his presidentcy from any and all who would throw dollarts at the clintons to gain their favor. How does someone living such as isolated life from reality truly understand the day to day living, the making ends meet and coping with the unexpected emergencies that ordinary people face. Yet this is who the libs/dims are placing all their hopes on to lead them into their future vision of nirvana. The country deserves better and the dims certainly should have a better person to carry their banner

Taking it to its logical conclusion:
Mr. Prager's article is just shy of hitting the nail on the head. This is obviously a generalization, but the reason most liberals need so badly to be loved is they don't realize they have a loving creator, let alone have a relationship with Him.

Phylo
Maybe you should try reading the article first and then commenting. I didn't see anything there about stirring up hatred. Not that the rest of your comments sounded anything but pompus and selfrightious but I did notice you offered no arguement to what he said.

Wiseone
Why would anyone want to elect a crook? For the same reason the people in Massachusetts keep electing a crook every six years.

I think it's more about
Libs wanting to feel good about themselves. Taking my money to give to someone else makes them a "giver" -- a very good thing to be. But don't you think giving your own time and/or money is better?

That libs are compelled to feel better about themselves is evident in their non-stop attempts to belittle conservatives as uninformed or stupid.

leroy
Liberals don't argue with facts. They argue on emotion. Intellect in not in their vocabulary

Liberal love needs
Dennis Prager has articulated a theory very similar to my own developed after years observing and engaging liberals. They suffer from low self-esteem which causes a pathological desire to be loved and respected. Their parents likely ignored them or praised them for achieving a "particpant" ribbon in their chosen sport or science project. Receiving such adulation for non-meritorious accomplishments makes people insecure and to seek affirmation in the wrong places.

sheepdog
kennedy isn't a crook. he has betrayed america on the previous immigration sham and want to to betray us in a far worse manner today. He has always beedn a big spender of the treasury to fund programs that cost billions but have no positive results but worse still he was involved in the death of a young girl that her took to a party for sexual activities and then let her drown while he scrambled to save his sorry rear end and make sure he didn't suffer politically. In spite of all that he is hailed by the left as a lion for democracy. Mass could have done much better than send this pathetic murderer, alcholic, womanizer to represent their issus. But then again he probably truly represnts the views of Mass.

Phylo writes
"and undermine liberty (e.g. advocating a policy that it's just fine for the executive branch to spy on whomever they want without any oversight at all)."

Man talk about Orwellian

There was a song written a few years back (Can't recall the title or the artist) but some of the lyrics were
"I always feel like somebodys watching me"

BTW have you personally lost any liberties?
Didn't think so..



Wiseone
I was thinking along those same lines..There whole family is a bunch of crooks starting with Joe. I don't know how many times I've read of someone in the Kennedy clan who's committed some kind of crime but never do any time.


sheepdog
kennedy isn't a crook. he has betrayed america on the previous immigration sham and want to to betray us in a far worse manner today. He has always beedn a big spender of the treasury to fund programs that cost billions but have no positive results but worse still he was involved in the death of a young girl that her took to a party for sexual activities and then let her drown while he scrambled to save his sorry rear end and make sure he didn't suffer politically. In spite of all that he is hailed by the left as a lion for democracy. Mass could have done much better than send this pathetic murderer, alcholic, womanizer to represent their issus. But then again he probably truly represnts the views of Mass.

sheepdog
papa joe kennedy was the US ambassador to great britain. He had gained prominance by being a booze runner and boston politician. He was such a supporter for hitler that Churchhill had to contact roosevelt and demand that kennedy be recalled as he was such an embarrassment. We can see that by the time he fathered teddy the dna pool had run dry

I thought libruls hated America
All this time you conservatives have been foaming at the mouth, accusing us of hating America. Now this Prager says no, no, liberals want the rest of the world to *love* America, and you lap that right up, too. I'll tell you what. Your first guess, though still wrong, was closer.

el negro pero
actually I don't think anyone can be absolutely sure who she is or what she stands for. She tends to morph into whatever group she is addressing wants her to be. But she does seem to be making an attempt to move to the center. We on the right see this as a rouse.

It is always dangerous....
...to assume you know what motivates people you disagree with. You inevitably come off as sanctimonious and patronizing. Liberals get conservatives wrong when they do this, and vice versa.

when a thoughtful conservative article is published, I enjoy reading it. Stuff like this from Prager just makes me roll my eyes. It's much more interesting to just debate the issues respectfully.

wildwest
Do you mean a ruse?

malouska
could be. There tends to be occasional disconnects between my miond and my fingers on the keyboard

Why?
For the life of me I do not understand why you liberals hate gwb. Liberals love to have power over people...the people. They don't want to be loved, they want to be honored and adored as poster said. Bush is a typical liberal....he desires the affection of his power...'yeah look at me'...Delmar in O brother.

Phylo
What lose of privacy have you personally suffered, one exsample please.

Oh yeah, you don't have the privacy to make a phone call to a known terrorist without running the risk of being listened to.

The sky is not falling and mean George Boosh is not hiding in your closet listening to you.

And Phylo
Between what Prager has written here and what you have written here, I don't think Prager is the one stirring up hatred.

Liberals have this thing against
life as normal people live it. Somehow they feel that by self-sacrificing they can earn the love and respect of their fellow man. To liberals the word 'selfishness' is evil and that anyone concerned about his own interests is evil.
Doing something for one's self creates such a guiltly feeling that they shudder to think of a world occupied only by those brutes whose only interest is in themselves.

If you don't care about yourself, who does? Your friendly liberals? They cannot be trusted because they have no moral values, at least those that are deemed to be good for human life.
Liberals want to know whose values they are to live under and since they refuse to live under the moral standards that have proven to be beneficial to mankind. They live their lives under the principle of: "by whatever means necessary." Therefore, moral standards no longer apply to liberals.

They believe that ANY action(s) WHATEVER, if it is done for the benefit of other people is good and any action(s) taken for one's own benefit is evil. Therefore, today we see appalling immorality, chronic injustice, unbelievably twisted double standards, insoluble conflicts (Roe v. Wade) and bald-face contradictions which are the hallmarks the Democrat party. As long as, in their minds, whatever they do benefits anybody but themselves, anything goes. They are free to do whatever it takes to obtain that love at any cost and that's what makes liberals so dangerous to our way of life.

leroy
again the left fails to understand the govt interest in it's citizens. As long as you pay your taxes they could care less whop you are. 99.9% of citizens are obeying the laws and not supporting terrorists. If you aren't violating any laws what is the concern. It has always been said the FBI could find a fallen angel in a house of repute. But I want the govt to concentrate on foreign phone calls and identified enemies. We have 300,000,000 people we cannot all be plotting to overthrow the govt no matter the left thinks

It is so funny
that all these Prager bashers claim Dennis has nothing to say, and yet they read him every day. I guess they have nothing better to do than waste their time.


Prager fails at what he claims to try
It is possible that Prager really does want to understand liberals, but his columns regularly show he fails at this to an extreme degree.

In the above article the most noticable way is his idea that worrying that the world hates us requires an obsession with whether the world loves us.

Engendering hatred is simply against our national interest. To give a concrete example, there have been two coups attempted against democracies in the Western hemisphere since Bush took over. The US supported them both. There was the successful coup in Haiti, and the unsuccessful one in Venezuela. One consequence is that people in the Western Hemisphere tend to laugh when Bush talks about spreading democracy. When we were going to the UN for support for the war in Iraq, two of the countries on the security council that voted against us were Mexico and Chile. These are the countries that are perhaps more dependent on our good will than any in the world. But Bush policies had so poisoned attitudes against us that neither government was in a position to give us support.

Similarly anger in Turkey meant we could only invade from the South and not from the North. And it meant that unlike in 1991 when we were not so hated, we did not have international support for the invasion, and did not have the additional troops that entailed.

I agree it is silly for us to warp our values in order to be loved. But we tend to be hated precisely when we abandon our values. And it is worth holding onto our values for our sake. Not torturing helps us in dealing with the world, but it is also consistent with our values. Not supporting the overthrow of elected governments is a similar kind of issue. Not making dishonest cases for war, same thing.

Converse
So, if liberals want to be loved does that mean that conservatives want to be hated?

You all certainly seem to work hard at achieving that goal (going it alone in Iraq; torture; vote caging; Congressional sex scandals; warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens; Katrina; etc).

I suppose a conservative's answer to my question would be, "no we don't want to be hated; we just don't care what people think about us." And that my friends is exactly YOUR problem. Conservatives don't care what the rest of the world thinks (Iraq). They don't care what women and minorities think (reproductive rights; civil rights) . They don't care about the environment (hoax?). They don't care what poor people think (pull yourself up by your bootstraps; go it alone; help your self!).

Who says?
Anthony Thomas writes: Tuesday, August, 28, 2007 9:52 AM
part 2

"One of the most often repeated liberal laments about American foreign policy under President George W. Bush is that America is more hated around the world than ever"

This isn't a "liberal Lament" it's just the truth. The American egotism of GWB and those who support his policies has caused us to lose many allies; Allies that could be helping us on the war on Terror. Even Britain has pulled most of its troops out of Iraq.

I generally do not post... I do love to visit and read the rantings of fellow Americans.

But this post definately requires a response.

Being a constant traverler to far away lands (not because I am rich or like to travel, it comes with the job) I can tell you without any doubt, America is not hated. In fact, over the past two years, people from China, Singapore, India, Japan, S. korea have all felt the need to volunteer a "Thanks" to me for America.

A taxi driver in Singapore generalized what I have been hearing quite a bit lately... "We know if not for America, the world would be totally out of control".

Most statements like these are made with no prompting, and I can tell you, ten years ago I never heard such things.

So now you guys can go on arguing and solving the world's problems, but don't anyone tell you America is disliked, nothing is further from the truth.


Re: liberals reading conservative blogs
I read conservative sites and blogs for the same reason Prager articulated at the beginning of his article:

"I have spent a good part of my life trying to understand people I disagree with, whether on the right or the left, whether members of my own religion or of other religions or of no religion"

I also read liberal sites and I find that I agree with most of what is said there, so there's not really much else to say, debate or learn. I'm surprised more conservatives don't feel the same way about conservative sites: you know what conservatives' opinions are on most issues because you are one, so i would think you would tire easily of seeing your own opinions echoed back to you. Of course, I guess if you're the kind of person that is threatened by others' idea and opinions, going to a site that differs from your views would be traumatic.

re: reading conservative sites
I read conservative sites and blogs for the same reason Prager articulated at the beginning of his article:

"I have spent a good part of my life trying to understand people I disagree with, whether on the right or the left, whether members of my own religion or of other religions or of no religion"

I also read liberal sites and I find that I agree with most of what is said there, so there's not really much else to say, debate or learn. I'm surprised more conservatives don't feel the same way about conservative sites: you know what conservatives' opinions are on most issues because you are one, so i would think you would tire easily of seeing your own opinions echoed back to you. Of course, I guess if you're the kind of person that is threatened by others' idea and opinions, going to a site that differs from your views would be traumatic.

sheepdog
Your post at 1133 was dead-on. I posted an article on Iran on my blog, in relation to that diaper stain Jimmy Carter, and one libdolt posted a stupid comment devoid of any facts whatsoever.

"Feelings, nothing more than feelingggggs."

The song pretty much sums up liberal policies both foreign and domestic.

Mountain Rose
When Walt Disney died, I told several friends and people in my family that they would start to see a change in the product that was being put out by Disney.

I said, "You watch. There will be a change and gradually this company will start to introduce ideas that will pull down and do damage to our youth." I was sure of this because Walt was a gifted and unique man who revered God. Without his oversight, I knew Disney would fall to the pressures of the amoral.

Sheepdog
"BTW have you personally lost any liberties?
Didn't think so.."

Yes, in fact. A law that has the potential to violate your rights already *has*, just by being in existence, because the abuse has just been legalized.

Tubbs
"You all certainly seem to work hard at achieving that goal (going it alone in Iraq; torture; vote caging; Congressional sex scandals; warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens; Katrina; etc)."

I suggest you seek a detox center.

Vote caging? Last time looked, it was the libs buying votes in Florida. (Irving Slosberg was his name.)

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3071FF73B5F0C7B8DDDA80994D8404482&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/N/Natta,%20Don%20Van%20Jr.

Congressional Sex scandal? I remember Bubba Klintoon and HIS little sex scandal with a BBW.

Wiretaps on US citizens? Even FISA requires that it be JUSTIFIED and probable cause must be shown.

Katrina? How about the Posse Commitatus Act of 1887 that requires STATE OFFICIALS to FORMALLY request Federal aid. Nagel and Blanco, both Dhimmicrats, failed to do it until it was too late.

Oh, and FEMA's wasted HOW MUCH money on Katrina "victims" who bought purses, shoes, drugs, booze?

Facts sure are a b*tch ain't they?

tubbs
I'm sure you know what conservative's opinions are too, so I doubt you are learning anything new by reading TH.

Most Libs are just so malicious with their name calling and the way they respond. If this is the way they/you are effected by reading these posts, it can't be too healthy for you. I would just think you could find a better use of your time.

tubbs
meant to add in regards to vote caging...

The town of Alice Texas votes for LBJ in his 1948 Senate race 100% and in alphabetical order no less.

Sam Giancana anyone?

the republicans love their pages!
in this strictly hypo-cryte republican problem... what's with gop'ers and the love of younger pages and drugs?! you guys have serious serious issues that you constantly deny exists.

Militant Leftist'
Liberals are the antithesis of principals [sic]. For example, how many liberals call themselves environmentalists yet drive automobiles (or have "Save the Earth" bumper stickers on their SUV's).

Sigh
Dear Gunny G:
[edit] Examples of proven or alleged political caging
From the Washington Post: "In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent letters to predominantly black neighborhoods in New Jersey, and when 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls. . .

The Washington Post[11]: "In 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, most of them black, removed from the rolls in Louisiana when a party mailer was returned. . .

In October 2004, the BBC Newsnight program reported on an alleged George W. Bush campaign caging list, the existence of which suggested that the campaign might have been planning illegal disruption of African American voting in Jacksonville, Florida. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_caging

NSA Wiretapping: You should probably look up the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Congressional Sex Scandals: Do you really want me to go there after your team's performance this week (cough - men's room - cough)

Katrina? Not worth arguing with you over

I notice you didn't mention Iraq.

Facts are only as difficult as you make them.

M Sederoff: I am now far more aware of conservatives' opinions than I was, say, 10 years ago, but you are right that I am not learning much new from reading conservative sites so I have drastically cut back on the number of blogs and newspapers I currently read. The tone of liberal and conservative posts is not healthy at all for any of us. I appreciate the calm tone of your post. Best, Tubbs.

Loyal Conservative
That was spot on! And of that applies to other political columnists too, not just those who call themselves conservative.

Liberty writes
"Yes, in fact. A law that has the potential to violate your rights already *has*, just by being in existence, because the abuse has just been legalized."

What law is that? FISA?
The question still stands "DID YOU" personally have have any liberties taken away from you? I'm just talking about you personally...not anyone else. And please provide some facts next time to prove your point.

BTW...Here's what was happening during the Clinton Administation

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/12/nsa_eavesdropping_and_media_do.html

larry craig needs love, too!
nothing wrong with being gay... it's being hypocrytical of it that's wrong.

that's soooooo republican!

Militant leftist misses the point
"Militant Leftist` writes: Tuesday, August, 28, 2007 2:18 AM
Acting through Principal
Mr. Prager never seems to contemplate what directs most liberals--Principal. While it is impossible to please all the people the all the time, if one acts according to principal people will know what to expect from you and will respect you. Especially when we have the power to destroy the world in a matter of seconds we should strive to stick to our principals and show a consistent face to the world."

Principal can be used interchangeably for the word morals in the sense that you are using it. However, each side is motivated by different guiding principals or morals. You say America should stick to its principals, but don't enumerate them, and if you did, they would probably differ from what Prager or I would think should be America's guiding principals. Consistency is also an arguement I hear a lot that comes from the left, but consistency isn't in and of itself a good thing. It is great in parenting because if you are dealing with one kid, you need to be consistent, but as many parents know you can't treat each kid exactly the same because they have different needs.

Long story short, the left doesn't care about consistency, unless it's a tool to bash a conservative idea, because there are many liberal ideas where consistency is seen as bad. Under affirmitive action people aren't supposed to be treated equally or consistently just to site one example. So you have to be more precise with your statements.


Liberal Pathology
This column CLEARLY explains Bill Clinton. It also explains why he & Hillary won’t divorce, although it is obviously a loveless marriage. However, there are a number of pathologies that lead to Liberalism. In my experience, which is fairly extensive, children of Dysfunctional Families and/or Strained Relationships with parents almost always end up Liberals (AGAIN the Clintons need to be loved). Control Freaks tend to be Liberals (i.e. Nanny State Government) as they CRAVE control of other people (Hillary). College Students live a communal existence while at university, so they tend to be Liberal. Reality, Bills and Children send large number of them stampeding to the Right after they graduate. Minorities were SOLID Liberals foe years. However, in my area I am seeing cracks in that support appear :)! New Dealers (Paleo-Liberals) are still around and The Drug-Addled, Hippie Leftover, Spoiled Brat, Hippies of the 1960’s are fueling The Liberal Movement these days.

This is not to say that there weren’t/aren’t Decent, Well Meaning, People who stand up for the Little Guy, Paul Wellstone was one such. However, in my experience, Liberalism is fueled by anger of some sort. Class Envy, Perceived Unfairness and Unreasoning Hatred of America and/or Christianity are the most prominent. So they spend time trash talking the very System of Government that affords them a lifestyle UNPARALLELED on Earth and that also gives them the FREEDOM to badmouth said System of Government. All in All, a confused bunch of folks :(.

Re: Joe Kennedy
wildwest and Sheepdog:

Joe Kennedy was the head of a large boot-legging operation during Prohibition.

That is the goose that laid all of the golden eggs that today make up the Kennedy family fortune.

ww is right that Joe K was named Ambassador to the UK in the thirties. But he promptly disgraced himself as an appeaser of Hitler and had to be recalled.

After Truman took office and the Securities Exchange Commission was created to prevent unethical (and illegal) stock transactions, Joe K was named by Truman to be its first Chairman. Truman explained his choice by saying "I set a thief to catch a thief."

Finally, when Tricky Dick Nixon was caught sending Watergate 'burglars' bribe money because the cash was in newly minted bills with consecutive serial numbers the reaction from the Kennedy camp (Joe K was recently deceased) was that "These guys give dirty politics a bad name." This was followed with an explanation that when Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago was bribed by the Kennedy clan to ensure John Kennedy would win an overwhelming majority of the Chicago vote in 1960 the money was delivered in old, used, untraceable bills.

Democrats are even snobs about how to be corrupt.

Did I observe
. . . an analogy in this column comparing the US's relationship to the rest of the world with a parent's relationship with a child? Prager might want to consider whether other countries might resent the US because of this kind of paternalism.

Prager
Not one of your better columns.

wiseone Georgetwin GunnyG
I notice when you guys come on any thread, the lefties seem to disappear. I guess they can't stand a good argument. Your arguments are well thought out and to the point compared to some of these off the wall comments I see from liberals.

Gunny G
Nice to have ya back..Semper Fi

tubbs
"Examples of proven or alleged political caging
From the Washington Post: "In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent letters to predominantly black neighborhoods in New Jersey, and when 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls. . ."

OK. And your point is ... what? Is there anything illegal about challenging someone's eligibility if the mail you send them is returned? No. But it IS illegal to put down a phony address so you can vote in a precinct where you don't live. Or vote twice by voting in two different precincts. So who are really the potential lawbreakers here?

This is just another liberal whine of the same vintage as the one where Republicans had the gall to 'purge' the names of convicted felons from the voter rolls just because convicted felons aren't eligible to vote. Do you want some cheese to go with it?

Tell me something. Is it possible for the Democrats to win a legal election? Since you're a lib you may be having trouble with the concept of a 'legal' election, so I will explain. It's where only eligible registered voters are allowed to vote; and even these voters only get to vote once, and only vote in the precincts where they live and are registered.

In other words, no illegal immigrants, no convicted felons, no unregistered voters, no voters registered in some other precinct or state, no one who already voted in another precinct or state, no one who is registered in the precinct but has changed his legal residence to another precinct or state, no one gets to vote twice, and no votes from dead people.

Puts a pretty big dent in your constituency doesn't it?

sheepdog
On one of my first Blog Posts, I mentioned I hoped to SOMEDAY be considered in The Same League as GunnyG, Brianr and a few other TownHall Titans.

THANK YOU for The Compliment!
GunnyG, BrianR & Others, THANK YOU for setting The Bar SOOO HIGH!

Leftist Republicans
El Negro Pero writes: Tuesday, August, 28, 2007 9:17 AM
Keep telling yourself, pal - it was the LEFT that faced police dogs and fire hoses to fight for fairness and to end Jim Crow. It was the LEFT who fought corporate goons before protections for workers were codified into law- it was the LEFT who were shot down by big tough right wingers during the protests of the Vietnam war! It was the left who has fought for every bit of social change which makes America great - while the right has fought AGAINST social progress...
-------------------------------
AAMOF, my Republican lefty grandparents participated strongly in the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, you've equated lefties with the cowards that protested the Vietnam war. Sure didn't see those groups willing to sacrifice anything for their beliefs, whereas the my WWII veteran grandfather was putting his life on the line during Bloody Sunday.

why liberalism
Prager claims that he's been trying to understand why liberals advocate the policies they do. But if he has decided it's all due to some neurotic desire to be loved, it proves he hasn't really done a good job of understanding.

Because liberals do have better arguments than that on their side. I still disagree with liberals--I'm a conservative--but I cannot dismiss their arguments out of hand that easily.

Take this issue of national defense. The main reason why modern liberals tend to be dovish is because they abhor what war turned into in the 20th century. With the invention of strategic bombing in World War I, war turned into a ghastly mass slaughter of civilians in whole cities as a way to break the enemy's will to fight. And with the invention of the atomic bomb, war could turn into a holocaust for the entire Northern Hemisphere. The proper response to liberals is not to sneer at them, but to work at ways of banning this evil practice from the laws of warfare. (Reagan did it right by showing how CONSERVATIVES could put a stop to the threat of nuclear war.)

And despite this abhorrence of war, it was liberals in the 1930s who pleaded for the U.S. to rearm against Fascism, while conservatives tended to be isolationists. Even in the early days of the Cold War, liberals like George Kennan and Dean Acheson were staunchly anti-Communist. So were the AFL-CIO labor bosses, George Meany and Lane Kirkland.

Finally, liberals have fought for the rights of minorities when conservatives wanted nothing to do with it. It was only in the 1950s when William F. Buckley and his then-new National Review Magazine began to purge the vestiges of anti-Semitism from the American conservative movement.

Voting Rights Act of 1965
Wiseone asks:
"Is there anything illegal about challenging someone's eligibility if the mail you send them is returned?"

Yes there is something illegal about challenging someone's voting eligibility if it is part of a pattern, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race. Kinda like the efforts of the RNC in 1981, 1986 and likely in 2000 and 2004.

The Washington Post[11]: "In 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, most of them black, removed from the rolls in Louisiana when a party mailer was returned. The consent decrees that resulted prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that target minorities or conduct mail campaigns to 'compile voter challenge lists.'" The Republican National Committee reportedly stopped the practice following the consent decree in the 1986 case, but allegations of RNC-conducted voter caging arose once again in the 2004 elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7422-2004Oct28.html

Please review:
the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for more information.

Sincerely, Professor Tubbs

unbefreakinglievable
"they don't call the Soviet Union evil because they realize that it was born of a desire and a need to save the starving and the poor of Imperial Russia "

Oh, puhleeze

StevenL
Great Post...I have nothing against liberals just some of the dumb arguments they come up with. At least you showed there can be a good side to Liberalism (Not sure what that is in this day and age)

Leftist Thinking
It has nothing to do with love. One can only read Frances Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live to realize that if you do not believe in Creation by God and believe in human nature by chance (evolution, one's whole construct about man, his purpose, laws, and morality crumbles. Anything goes. The only connection to love is the search for love and meaning without God.

tubbs
Ok then explain to me how thousands of absentee ballots from military members were discounted?

http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200410140900.asp


tubbs
From your link:

"Challenge rules vary by state. In general, challengers must supply evidence that the voter may not be eligible. Grounds can include that a voter is not a U.S. citizen, is not a resident of the state or county where he or she is registered, or is younger than 18. The complaints are settled by election board members or precinct judges."

Do you have any court decisions or "consent decrees" (which are not juducial rulings or verdicts, more like a civil suit version of a plea bargain, and therefore not established precedent) that prove there was this kind of (discriminitory) profiling in 2000 or 2004? None are listed in your link.

All that I saw there was a decision by an election board (in Milwaukee, 2004) declining to void the registrations of 5,600 voters that did not receive mail addressed to them. I saw nothing that states it is illegal to challenge the eligibility of a voter, professor.

Pease answer my question. Can you win without cheating? And if the answer is "yes", how do you know, since the Democrats have cheated in every election in my lifetime?

BTW - in your post at 1:58 PM you write: " ... i would think you would tire easily of seeing your own opinions echoed back to you. Of course, I guess if you're the kind of person that is threatened by others' idea and opinions, going to a site that differs from your views would be traumatic."

As is so often the case with liberals, you are accusing cons of what libs do. Cons post here because we can. We DO read lib sites, but we can't post there because we get blocked for having a dissenting opinion. You see, professor, it is the liberals at the liberal sites that are "... the kind of person[s] that [are] threatened by others' idea and opinions ..."

I'm tempted to tell you to go back to those lib sites you tout so highly and ask them why they do this if they're not afraid, but if you did that they'd block you too.

O wise one
I go to the progressive sites. Conservatives post on them all the time. They only get blocked when they are being excessively obscene or threatening, or when they post the same form letter on every thread.

maloushka
What sites? I have been blocked on several after two or three posts.

Also, I wish to point out that liberals are welcome to post at TH all day long. This would not be the case if we were "... the kind of person[s] that [are] threatened by others' idea and opinions ..."

It is my opinion, for example, that this comment by tubbs is not only snide and condescending. It is also wrong.

It's Not About Love!
We can not run our country on the hopes that we will be loved. When you do the right thing, you are not always popular. Just as the example of the parent/child relationship. Sometimes you will not be liked by your child when you enforce certain rules or ask certian things from them. You have to look at the bigger picture and the long term effects.

i though this was about love?
at least liberals want to be loved, republicans could care less.

they just want their money and their secret gay lives.

Most Leftists are NOT evil ..
I don't ascribe evil motives to most leftists of the do-gooder type. Onviously, there are the Stalin-types, who deserve the 'evil' label. But most leftists are misguided by their own wishful thinking.

Well intentioned leftists think that they can wish for a different form of human animal, and .. just make it so. By suspending the laws of cause and effect, they believe that if they wish for a particular effect, they can eliminate the need to understand the causes.

Not surprisingly, they dream up utopian schemes that are inconsistent with human predilections. When those schemes fail (e.g. Public Education), they blame the failures on those 'imperfect humans'.

I believe that the strength of Capitalism - which is the bedrock of American values - is NOT that it is utopian. In fact, its success comes from the fact that it is consistent with human behavior.

All other systems rely on a species that is non-human. Communism relies on a perverse form of altruism. Monarchy relies on an omniscient, benevolent ruler. But capitalism harnesses our self-interest!

Someone contradict me on this:
The further Left you go, the more you believe that the acquisition of wealth and power is a fixed size pie. The larger a slice that someone takes for himself, the less is left for everyone else. So automatically and inexorably, the acquisition of power and wealth is a bad thing, and should be viewed with contempt. The only absolution from this sin is, of course, if you're a left leaning person yourself and support left leaning causes.

So, the sole reason for the existence of the Left is to correct this supposed evil by viewing all of life in a race/gender/class warfare dichotomy and wrench power and wealth from the haves and throw them to the poor, victimized have-nots. What is appalling is that the further left you go, the more your moral compass is only defined by one simple question: who is weak and who is powerful? No other question need be asked to determine who is right and who is wrong in a given situation.

I'll give you just one minor example that comes to mind. Last year I attended my girlfriend's great aunt's funeral, and though I hope she rests in peace, the eulogist mentioned that as a lifelong liberal, she proudly vowed she'd never cross a union picketline.

With all due respect to her, I thought, how moronic, to actually make that claim. How can you possibly claim that workers are ALWAYS right and bosses and companies are ALWAYS wrong? But you see, that's all that the Left needs in order to make a judgment about right and wrong.

"Who is weak and who is powerful?" In the intellectual wasteland of the Left, they need ask nothing else.

Mona
I see that like Prager, you believe that the relationship between the US and the rest of the world should be a paternalistic one, where the US doles out rewards and punishments and the rest of the world tries hard to gain daddy's approval. So let's do an experiment. Imagine you were from, say, Spain. Not the US, but Spain. As a citizen of Spain, how likely is it that you would identify with the interests of the USA, rather than your own country? Imagine one day, the US decided that it didn't want your country to be part of the European Union anymore, and it was going to offer a series of bribes and disincentives to get Spain to withdraw its membership. Would you be okay with this? Would you say, "Well, I guess the US knows best, and we probably ought to just do what they say"? I bet you wouldn't.

pcon-t (picante?)
Maybe you can explain something to me. Capitalist-sympathizers (for I don't know anyone rich enough to qualify as an actual capitalist) sound irrationally optimistic to me when they suggest that "the pie" is actually infinitely large. There is only so much land on Earth, water in the oceans, oil in the ground, etc. Therefore, the possibility to make money from these things is limited. Since every single thing in life at the most basic level is dependent on the continued availability of sunshine, water, land, and fresh air, and these things exist in finite quantities, then ipso facto, "the pie" is limited. But of course, you knew that. So what are conservatives talking about when they say that "the pie" is unlimited?

Au contraire...
With GOPers like David Vitter, Mark Foley, and most recently Larry "I'm not gay" Craig in the news lately, I'dsay its the republicans' "desire to be loved" that's an Achilles heel!

maloushka, you don't get it
It's not that people have to be like AMERICA. It's that America, more than any other country in the history of the Earth, TRIES to live up to a set of universal values of right and wrong. Yes, this country has made myriad mistakes and has a very checkered history, and still makes mistakes in the pursuit of justice from time to time, but name me ONE civilization or nation in the history of the world that has tried to do more to atone for its past sins with its own people and others.

Read my post above, dated 8/28, 6:09 PM. I define universal justice as the healthy balance between the left leaning virtue of compassion, or feelings, and the right leaning virtue of discipline, or rules. Meanwhile, I believe the further left you go along the political spectrum, the more you elevate compassion above this balance.

When you don't understand or believe in this definition of universal justice, or you think the USA doesn't stand for this, it's easy to think it's JUST about the USA and nothing else.

Maloushka:
Did I SAY the pie was unlimited? When did I say that?

I'm saying that it IS dynamic, and grows and expands, commensurate to the ingenuity and personal responsibility of ALL members, and produces commensurate benefits for ALL members, at all rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.

Why do you have to imply that I said it was infinite? Jeez.

malouska
tell us about barney franks and his aide running a male prostitution service from franks apartment. Franks fellow rep from mass who molested a page and still served several additional terms and retired as an honored member of the dims side of the house. Alcee hastings was impeached as a judge and yet found a home and seniority as a dim representing fla. And lets not forget, bribery jefferson from la. who was caught taking bribes but still is amongst the honored dims in the house. Thoise living in glass houses need to be careful about throwing stones

wildwest
What? Did I say anything about any of that stuff?

pcon-t
Where did you hear that "America, more than any other country, tries to live up to universal values of right and wrong"? Who told you that?

malouska
the mass rep was gary studds. Of course we must also mention another hero of the dims. Bubba and his use of the oval office as a pick-up bar.

malouska
if i addressed this to the wrong person accept my apologies

Liberals Need To Be Loved
Because the Modern Liberal has no personal values -- for that would be judgmental -- the only way he can determine what is "right."

It is really no different than a child and peer pressure. Since the child has formed no basis for his own personal style and personal morality he turns to what others are doing without regard to whether it's right or wrong.


Ahh-Hah, maloushka!
Maloushka wrote:

"Where did you hear that "America, more than any other country, tries to live up to universal values of right and wrong"? Who told you that?"

There ya go, sweetie. Now we know where you come from. The absolute ignorance of American history coming from you is appalling. Please, please please...don't tell me about our treatment of the Indians, blacks and slavery, institutionalized racism up to the Jim Crow era and even beyond, Japanese in internment camps during WWII, for that matter, Hiroshima and Nagasaki either. I've already explained how NO ONE has done more to atone for its past sins that this great country (that's the USA, since you need clarification).

Maloushka, you represent the sickening moral relativism that infects the Left, and yes, I am generalizing. That's your disease, right there.

Non-Liberals are socially ostracized
Sean Hannity calls it "social Liberalism"...the fact that people who take the Liberal point of view in general tend to refuse to invite others who are more to their political and cultural right to parties, barbeques, football games, etc.
We live in a world of isolation, and many live in urban environments. One's social satisfaction is mainly derived from one's friends. If you don't agree with your Conservative friends, they are generally still friendly. If you don't agree with your Liberal friends, they will tend to avoid you.
Don't believe me? If your group-based social contacts are entirely of Liberals, you have proved my point.

Pcon, my name's not sweetie
It's Claire, but you can call me Maloushka. Your response was uncalled for. I said nothing indicating that I was either ignorant of history or a moral relativist. You inferred these things by my question about your claim re: America's universal values. My question, once again, is: how do you know that the USA tries to live by these ideals more than any other nation? It's the "more than any other nation" part that gets me. I think that's your opinion. Why should anybody care about your opinion?

Maloushka --> Macushla
Hey malou, nice name, buy a gun kill a commie for mommie. Come see uncle Chuck

What?
Charleton Heston, your remark is very cryptic. Could you please decode it for me? Maybe then I won't feel so creeped out.

Prager had it wrong,
I think he mixed up "loved" with "loathed".

Are we ready for the truth?
Conservatives should pay more attention to political philosophers. Machiavelli has the appropriate thought for this topic. He explains that it is better to be loved than feared, but if a ruler (we can substitute the US for this)wants to keep his position, he should rely on his power to create fear, because human beings love on their own accord; they fear at the will of the ruler.

Macahiavelli didn't say this was wonderful, merely that it was true.


for sheepdog
sheepdog writes: "Great Post...I have nothing against liberals just some of the dumb arguments they come up with. At least you showed there can be a good side to Liberalism (Not sure what that is in this day and age)"

Modern liberalism has a big problem now, which has to do with basic demographics.

In my parents' time (who were pretty left-wing), "left-wing" meant WORKING-CLASS people: blue-collar workers in factories, farmers, etc. These people were the heart of America and they saw no contradiction between patriotism and fighting for better wages and working conditions.

Today's liberals come from the elites: college professors and college students, Hollywood, and (surprisingly) many of the super-rich (the young billionaires of Google, Yahoo, etc.). They have nothing in common with the heartland of America; they are increasingly transnationalist and unpatriotic (owing to their Internet mindset); and they care about great world causes like global warming a lot more than they do about the wages the United Auto Workers are getting in their union contracts.

The Left lost the blue-collar workers and the American heartland when they embraced the counterculture of the 1960s.

pcon-t
My wifes grandfather died a couple of years ago was a lifelong liberal. One night they gave a roast for my wife's aunt who is the principal of a catholic elementary school. Anyway during the intermission, we started talking about politics and I mentioned that Reagan was good president. Man I thought he was going to rip my head off and shove it down my neck. He went on this rant about about how republicans screw people yada yada yada. Anyway I sat and listened to this for about 10 minutes and I got up excused myself.
My point is if you mention anything conservative to liberal they yell and scream and start foaming at the mouth. Normally I think if it's kind of funny to watch. I'm the say way sometimes but I tend to be more civilized.

for pcon-T
pcon-T writes: "How can you possibly claim that workers are ALWAYS right and bosses and companies are ALWAYS wrong?"

That's not their reason. My parents never crossed a picket line either. Because my dad was a union shop steward in a shoe factory (way back when America still had a big shoe manufacturing industry). And his attitude was that in solidarity there is strength. It's the same reason why the AFL-CIO was formed out of all the major unions. It's also the reason why unions tried to have common-situs picketing and sympathy strikes (though that practice was declared illegal). Because by sticking with your fellow workers right or wrong, you maximize your total collective bargaining power.

It's no different than the patriotic slogan "My country right or wrong"--applied to the labor movement.

SteveL
Great Post..and entirely to the point. My brother and sister are both die-hard liberals. I don't even talk politics with them becuase they believe they are so right no matter what argument I present. I just let them believe what they want to believe and leave it at that. Although I love my sister but she is a big city girl who moved to Chicago from San Francisco. It's gotten to the point where I don't get mad anymore...I used to when I was younger. Now sometimes I get a good laugh out of some things that are posted here. You know how I can tell when a liberal is mad? There so many typos it's like their talking a different language.

for pcon-T
pcon-T writes: "It's not that people have to be like AMERICA. It's that America, more than any other country in the history of the Earth, TRIES to live up to a set of universal values of right and wrong."

Given the changing world demographics, I'm not sure America's values are "universal" anymore.

We've got 1.7 billion Chinese, and 1.3 billion Muslims, compared to 300 million Americans.

It starts to look like America's values are more the exception than the rule. If you mean that America has tried to uphold personal freedom and economic freedom and religious pluralism, then I would say those things are far from universal; they are precious--and RARE.

What America has done is a pretty decent job of keeping true to its Constitution and Bill of Rights, after 230 years. Unlike the German Weimar Republic or the multiple French constitutions or the USSR that collapsed after just 70 years, we kept our standards.

for sheepdog
sheepdog writes: "Great Post..and entirely to the point. My brother and sister are both die-hard liberals. I don't even talk politics with them becuase they believe they are so right no matter what argument I present. I just let them believe what they want to believe and leave it at that."

The liberals whom you might have a decent conversation with are the remaining working-class liberals. These are the electricians, plumbers and machinists who drive the pickup trucks with bumper stickers that say "Proud To Be Union"; "Union Local 23"; "Pipefitters Union Yes!"--next to other bumper stickers of American flags and "Support Our Troops". They will rail against Big Business with the best of them--but they'll also tell you how proud they were that they served in 'Nam.

They are what the American Left used to be about.

WRONG, MR PRAGER
"Liberals" aka "pinkos" are not motivated by a desire to be loved. Their compelling motivation is to engage in moral preening.

Two kinds of intellectuals are pushing leftist doctrines into wider society. The first is a numerically small hard-core Marxist activist class deriving a sense of intellectual superiority from knowing it is manipulating the situation.

The second consists of large numbers of passive enablers who have unwittingly embraced socialist doctrines, largely because their leftist professors ensured that they were never exposed to intellectual alternatives.

Friedrich Hayek describes this second group as “the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own, but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into them sufficiently loudly and often enough.”

Having internalised the system of values on which their membership of “club virtue” depends, they have a strong emotional resistance to having it questioned. With people like these, you either agree with them, or you are racist, sexist, homophobic, uneducated, uninformed, or just plain stupid.


Dangerous Love
I reead this an was dismayed, then I recalled that I only hear what I understand, and the dismay I was feeling was lack of understanding. So, I read it again. Still, it makes little sene to me. I am not sure that I find it possible to see a country loved, I mean I am really glad to be an American, and I don't want to live in France, but that is not love or hate, it is just preference.
There is a connection between affection and trust, That is, we feel affection for people we trust, and loathing for people we don't trust. I want America to be trusted. I would feel a lot safer and happier if I thought that Iran trusted the USA to stay out of its affairs. I would be safer if Russia and China trusted the US to be an honest broker, and trade partner. I wonder if they do.

I don't want the world to feel confident that the US is out to take over the economic and political activity of every place on earth. And if the PNAC had never said that we should, I think we would be safer and happier. But, I am one of those mindless sheep people fondly call liberals. I would not cheat you out of a sheet of writing paper. Trust me, I wouldn't.

Explanation
"Would a lib please explain to me why they spend so much of their precious time reading the columns in TH which anger them so much."

First, innterogatives are supposed to end in a question mark.

I'd be happy to answer your question. Speaking only for myself, I make a personal commitment to attempt to listen to/ read as much right-wing material as I can stomach for the purpose of insuring that there isn't some perspective I'm missing out on. I feel that the contrast between "left" and "right" media outlets is striking. For example, inane, incoherent drivel such as this commentary would not be tolerated, even if directed at the right-wingers, in liberal media sources. I would encourage everyone to broaden your sources of opinion and information. What are you afraid of?

I'll refrain from commenting on this article. Its just too stupid.

Wiseone
Wiseone asked:
"Do you have any court decisions or "consent decrees" (which are not juducial rulings or verdicts, more like a civil suit version of a plea bargain, and therefore not established precedent) that prove there was this kind of (discriminitory) profiling in 2000 or 2004? None are listed in your link."

No, I do not have any court decisions etc that prove that Republicans engaged in vote caging in 2000 and 2004. Congress is currently calling for investigations into these allegations so the litigative process has yet to begin. Ted Kennedy and Sheldon Whitehouse, specifically, have called for a DOJ investigation into this practice. See below

http://whitehouse.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=277168

"The letter cites voter suppression incidents by the Republican Party in the 1980s. During the 2004 elections, e-mail evidence suggests that Tim Griffin, then a political operative at the Republican National Committee, knew and approved of a program to “cage” voters – sending a political campaign mailing to targeted voters and challenging the right to vote of those whose mail was returned undelivered – in predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Jacksonville, Florida. Last year, Griffin was appointed interim U.S. Attorney without Senate confirmation, displacing a federal prosecutor who has testified he was told he was fired to make the job available for Griffin.

Today, Senators Kennedy and Whitehouse demanded an investigation by two DOJ watchdog agencies to determine whether Griffin may have violated the Voting Rights Act or other federal laws, and whether Justice Department officials knew of Griffin’s potentially unlawful activity when he was named U.S. Attorney."

As a former Dem for 25 yrs.
the party that cheats in elections is the Dem. They vote dead people, mystery people registered in burned out buildings and stolen cars, dogs, the disabled who can't choose whether to feed themselves or not, and they vote often and repeatedly.

One reason I left the Dems. is the practice of offering coffee laced with sleeping pills for opposition party polling judges and bookmakers taking bets on poll numbers and incarcerated officials getting re-elected (all N. Jersey Hudson-Essex Co. realities). In 1948, before my time, federal marshalls had to seize paper ballot boxes before the city gov't threw half into the Hudson.

Doubtless Reps. do all they can to "get out the vote," but the current accusations that Reps. caused long lines at polls in Cinncinati and Columbus, OH, are fairly ludicrous. Neither is a Rep. ciry.

It was Louisville that illegally announced polls would be open 2 hrs. later than the rest of the country. A judge ended that violation.

And in the apochryphal FL "recount," the ballots were designed in Dem. counties by Dem. election supervisors for a majority Dem. citizenry. They had been used for years, so people were not stymied by a "new" ballot that confused them. In ALL recounts, Bush won, even the lib. newspaper recounts of Boston Globe, TNYTimes, and Wash. Post.


more
The Sup. Ct. decision to stop the recount on the basis of an inconsistent standard for counting "chads" was a legal decision based on equal treatment under the law. Additionally, in FL in 2000, untold numbers of mail-in votes by military men and women were never counted.

In Washington state in the last gov.'s election, there were three recounts. Twice the Rep. won, but the third time 750 "lost" ballots were "discovered" in a janitor's closet and (a judge certified them) when added to the third recount, the Dem. won. And guess what? Then the MSM and Dems. settled on the "legality" of the Dem. gov. If those lost ballots weren't Dem. chicanery, I'd be seriously surprised.

The argument the MSM is already developing for the 2008 election is the inaccuracy of electronic voting. Well, NJ, one of the most corrupt states in the nation, has used electronic balloting for over a decade and never had a protest. In 2006, when the Dems. won Congress, suddenly there were no national cries of voter fraud. Just amazing.

doh
harry larry said:

"I'll refrain from commenting on this article. Its just too stupid."

How do you refrain from commenting on an article while commenting on an article?

I guess its the same way liberals say they're all about human rights except for babies.

To Maloushka & SteveL:
Maloushka:

You ARE ignorant of world history if you can look at the way the USA has behaved toward its own citizens and neighboring nations, on balance, over the past 230 years, compare them to all other nations on balance, and still have the audacity to say the USA has behaved no more morally superior to anyone else, again, on balance. And yes, we have a better record of this than any other nation on Earth. Those are the facts; deal with them. What you're displaying is pure moral relativism, and I've got nothing more to say to you on the subject.

SteveL says:

"My parents never crossed a picket line either. Because my dad was a union shop steward in a shoe factory (way back when America still had a big shoe manufacturing industry). And his attitude was that in solidarity there is strength. "

With all due respect, looks like your folks just followed the law of nature, which calls for looking out for the best interest of yourselves and your group, be it your family, race, nationality, religion, gender, whatever. In this case their group was their fellow union workers. But see, SteveL, that's my point about a universal right or wrong. We're supposed to rise ABOVE that crap and look at who is living by timeless rules of treating others the way we would EXPECT to be treated, under given circumstances. If we just stick by our own, or succumb to leftist tendencies of being compassionate toward the weak over the strong, regardless of right or wrong, we get anarchy. Not a good idea, right?

More for SteveL,
I basically agreed with your posts, SteveL, and I hope you understand where I'm coming from. By the way, you're right about the solidarity of the union workers being analogous to the slogan "My country right or wrong". I totally disagree with that slogan, and I say that as a proud and passionate America-loving conservative.

We CAN'T excuse our country's wrongdoings; we've got to fight to make our country better. If we blindly follow our country even when we're wrong, we're just succunbing to the laws of nature over universal morality too.

Universal morality must always guide us over everything, over our own group, and over leftist knee-jerk compassion for the weak over the powerful.

Good luck
I have listened to your radio show for several months now, and you go out of your way to be charming and gracious to your political opponents.

Yet even if you were to write the most conciliatory blog in the world ... you would still attract hateful comments.

It's puzzling isn't it.
Actually ... it's not puzzling at all.

It's a shame, really.

SteveL
"In my parents' time (who were pretty left-wing), "left-wing" meant WORKING-CLASS people: blue-collar workers in factories, farmers, etc. These people were the heart of America and they saw no contradiction between patriotism and fighting for better wages and working conditions."

Spot on! It's the same in the UK. Liberals have taken over leadership of UK politics ... including the Tory Party.

Ironically, the most "conservative" UK political party at the moment appears to be ... the Labour Party.

Greg England,
Keep up the good fight from your end of the pond!

You've got to be joking.
To anyone enjoying the fantasy that leftists aren't responding to this article with well-informed logical critique because they're incapable of thinking rationally or intelligently: you might want to consider the fact that this article doesn't actually make any concrete points, and instead makes a series of wild, inaccurate generalizations about liberalism that are completely unfounded and have no base whatsoever in rationality or actual evidence. It doesn't even make sense on its own terms. I mean, even if Prager's idiotic "libs just want to be loved!" thesis was correct, how does that explain any left-wing social or domestic positions? All he even attempts to talk about is international affairs.

(Here's a hint, incidentally: liberals DON'T "want to be loved" the world over. We just think it'd be a good idea not to enrage the rest of the world and flush America's international reputation down the toilet without a good reason. Which is precisely what the current administration's done.)

Our reputation
Yes Liberals want to be loved and validated. Who gives a **** what the rest of the world thinks of us? Who cares what the leaders of some third-world stink-hole think of America? Or what some effite liberal fairies over in Europe are feeling? The rest of the world should be worried about what WE think of THEM!!!
What difference does our international reputation make? How would that affect anything?
Do you think North Korea, Venezuela or Cuba (favorite societies of the American left) worry about THEIR reputations?
I honestly wish some liberal (without calling me names) could logically say why our "international reputation" really matters? Is our economy going to die? NO! Will we be more secure if everyone loves us? NO!

No he's not
"The man is the worst of the worst."

That's not a fair thing to say about Dennis Prager.

If you are an angry liberal, then by all means lay into Ann Coulter or el-Rushbo.

But if you actually listen to his radio show, and the way he treats his guests (especially those he disagrees with) you will come to understand that he is the perfect gentleman.

Come on - I strongly disagree with Tony Benn (UK left-wing Labour MP) but he is a gentleman.

It is possible to respect those you disagree with ... you know.

oc liberal --
You're a truly pathetic moron to spew the typical leftist venom you just vomited a few posts above. Let's see, everybody, let's analyze the stupidity that this idiot oc liberal puked out:

"Dennis Prager is a twit, Nothing more needs to be said.", "worst of the worst", hiding his "anger and cloak it in words like this article".

Can you believe this idiot? So in other words, if Prager had been HARSH in his choice of words, it would have been better. How DARE Prager try to be civil, and attack the SUBSTANCE of the argument; he should be a decent person and be outwardly vitriolic!

Unbelievable. Typical, typical lefty. Above, I told Maloushka that I didn't need to discuss any further her apparent moral relativism and ignorance of U.S. history, but at least I BASED my argument on something concrete: her insistence that America really doesn't have a better track record than any other nation on Earth of respecting the civil rights of all people, and its consistent efforts to atone for its obvious sins in this area.

But what does oc liberal base his pathetic argument on? That's right; nothing. This is leftism for you: emotion, emotion, emotion, the elevation of compassion, which basically means in Latin, "with feeling".

Leftism, and its slightly toned down cousin, American liberalism, means never having to look at true justice for all, just going with your compassion for the weak over the powerful, at the expense of everything else.

Fear of Death Anyone..

I seem to find that true bleeding hearts have a great fear of death. Or they simply focus on death more than the average person.

Is the desire for "perfection" a liberal way of "cheating" death.

Like "Global Warming"... if we make everything safe, we won't die?

If everyone "Loves America", then no one will come and kill us?

Is "Socialism" a religion of perfection? If we make a perfect government... then we will be Immortal ?

Principles and Desires
The "Conservative" principles espoused so flagrantly on this site have been exposed by the "Conservative" desire to be loved.
Though the "Conservatives" mask their desires well, the events as of late tend to find them in some awkward and inapropriate positions. For folks who preach to the high heavens about principles and then get caught(almost literally) red handed in hypocracy, we salute you.
A Conservative's desire to be loved turned out to be a bit more expensive than the death of a single hero.
A Conservative's desire to be loved is more like a Trojan Horse that brought down an entire shining city on a hill.
What's the punchline?



The Stronger Need....

The "Excessive" need to be loved... is a dysfunction. Prager is on point here.

Whenever one sees a 40 year old man living at home with Momma, one will find a divorced liberal voting momma.

Momma has an excessive need to be loved by her son. Therefore, the son is never wrong, and blames government (Republicans) for his own problems.

I see this firsthand. Momma cannot find personal fault in her sickly addicted son, or her own dysfunctions.

And in each case I know, momma and son vote Democrat across the board.

I have never met a 40 year old "momma's boy" or his momma, who vote Republican.


N/A writes "AIDS is a straight disease"
Then why are 70-80% of those suffering from AIDS males who practice homosexual sex?

League of Women Voters
I love this quote, once attributed to G Gordon Liddy;
"We have to remember that the rest of the world isn't run by the League of Women Voters."
The day after 9/11, a liberal teacher at our High School, was despondent, asking "Why can't we have a dialog with these people?"
I resonded that we were dealing with evil, violent enemies.
She kept insisting that we could find some common ground; what had WE done to wrong them?
To no avail, I pointed out to her that she, a liberated, liberal, unmarried mother, an advocate of women's rights, would be executed or stoned by these same enemies
Some liberals, no matter how many times our noses have been bloodied by bullies, continue to see it as "our" fault.
They're like battered women who think the violence is their fault, and they just need to be a little nicer...

Principal v. Principle
Dear Right Stuff
As a conservative teacher, I despise the attitude on both the right and left regarding public education.
The left uses our schools as places to indoctrinate children, and teach PC

The conservatives have cowardly withdrawn from the field of public education, and make zero effort to reestablish a politics and religion neutral environment, such as I grew up in.

If conservatives had principles, they'd put some money into school board elections, and get principals to run good schools

Wanting to be loved.
The difference is that Liberals allow desire to be loved to turn into Lust. The rules of liberal is defined in the dictionary. When your desire to be a giver and do not have moral restraint it tends to turns toward lust. Then it is not necessary to give of yourself, only that you are seen as giving.

As one of the meanings defined in Webster.. liberal = "lacking moral restraint". This leaves the path to "giving" open to everything, No matter how well intended the target is, without the moral restraint, the end result is harmful.

Once one understands the process it becomes easy to understand how Liberals support all things that cause harm. It is the Lust to be loved or to be a giver that allows them to steal from others to be able to "Give" to someone else. Thus they have meet the qualifications of being a Giver.



Dan

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.