GTOL Update

Well, it happened again. I said I would have the Grand Theory of Leftism posted before I went back to school. I'm going back to school in a few hours, and I haven't posted it yet...

So I'd better do that now!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

CD'S GRAND THEORY OF LEFTISM

A few general notes:

- This is based on my observation of liberal behavior over the past few months, both on the Internet and in the real world (when you're a communications major, you meet quite a few liberals).

- Remember that the GTOL is a theory, and is simply my attempt to explain how people come to believe certain things, and why they maintain those beliefs. It is not meant to be taken as definitive proof of anything.

- This does not apply to all liberals or leftists. It mainly applies to crazy moonbats who live in their own little world.

- I'm writing this in a hurry based on a text document that's been on my computer for about 4 months, so it'll probably be updated. A lot. For about a week.

- This is probably the last substantial post I'll write for a while. I'm going to be working my ass off until the end of the semester, and blogging will have to be sacrificed for the sake of my GPA.

On to the theory itself...

After observing liberals for a long time, I have discovered that their beliefs and attitudes seem to center around 3 things:

1. Projection (the psychological defense mechanism, not the movie thing)
2. Mental immaturity
3. "Selfish selflessness"

Let's cover projection first. Projection is, essentially, the attribution of one's own traits, beliefs, and behaviors to others. It can be used with both positive and negative characteristics. For example, liberals seemed to be ashamed of their liberalism during the 2004 election. When Kerry was called a liberal, he denied it. Others reacted similarly. However, they knew that they were liberal, and in order to eliminate the cognitive dissonance that occurred as a result of holding beliefs that caused feelings of shame, they had to choose between changing their beliefs or denying them.

Many chose to deny their liberalism, but to make themselves feel better about it, they latched onto the "liberal is an insult" excuse. Remember that? Lefties kept asking why "liberal" was always treated as a bad word. In reality, it seemed like they were just ashamed to be called liberal, but they projected those feelings onto their opponents in order to justify hiding their liberalism. See what I mean?

It was a similar situation with patriotism. Liberals kept claiming that their patriotism was being questioned, but other than Michael "The Insurgents Will Win" Moore, I don't recall much of that actually happening. Projection seems to explain it, however. You see, they apparently doubted their own patriotism, but since they didn't want to admit it, they said that the right had accused them of being unpatriotic, then used that as an excuse to bloviate about how they were more patriotic than Bush. They projected their shame about their beliefs onto their opponents, and it almost worked. Almost.

I'll cover more of that in the specific examples below. First, let's talk about mental immaturity. I'm not trying to be overly insulting here, but liberals seem to use thought processes that resemble those of less developed human beings. For example, their positions are often based on feelings rather than logic, and they have a tendency to think they can wish for the results they want without having to actually work for them.

An interesting fact I learned in my introductory psychology class is that children under a certain age have trouble seeing things from any point of view other than their own. For example, if they look at a sequence of pictures that depict a boy placing an object in a hiding place, followed by his mother moving that object after he leaves, they predict that the boy will look for the object in the location his mother moved it to, rather than the one in which he hid it. They don't understand that they can have information others don't, so they assume that everyone thinks exactly as they do.

See any parallels? Liberals often treat their opinions as facts, and opposing opinions as lies. This is why they seem to think that reciting talking points and/or cutting and pasting a long-winded editorial is equivalent to refuting someone's point. Since opinions count as facts, they see no need to explain why those particular opinions prove their point. In addition, if you disagree with them, you must be lying. Therefore, your opinion is often considered "hateful."

For a recent example, look at the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert scandal. The general understanding on the left seems to be that the White House hired him to ask softball questions to President Bush. Is there any proof of this? Not really. But since Gannon doesn't agree with them, he must be a professional stooge. After all, how could a member of the unbiased media ask slanted questions?

Speaking of the media, this immaturity thing applies there as well. Even after Rathergate, liberals still seem to think that the media is either unbiased or slanted to the right. This is because the media agrees with them, and since their opinions are The Truth, the media is simply reporting the facts when they portray Iraq and the economy as dismal failures and treat Bush like a draft-dodger. And Fox News gets the worst treatment. They slant a little to the right, so clearly, they're the government propaganda wing. In addition, people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are referred to as "Republican operatives" by some of the more loony leftists. Why? Because Republicans are liars for not agreeing with the left, and anyone who gets paid to argue for the conservative side must be associated with Bush or Rove somehow!

I've found a lot more proof that immaturity is a cause of leftist beliefs. For example, liberals tend to reduce complicated issues to simple, one-word descriptions. This often results in insults. If you're against affirmative action, you're a racist! If you're against gay marriage, you're a homophobe! If you're against abortion, you're a misogynist! If you support the war, you're an imperialist! If you support Bush, you're a fascist!

And remember, they see these little reductions as statements of fact.

The same applies to their own beliefs. They oppose the war because war is always wrong, and peace is always good. They support abortion because of the woman's "right to choose." They support gay marriage because it's the only way to achieve equality. Same thing with affirmative action. And they oppose Bush because...he's Bush!

Also...conspiracy theories. I don't think I have to add anything more to that one.

Liberals also seem to be able to change their positions at will in order to stay on the "right" (in this case, left) side. A few examples:

-"The war was for profit...and it's bankrupting the country!"
-"Iraq didn't have WMD...but even if they did, it was only because the U.S. sold them WMD!"
-"Kerry served in Vietnam, so questioning his patriotism is wrong. Those Swift Boat Vets are so unpatriotic."
-"Bush is crushing dissent and trampling our freedom of speech...and why won't he order the Swift Boat Vets to shut up?"
-"Bush didn't do enough to prevent 9/11...and the PATRIOT Act is excessive!"
-"Republicans are always trying to appeal to homophobes and racists. By the way, Jeff Gannon is a man-whore, and Condi Rice is a house negro." (that one was also projection)
- "Bush relies on scare tactics...so don't vote for him, because he will draft you and your children."

Immaturity also makes it difficult for liberals to see more than one goal at once. For example, they can't seem to figure out that the war in Iraq was fought to eliminate WMD and free the Iraqi people. It's got to be one or the other! The same thing applies to the "Saddam didn't attack us" crowd. Bin Laden and al Qaeda must be our only enemies, and if we go after someone like Hussein, it's a diversion from the real War on Terror!

The result of all this is moral and intellectual superiority. Conservatives are "evil" and "stupid," and liberals are the enlightened "reality-based community." See any of Howard Dean's recent comments for more on this.

I could go on, but I'll move on to the final point: "Selfish selflessness." Liberals like to be seen as the advocates of the unfortunate. The supporters of the "little guy." But the key part of this is that they "like to be seen" that way. This applies mostly to leftists in power. They support a larger government role in people's lives because they want to take credit for anything positive that happens. If anything negative happens...well, see the "projection" section. This also explains their fear of individualism. After all, if people help themselves, who will get credit for it? The result: Things like affirmative action and welfare. They may not solve many problems, but it kinda looks like they're helping, and they have "good intentions," so why not?

Some of this may also be caused by moral and intellectual superiority, by the way. The "sheeple" don't know as much as the elite, so clearly, they need government to make decisions for them. Either way, the left gets to take credit.

Now, it's time to look at a few cases where all these principles apply.

CASE #1: RACISM/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The liberal thinks about the situation and notices that he holds racist beliefs. This may not always be true, but I've noticed that the supposedly "tolerant" lefties tend to be much more familiar with racist terminology than conservatives. Look at all those "code words" they're always pointing to. Or read this. And this.

Anyway, the liberal observes his racist beliefs, and due to projection and mental immaturity, he assumes that most members of society hold those beliefs. However, he also realizes that he needs to look like he represents tolerance and racial equality. Cognitive dissonance forces him to make a choice between changing his beliefs or denying them. He chooses to deny them and support affirmative action, which makes it look like he cares when he is, in fact, perpetuating racism whether he realizes it or not. He can then project his racism onto conservatives when they claim that affirmative action is wrong.

This is fun, isn't it?

CASE #2: TERRORISM AND THE WAR

The liberal tries to understand terrorism by thinking about what would make him resort to terror. After all, everyone else must think the same way he does. He concludes that terrorists must be motivated by a lack of resources, and that by refusing their demands, we're increasing the probability of a terrorist attack. He doesn't really consider the fact that many terrorists are religious fanatics, since he would never commit a terrorist act in the name of religion. He then tries to devise solutions to terrorism based on his own experiences, and he concludes that we need to understand "root causes" and try to figure out how to work with the terrorists to help them out of their unfortunate situation. He also believes that we need to apologize for offending them, since that would make him feel better if he was mad at someone. He can even project his racism onto others in this situation by claiming that they want to "murder brown people" instead of trying diplomacy.

This applies to the war as well. Look at the "occupiers vs. liberators" argument. Liberals see U.S. troops as occupiers, and since occupying another country is clearly bad, the U.S. troops must also be bad. Based on these assumptions, liberals conclude that the Iraqis who identify U.S. troops as occupiers rather than liberators must not like having the U.S. in Iraq. They never stop to think that, even though the troops are occupying the country, it may be a good thing. No, if they're seen as "occupiers," they must be offending the Iraqi populace! Never mind the fact that there's nothing to liberate Iraqis from now that they have a representative government. If our troops aren't seen as liberators, the war is a quaaaaaaaaaagmiiiiiiire! For more proof, track down those pictures of people apologizing to Iraq for the war. Because, you know, all Iraqis would rather have Saddam back. Yep.

And how 'bout those anti-war protests? Perfect illustrations of the GTOL. Hundreds of people spouting random buzzwords and talking points in order to gain publicity for themselves and congratulate one another for not believing Bush's "lies." Have you seen how happy these protesters look? They don't seem to be doing it for anyone but themselves.

Hey, we can go even further with this. Liberals like to talk about how Bush has made us more unpopular in the world, and things like this show that they assume a consensus. First of all, placing more importance on popularity than principle is a big sign of immaturity. Second, why do they seem so sure that everyone in the world hates Bush? Why, because they hate him, of course! Sorryeverybody.com also demonstrates their need to look like they care. Selfish selflessness.

CASE #3: CRIME/THE DEATH PENALTY

This should be fun. Liberals seem to enjoy defending criminals, especially those sentenced to death. Why? Let's try to analyze the situation. The liberal observes a convicted criminal's plight, and a combination of projection and immaturity forces him to imagine himself in the same situation, rather than looking at it from a third-person perspective. He concludes that he would not enjoy being executed, and therefore, it's wrong to execute convicted murderers. As a result, his arguments against the death penalty often revolve around questions like, "How would you feel if you were sentenced to death?"

Well, I wouldn't like it one bit, but if I fucking murdered somebody, I would deserve it, right?

And yes, I have heard arguments like that. I also seem to remember hearing something like, "What if your mother was going to be executed? Would you support the death penalty then?"

Again, because the liberal can only see the situation from his point of view, he can't imagine why the death penalty would be necessary. After all...it wouldn't be fun! In order to deal with it, liberals can stand up for convicted criminals ("Free Mumia!") to get their feeling of self-satisfaction. Unwarranted empathy is a big part of this as well.

CASE #4: GUN CONTROL

Notice that many of the anti-gun arguments on the left revolve around the premise that "people don't need guns" or "I don't understand why you want to own a gun" or "I could never have a gun in my house." They assume that most people think like they do, and those who don't are just bloodthirsty, gun-crazy rednecks. Liberals don't seem to understand that many people do feel like they need guns, because they project their own anti-gun opinions onto society. In addition, they don't seem to understand the concept that criminals will still get guns and use them. They can't see themselves breaking the law, so clearly, nobody else would, right? And in any case...guns are violent, and violence is wrong, so we need gun control!

...

I need to develop that one, but it's a start.

That's all for now, but there will be updates in the next few days. The theory is all there; It's just a matter of posting more examples now. Feel free to add your own thoughts in the comments.

...Aaaaadd theeeeem...

/Homer

Posted by CD on March 20, 2005 03:10 AM
Category: Essays