"Liberals" Are An Enemy

A few days ago Tuthmosis posted "Liberals" Are Not The Enemy at Return of Kings.

Before I explain why he is wrong I'd like to say that it is good to hear from the other side.  It is good to see that someone is willing to write things that many of his readers are likely to disagree with.  Its good that ROK is not an echo chamber.  And I support his writing something that I disagree with.  Any insults in the comments to that post show that he made his point well enough that those who insulted him had nothing productive to say.

That being said, Tuthmosis is totally wrong in his argument.

(Note that two videos were included in his post and not copied here.)
((Because I use other quotes, Tuthmosis' remarks are indented and italicized.))

It’s difficult to deny that there’s a strong conservative leaning to the manosphere. This ranges from anti-state, laissez-faire, libertarian types on the one hand, to a much uglier streak of ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist sentiment on the other. For our purposes today, we’ll concern ourselves with the former category—and its immediate ideological neighbors. Whatever the case, I can’t count the number of times I’ve read “liberal,” “left,” or “progressive” as a pejorative in a manosphere article, tweet, or forum post.

Firstly I think that " the right" as it exists currently in America consists of social conservatives, economic conservatives, and some libertarians.  If someone on the right is called one of those three names, or conservative, or a righty, then he will likely not complain.

The same is not true for those on the "left."  And do note that he put the lefty names in quotes, but not "libertarian."  People on the political left have wanted to have themselves called all sorts of names: liberals, progressives, lefties, socialists, communists, labor, etc.

I'm told that "liberal" was once the favored term for the American left.  But now many prefer "progressive."  What, exactly, is the difference?

Apparently some progressives don't want to be called liberals, or lefties, or socialists, or communists.  And communists don't want to be called liberals...

Would someone on the left (is that a pejorative too?) explain the difference between them?

If those of us on the right only called the lot of you "progressives" would that be okay?  Do you prefer another term?  Once you pick your preferred term, would you mind not changing it every so often?

He has divided the right into "anti-state, laissez-faire, libertarian types" and "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist".

If this article was meant to promote understanding, reasonableness and avoiding pejoratives, then why the name calling?

Are there "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalists"?  There could be.  I'm not aware of having ever met one, but let's assume that they are there.  Is that meant to describe people who go to church and oppose gay marriage and abortion?

Not all people who go to church are ignorant of history and science, you know.

As for white nationalists... I don't think that I'm allowed to have an opinion on race; I'm a white male.

The two issues that seem to make up the social debate are abortion and gay marriage.  I've tried to rationalise abortion.  I've thought about it and tried to consider it from all angles.  But I cannot find a way to argue that abortion is something other than murdering the most innocent people (or future people).  Does that make me an ""ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist"?

Gays are able to live together and do what they want, and almost no one is going to bother them.  I'm not sure I understand what it is that the gays want in this matter.  From what I understand they want to get married and flaunt it in the faces of those who think that it is sinful.

The rightward lean is thoroughly unsurprising, since much of society’s ills have successfully been pinned on the specter of the so-called liberal (monolithic) left. The capital-L “Left,” the myth goes, is responsible for feminism, for an activist state that unfairly levels the playing field between men and women by force, and who enables and apologizes for a panoply of negative behaviors from women (and indeed men), from obesity to single motherhood to sexual promiscuity. The left shelters the characters we all hold in contempt: weak, white-knighting manginas and bitchy, short-haired feminists.

"The rightward lean is thoroughly unsurprising, since much of society’s ills have successfully been pinned on the specter of the so-called liberal (monolithic) left."

Should we pity your side for this?  Many on the right would claim the opposite is true as well.

For example: every time that there is some bad market news it is blamed on the free market.  And America has no free market.  For starters, the U.S. Code is more than 300,000 pages of laws affecting every issue in our lives.  And we have a Federal Reserve Bank.  The Fed controls the money supply and interest rates.  The government is setting the rules and the scoring system (money) and yet the free market gets blamed for bad economic news.

"The capital-L “Left,”"

I do hope someone on the left takes up my request ant tells me what it is that those of you on the left want to be called.  Please don't change it too often once you decide.

"The capital-L “Left,” the myth goes, is responsible for feminism,"

It is difficult to prove that the left is responsible for feminism because I don't know what it is "the left" was when feminism is founded.  Because the left has not nailed down a specific term for themselves and a definition is is difficult to understand what it is that someone on the left would accept as being on the left. (This is why, I suspect, the left does not use one term for itself and why we won't see one term used to describe them all being acceptable to them.  For the record, those of us "on the right" are cool with being called "on the right.")

In an attempt to show that feminism does indeed come from the left, I would ask: who do modern American feminists generally vote for: democrats (the left party) or republicans (the right party)?

From the National Organization for Women's Economic Justice page:

NOW advocates for wide range of economic justice issues affecting women, from the glass ceiling to the sticky floor of poverty. These include welfare reform, livable wages, job discrimination, pay equity, housing, social security and pension reform, and much more.

Does anyone on the left want to claim that the economic position for noted feminist organization NOW is anything other than lefty?

"for an activist state"

I cannot conceive of how the left could be described as anything other than advocating an activist state.  Must I define each word?

from the 2013 State of the Union:

Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.  (Applause.) We should be able to get that done.  (Applause.)

Would someone on the left explain how advocating that the government actively interfere with employment wages is something other than activism?

" that unfairly levels the playing field between men and women by force,"

Is it the left or right that supports Title IX?

I am really trying to be reasonable with this rebuttal.   But I cannot express in words how inconceivable I find it that someone could claim that it is not the left that is responsible for feminism and leveling the gender playing field by force.

Not only do those on the left not want a single term and definition to define them, they are not willing to admit to the things that their side does.

After Tuthmosis' opening paragraph I attempted to rationalize some beliefs from some of those on the right.  I accept that some on the right want to forcefully oppose gay marriage.  Tuthmosis is unwilling to even admit to what the left has supported and is supporting.  I attempted to rationalize my sides' faults away.  He is unwilling to accept the ownership of his sides faults.

It could be because one side is creative and one side is logical.  We may not think the same ways about things.  It seems that the left and right are speaking different languages.

As clearly as I can: the left and feminists support each other.  See: feminist orgainsations' political support for lefty candidates.

The left is responsible for leveling the gender playing field by force.  See: the lefts' support for Title IX.

"and who enables and apologizes for a panoply of negative behaviors from women (and indeed men), from obesity to single motherhood to sexual promiscuity. The left shelters the characters we all hold in contempt: weak, white-knighting manginas and bitchy, short-haired feminists."

Who gets the votes from short haired feminists: the righty presidential candidates (such as: W and ?) or lefty presidential candidates (such as Clinton and Obama)?

Truth be told, this isn’t entirely inaccurate. Many of the supporters of those very things describe themselves as liberals or progressives. Historically speaking, feminism originated—and was advanced—by members of the political left. Today’s self-branded progressives and liberals support candidates of the ostensibly liberal faction, the Democratic Party. Despite all that, problems arise when you start to unpack that over-simplified characterization.

Note that what I have written previously is an oversimplification.

Note also that he continues to avoid being willing to accept that feminism comes from the left.

Note that perhaps the most progressive U.S. president ever was a vocal supporter of woman's suffrage as it became law.

Wikipedia:

"President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the bill."

There are entire segments of the left that don’t support any of those movements or fit those descriptions. The left is a diverse lot—one that’s become as ideologically fragmented as the right has in recent decades. Subscribing to a feminist, permissive, or castrated brand of politics isn’t an admission requirement to the left any more than subscribing to Evangelical Christianity is one to the right. One problem is that the distinctions between socially left-leaning, fiscally left-leaning, and other three-dimensional configurations have been blurred and flattened into a dismissive cocktail of talking points.

"There are entire segments of the left that don’t support any of those movements or fit those descriptions."

Fair enough.  Some on the right oppose being legally forced to fill abortion prescriptions despite their moral opposition.  But they are just "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalists", and they totally belong to the right.  Whereas the unfortunate parts of the left are not really a part of the left.

"Subscribing to a feminist, permissive, or castrated brand of politics isn’t an admission requirement to the left any more than subscribing to Evangelical Christianity is one to the right."

Even if everyone on the left does not support feminism, it is a part of the left.  Even though not everyone on the right supports a Christianity, church goers are a part of the right.

Even though I personally disagree with a lot of what Rick Santorum thinks, I accept that he is part of the right.

In the same manner, those of you on the left should accept feminists as being part of the left, even if you are a lefty who disagrees with feminism.

"One problem is that the distinctions between socially left-leaning, fiscally left-leaning, and other three-dimensional configurations have been blurred and flattened into a dismissive cocktail of talking points."

This is true for both sides.  Accept that flawed persons on your side are on your side.

Feminists are progressives.

What’s more, many of the people conventionally lumped into the left aren’t very “left” at all. Take Barack Obama—the favorite scape goat of the conservative right. His politics, like those of the Democratic Party writ-large, are anywhere from center to center-right, by almost any historical or global measure. The notions of “right” and “left” have, quite simply, steadily drifted right in the United States over the past decades. Dwight Eisenhower, the famous example goes, couldn’t even get nominated in the Democratic Party today, never mind his own party.

I don't care about what the global measure is.

Barack Obama has overseen the partial nationalization of our healthcare system and the nationalization of GM.

We really do seem to be talking different languages.

George W Bush is a member of the right.  Despite his overspending and over-enthusiasm in federal interference in our education system he is is of the right.

Barack Obama is a member of the left.  Despite Guantanamo Bay still being open, despite U.S. troops still being abroad, he is of the left.

I truly cannot conceive of how someone can claim that Obama is not a lefty.  I begin to wonder if the whole post was a joke and if I am being too serious.  Lots of writers sem to try this kind of joke, and I never catch it.

It is true that past republicans had political positions that are not the same as the republican party's positions today.

Short U.S. history lesson:

In the late 1800's both main political parties supported a limited federal government.  My second favorite U.S. president was a democrat: Grover Cleveland.

Currently both political parties are steadfastly in support of keeping the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, at least in some form.  None of these things are right, by any measure.  And yet their continuance is supported by both parties.

The history lesson conclusion: both parties have often been similar and their average point has raged all across the political spectrum.  But more government in the economy is always the left, and less government economically is always the right.

Wikipedia on Cleveland:

His battles for political reform and fiscal conservatism made him an icon for American conservatives of the era.^[1] Cleveland won praise for his honesty, independence, integrity, and commitment to the principles of classical liberalism.^[2] Cleveland relentlessly fought political corruption, patronage, and bossism. Indeed, as a reformer his prestige was so strong that the reform wing of the Republican Party, called "Mugwumps", largely bolted the GOP ticket and swung to his support in 1884.

^{I once heard that Grover Cleveland is Ron Paul's favorite president.}

Another Cleveland quote:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.^[96]

^{Would the democrats nominate him today?  (Off topic: if you want to start a blog, use wordpress.  Changing the size of the font in this line is not worth the 10 minutes it would take for me to do so. I can make it smaller, or much too big, but not the same size as the other text, without re-copy and pasting the quote repeatedly and typing and retyping that line repeatedly.)}

A quote from Grover Cleveland that says that both democrats and republicans opposed a national income tax, at that time:

Both of the great political parties now represented in the Government have by repeated and authoritative declarations condemned the condition of our laws which permit the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue, and have in the most solemn manner promised its correction; and neither as citizens nor partisans are our countrymen in a mood to condone the deliberate violation of these pledges.

He veto'd bills because they weren't, then, the job of the government.

Yet, the average man (and member of manosphere) has, would, and will benefit from wide array of the progressive politics of an activist state. I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.” Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years. The cynical tactic of dismantling federal apparatuses (by de-funding them), allowing them to fail, then pointing the finger at those failures to show how “government is the problem, not the solution,” has successfully convinced a lot of people of the ineptitude of the state. This ignores the idea that the state is only as good as whoever is currently running it.

Lots of problems with this paragraph.  But it is good to see that he admits that, at least,  many regulations that interfere with our lives come from the left.  We are getting closer to a definition of the left.

"I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.”"

Economist Walter Williams would refer to someone who says this as a "bad economist" because only the seen has been observed not the unseen.

What was the unseen cost of making seatbelts mandatory?  We don't know because the answer is unseen.  What advancements in car safety have we missed out on because seatbelt laws have prevented advancements in car safety?  We'll never know.  Car companies were forced to install them and we are forced to wear them.

Note that that is more government interference in our lives and Tuthmosis admits that, at least, this part of more government is of the left.

More government = more left

He puts the invisible hand of the free market in quotes and writes it in such a way as to be dismissive of the idea.

Let's expand on his seatbelt thought.  What he is saying is that without government laws (which come from the left) no car company would bother with car safety.  He is saying that when if cars were all very dangerous, then people would not choose to buy the cars that are safer.

He's saying that the government knows what the best car safety technology is.  And they will require car companies to implement those technologies because those lefty politicians care about safety and the big bad car companies don't care about making its customers happy by making cars that are safe.  (Note: barring government interference, private companies make money by providing customers with things that the customers want to buy.  Customers are not fans of buying things that they don't like.)

What Tuthmosis is saying is that politicians, particularly lefty politicians, know more about car safety, food processing, and water than do the people who make cars, butcher meat, and drill water wells.

What Tuthmosis is saying, in this paragraph, is that lefty politicians know more about the aspects of your life than you do.

What Tuthmosis is saying, in this paragraph, is that lefty politicians, like the one in the following video, should be encouraged to interfere more in the way that you, and everyone else, conducts our lives and does our jobs.

(Do note that Hank Johnson is a democrat, and a lefty, progressive, liberal politician.)

Tuthmosis says that that politician knows more about car safety than does car manufacturers and car buyers.

Tuthmosis says that Rep. Hank knows more about preparing the food you eat than the people who grow it and the people who eat it do.

Tuthmosis says that Rep. Johnson knows more about water clarity than the scientists who test it and the people who drink it.

Tuthmosis says that this liberal, progressive should interfere more with your life, because he knows more about how to run your life than you do.

Watch it again and understand that this is the sort of person who Tuthmosis would like to see make more safety laws that affect your life:

"Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years."

He is blaming our current crisis on deregulation and the free market.

I shall try to explain this slowly:

We, in America, do not have a free market.

We do have a Federal Reserve.

The U.S. Federal Reserve determines how much our money is worth.

The value of money affects every business decision made in our so called "free market."

The Federal Reserve determines the interest rate.

The Fed's interest rate is a number that is the measurement by which all companies compare their own rates of interest. 

Businesses' financial data is written in words whose value were determined by the Fed (money).

Note also that there is not an aspect of your life that does not have a matching federal law.  With "free markets" like this, who needs communism?

"The cynical tactic of dismantling federal apparatuses (by de-funding them), allowing them to fail, then pointing the finger at those failures to show how “government is the problem, not the solution,” has successfully convinced a lot of people of the ineptitude of the state."

Pick anything that the government does that you think that it does well and I will prove otherwise.

The last time someone challenged me on the subject of government competance, she suggested that the government runs our roads.

She seems to think that the 40,000 deaths that occur on U.S. roads each year is an acceptable good number, and an example of how well the government does things.

"This ignores the idea that the state is only as good as whoever is currently running it."

Name something specific that you think that the government does well. 

I don’t like the idea that General Electric pays no income tax and that when I call my credit card a guy in India picks up. I find it increasingly difficult to buy things not made in China. These are, quite plainly, the products of libertarian- and conservative-minded policies in recent decades. Some of these, as we all know, were passed by members of the Democratic Party—like Bill Clinton—who few in the intellectual left would regard as true progressives.

Funny that he should pick General Electric as his example of a bad company.  Guess who is best buds with GE's CEO and appointed him to the position of "President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness"?  You'll never guess. :)

What's wrong with stuff made in China, or Indian customer service reps?  You wouldn't be a racist like those mean righties would you?

People in India and China make stuff and Americans are free to design that stuff.  Who would you rather be: a low skilled laborer, or a product designer?  Guess which country has more of the latter?

I don't like how much W spent and I don't like Romney's political policies but they are, mostly, from the right.

Obama and Clinton are the two most recent lefty presidents; they just are.

Anyway that you look at it, nationalizing GM and our healthcare is lefty politics.  It is now, and is has always been so.

Whether you agree with my politics, or I yours, is immaterial. But, to the degree that, as members of the manosphere, we’re all participating in a form of “politics,” we do need to agree on one thing: a shift away from a wholesale dismissal of the left. If Red Pill Philosophy is the latest version of manospheric thought, and that branch is to mature into a legitimate and intelligent movement—carrying the mantle of a forceful and articulate response to feminism into mainstream credibility—it will only do so by virtue of operating a big tent.

 All should be invited to take the "red pill," and lefty politics should be understood.  But lefty politics is bad, it is wrong, and we should stop supporting it.

Otherwise, we’ll be easily and quickly dismissed ourselves, as little more than another tin-foil-hat, reactionary movement from the extreme right. We’re doomed to a collapse under the weight of our own intellectual incoherence, exclusiveness, or oversimplified talking points. Earlier ideologies from the manosphere already carry the burden of being branded as inactive complainers or deluded bigots, by none other than men predisposed to sympathize with their general world-view.

 "Otherwise, we’ll be easily and quickly dismissed ourselves, as little more than another tin-foil-hat,"

Translation: We should move our politics to the left because those stupid righties belive in UFOs.

In an unrelated note Dennis Kucinich (D) (another person who Tuthmisis thinks should do more to interfere with your life) has seen a UFO.

At a debate of Democratic presidential candidates in Philadelphia on October 30, 2007, NBC's Tim Russert cited a passage from a book by Shirley MacLaine in which the author writes that Kucinich had seen a UFO from her home in Washington State. Russert asked if MacLaine's assertion was true. Kucinich confirmed and emphasized that he merely meant he had seen an unidentified flying object, just as former US president Jimmy Carter has.^[75] Russert then cited a statistic that 14% of Americans say they have witnessed a UFO.

Who is calling who "bigots"?

Who is dismissing who with terms like tin-foil-hat and "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist"?

The left, in other words, isn’t an enemy of the manosphere. Segments of it are, just like segments of the right are. Like attractive girls who push back against fat acceptance, refuse to wear pajamas in public, scorn effeminate men, and take pride in their own femininity, members of the manospheric left are invaluable allies in a war of complicated allegiances. What’s more, the left offers us a set of intellectual tools to build out our beliefs—on matters such as gender and masculinity—into a coherent ideology. Just like the libertarian impulse offers a powerful set of ideas—self-determination, accountability, and suspicion of institutional might—the left offers us protection from the worst abuses of capital, the perils of an impoverished rabble with nothing to lose, and threats to our fair shot in the marketplace. It’s time to drop the dubious catch-all that liberals-are-to-blame.

The left has long—and to a certain degree fairly—been stereotyped for the worst of its members: concave-chested, bearded, skinny-jeans wearing, bike-riding, vegan-food eating weaksters and their skrillex-cut, tatted-up, female-bodied girlfriends. But the left is much more than that. It’s filled with tough, old-school, manly cats with the balls to stand up to corporate abuse, foreign threats, and, nowadays, the corrosive delusions of feminism.

The more people learn about the "red pill" the better.

But where politics is concerned, liberals are a problem.  The things that are advocated by the left have caused the deaths of more people than any other man-caused calamity ever.

Who are the righty, or "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist" com parables to the lefty Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong-Un, etc.?

We still exist. And there are more of us than you realize.

I'm glad that someone from the left was willing to write about politics in a way that is different from much of his audience.

Where politics is concerned, we've tried liberalism (as its known in America today) and it has led to death.