How Campus Progressives Ruined Liberalism for the Rest of Us

I have some confessions to make: I am a liberal. I am pro-choice. I favor the legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. Given supreme authority, I would drastically cut our military budget and use the money to institute a single-payer healthcare system (certainly not something many of my colleagues at the Independent would agree with). I even voted for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in the last presidential election. However, despite my overwhelmingly liberal political leanings, the progressive movement – particularly as I’ve seen it manifested on college campuses – has made me embarrassed to identify myself as a liberal.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that Fox News spends only 45 percent of its airtime on factual reporting, while it spends 55 percent of its airtime on opinion pieces and commentary. It was unsurprising that a news source frequently lampooned as opinion-driven and biased spends the majority of its time reporting opinion pieces. But why is Fox News considered such a horrible and untrustworthy network when the same study showed that the liberal MSNBC network spends a whopping 85 percent of its airtime on opinion segments and only 15 percent on factual reporting? If Fox’s penchant for focusing on opinion is worthy of criticism, doesn’t MSNBC’s more egregious example of the same sin merit even more? The contempt for Fox I hear coming from liberals coupled with a lack of criticism towards MSNBC suggests that many within the liberal movement don’t want factual journalism at all, but rather opinionated journalism with a liberal bent. In fact, though they would have you believe they merely support truth in journalism, many liberals openly disregard the truth – and criticize those who don’t – when it conflicts with their worldview.

The most recent example that comes to mind is the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson. My fellow liberals decided from day one that Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot and killed Brown, was in the wrong. Before autopsy results were released, without reading the eyewitness testimony, and with no regard for forensic evidence, the left prejudged Wilson as guilty. Although I personally prefer to hear evidence before forming an opinion, I can understand why –especially in light of the slanted media reporting on the case – many people would leap to the conclusion that Wilson was guilty. What was appalling to me, however, was that when the evidence that was released proved far from sufficient to suggest Wilson’s guilt, the vast majority of the left was still calling for Wilson to be punished. Protests predicated on the assumption of Wilson’s guilt, like the march to Claremont City Hall, were held nationwide after a grand jury failed to indict Wilson, seemingly unconcerned with the fact that the evidence against him was inconclusive at best.

Campus liberals acted similarly in the case of Emma Sulkowicz, the Columbia University student who has vowed to carry a mattress around campus with her until her alleged rapist leaves the school. Rallies in support of Sulkowicz were held at college campuses across the nation, including here in Claremont. Despite the fact that criminal charges were never filed and the man who ostensibly assaulted her was found not responsible by Columbia, supporters of Sulkowicz have continued to refer to him as her “rapist” and harass him on and off campus (have they never heard of the Scottsboro Boys?). The Columbia Spectator decided to print the name of the accused despite the fact that the university had not found him responsible for any wrongdoing (did the Spectator learn nothing from the media’s handling of the Duke Lacrosse case?). This uproar will affect the man for the remainder of his time at Columbia and will continue to follow him for the rest of his life. Because the alleged assault fit into campus liberals’ dominant narrative on sexual assault, the overwhelmingly liberal students of Columbia, the Claremont Colleges, and other elite institutions were eager to risk ruining a potentially innocent man’s life by naming him a rapist, even as new evidence emerges, all of which seems to support the alleged attacker’s innocence.

To question the guilt of Darren Wilson was to be a racist, and to question the veracity of Sulkowicz’s story was to be a sexist rape apologist. Doing either of these things would almost certainly get you branded as a conservative. As a liberal who did both of these things, I have been appalled by the irrational mob mentality displayed by my fellow liberal students at events like the Ferguson protest and the “Carry That Weight” march in support of Sulkowicz. I am struggling to come to terms with this new reality wherein sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait. The campus left’s complete unwillingness to adjust their opinions of these cases to fit with the facts shows a thought process completely devoid of reason. Facts are apolitical. To question prevailing liberal thought on Ferguson and Columbia because of the evidence (or lack thereof) is not a conservative position. It is a realistic one. To question prevailing liberal thought on Ferguson and Columbia is not to deny the existence of racism in law enforcement or sexual assault on college campuses, but to acknowledge that not every individual case fits those patterns.

Ferguson and Columbia are unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to college liberals privileging (if I may appropriate one of their favorite words) narrative over evidence: As it turns out, trigger warnings (well-intentioned though they may be) actually do more harm than good, and controlled exposure to trauma can lead to a quicker recovery from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder than complete avoidance. According to the founder of the Trauma Studies program at King’s College, London: “You cannot get a person to avoid triggers in their day-to-day lives. It would be impossible…Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, [the media] should be encouraging exposure…Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That’s not good.”

Women do not make $0.77 for every dollar men earn for the same work. When controlling relevant variables such as profession and hours worked (seemingly obvious measures conspicuously missing from the original $0.77 study), the wage gap almost completely disappears. Childless women in their 20s actually make as much as 8 percent more than their male counterparts.

President Obama hesitates to refer to the Islamic State as an Islamic extremist group and makes an effort to downplay what are actually alarmingly high levels of sympathy for extremist movements in Muslim communities worldwide.

It is most likely untrue that 1 in 5 female college students is sexually assaulted. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number may be closer to 6 in 1000 . This data, collected over the course of 18 years and with a response rate of 74 percent, is much more reliable than the 1 in 5 study, which sourced its data only from two large schools, had a response rate of 43 percent, and did not even take into account whether or not the people being surveyed felt that they had been assaulted (a similar study found that 49 percent of women classified as having been raped did not think they had been, while only 47 percent did). The author of the 1 in 5 study himself said “We don’t think one in five is a nationally representative statistic.” The list goes on and on.

The fact that my fellow liberals seem so unconcerned with evidence makes it hard for me to sympathize with their cause. Although I may agree with them on many issues, the way in which we arrive at those conclusions differs drastically. I thoroughly believe that most of the liberals here at the Claremont Colleges do what they do with good intentions; as liberals we should help the disadvantaged and strive to create positive social and political change. However, what is stereotypically “liberal” is not always right, and what fits most cleanly into our belief systems is not always true. Unwillingness to listen to opinions differing from the mainstream and attempting to silence opposing viewpoints (including the destruction of print issues of the Independent around campus) is completely illiberal and is an insult to the campus Free Speech Movement that liberal students championed 50 years ago. Silencing minority viewpoints does not prove them wrong and says more about those doing the silencing than those being silenced.

The only rational way to approach divisive political issues is to base your opinions off of the facts that are available to you. Liberals and conservatives have always disagreed on how those facts are to be interpreted, and we should be glad for it. Neither conservatives nor liberals are correct 100 percent of the time. However, it seems lately that evidence has become a nonissue for many on the left.

Unless my fellow liberals learn to stop shoehorning every situation to fit the narrative they are trying to construct, the left of tomorrow will be made up of individuals who are unable to distinguish their beliefs from reality. Those of us who can make this distinction will not want to associate with the liberal movement any longer. Where will we go?

175 thoughts on “How Campus Progressives Ruined Liberalism for the Rest of Us”

  1. This is perhaps the most important piece I’ve read anywhere in a year, and I read a lot. I often put it a somewhat different way, “the truth is somewhere underneath the headline, and often the opposite”. I really appreciate this highly refreshing exhortation to follow facts and logic rather than “the narrative.”

      1. Modern day Progressevism and Liberalism is almost completely based on B.S. in almost every facet of everything that it stands for. I’m 43 and came upon that realization in my mid-twenties when I decided to be honest about who and what progressives and liberals are instead of continuing to excuse their (especially their public mouthpieces) lying to justify their means, their hypocrisy, their cheapness, their own prejudices based on their own B.S. that they regurgitate so much so that it becomes “fact” in public opinion which is exactly what this liberal manufactured campus-rape crap is all about — getting a platform based on lies and putting non-liberals on the defensive as rape supporters when they question that nonsense. Sorry Taylor, but the last good liberals died a long time ago. Modern lefties have done such a bang-up job of destroying the good word “liberal” that they’ve now moved back to describing themselves another way — Progressives. They don’t deserve to be believed on anything.

        1. This the truest comment to date.

          There are always progressives totalitarians whom are willing to take advantage of such simpleton “liberals” as this columnist.

          He does even have the intellect to have figured out that even the so-called “reasonable” liberal positions to which he believes that every “rational, sane” person would stand applauding in admiration of his superior godliness, are more of the same “rape culture” propaganda from earlier dishonest progressives, whom spread the tired narratives which he decries in his article.

          Knowledgeable people spotted it in the first sentence when he could not even bring himself to use the term ABORTION, but spouted the focus-grouped “pro-choice” narrative.

          He is a rube and does not even realize it………in the near future the Independent readers will be blessed with a liberal professing that though he is fully down with supporting the “rape culture” and “Hands up, don’t shoot; programs that all good liberals support, they just don’t know about the current progressive strategy against “whatever the current progressive narrative happens to be…”

          1. Yep — “Hands Up; Don’t Shoot.” Communities burning to the ground based on B.S., but liberals mean well. Sorry, but liberals burned up all of their get-out-jail-free/don’t-blame-me-I-just-mean-well cards a long time ago. In my opinion, they can screw themselves and should just shut up and sit in the corner for a generation or two so that our nation can heal from all of their crap. It’s time for the adults to take center-stage.

        2. “Progressives. They don’t deserve to be believed on anything.”

          You’re largely correct wrt contemporary Progressivism, but how can you possibly single them out in this regard from the party that gave us the ludicrous pretexts for war of WMDs and the claim that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11?

          The great sin of today’s Progressives is that they turned out to be about as bad as the right. They’re hardly worse.

          1. Duh. (smacks forehead). *:/
            For the record: It’s now called global climate change (because it IS happening whether folks believe it or not- hahaha..duh)
            This can create mayhem in the overall weather patterns as well as cause cold & hot fronts that normally don’t appear during certain seasons like….east coast being colder than normal in May/June, major flooding in Texas in May and California in a crazy 4 year drought. ???

            Read a little more please.

      2. Thank you for your honesty. Loved this article.
        When and Why did THIS all start to change?
        I am a common sense, compassionate thinking person.
        I support the Republican Party( mostly).
        I am baffled by this New Liberal Idea.
        When did Progressive Thinking become The Ultimate Power Grab.
        Lie, cheat, steal, etc to get what you want.
        Used to be the Crazy, religious Right werethe self righteous, hypocritical freaks.
        The Left seems so Ruthless and hateful.
        I refuse to believe the majority of Americans are agreeing with this new philosophy.
        Thank you

    1. As someone who’s a stalwart conservative, I become increasingly frustrated that I’m strongly encouraged, and often do, show a little flexibility in my beliefs, and give others with opposing views the benefit of the doubt.
      I’m encouraged by your article, Taylor, that there are people like yourself who aren’t willing to sacrifice reason and common sense for locking one’s self in an echo chamber, regardless of what’s blatantly in front of them. I’m absolutely willing to reach across the aisle and come to an understanding that bridges this stark political gap we’ve created for ourselves. This hostility has gone far beyond mere political discourse to ad-hominem, erecting straw men caricatures of decent people, and what even twenty years ago would have fallen under the category of hate speech. I bet there is far more we can agree upon than not, and I’m willing, as you are, to use sound judgment and patient understanding to help make that happen, as I’m sure are you.
      Bravo, sir.

      1. Progressives, liberals, socialists, what ever they want to call himself is the venue to control the population. The truth set you free, says jesus, lies slave you. With lies they cna chained us,. With truth we’re free. With God we live forever and happy, without God, misery will take over. Liberals despise the Bible, because the Bible is the truth.

      2. For a long time I kept trying to figure out a way or find a moment when groups could sit in the same room and hash out our many issues. Now I think its clear that wont be allowed. There is just no middle ground where meaningful discussion can prevail. The extreme left, if allowed to continue, will take us over a cliff. The extreme right will continue to profess their faith will give them wings.
        But it is fun to watch peoples eyes roll back in their heads when I tell them I am a buddist that believes in god. I figure god gave us a brain to reason through all this chatter.

  2. Great article Taylor. Glad to see a liberal who isn’t afraid to be a little critical of people within his movement.

  3. Thank you for putting down on paper my exact same thoughts. I also feel people have been completely misusing the word liberal and have been ignorant of plain facts in favor of narratives that suit them. Where do you think the origin of this problem stems from for the Claremont Colleges’ “liberals”- is it a nationwide trend, our admission policy’s consequence or the fact that “liberals” are being attracted to Claremont for our fame of being liberal?

      1. I was not sure if you were being sarcastic. Though, there is someone behind the scenes, influencing politics around the world. His name is George Soros. He is a globalist billionaire that is known as “The Man Who Broke the Bank of England”, he founded the ultra-globalist “Open Society Foundation” in which his goal is for one nation under one rule. He funds the top radical progressive groups across the world in order to play market changes, and to further the agenda of the Open Society Foundation. He funded Black Lives Matter to the tune of $33 million less than a year before they descended on Ferguson. He also funds MoveOn, La Raza, and other radical progressive groups that have been stirring up chaos. He has also been convicted of insider trading.

        The media will not touch him due to him being a major DNC funder, and his progressive group funding.

  4. That’s a good question. It’s certainly a nationwide trend (at least at a lot of schools, not so much at Liberty University or Bob Jones). I think this is a time in people’s lives when they are searching for some sort of purpose; something to fight for and to believe in. Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for the world at large) things aren’t that bad. Certainly the United States isn’t perfect, but people are being forced to reach further and further to find some cause to fight for and to give meaning to their lives. Without a doubt they all mean well.

    1. Actually, they do not all mean well. Many are looking to adopt a belief system that brands them as morally superior and justifies their bullying of those with different backgrounds or opinions.

    2. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to point out that bashing foxnews for “biases” and tolerating “biased” MSNBC is hypocritical when you reflexively bash Liberty University/Bob Jones (not an alumni)?

      It took me a moment to google “gay at liberty university ” to correct some of my own assumptions:

      http://m.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/being-gay-at-jerry-falwells-university/274578/

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/liberty-university-hires-openly-gay-employee-world-doesnt-freak-out/

    3. Meaning well is the problem leftist have to hold their politicians accountable for policies that don’t work and quit demonizing the right. Most leftist assume they have the moral high ground because other leftist tell them so most of the time you don’t.

  5. I agree that we need to look at the evidence, but seeing as I don’t know who to trust in the media to have real facts rather than opinions, it makes doing so very difficult. Especially so when emotional stories are what tend to bring in better ratings than cold-hard-facts. I agree, there may not have been enough evidence for Wilson to be indicted, but that doesn’t change what appears to be high levels of racist police work in that county and others like it. Brown’s death was just the match that lit the real haystack of underlying problems. Sulkowicz’s alleged rapist may not have been the one that did it, but it doesn’t change the fact that she was raped and is hurting because of it. There are many systematic injustices, and yes there are cases where systematic racism and sexism may not take hold, but it doesn’t change the fact that they exists. This being said, as a for-the-most-part liberal, I just try to live my life the best I can and hope that others will do the same.

    1. “Sulkowicz’s alleged rapist may not have been the one that did it, she was raped and is hurting because of it” – I’m sorry, but you’ve just demonstrated the author’s point. Please go read the story at the Daily Beast. The participants of what happened are not in question – what happened and whether she consented to what happened is the issue in that case. There is NOTHING to support an allegation Sulkowicz was raped by someone else.

    2. What fact? How do we know for a fact that she was raped? How was that fact reached? Who verified it?

      Isn’t this exactly what Taylor is talking about?

    3. The facts are clear Hands up don’t shoot was a false narrative. The accused attacker of Sulkowicz was not charged or even punished where the trend is to assume the accused is guilty till proven innocent. Acceptance of those facts does not commit u to the opinion that blacks were not being treated unfairly in Ferguson or that sexual assault is not a problem on college campuses. The rest of us are noticing more and more the irrationality of the left. You can only call us racists, homophobes, bigots so many times before we simple do not care.It has not surprised me when i confront these people who call other names and suggest they are the bigots that they become truly indignant.

    4. The important take-away, though, is that defence of individuals as distinct from groups they might be identified as part of is supposed to be a liberal value — possibly the principal liberal value. When liberals don’t follow that value they not only harm the individual concerned but also harm the reputation of liberalism itself. It makes no difference to the Wilson case how much racism there is in policing. And it makes no difference to the Sulkowicz case what percentage of college women are raped. Unless it is 100 percent by design then it is irrelevant to all specific, individual cases of alleged rape.

      I understand your point about sources of information, and I agree. But the answer is not to convict (in your mind) a specific, individual person. It is to suspend judgement until you have better information. You don’t need an opinion on everything, right away. More importantly, as the article points out, you must always be willing to revise your opinion in the light of new evidence.

      And, perhaps even more importantly, you need to ask yourself why your initial judgement was wrong. You would be right to argue that we can’t avoid fitting specific cases into our general world view. I wouldn’t argue that we shouldn’t. But we must also be willing to adjust that general world view, most especially when we discover that it has led us astray. The writer here correctly points out that, in some very important cases, prominent and influential liberals have failed to do that.

      The fact that prominent and influential non-liberals have made the same mistake in other situations should not be a comfort to liberals. If you don’t hold your own philosophy to a higher standard there’s little reason to adopt it as your philosophy.

    5. The problems in Ferguson are less ones of race than Bully Boy Government supporting itself through the revenue collectors known as the police. As for “Mattress Girl” just because “she’s hurting” doesn’t give her the right to slander an individual male. You SjW’s are good at breaking eggs, but your omelettes are lousy.

    6. The problem with modern liberalism is they are taking us back to primitive tribalism. Instead of seeing people as individuals, they see a person as gay, or black, or female, etc. .

  6. hi,

    I have very little empathy and understanding for voices that undermine injustices to highlight “fact” and “objectivity.” There is no such thing as objectivity, everyone has a politic whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. This society was most certainly not created on objectivity so let’s stop pretending that that’s a thing. So what’s the motivation for us readers to adhere to this sort of perfect balancing between liberalism and conservatism? Is it so we don’t loose credibility on the left for being too emotional? Fuck that. If the left gets any less left-ier, essentially, our future is screwed. Also, the power lies less in the careful shaping of these political categories, and more in the work that needs to be done. So instead of talking about Mike Brown’s case as not having enough evidence to indict his murderer, let’s talk about the amount of black men killed by the hands of cops. Instead of playing devil’s advocate in a rape case, don’t mention it, or focus on the larger issue of patriarchy at hand. This opinion piece just feels like a journal entry that should have been left in your personal arsenal of thoughts. I am by no means trying to insult your intelligence with that statement as I’m sure you are very capable person, but rather encouraging you and others to be wise as people in the voices we choose to share with others. There is a much greater need for other narratives than the one presented here.

    best,
    kp

    1. Your comments here make me think you are exactly the type of Liberal the author is speaking about….”truth be damned…how can I use this tragedy to further my agenda”

      The reason this is dangerous for us as a society, it that news stories like the Mike Brown incident being falsely reported ( hands up don’t shoot didn’t’ actually happen) serve to drive a wedge between people. The bad reporting led to MORE violence, it led to the murder of two cops, it led to the arrest of hundreds of protesters who thought that they were standing up for a teen who was executed by a cop as he was trying to surrender. That narrative, despite being a PERFECT example of police brutality, simply wasn’t true…yet the liberal media put forth that story with such fervor that it became “truth” to a lot of people.

      We need to come together as a civilization….the “news” companies, ( I wont’ put this all on the “liberal” news either) is simply tearing us apart….mostly for ratings. They get rich as we sit glued to our TV’s.

      1. Absolutely! The press is a major problem in explosive stories like that of Ferguson. They all have a commercial interest in fanning the flames and this causes a big problem for “innocent until proven guilty.” Another token example was “A Rape on Campus” written by Rolling Stone. A story discredited in 2 days, internal investigation showing no fact checking present and no one of standing fired.

    2. Thank you for presenting a perfect example of what the author is talking about.

      As the author states, “I am struggling to come to terms with this new reality wherein sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait.”

      Progressives do not care about the truth. Like kp they claim that the truth does not exist. Those of us educated in engineering and the hard sciences have a real problem with that word view. In our daily lives we bump up against reality far too often for us to be able to pretend that it does not exist.

      You want to talk about the number of young black men killed by cops? OK. That number is tiny, lost in the statistical noise compared to the number of young black men killed by other young black men. Why is that? Because the black community suffers from too little policing, not too much. In every community there is a tiny percentage of violent criminals who commit most of the crime. In the white community, the police and courts put a significant effort into catching those criminals and locking them up or executing them. In the black community, that effort is not made and the small number of violent black thugs like Mike Brown are generally left free to wreak damage on the people around them.

      When it comes to accusations of rape like Emma Sulkowitz, we can remember the accusations against the Duke Lacross Team or the Rolling Stone article about Jackie at the University of Virginia and remember that there are a bunch of crazy women making false rape claims and that refusing to punish those false accusers makes it more difficult for real victims to be believed.

      When someone like kp claims that there is no such thing as objective reality, they are explaining that they do not see any restraints on their exercise of power. They are telling you that they are dangerous megalomaniacs and that if they ever achieve power they will exercise it without restraint like Stalin or Pol Pot.

    3. So, in other words, “The narrative above all.” Forget truth; it just gets in the way of the quest for power.

    4. “So instead of talking about Mike Brown’s case as not having enough evidence to indict his murderer, let’s talk about the amount of black men killed by the hands of cops. ”

      Are you saying the amount of black men being killed by cops is unwarranted is a fact. Wait–I thought there were no ‘facts’.

      “Instead of playing devil’s advocate in a rape case, don’t mention it, or focus on the larger issue of patriarchy at hand”

      And if are there are no ‘facts’, how can there be ‘larger issues’?

      Dear God, I pray you’re not a college student or recent grad.

    5. You could have ended with “I have very little empathy and understanding.” Somewhere along the line you began to worship rhetoric and ideology and forgot about actual people.

  7. I disagree with you KP. I feel like there is a need both in the world and on campus for all voices to be heard. I don’t think its fair of you to tell anyone that they shouldn’t share their opinion. I enjoyed reading this article if only for the refreshing opinion it offered. I am glad Taylor had the guts to try to widen the Overton window on campus.

  8. Very great writing, and something that I’ve definitely said about both sides. I’m very “conservative” in my viewpoints but definitely am annoyed by many who come to political conclusions based on pure emotion and not fact, which is something that I’ve seen from conservative college groups as well (and those outside of college). Several seem to be more anti-liberal than conservative. While I don’t know the solution yet, I believe that it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Your article has inspired me to write a response piece that I hope to post publicly and eventually link to in my comment. Great writing, again!

  9. I largely agree with everything you’ve said here, though I take exception to the notion that “sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait” when there are so many vitally important issues (for instance, global warming) where conservatives gleefully ignore scads of objective data. It’s clear to me that neither the political right nor the left enjoys a monopoly on evidence-based policy, and that neither are particularly concerned by this. Unfortunately, this isn’t a case where we can simply adopt some happy moderate middle-ground, either, since liberal and conservative viewpoints are often binary, and one of the binary views is often clearly correct and the other is not (i.e., saying “both are partly right” or “neither is entirely incorrect” is milquetoast at best and more likely deliberately disingenuous). Liberal and conservative ideologies are legitimately different value systems for interpreting data, but in order to be honest about one’s ideology, one must be honest about what the data shows first.

    1. Something I should have been much clearer about in the article is that the reason I single out liberals for ignoring facts is because those are the people I deal with on a daily basis here at a college in California. In other parts of the country, the conservative cohort can be just as bad. When I say that “sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait,” I don’t mean to say that the right has a monopoly on evidence-based politics, but rather I’m trying to express how unfortunate it is that in my college experience, you can be branded a conservative/sexist/racist/etc. simply for choosing fact over narrative, and that it was typically the conservative students who chose fact. This isn’t necessarily the case on all issues on a national scale, but it is the case in Claremont. So I agree with everything you said.

      Thanks for your comment!

      1. On a couple of occasions, I’ve had progs justify their thinking on the grounds that “perception is reality” (and getting the point of the quote exactly backwards)!

        When the progs call themselves the “reality-based community,” one has to remember that they equate their perception with reality (and thus facts are of little consequence).

      2. In other parts of the country, the conservative cohort can be just as bad.

        And you base this assessment on what? You have an up close and personal view of the issues afflicting the campus left. Do you have a similar degree of personal familiarity with the “conservative cohort” “in other parts of the country”? Or are you basing your statement on the characterizations of said cohort that you are receiving from the same sources that inform the campus left?

        hmmmm……

      3. I’m glad you pointed this out. The so-called Liberals of today should not even be called Progressives, but Digressives. Why did I choose the name Digressives? This name is very apt for the following reason: Digressives is the term that the Campbellite Demonination calling itself the Church of Christ uses for the sect that calls itself the Disciples of Christ. The reason why the Campbellites chose this word “Digressive” is in order to remonstrate against what they
        regarded as innovations in the worship and church organization of the local congregation. For example, Cambpellites, as if under pain and penalty of loss of one’s salvation, _reject_ instrumental music, solos, and choirs
        in public worship. They have historically only used one UNDIVIDED cup in the Eucharist. Historically they have never allowed Sunday Schools, nor Foreign Mission societies. The reason for all this is because they have a principle called Specific Authority or the Regulative Principle of Public Worship: Every ritual or ceremony of public worship or feature of church organization
        or church government that is not specifically ordained by direct precept, approved example, or necessary inference from the New Testament is not only excluded, but
        as peremptorily _denied_ the right even to exist at all just as if it had been expressly forbidden by Divine Law! Campbellites _officially teach_ that God didn’t have to _specifically_ FORBID instrumental music in public worship in order to deny the church the liberty of using these things! The mere fact that God left it unmentioned by the specification of something else is an automatic proof that it is unlawful! In fact, it doesn’t even have to be intrinsically evil in order for it to be unlawful in church! In Ephesians 5:19, Campbellites officially teach that God SPECIFIED only VOCAL and CONGREGATIONAL music in public worship, and therefore this excludes solos, choirs, and instrumental music! Campbellites contend earnestly that neither Sunday Schools, nor Foreign Mission Societies, are specifically authorized, neither by direct precept, nor approved example, nor necessary inference from the New Testament – therefore Campbellites _deny_ that they are at liberty to use or have or enjoy any of those things! Campbellites contend that there is a fixed, exact, precise, peremptory, unconditional, universal and perpetual uniform PATTERN of New Testament church worship, church government, church discipline, and church work which must be dilligently observed under penalty of loss of salvation of one’s soul! This very pattern of New Testament church worship, church government, church discipline, and church work cannot admit of anything else but direct precept, approved example, and necessary inference (which is techincally called a CENI warrant from the NT) in order to define it truly and accurately. Any attempt to introduce any feature of church government, church worship, or church worship that does not have a CENI warrant from the NT is an unauthorized unlawful innovation, yea, a DIGRESSION from the Pattern – and that is why Campbellites call such
        innovators Digressives!

        But what does this have to do with today’s Leftists, especially of the so-called Democratic Party, who call themselves Liberals and Progressives? Because these “Liberals” want to make innovations contrary to the U.S. Constitution which LIMITS the power of Federal Government over the States. The tendency of these “Liberals” to set up a micromanaging bureaucracy under the pretext of “civil rights”, “social justice”, “equality”, “fairness”, and “multiculturalism” violates the intent of the U.S. Constitution and gives to the Federal Government powers the U.S. Constitution never delegated to it in the first place! The 10th Amendment plainly states every power not delegated by the Constitution to the Federal Gov’t, nor prohibited by it to the States are either reserved to the States or the people – not Federal Gov’t micromanaging
        bureaucracies! This micromanaging bureaucracy is a digression AWAY from the U. S. Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional! These “progressives” are not true “progressives” – they are Digressives! Causing the Federal Government to digress AWAY from the Constititon!

    2. I’ll subject to you that conservatives don’ t”Gleefully ignore scads of objective data”. In fact, the opposite is true. If you were to spend an hour actually reading a dozen or so articles about “Global Warming” you couldn’t help but find yourself skeptical. The “objective data” it turns out…isn’t that objective after all. We have learned in recent years that the “consensus’ of scientists we’ve all heard about so many times is in fact, not a consensus at all. At one time…yes..there was when the UN provided all scientists the same data set from Penn State University climate researcher Professor Michael Mann’s data of world temperatures.

      When they all put his data through their forecasting models, they all came to the same conclusion… that there is a man-made cause and effect on global surface temperatures.

      but

      Then his e-mails were hacked ( which is an awful think in an of itself) and it was revealed that he had indeed faked the data. When he was caught and the scientific community asked to see the RAW data he used for his report…he claimed he cold no longer find the original data…it had simply disappeared. The UN subsequently removed Dr Mann’s data from their climate report, the famous “hockey stick” has now become a metaphor for scientists who create data to meet a criteria.

      if you want to learn more….google “climategate”

      1. I’m not sure why you assumed that I am ignorant about global warming, as opposed to carefully considering the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the experts are actually right. I’m not sure if you’re serious but, if so, you’re proving my point for me in the most ironic possible way.

        1. Bimston, it appears that you are rather affected by confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. Are you familiar with those errors in thinking? Confirmation bias seeks only information that fits one’s biases. Motivated reasoning is similar, in that reasoning is led astray by the desire to justify one’s position through cherry-picking information, and emphasizing certain elements of truth (while denying, ignoring, or dismissing others) to reach one’s pre-determined judgment.

          In the late 80’s and through the 90’s, I was a liberal. Like many, I was certain that “our side” was right, and that those on the other side were ignorant rednecks. I believed the argument for Man-Made Global Warming was conclusive. But then, through observing others matters of how liberals addressed policy, I came to question their basic premises. And as I questioned those premises, I started to look at the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It is pretty poorly conducted with regard to the data used as that data is neither definitive nor conclusive. The models have all too many assumptions and have failed to predict or explain the past 18-year “pause” in warming. So if the models are this ineffective, then why should they be “believed” unless one is motivated to believe them anyway? Science is fundamentally a skeptical approach—this is why the null hypothesis is that there is no change. To assume ahead of time that a condition exists is not to engage in science, but to engage in the advocacy of motivated reasoning.

          Speaking of advocates, the stark disconnect between how Al Gore lives his life and what he is promoting for the rest of us is a “tell”: he is not serious about his agenda of Global Warming, except as a way to enrich himself. As Glenn Reynold’s says: When those claiming AGW / ACC is a crisis start living like it is a crisis, I’ll start to believe them. They are known by their actions, not their words.

          Following the money, as they say, it is a fact that billions of dollars are granted by governments to study global warming. If the grantor seeks money to *question* the model of Anthropogenic Global Warming (now Anthropogenic Climate Change-ACC), then they have a much harder time getting the funds. See Watt’s Up With That’s website archives for proof of that claim. Of course, the “solution” to AGW / ACC is more government control, and since power always seeks to extend and amplify itself, it makes sense that governments would favor conclusions that they should be given more power and control.

          My statements here are but a drop in the bucket in my position with regard to the highly questionable claim of AGW/ACC. And there are many authors who have written extensive and cogent books disputing the AGW/ACC lobby. No need to go further here.

          But I will leave you with this, as it gets back to the fundamental issue of the article: When facts are ignored or cherry-picked to support a political / policy, then we have reached a dangerous place. That is what I see from the left—lies and misuse of fact in the aims of a clear agenda: Susan Rice claiming that Benghazi was the result of a video (that few had seen). Barack Obama claiming that Obamacare would reduce a family’s health insurance by $2500.00 and that “If you like your doctor/health insurance policy, you can keep your doctor/policy.” Hillary Clinton unlawfully setting up and using a private email server to evade accountability and gaining hundreds of millions of dollars in the Clinton fund. Harry Reid, on the floor of the Senate, lying about Mitt Romney not paying his taxes, and then justifying it within the last weeks with “He lost, didn’t he?” implying that the lie was effective! Teresa Sullivan (president of UVa) punishing a fraternity without so much as conducting her own investigation. Facts be damned! they all demonstrate.

          It makes sense to be vigilant about those with power or seeking power over you, no matter their political, religious, educational, or scientific brand.

          I thank the left for demonstrating this central verity effectively, though Bush did a pretty good job himself.

    3. I don’t believe that’s what Taylor meant. The way I read it was that when you confront the type of liberal being written about above with evidence that upsets their applecart, so to speak, you’re automatically branded a conservative/reactionary/patriarchist/etc.

    4. Global warming is a classic example of not being objective. The facts do not support it, its a myth used by unsavory people to meet their ends (power) and the widespread believe that we skeptics are deniers says it all. Read a little: http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

  10. While I can agree with a good deal of the sentiments in this article (particularly concerning MSNBC’s emphasis on jabber over journalism, which is thankfully reflected in their ratings), I do have to point out that some of the ‘facts’ linked to are highly questionable:

    The Breitbart article concerning global Muslim views towards extremism misquotes some sources and uses at least one source from Rossyia Segodnya, a state-run Russian news agency notorious for fabricating data. The British studies from 2006 by NOP and ICM found that around 40% of Muslims in the UK “sympathized” with the 7/7 attackers but only around 1% thought their actions were correct. A poll in 2004 found that 15% of all Britons (<5% of whom are Muslim) doubt the severity of the Holocaust, making extreme views hardly a uniquely Muslim issue.

    Furthermore, a study by Gallup found a far greater percentage of Americans thought attacks on civilians were sometimes justified than did residents of the Middle East, and found that the strength of religious beliefs was uncorrelated with support for violence [http://www.gallup.com/poll/149369/religion-not-color-views-violence.aspx].

    The 6/1000 statistic quoted from the NCVS is not intended to be a comprehensive estimate of the incidence of sexual assault on campuses, has obvious limitations, and comes with the same disclaimer of possible non-validity as the 1/5 number. The NCVS polls households, not individuals; only asks about incidents in the past 6 months; does not clearly define the terms rape or sexual assault; and, most disruptively, counts people taking online classes from home as students. There are many other studies that support the notion that 20-25% of college students will experience sexual assault, some of which are cited here: [http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php].

    Hopefully those examples illustrate that a statistic that may seem reliable can still be questioned, and that doing so does not constitute a rejection of fact,

    That said, I agree that there is an epidemic of people in America who will apply a preconceived narrative even when evidence suggests otherwise. By the evidence, Michael Brown was hardly a victim. It is undeniable that false accusations of rape do occur and do ruin lives. It is stupid and irresponsible for bystanders to trumpet fashionable causes without considering the facts, and when these cases are inevitably discredited, it harms the movement those bystanders pretended to support.

    Because it is also a fact that police in the United States target, harass, and murder black citizens at a disproportionate and unjustifiable rate, just as it is a fact that many women live in a climate of fear, that officials are far more likely to dismiss a real accusation than to believe a false one, and that most rapes go unreported. And when the bubble bursts on cases that have become media darlings, the mass of actual victims are the ones who bear the brunt of increased scrutiny and skepticism towards cases like theirs.

    It is foolish and infuriating when so many people latch onto a singular case as a symbol of a systemic problem, regardless of whether that case actually has merit. However, it is a climate we all share. When members of Congress feel entitled to deny science as well-established as anthropogenic global warming and the highest-rated talk radio host in America claims that abortions cause breast cancer, who teaches young people the value of basing their politics on fact?

    1. Do you really believe that women in college campuses experience rates of sexual assault comparable to a war-torn third world nation in Southern Africa? If that were the case how could responsible people continue sending their children to college?

      The rate may not be 6/1000, but I am pretty sure that it’s not 1/4, either, and it’s probably a lot closer to the former.

    2. Just for the record, members of congress, and everybody else, are “entitled” deny science. It’s called freedom of speech, and it applies even to people you disagree with. I even support that right for those who deny the science that says GMOs are safe, who have denied life-saving DDT to Africans who have died by the million from malaria, and those who oppose both fossil fuels AND nuclear power. It’s clear from your letter that you are among those on the left who feel you have a superior understanding of science. Time to look in the mirror, Billy.

  11. The problem with narrative over fact is that all feedback is lost. Feedback is how people adjust their actions and how systems are adjusted to reality. Without feedback, people and systems are increasingly divorced from reality and may justify the most atrocious things.

  12. I think the person made some good points. Obama hesitates to refer to the Islamic State as an Islamic extremist group for the sole purpose of protecting American Muslims. You know, the kind that conservatives keep trying to hang in the media. I think some of the issues the writer is tackling and the conclusions the writer has been lead to about liberals show more of how conservatism pretty much ruins a great deal of things without proper understanding of liberal issues. If anyone is furthering an agenda or misrepresenting things to fit a narrative its conservatives. I see he failed to mention how conservatives have been trying to throw a wrench in the deal obama has been making with Iran over beliefs about them that have yielded no evidence to date with strong support from the right. What I see in this article is nitpicking to a great degree. Tree hugging liberals who take the side of women and minorities over evidence isnt ruining liberalism. If you’re a liberal and you think that anyone siding with a liberal issue is a liberal, then you’re whats ruining liberalism. As we can plainly see from the article not all liberals side with every liberal issue, but the writer seems to think that he is special, and most liberals are not like him.

    1. I’m sorry you feel that way. If you’ve ever been on a college campus, however, you would know the breed of liberal this article is talking about. I didn’t mention the shortcomings of conservatives on a national scale (of which there are many) because this article was focused on college campuses, where the prevailing liberal narrative is not based in fact but in emotion and narrative.

  13. You feel like you have nowhere to go, Taylor. Bit you are right where you need to be. Liberalism is good when it’s true liberalism without an open and thoughtful mind.

    Ad a Conservative, I have always felt that I am not that far from a classic liberal. I do see many conservatives who don’t think and just react. Sure, fortunately on things like Mike Brown and the Rolling Stone rape story, they were right; bit not because of reading the facts.

    We need to make sure we’re doing right for the right reasons, not just for a cause or the greater good.

    Thank you Taylor for this step in the right direction.

  14. Good post. However, I would point out that “conservative” is not the opposite of “liberal”; it is the opposite of “progressive”. I myself am both conservative and liberal.

  15. First, let me say that you’re right: It’s not one in five COLLEGE women, it’s one in five WOMEN in general. That is an actual fact. One in five women have, at some point in their life, been raped or sexually assaulted. The fact that it’s being spread wrongly is bad, just as the rest you said in your article. Facts don’t matter to the left.

    Maybe it’s time for you to start calling yourself Independent.

  16. Loved this hilarious piece of satire– does a great job of showing us all how dangerous it is to ascribe “irrationality” to marginal and challenging voices. Favorite part was “facts are apolitical”– so incredibly, disastrously wrong for any serious discussion of politics and what meaning we derive from it. ggreat jokes comrade

  17. ^ Can you please lower yourself from your ideological high-horse to please interact with us peasants for a second, and maybe, just maybe interact with the author’s arguments rather than simply dismiss them?

    The author is not attacking marginal and challenging voices, he is attacking a demographic which more often than not are privileged, overeducated, white “liberals” that jump on any politically trendy movement and use emotion and narrative to block out reason fact.

    They use rhetorical tactics very similar to what you do. Someone like Taylor will make an argument based on logic and evidence. Someone like you will either dismiss it as a joke, say something like “that is not ok” (intentionally using all-lower case and baby language, which serves actually no purpose but just another example of the mob mentality willing to do anything to fit in. The equivalent is when you said “ggreat jokes comrade”, or play the argument-hop game and every time they are losing an argument simply say, “…but we need to focus on this larger ____ issue”.

  18. It’s hilarious how the author uses Ferguson as an example because if you kept up with the facts at all you’d know that Darren Wilson not even going to trial was one of the biggest shams ever. There were soooo many things wrong with that proceeding.

    I’m sorry, when somebody who has no weapon gets shot 6 times and ends up lying a good 10+ (and oh boy was it plus) meters from the police car and then the body just stays on the ground for hours without anybody even to check if the boy was alive (and hell Wilson drove AWAY FROM THE SCENE), it doesn’t take a very high IQ to realize that yeah, some things are seriously screwed up.

    You want facts my ass. There’s no scenario possible where the shooting could have been justified with such an ending to that altercation.

    1. You continue the lie and thus demonstrate what the author was describing. You leave out the video of Brown working over the convenience store clerk, the bullet holes in his body which do not support the initial description from the criminal-friend, the bullet holes inside the police car, the mass of eye-witness testimony etc..

      This case was so evident, it didn’t really even need to go to the grand jury. Kudos to the DA who made it such an open process, one that even liberals should be able to acknowledge.

      Are you really saying that Eric Holder’s justice department, which in my view clearly sympathized with the lefty agitator’s narrative, would fail to present evidence if it had been there?

    2. I might suggest you read the DOJ report that essentially exonerates Wilson. Holder’s DOJ was looking for a way to bring Wilson up on charges, but all of the evidence and reliable testimony pointed to a violent altercation initiated by Brown and ended when Wilson shot Brown while Brown was approaching him, without his hands up.

      Based on the evidence presented, there was no reason to believe a jury trial would have been successful.

    3. You want facts my ass. There’s no scenario possible where the shooting could have been justified with such an ending to that altercation.

      And yet, the United States Department of Justice under the direction of the notorious Klansmen Eric Holder was completely unable to find anything to pin on Wilson.

      FWIW, thank you for stepping up with such an able and cogent example of the problem Schmitt is exploring.

  19. Unfortunately, those who should read this fine article. won’t do so. Even if they do, they will mostly dismiss it as the work of a turncoat, for the very reasons you describe in the article, it’s a Sisyphean task you have undertaken by writing this piece. From the day Lloyd George praised Hitler, to the day that Chomsky equated the moral health of the citizens of the US with the membership of Al-Qaeda, political liberalism has consistently failed at spotting dictators for what they are, and has maintained an enmity with the west that is hard to forgive.

  20. Great piece, particularly as I am reading this just as Rolling Stone magazine is apologizing for their horrendous job of creating the U of VIrginia rape fallousy, is what happens when journalists abandon journalism for activism. All oo often, college faculty do the same.

  21. Point is, Mike Brown wasn’t murdered. Also, Joseph Haver (aka “who?”), white guy killed by a black cop who was acquitted was unavailable for comment. What is the evidence that Sulkowicz was raped? All the evidence points to consensual sex with regret coming later. Thus, not rape.

  22. I suppose it would be impolite to ask whether the writer has even considered that liberal policies, particularly those that pertain to the individual and are touted as “not involving or hurting anyone else” (abortion or homosexuality come to mind) – has the writer ever considered whether those very policies don’t in fact lead directly to personal characteristics of thoughtless, irrational, mob mentality.

    “Liberals” never ask a fellow citizen to say no to themselves regarding any urges or passions they might have, and then are so very surprised that that same fellow citizen can’t say no to to the urge to illiberal mob behavior.

  23. I will not even go so far as to grant these liberals/leftists/progressives a presumption of good intentions. I think they know perfectly well what they are doing, how destructive it all is, and what harm they are guilty of causing. I think they do not care–or worse, I think that is precisely what they intend.

  24. I haven’t time to fisk this entire self-serving, self-righteous “liberal” letter, but let’s cut right to the chase on the issue of “pro-choice.” I know by “pro-choice” what the vast majority of liberals mean is they are pro-abortion because if they were really “pro-choice” they would embrace a person’s choice to avail themselves of their Second Amendment right to buy firearms of their own choice, be pro-school voucher choice, pro-privatization retirement accounts, pro-right to work laws, etc.

    All this letter writer succeeds in doing is trot out the same old tired lying “liberal” memes that have institutionalized social depravity, decadence and a welfare/entitlement mentality, all behind the fig leaf of “compassion.”

    If you want old school liberalism look no further than the American founders themselves who established a liberalism that believed in private property rights, that government powers should by necessity be limited to clearly enumerated powers in a Constitution, that our unalienable rights originate with our Creator and not with secular government, that established a constitutional republic and not a mere “democracy” that can be corrupted by a political party which essentially buys votes by way of taxpayer supported handouts.

  25. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I’m Black, and with many of my Black friends, I’m considered a traitor to my race. When I bring up facts, friends and family don’t really want to hear them. They usually insist that I’ve been brainwashed. I laugh it off, because I really don’t need their own validation. I consider it fun to debate them and have them reduced to the narrative talking points (as well as ad hominem attacks). When I point it out, they still don’t get it. I find it sad sometimes, but fun most times.
    I found your article refreshing, and I can’t wait to show you it to friends and family.

    1. Please excuse the grammar/sentence structure in my post. I was typing on my phone on a bouncing bus, and didn’t have the time to proof it before I hit “Send”.

    2. Chris, it’s likely that you already do so, but it bears repeating, if only for encouragement’s sake.

      The point of such debates is to sway lurkers, those on the sidelines watching and listening. As such, humor, a sunny mien, and joy carry far more weight than oft suspected. Of course, baiting your opponent into becoming an angry scold can have it’s own special delight.

  26. My transition from being a liberal to a liberal-conservative occurred a couple decades ago when I came to understand how illiberal the liberal-progressive movement had become. What’s more, the causes and methods they tend to rally behind are often so damned silly and glib. I’ve come to referring to contemporary liberals as “gliberals”. They share little in common to the liberals that I admired and helped to shape my social conscience – John & Robert Kennedy, Pat Moynihan, Hubert Humphrey.

  27. It’s ver funny that many of the commenters reinforce your points by attacking you and continuing to push false narratives. I need to get a bag of popcorn to read all of these comments…

  28. While you’re at it Taylor, take the next step and see the contradictions in the liberal mindset based on the examples you used. Liberals and people on the Left in general see the STATE as the answer to virtually all of the ills of humanity. Pass a law,start a program, or regulate something and the problem is solved. But who is the representative of the state that your average person sees most often? It’s the police! And they are bad apparently because they kill innocent people and can’t be trusted enough to involve them rape cases.

  29. I agree with every word, but this piece could have been written years ago with equal validity. I left the “left” when I saw this emerging. I wanted nothing to do with it. I think principled liberals have had the blinders on about the regressive “progressives” for a long time, and even enabled their growth in many ways, for short-term political gain. Now the golem is attacking its master and you don’t like it.

  30. Where do u go? You might try the Libertarian movement. Or u can wait till out of college where u will find there are still plenty of traditional liberals who care about facts. Remember, these committed progressives will have to eventually get a job and try to make a living and will be “mugged by reality” where facts and performance matter and they will no longer be in left wing echo chamber.

  31. I was a liberal for many years but the end came when I realized I was being consistently lied to by my political minders. You may want to ask yourself whether your liberal friends, media, politicians, etc are telling you things that they believe themselves or things they want you to believe.

  32. “I am struggling to come to terms with this new reality wherein sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait.”

    New reality? You’ve gone insane! The Left never had any interest in the real world, instead insisting that Cloud Cuckoo Land is how things really work. From apologizing for Communist dictators that filled mass graves and indulged in genocide, to insisting that taxing people with jobs into the poorhouse was the way to prosperity, Liberals have proven themselves to be totally immune to anything approaching rational thought.

    “The campus left’s complete unwillingness to adjust their opinions of these cases to fit with the facts shows a thought process completely devoid of reason.”

    Don’t try and mitigate the problem. All so-called “Progressives” are devoid of reason, not just those found lurking on campus.

  33. Although I personally prefer to hear evidence before forming an opinion

    And you call yourself a liberal.

    Seriously, this is a very good, and important, piece that I’ll be sharing widely.

  34. Very thoughtful and well-written piece. The only flaw is presuming that this liberal reactionism is confined to college campuses. In my discussions with liberal/progressive friends, or in viewing their Facebook rants, it’s evident that the mentality you describe persists well beyond college. The only thing that changes is the lack of time for accompanying performance art.

  35. The statement about spending less money on defense in order to spend more money on Obamacare puts you squarely into the “no facts, just narrative and feelings, please” crowd, despite your critique of the other nonsense they believe. The US military is the bulwark against fascist islamists who would dominate the world given the chance. Europe is getting ready to institute sharia across the board. Wait until you see what happens to gays and women, Cutting defense spending is as much a pipedream as anything you’ve described about your fellow liberals. Single-payer health insurance? Let your pre-med friends know that in a few years you’ll be setting their paycheck based on a fantasy no more realistic than “hands up, don’t shoot” and see how they react.

    1. Hey! I know! We could have the VA guys run it. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
      Just for grins, google Midstaffordshire review, just to get a flavor of how things are going in Albion.

  36. “Where will we go?”

    Well, you could follow where the facts lead and become a conservative. I did, many years ago, when I realized that almost all liberal positions were concerned not with outcomes but with making the person who held them feel good about themselves.

    “Look at how much I care!”
    “But your policies have had this disastrous unintended consequence”
    “So what? Look at HOW MUCH I CARE!”

    Reality has a conservative bent. Once you get over the hump of reflexively rejecting conservatives as evil, it’s liberating to find yourself supporting policies that actually benefit others rather than ones designed simply to assuage one’s own conscience.

  37. Thank you for writing this. I’m a conservative, and I have had the crap beaten out of me by the narrative when the facts supported my side on more than one occasion. I’ve even heard people take things to the point of saying that logic isn’t real and therefore invalid.

  38. It ain’t just campus progressives that are ruining the world for the rest of us. Progressives/liberals/Democrats live in a truth-free world of relativism where the only things that matter are ones that make them feel good about ourselves and those that can enrich or empower them or their cronies.

  39. As someone who grew up an east coast liberal until my mid 20s I find it ironic how progressives today do not seem to understand how intolerant they come across.

    For you younger folks, please understand that anyone who wants to shut down discussions, or shout down the opposition–well, those are what we used to call the bad guys. Now we see so-called progressives embrace the bullying tactics we thought we had shamed out of existence during the 60s. It is tremendously ironic and depressing.

    1. Now we see so-called progressives embrace the bullying tactics we thought we had shamed out of existence during the 60s. It is tremendously ironic and depressing.

      Drinking your own ink? Seriously, it’s impossible to look at the campus occupations and riots of the ’60s and conclude that liberals “shamed out of existence” those bullying tactics. Outside of the civil rights movement in the 50’s and early to mid 60’s, bullying tactics have been the bread and butter of the left since day 1. Just try “shaming” labor activists about bullying.

  40. Hi Taylor, you are an excellent writer. I would humbly suggest your next step might be to acknowledge that conservatives too, can have “good intentions”. Nearly every conservative will concede this point to liberals, but the courtesy is not a two-way street. Keep exploring.

  41. Does no one here understand that ‘to be indicted’ means to be brought up on trial? It doesn’t mean sentenced, convicted, sent to jail. It means, “we think we should look into what happened here because this police officer killed someone…”

    Through this whole article I see you complaining about not choosing facts over emotions/opinions/whatever. But what you do in every situation is just choose some other biased article with a different viewpoint and treat that as fact. Furthermore, you MISUNDERSTAND those articles that you pick in multiple situations, which frankly makes your whole view sound pretty entitled and ignorant, even if a couple of your points are valid.

    1. Jordan. There was a series of investigations. Among them, the Grand Jury. And the DoJ. The grand jury figured they didn’t have enough to go to trial. The Doj couldn’t find anything to say about the shooting, either. And they tried. Your planted axiom that the trial is the first or only investigation fails. Fails easily.

  42. Unfortunately, the author doesn’t grasp the harsh truth that it’s increasingly typical of so-called liberals to make such rushes to judgement and willfully ignore any information that clashes with their set-in-stone prejudices. And by and large, it is the conservatives who have become the refuge for objective thought, and the source of opposition to today’s widespread mob mentality.

    1. Give him a break, he’s feeling his way there, in the sense of “I’m in a dark room, I’ll trail my hand along the wall, feeling until I reach the door.”

  43. Excellent opinion piece, Ms. Schmitt. Something tells me you’ll end up a conservative because you seek out hard facts, think for yourself and have the courage to call out hypocrisy among your own.

    I was a deeply liberal person during my college years but after taking a private sector job in NYC and seeing the mind numbing unintended consequences of decades-long NYC liberal policies, I became a conservative. New York City was brought back from the fiscal and social brink by two mayors (Giulliani and Bloomberg) who practiced basic conservative principles – law and order and fiscal sanity.

    There’s something extraordinarily compelling about progressive policies, particularly to young people. Using the State as a tool to implement a ‘fair’ society seems so irresistible. That is, until you find out that the State and its agents have no natural enemies. Then, the programs that were supposed to bring about an end to poverty or [you name the current social ill] are used as patronage mills to keep your political buddies in power. It’s human nature as old as the hills. This goes for Republicans too. That’s why you’re seeing such upheaval in the party, thank goodness.

  44. Welcome to reality. As you leave the sanitized artificial womb of academia and embark on the path of the real work that is required for civilization to exist, you’ll soon come to see that all of the policies you support are built on lies. Women’s reproductive rights render family and marriage meaningless. Single payer health care requires administrative price controls to replace market forces, thereby legitimizing an ever increasing nanny state. Moreover, if you reduced defense spending, why would you still borrow the money? Gay marriage is good and sensible policy if, and only if, it is directed at providing homes for children who would otherwise be in the custody of the state. It should be done through carefully crafted legislation by the states, and not in the courts. Pot should be legal, but probably for different reasons than the ones you believe in. I’ll leave it for you to figure it out. I predict that in five years, you can join with me and hold your nose to vote for the Republican candidate who we don’t deem conservative enough.

  45. The serious issues tackled by the Left have already either been lost or won. The issues they’ve won leave them grasping for something else to be angry about (which seems to be the quality that best describes the left). On the other hand, losing an argument never means you have to stop arguing. So, liberals just keep on arguing, or looking for ever more trivial complaints. Liberals are no longer liberal at all, in the traditional sense of the word. They are simply Leftist bullies for whom the ends justify the means.

  46. What a thoughtful, well-organized, and well-written piece. I would only add that you could place the recent UVa rape story into this narrative too, but I expect that your piece went to press before the Rolling Stone retraction was issued late last night.

    Again, very well-done. Keep up the good work!

  47. That wasn’t meant as a dig at those two schools, I was just using them as examples of schools that aren’t as liberal as most.

    1. Oops, this was in response to someone who felt I was bashing Bob Jones and Liberty in a previous comment

  48. Paleo-Conservative here. I’ve had the equal but opposite experience on the right. The Neo-Cons do in a different way what you describe the “Progressives” or maybe Neo-Liberals doing. Like you wonder about Progressives not complaining about MSNBC’s opinion-driven format, I wonder about the Neo-Cons eating up Fox (I stopped watching Fox long ago because it was more posturing than news).

    Another thing I’ve realized, there is no civil discourse between Progressives and Neo-Cons anymore. There is no willing to admit when the other side has a good point. It’s all attack, attack, attack, and the truth be damned. It wasn’t that way so much with Paleo-Conservatism and Classical Liberalism. There was a (somewhat) civil debate of ideas. Now, both sides seem to play “identity politics” and fear mongering but in a different manner.

    The question you asked at the end: “Those of us who can make this distinction will not want to associate with the liberal movement any longer. Where will we go?” I asked myself the same question about the Conservative “movement”. Where I ended up going was into right-leaning Libertarianism. I suggest those on the Left of goodwill try looking into left-leaning Libertarianism. You won’t be demonized for having a differing opinion from your peers, and you will be allowed civil debate with and intellectual inquiry into the other side. You can still be “green”, etc., but you’re allowed to actually talk about it and promote it in a sane manner rather than being castigated for not toeing the line.

    At least that’s been my experience on the right-leaning part of Libertarianism for the issues I’m interested in.

  49. Mr. Schmitt is unlikely to remain a liberal . . . not because of his ideas or his hopes or his background or her personality, but because he lacks the central characteristics required today to remain a liberal . . . hatred and intolerance of disagreement. For myself, I hope he ends up on our side, but if not, so be it. He has made a strong and important comment, one that perhaps was difficult for him. It is admirable to think through events when so many around him find answers before knowing questions. Good luck, and God bless.

  50. The sooner we get all of the leftists out of the country, the better. However it may already be too late.

  51. “The campus left’s complete unwillingness to adjust their opinions of these cases to fit with the facts shows a thought process completely devoid of reason.”

    And there you have the essence of leftism. Rational people alter their beliefs to accommodate reality. Leftists do precisely the opposite. It is a mental illness.

  52. Dear Taylor –

    In regards to your last comment – ” Those of us who can make this distinction will not want to associate with the liberal movement any longer. Where will we go?”

    ***Welcome to the Independents!!!***

    You are not alone. Instead of the Progs forming their own party or making their own organizations they took over the Liberals and Feminists from the inside (essentially using the former names but totally different from the original values).

    Personally I prefer the term Progs to Progressives as they are certainly anything but progressive.

    For me “liberals” jumped the shark a long time ago when defense of free speech became shouting down/vilifying anyone with a different opinion (when losing an argument or the facts do not support your position name calling seems to be the favorite option).

    Also when Prog-feminists stopped fighting for women’s rights (i.e. against genital mutilation, acid attacks, sexual slavery, or lack of educations opportunities) and sold out for free $10/month birth control for themselves.

    When supporting same – sex marriage and a person’s fundamental right to love who they choose became Christian Witch hunts over baked goods (but no mention that Gay Bakeries, Jewish Bakeries, and Islamic Bakeries all have their own positions on what they feel violates their personal beliefs and religious freedoms). You should check out @gaypatriot for some wild examples of Progs trying to trap Christian bakeries into a corner and then using that to shut them down or send death threats.

    It is not only MSNBC but CNN – case in point of Candy Crowley literally stepping away from her moderators position to lie for Obama during the 2012 debate. The ends do not justify the means – which I think is a concept largely lost on the Progs.

    To also add to your list –
    1) microaggresions – attacking people for what you think are their intentions or what you think they might be thinking (the thought police would be proud).

    2) Liberal hoaxes which are becoming a dime a dozen where a noose is posted, or hate words are written but instead of it being real it is from a progressive who is trying to stir things up to make a point. Then there is the MSM Prog media that if it fits the narrative they don’t care to look to see if it is true or not (NC Rape Case and Rolling Stone Mag).

    3) appropriation of culture – where even a belly dancing class for exercise was accused by Progs (also known as the Society of the Perpetually Aggrieved) or have a Taco night on May 5th (thank goodness the Irish are not so uninclusive where on St. Patrick’s Day everyone can be Irish, wear green, and celebrate with green beer).

    4) the item you had regarding triggers where the Progs don’t even consider that things they do may trigger others – to them it is a one way street. I get triggered listening to Obama explain that the murders being committed in the middle east are not religiously related.

    Unfortunately, there are not yet many Independent Candidates but they are growing. I am hoping in the 2020 presidential election that we will see our first candidate (if not in 2016).

  53. “I am struggling to come to terms with this new reality wherein sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait.”

    It’s also a libertarian trait.

    Have you considered the possibility that helping the disadvantaged is not a goal best served by force and coercion? You’ve seen firsthand what liberals are like; do you really think giving them more power, authority, and control will honestly serve the common good?

    You don’t need to abandon your sense of charity to name yourself “libertarian”; all you’d need to do is put down the gun — and continue to unashamedly embrace reason.

  54. This article is a much needed response to the prevailing “feelings before thoughts” mindset in the liberal community. Very appropriate, very timely.

  55. As a conservative, I want to thank you for this insightful article. In particular, I want to express my admiration that you didn’t spend half the article pointing out that “the right” does it as well. We do, but we need to write our own mirror image of your analysis.

  56. “Unless my fellow liberals learn to stop shoehorning every situation to fit the narrative they are trying to construct, the left of tomorrow will be made up of individuals who are unable to distinguish their beliefs from reality. Those of us who can make this distinction will not want to associate with the liberal movement any longer. Where will we go?”

    Well, you’ve basically just said that the Left has become a bunch of Marxist totalitarians. Which it has, it’s just cultural Marxism rather than the failed economic model, grafted onto an economic elite as its religion.

    So it’s anti-religious Corporatist Racial Socialism, which venerates irrationality for public bonding and has areas of science people cannot explore. Hmm. I think we’ve been here before.

    Where will YOU go? They’re flat-out fascists trying to hijack everything you believe in. Make THEM go!

    And THIS is where that term “civility” actually has a non-B.S. meaning. The job of people who aren’t liberals like Taylor, but aren’t fascists either, is to treat people like Taylor with respect. An independent thinker who is willing to stand up and be counted is someone you can have an honest and civil disagreement with. Do so, without vitriol, and with appreciation for their choice to uphold the foundation of civilization. Otherwise, a dispatch from Bosnia:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2015/04/05/liberals-may-regret-their-new-rules-n1980933

    So the people standing against that future are our friends.

    In contrast, a fascist has rejected reason, and embraced force. There is no arguing with them, only unyielding confrontation in various forms. This is a hard truth for people to grasp, but I think more and more people are starting to get it.

  57. A very fair and well-reasoned argument, I can’t envisage a rational person dismissing this as biased. As a liberal myself, I have also found the hordes of liberal-biased zealots rather shameful.

  58. The problem is not that liberals are stupid and conservatives smart. Rather, the difference in their world views goes a long way in explaining their largely irreconcilable positions. In my experience, a “conservative” is much more likely to be outcome-oriented. “Did it work? if so, it’s probably correct.” On the other hand, the liberal tends to be more abstract, and love the idea of the thing to the exclusion of of its actual effectiveness: “Dulce et decorum est.” For example, helping those in need is indisputably a good and noble thing in the abstract. But if you provide help in such a way as to create dependence and lack of initiative; it’s a bad thing. The conservative therefore says “Welfare hasn’t worked, so let’s try something else.” But the liberal says “Helping these poor incompetent dependents is a good thing! Who will take care of them if we don’t?” Give a man a fish and he will feed himself for a day (and sit around waiting for the next fish). Teach him how to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime.

  59. As an informed well-read conservative I applaud the author’s honesty. However, I must point out that in the final paragraph of this piece the author fails to acknowledge the reality reflected in the rest of this article.

    The author writes:

    “Unless my fellow liberals learn to stop shoehorning every situation to fit the narrative they are trying to construct, the left of tomorrow will be made up of individuals who are unable to distinguish their beliefs from reality.”

    Hello???

    The author needs to recognize that the left of today is made up of individuals who are unable to distinguish their beliefs from reality.

    This unfortunately is the reality Americans (such as Darren Wilson) face today, not some distant tomorrow.

  60. When I was attending college in the early 1980s — the University of Oregon, then as now referred to (not in a complimentary way) as “the Berkeley of the Northwest” — the counter-culture (i.e., conservative) alternative student newspaper there had a saying: “Scratch a liberal, and you’ll find a totalitarian underneath.”

    Seems like little has changed. Well, no, strike that; the cult of victimhood that is one of the hallmarks of the modern campus left was not nearly as prevalent back then as it is now.

    But otherwise, the irrationality, complete disregard for objective facts, and turning the scientific method on its head — beginning with the cherished preconclusion, and then working backward to cherry-pick “evidence” to cling to it — is still alive, and sick.

  61. The author of this article is the kind of liberal I can respect. He still upholds a number of positive values that old time iberals used to believe, but now far too often do not, including:
    1. The truth is more important than any narrative, and once the truth no longer fits the narrative, you dont ditch the truth, you abandon the narrative.
    2. Any movement that cannot recognize dishonesty and corruption on its own side, just as readily as it spots it on the other side, is in deep trouble.
    3. Respect for diversity does not just apply to race, etc, but also applies to points of view.
    4. No matter how mad you get, or how important an issue is, you cannot lose respect for free speech or due process.
    5. It is one thing to push for the freedom to do or say something, but quite another thing to force others to subsidize, agree with, and even participate with your choices. Even speech you consider hateful, is still in the end free speech.
    6. You do not have the right to never hear anything that might offend you. That is not safety, that is tyranny.

    I am a libertarian conservative, and disagree with this author on many issues, but I respect his basic integrity. He is a reason why I often make a distinction between liberals and leftists. Liberals still respect these basic rules of decency, leftists do not. For them it is not enough to even win, they must control the thoughts and actions of everybody who even respectfully disagrees with them. Of course conservatives can have these faults as well (rule 2, Bush had his problems too), but I have noticed that lately the left has gotten far worse on all these areas, and badly needs reform.

    1. I dig what you’re saying Richard40….good points to live by. Keeping those in mind as tenets to incorporate into a political and personal philosophy. But I don’t think the last part about leftists vs. liberals applies. It seems to me that today, those that are pushing people beyond a normal limit and forcing them to agree with their beliefs regardless of other’s comfort levels and needs, ARE the liberals gone amok. Not lefties. They’re too hedonistic and self-serving. As a lefty, we are more about systemic solutions not band-aids driven by emotion. But it’s easy for anyone in either group to bleed over and behave like others and vice versa. As well it’s easy to mix them up.
      Nowadays it’s hard to tell what’s what, honestly. :/

      Stickin’ by my values regardless of what they’re called.
      Peace.

  62. WOW, just as I had finally convinced my friends that ALL liberals were too stupid to breed along comes a guy named Taylor. Your piece was very well written and speaks to the cancer that is rotting the soul of America. Political correctness has robed you all of your right to free speech and expression. The Liberal Progressive movement has brainwashed you into the world view that all non white males are victims. Victimization is the key to it all. Now for the hard part. identifying the 2 groups behind the curtain who are driving this movement. And for most of you this will be a painful journey. It will call into question everything you believe as young men and force you to recognize that the one person you thought you could trust to protect you has actually been devoting her entire life to destroying you. Its the sad ugly truth. Every liberal in the US should be required to read Sir John Glubb’s book “the fate of empires”. You are living in the age of decadence. Rampant promiscuity, the feminization of men, the breakdown of the traditional family, welfare for the masses, mass immigration, even rampant abortion it’s all happened before. Just look at Rome. The Liberals brought that empire to its knees just as they are doing in the US now. The Queens of Hate drive the victim-stance movement and the people they hate the most are their very own sons. When your mothers care more about gay rights than your rights as fathers you should ask why. When your fathers no longer have the balls to stand up for themselves you should be ashamed. When your brothers and sisters have different fathers you should say WTF. When your country promotes the idea that all men are predators you should leave.
    But as Taylor has shown us, these are things we cant talk about because they would not be seen as tolerant of the two most powerful special interest groups in the US. Woman and Gays.
    I used to believe in the feminist movement,
    I used to believe in gay rights,
    I was a Liberal once. But then…… I opened my eyes.

  63. The blog neo-neocon is mostly conservative. The proprietor, with a background in family practice, law, and the arts, made the journey from left to right after 9-11/ She has a number of insightful pieces about her change. In fact, she calls them “A Mind is A Terrible Thing to Change”. Worth it to see about the change and about a view of liberals.

  64. Taylor, I went through exactly the same thing over the course of the last couple years (encompassing part of college and all of grad school). I had always identified with the left because I believed they were the ones who supported individual freedom and organic social development. And while there are individuals on the left for whom this is true, it ain’t true of The Left as a whole any more than it’s true of The Right as a whole.

    I’ve begun thinking of myself as a classical liberal (basically a libertarian with a lorgnette). Don’t let the campus loony bin maintain a stranglehold on liberalism in your mind. There’s room in liberalism for all of us – even for conservatives.

    1. Miriam. I’m reminded of the experienced accountant interviewing for a job. “What result do you need?” The physical world does one thing, or it does another thing, depending on what the liberals need it to do. Actually, it can do both simultaneously, as needed.

  65. I like the symmetry on display here: the article (correctly) slams liberals for their closed-mindedness, intolerance, and disregard for facts is balanced against the comments, which show conservatives’ closed-mindedness, intolerance and disregard for facts.

        1. Thank you, thank you, thank you. The Lord has delivered another one into my hands…..
          Even James Hansen, late of NASA, who once said energy execs should be tried for crimes against humanity has acknowledged we’re having a “pause”, of, by now, eighteen years of flat temps while the models all show we should be having increasing temps. Not happening. Piece by piece. Max Planck Institute just issued a report that the aerosol cooling efffect–which is supposed to reduce global warming–is only half as effective as previously thought and used in the (failed) models. This means the heating is less. CRU at the University of East Anglia was busted years ago.
          However, i understand that AGW is a sacralized issue which will be defended by the current version of “four legs good, two legs bad” until the noise drowns out the facts.
          By the way, what caused the Medieval Warm Period, and what ended it, and how did SUVs factor into it, and what was so bad about it? And what was so hot–sorry about that–the succeeding Little Ice Age?
          WRT Fox News, have they been busted blowing up trucks? Faking military records? It wasn’t Fox which paid substantial money to Richard Jewell.

        2. Not a hoax, just not automatically to be accepted as doctrine. If you read up extensively on it, yes, it’s up about a degree in 125 years. Almost no one says more than that, and it’s a great deal of hysteria over one degree. And, some credible people disagree with the measurements, because going back 100, 200, 500 years, they weren’t great at temp measurements so they use ice cores and tree rings and say that tells within a degree?

  66. A point about the author’s comparison of Fox News with MSNBC. The comparison isn’t very fair because while 40% of Republicans say that they watch Fox News regularly, only 2% of Democrats say that they watch MSNBC regularly. MSNBC is not the primary source of news for liberals.

    Comedy Central is…

  67. Ignorance gives freely across the political spectrum. As a result, we can all find patently ill-informed people who disagree with us. The important thing, in my view, is to familiarize ourselves with the very best arguments on the other side. Anyone who doesn’t on occasion find fault with the arguments forwarded by their fellow liberals or conservatives simply isn’t looking closely enough. I am much less interested in winning a debate than in learning.

  68. Ye gods, so much political tribalism in these comments. How about we encourage Taylor to figure out his own political views on a case-by-case basis (which is what we ALL should be doing) instead of playing No True Liberal and trying to tell him he is actually a libertarian/conservative/independent or whatever else you want him to be because he actually MAKES SENSE?

  69. I’ll start by saying that I find your beliefs scary, Taylor!! Obviously I’m a conservative, and I’m one who feels particularly strong about having a good military force to deter evil at home and abroad (those who start wars do so because they think they can win) and, as a parent of a baby boy and another on the way, I detest abortions just because a child is unwanted. Nothing could sadden me more after having witnessed the progress of pregnancy and the amazing process of life creation.

    Having said that, this is an excellent article and I greatly applaud your thought process. It is refreshing to see a liberal that is rational and admits the follies of modern liberals. I do agree that liberalism, while I’ve always disagreed with it, has taken a remarkable turn for the worse over recent years. While it is true regarding some conservatives as well, liberals today most certainly do avoid facts and then present facts as actual untruths. I have found this puzzling as can be…and I cannot put my finger quite on it. I agree it results often from a mob mentality and a need to be liked, but it may also be seen as a way to gain power faster.

    I think you may have come closest though by suggesting that it is due to colleges (even if you do not say this directly). My experience when I got my M.A. seriously gave me a disillusioned feeling towards modern “higher” education, and that is the main reason I stopped my plans of continuing for a PhD. I just couldn’t take the silliness anymore. What used to be serious intellectual assignments turned into really awkward touchey-feely discussions that had nothing to do with the purpose of the class and even had a significant disconnect with reality. It was just plain weird…

    I very much worry for the future because of what little learning is actually going on in colleges in America. It is really holding back the development of young adults and they get rude wake up calls when they are forced to move into the real world. I’m not sure we can afford that as a nation.

    Anyways, great article, and though we disagree fundamentally about important topics, I very much appreciate your reasonable approach to politics and that you see past the craziness of stubborn beliefs and show an awareness of reality. I wish more people in America today would learn to see facts for what they are and then make decisions. I hope your words have opened eyes!

  70. Taylor- I think you’ve touched on something both confusing, frustrating and true about political movements and how people can veer off their original values or take things into destructive directions.
    Thank you for writing this. I am more left but grew up around both left and liberal and have found myself thoroughly turned off by what I’m seeing in the liberal media and those representing the actions of liberals in the last 6-8 years. It’s gotten downright crazy and fanatical that it’s becoming tyrannical which is the opposite of anything left or liberal. They seem so dogmatic lately and un-open to respectful discourse which is the bedrock of change: open, honest, productive conversations about people’s lives, their problems and the effort to reach common goals with intelligent solutions.
    And it seems we’re getting away from being able to converse without attacking each other. That’s no movement I want to be a part of. I’m just seeing it more clearly now. Perhaps that’s how change happens for many, we realize it after we’ve gone too far.

    Still left, still progressive in that I want to work towards progress for ALL whether I employ a conservative or liberal approach to a problem. Because being one or the other completely is illogical as all problems have their own specific requirements to solve thus, they may require solutions from a variety of directions.
    I’m making it a point to grow and become more of what we strive for and not what we fight against: philosophical tyrants.

  71. This was an excellent post and I thank you for writing it. I think this attitude towards modern liberals is beginning to spread, thankfully. I turned my back on the American liberal for a variety of reasons – gun rights, their apologetics for Islam and their inability to differentiate the criticism of an idea with bigotry, Darren Wilson defending himself, “black lives matter” movement and the assertion that I have seen far too often that if you say “all lives matter” I must be a racist, and the amazing willingness of the modern liberal to place a tremendous amount of faith in government. This is a recent turn for me. Not even one year ago I was an alternet visiting – Noam Chomsky reading devout member of the American left. I have always valued reason and logic. I love the ideas that came out of the enlightenment and the influence those ideas had on our country which in turn influenced the world. But, I didn’t question my political positions near as often as I should have. This doesn’t make me a conservative in the modern sense either. The modern conservative most certainly has their problems as well. Their inability to understand the importance of church/state seperation as well as the mental gymnastics they perform in order to deny that this is what is at the heart of the Establishment Clause is just as annoying. Not to mention their resistance to the latest step our country has taken towards realizing one of the main ideals that founded our country, namely that all men are “created” equal, repulses me as well. Two *autonomous consenting adults* of the same gender should have the same rights as two other autonomous consenting adults of differing genders. If you don’t like it – don’t marry a person of the same gender. It isn’t a religous issue. It is you using your religion as an excuse to discrimiate and be hateful towards people you find icky. You ignore all the other “abominations” in the bible. “Abominations” that are in the very same book that mentions homosexuality. Jesus, by the way, never said anything about it. You are no different then the people who tried to deny interacial marriages. Also on the basis of religion. Okay, that is my screed. That is also why I have no one to vote for in this upcoming election. I have a strong feeling that more people are coming to realize this as well. We need a strong independent candidate that has the Constitution in mind who also respects and follows the idea of the seperation of powers.

  72. Very good piece and something one would be hard pressed to not notice.

    Do not let some people fool you. Some Americans going to school during the satanic panic had the pleasure of watching adults lose all grip on reality and friends being labeled devil worshippers for wearing black and listening to metal. One of the most cherished people in my life was kicked out of high school, at 15 years old, while making straight A’s, because of suspected devil worship. Republicans have had more than their fair share of moments and this is the reason why some of us ended up becoming independents & liberals. They were not alone in this, though. The least covered group during Americas last true moral panic, where many people rejected facts and reality for wild narratives and fear, was radical feminists. They worked the predator and sexual aspectw of the panic. Faulty statics, which are in abundance now, wound up parents fears of ritualistic sexual abuse. Before you knew it, prominent radical feminists were convincing hundreds of children involved in the daycare abuse scandals that they were victims of ritual sexual abuse. They literally claimed almost every child “examined” had been assaulted, and proceeded to lead them into giving testimony in court. We had a strong and dangerous victimhood culture in our society. One that wanted to censor everything to save the children. Now we have seriously inflated rape on campus statics, never ending triggers, need for safe spaces from unlimited and untold dangers, opinions/words and different ideas presented as dangerous and in need of censoring/banning, and people being called survivors because they made it thru a lecture. College students are the children who must be saved, and sadly, often called “kids and children” in the media. It’s all a bit creepy.

    The rest is a combination of many things. The state of colleges breaks my heart. Whoever let it get this out of hand… Education is being deprived in order to pamper and spoil. I also see a hideous online culture (especially Tumblr & Twitter) where battles of the sexes and genders are fought, and censoring is also key, playing a large part.

  73. Unfortunately many missed the point of this article. They went away with the feeling you support conservative intellectual fodder. The left, or new left, is largely socialist feminists, anarchists and Liberals who can’t tell the difference between feminist ideologies and tend to go along with whatever the machine spits out. As a left myself, I make a point of countering far left claims and especially socialist feminists. The far left consists of Anarchists, Socialists and variants. They hang onto the liberal platform and cling to liberal ideas. Once this liberal idea is manifest, they descend upon it with their radicalism. They flip flop on women’s rights when it comes to Islam. We have a race bubble problem. A bubble that prevents all criticism of poc’s, or poc cultures, religions, etc. They’ve taken good movements – anti-racism, environmentalism and several others and turned them into authoritarian cults. We have a new left operating much the same as the far right started out and eventually took over the conservative party. That party is thrashed and trashed now. Fanatical, theocratic authoritarianism. Not enough liberals are calling out the new left on their science denialism on GM, hormones, race, brain studies… Many areas of science are being constrained or punished. We have a new left that is historically ignorant and intellectually limited.

  74. Taylor, I think your piece nicely illustrates the increasing redundancy of the labels “left” and “right.” Like you, my views most closely align with the Green Party and are in the broadest sense of the word “progressive.” At the same time, it’s the libertarians who best represent my views on free expression. And there are even a few positions I hold which might be categorized as more on the “conservative” side (though in an older sense of that word — most people aligning themselves with this word today actually strike me as flaming radicals rather than conservatives). This is surely true of most people, ie that their perspective on the world and collective life cannot be reduced to one of two dots on a line, but rather is much richer than that.

    Personally I think that a healthy society would be both conservative *and* liberal — in the best ways of each. Today we’re seeing way too much of the *worst* ways of each. In the past I think we were more accustomed at universities to seeing the so-called “right” doing the kinds of things you mention in your article: McCarthyism, nativism/xenophobia, censorship of conversation surrounding sex, sexuality, the substances people choose to put into their bodies etc. What’s changed today is that a much higher proportion of ideological intolerance is emanating from the “left.” Ultimately we need more bravery, much less fear-based reaction.

    Anyway, really good to read such an honest and open-minded piece. All best!

  75. Pingback: Quora
  76. Wonderful article. Refreshing to know that there are others who feel this way about what I call “Liberalism version 2.0.” Thanks for the article, Taylor.

  77. The author here is simply stating facts and observations that conservatives like myself have known about liberals for a long time. The pure irony of this is that liberals pride themselves on open-minded tolerance and they will vehemently argue that this “opinion” is simply wrong. If you noticed, with my previous statement, liberals engage in an almost double-irony, which just illustrates how liberal ideology is a hopeless waste of time to even try and discuss. Three things I have learned about liberal ideology that will never cease to end and makes it a despairing and, in my opinion, an evil way of thinking: 1. Liberals take a hypocritical stance on every issue they propogate. 2. They base and defend their ideologies on emotion rather than logic. 3. When it is pointed out to them that their arguments are not reasonable, they resort to ad hominem emotional attacks against their opponents. Ultimately, liberals are despised and left to be because logical people realize trying to talk to a being that thinks this way is a complete waste of time. Hence, liberals do evil and dumb stuff all the time and get away with it because non-liberals know trying to get them to see the error of their ways is a complete waste of time.

  78. Thank you for perhaps the most level headed thing I have read today. I am sure there are many people who are faced with the same problems I recently had. I couldn’t find You’ll forget about paperwork when you try PDFfiller. a form can be filled out in 5-10 mins here http://goo.gl/jnZqAD.

  79. Great piece. As a conservative atheist (yes you read that right) I’m often left shaking my head at the stereotypical antics of both the left and the right. The left, for their lack of willingness to accept evidence as your blog post so beautifully describes (and yet paradoxically claim the domain of science and evidence as their own,), and the right for evoking imaginary sky gods to support their arguments rather than logic (I believe logic supports the right, ironically enough, even if many there don’t see it. As you say, drawing the same conclusions from a group you don’t agree with mostly – that’s exactly how I feel but on the other side – so strange to hear someone like you exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum).

    Your post is a nice refreshing view to hear. What we ultimately need is to enter into discourse. Real, reasoned debate.

    The left will claim evidence and science is on their side. It isn’t true. The vast majority of scientific papers cannot be replicated, and industry influence from large corporates is vast (ironic no?). I’ve seen modern commercial “journal paywall” science as a radical, fanatical religion just as much as the right-wing sky god religion. I’m stuck at an impasse so to speak – I’m surrounded by morons everywhere who think they’re right – from both ends of the spectrum. Real science seems to have died off in the late 1800’s.

    I believe good Sir, that the willingness to engage in logical discourse, without the belief that one side is “inherently more qualified and right” than the other to engage in said discourse, is the key to the unity we need to together dissect the truth. Because as the Yin & the Yang is – no doubt a little truth is in the other side that we don’t agree with. Your post here has finally proven this to me – a liberal that is capable of self-reflection, introspection and critique, purely from the motivation to arrive at the truth rather than to support some nonsense ideology. I take my hat off to you Sir, you are the first such person I’ve met on the left to think like this, and the only one thus far whom I’ve bothered to listen to due to your un-stereotypical and logical thought process.

    I am profoundly against, no doubt, the vast majority of the beliefs you hold. However if we could hold a logical discourse as to how we arrived at our respective beliefs, free from pollution and garbage, I think we could perhaps teach each other a thing or two in the one quest we no doubt share in common – a quest which our respective parties almost certainly don’t share – and that is the most noble quest of all: A quest for the truth.

  80. It’s not that evidence has become an issue lately, but that it was always there and you just noticed it.

    As a former liberal turned radical Leftist, I can tell you that what you see is standard operating procedure on the political left.

    Their moral outrage is situational; they’re only outraged by things that their enemies allegedly do. The same thing done by a guy they like because they agree with his views is downplayed, ignored, and brushed under the rug.

    The FBI’s report on the Michael Brown shooting didn’t show evidence against Wilson was inconclusive, but rather he was totally exonerated by both a combination of legitimate witnesses and physical evidence. “Hands up don’t shoot” never happened and Dorian Johnson who invented that it did later completely recanted his story under FBI scrutiny.

    What underscores all of this? A few things:

    1) The political left tend to be intellectually lazy herd animals following a political vanguard that tell them what to think.
    2) They react in a racially prejudiced manner to any white person (especially a cop) involved in a violent confrontation with anyone of non-white ancestral background.
    3) They blindly follow Critical Theory philosophical arguments to ‘explain’ the world around them, specifically unequal outcomes. That means they think it was all rigged by the evil white capitalist pig and want to destroy Western Civilization as they see it as an oppressive apparatus put in place by the evil white capitalist pig.
    4) Generally the Left rank and file have little understanding of the methodologies of basic logic, critical thinking, critical reading, research and analysis of source materials, so consequently they…
    5) Debate by using cheap political tactics their favorite activist organizations and political candidates use: Slogans, distortions of the opponent’s position, piling on, name calling, harassment, rent-a-mob, intimidation tactics, etc.

    Once you see that the moral outrage on the political left is concocted and situational, you cannot unsee it, and from then on you realize that their protestations are just a form of propaganda.

    Have fun on your political journey. I quit the Left in 2002 and haven’t looked back.

  81. One of the few things I did appreciate about liberals was tolerance. Everyone has different life experiences and a unique outlook on the world but they’ve become mindless drones parroting everything they hear and viciously lashing out at any objective thought.

    Being an atheist I tend to lean left with the hope of separating church and state and find myself looking right to find rational conversation. For all the reasons I opposed the right im finding far more extreme on the left. I thought religion was the foundation for intolerance .

    The new “liberal” party resembles more a religious cult than a political ideology. Centralized churches were the brainwashing propagandists of the past. Now I see the similarities with liberal schools and university’s manipulating children before there old enough to know any better as churches have done for thousands of years.

    This school of thought has spread to all the media outlets and this may be a stretch but the new “liberals” seem to have taken a page from scientology where everyone that is not them is the enemy and anybody that disagrees with them will be publicly shamed waging a propaganda campaign to assassinate there character resulting in a loss of friends or even employment effectively eliminating freedom of speech real liberals cherish ensuring they’re success.

    As I read more and more articles like yours it keeps me optimistic that the country will come together to battle this insanity , having this mutual interest will help us realise its not good against evil we all want the same things we just see different ways to get there

    Lets all make america great again

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *