Deconstructing Liberals
346522
Rush does it again, presents the world with evidence that liberalism is wrong.  He deconsrtuct the myths created by the left with their greatest enemy-  THE TRUTH.
818742
Terrible reformist identity politics of new social movements disguised as honest analysis. Using the word "oppressions" as a noun. Postmodern intersectionality bs. The question of class is reduced to "how do we lessen poverty?" This sort of awful tripe exemplifies the academic Left today.
4305596
Ben knows leftists foes. Master of falsehoods, threats, evil attacks, character assassination, propaganda, subversion, thievery, immorality and their use of unscrupulous lawyers...on and on. This is the Liberal.
4860749
Liberals believe Friedman went overboard with libertarian views.  Not if they were reading this item.  Grounded in common sense that makes liberal arguments bordering on, well not based on reality.
232656
This is a must-read for any serious conservative. Scruton brilliantly, and with tremendous insight, deconstructs the core principles of the liberal political philosophy, as well as the false premises on which that philosophy rests.
192426
Prothero defines culture wars as, angry public disputes that are simultaneously moral and religious and address the meaning of America. Often, our modern times are singled out as being significantly more venomous than decades and centuries past. The reality is our heated and fractious exchanges are, and were,  generally among the same groups (liberal & conservative) over deeply embedded outlooks and principles. Although, the author acknowledges that the terms liberal and conservative have altered over time, the basic identification connected with each is how those labels are understood during our modern times.

Five events, or episodes in US history are examined through the lense of conservative and arguably liberal viewpoints:

*The 1800 Presidential election-Whigs and order. Jefferson and the French Revolution.
*The anti-catholicism period that was a result of an influx of Irish Immigration.
*The birth and rise of the LDS church with their polygamy doctrine.
*Prohibition and Pluralism-drinking, vice, purity, and the birth of Modernity.
 *The Contemporary Culture Wars (School prayer, Abortion, Gay Rights/Marriage)

In a nutshell, society is changing, or has changed, and conservatives want to keep things status quo; thus, keeping their power, position, and their relevance. What provides the impetus that inspires the call to action is the unceasing anxiety that America is doomed unless swift and unyielding action is taken. Yet, it seems to be always too little, too late. You see, its just about next to impossible, if not impossible, to judge when the succeeding cultural crisis will exhibit itself so that preparations can be made to defeat it before its conclusion.

What I found to be the most intriguing idea from the book is the concept of ambiguity. Towards the conclusion of the book, Prothero states that conservatives are intensely uncomfortable with the notion. While liberals tend not to be.  Ideas, actions, laws, and people are either pure (moral) or impure (immoral) when considered through the conservative lense. Thus, ambiguous topics such as abortion (Should we force women to carry pregnancies to term? Is it murder? Do we punish it like murder? Do women have the final say about what happens to their bodies?) must be determined unambiguous and therefore simply immoral by conservatives. So, it must be unquestionably stopped. Yet, it seems, this is yet another lost war politically exploited to get the conservative base cognisant and provoked. Therefore, donating to campaigns and getting out the vote.

The books is well researched and cited. Although written by a scholar, the style is accessible and conversational. At the end, the reader is admonished to keep talking (to the other side) and to keep it civil. In this age of social media, that can be considered a very tall order.
4537649
It appears from the comments of the liberal left that if you criticize this book, you are accused of having not read it. Well, I did read it and I can tell you it's the leftist screed of a woman who thrives on spreading a liberal ideology.

The founding fathers of this country in the mid-to-late 1700s embraced a liberal philosophy  liberal freedoms, liberal economics, liberal education, etc.  Beyond everything else, they mandated nominal government.  Nothing could be further from classical liberal thought than the Modern "Liberalism" of today.  The two are polar opposites.  Classical liberalism (with a small L) addresses the thriving success and prosperity of the person and the community through the free action of individuals. Modern Liberalism (large L) is about government deciding what is proper for the individual and imposing its decisions by force.  That is precisely what Adam Smith, Thomas Payne, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and all the great classical liberals opposed.

The goal of the Koch brothers is to bring our federal government back in line with the constitution. This irritates the media elite such as Jane Mayer.
1506386
Here is a book by a self-described conservative that trashes the partisan reasoning behind "Bush v. Gore."  I'm still waiting for a book by a self-described liberal that defends the decision.

The book's bombastic tone keeps it from getting five stars.
282899
Learn the truth behind the liberal fake news and their communist roots.
2885652
The 2016 election brought to the forefront a long simmering anger in rural America. Unfortunately, most of the analysis of that underlying rage has been overly simplistic and dismissive. This is an exception to that trend. This is one of the few pieces Ive read that doesnt summarily dismiss the point of view of rural America as bigoted and uneducated. I highly recommend this book especially for those liberals (like myself) who have struggled to understand the rationale that lead so many of our fellow citizens to vote for a demagogue. By the end of the book, while I vehemently disagree with the end results, I can honestly say that I better comprehend the fundamental issues at play. If there is to be a way forward collectively beyond the ultra-partisan divide, surely it must begin with a better understanding of the core issues that are dividing us. This book is a useful tool towards a better understanding.
1540303
When Haidt is describing what is, he is spot on. His six basis of morality explains a lot.
I was wondering what can explain the lack of morality on the part of the liberals he has studied. I have come up with two competing ideas.
1. Liberals have moral anemia. This supports the liberalism as a disease argument. Humans in Haidt's view have six bases, and liberals only have two. So the solution is to educate the liberals on how to make use of all their moral foundations.
or,
2. Liberals are like conservatives in using all six, but like a fish not seeing the water, Haidt as a liberal cannot see the the other foundations in operation. He warns us that the sacredness binds and blinds us. Maybe he and his fellow academics are blind to the liberal authority, divinity, and patriotic foundations. For instance, his religion is Darwin. His assumption about reality is atheism and therefore can only see evolutionary explanations for morality. He cannot even entertain the possibility of theism having a point. He has been bound and blinded by his religion. His in-group is left liberal academia. He derives identity and power from that group. I say he holds evolution sacred and is blind to that fact. Maybe his worldview precludes his research from showing that liberals have the equal measures on the bases, because what others would see as opinions, he regards as facts.

I don't know which it is. But it is usually true that skeptics rarely turn their skepticism on their own skepticism. A Moral Foundations analysis of Haidt's tribe would be interesting, but is beyond the ability of Haidt to perform.
1045280
Systemic theology seeks to deconstruct the Biblical scriptures in the same way those liberal English teachers you remember in H.S. disect poetry. Spong's aim is not to elevate faith, glorify the Lord, or even to edify the church. The book's purpose is simple, and requires merely a cursory read in any bookstore -- demonize the orthodox faithful to justify non-deistic views of religion (essentially turn Jesus into a "Confucius-like" teacher), as well as non-judgemental free sexual activity -- both homosexual and heterosexual. His writing on "slavery/racism" is a silly strawman probably stemming from his own perceved stigma as coming from the South (North Carolina), an unforgivable blot to NE Harvard liberals. No mainstream denomination even remotely comes close to this practice.

"bishop" Spong is free to espouse whatever non-theistic philosophies he wants (non-theism is his own word .. yes I've read his works). How about a little honesty, "bishop," and quit the clerical persona -- oh I forget, "honesty" must be one of those "texts of hate" from ancient mythology, and is relative with respect to the pluriform truths of our individual experiences of that bigger than ourselves.
3452656
I loved this book & the way it flowed.  Author has a way of writing that is very interesting.  However, she is a leftist/liberal & once again with liberals keep putting UNNECESSARY hatred for republicans/conservatives into her book.  That really ticked me off.  I am sick & tired of liberalism claptrap, derangement syndrome & their intolerance of others.  Don't bother to buy it but check it out at your local library.
1326299
I read with great interest many of the posts reviewing this book and they appear to fall into three categories:  general praise, qualified praise, and derision of the author's "liberal" bias.  With the exception of some of the qualified praise comments, I did not find any criticism of the book that I would call responsible or helpful.  If careful analysis of the historical record and a critical examination of standard high school textbooks in light of that record leads inexorably to the charge of a "liberal" bias, perhaps it is time for such liberals to accept the label and wear it proudly.  Perhaps they should be made to wear an "L" patch on their clothing so that all will be forewarned of their "leftist leanings" before they speak.
4185945
The irony is that leftism/progressive liberalism is essentially the radical fascist party du jour; from the radical communist Alinsky, mentor to both community organizer Obama and Hillary, to the crony-capitalism (ie fascism) of DC, this historical expose simply reveals how we ended up where we are today. the CIA is simply the rogue arm of the internationalist/globalist Deep Corp., using the Washington neocons for their ends.
4363263
I saw this on the library shelf and wondered why only "liberals" would be considered do-gooders, and that it is wrong to be either a "liberal" or a "do-gooder". However the title is misleading and the text is more thoughtful and the ideas presented are less volitle than the title would suggest. Most conservative "books" are nothing more than smear filled screeds intending to demonize, not only "liberals", but the word liberal itself as though a dictionary definition is superfluous - the worst offenders of course of meaningless right wing propaganda are Ann Coulter (the queen of neurotic "lib-phobia"), Hannity (who doen't feel his bizarre opinions need facts and logic to back them up because his "lib-phobia is incurable), and of course Rush Limbaugh (who pretends he is the dean and only professor of an imaginary course of study called "Advanced Conservative studies") a man who hasn't been right about anything of consequence yet.

So here is at least a reasonable thinking "conservative" view that seems well thought out, even if off track occasionally. The flaws, and there are a few, begin with the supposition that the things conservatives find fault with are all the fault of "liberals", or "liberal thinking". It is an all too common thread in rightwing conservative screeds that the word "liberal" applies to any thought, idea, action, or political stance that they deem "wrong". Few if any define "liberal thought", or what liberalism is by definition according to every dictioary of the English language. Rightwing conservativism is so locked into a world view that demonizing opposing views is the way to convince people they are right and all other thoughts are not only wrong, but evil, dangerous and destructive. In short, right wing conservatives are so fearful of rational, reasonable debate and disagreements that they can only rant and rave, attempt to silence all opposition and smear anyone who dares to question their secret motto, which is, and I know I am breaking a sacred code mentioning this, but conservatives and their minions live by the creed: "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already been told what to think."

Mona Charen is a little above the worse offenders in the divisive fray that conservatives need to promote at every opportunity. She is a very adept author, is at least occasionally reasonable and defies the conservative mantra of "if you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull---t." In fact this is the first book by a shameless conservative that I would urge flaming "liberals" to read, if only to be reassured that all conservatives are not as evil as Halliburton, Cheney (Nixon White House Stooge), Rove, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld (also a Nixon  White House Stooge),Delay and their unwitting dupe, Dubya. It is good for once to read an opposing view that doesn't recite the lockstep party line to the exclusion of all reason.
3106741
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage

One has to listen to Savages daily radio show to see the full spectrum of liberalism the mental disorder on display. You won't hear about how mentally disabled the libs are from the jackals in the media, the blinkered academics, or the college administrators who are even more clueless than the media or the professors.

Which is why you need Savages book.

I won't give the entire book away, but here are a few contemporary examples (some discussed in the book) as to why liberalism is a mental disorder:

Feminists will say nothing about the mistreatment of women in Muslim majority countries (i.e., honor killings, female genital mutilation, stoning for adultery, forced marriages, divinely-sanctioned wife beatings, etc.) but will complain around the clock about President Trumps treatment of women. How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The LGBT community will embrace Islam, hold rallies against Islamophobia, and invite millions of Muslim refugees to live in Western countries. The problem is that if these Muslims were to seize power in Western countries, they would murder the gays and lesbians and throw them down a well (homosexuality is forbidden in Islam). Why does the LGBT community unite with the Islamists who would destroy them? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The liberals, who are pro-womens rights and pro-gay rights, support the Palestinians, who want to destroy the State of Israel, which is pro-womens rights and pro-gay rights. Yet if the Palestinians were to invade Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, then womens rights and gay rights would disappear from the Middle East. Why are the libs cheerleaders for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist groups? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The liberals in Britain allow the Islamists to hold rallies where they call for Sharia to replace English law, while banning critics of the Islamic jihad from entering Britain (e.g., Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Michael Savage, etc.). In other words, those who want to destroy Britain are given a free pass in Britain, while those who want to save Britain from future destruction are banned from entering the country. How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The liberals praise Yasser Arafat as a freedom fighter against the Israelis, even though, as Savage notes, Arafat was a monster. This walking obscenity invented airline hijacking, hostage taking, school massacres, and suicide bombings. He kept the Palestinians in a prison of moral, spiritual, and economic poverty. He embezzled their money and, during his final years, skimmed more than $2 million a month to line his pockets. (117). After Arafats death, the libs in the media eulogized him to the point that youd think this mass murderer was Abe Lincoln in a turban or George Washington reincarnate. And Arafats Hitleresque view of the Jews was scrubbed from the media, too. Even Gerhard Schroeder, whom Savage calls a socialist weasel, said it was not granted to Yasser Arafat to complete his lifes work to which Savage replies, What work? The annihilation of Israel? Later on, Savage asks, Why does the American media sit by silently, or worse, glorify this mass murderer? Because they hate the Judeo-Christian values upon which we as a nation were founded. Therefore, they vilify America and Israel and lionize vermin like Arafat. (128) How do you explain this? Easy: Liberalism is a mental disorder.

This is only scratching the surface. There are dozens of other examples one could give. Savage says regularly on his show that whenever you hear libs do or say something that baffles you to the core and for which no rational explanation is possible, then all you need to do to regain your sanity is to say Liberalism is a mental disorder and youll feel much better.

Its true. To learn more, read Savages book to discover why liberalism truly is a mental disorder!

Readers of this book would also like Jennas Flaw, a novel about the death of God, the crumbling of Western civilization, and how we can save it.