The Politics of Victimization

There is no denying that individuals and groups have been and will yet be victimized in America. Each day the news is filled with stories of man's inhumanity to man.

There is also no denying that, as a general rule, citizens in the U.S. are particularly sensitive to injustice, and are easily moved to right wrongs. The media is permeated with the sympathetic airing of grievances, stories of Good Samaritans, accounts of heroism, protests against abuse, criminal and civil prosecution, and the like.

And, to their credit, liberals tend to be quite vocal against perpetrators, and active in their empathy for the victims. They have lead the charge against racism, domestic violence, child abuse, corporate corruption, destruction of the environment, and on and on. In many respects this is very good.

However, liberals also have a tendency to take things too far, and at times to use victimization to define groups of people so that the groups perpetually see themselves as victims, and continue to play the victim, easily manipulated by the Left. Liberals have a way of creating cults of victimization that unwittingly produce Leftist LUNCs that perpetually victimize.the once victims. (see Micro-Aggression and Culture of Victimhood)

And, if that weren't enough, like with the politics of compassion, the Left has even exploited victimization to manipulate and bully in the pursuit of self-serving political ends. They have used victimizations to victimize their opponents. The once protectors have become perpetrators. This is not good, and also the cause of Leftist LUNCs.

For instance, liberals have exploited the victimization of homosexuals, and have in turn unwittingly victimized homosexuals--which I explicate starting here: Same-Sex Marriage--Intro, particularly my article on Destructive Compassion.

The exploitation of homosexual victimization is personified in Matthew Shepherd, "...the winsome young homosexual in Laramie, Wyoming who in October 1998 was tortured, killed, and left hanging grotesquely from a fence. He was discovered almost a day later and later died in the hospital from his horrific wounds....Almost immediately Shepard became a secular saint, and his killing became a kind of gay Passion Play where he suffered and died for the cause of homosexuality against the growing homophobia and hatred of gay America....Thanks to a new book by an award winning gay journalist we now know that much of this narrative turns out to be false, little more than gay hagiography." (See HERE)

Along the same line, liberals have attempted to quail the violence committed by heterosexuals against homosexuals. This is great, and had they gone no further in this regard, all may have been well. But, they didn't. Liberals have used and abused the plight of homosexuals to: 1) stereotypically sling the unwarranted arrows of "homophobia" against individuals and whole groups of innocent people who haven't kowtowed to liberal ideology; 2) beat corporations over the head who didn't quickly bend to liberal social agendas (most notably the Chik-fil-a protests--see HERE and HERE and HERE); and 3) manipulate the public, politicians, and even judges, into mangling the several millennium-old, once meaningful and valued definition of marriage. (Just because a thousand or so homosexuals are regrettably harassed or beat up each year--see HERE, doesn't mean that they, as a group, should be allowed to legally marry, any more than thousands of children in grade schools across the country who have been bullied, means that grade school kids as a group should be allowed to drive cars.)

Worse yet, in their haste to beat up on their opponents and conveniently advance their agendas, liberals have selectively focused on relatively less prevalent acts of victimization of homosexual at the expense of far more serious and extensive crimes against gays, which in turn has lead to the Leftist LUNCs of further victimization of gays.

Take, for example, when homosexuals are bullied by heterosexuals, it is often blasted all over the airwaves, stirring up enormous public outcry, which then mobilizes societies and government into corrective action . And, to an extent this is as it should be.

Yet, when gays seriously harm or kill each other, it at best registers barely a blimp on the media radar, and in some cases the reports may be buried or whitewashed or spun to fault anyone and/or everyone but the gay perpetrators.

To put this into perspective, in 2011, there were 7,713 hate crimes that were reported to law enforcement.  These crimes range from vandalism (29.3%), to intimidation (29%), to simple assault (22%), etc., to 7 deaths.

About 20 percent of those hate crimes were committed against homosexuals--which is about the same rate as hate crimes committed against religions, though less than half the hate crimes due to race. (See HERE).

In short, there were 1,572 hate crimes of various sorts (it is uncertain whether any deaths occurred) based on sexual orientation--mostly against gay men (56%). And, while the rate declined over the previous year, this is still 1,572 crimes too many. (ibid)

However, in that same year, there were nearly 4,000 cases of gay-on-gay violence (almost triple the number of hate crimes against gays), with 19 homicides (which is nearly 3 times the rate for hate crimes as a whole, and 3 times the rate of gay-on-gay homicides for the previous year). (See HERE)

In addition, during 2011, more than 30,000 homosexuals (20 times the hate-crime rate) were infected/victimized with HIV/AIDS by other homosexuals, with more than 7,000 deaths (thousands of times greater than the hate crime rate as a whole), and where both the infection and death rates were on the rise over previous years. (See HERE)  And, within that year, thousands of more gays were victimized from other STD's by gays. (See HERE and HERE) (See also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Where is the media publicity and public outcry for these significantly greater social and heath problem? Why dont these more serious and more extensive victimizations get widely reported and championed by liberals, even half as much as hate crimes against gays? What is behind the conspicuous silence of liberals? Could it be that these more serious and extensive victimizations don't advance, but may even hinder, the liberal and gay agenda's? Is it likely that liberal leaders and media elites may have submarined or whitewashed or distracted attention away from these harrowing and unflattering statistics?

I will leave the gentle readers to answer these questions for themselves, while reserving to myself the right to reasonably answer the last two question in the affirmative.

To me, if liberals were truly concerned about the victimization of homosexuals, more so than their own political aspirations and pet agendas, they would advocate as much if not more so against the more prevalent gay-on-gay victimizations.

Keep in mind, though, that while hate crimes against homosexuals have been mostly in decline over the last several years (see HERE), gay-on-gay victimization is on the rise, in some cases significantly (see HERE and HERE and HERE ). Could this rise have been caused by the lack of liberal reporting and attention and intervention? If so, might the liberal neglect, as well as possible obfuscation, be considered a form of leftist victimization of homosexuals?

What makes the agenda-driven liberal neglect all the more damaging, is that it has resulted, ironically, in gays not having equal protection under the law. When gays victimize each other, they don't have some of the  same remedies in place as when heterosexuals victimize each other: "Although all 50 U.S.states issue protection from abuse orders (aka restraining orders, stay-away orders, etc.), some do not make this legal remedy available to gay men and lesbians. Domestic violence shelters are typically not available to gay male victims because few shelters admit men. Domestic violence shelter services appear to be increasingly responsive to the needs of lesbian victims. Nonetheless, more work is needed to address heterosexist attitudes and shelters' general focus on IPV [intimate partner violence] as a male-on-female problem. Such issues may discourage lesbian victims from seeking shelter and can contribute to negative experiences for those who do. There are few agencies specifically for lesbians and gay male victims of IPV, and most DV [domestic violence] services do not have programs that address the unique issues of these women and men." (See HERE)

Likewise, as I intimate in my article on The Politics of Race, and as illustrated in my post on the Leftist LUNCs of the Treyvon Martin/George Zimmerman Controversy, liberals have underhandedly exploited the racially-motivated victimization of blacks so as to aggrandize themselves and forward unintentionally destructive political ends, often in ways most harmful to blacks. Their exploitation of racial tension has been what I consider to be the most insidious form of racism: liberals have wrecked substantial psychological and sociological damage by politically locking a whole race of people into perpetual shackles of presumed helplessness,  incompetence, and dependency on a predominately white government. I can think of no greater insult to a community that has produced not a few leaders of nations, industry, sports, entertainment, religion, etc.

And, as in the case of homosexuals, liberals have rightly trumpeted racial hate crimes, and worked to diminish them--which is good.

Yet, they seem to have turned a blind eye towards the far more serious rate of black-on-black violence. In 2011, there were 3,645 victims of racially motivated hate crimes, of which 71.9 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias--or, in short, there were 2621 hate crimes against blacks, though it is uncertain how many of the 7 hate crime deaths were against blacks. (See HERE) Whereas, "Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person." (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) Or, in short, in 2011 there were 6,580 black-on-black homicides, which is nearly a thousand times as many homicides as all hate crime homicides as a whole.  "Equally as startling, the same study reveals African Americans were victims of an estimated 805,000 nonfatal violent crimes in just one year alone." (See HERE)  If only 50% of those were black-on-black crimes, it would still be more than 100 times as many as hate crimes against blacks for the same year.

Not only is the black-on-black violence significantly higher than hate crimes, but it has been increasing over the years, whereas hate crimes against blacks have been decreasing. (ibid) Is it any wonder that black-on-black violence is increasjng when the attention of the liberal media and politicians is so riveted on the hate crimes, to the near exclusion of black-on-black crimes?

Again, to me, if liberals were truly concerned about the victimization of blacks, more so than their own political aspirations and pet agendas, they would advocate as much if not more so against the more prevalent black-on-black victimization.

Unfortunately, liberals are also busy dysfunctionally pressing Muslims into the victim box, with similar backfire results to homosexuals and blacks. (see HERE)

In each of these cases liberals have not only victimize the American public with the resulting Leftist LUNCs, but even more so they have inadvertently victimized the victims.

I will add other examples when they are written up--such as, PETA's exploitation of animal cruelty, which has resulted in the victimization (at times fatal) of scientist and businesses; or environmentalist who have exploited endangered species to wreck havoc on developing regions; etc.

START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

The Politics of Race

Democrats have a long and checkered history of racial politics. In the early to mid 1800's, they were for the most part opposed to Republican efforts to abolish slavery. (see HERE and HERE and HERE  and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE). In fact, the Democrats were so intent on keeping Africans enslaved that they tried to secede from the nation, causing a devastating Civil War. (see HERE)

Later, though the Democrats lost the war, they endevoured to maintain control and superiority over the freed slaves through Jim Crow laws. (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and by sponsoring the KKK. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Even as late as the 1960's, during the height of racial unrest in the epicenters of the Democrat South and North, proportionately less Democrats than Republicans voted for the Republican sponsored Civil Rights Act.(see HERE and HERE and  HERE and HERE and HERE and  HERE and HERE)

Things are different now, right? Well, as the saying goes, "The more things change, the more they stay the same" (see HERE)--which means: "Turbulent changes do not affect reality on a deeper level other than to cement the status quo." (see HERE)

Ironically, liberal  race-baiters today are conflating their past with that of their opponents:

Surprisingly, though, and eerily reminiscent of Stockholm Syndrome, descendants of slavery have long bound themselves almost exclusively to the party of slavery and Jim Crow and "Bull" Connor. (see HERE and HERE and HERE) In 1964, when 80% of blacks voted Democrat, Malcolm X said this to members of his own race regarding the Democrat Party:  'You put them first, and they put you last. 'Cause you're a chump. A political chump! ... Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you are dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party -- you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race." (see HERE)

Today, around 96% of Blacks vote Democrat (ibid.), which raises the relevant question of " Why"--the answer to which I believe informs the topic of this blog on racial politics as a partial impetus behind Leftist LUNC's (Law of Negative Unintended Consequences). 

According to a recent article in TheBlaze, which sought answers to the "Why" question by interviewing Black attendees at a recent Democrat convention: "Overall, those consulted for this article view government involvement in a favorable light and believe Uncle Sam is a positive force for good. Speaking to this idea in greater detail was syndicated columnist and author Jonah Goldberg, who posited that even when Black Americans identified themselves primarily as Republican, they were still about 'big government'....He told TheBlaze that because the government had always stepped in to help Blacks out of dire situations — from the days of Reconstruction to when Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to quell a protest against the integration of a school — the Black community has come to rely on its presence heavily."

This is instructive because it not only touches on the points made in my articles on Costly Government as well as the Politics of Compassion and the Politics of Victimization, but it also demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness of the invidious nature of government dependence. 

Like people from other races, many blacks have been captivated by the allure of liberal public assistance, thinking that it will bring them socio-economic salvation and lift them out of their dire straits, while in reality, as Malcolm X intimated, the promises are not kept and the results are too often quite the contrary--the circumstances for Blacks tend not to improve, and even in some ways worsen, but they also end up with the added disadvantage of bondage--on a number of levels (economic, emotional, psychological, etc.) 

Whether intended or not, even though the civil war freed Blacks from Democratic slavery of one sort, in modern times Blacks have been enslaved of another sort by Democrats  The cotton plantations of the old Democrat South have been replaced by the political plantations of the new Democrat North East.

This dynamic of political subjugation is explained very well by a young conservative black man (see HERE) 

See also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.

Stephan Molyneux astutely points out, among many useful things on race, how making excuses for bad behavior by Blacks, and setting the bar lower for them to supposedly compensate for past wrongs, not only robs them of competitive incentive, but it inadvertently reaffirms the stereotypes of comparative ineptness.

Another explanation is proffered in this video entitled: "How the Elite Stay in Power.

Thomas Sowell says Liberalism is worse for African-Americans than slavery:

See also: HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

Black author, Jason Riley talks about his book, "Please Stop Helping: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed:

See also and  HERE, and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

In short, the masses have been kept in bondage not only through dependency, but also persistent divisiveness, chaos, and civil strife that seemingly requires elite saviors to unite and establish order and peace. 

Accordingly, Blacks have been kept on the political plantation by the liberal establishment stoking the fires of racial tension (see below). For one,there is the volatile and disruptive Black Lives Matter movement, which is an organization enabling some people to act out under the pretense of caring, and deflect attention away from far more serious and embarrassing concerns, and make-believe they are "playing" society, when in reality they are being played by the white man, George Soros, who is pulling their strings to enrich himself and his hedge fund. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) In short, they are "useful Idiots" (as Marx would call them) or "chumps" 9as Malcolm X would say), who are being manipulated by the politics of race.

As expected, Leftist LUNCs continue to occur because the perception that liberals really care about minorities is merely an illusion used to ensconce liberal elites in power. If liberals truly cared about minorities, and if liberal programs actually worked, then race relations, social ills, and economic struggles in minority communities would have gotten better rather than degraded since the 1960's, particularly under a liberal black presidency. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), 

Sadly, the fact that things haven't' improved for Blacks, isn't paid much mind by the Left, except as an opportunity to shift blame, and leverage the worsened conditions to keep or get more votes that will result in further worsening of minority conditions. And, so the LUNC-ish cycle repeats without rinsing.

Lest we think this cycle may not have been intentional, as I indicated in my Leftist LUNC on the Treyvon Martin controversy:, the once noble and compassionate civil rights movement ultimately morphed into the now spiteful and self-serving uncivil wrong movement. Where once the Left courageously marched against racial injustice and gallantly advocated for basic rights for all mankind and healthy racial sensitivity, in recent times they have mobilized the media, celebrates, and even governmental entities, into fomenting racial strife, vigilante-like injustice, bullying, and racial hyper-sensitivity. (for at recent example, see HERE) The entities that were charged with fighting racism of old, have sadly become, even in the minds of some blacks, the modern face of racism (see HERE)--though the Left think otherwise (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

[update 08/30/15: Several noted Civil Rights activist from the 60's express somewhat the same sentiments above regarding the current "Black Lives Matter" movement and the racial strife in Fergeson and Baltimore--see HERE and HERE. And, the media hasn't helped--see HERE]

[Update 09/07/2015: Here is a video of a Black Marine and a Black police chief decry the overly hostile BlackLivesMatter movement--see HERE ]

Noted talk show host, Dennis Prager, argues that African Americans are to blame for racial discord in the U.S. (see HERE), and he denies that the U.S. is generally racist (see HERE), and is like the least racist country in the world 9see HERE). 

And, it hasn't been just the rich, white, male establishment that were in the mob cross-hairs. The civil wrong movement has also maligned and smeared a growing number of black conservatives. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) 

As best I can tell, this diametric about-face in racial advocacy came about when certain liberals and leaders of the civil rights movement shifted their focus from helping and serving others to helping and serving themselves--not unlike the corruptible forces of power and selfishness I describe in the Politics of Compassion. The grand agenda became a self-aggrandizing agenda.

Consequently, race-baiting and racial politics and playing the race card have been leveraged to create a proliferating racial industrial complex--a very lucrative enterprise, which, in partnership with the government, has mastered the art of political manipulation, racial ploys and demagoguery, cult of victimhood, and shake-downs. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE  and HERE) Most notably, there is the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the National Action Network, and the NAACP. Ann Coulter does a great job of chronicling the uncivil wrong movement in her book, "Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama."

Please don't get me wrong. I believe it was very good that we Americans have attended to significant acts of racism even in modern times. It is just that racial politics has gotten so out of control and hyper-senative that even such benign things as peanut butter and jelly sandwiches hve been considered as racist. That is just plane silly. (See HERE) 

The worst part of the exploitative left-turn towards race-mongering, besides the Leftist LUNCS of dividing rather than uniting the country, impugning the character of innocent people, giving the civil rights movement a bad name, and illegitimately lining the pockets of racial hucksters, is that the selfish and racist bullying and liberal racial agenda's have ultimately caused considerable harm to minorities, particularly black communities. Not only are limited resources being diverted from struggling inner cities and absorbed by and for the enrichment of a few black leaders and publicity hounds, but the media and public interest and governmental policies are too often focused on sensational cases of alleged racism (oft manufactured), rather than on solving serious social problems, like black-on-black violence, disproportionate levels of crime, teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, abortions, the jobless rate, poverty, etc. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and  HERE and HERE  and HERE and HERE and HERE and  HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

The good news is that there is a growing number of blacks and black leaders who really care about their communities and who are serious about solving their own problems. For example, there is the Black American Leadership Alliance and Project 21.

Hopefully, they will prevail and once again restore the civil rights movement to its former glory.

Until then, expect the persistence of Leftist LUNCs caused by liberal racial politics.

On the flip side: 

[Update 08/30/15:  DNC to Approve Resolution Supporting Racist 'Black Lives Matter' Movement]

[Update 09/07/2015: the politics of race is played in illegal immigration issue, see HERE]

See also HERE

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

The Politics of Gender

Would it surprise you to learn that for nearly 4 decades prior to 1920, Democrats were disproportionately against women receiving the right to vote? (see HERE and HERE)

Some of the reasons for their objections were intimated in a NY Times in 1912: "...predicted that with suffrage women would make impossible demands, such as, "serving as soldiers and sailors, police patrolmen or firemen...and would serve on juries and elect themselves to executive offices and judgeships." It blamed a lack of masculinity for the failure of men to fight back, warning women would get the vote "if the men are not firm and wise enough and, it may as well be said, masculine enough to prevent them." (see HERE)

Also, given that "The women's suffrage movement was closely tied to abolitionism, with many suffrage activists gaining their first experience as anti-slavery activists" (see HERE), it makes sense that Democrats at that time would be against woman's suffrage since they were also against abolition and later against blacks receiving the right to vote. (see HERE)

Nevertheless, women nationwide were allowed to vote in 1919 (see HERE), and the sexist fear of women by Democrats was somewhat unfounded for 60 years thereafter (see HERE), in part because women voted disproportionately less that men during that time (see HERE), and women tended to vote the same way as men. (see HERE)

However, with the advent of modern "feminism" and "women's liberation" and the Equal Rights Amendment and so forth in the 1970's, each of which were supported by Liberals, women voters began to outnumber men (see HERE), and women have since voted disproportionately for Democrats, regardless of age. (see HERE and HERE)

This "marriage" between seemingly misogynist Democrats and women may seem odd until one recognizes that both favor big government and dependency on the government. (see HERE)

The irony in this is that while liberal "feminists" were fighting for women's liberation and empowerment and equality to men, the Democrat women were voting for greater dependency and reliance on "The Man" (see HERE)

As mentioned in my post on the Politics or Race, "This is instructive because it not only touches on the points made in my articles on Costly Government and Politics of Compassion and the Politics of Victimization, but it also demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness of the invidious nature of government dependence. "

In short, the liberal elite want power, and they are given that power by women in exchange for submission and support (ibid.)--a recipe for co-dependency and dysfunction, and thus Leftist LUNCs..

More to the point, this "marriage" is all wrapped in the pretense of "looking out for women's best interest" and fighting against the manufactured war on women (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and favoring "women's issue" (which amount to little more than abortion and contraceptive "rights") when in reality the Left continues it's long tradition of despising or think low of women (as most clearly manifest in their self-loathing--see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE, as well as their deplorable mistreatment of Conservative women--see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE, if not also the blind eye they turn to the severe mistreatment of women by Islamist with whom they are in cahoots--see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and work to keep women down in order to retain power. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

In truth, "All issues are women's issues":

If liberals really cared about women,

The unholy "marriage" is also wrapped up in the myth of equality, and ironically tied up in the bow of divisiveness and the fomented battle between the sexes. ()

Here is Dr. Jordan Peterson on why men and women are different:

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/fox-s-sexist-comments-on-women-s-healthcare-spark-outrage-172914267.html

See also HERE

The Politics of Blame-Shifting

Another explanation for why Leftist LUNCs occur is the remarkable aversion of liberals to accountability and their penchant to shift blame.

In certain respects, assigning blame is a way of assigning power. It indicates who had the power to create political problems, and also who may have the power to solve political problems. Blame-shifting, then, is an act of dis-empowerment. By refusing to accept responsibility for the part one has played in creating political problems, and by shifting the blame to others, one may be shifting the power to solve the problems to those who may not be in the best position to do so, and one is thereby rendered impotent and bent towards continuing and/or repeating the problems, and thus one becomes a part of the problems rather than the solutions.

While blame-shifting is not the sole domain of the Left (in politics it seems to be a national past-time), in recent years they have elevated blame-shifting in politics to whole new levels. The Left seems to have blamed the Right for most everything that has gone wrong in government, though they have been quick to take credit for what little has gone right (see, for example HERE and HERE). Dennis Miller recently quipped, "Liberals want to share everything but blame." (Facebook post, 7/21/2013)

Even after four years into the Obama presidency, former president Bush is still being faulted by liberals for a number of things that happening under Obama's watch. The media is rife with examples (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE, etc.).  It has gotten so bad that it has recently become the brunt of Obama's own jokes. (See HERE)  There is also a website sardonically dedicated to the proposition that "Bush is to blame for everything." (See HERE)  It seems as though Bush never left office, and as though Obama hasn't really governed during his first term--which raises serious questions as to why Obama was elected to begin with, and re-elected, particularly given all his failed promises to fix things (questions which Rush Limbaugh answers with his Limbaugh Theorum).

Consequently, as explained, blame-shifting by liberals has shifted problem-solving powers away from Obama--rendering him perceptually impotent, and towards Bush, who is no longer in a position to utilize those powers or fix things, and so it isn't surprising that Leftist LUNCs have occurred during Obama's administration, and seem poised to continue to occur and reoccur as long as he is in office.

There is no better example of this than the floundering U.S. economy. As indicated in the introduction to Obamanamics--Trickle-Up Poverty, it is only fair to note that prior to Obama taking office, the housing bubble had burst, major financial institutions were going belly-up, other industries were on the verge of collapse, and the economy had slipped into what some considered the worst recession since the Great Depression. (See HERE and HERE and HERE) So, it is not as though blaming Bush and conservatives wasn't somewhat warranted for a time.

However, even though then Senator Obama ought not be faulted in any significant way for creating the financial mess, but given his foreknowledge of how serious the economic situation was leading up to the elections, and given his willingness to take on the serious economic challenges by being elected, and given all his campaign promises about fixing the economy, Obama should rightly be held accountable for how he has dealt with the mess since then. (See HERE)

Seems fair?

At a town hall meeting in December of 2009, Obama said, "I promise you this, I won't rest until things get better...I didn't run for president to sweep our messes under the rug." (See HERE).

One of the key planks of Obamanamics has been to shrink the financial disparity between the rich and poor. And yet, during Obama's third year in office, the long trend in which everyone was getting richer suddenly turned to where only the very rich got richer and everyone else got poorer. (See HERE)  Nevertheless, not only did liberals blame Bush and conservatives for the bad economy (see HERE) and the growing disparity between rich and poor (see HERE), but during the 2012 presidential elections, they didn't hold Obama responsible for not keeping his promise to shrink income inequality. In fact, there isn't any indication in the polls that liberals viewed Obama as having anything to do with the growing income disparity even though he had supposedly not rested until the disparity would be fixed, and he also implemented economic policies that liberals, for the life of them, cant see actually contributed to the problem. (See HERE)

This same liberal penchant for blame-shifting has also played itself out in other economic issue, like unemployment (see HERE and HERE), the national debt (see HERE and HERE and HERE), welfare and entitlement and poverty issues (see HERE and HERE and HERE), etc.

The bad economy isn't the only thing that Bush and conservatives are somewhat wrongly blamed for. Instead of owning up to their own mistakes, liberals have also shifted the blame in regards to Fast-and-Furious (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), Benghazi (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), the IRS scandal (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE ), the NSA scandals (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), Sandy Hook mass murders (see HERE), Boston Marathon bombings (see HERE), a bridge collapse (see HERE), and so many more.

Not only are various Leftist LUNCs the unpleasant result of liberal blame-shifting, and thus a rational argument against their blame-shifting, but there is solid evidence that the shifted blame has been unwarranted. (see HERE and HERE and HERE)

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

The Politics of Denial

Not all Liberals are as evidently naive and uniformed as the people in the "man on the street" interviewees mentioned in my article on The Politics of Ignorance. Many are quite well informed and have exposed themselves to a broad range of political material. They have a good sense for things like the significant impact of presidential actions on economies and societal circumstances and the like. So, there must be some other explanations besides ignorance for why Leftist LUNCs frequently and near invariably occur.

One explanation is that while reasonably informed liberals have been made aware of considerable data that conflicts with their position, they deal with the cognitive dissonance by going into deep denial. In order to maintain their liberal positions in the face of compelling contravening evidence, they simply block their minds from acknowledging the evidence and/or they formulate an alternative "reality" that somehow warps the data so that it fits their partisan views.

In my experience, this occurs quite frequently in discussions with liberals--including about Leftist LUNCs. Conservatives, like myself, will at times lay out well document and cogent arguments only to receive a deer-in-the-headlights look from the liberals, or where the cogent arguments seem not to register in the least and the liberals merely continue spouting their talking points undeterred as if nothing to the contrary has even been said.

Yet, the best example of liberal denial I can think of has to do with the liberal media, particularly the elites. As Bernie Goldberg, a self-admitted old-fashion liberal, has intimated in his books on Bias in the Media, the Arrogance of Media Elite, and the Slobbering Love Affair of Mainstream Media with Barak Obama, as well as in his columns on Media Bias, regardless of how well informed the liberal reporters and elites, and regardless of how much, and the profundity of the data to the contrary (see, for instance, HERE), the liberal media continues to view itself as objective and unbiased, and many of them and their acolytes even consider liberal bias in the media to be a myth. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Astonishing!

Another great example is when, following the enactment of the liberal "economic stimulus package" in 2009, deplorable unemployment and job figures were published that seriously undermined the President's economic competency (see my Leftist LUNC on Unemployment and Jobs and Workforce), and the Left dealt with the substantial cognitive dissonance by manufacturing the untestable alternative "reality" that the President and his stimulus package had prevented the loss of millions of jobs. The popular refrain was that while unemployment was high and jobs were being lost instead of gained as promised, things would have been far worse had the President not spent the trillion dollars.

So, seemingly bad news about the Obama administration was reinvented and translated into good news, leaving liberals in deep denial about the alarming state of the economy, and in blissful peace about the future, and having such great confidence in the President that they reelected him.

What makes political denial as dangerous as political ignorance is,  governmental mistakes will continue to happen and even get worse. As Dr. Phil is fond of saying, you can't fix or change what you don't acknowledge. (see HERE)

Hence, denial on the part of liberals is why, in part, Leftist LUNCs repeatedly occur.

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

The Politics of Ignorance

In my online discussions with liberals I get the sense that they have remarkable strength in their convictions, but little knowledge or awareness of the subject matters--they have just enough information to make themselves dangerous.

I am not alone in my perception. Renown conservative pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, frequently make reference to "low information voters." (see HERE and HERE). And, leftist philosophers, themselves, once referred to the liberal masses as "useful idiots."

Interestingly enough, the phrase "low information voter" was coined during the 90's and often used by "liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals...attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters." (See HERE)

And, while a 2012 paper suggested that the Democrat Party was as likely and responsible as Republican for "low information voters" (ibid),  a recent Pew survey about political knowledge and open mindedness indicated, "Not only did 'Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey,' Pew says, but that's 'typically the case in surveys about political knowledge.'" (See HERE. See also HERE and HERE and HERE)

This finding is underscored by another Pew study which indicates that, "Three-quarters of Staunch Conservatives (75%), two-thirds of Libertarians (67%) and about six-in-ten Solid Liberals (61%) say they follow what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time." (See HERE)

So, evidently, the leftist perception of conservatives in the 90's may have ironically been a myth of their own making, which has now come back to bite them.

Political ignorance isn't just a function of lack of personal study, research, and education, though these are significant factors, as various "man on the street" interviews attest. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

It also entails narrowing one's exposure to information sources that merely echo back one's own point of view, giving one a limited perspective and making one vulnerable to confirmation bias, demagoguery, and dogmatic indoctrination. How can one learn of political party mistakes if all one is feed is the party line? A perfect example can be read HERE.

And, while both conservatives and liberals tend to be partisan in their choice of news programs (see HERE land HERE and HERE), according to a Pew study, a higher percentage of Republicans also watch the leftist network news than Democrats watch the right-leaning Fox News (see HERE), and a respectable number of Republicans also watch the various leftist cable news shows (ibid.), giving them broader political exposure.

The irony is that the Left has long been a big proponent of open-mindedness and the benefits of diversity, and yet they tend to restrict their information sources and associations to like-minded people and things. This holds true within the liberal education system (see HERE and  HERE), the liberal news (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), liberal Hollywood (see HERE and HERE), and liberal social circles in Washington D.C. and elsewhere (See HERE)

Be that as it may, reason suggests that in politics, as with most all aspects of life, the more informed the decision, in terms of breadth and depth and diversity, the better the decision, and vice-versa. Political ignorance, then, explains in part why Leftist LUNCs repeatedly occur.

Examples can be found not only in the "man in the street" interviews linked above, but also HERE and HERE and most any time in the comment sections of the Huffington Post.

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX