I’ve always considered myself to be a liberal (and still do, based on what liberal actually means) but over the last year or so I’ve become increasingly skeptical of far left rhetoric and ideologies (I guess that’s obvious because I’m here!). I’m just so frustrated that we can’t have conversations about these things without being “cancelled” or labeled a bigot etc.
I’ve become so confused by the “news” and “statistics” that I really don’t know what to believe. But I know what I am seeing on the far left is not “acceptance” or true liberalism. If it was true liberalism we’d be able to disagree, right? Or at least have conversations about controversial topics without demonizing the “other side”? As in, we’d value diversity of thought, right? And we’d have checks and balances that work to protect communities from unintentionally causing themselves harm?
I know I’m saying stuff that is obvious but I guess I just need to say it out loud (or in text) because there are so few people I can talk about this stuff with in my real life. It’s been on my mind so much recently. I’m easily influenced, I know that about myself, and if I was a teen right now I know for a fact I would be so confused. I’m only a few years out from being a teen (I’m 23) and even 2 years ago I was considering using she/they pronouns for literally no reason. I’m a cis woman / biological female that identifies as a woman and presents as a woman (and a pretty feminine one at that). I’ll always respect people’s pronouns and not question them externally, but there was no reason I needed to use she/they. It was literally just because half the girls I know were starting to use she/they, I guess because they are artsy / bi / neurodivergent, but like..those things are not the same as gender. What happened to masculine women and feminine men? ( Obviously not talking about trans people here, just talking about people who seem to be co-opting (to use leftist terminology … appropriating? Lol) transness. Ugh. I just wish people could have these conversations in real life without being scared of losing their jobs or being cancelled. My dad lost his job as a college professor for simply stating that anyone can be racist. And who got him fired? Some white kid who was offended on behalf of… who? My brother is becoming a cop and the fact that I am supporting him and want him to be the best cop we can be (because like…we need good cops), that makes me a racist bigot? the more I learn about gender ideology and CRT the more uneasy I feel about it all…my intuition is saying no thank you!
It’s also so reminiscent of narcissist abuse. Denying people’s realities, shaming them, guilting them…it’s abuse.
Also I’m sick of hating white men. I spent enough energy “hating” them before I realized how unproductive and counterintuitive it is! We are trying to create a more unified and integrated society by literally segregating people based on illusive identities (that can change daily) that often aren’t based in any physical reality. Ugh!!!
Ok now I’m just rambling! What can I say guys, I can’t stop thinking about all this…
A lot of the problem stems from hubris. It's ok to want change but most change will have unintended consequences. Unless you have the humility to admit that your fundamental beliefs may be less than practical you will cause a lot of unnecessary harm when you refuse to make adjustments.
The other problem is that "liberals" seem intent on rewriting history to conform with their ideology. It's surprisingly unsophisticated. It's also dangerous because history is all we have to go on in most cases. You can't reduce complex chaotic systems such as societies to a simple formula. Good and bad doesn't even apply to history because morality is a property of individuals not groups. Even at the individual level you are still dealing with a complex chaotic system that is irreducible. "vengeance is mine says the lord"
Complex chaotic systems such as societies require a lot of forgiveness. The saying that "we don't hang horse thieves to punish them but to stop other people from stealing horses is worth considering". Judging people leads to a whole cascade of problems. Adopting an attitude of moral superiority is dangerous. It breaks down trust and cooperation necessary for civilization to function. Liberals are particularly ignorant of the value of these simple but fundamental traditions that make civilization workable. There is no such thing as forced cooperation and only voluntary cooperation is practical. Forced cooperation leads to whole new cascade of problems. Societies cannot be engineered they have to evolve and that takes patience.
I’ve become so confused by the “news” and “statistics” that I really don’t know what to believe.
"You just have to flood the public square with enough raw sewage; you just
have to raise enough questions; enough dirt; plant enough conspiracy theorizing
that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their
leaders, the mainstream media and political institutions; in each other; in the
possibility of truth - the game's won."
- Barack Hussein Obama. Address at Stanford University, April 21, 2022.
So you have reached the point where you "no longer know what to believe"?
The idea of liberal and conservative has bled into areas beyond politics and as noted by @Tim Tuolomne are no longer useful political terms.
The concept of our left-right political spectrum that has been foisted upon us is a big reason for a lot of our present day confusion. I know that statement will be immediately negated as too simplistic.
However, there have been at least a few attempts to make it more comprehensive and understandable to the average person. It's been expanded into different dimensions, aligning economic, social and governmental fields. It's been suggested it be circular in nature.
The most easily understood, and thus condemned or rejected for its simplicity, is one that is a true political dichotomy. Left and right are dichotomies that are politically expressed as liberalism and conservatism. A true "political" dichotomy goes from no government and progresses to total government. In other words, anarchy to totalitarianism, neither of which in my estimation, is desirable. Especially in the context of building a rational society or civilization.
The left-right political spectrum is, in my view, what is simplistic and also in error. It is obvious that no two totalitarian regimes can coexist in a common or proximate geographical location. One will always seek to dominate and destroy the other. It would illicit a period of constant war. Both right-wing and left-wing socialism are forms of totalitarianism. They are erroneously presented on our current political spectrum as opposites when in fact their objective is the same - total political control. This similarity of objective should place them very closely together on a political spectrum - not as opposites. There is no doubt they will be oppositional but they are not opposites. There similarities in goals preclude them from co-existing.
Anyway, Marxism, Maoism, communism, fascism, nazism, socialism, have similar goals and we can see that all will attempt to be dominant within their own geographical location. The Communist philosophy is international in its scope so it will force combining with other forms of socialism or upon destroying them.
Is there not a place for those of us who live by the code - don't start any sh!t and there won't be any. (?) Those who also believe in fiscal responsibility and transparency - those of us who believe that the only true freedom is in the form of personal autonomy? The supremacy of the individual over the group identity? The necessary and just (fairness) of profit motive? Those who believe that free market dynamics is the only true and fair arbiter of economics and that it has the greatest potential for prosperity?
Liberal and conservative are not useful terms because most of the public does not have any idea what are their definitions, nor understand the obfuscations. Those terms are both smokescreens used by anti-Constitutionalists to mislead the public.
The Constitution is based on true classical liberal concepts (LIBERty for ALL), not at all today's version of "liberal," which means anti-Constitutional.
Constitutionalists are true Republicans. Anti-Constitutionalists are RINOs, Democrats and Marxists.
The Democrat Party is a corrupt dynasty in the US. Our Founding Fathers envisioned the citizen statesman who would retire after serving the nation, not career politicians more concerned about manipulating the system for more power for themselves and their buddies.
Democrats could have declared themselves defenders of the Constitution at any time since their founding in 1828, but they never did. Many Democrats, like Obama, have voiced their view that the Constitution limits the government too much. The fact that it would make the country like every other government in the World, and the US not the US, does not seem to bother them.
The US Constitution asserts that our rights do not come from the government. We just have them, and the government has no right to abridge them. And it calls for three competing lobes of government which can't collude against the people.
Lincoln founded the Republican Party in 1854 specifically to defend the Constitution, and suddenly the Democrats were in danger of being seen as who they always were. They had no choice but to try to slander Republicans and hide behind white hoods so they would not be identified as those intimidating former slaves from voting Republican.
Democrat voters may have realized that they were supporting crooks all along, but in those days losing face over bad choices often made them publicly dishonest, so they were willing to support Democrat leadership slander of Republicans. That continues to this day.
The dupes of Marxism and their sympathizers are also about power, and disposing the Constitution, so they are natural partners with the Democrats in slandering Republicans, and doing their best to slip everything they can past the voters to compromise the Constitution.
Americans, often weary of politics, have been complicit by not really paying attention when FDR illegally coerced the Supreme Court to abandon the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in Wickard v Filburn in 1942, beginning Soviet style Central Planning, telling farmers what they could and could not grow, and morphing into every vast unaccountable Federal agency today. When Democrats passed the LRRA in 1983 which "regulated" the insurance industry, they drove 276 insurance companies out of business, quadrupling insurance rates overnight and setting the stage for bamboozling the public to accept unConstitutional Obamacare. And there were hundreds of other cuts to the Constitution.
Democrats and the dupes of Marxism and their sympathizers have always been about deception, corruption, theft of legislative funds to steal elections, slander of Republicans, and destruction of the Constitution by installing Deep State operatives cutting across all three lobes of government, making collusion against the people now possible.
Anyone with any sense will now see the destruction of our society at their hands, will have questions about how the FBI, Department of State, CIA and Department of Justice have been operating, and know that they must vote out every single Democrat and Marxist with prejudice to begin to restore our nation.
Also just want to add that one of my best friends is a trans woman and I’m not questioning her womanhood. But I do think it’s harmful to conflate biological sex with gender identity and expression. I mean, by doing that, aren’t we invalidating transness by saying it’s no different than cisness? That completely erases the experiences that come exclusively from being a trans person. Why is it a bad thing to acknowledge this reality?