The statistical proof of liberal intolerance
When I was on the book tour for Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, critics predictably countered by playing the moral equivalence card. Show them how intolerant, racist, sexist, hateful, conspiratorial-minded, and violent the Left can be, and they sputter “B-b-b-b-b-ut the Right is just as bad.”
Spend anytime in the blogosphere and it’s clear that the two sides of the political galaxy are not created equal. One side burns effigies of American soldiers and craps on the American flag. The other does not. One side wraps itself in assassination chic. The other does not. One side indulges in vicious Sambo photoshops, rank religious bigotry, death wishes, gloating over the illnesses of public figures, and fill-in-the-blank derangement syndrome. The other does not.
Now comes fascinating statistical evidence that the Left is indeed more hateful than the Right. Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks writes in the WSJ today about annual surveys that shed light on just how unhinged liberals really are:
Do the data support the claim that conservatives are haters, while liberals are tolerant of others? A handy way to answer this question is with what political analysts call “feeling thermometers,” in which people are asked on a survey to rate others on a scale of 0-100. A zero is complete hatred, while 100 means adoration. In general, when presented with people or groups about which they have neutral feelings, respondents give temperatures of about 70. Forty is a cold temperature, and 20 is absolutely freezing.
In 2004, the University of Michigan’s American National Election Studies (ANES) survey asked about 1,200 American adults to give their thermometer scores of various groups. People in this survey who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” did have a fairly low opinion of liberals — they gave them an average thermometer score of 39. The score that liberals give conservatives: 38. Looking only at people who said they are “extremely conservative” or “extremely liberal,” the right gave the left a score of 27; the left gives the right an icy 23. So much for the liberal tolerance edge.
Some might argue that this is simply a reflection of the current political climate, which is influenced by strong feelings about the current occupants of the White House. And sure enough, those on the extreme left give President Bush an average temperature of 15 and Vice President Cheney a 16. Sixty percent of this group gives both men the absolute lowest score: zero.
To put this into perspective, note that even Saddam Hussein (when he was still among the living) got an average score of eight from Americans. The data tell us that, for six in ten on the hard left in America today, literally nobody in the entire world can be worse than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
The BDS crowd often points to conservative Clinton-haters in the 1990s to argue that the Right was just as hateful as the Left is now. That, too, is not supported by statistical evidence. Brooks notes:
In 1998, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were hardly popular among conservatives. Still, in the 1998 ANES survey, Messrs. Clinton and Gore both received a perfectly-respectable average temperature of 45 from those who called themselves extremely conservative. While 28% of the far right gave Clinton a temperature of zero, Gore got a zero from just 10%. The bottom line is that there is simply no comparison between the current hatred the extreme left has for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, and the hostility the extreme right had for Messrs. Clinton and Gore in the late 1990s.
“Simply no comparison.”
Put that on a bumper sticker.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Sierra Faith
- Plumb Bob Blog » Liberal Self-deception Exposed
- The Whole Bird
- UrbanGrounds
- JunkYardBlog
- The difference between Right and Left in America at DPGI v.3
- Right Angles » Blog Archive » Liberals hate more, says survey
- Statistical difference between right and left | Infidels Are Cool
- Statistical difference between right and left | Infidels Are Cool
- Keith Burgess-Jackson » Civility
- The City Square
- Liberal “compassion and tolerance” myth refuted by study « Crush Liberalism
- Dean's World
- Lay Theism
- gregory cars
- Statistics show that liberals are unhinged « Right Minded Online
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Unhinged
Power Line
» Two Stories, Possibly Related
Yourish.com
» Uzi Mahnaimi lying about Israel againPower Line
» Clerical CracksAmSpecBlog
» Crack in the Iranian Clerical Wall
Quite true. Liberals as a general rule believe that most people (although certainly not all - e.g., George W. Bush) are inherently “good.” This child-like belief largely accounts for their fondness for moral relativity/equivalency as an ersatz “argument”.
Emotional adults, on the other hand, are more likely to see the cautionary theme underlying works like Lord of the Flies and will nod in grim agreement with Robert Heinlein’s assertion in Starship Troopers that Mankind has no moral instinct.
I said I was over it! And it’s not like it’s the first time someone had some help winning an election. Hayes and Kennedy both got elected by dubious means.
And I’m the one’s who unhinged!? I said earlier that the Holocaust was the worst thing to happen in the history of the entire world.
And I regret even saying that because why should I have to defend myself from such idiotic accusations. The idea that liberals don’t think the Holocaust was a big deal is laughable.
I have never called George Bush “Hitler.” I have opposed his invasion of Iraq and I would oppose any military strike against Iran while at the same time acknowledging that Iran and Iraq are/were led by evil men.
That doesn’t somehow make me pro-Holocaust. And attacking me on that front is insanely out-of-bounds.
Gabe, having studied the Holocaust and Nazi Germany in college, I am well aware of how evil it was. What that has to do with liberals or conservatives is beyond me.
Now that we have a diagnosis, what’s the treatment? We need to invent more meds for these poor people. Or maybe there could be a cure for BDS. That could be part of their government health care plan. “A cure for BDS by the year 2020″, should be their new, campaign promise.
I disagree, becuase it morality vs Moral Relativism.
The people on the far right hold extreme views, but they are the same ones they held yesterday as the foundations (e.g. the bible) they are based on are relatively unchanging.
What they believe is wrong for you is also wrong for them.
The people on the far left hold extreme views but they are far more mutable, changing to suit their own goals. A good example is Democrat Underground going ape-s#!^ over Code Pink whack-job Medea Benjamin getting a pie in the face (by an even further left moonbat) but they loved it when it was Coulter or Horowitz.
What they think is wrong for you can be justified for them.
I don’t really want to get into this, but I just have to point something out:
Saying that you are over something does not necessarily mean that you are. You clearly aren’t, given that you had to say something about the election being unfair in the first place. Yes, Gabe brought up the election first, but as a person who is “over it” I would think you’d just let Gabe’s mention pass.
Of course, that is all completely ignoring the fact that you have nothing to “get over” in the first place except your own delusions.
Regardless, it doesn’t mean it’s ok for someone to accuse me of not thinking the Holocaust was a big deal.
You make a good point about having nothing to “get over” and “delusions”.
Note the part of that sentence pointing out the delusion about “getting help winning” an election. No the win was a given (close but absolutely a win) until the opponent tried everything to steal the election. However the left can’t face the reality of the events. Our troll isn’t and will never get over it.
Gabe, they are already on the side of the Ayatollahs and Ahmedinijad. How many times does the Democrat party have to sympathize with the Islamist butchers before we can simply acknowledge the truth? How many more books do Democrat ex-Presidents have to write calling Israel an “apartheid” regime, before we know whose side they are on? We hear Ahmedinijad speak, and we hear a clarion call to genocide. They hear him, and think “that guy has a point”. I know whose side they are on, and now many millions of us know.
Rusty, Rusty, Rusty.
First of all Socialism is a leftwing philosophy. Communism is an extreme left-wing philosophy.
Fascism: (noun) A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Socialism: (noun) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Statism: (noun) Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
Communism: (noun) A totalitarian [centralized control by an autocratic authority] system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.
Nazism, Communism, and Socialism are forms of Statism. A belief that the best solution is a usually a government solution. The difference between that and the modern socialist is the Nazis actually loved their country while Socialist favor more personal freedom (at least at first).
Liberal: (noun) A philosophy calling for moderate taxes, government regulation of business and investing, a limited national defense, and favor government financial responsibility for personal needs (Welfare).
Conservatism: (noun) A philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (401k vs Social Security).
The problem here is what we were taught in schools. We were told that communism/socialist was far left and that nazism was far right. With democracy right in the middle. They even had a scale for it. Unfortunately, that’s a scale of socialist government. Which would mean that democracy is a form of socialism?
A real governmental scale would show zero government (anarchy) on the far left with a totalitarian dictatorship on the far right. (Absense of government to total government. That’s a true scale.) Remember, we read things from left to right; it has nothing to do with political parties. But if you want it to, that’s fine; Republicans were the original “liberals” or as they are sometimes called “classical liberals.”
About 1/3 of the way to the right is where our constitutional republic (as originally written) would be. Democracy would be about 2/3 of the way to the right. About 5/8 of the way to the right is where our republic is right now with all of the socialist policies we have adopted. Practically all other forms of government would be crowded into the final 1/4 of the scale on the right. That includes monarchies, theocracies, communism, socialism, etc.
Above the scale is a heading that says “Freedom” with the words “More” on the left and “Less” on the right. Below the word “Freedom” it says “Government” with “Less” on it’s left and “More” on it’s right. Arrows should be pointing in those directions.
Draw that sometime. It’s what should be taught in school. No way that will happen. Can’t confuse the little kiddies with the truth that less government is better.
There’s a whole lot left out of this analysis and it really doesn’t prove anything.
Do some “liberals” do some really stupid and despicable stuff? Yes.
Just looking at the data presented, it would appear that 40% of those that identify themselves as extremely liberal must have given the President an average score 37.5. Not really hateful for someone who self-identifies as extreme.
And looking back at the 1998 numbers, it appears that the extremely convservative respondents who did not give Clinton a zero gave him an average score of 62.5. That seems fairly neutral. Did you feel kind of neutral about Clinton in 1998?
Chances are pretty good (based on this survey at least) that we did feel somewhat neutral about him. He was a philandering buffoon who was riding a huge economic expansion. He was embarrassing, but essentially harmless (at the time.)
Times have changed. The world seems more dangerous and we’re at war. We can’t deny that the war isn’t popular with a significant segment of the population. It would only make sense that feelings would be intensified. The numbers have probably moved away from the neutral in both directions.
This survey doesn’t appear to tell us much of anything important other than some people have strong feelings and that those feelings are stronger than in 1998.
Of course, none of what I just said has anything to do with showing horrific images or finding mirth in the misfortune of others. That is disgusting, but it isn’t what the survey was measuring.
Rusty
I have to say I’m a little disappointed in you. First, let me say that I am very sure you know how bad the Holocaust was. I’m just wondering if you actually clicked on any of the above links that MM posted.
I didn’t like Bill Clinton because of the things he did, but I don’t hate him. I don’t hate his wife either, but the policies she wants to implement do scare me a bit when it comes to our country.
These people that are being referenced are some of the most hateful people I have ever seen or heard of. There is absolutely nothing to justify the things that have been done (see above links). You don’t agree with Bush, obviously, but would you hold a poster with his bloody head or wish for him to be assassinated? I’m guessing you wouldn’t based on your postings. I don’t go on a lot of conservative blogs, but lately some of you left-leaning posters have referenced them quite a bit, justifying the irrational hatred on the left. I have yet to find anything or be presented with a link to back it up. I don’t agree with you on much, but I didn’t think you would use the moral equivalency card on this issue.
Just was going through the news, and it has amazed me how the “thought police” is rampant in Europe, Canada, and Australia. People are going to jail in England and elsewhere for what we say here in this blog. Canada has its “human rights and citizenship commission”. Saying negative things about Islam, can land you in jail, in Europe. Liberalism gone amok. It makes me thankful that we can still say how we feel, in this country, though it is being chipped away daily. I wonder how long before we, too, will have to watch our words.
I’m glad you don’t speak for me. For the record, they are pretty lame examples and I wouldn’t call ANY of them far-right. There are plenty of Far right militant racial supremacists, religious extremists, fascists, neo-fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis to fill that corner up!
Hitler is now a Far-lefty eh? Interesting take there… perhaps the history books need to be re-written…
As an independent, most of the insults I encounter come from the left. They have a notion of only being tolerant of ideas that they agree with.
It is worth noting that Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University, the author of the study in question here, is also the author of “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.”
In that book, which is required reading for fans of MM, Mr. Brooks used statistical evidence to conclude that - surprise - conservatives are far more generous with charity of all forms (money, time and even blood) than liberals. His evidence established that one’s generosity is directly tied into one’s religious faith; consequently, because people of faith tend to be more politically conservative, the slander of conservatives as “selfish” is not at all accurate.
This should come as no surprise to anyone here as we understand that liberals want the government to take other people’s money and be generous with it, rather than part with their own.
The author himself has no political ax to grind and usd to identify himself as a Democrat. Naturally, his book was ignored by almost everyone (I heard but one interview with him on the radio).
Rusty said:
I’ll back you on that. Being against the invasion of Iraq does not automatically make you anti-Jewish anymore than being against our getting involved in the mess in Darfur would make a person pro-Janjaweed.
It’s because libs typically oppose Bush, and conservatives (used to, at least before his open borders policy came to light) support him and his policies. And the hyperbolic leftists, screaming for attention, equate Bush with Hitler, the ultimate icon of Evil in the 20th century. (They run roughshod over Godwin’s Law so often, Mike Godwin would be spinning in his grave if he were dead.
) Ergo, by inference, leftists equate his (Bush’s, not Hitler’s) former and current supporters as evil Nazis. And it’s a common accusation on the Left. You have to dig deep to find anyone who equates the Clintons or Democrats in general with Satan. Sure, you can find the fringe kook web site that declares Slick Willy the Anti-Christ, but these are repudiated by mainstream right-wingers. The mainstream Leftists rarely if ever repudiate the fringe “Bushitler”-chanting far Left.
_______________________
“If you honestly think John Ashcroft or elected Republicans in general are Nazis, then you are either a moron of ground-shaking proportions or you are so daft that you shouldn’t be allowed to play with grown-up scissors.”
-Jonah Goldberg
Perhaps you need to read them.
You’re missing the point, sausage. It’s not that Hitler was “a lefty.” It’s that he was a socialist, not whether left or right. The reason behind the Marx = Left and Hitler = Right garbage is to put Democracy in the middle. This allows for the lie that democracies are somehow “moderate.”
It was once said that the definition of a majority-vote democracy, was a group of 100 people where 51 voted to have the other 49 put to death.
This is why the framers of the constitution knew that a limited government was needed. So they wrote it that way. They just couldn’t forsee that it would be bastardized by a bunch of socialists redistributing wealth under the guise of assisting those in need and using class warfare to keep it all going.
As Ronald Reagan said, “The 9 most frightening words in the english language are - I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
You forgot the part about shouting down conservative speakers at every possible college event in the name of “free speech”. Physically attacking speakers at college events (Ann Coulter, Minutemen). Pie throwing, etc. Scratching cars, flattening tires (so people can’t be shuttled in vans to vote in Michigan) and destroying personal property (tearing down political signs, scorching grass with Round Up at people’s homes)
I can’t remember the last time a conservative group at a college used these tactics, does anyone? Or any wacko right winger who destroys personal property. If they did, it has to be a puny percentage.
They arn’t unhinged,they just apply LIBERAL logic-as in:
A glacier is receding.
Has to be Global Warming.
How do you know it’s Global Warming?
Because a glacier is receding,And Buush stole the election,and Cheney is the devil and..and ..and all you conservatives are stupid,and you started it,so there!The debate is over.
JohnHolliday:
As one who graduated with a Poli Sci degree, you are dead on. Conservatives are classic liberals.
Their bigotry justifies their hatred. Their hatred reinforces their bigotry.
To the far Left, the Right isn’t just wrong, it’s evil, and it’s okay to hate evil. Their hatred is a righteous hatred and thus, to them, not “hateful” at all.
Anyone remember “Captian Planet?” The bad guy was always some polluter who polluted just for the sake of messing up the earth. He wasn’t trying to make money or provide jobs, he just wanted to destroy nature. Even as a kid I wondered at this. Why did the bad guy want to hurt people & the planet when there was nothing in it for him?
The answer: because people who hurt Mother Nature do it because they want to. People who don’t do everything they can to help the environment are PURE EVIL. The bad guys didn’t need a reason to hurt animals or whatever, he just did it to hurt them.
And thus millions of kids were taught that people who don’t agree with the environmentalist movement don’t need to be understood or debated with, they need to be stopped. Any reason they give for what they are doing is a lie, they just want to hurt Mother Nature.
Sounds like Air America.
There is really someone here that does not know Hitler was a Socialist? Hmmm. Must be under the age of 40.
Alan Colmes has become a simple liar.
The WWII model of fascist vs socialist needs to be put in the ashheap.
Liberals, unable to hide their socialistic roots, engage in the intellectually dishonest arguement which in effect states that since they, liberals, are socialists, Republicans must be fascists. The truth is that liberals are both socialists and fascists while Conservative American Republicans are, well, Conservative American Republicans, and as such are quite apart from either.
How do we know? Look at the facts, using Hitler and Stalin as the poster children for their respective socio-political viewpoints:
1. Hiter and Stalin both wanted big government. “Conserpublicans” (to coin a word) want neither.
2. Hitler and Stalin insisted - and did - entirely control the media. Liberals do exactly the same as much as is possible for them to in this country and blacklist conserpublicans, who engage in nothing of the sort (talk radio being borne of market demand, not government or socio-political backlisting)
3. Hiter and Stalin both crushed particular religions which threatened their socio-political powerbase. Conserpublicans want none of that while American Liberals are trying to drive God out of the public arena with the absurd notion that such religious expression offends secularists.
4. Hitler and Stalin eventually destroyed their economies through high taxation to create a world in their own, forced viewpoint, while conserpublicans want low taxes and individual initiative driving the free market and open and fair discussion driving the character of our society.
This bullsh*t about conservatives being fascists while liberals are socialists is just that: bullsh*t. And it’s time more people said so and put liberals where they deserve to be put, quite frankly: defined as both fascist and socialist, combining the worst qualities of both, since in the absolute practical sense that’s exactly and precisely what they are, absurdly outdated definitions from a past world of 60 years ago notwithstanding.
Let’s hear it for the conservative president who is recommending sending checks to everyone under the guise of “economic stimulus”.
The differences between liberal and conservative in the USA is found in the beliefs of a part of the population. Most people don’t understand or care about those differences.
Once a Republican or a Blue Dog is elected, it is a rare person who stays conservative (really, classically liberal) in their fiscal policy.
We all might have strong values and core beliefs, but it seems that there is a force along the Beltway that cleanses you of those when you cross it to serve in the federal government.
The Left has their share of loons, but they’re just so much noise. Questions of comparisons to communists and fascists belong in classrooms of political theory. Answers to those questions don’t serve any practical purpose.
Where’s the conservative leadership in Washington?
The only thing that I can see that President Bush has done in 8 years that a liberal president (or any other president, I believe) would not have done is invade Iraq. (I mention this only as a concrete example of a real difference.)
When it comes to domestic and economic policy, it feels like it is just a question of degree when it comes to digging into my wallet.
I know there are differences between left and right out here in the real world. I’m just looking for those professed differences in Washington.
Spot on DougT.
I agree with DougT’s comments on the value of this study, as I pointed out in my earlier comment. The study doesn’t really show anything. The differences are so slight, they fall within margin of error. The left may indeed be less tolerant (I believe this to be true), but this study is an awfully long way from proving it, or anything else.
And Bush didn’t win 2000 fairly. You had someone working for the Bush campaign counting the votes!
No, the local voting officials in many of the districts were Dems.
And if you are so informed on the Florida elections, you will know that the NYT, WAPO, and many other papers got together and sponsored their own recounts after the fact, and came to the conclusion Bush won. They just never bothered to make a big deal out of publishing it for some strange reason!
Like so many things liberals “know”, the “stolen election” is a myth that the MSM and Dems find convenient to let fester.