I'm always amazed that many pundits, blog hacks, and cable news book-mongers focus on a very narrow part of America when they describe liberals and conservatives. For them, conservatives don't include union families or poorer rural residents. Liberals are even more mischaracterized, since they appear in this stereotype to be young and naive, famous and elitist, or rich and irresponsible, and almost always white, with an amoral or relativistic attitude. The image they try terribly hard to conjure up is the college professor with a comfy tenured job, spouting off elitist nonsense to an unruly mob of similarly comfortable young mobocrats.

The truth is that "liberalism" is the mainstream of Western civilization, especially since the 18th century. So it's ridiculous to try to characterize it as some arcane pie-in-the-sky ideology which only the socially or intellectually perverted or the guilt-ridden can entertain. When given a clear choice, most Western peoples, and most Americans, have chosen liberalism over various forms conservatism (true conservatives understand this, though they don't see it as a problem). It has appeals to the old as well as the young, middle class as well as poor, college professors as well as factory workers, Christians as well as secularists.

It is also just silly to suggest that liberalism is essentially about redistribution of wealth and levelling. Indeed there are many kinds of levelling (abolition of private property, Bolshevik socialism, etc.) which are incompatible with liberalism's emphasis on private rights. Rather, if there is anything that unifies liberals (or should) it is a devotion to a certain kind of freedom and a realm of autonomy. Most American liberals understand that this kind of freedom means not only freedom from an oppressive government, but also from oppressive and plutocratic forces in civil society. What does this have to do with guilty riches?

Burgess-Jackson, condescendingly suggests to those younger than he, Matt Yeglasis, Brad Delong, and Julian Sanchez, that like him as they get older they'll see the light. Burgess-Jackson went from Liberal to Conservative, I on the the other hand went from Conservative to Liberal. Of course neither history is evidence of the correctness of the philosophy. But using Mr. Jackson's perverted logic, I can't resist pointing out that since I'm older than Mr. Jackson that my evolution is correct and his, what shall we call it de-evolution, is false.

I've read other conservatives who say that we are liberal because we are all envious of the rich. So with envy from not having and guilt from having, that takes care of everyone I guess.

The young are more likely to buy into the generation of conservative bashing of basic social protections like social security and Medicare, the old are more likely to oppose rampant fiscal irresponsibility (which in our day has become thoroughly conservative), and the old are more willing to understand the basic truth that wars begin when you will but end on their own time. These things are born out by voting behavior and opinion research such as the figure Chris mentioned.

BJ has inspired me. When I grow up, I too want to be a fascist like him. Until then I will wallow in my immature fantasies of compassion and sharing.

Anybody know where I can post my comments on his website? I would hate to think that such thoughtful opinions would go undiscussed.

Comments on his website. In your dreams, he's a control freak and would become extremely anxious if he didn't have total control over what was posted on his site.

I have been a liberal and socialist since I was old enough to think, and nothing has changed my mind in the last 33 years. Even as I have climbed up a few rungs on the economic ladder, I remember where I came from, and I also remember the sacrifices made by those before me who helped make it possible for my climb.

Fucking neo-conservatives, what a bunch of back-stabbers. Most are one or two generations removed from the lower classes, and many got to where there are today because their grandfather's fought for social and economic equality.

Sadly their idiot progeny, upon having a few bucks in their wallet and moving to the cute ranch house in the burbs, with two SUV's in the garage, fancy themselves as aristocrats and spit on the very social mechanisms that uplifted their grandfathers and fathers, grandmothers and mothers, and themselves.

These necons say I hate America because I dare to criticize them, their leaders, and their insanely stupid ideas. The truth is I just hate neocons--and I hate an America that produces a generation of selfish and anti-democratic swine like that.

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/20040523dissectleftarchive.html#108569686123548776

The post linked to above does little to improve on Anal's article. Dissectleft claims 1. Anal was talking about those who preach liberalism, not those who vote democratic. 2. Voting is not an accurate reflection of political ideology.

This still doesn't address the main problem with Anal's Tech Central Station article. It makes an empirical claim without evidence. I will post a link to more data that is contrary to Anal's claims. This new data is based on a survey rather than exit polls.

"He argues that liberals come from rich families and don't understand that making money comes from hard work and discipline. He then argues that liberals feal guilty about this and their guilt motivates them to take the position they do.

[...]

If you look under the category "Vote by Income" You will see that of people in the $100,000+ bracket 54% voted for Bush while only 45% voted for Nader or Gore. Of the people in the under $15,000 57% voted for Gore and 37% voted for Bush. There is a clear correlation between being wealthy and conservative, not the other way around."

Right. Burgess-Jackson argues that liberals who come from rich families don't understand the value of discipline/hardwork etc.

How does the data you cite refute his claim?

"People in the $100,000+ bracket" refers to a people who are earning in the $100,000+ bracket. Not to individuals from wealthy families. Indeed, such individuals (persons from wealthy families) may well be classified under a lower income bracket if they are comfortably well off (by dint of family wealth) to be doing work that is less well-paying.

What's singularly laughable about your reasoning is that the figures may just as well be used to buttress Burgess-Jackson's argument: individuals who are earning in the $100,000+ bracket got there by dint of hard work and discipline, are not living off family wealth, and are therefore more disposed to voting conservative because they appreciate the aforementioned values.

If Burgess-Jackson's theory is half-asinine, so too is your criticism. Failure to make the simple distinction between "earning power" (which is what the exit polls surveyed) and "family wealth" kinda deflates your huffing and puffing.

The onus is on the person making the argument to provide evidence to support it not the other way around. When someone presents an argument they should provide reasons that support acceptance of their position. This is fundamental. BJ often fails to provide any evidence for his claims which is quite remarkable for someone trained in philosophy. He teaches logic at the university level and is co-editor of one of the major texts on the subject. His failing in light of his training provides evidence of a serious flaw in his character.

As Norm said, Burgess-Jackson provided no evidence for his empirical claim. Likewise our anonymous commentor provides no evidence for the claim that people with high income get that income from hardwork and discipline. It may well be that they get cushy jobs because their rich parents have connections. This is the issue that is at debate. Anonymous begs the question by merely asserting the conservative conclusion. Here is the link to the survey stats I promised. ">http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=467">

Now I will provide evidence for my claim that rich parents beget rich children and poor parents beget poor children. The Intergenerational elasticity rating in the United States is 0.6. This means that 60% of any earnings gap between groups remains for at least one generation. This doesn't prove that there is no social mobility in America, but it demonstrates that it is quite difficult. It shows that people who are rich now are more likely to have rich parents than not. This is contrary to anonymous' assertion that conservatives began in low income families and through hard work and discipline earned more than their parents. Here is a link to this new study I have been discussing. You will need a pdf reader to view it. http://www.ces.census.gov/paper.php?paper=101656

I have presented evidence that conservatives tend to be wealthier than liberals and that they likely achieved that wealth with the extra opportunities afforded them in being raised by rich parents. This is not to discount discipline and hard work, but to show that they are not the primary determiner of wealth.

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/20040523dissectleftarchive.html#108578318889390491

Dissect left drags on his absurd arguments. He claims to have presented relevant evidence. The studies he presents are about social attitudes rather than economic attitudes. Since we are talking about redistribution of wealth, his argument is not very convincing.

Our mystery guest has an Austrailian isp. I wouldn't be surprised if it was John Ray. Funny that some people won't put their name to the words they write. What a waste of time.

"Funny that some people won't put their name to the words they write. What a waste of time."

Funny how John Ray puts his name to every post at Dissectleft, a blog which is attributed to - surprise! - John Ray.

Duh duh. At least try to make sense with your insults you whiny, vapid fool.

Note that "myname" doesn't put his name to what he writes.

"Burgess-Jackson has made two empirical claims here. One is that as people grow older and wiser they tend to become conservative. This is a common stereotype. The second claim is that people who grow up in wealthy families tend to be liberal. This goes contrary to the stereotype that it is conservatives who come from rich families."

At least he is consistent. In one paragraph you have implied that he is buying into a stereotype (which is bad m'kay) and you have implied that he goes against a stereotype (which is bad m'kay).

I am 25 years old and a rarity. I vote conservative. I am a conservative. I believe that people should be responsible for their own actions and live by the fruits of their own labour. I am not rich though I plan to be one day.

It is a liberal leftist belief that stereotypes are inherently false. You have indicated this in atleast half of what you have said. A stereotype is simply a neocon (zionist) invention to oppress other vibrant and unique cultures. But have you ever considered that a stereotype is merely a convenient way for people to categorise people who have (by their own actions and attributes) shown obvious similarities to each other?

Liberals are on average younger than conservatives. This is a stereotype, but that in and of itself does not make it false. Go to a university and take a poll, you would expect the majority of students (and almost all the staff) to desribe themselves as either liberal or centrist. Go to a retirement home and take a poll, you can expect to find mostly conservatives.

Young people like you piss me off.

"Ive been around for 25 years, so Ive seen everything there is to see."

"Old people just cant see the truth because they have been indoctinated by the vast right wing conspiracy."

"The youth are the future, therefore what we have to say is important!"

Bullshit, what you have to say will be important in the future when you have lived long enough to understand how the world works, and the long term consequences of your actions. Until then shut the hell up, little boy, you know nothing.

"Note that "myname" doesn't put his name to what he writes."

But of course, the fact that I don't attach a name to what I write doesn't ipso facto invalidate it. An argument stands or falls on its own merits.

Norm's complaint was facile on both counts: 1. as above, and 2. the fact that everything on dissectleft is attributed to John Ray.

that makes his moaning doubly stupid. (and no, I am not John Ray as your ip logs can tell you. no point making as if I am.)

"What a waste of time."

For someone who obsesses over internet anonymity, you sure couldn't have put it better.