Charting the lefts Villain/Victim dynamic: a theory for discussion

[Black Lance]

I developed this while studying political science at Albion college. With rare exceptions, the vast majority of public policy outcomes chosen by liberals are accounted for by these six rules:


1. Non-Christians are the victims of Christians.

2. Homosexuals are the victims of heterosexuals.

3. Women are the victims of men.

4. Poor people are the victims of rich people.

5. Ethnic minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics, are the victims of whites and asians.

6. Urban areas are superior to rural areas.

To predict the public policy choice liberals will make, simply identify the parties involved, and decide the issue in favor of the victim group.

Can anyone think of liberal policy choices that don't fit this mold? I've only managed to come up with three in as many years.

[Hugh Lincoln]

I developed this while studying political science at Albion college. With rare exceptions, the vast majority of public policy outcomes chosen by liberals are accounted for by these six rules:


1. Non-Christians are the victims of Christians.

2. Homosexuals are the victims of heterosexuals.

3. Women are the victims of men.

4. Poor people are the victims of rich people.

5. Ethnic minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics, are the victims of whites and asians.

6. Urban areas are superior to rural areas.

To predict the public policy choice liberals will make, simply identify the parties involved, and decide the issue in favor of the victim group.

Can anyone think of liberal policy choices that don't fit this mold? I've only managed to come up with three in as many years.

BL, it's a powerful and difficult-to-answer question. But as someone who totally agrees with the victim key for understanding public policy, I'd say there are some vestigal policies that go the other way (and which will surely be eliminated once revealed):

* Drug policy. Here you have a policy that basically allows white police and white prosecutors to vacuum America of criminal blacks and Hispanics and stick them in prison for long periods of time. No matter how much they scream that "it's racist", the drug laws stay in place. Politicians won't go near 'em, NO MATTER HOW LIBERAL. Weird, huh? I think it's because it's so easy to deny that race drives the whole thing. Just answer that black or white, if you sell drugs, you're guilty.

* Agricultural subsidies. Here you have money flowing freely to rural whites who live traditional lives. Huh? How'd that happen? It does. And it's going nowhere. Cool!

OK, that's two. But for most everything else, your dichotomy applies.

[diuretic]

Did you put that forward as a paper? I mean, with evidence and all that nuisance-type stuff. Or did you sit down on the toilet and write the first things that came into your head?

[nevadamedic]

BL, it's a powerful and difficult-to-answer question. But as someone who totally agrees with the victim key for understanding public policy, I'd say there are some vestigal policies that go the other way (and which will surely be eliminated once revealed):

* Drug policy. Here you have a policy that basically allows white police and white prosecutors to vacuum America of criminal blacks and Hispanics and stick them in prison for long periods of time. No matter how much they scream that "it's racist", the drug laws stay in place. Politicians won't go near 'em, NO MATTER HOW LIBERAL. Weird, huh? I think it's because it's so easy to deny that race drives the whole thing. Just answer that black or white, if you sell drugs, you're guilty.

* Agricultural subsidies. Here you have money flowing freely to rural whites who live traditional lives. Huh? How'd that happen? It does. And it's going nowhere. Cool!

OK, that's two. But for most everything else, your dichotomy applies.

The drug problem knows no race. There are plenty of white people who are as big of a part of the drug problem as mexicans and blacks.

[Black Lance]

BL, it's a powerful and difficult-to-answer question. But as someone who totally agrees with the victim key for understanding public policy, I'd say there are some vestigal policies that go the other way (and which will surely be eliminated once revealed):

* Drug policy. Here you have a policy that basically allows white police and white prosecutors to vacuum America of criminal blacks and Hispanics and stick them in prison for long periods of time. No matter how much they scream that "it's racist", the drug laws stay in place. Politicians won't go near 'em, NO MATTER HOW LIBERAL. Weird, huh? I think it's because it's so easy to deny that race drives the whole thing. Just answer that black or white, if you sell drugs, you're guilty.

Your analysis of the drug issue is essentially correct. The dynamic is designed to address the lefts preferred public policy outcome, however, as opposed to the compromise positions Democratic politicians will advance in Congress. As such the lefts advocacy of drug legalization falls under the fifth rule, due to the "it's racist" argument you have already mentioned.



* Agricultural subsidies. Here you have money flowing freely to rural whites who live traditional lives. Huh? How'd that happen? It does. And it's going nowhere. Cool!

OK, that's two. But for most everything else, your dichotomy applies.

Agriculture subsidies are definetly an exception to the rule, and are one of the three alluded to in my first post. It represents an outword flow of money to rural communities, something that doesn't mesh well with a left movement that is very much so centered in the cities. I'm inclined to explain this one in terms of "cheap bread" as Napoleon put it: farm subsidies help ensure that food crops will always be produced on a large-scale, perhaps even over-produced, thereby keeping food cheap for urban residents who cannot grow their own supply.

[Black Lance]

Did you put that forward as a paper? I mean, with evidence and all that nuisance-type stuff. Or did you sit down on the toilet and write the first things that came into your head?

I did not insert this theory into a paper for a class. The college I attended had even more of a liberal slant than the average American university does, and as such putting forward ideas that, if true, would discredit the ability of liberal Democrats to lead the country isn't exactly the best way to go about getting good grades, or any of those recommendations from your professors that are so important for grad school admission.

[diuretic]

I did not insert this theory into a paper for a class. The college I attended had even more of a liberal slant than the average American university does, and as such putting forward ideas that, if true, would discredit the ability of liberal Democrats to lead the country isn't exactly the best way to go about getting good grades, or any of those recommendations from your professors that are so important for grad school admission.

Awwwwww....wasn't Horowitz around to help you terrorise your professors?

But anyway, got any evidence for your theory?

[Black Lance]

Awwwwww....wasn't Horowitz around to help you terrorise your professors?

Yes, we wouldn't want to "terrorise" professors by preventing academia from behaving as an exteme-left indoctrination camp funded by the tax-payers.



But anyway, got any evidence for your theory?

The evidence is contained in the theory itself. Name some exceptions, or explain why the shoe should not be worn despite the fact that it fits.

[Kathianne]

Awwwwww....wasn't Horowitz around to help you terrorise your professors?

But anyway, got any evidence for your theory?

Do you have a problem with academics holding other academics responsible for what they are foisting upon students? Do you think that students are unable to respond to a contrary pov, in college?

Why is Horowitz who advocates a students' bill of rights, at the forefront of your thoughts? I haven't a problem with liberal professors, as long as there is contrary discussion possible. Unfortunately on today's campuses that isn't the case. Those that disagree whether student or professors, are called all sorts of names, censored, and even dismissed. It's rare that the liberal profs are and when held to account, there are many and varied criticisms of such. See Ward Churchill.

[Abbey Marie]

I developed this while studying political science at Albion college. With rare exceptions, the vast majority of public policy outcomes chosen by liberals are accounted for by these six rules:


1. Non-Christians are the victims of Christians.

2. Homosexuals are the victims of heterosexuals.

3. Women are the victims of men.

4. Poor people are the victims of rich people.

5. Ethnic minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics, are the victims of whites and asians.

6. Urban areas are superior to rural areas.

To predict the public policy choice liberals will make, simply identify the parties involved, and decide the issue in favor of the victim group.

Can anyone think of liberal policy choices that don't fit this mold? I've only managed to come up with three in as many years.


7. Women are victims of live fetuses.

[diuretic]

Yes, we wouldn't want to "terrorise" professors by preventing academia from behaving as an exteme-left indoctrination camp funded by the tax-payers.



The evidence is contained in the theory itself. Name some exceptions, or explain why the shoe should not be worn despite the fact that it fits.

Horowitz is a dill but no matter.

There is no evidence in your statements - heck I'm no bright spark academic but even I can tell declarations without explanation are pretty worthless. I mean you trot out some fairly generalised comments and pronounce on "policy outcomes", Come on, I've seen you do better than this elsewhere.

[Psychoblues]

For this conversation, I think terror is the operative.



Horowitz is a dill but no matter.

There is no evidence in your statements - heck I'm no bright spark academic but even I can tell declarations without explanation are pretty worthless. I mean you trot out some fairly generalised comments and pronounce on "policy outcomes", Come on, I've seen you do better than this elsewhere.

It works!!!!!!!!!

[diuretic]

Do you have a problem with academics holding other academics responsible for what they are foisting upon students? Do you think that students are unable to respond to a contrary pov, in college?

The academics that I've met have been a mixed bunch. I've been to a few professional conferences and was rather taken aback by the way that they tore into each other (verbally). No, I have no problem with academics in their discipline - I stress that - holding their peers responsible. I do have a problem with an ideologically driven ex-Trotskyist turned NeoCon leading a Greek chorus in attacking institutions of higher education that refuse to bow to the NeoCons

Students should challenge everything in college - but they should challenge their own presumptions the most stringently. Now we know some disciplines lend themselves to a political slant - Left or Right - and that's where the trouble starts. For mine there should be no indoctrination either way, but there should be a challenge to the mental status quo in the individual. In other disciplines, eg the "hard" sciences, there's no room for ideology (I'm thinking of that lunatic Lysenko) so it's not an issue. But in the other "soft" sciences and disciplines there's plenty of room for critical thinking. But I stress, no to indoctrination.



Why is Horowitz who advocates a students' bill of rights, at the forefront of your thoughts? I haven't a problem with liberal professors, as long as there is contrary discussion possible. Unfortunately on today's campuses that isn't the case. Those that disagree whether student or professors, are called all sorts of names, censored, and even dismissed. It's rare that the liberal profs are and when held to account, there are many and varied criticisms of such. See Ward Churchill.

Horowitz is an extremist. Originally a Trotskyist he has totally rejected that position and swung wildly to the extreme right. That's an interesting pattern and he's not the only one. I'm not going to get into armchair psychology but his family background suggests to me that he was indoctrinated at an early age and now is rejecting all of that and has gone NeoCon. He's picked up from Leo Strauss but strangely enough he's still evincing the elitism that is apparent in Trotskyism, just this elitism is on the right.

As I said above, I don't hold with indoctrination. Horowitz isn't a champion of the open mind, he wants things done his way. It's almost as if Horowitz is using Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution, not in the sense of seeking to develop a socialist society but in seeking to push the NeoCon/Straussian ideas he seems to have adopted, like a wave of poplular pressure bearing down on those who oppose the NeoCons.

[Psychoblues]

This should be interesting.



The academics that I've met have been a mixed bunch. I've been to a few professional conferences and was rather taken aback by the way that they tore into each other (verbally). No, I have no problem with academics in their discipline - I stress that - holding their peers responsible. I do have a problem with an ideologically driven ex-Trotskyist turned NeoCon leading a Greek chorus in attacking institutions of higher education that refuse to bow to the NeoCons

Students should challenge everything in college - but they should challenge their own presumptions the most stringently. Now we know some disciplines lend themselves to a political slant - Left or Right - and that's where the trouble starts. For mine there should be no indoctrination either way, but there should be a challenge to the mental status quo in the individual. In other disciplines, eg the "hard" sciences, there's no room for ideology (I'm thinking of that lunatic Lysenko) so it's not an issue. But in the other "soft" sciences and disciplines there's plenty of room for critical thinking. But I stress, no to indoctrination.



Horowitz is an extremist. Originally a Trotskyist he has totally rejected that position and swung wildly to the extreme right. That's an interesting pattern and he's not the only one. I'm not going to get into armchair psychology but his family background suggests to me that he was indoctrinated at an early age and now is rejecting all of that and has gone NeoCon. He's picked up from Leo Strauss but strangely enough he's still evincing the elitism that is apparent in Trotskyism, just this elitism is on the right.

As I said above, I don't hold with indoctrination. Horowitz isn't a champion of the open mind, he wants things done his way. It's almost as if Horowitz is using Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution, not in the sense of seeking to develop a socialist society but in seeking to push the NeoCon/Straussian ideas he seems to have adopted, like a wave of poplular pressure bearing down on those who oppose the NeoCons.

Thanks for the heads up, dr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[diuretic]

I'm now waiting for demolition :laugh2:

But that's okay, I don't mind being critiqued, I learn a lot from others, I get bloody annoyed and bit frustrated at snide one-liners though. And there will be plenty of them no doubt.

[Psychoblues]

Don't expect anything comprehensive, dr.



I'm now waiting for demolition :laugh2:

But that's okay, I don't mind being critiqued, I learn a lot from others, I get bloody annoyed and bit frustrated at snide one-liners though. And there will be plenty of them no doubt.

Our one on one liners are beyond the scope of even the most objective of the typical poster in this forum. But, we'll see.

[diuretic]

Don't expect anything comprehensive, dr.




Our one on one liners are beyond the scope of even the most objective of the typical poster in this forum. But, we'll see.

I live in hope :D

[glockmail]

.....

* Drug policy. Here you have a policy that basically allows white police and white prosecutors to vacuum America of criminal blacks and Hispanics and stick them in prison for long periods of time. No matter how much they scream that "it's racist", the drug laws stay in place. Politicians won't go near 'em, NO MATTER HOW LIBERAL. Weird, huh? I think it's because it's so easy to deny that race drives the whole thing. Just answer that black or white, if you sell drugs, you're guilty.

......

You just haven't met anyone rabidly liberal enough, Hugh. I know plenty of liberals who want to abolicsh all drug laws, and many others who want to pardon these "victims of the establishment".

[glockmail]

I developed this while studying political science at Albion college. With rare exceptions, the vast majority of public policy outcomes chosen by liberals are accounted for by these six rules:


1. Non-Christians are the victims of Christians.

2. Homosexuals are the victims of heterosexuals.

3. Women are the victims of men.

4. Poor people are the victims of rich people.

5. Ethnic minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics, are the victims of whites and asians.

6. Urban areas are superior to rural areas.

To predict the public policy choice liberals will make, simply identify the parties involved, and decide the issue in favor of the victim group.

Can anyone think of liberal policy choices that don't fit this mold? I've only managed to come up with three in as many years.

Good theory, and as good as any others I suppose, when the perpetartors will not inform us of their true motives.

Methinks that liberals are simply on a quest for power, as they think that they are smarter than the rest of us, and are therfore better suited to make our choices for us. Also thay are incapable of understanding modern economic theory.

[diuretic]

You just haven't met anyone rabidly liberal enough, Hugh. I know plenty of liberals who want to abolicsh all drug laws, and many others who want to pardon these "victims of the establishment".

The current approach is a failure. It was great for the development of organised crime though,. And the street gangs are very happy with it.

[Psychoblues]

What's wrong with any of that, gm?


You just haven't met anyone rabidly liberal enough, Hugh. I know plenty of liberals who want to abolicsh all drug laws, and many others who want to pardon these "victims of the establishment".

I'm a beer drinker and a liberal. What kind of criminal are you?

[glockmail]

The current approach is a failure. It was great for the development of organised crime though,. And the street gangs are very happy with it. I don't disagree with that. In fact I'd like to see all drugs legalized with regulated purity and concentration, like booze. But I have the balls to say that, not like your liberal politicians who want to skirt curent laws.

[glockmail]

What's wrong with any of that, gm?



I'm a beer drinker and a liberal. What kind of criminal are you? A martini drinker and a conservative, the latter qualification would land me in the slammer if Hillary had her way. :cheers2:

[diuretic]

I don't disagree with that. In fact I'd like to see all drugs legalized with regulated purity and concentration, like booze. But I have the balls to say that, not like your liberal politicians who want to skirt curent laws.

And why do you think those liberal politicians don't have the balls to tell the electorate what you and I know? The public, the electorate, have, for some reason been conned into thinking that prohibition is necessary. It's become a stock response. Any politician that tries to argue for legalisation/regulation so going to be shot down in flames. Now, I drink alcohol, I don't smoke tobacco and never have. I don't smoke marijuana and won't because I choose not to, but I don't really care if someone else does. I would just make a pact with them. I promise not to get in my car and drive after I've been drinking if they promise the same after they have been toking. Other than that, couldn't give a toss.

[Psychoblues]

Do you have any evidence that even might be true?


A martini drinker and a conservative, the latter qualification would land me in the slammer if Hillary had her way. :cheers2:

But, as a Martini drinker, I wouldn't expect much else from you.

BTW, you don't have the balls to say what you really think to the powers that control you. What makes this venue any different?

[diuretic]

A martini drinker and a conservative, the latter qualification would land me in the slammer if Hillary had her way. :cheers2:

If you do a really good dry martini I'll go bail for you :laugh2:

[diuretic]

Do you have any evidence that even might be true?



But, as a Martini drinker, I wouldn't expect much else from you.

Hey! It's grog. He's alright!





Sorry my Australian acculturation got the better of me.

Ahem.

As you were.

[glockmail]

If you do a really good dry martini I'll go bail for you :laugh2:
I'm not sure I know what "bail" means but I guarentee you that I make the World's Best Martini. I've had lots of practice as well.

[diuretic]

I'm not sure I know what "bail" means but I guarentee you that I make the World's Best Martini. I've had lots of practice as well.

Bloody typo lol! "Bail". I think i need a screen resolution change :laugh2:

Good for you, a really good martini is a joy to behold and an even bigger joy to be on the outside of :salute:

[glockmail]

Bloody typo lol! "Bail". I think i need a screen resolution change :laugh2:

Good for you, a really good martini is a joy to behold and an even bigger joy to be on the outside of :salute: I'm glad that you think so. More unspoiled acreage here in the Great US of A for me! :cheers2:

[diuretic]

I'm glad that you think so. More unspoiled acreage here in the Great US of A for me! :cheers2:

America invented cocktails..........why go anywhere else in search of the greatest?

[glockmail]

America invented cocktails..........why go anywhere else in search of the greatest?
I'm not planning on it, and my passport is locked away never to be used again as far as I'm concerned.

[diuretic]

I'm not planning on it, and my passport is locked away never to be used again as far as I'm concerned.

You won't travel?

[glockmail]

You won't travel? I travel quite a bit, actually, but within these borders. I have no reason to visit any foreign country.

[Black Lance]

Horowitz is a dill but no matter.

Well I'm not familiar with Horowitz, so I can't comment for or against him.



There is no evidence in your statements - heck I'm no bright spark academic but even I can tell declarations without explanation are pretty worthless. I mean you trot out some fairly generalised comments and pronounce on "policy outcomes", Come on, I've seen you do better than this elsewhere.

The proof is in the pudding, in this case. The evidence is the inability of anyone, left or right, to come up with more than a handful of exceptions to the rules, and the reality that the rules mirror the thoughts and language of many liberals, and also reflect leftist attitudes as they manifest themselves in other area. Take historiography, for example. Does the dynamic explain why liberals would consider the ancient Romans, who fed Christians to lions, to be "religiously tolerant"? Does it explain why they would classify Aztecs, who hadn't invented the wheel and were still making human sacrifices en masse to the sun god in the 17th century, as "culturally advanced"?

[Kathianne]

The academics that I've met have been a mixed bunch. I've been to a few professional conferences and was rather taken aback by the way that they tore into each other (verbally). No, I have no problem with academics in their discipline - I stress that - holding their peers responsible. I do have a problem with an ideologically driven ex-Trotskyist turned NeoCon leading a Greek chorus in attacking institutions of higher education that refuse to bow to the NeoCons

Students should challenge everything in college - but they should challenge their own presumptions the most stringently. Now we know some disciplines lend themselves to a political slant - Left or Right - and that's where the trouble starts. For mine there should be no indoctrination either way, but there should be a challenge to the mental status quo in the individual. In other disciplines, eg the "hard" sciences, there's no room for ideology (I'm thinking of that lunatic Lysenko) so it's not an issue. But in the other "soft" sciences and disciplines there's plenty of room for critical thinking. But I stress, no to indoctrination.



Horowitz is an extremist. Originally a Trotskyist he has totally rejected that position and swung wildly to the extreme right. That's an interesting pattern and he's not the only one. I'm not going to get into armchair psychology but his family background suggests to me that he was indoctrinated at an early age and now is rejecting all of that and has gone NeoCon. He's picked up from Leo Strauss but strangely enough he's still evincing the elitism that is apparent in Trotskyism, just this elitism is on the right.

As I said above, I don't hold with indoctrination. Horowitz isn't a champion of the open mind, he wants things done his way. It's almost as if Horowitz is using Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution, not in the sense of seeking to develop a socialist society but in seeking to push the NeoCon/Straussian ideas he seems to have adopted, like a wave of poplular pressure bearing down on those who oppose the NeoCons.

I know about Horowitz's bio., I actually remember reading stuff by him way back when. He was basically to the left of Tom Hayden, but then again, he'd been raised that way.

At his Frontpage, I agree that it's arch conservative, but his writings on education and advocacy for a Students' Bill of Rights, aren't.

I also agree that the most important criticisms are of ourselves, but for 17-24 year olds or so, they are too 'new' to really challenge. Most students enter college either believing what their parents or high school teachers said, or in open rebellion of same-mostly parental pov's. ;)

Then they hear what their profs say or imply and fit that into their framework, to build up or question. Their own ideas are still forming.

[diuretic]

I travel quite a bit, actually, but within these borders. I have no reason to visit any foreign country.

No reason to visit another country. Your choice of course but aren't you curious about somewhere else other than America?

[diuretic]

Well I'm not familiar with Horowitz, so I can't comment for or against him.



The proof is in the pudding, in this case. The evidence is the inability of anyone, left or right, to come up with more than a handful of exceptions to the rules, and the reality that the rules mirror the thoughts and language of many liberals, and also reflect leftist attitudes as they manifest themselves in other area. Take historiography, for example. Does the dynamic explain why liberals would consider the ancient Romans, who fed Christians to lions, to be "religiously tolerant"? Does it explain why they would classify Aztecs, who hadn't invented the wheel and were still making human sacrifices en masse to the sun god in the 17th century, as "culturally advanced"?

I'm a leftist/liberal. I don't regard the Romans of that period (and it was a particular period - the panem et circenses time) as being anything other than bloodthirsty. Aztecs - all I know about them, apart from the human sacrifices, was their ability to build without mortar. You're going to have to be a bit more specific other than that though. I don't regard those periods/people as being anything other than barbaric. But you know, I don't think the Romans or the Aztecs could have got close to us for numbers of slaughtering people. Is that what you mean?

[glockmail]

No reason to visit another country. Your choice of course but aren't you curious about somewhere else other than America?
I've been to Italy, Greece, Canada and Mexico. All interesting but I've always had more bang for the tourist buck in the US.

Someday I'll go to Germany to visit the ancestral homeland, as well as Austria to visit living relatives and do some skiing, but that is pretty much the extent of it.