Liberal myths

How do die-hard liberals and die-hard conservatives come to know which camp they belong to, assuming they think for themselves? And what makes them so annoying? It probably has something to do with their neatly packaged world views, with assumptions such as, "liberals have no morals" or "conservatives are greedy."\nLiberals and conservatives can argue with each other all day about substantive policy issues (and they do), but that probably won't bring them closer to understanding one another. \nFrom my observations I've gathered that liberals and conservatives carry a set of unspoken assumptions about people and society that support their substantive policy preferences. Some of them are good assumptions, some are debatable and some are just pure mythology -- it's the latter that need to be addressed. \nOn the basis of my level of annoyance, I will start with the liberal myths:\n1. Logic will lead people to the same moral and policy conclusions.\nEverything is about education and awareness. Liberals seem to think that if people are given the right information, people will agree with them. If you have this information and you still don't agree, then you must be stupid. This thinking denies any difference in values that transcends simple information. People will always have different values, and they are not necessarily stupid or uninformed if they don't care about caribou, the community center, or whatever. \n2. All antisocial behavior is motivated by deprivation or low self-esteem.\nThe problem with this myth is not all conflicts (either interpersonal or international) are a battle between the haves and the have-nots. Conflicts are often about power, territory, beliefs and just pure habit. \nSome of the most violent individuals are fairly well-to-do. Some of them have pretty high self-esteem, too. A recent study of junior high school students by the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that many of the worst bullies have very high self-esteem. The moral here is: if people are being jackasses, it doesn't necessarily mean you need to give them more love. This brings us to our next myth.\n3. Good intentions produce good outcomes.\nPeople don't necessarily want to know you care. Sometimes they just want your car -- and everything else you have or they think you have. All policies have the potential to backfire or do more harm than good.\n4. Corporations are, by nature, in cahoots.\nActually, corporations are, by nature, in competition. Unless there's a monopoly (where there's no one else to be in cahoots with) corporations don't gang up on consumers.\nHere's a question: whom do you think Verizon is more threatened by? Us? Or Cingular? Here's the truth: corporations lobby for regulations so they can control rival corporations. The upshot is that regulations can also do more harm than good.\nIf you're a liberal, it doesn't mean you're wrong. But if your policy views are based on these myths, there's a good chance you are. Next week: clueless conservatives.