In a liberal's mind, they protect innocent victims from oppressive white men

You might want to reexamine US history of the 1930's, CometsWin. What drove the overwhelming move to the Democratic Party of "white males," and Whites in general? That's right... the Great Depression and the Democratic Party's response to it after the Republican Party had flailed away, accomplishing nothing of significance for the huge numbers of Whites who had fallen into poverty and despair. After WWII and after FDR, a grateful nation taken out of an economic collapse and to victory in WWII by Democratic leadership gave majorities in Congress to Democrats for a couple of generations. You would make a better point with the post-war economic boom bringing the nation an enormous middle class that began to forget the basis of all those Democratic congressional victories, that it was the party that not only cared the most about the poor and down trodden, but also cared the most about the middle class, a middle class under assault by Republican policies since 1980. In my humble opinion, of course.

 

The reason is because the 1% who influence the policies that hurt white males have done a good job convincing them that it's poor latinos and blacks who are hurting them by taking their jobs, and aren't working as hard because of affirmative action, and govt. handouts etc.

 

You haven't written anything worht elaborating.

If you wanted a response you could have asked "Liberals what is your philosophy on governing?" Something like that might have started a conversation. You aren't interested in a conversation.

 

From the OP

I agree, he made a general accusation. But he did ask if anyone agreed and why. Essentially asking the question, what do liberals believe? Just correct him on what you believe in.

Personally, I don't think this is how most liberals feel. I think a lot of people are "liberal" on different issues and conservative on others. I myself am "liberal" when it comes to issues such as gay marriage, but conservative when it comes to fiscal issues. I'm a political mutt, I suppose.

 

The map would be all red if not for the gays :grin:

 

When people start with that accusatory tone they aren't interested in a discussion. They are interested in finding people that disagree so they can argue with them and hope to anger them. A better way would be to inquire about liberals philosophy and then ask questions about it, or point why you disagree.

 

Side convo:
What does it mean to be fiscally conservative? What do you base whether a govt is being fiscally conservative? Do you just look at debt (i.e cash flow)? Debt to GDP ratio (i.e. how many assets are earned for every dollar borrowed)? Inflation? Lastly, do you think that a nations budget is more similar to a citizen or to a corporation?

 

That pre-dates the Republican southern stategy of using race (civil rights legislation) and culture (guns and religion) to lure whites, especially poor whites, to the Republican Party. Poor whites all across the south vote against their own economic interests because of that strategy.

 

Don't forget that two of those issues affect 200 million whites as much as any other race.

 

Crudely put, whites get better gas mileage; professionally and socially, and there seems to be more synergy for them between the two arenas. It's also easier for whites to aspire to success and for leaders to offer them better opportunities, because they can see a younger version of themselves and more clearly visualize their long term growth and development.

 

Race definitely plays a role here.

Whites used to be on the democratic party, but abandoned when? During the civil rights movement. This isn't about socio-economics, it literally is about race.

If blacks average income was $50k, whites would be happy with the gov't providing aid to the poor. It would be the "Christian" thing to do. God's way. But they are black, and therefore lazy, and therefore undeserving of their hard earned cash.

Let's not fool ourselves, America still has a large racist element in it today.

 

More finely I think it was a gradual process that began with Civil Rights but ended with Roe v. Wade; I think the latter was as big a shock for older folks as integration was for Southerners. Reagan has to be credited for positing an alternate to the high tax codes and post-Vietnam military restraint.