Strong is wrong

My hypothesis is that there is a core belief system that underlies these "—opias" that afflict so many Democrats. I call it "Strong is wrong."  Its credo:

"The weak are good, and by definition have been victimized by the strong, who are therefore bad."

Many Democrats I know, for example, are alsmost totally unable to criticize any act of wrong—doing by someone that they regard as being disadvantaged, regardless how execrable the deed might be.  For example a bank robber who happens to be a member of a minority is considered "technically" guilty, but regarded as a social victim that should be treated compassionately.  Any statement critical of their deeds must be offset by an exculpatory reference to their disadvantaged status.  In many cases this extends not only to minorities, but even to all women, as long as they are non—conservative and non—Christian, of course.

These folks are also absolutely unable to find anything positive to say about persons or organizations that are conventionally perceived as strong, such as the police, the US military, doctors, large successful companies, etc.  Any praiseworthy fact that they are forced to acknowledge must be offset by reference to a "larger truth" that is fundamentally critical. 

Example: The Navy aided thousands after the tsunami: but it took them 3 days to get there, so they couldn't help everyone, and they are actually part of a propaganda effort trying to make the US look good, which is fundamentally not true, and therefore wrong.  Follow that?

In contrast, Canada was modest enough to do absolutely nothing of consequence as a country.  Canada, you see, is the very model of a "good" country: relatively weak and largely ineffectual, Canada almost oozes goodness.  Ask practically any Canadian, and they will tell you (and tell you, and tell you).

I believe that many liberally—educated people hold this basic belief system, and most of them quite consciously.  The belief that "strong is wrong" is probably the result of a life that has never included any real threat or substantial hardship, since denial of the existence of actual evil seems to be a requirement for membership (the suicide bomber is not evil, just misunderstood and frustrated).

Never having experienced a real threat to their personal security, they have also never had the experience of being grateful for the intervention of powerful protective forces, either.  They have never met any of those 'rough men' who let them sleep safely in their beds at night!  They are classic liberals — unmugged and unafraid: both, unknown to them, totally by dumb luck.

Dave in Seattle

My hypothesis is that there is a core belief system that underlies these "—opias" that afflict so many Democrats. I call it "Strong is wrong."  Its credo:

"The weak are good, and by definition have been victimized by the strong, who are therefore bad."

Many Democrats I know, for example, are alsmost totally unable to criticize any act of wrong—doing by someone that they regard as being disadvantaged, regardless how execrable the deed might be.  For example a bank robber who happens to be a member of a minority is considered "technically" guilty, but regarded as a social victim that should be treated compassionately.  Any statement critical of their deeds must be offset by an exculpatory reference to their disadvantaged status.  In many cases this extends not only to minorities, but even to all women, as long as they are non—conservative and non—Christian, of course.

These folks are also absolutely unable to find anything positive to say about persons or organizations that are conventionally perceived as strong, such as the police, the US military, doctors, large successful companies, etc.  Any praiseworthy fact that they are forced to acknowledge must be offset by reference to a "larger truth" that is fundamentally critical. 

Example: The Navy aided thousands after the tsunami: but it took them 3 days to get there, so they couldn't help everyone, and they are actually part of a propaganda effort trying to make the US look good, which is fundamentally not true, and therefore wrong.  Follow that?

In contrast, Canada was modest enough to do absolutely nothing of consequence as a country.  Canada, you see, is the very model of a "good" country: relatively weak and largely ineffectual, Canada almost oozes goodness.  Ask practically any Canadian, and they will tell you (and tell you, and tell you).

I believe that many liberally—educated people hold this basic belief system, and most of them quite consciously.  The belief that "strong is wrong" is probably the result of a life that has never included any real threat or substantial hardship, since denial of the existence of actual evil seems to be a requirement for membership (the suicide bomber is not evil, just misunderstood and frustrated).

Never having experienced a real threat to their personal security, they have also never had the experience of being grateful for the intervention of powerful protective forces, either.  They have never met any of those 'rough men' who let them sleep safely in their beds at night!  They are classic liberals — unmugged and unafraid: both, unknown to them, totally by dumb luck.

Dave in Seattle