What makes liberals so hostile?

Thomas-W-Kamarck

Thomas-W-Kamarck

Thomas Kamarck

In a search for answers on Thomas Karmarck’s motives for targeting immigration reform supporters with abusive human subject research, and how it is possible for so many people to be involved. My exploration began with the curious use of the word ‘hostile’ to refer to describe research subjects being tormented with daily harassment. As first glance most people would perceive that it’s actually the researcher who is hostile in this exchange. But through the eyes of the enlightened quite the opposite is true.

Of course, if researchers are going to do something like this they are not going to select from their friends. One of the characteristics they are selecting for is people who support immigration reform (see To die for – the politics of ‘hostility’ in behavioral science).

But why are liberal researchers so hell bent on preventing immigration reform? What’s with all the coercive community psychology? Aren’t liberals suppose to be the ‘nice’ guys who believe in live and let live? What changed? What made liberals angry and hostile?

In well known case of happy go lucky gone hostile, a recent television documentary on the life of Steve Jobs described how he was forced out of Apple in ways that were so demoralizing and upsetting that he sold all his stock. By all accounts though Jobs was adored by the masses but in person was difficult to work with. Was he so enamored with himself that he couldn’t self-reflect or seek leadership advise even when things had reached a critical stage? When he returned years later to save the company from near collapse he’s described as being a very different man, no more Mr Nice Guy, he became a highly aggressive competitor.


Elaine Kamarck

Elaine Kamarck

Elaine Kamarck

Democrats were similarly humiliated by the Clinton health care initiative. In a Third Way report, Elaine Kamarck, a lecturer in public policy blames the administration’s ignoring of a strategy that called for the need to first restore the public’s trust in government. They were humiliated again with the country voting in a Republican Senate. But never-the-less Clinton got things done, most notably eliminating a trillion dollar deficit and improving environmental protections. We were once again admired globally. However, more humiliation came when instead of rewarding the Democrats for these fine achievements, the country voted in a Republican. The most often cited reason was ‘values’, but Gore didn’t have an affair, why punish him? It was as if the country was biting off it’s nose to spite it’s face. Why was the country so angry?

The liberal news media presumed the values issue was Clinton’s extra-marital relations. Did they presume wrong? After all, in Clinton’s darkest hour in the media spotlight, he had 70% approval ratings. When Gore was running for election the major moral issue of the day was gay marriage. While the Republicans, seeing the writing on the wall, clicked their heals with glee, my gay friends were pushing hard on the gay marriage issue but when I pointed out how much was at stake, the response was, “What’s right is right.” Well, I don’t think holding the country hostage is right especially on an issue they could easily have compromised on with the baby step of domestic partnership. There was also the issue that gays had chosen to side-step the political process and public consensus by instead going through the courts. People don’t like being manipulated, it makes them angry.

The Third Way report  ‘Change You Can Believe In Needs a Government You Can Trust,’ reads like the manifesto of an embittered flower children. Spelling out the need to pursue an explicit trust strategy in order to pass the most far-reaching parts of the Obama agenda. “Trust shapes the limits of political possibilities.”

  • We must put security first and focus on fighting the gravest threats and forestalling potential dangers—especially terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
  • We must discard comforting illusions. The United States should always be moving forward toward a goal of stability, liberty and prosperity for all, but we must take our bearings from the world as it is, not as we wish it might be someday.
  • We must balance our ends and means; we must match our commitments with resources, with an ample reserve for the unexpected.
  • We must reinforce existing international alliances and institutions—and when necessary create new ones—to strengthen our hand against our adversaries and create new opportunities with our friends.
  • We must exploit all our advantages—economic, cultural and moral as well as military—in the struggle against our enemies and rivals and the pursuit of friends and allies.
  • We must use negotiations—even with regimes whose principles and policies we rightly detest—to advance our national interest and to increase the legitimacy of steps we may be compelled to take if diplomacy fails.
  • We must rejoin the battles of ideas—to convince our friends that our cause is necessary and just, and also to persuade the undecided to choose the path of moderation and tolerance.
  • We must do what we can to advance democracy, because a democratic world would be a more decent and more peaceful world. But we cannot advance democracy everywhere, and we cannot expect to create it by force anywhere.

 “…America will continue to be number one, but even so, in this global information age, number one ain’t gonna be what it used to be.” — Joseph S. Nye, Jr., The Paradox of American Power

(see Security First: A Strategy for Defending America, Third Way, 2007. With Kamarck and Galston http://content.thirdway.org/publications/71/Third_Way_Report_-_Security_First_-_A_Strategy_for_Defending_America.pdf)

As for the issue of immigration it appears to be a golden chip in Democratic have put much of their own trust into. The Daily Beast reported in 1999 on the Buddhist Temple fundraiser story that came to light when a misfiled letter was discovered in which Kamarck appeared to have played a role in ensuring special treatment for a large contributor that was faxed to the Immigration and Naturalization Service with a note reading, “Please have the right people get in touch” with the temple’s immigration consultant immigration consultant Maria Hsia. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1999/12/19/more-temple-trouble-for-al.html


2. Lynn Olson, PhD Sociology - gas-lighting somber

Lynn Olson, PhD Sociology – gas-lighting somber

Lynn Olson (nee Kamarck?)

Well, what can be said about the touching devotion of a woman who travels half way across the country to follow me around in a RV with carcass box bolted to the back and likely a loaded syringe in her holster. Xtasca RV, Idaho plate K 10931 M.

Police would not respond in Bellevue, WA. When they refused to take reports, I mailed 28 of my own reports. When I’ve pushed to speak with Chief Pillo to find out why they wouldn’t investigate an  involuntary commitment case worker from Public Health was sent to my door. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnqjsQvnyrU

POLICE REPORT Carcass Box


Advertisements
This entry was posted in 7 - Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to What makes liberals so hostile?

  1. Pingback: In Cooper's Own Words - Let's Discuss | In Cooper's Own Words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s