Certain elements within the Bush Administration may have had advanced knowledge of 9/11 (who was in the building, who wasn't, Saudis in their jets, etc...)

Bush just pretends to be dumb

The 2004 Ohio vote was stolen (I don't know much about this, but I know a lot of people who are convinced it was stolen)

6. Republicans are conservative spenders and control the budget better than others.

7. Republicans have "morals & values".

The Republican Party is committed to the idea of a smaller, less intrusive government.

Many liberals as well as Congressional Democrats believe that high oil/gasoline prices are mainly the result of greedy oil companies and that peak oil and it's ramifications are not that serious an issue.

I am curious if you could be more specific in your wording on #2. Which is the myth:

1. No warming is caused by man
2. Not all observed warming is caused by man
3. Man-made warming will not rise to catastrophic levels justifying costly mitigation efforts, in terms of money and lost freedoms

I agree that 1 is a myth. At this point in the advancement of science, it would be really hard to label #2 or #3 a myth, rather than just a competing hypothesis that is more or less in vogue.

You're spittin' into the wind here, Kevin. I'm not saying, by any means, that liberals are always right about anything, I'm just saying that the whole anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-fact thing is entirely Republican, and that you aren't going to find ANY liberal beliefs to match (2), (3), and (5).

"The only reason the US invaded Iraq was oil."

"Religion has always been a conservative force in American politics."

"Populism is a viable political strategy."

"Gun-owners like guns because they want to kill people."

"'Corporate Interests' can usefully be thought of as a simple, monolithic entity.'"

"Bill Clinton's blow-job was his own private business."

Not so fast on the first Kevin. If you are really going to declare the first a myth, then you are going to have to do more than simply repeat objections to it that many economists already have good answers to. Repeating over and over that sales taxes are regressive is pretty mythical in itself when most economic proponents of such systems have suggested ways to overcome that difficultly directly. If you still have criticisms of those solutions as well, that's great, but simply ignoring them and always starting with the original objection is the intellectual equivalent to arguing that evolution is "just a theory" then having the problem with that claim explained... and then repeating the original claim again five days later.

[trolling deleted]

Coyote, Kevin is simply putting forth different postulates than you. It's not that yours are more "specific," it's just that they are "different." His are of quite adequate specificity to serve as objects of discussion.

There is no such thing as political correctness. It is not a force one needs to worry about. It is used as a charge to cover up racism or sexism.

I think what is laughable about this is the number of liberal professors that still demand tenure. I think it's downright absurd to watch certain professors demand tenure while noisily demanding there is no such thing as political correctness.

"I would like to compile a similar list for liberals/Democrats"

Just call up David Broder, he should be able to give a fellow traveler like you a couple of dozen at least. Sheesh, when does your FOX commentator staus come through?

The answer to ugly free speech is less free speech. Witness the numbers of universities that have implemented absurd speech codes. Witness the cries of troll and concern troll to yell at people who otherwise might be called people that disagree with you.

Coyote: I'm not talking about mitigation efforts. I'm talking about the fact that a considerable cross section of conservatives flatly deny that human activity contributes significantly to global warming, and a smaller but still significant cross section deny that global warming even exists.

Social programs will eventually cure all (or most) of society's ills and inequalities.

Government can legislate racism out of existence.

Everybody should go to college because you're sure to get a good job if you have a degree.

Government can be trusted to control gun ownership, but citizens can't. (I know not all Dems agree with this)

Our oil problems are simply the fault of greedy oil companies who need to be taxed more (not the fault of Peak Oil)

The internal combustion engine can somehow be made to get 100mpg running on gas alone. The reality is that car companies are reduced to making cars out of lighter materials (aluminum instead of steel, plastic instead of aluminum) to squeeze out better MPG.

The feds really, truly balanced the budget in the late 90s (without accounting gimmicks).

Here are my suggestions for the Dems-

1. Bill Clinton's budgetary and economic policies are responsible for the economic prosperity of our nation during his administration.

2. Budget deficits are always bad.

3. Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

4. A Democratic president would not have invaded Iraq. (This one is hypothetical. But Clinton very much wanted to invade Iraq in 1998)

5. Saturated fat is bad for you.

"We can't win elections if we sink to their level."

That people have a right not to be offended. That to even discuss certain topics marks one as a racist, sexist, islamophobe. That to discuss certain topics and disagree with the prevailing sentiment marks one as a racist, sexist, islamophobe.

That regardless of our speech codes, that we on the left are reality-based.

That though we all agree that there is no threat at all in any form whatsoever from Islamists, that we also agree that Christianists are a threat, and that Israel is too. And there are no gray areas about any of this.

Yes, sporadic is on target.

NAFTA, which we disliked in 1992, is really the shizzle in 2008. Free Trade is the only way to go, and Fair Trade is the policy of luddites.

It is craziness to consider returning to the Gold Standard, which we only finally got off in 1972. Questioning our federal reserve system and fiat money marks you as a Ron Paul looney.

Liberal myths? Hmm, I'll bite.

1. Solar power is a viable alternative to oil/coal/nuclear

2. The federal government could run healthcare more efficiently than private organizations (sorry, Kevin)

3. Israel is one of the most oppressive, abusive states on the planet

4. Amnesty and open borders would have no negative consequences

5. The jihadists would leave us alone if only we stopped meddling in the Middle East

1. A steeply progressive income tax will not discourage hard work.

2. Global warming is caused primarily by human activity and humans have to solve it.

3. Intelligent design isn't a viable theory and shouldn't be taught in biology classes.

4. Increasing taxes will not decrease revenues.

5. There is no proff that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11

That was easy!

Liberal myths off the top of my head:

1) Saddam Hussein was contained and not a threat in 2002.

2) Hussein was cooperating with Hans Blix inspectors and was complying with UN resolutions when we invaded.

3) Bush/Cheney cooked the intelligence despite contrary findings by the Silverman/Robb Commission, the 911 Commission, etc., lying us into war.

4) Senators didn't really understand what they were voting for on the AUMF.

5) The threat of global warming justifies compromises by the conservatives on industrial policy and government regulation but not by the left on nuclear power or immigration control.

Um, Speed? Kevin asked for liberal myths, not straw men.

1. Nobody thinks social programs will CURE all social ills. All we can hope for is mitigation.

2. Of course government can't legislate racism out of existence. It can, however, reduce the amount of misery visted on minorities by racist people and institutions.

3. Nobody guarantees a good job for everyone. We can, however, improve the odds.

4. No, I don't trust my neighbor to control gun ownership. I don't know anyone who would think my nighbor should be allowed to have a Howitzer. The debate over gun control isn't binary. It's a matter of degree.

5. Which liberal is denying Peak Oil? Cite, please. The oil companies are also greedy.

6. Which liberals are making that claim? Cite, please.

7. I don't know enough to know about the budget but I suspect it can't be denied that the defict was a good deal less.

number 5 seems like a lazy attempt to add a 5th myth on your part. The first four at least relate to conservative doctrine in one way or another.

White Males in general have shitloads of privilege over EVERYONE else. Or the Gloria Steinem construction: black men have it easier than white women. The truth: the majority of white males are just as fucked as the majority of most people. Few of any of us get to be managers, or elected officials, or rich even. The truth: Gloria Steinem's oped was insane and completely unjust.

Or the feminist blogosphere form: there is no such thing as a false rape charge, and even if there were, compared to the numbers of unreported rapes, there is no reason to consider false allegations of rape or child molesting or domestic violence. Or once again, what Benjamin Franklin said about better 100 guilty men go free than jail one innocent person? It's true for everything except crimes against women. Or unscientifically, we can drive the rate of TYPE II error down without having to worry about increasing TYPE I error.

4) Senators didn't really understand what they were voting for on the AUMF.

That's not really a liberal myth, it's just what Hillary supporters have to say to themselves to rationalize their support for Hillary. Deep down they know better.

Kevin -

Your challenge is clearly not producing anything worthwhile -- the liberals are finding ways to snark at the conservatives (e.g. "The Republican Party is committed to the idea of a smaller, less intrusive government."), and the conservatives are putting words into the mouths of the liberals (e.g. "people have a right not to be offended").

I suggest that you ask a wonky conservative blogger to put the challenge up on his (or her) blog, and see what the blogging community comes up with. Captain Ed, maybe?

Here are some big conservative myths making the rounds today:

The US is a Christian nation.
The US was founded as a Christian nation.
The Founding Fathers were all observant Christians.
George Washington had his own prayerbook.

All of these are demonstrably false, yet all are pushed by the current crop of GOP Presidential candidates.

-Z

Jeez, Kevin should have said that differences of opinion don't count--oh, wait, he did. Speaking as a liberal, I think most of the myths given so far are bogus. Here's my suggestion of one, though:

More restrictive gun laws will reduce gun violence.

Some liberal myths:

1. Conceal/Carry laws make the population less safe.

2. There is no looming Medicare funding crisis.

3. Sarbannes-Oxley makes investing safer

My list is too Iraq-focused. Let me add a couple of alternatives:

a) Combating the perception of corruption justifies eviserating the First Amendment with Campaign Finance Reform, but the perception of corruption does not justify de minimus inconveniences such as providing a photo ID when you go to vote.

b) Every peccedillo and imperfection of Israel is more egregious than any atrocity by the Palestinians or their supporters.

That identity politics is an effective mechanism that leads to a more just society.

The interests of teachers unions never conflict with the interests of students.

This is not the best example because liberals never say this in such a stark form, but sometimes they act as if they believe it.

You forgot one - Voter fraud is a serious problem. Of course, every study says that definitely voter fraud is essentially nonexistent, but that doesn't stop them from claiming otherwise.

1. Eliminating the profit motive in health care can result in universal coverage, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy and other benefits exemplified by the other industrialized countries who have state-run health care.

2. The difference between taxing investment income and salary is tantamount to valuing rich people who don't work for most of their money versus working people who do.

3. Giving tax breaks to corporations that offshore their workforce somehow hurts american workers.

4. Taking our eye off the ball in afghanistan allowed the taliban to regroup.

5. anyone who purposely conflates saddam and al qaeda is pandering to racism since a 12-year-old could tell the difference between a militant secularist like saddam and a born-again like osama.

6. bill clinton didn't invade iraq. he also wasn't president on 9/11.

amazing what some of us believe.

Unlike Conservatives, Liberals believe they are morally required to come up with a list of their own inanities to match a list of Conservative inanities so they can feel superior via their "fairness."

What George said.

Affirmative action does not put white men at a disadvantage.

6. Liberals control the media, and all reporters and pundits are liberals.

Kevin,

This is a fascinating exercise, though not really producing the result you requested. Just about all of these liberal myths are either seriously debatable, actually correct, or simply not something that fits the guidelines of being something that liberals believe (as defined by Kevin—and certainly not in comparison to the examples he provides.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there five. EW does a good job of hitting upon at least two: 1. Conceal/Carry laws make the population less safe. 2. Sarbannes-Oxley makes investing safer. Both of these are, in this simple formulation, untrue, and they are taken as articles of faith among large numbers of liberals.

His other one ("There is no looming Medicare funding crisis") nicely fits with the straw men from everyone else. The fact that there is a Medicare funding crisis is, in fact, the defense that liberals offer for why we don't need to worry about Social Security (and why it's dishonest to lump these together). It's also a huge matter of debate among liberals concerning the prescription drug plan, where Medicare is being prevented from negotiating as a block for these drugs.

So, no. That only counts as a liberal myth in the heads of those who don't spend any time listening to what liberals actually say. If there are any other actual liberal myths, I didn't see them. But this is a really interesting window into the insular world some of these conservatives prefer to occupy.

It seems like the few conservatives who are actually trying to pose legitimate "liberal myths" are confusing "liberal" with "Democrat."

Liberals largely opposed the AUMF on Iraq from day one, and the Democrats like Kerry, Clinton etc. who argued afterwards about it weren't presenting anything close to a "liberal" myth. They weren't even posing a myth- they were just lying.

The only liberal myths I would say I agree with as "myths" are the ones that are presented as over-broad scopes. For example saying that gun ownership is across-the-board wrong, or that there are no problems with unions in any way, etc.

The only one presented here that really is a legitimate liberal myth- in that it's not simple something you think isn't true and is actually something prominent liberals have said- is the idea that a Democratic president would have without a doubt prevented 9/11. It's a shame Kevin only got one good response out of so many comments so far, but I sort of figured this one was going to be massive trollbait.

I'm with bdr and Osama von McIntyre. This is not an exercise to be carried out in the comment threads.

I'm sure there are some, and a few of the examples above are meaningful, but by and large this is producing way more snark than productive discussion.

ooh, ooh, i'll play!

conservative opinion-makers don't really believe the things they say, but are playing to the rubes.

conservative men are all afraid of women, but no liberal men are.

oops, can only come up with two. guess i'm a mealy-mouthed liberal.

your pal,
blake

Kevin, I like reading your writing for it's voice and general intelligence. but if you can't even get behind the idea that "preventive war" is bad, then maybe it's time i stopped reading your site. thanks for a few good years.

How about:
"Studies that compare outcomes of infant and adult mortality and other health care outcomes between nations reflect only the strength/weakness of the healthcare system rather than poverty and distribution of wealth, obesity, drug use, handgun availability, sedentary vs. active lifestyle, genetics."

Democratic Myth: That changes in tax policy, labor laws, or increases in trade protectionism can return the United States to a period of growth in high quality manufacturing jobs.

Republican Myth: That increasing income inequality in the US reflects merely returns to education.

Republican Myth: That the right way to measure tax progressivity in the United States (or the percentage of taxes paid by the rich) is to ignore the federal payroll tax and sales taxes; i.e., that taxes as a whole are far more progressive than they actually are.

Republican Myth: That Giuliani's "public order policing" is the reason that crime fell in New York City (rather than various other factors that caused crime to fall throughout the United States during the same time period).

Shared Democratic and Republican Myth: That farm subsidies protect the American family farming tradition, help consumers, and don't hurt desperately poor farmers in Third World nations (and that ethonol is a cost effective alternative fuel).

"Populism is a viable political strategy."

IF you think this is a "myth," you haven't paid attention to American politics much.

I don't think such a list exists.

Among liberals/democrats, regardless of their other failings, holding a view that is demonstrably false, reasonably consequential, and not a mere difference of opinion is an embarrassment. Such views are regularly debunked within the liberal/democratic community -- epecially by think tanks.

Among conservatives/republicans, holding a view that is demonstrably false is a badge of honor if it advances their political goals. There is little debunking, if any at all, in conservative republican think tanks of any of the idiocies you listed. Their "thinkers" are in fact the source of such nonsense.

MAJOR REPUBLICAN MYTH: Republicans are strong on defense (clearly they are not. cf. 9/11, destruction of the us army in iraq)

... the liberals are finding ways to snark at the conservatives (e.g. "The Republican Party is committed to the idea of a smaller, less intrusive government.")...

Um, my comment was completely devoid of snark. You may not like the fact that government has expanded significantly under a Republican President and (up until 2006, anyway) a Republican Congress, but it has. (Note that the article's subtitle refers to "some" conservatives expressing concern. Not "most" conservatives. Not even "many" conservatives. Certainly not "influential" conservatives.) So while the occasional lonely voice, like that of Mike Pence, might talk about slowing that growth, or even shrinking government spending, the fact is that his Republican colleagues haven't joined him to do anything about it.

(And I'd say that you might not like the fact that the Republican-controlled federal government has, through domestic spying & efforts toward a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage, inserted itself into the private lives of its citizens, but those things don't seem to bother very many Republicans. Funny, that.)

There have been several responses to the effect of there are no liberal myths here except for "my" pet issues. Everyone else are mushy thinkers or trolls.

I am now convinced that us liberals are pretty damned perfect(*).

(*) except for "my" pet issues and the fact we allow too many trolls to live.

Reading these lists makes ink-blot interpretation seem like rigorous analysis. True, some liberals BELIEVE stupid things. Why? Because belief is the underlying predicate. But liberalism itself is much more comfortable with the idea of empiricism, so these errant belief patterns really don't establish themselves as overarching liberal myths. I think this is what Kevin is trying to do here: differentiate the reality-based thinking of liberals from the belief-based thinking on the right.

Maybe I'm wrong. But the generally pathetic examples of liberal "myths" seem to suggest the opposite.

Hmmmmm.... five liberal myths. I don't know if I have five, let's see.

1. Advancing the interests of the NEA necessarily advances the interests of public school students.
2. Social mobility is in decline.
3. Autism is linked to early childhood vaccinations.
4. Rambunctious, aggressive, or trivially violent behavior in little boys should be suppressed (i.e. toy guns, elementary school scuffles, wrestling).
5. Intelligence is not heritable to any significant degree.

Ok, guess I do have five. I believe all 5 of these are demonstrably false.

Blake, you may wish to add this to your list.

But liberalism itself is much more comfortable with the idea of empiricism, so these errant belief patterns really don't establish themselves as overarching liberal myths.

As one potential counter to this is the claim (I don't know if it's true or false) that the majority of MDs and Engineers are conservatives.

1) Fiixing the health care problem can be done with tax cuts, subsidies, and working with the medical industries. That just redistributes wealth.
2) Liberals don't mind a new underclass crossing the borders to pull wages downward.
3) Defunding the Iraq disaster will regain respect in the world, and make America safe once again. It will take a lot more than that.
4) The Clintons are liberal. Give me a break. That's a fairy tale, I tell you!
5) Impeachment sends the wrong message because Republicans won't support it and it will fail. At least people will watch the trial and learn that the Attorney firing scandal is really about election manipulation and is about a lot more than 8 USA's.

Serious straw-manning, here.

All five of these arguably are in/out of Kevin's a, b, c criteria for Dems.

If you all want to have fun with this, go for it. But as an exercise of thoughtful political discussion, it's very tendentious.

Conservative myths off the top of my head:

1) Saddam Hussein was not contained and not a threat in 2002.

2) Hussein was not cooperating with Hans Blix inspectors and was complying with UN resolutions when we invaded.

3) Bush/Cheney did not cooked the intelligence despite contrary findings of Downing Street minuets and all other evidence of selective and arbitrary use of intelligence, lying us into war.

4) Senators didn't really understand that Bush was lying when he said AUMF was a vote for peace so they voted for the AUMF.

5) The threat of global warming justifies no compromises by the conservatives on industrial policy and government regulation or by the left on nuclear power or immigration control.

Mr. Sensitive

I think that the conservatives have actually added to your list Kevin, by bringing up the issue of peak oil. One of the strongest myths among the Republican base for many years has been the belief that oil is not going to peak anytime within the next half-century, and therefore, there is no need to invest in alternative energy solutions.

Progressive/Liberal Myths
- All people want peace, and if we are just willing to sit down and negotiate in good faith, there will be no need for military action

- The only reason a company would try to prevent unionization is because they are run by facists.

- Respectable people do not discuss inherent differences/limitations between classes (BTW, this represents the same fallacy that bigots manifest: that group averages affects individual ability. The truth is the shape and position of a bell curve doesn't really matter to any particular person, only their position on the axis.)

Ok, I'll add a few more key conservative myths to the ongoing list here before I put on my devil's advocate hat here for a minute and think what a relatively reasonable conservative might call "liberal myths":

Other key conservative myths:

-- informing teenagers about sexuality and birth control encourages them to be promiscuous

-- torture is a useful means of intelligence gathering

-- frivolous lawsuits against doctors are the primary reason health care costs so much

Liberal Myths:

-- Poverty is primarily the result of large, structural and societal forces and not just poor decisions by individuals.

-- Labor is a more virtuous good than capital. (Corollary: government ought to work to alleviate poverty rather than protect and encourage wealth)

-- Animals and the environment, along with humans, are worthy of due consideration in public policy decisions impacting land, water and property.

-- Race, sexuality and gender are social constructs forged within relations of power and amenable to change over time, not immutable human traits that we ought to accept as they are.

Liberal myth: Immigration doesn't doesn't weaken labor's position in the U.S. labor market, because immigrants only take jobs that U.S. workers are unwilling to take.

Again, this is a liberal myth rather than a Democratic Party myth.

The myth is believed out in sympathy with immigrants and out of anti-nativism, which is admirable enough, but doesn't make it any less of a myth.

As I understand it, it's fairly well established that immigration does weaken labor at the low end of the income distribution.

Liberal Myths:

1. People are good.

2. Knowledge of the "Other" leads to acceptance of the "Other".

3. Human rights are well-defined and universal.

4. Universal human rights and multiculturalism
are not inherently contradictory.

5. The use of force in international relations is never justified.

6. Economic growth and consumption are bad things.

7. Altruism is a better motivator than profit.

All other liberal/Democrat myths are predicated on their greatest myth of all - government is capable of soving problems.

Republican and Democratic myth: the surge is working

"Surge of More Lies"
By Congressman Robert Wexler
Politics.gather.com

Tuesday 08 January 2008

A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective - to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.

This has not happened.

There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.

Too many Democrats in Congress are again surrendering to General Petraeus and have failed to challenge the Bush Administration's claims that the surge has been successful. In fact - it is just the opposite.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed..."

There's more--worth a read

daniel, you've come close on at least two your five (1 and 3). I'm not exactly sure that your #4 qualifies, or what it would mean for it to be false as opposed to just something you disagree with. However, if you rephrased it to say "banning toy guns will reduce violence" then I think you're on the money. Unfortunately the evidence that economic mobility is declining is very well supported by numerous comparative studies (including those that compare the US today to the past and those comparing the US to other countries). Moreover, since you don't seem to have checked out Cosma Shallzi, let me recommend his blog Three Toed Sloth. He demonstrates at great length what it means for intelligence to be heritable and how weak the arguments made by people like Murray truly are.

I'll echo most of the earlier good-faith suggestions; most of the liberal myths that should be confronted head on generally have to do with our tendency to think we can legislate problems away.

Liberal myths that we should dispense with generally include the idea that prohibitionism is an efective tool for dealing with drugs, prostitution, gambling, guns, etc. Gun control and drug control et al have made the very problems they ostensibly were meant to deal with worse and not better, and we libs seem to have a real blind spot here.

Five liberal myths (not all liberals believe in them, but they are common):

1) Lincoln invaded the South in order to end slavery.

2) Kennedy definetely would not have sent significant ground forces to Vietnam.

3) The fall of South Vietnam was inevitable.

4) Ronald Reagan did not accelerate the collapse of the Soviet Union.

5) Poverty, and not hatred of foreign (U.S.) presence in the Arab Crescent, breeds Islamic terrorism.

All other liberal/Democrat myths are predicated on their greatest myth of all - government is capable of soving problems.
Posted by: Froggy Bottom on January 13, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Ok, I have to call bullshit. I'm deeply sympathetic to the view that public bodies can't solve all problems particularly well, but to say that they can solve no problems at all, let alone well, is simply silly. Off the top of my head, and avoiding areas of major political contention, I'd say that government has provided reasonably good solutions to counting the number of residents of the country, to collecting and disseminating broadly factual data about the state of the economy, to providing access to clean water and working sewage systems, and to making the average person generally secure in their person and property.

On the other hand, government has made an absolute mess on intellectual property laws, on energy policy, and on transportation security (contrast the very visible but utterly ineffectual airport gauntlet with the alarming lack of inspection at our incoming seaports). I'm also inclined to think that our education system would be better were it to be privatized to a greater degree than it is now.

But any suggestion that government can solve no problems at all is as useless as a suggestion that government can solve all problems.

5 Liberal Myths? Can't be done without a lot of straw.

Here are five conservative myths off the top of my head:

1. Gay marriage is/would be destructive to society.

2. Ronald Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.

3. The Arab/Muslim world hates/dislikes the U.S. and Israel for no rational reason (the U.S. is hated for its "freedom," according to this myth, while Israel is hated just because Arabs/Muslims are anti-Semitic).

4. U.S. foreign policy has always been about promoting democracy and freedom.

5. The U.S. deserves most of the credit for winning WWII.

All of these are false, and all are accepted in conservative circles as gospel.

Rich C writes:

He demonstrates at great length what it means for intelligence to be heritable and how weak the arguments made by people like Murray truly are.

Oh, I'm in complete agreement as to the weakness of Murray's case (and I actually took the time to read the Bell Curve--too bad I can't have those hours back). I just don't believe that intellectual capability is wholly environmental. Smarter people, on average, have smarter kids. Not all smart people have smart kids, and not all smart people had smart parents, but that's still the most likely case.

Of course in the real world hard work ends up counting for a whole lot more than raw intellectual horsepower, and work ethic is entirely environmental.

Jesus Kevin you sure turned over some rocks here today and what came out would scare a 340 pound pro fgootball lineman.

This thread is a cesspool.

As has been stated earlier, there are a few worthwhile nominations,. Mostly the ones centered around an abundance of faith in the power of legislation.

It's a shame the vast majority are some combination of incorrect, opinion and strawman.

I've been in cesspools, and this thread is not a cesspool.

To me, the granddaddy of conservative myths is

The wealthiest Americans are the most productive Americans.

A lot of conservative economic policy derives from this.

5 "liberal" myths:

1) Al Gore lost in 2000 because of Ralph Nader.

2) John Kerry lost in 2004 because he didn't respond to the Swift Boat veterans.

3) The Democrats are left of centre.

4) Things would have been different if Robert F. Kennedy had been President.

5) "Left-wing" and "Right-wing" are descriptive statements.

Hmmm..off the top of my head...

Gun control is the biggie, I think, that by lowering the number of guns you lower violent crime. Crime is largely driven by motives, not by availability.

There are a bunch of misconceptions that both sides have..that are accepted conventional wisdom, so to speak.

That poverty is NOT structural, that it can be fixed through individual band-aids. (It can't. The structure is that there are less jobs than workers, and due to that a significant number of jobs pay below the poverty line. You can give everybody a college education, but someone is going to have to be the janitor, someone is going to have to lip the burgers, someone is going to have to work retail, etc.)

That shareholders are speshul snowflakes who deserve our utmost protection.

That stock market investment is actually investment in terms of wider economic benefits.

That inflation is caused on the demand side having more resources. With the exception of scarcity, it's caused by the supply side demanding higher profit levels.

Karmakin>>Gun control is the biggie, I think, that by lowering the number of guns you lower violent crime. Crime is largely driven by motives, not by availability.

Have to disagree. Most crimes are crimes of passion or crime of opportunity. Easy access to guns increase the likelihood for a domestic argument or a drunken brawl to turn into a gun incident. Look at the Wild West states -- they are strongly anti gun control but even they make it illegal to walk around with a .357 hanging off your belt.

I agree that for the most part, there simply are no liberal myths that are demonstrably false but are perpetuated within the liberal community anyway. It's against the nature of liberalism, which is built upon a tradition of secular observation rather than proud reliance on faith. If I was to come up with anything, it would be this:

-People will vote in their own self-interests.

-The American people are inherently good and will do the right thing so long as the issues are explained to them properly.

7. The Gold Standard was teh awesome.

All other liberal/Democrat myths are predicated on their greatest myth of all - government is capable of soving problems. Froggy Bottom

That's only a myth during times when republicans are in power.

I can think of only one at the moment...a bumper sticker on cars of a not too small subsection of Democrats and/or liberals... though it fails the the last 2/3 of the restriction set out in your "(b) held by a nontrivial cross-section of actual politicians, think-tankers, and pundits" (partly because the situation with liberal/Democratic think-tanks and pundits is so ridiculously sad...).

Anyway, back on topic, it is: "War is never the answer".

My opinion is that a true and perhaps more effective statement to make would be: "War is too easy an answer."

-brendan

1. There are no safe ways to store the waste from nuclear power.

2. The poor in the US have it just as bad as the poor in the developing world

3. The American people are too racist and sexist to elect a black or female president

4. Europe is a bastion of progressivism

5. The US is losing massive numbers of jobs due to outsourcing

In the end, though, we still have a much better grip on reality than conservatives do...

Number One Liberal Myth- making pot illegal is, on the balance, a good idea. Our legislators can't even bring themselves to talk about this, in spite of the fact that every major commission that has ever studied this matter has concluded that making marijuana illegal causes more problems than it solves.

Number Two Liberal Myth- We can go on merrily spending $400 billion a year on the military because (choose one or all) it's only x percent of our GDP, we are the sole remaining superpower (world policeman, Great White Bwana Hunter, last hope for Western Civilisation, object of veneration for cargo cults worldwide), we have an "obligation" (White Man's Burden theory), and, last but not least, earmarked appropriations return Democratic congressmen and simply redistribute the wealth into different congressional districts.

Myth Number Three- the social welfare agencies do not generally act as Stanley Milgram would have predicted.

Believing these myths means that liberals watch black people get thrown in jail at rates 3-4 times as great as whites, get stripped of the vote, and have fatherless families. Our military, with their 600 foreign bases, pretty much runs American foreign policy. And very few people who actually have to use the welfare system are shouting hosannahs to the Dems for providing it.

Myths accepted by (some) liberals? Most of the liberal "myths" are milder versions of conservative memes. They're harder to name than intelligent design and tax cuts solve all problems, but it's worth a try:

1. "Life" begins with conception.
2. The Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks.
3. Religious people have higher moral standards.
4. America is not ready for a woman president (but a "non-threatening" black man just might make it).
5. Republicans take it too far, but curbing civil liberties does make us safer.
6. The Iraq war is all about oil.

Oh, and for matthewcc, I kept this nugget regarding the OHIO vote in 2004 when it came out in 2007:

Check the government’s official numbers in Ohio for the 2004 presidential election:
“Spoiled” ballots 103,660
Provisional uncounted 33,998
Absentee uncounted 15,519
Ghost & blocked votes 85,950

Total Uncounted 239,127

Bush ‘victory’ margin 118,599

source: Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets &Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild By Greg Palast

Liberal myths (held by many liberals, but obviously not all):

1) Think globally, act locally.

This is not exactly a myth, but a piece of advice on many a liberal bumper sticker that is followed about as stringently as the Golden Rule or the words of Jesus. In other words, only when it's convenient.

Also, there is a strong relationship to this idea and the conservative principle of subsidiarity. Authority AND accountability work best on the ground at the local level. A quick look at the efficiency of any bureaucracy (corporate or governmental) should demonstrate that mandates from central command have a way of creating unintended consequence. Rules work best when they are simple, clear and can be complied with in a number of ways.

2) If you give citizens the right to carry weapons, the streets will turn into shooting galleries

Sorry, not supported by available facts. Things could change of course, but the "fact based" community should be a little more consistent when discussing gun control. The fact that guns are associated with violent crimes doesn't automatically mean that restricting access to guns will solve the problem of violence. That should be self evident.

However, I'll have to ding conservatives for inconsistently applying their control and free market arguments to torts. In simple terms:

Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people.

and

In a free market, shouldn't you be able to spend your hard won cash on the best justice money can buy?

3) Science is free of bias

This is perhaps not fair to pin on liberals, but there is way too much trust in the neutrality or objectivity of the practitioners of what we know as science. I am a scientist by training and we are all taught to worship at the altar of the scientific method -- that is until we develop a "theory" that purports to explain some complex phenomenon. Then, no matter how hard we try, it's just too tempting to ignore bits of data here and there that don't conform to our expectations. Sometimes there are BIG bits of data that get rationalized out of sample sets. Of course, the motives aren't always intellectual vanity. The pressure to keep one's job also comes into play.

I guess what I'm saying is that if liberals believe that corporations pay off scientists to fudge, they need to be aware that there are other motives for fudging that might come into play for their own favorite theories.

Evolution, however, is not debatable by any sane person with even a modicum of sense. I've never seen an argument for an intelligent designer that isn't easily refuted.

4) The earth is in perfect ecological balance, humans are upsetting that balance

This is the liberal version of creationism. There is not such thing as "balance of nature" or "unnatural" human activity. These terms both require a human choice to value one thing over another. Sure, there are compelling reasons to preserve species diversity, but mass extinctions have occurred before and they will occur again. Catastrophic geophysical events occur. A given ecological system has several possible equilibrium points, but there is no ideal state without bringing in human preference. Even if there were, it could not be sustained indefinitely.

Of course, the idea of continuous and unlimited economic growth is equally suspect. Same principle really. We project a human consciousness on the invisible hand and figure the market will magically produce results to maximize benefit for all actors if we just get out of the way. Sorry, the facts on the ground don't support that.

I guess I'm finding it difficult to separate conservative from liberal myths since they both spring from the same sources:

1) Attribution bias concerning things of emotional significance (God, ecological balance, the positive power of government, the free market, etc.)

2) Absolute avoidance of math and statistics that contradict the favored hypothesis or principle.

3) Putting way too much faith in "elegant" models of closed systems. Our reality is an open system, and will never match the theory. We need to demote theories from their pedestal and get back to a healthy dose of empiricism. If either a conservative or liberal wants to be "progressive," they need to begin with the assumption that they may be wrong and really understand what set of facts would disprove their pet theories and seek those out with religious fervor.

Of course, that'll never happen.

4) Cult of personality over cult of process. We like to believe things happen because of individuals -- heroes and heroines. We also prefer the hail Mary pass to winning with a boring, but consistent ground game. It's hard to inspire either a liberal or conservative with competence. Pulling your ass out of a crack that was the result of prior bad choices gets more favorable press than never fucking up in the first place.

Eh... now I'm depressed.

I agree that for the most part, there simply are no liberal myths that are demonstrably false but are perpetuated within the liberal community anyway.

Exactly. Once again, it's not because democrats/liberals are smarter, it's because there is a very strong tradition among them that prevents views that are inconsistent with the data from becoming mainstream. There can be wide and vigorous disagreement on value judgements, or disagreement in cases where data analyses greatly conflict, but when the data are clear, or there is reasonable scientific consensus, there is extremely strong pressure to accept the facts.

Indeed, one of the most embarrassing things that can happen to a democrat running for office is to be confronted with data showing him/her to be wrong on the merits.

The problem with this whole discussion, however, is that none of the important issues on which leaders must take a stand -- in particular, those assessing the cause of human behavior, or the probable effects of a particular policy on that behavior -- can be shown empirically to be true or false. In practice, unlike the physical sciences where a true experiment can be conducted, nonexperimental social science findings are always subject to what are called "model effects" and data are never sufficient to control for all causative factors.

At best, even in cases where theoretically the issue should be subject to empirical proof or disproof, it never really is. So, it's usually a "preponderance of evidence" issue, never a simple true or false proposition. And dems/liberals are much more willing than repubs/conservatives to go with a preponderance of evidence, even if the conclusion cuts against their "beliefs."

While I don't think Kevin meant this to be a question about the limits of the scientific methods as applied to politics, that's exactly what it is. Put another way, in the social and political sciences, proving empirically that a view is indeed a myth is extremely difficult.

One thing that breaks my liberal heart is that massive incarceration of segments of the population probably does reduce crime. It's unjust, inefficient and pleases mouth-breathing conservatives but it seems to work. I'm not in favor of it, but it is effective.
Other Liberal Myths
If we only ask them nicely enough, Conservatives will argue in good faith.
Conservatives think for themselves and don't merely regurgitate 20 year old talking points. ( I mean really guys, Campus Speech Codes? Political Correctness? It's not 1985 anymore.)
If portions of the population don't respond to a reasoned argument, it's because we liberals are doing it wrong. Maybe we should smile more or go to church more or something.
Nationalism or appeals to blood and soil don't have any appeal in the U.S.
Conservatives are as thoughtful as Liberals.
If we keep trying, Jonah Goldberg will eventually see the error of his ways.

a) The death penalty isn't a deterrent.
b) If it weren't for the special interests we would have acted to stop global warming already.
c) Illegal immigration is a benefit to the economy.
d) Racism is mostly a problem of the South.
e) Republicans didn't really care about Clinton's bimbo eruptions -- they just used the scandal(s) to gain power.

"4) The earth is in perfect ecological balance, humans are upsetting that balance

This is the liberal version of creationism. There is not such thing as "balance of nature" or "unnatural" human activity. These terms both require a human choice to value one thing over another. Sure, there are compelling reasons to preserve species diversity, but mass extinctions have occurred before and they will occur again. Catastrophic geophysical events occur. A given ecological system has several possible equilibrium points, but there is no ideal state without bringing in human preference. Even if there were, it could not be sustained indefinitely."

Thank you -- this one doesn't get enough attention.

Liberal myths:

1) Wal-Mart is bad
2) Trade barriers will increase wages/prosperity
3) It's good to limit how much money Americans may contribute to political campaigns
4) School choice is a non-progressive idea
5) It is better to eat food produced locally

Conservative myths:

1) Reagan was the prime mover in ending/winning the Cold War
2) Immigration makes it likely that Mexico will someday try to take back the Southwest
3) A robust, well-funded safety net means a weak, underperforming economy
4) America enjoys above average social mobility
5) Better and more robust firearms regulations will not help to lower the murder rate

I feel like I am in the Bermuda Triangle; my political compass is spinning and I can’t seem to get my bearing. This should be called popular myths and strawmen.

My chief complaint is the suggestion that there is some equivalence of lunacy and delusion. This is just untrue. There is no middle ground on man-made global warming and evolution. They are as established as fact as anything in science. The political fate of these facts is something altogether different.

This type of comparison misses the importance of right-wing orthodoxy- religious, nationalist, or economic- in the US. In light of these orthodoxies British Tories or German Christian Democrats are hard leftists. Parity would mean an outright condemnation on the left of market economics in favor of a Kibbutzim movement; it would embrace radical pacifism and radical atheism. Nothing like this exists in the US. Instead the “left” is made up of people who oppose the orthodoxies of the right.

Sporadic: I'll sign off on the first four. NO. 5 is a sign of alt-medicine gone bad.

Thersites, et al... most "liberals" aren't talking about Peak Oil, and yes, Democratic Congressmen have held "Big Oil" hearings in the past. Call it a liberal half-myth, at least.

Oh, Sarbanes-Oxley bashers... at least spell Sarbanes' name right.

Lobbygow... no, science isn't perfect, but the myth of "scientism" pretty much is exactly that.

A 30% national sales tax is a workable substitute for all income and payroll taxes in the United States.

is that held by a non-trivial fraction of conservatives? The closest, not widely held, conservative alternative is a flat income tax with a large personal deduction.

A big thanks going out to Al for his self-censorship efforts the past few days.

Indeed, one of the most embarrassing things that can happen to a democrat running for office is to be confronted with data showing him/her to be wrong on the merits.

Wow. You clearly have much more honest and much worse at politics Democratic politicians than the ones I have.

Regarding there being no "balance of nature". This is clearly true in the very short run, where we witness tornados and earthquakes and tsunamis. And it's clearly true in the long run where we move from gaseous planet to homosapiens. Clearly evolution kinda sortof implies there is no such thing as a natural balance in the evolutionary time frame.

But in the medium run? I'll have to look at those predator prey models and get back to you.

I find it intriguing how many of us liberals seem to believe a) intelligence is not inherited and b) liberals are so much smarter than conservatives.

I've met some really stupid liberals and some very smart conservatives. And I've seen some really stupid, corrupt, manipulative, ambitious, venal, lying sneaky Democratic politicians.

I have to admit, I think my shit smells pretty bad. I don't think I am the only Democrat or liberal with stinky shit. I don't put too much credibility into statements that our shit don't stink. Especially when they are in close proximity to statements on how empirical we are.

Maybe I just want to deny that I am the only liberal whose ass smells like ass. Congrats to the rest of you.

Liberal myths:

1. campaign finance reform has reduced the role of money in politics, and more reform would work even better.

2. Clarence Thomas' opinions are mostly if not all badly written.

3. that liberals believe that humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas have all evolved from a common family of anscestors by a process of random variation and natural selection. {that is to say, it is a myth among liberals that there are any liberals who believe this. What they like about the theory of evolution is principally its anti-Christian implications. }

4. that unions promote progressive policies.

5. that the government can actually identify and prohibit hate speech.

6. that ecologies are well designed to function optimally. {that is, liberals believe that organs are not intelligently designed, but that ecologies are.}

7. that violent action against the U.S. (and other liberal countries) is motivated by U.S. injustice toward others.

There is no middle ground on man-made global warming and evolution.

Not for me either -- as a value judgment or as a preponderance of evidence issue.

But, it is simply not possible to show empirically that a belief that humans are not causing global warming or a belief that we did not descend from apes are myths -- if myth is defined as "demonstrably false".

Not to turn this into another one of these threads, but seems that there is a consensus that gun control is the biggie (no wonder it's way down on the list on the Dem platform anymore)...so here goes:

Have to disagree. Most crimes are crimes of passion or crime of opportunity. Easy access to guns increase the likelihood for a domestic argument or a drunken brawl to turn into a gun incident.
Crime does require motive, means, and opportunity...but what constitutes "easy access"? People who have the mindset to use deadly force in domestic abuse or bar brawl situations aren't typically of the mindset to be dissuaded from gun possession by laws forbidding it. Even the most lenient states don't legally permit drunks and drinkers to carry when getting their load on. Even when discussing the home environment...murderous domestic abusers will generally find other means to behave in a lethal fashion. In any event...even if we're to posit that you're right that having a gun around is going to increase such violence, the original poster's comment still rings true--it still doesn't follow that trying to lower gun ownership rates will result in less violence. Even if you're right...the "less easy access" fantasy world you're thinking would be less violent isn't going to come about through legislation and gun control. Even if we concede your premise, it just doesn't follow that stricter gun control results in less violence. If that were the case, Baltimore and DC would be really safe and Vermont would be violent as hell (anyone can carry, no permit required). Obviously crime and violence are the results of cultural and socioeconomic factors and not gun ownership per se.

Look at the Wild West states -- they are strongly anti gun control but even they make it illegal to walk around with a .357 hanging off your belt.

Uhm...which states are those? Only a few states anymore don't permit qualified law abiding citizens to carry (and most of them permit open carry). None of the states that refuse issue permits on a shall issue basis (MD, NJ, NY, CA, CT, MA) are "Wild West" states. I dunno what you think of as "Wild West", but in AZ, NM, UT, etc...actually, you certainly can carry a .357 on your belt. What's wrong with that? It's not people in the "wild west" that are killing each other, for the most part.

That said...I'd argue that as a community activist trying to clean up my east coast urban blight neighborhood...I need to be afforded the ability to protect myself way more than somebody in WY or MT.

"4. Europe is a bastion of progressivism"

This is a really good start, europe and canada both have complex policies and government systems, and liberals in the US tend to assume both they both match liberalism in the US and that their policies can be moved into the US context without much difficulty. Health care in canada is a prime example - Their system is better than ours, but that doesn't mean that we can copy it with the same success.

liberals in the US tend to assume both they both match liberalism in the US and that their policies can be moved into the US context without much difficulty.

Here here. The corollary being one of my favorite conservative myths--that as a lefty my ulterior motive is making the US "Europe West". Somewhere in there lies the root of the liberals-aren't-patriotic-like-we-are myth.

that ecologies are well designed to function optimally.
Some version of this keeps coming up, and it sounds equally stupid each time. Please show us any example of any liberal anywhere who thinks this.

Hint: suggesting that we quit fucking up the planet doesn't equate to a belief that ecologies have "optimal functionality".

1. Liberals control the media

2. America is always right, unless the liberals are in charge, then it's almost always wrong

3. Federalism is good, unless it gets in the way of federal presidential power and moral initiatives.

All good conservatives and liberals agree on the following truths, sorry,I mean myths:

1. The US runs the world
2. God gave us this right
3. The US can do no wrong
4. The US brings freedom and justice to everyone
5. Money talks

4. Presidential power should be expanded, except when a liberal is president.

5. The Constitution should be interpreted strictly, unless it shouldn't be for other reasons.

Why are you wasting your time with a liberal list? There is no liberal list of myths that compares at all to the doozies you complied in the post and other commenters have suggested. So knock of the stupid false balance stuff. You aiming for a gig with the corporate media? Forget it. The request for a list of iiberal myhts is stupid.

Well, let's see what kind of junky bogus 'liberal list' you come up with. I predict it will not stand up to scrutiny. The dead-end idiological list of litmus tests comprised of demonstrably false propositions is unique in modern US politics. I think that can be demonstrated.

6. Science sucks, but God is great.

The best thing about this thread is the insights it gives into how little the wingnuts (at least the ones who post here) understand about liberals. And about other countries. And about history. And about science. And ...

Here's a choice bit of nonsense:

3. that liberals believe that humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas have all evolved from a common family of anscestors by a process of random variation and natural selection. {that is to say, it is a myth among liberals that there are any liberals who believe this. What they like about the theory of evolution is principally its anti-Christian implications. }

It would be hilarious, if not for the thought that somewhere out there is a person with the sort of diseased brain required to believe such a thing, and then it seems almost cruel to laugh at them.

6. that ecologies are well designed to function optimally. {that is, liberals believe that organs are not intelligently designed, but that ecologies are.}

Someone else already commented on this o