> Liberals, and specifically Obama, are openly hostile to one's right to property and the fruits of one's labor. And they're not too keen on the sovereignty of the individual: their right to decide their own values, and act as they deem best to maximize their own values.
I'm sorry, but this is a gross oversimplification. There are those that call themselves liberal but have a point of view exactly as you describe, but there is nothing that requires someone who is liberal to be against property rights and determination in individual's work.
Of course it is, but so is the claim that Conservatives hate the "Column A" civil liberties. For example, despite it seeming to be a core GOP plank, I only know 2 people opposed to gay marriage (one of them my father <sigh>).
So: yes, it's an oversimplification. But part of what I was saying is that when we're stuck with only 2 parties (in practice), and a single "left/right" dimension, then these awful generalizations are all that we have to work with.
I don't think that the two oversimplifications are on the same level. Lots of prominent GOP politicians espouse positions that are very openly against gay marriage (as do some Democrats, unfortunately). But you'd be very hard pressed to find many "liberal" politicians who are against property rights and an individual being allowed to reap the fruits of their labor. Yes, liberals are marginally more likely to see situations where public good might trump these to some extent (e.g. more progressive taxation to pay for a social safety net), but to say that liberals are "against" these things flat out is not accurate.
Finally, the fact that someone else made an oversimplification isn't really a great justification to do it yourself...
the fact that someone else made an oversimplification isn't really a great justification to do it yourself.
That's not what I intended to convey. I'm trying to say that, when you've only got two choices, the resolution of your choices is horrendously coarse. In the end, the system as it exists today forces us to look through lenses that oversimplify like this.
I don't think that the two oversimplifications are on the same level. But you'd be very hard pressed to find many "liberal" politicians who are against property rights.
On the contrary. Most controversially, it seems to me at least that most of the cards that the Democratic party is playing these days are in the "class struggle" suit. Beyond that, though, I'd say that the very fact that you're not noticing it demonstrates how ingrained it has become. For example, consider the way that environmental legislation takes away a person's rights to his property without any compensation[1].
Also, no one has commented on the personal sovereignty aspect of civil liberties. This is the idea that each of us has different priorities, and we should be allowed (without endangering others) to maximize those values. "Nanny state" laws like smoking bans, mandates for motorcycle helmets, and yesterday's calls by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to ban flavored cigars [1] clearly curtail my civil libeties, and it seems to me that these tend to be championed by the left.
[1] I was once advised to chop down a tree on my property because it was expected to show up on the list of endangered species; once it was there, I wouldn't be allowed to do anything to develop my property.
I'm sorry, but this is a gross oversimplification. There are those that call themselves liberal but have a point of view exactly as you describe, but there is nothing that requires someone who is liberal to be against property rights and determination in individual's work.