logo
Why are liberals so scary?

Why are liberals so scary?

Yahoo20-05-2025
MANCHESTER, ENGLAND - : Bruce Springsteen performs during the first night of his "The Land of Hopes and Dreams" tour at Co-op Live on May 14, 2025 in Manchester, England. (Photo by)
We've all heard about the nine Republican state Senators who decided they were going to start voting their conscience, only to be censured by their own party. As if they would somehow become contagious.
This series of events reminded me of something I've been wondering about, which is: Why it has become so fashionable to present 'liberals' as if we are dangerous, scary people. It is now one of those labels that Republicans throw around in order to discredit a person's character. It showed up on every other flyer that I received during the last election cycle. And of course it's one of those terms, for example 'communist,' that most people probably wouldn't be able to define if you asked them, even liberals themselves.
So I thought about the qualities that most of my friends have in common. And the top thing on that list would probably be curiosity. I hang out with people who always want to learn more, whether it's about you, or about the history of the region where they live, or about whatever hobby they're interested in. And of course that also means that they are readers. Because what is the best way to learn?
Another thing that most of my friends have in common is that they love people. They love meeting new people, they like to be in small groups where they can have discussions. They like to connect. And they like to help. I feel fortunate to know so many people who believe that helping others helps them become better people. And it also helps make the world a better place.
So far, I'm not seeing a lot to be scared of. But let's keep looking.
Most of my friends love the arts. They love how music and films and dance and visual arts force them to look at things a little differently. They love how songs and movies make them feel something, whether it's warm or frightening or confusing or ecstatic, the arts bring strong emotional responses into our lives in a way that is always unpredictable and surprising.
Most of my friends also love to be outside. They love what the earth has to offer. They like the challenge of a long bike ride, or a hike into the mountains. They like to hunt and fish, or float one of the incredible rivers that flow through our beautiful state. They value having access to the best that Montana has to offer.
A few days ago, Bruce Springsteen, who is only three years younger than Trump but looks at least 10 years younger, opened his latest tour in Manchester, England by sitting down at the front of the stage and delivering a calm, measured criticism of the current president. He didn't make anything up or call him a bunch of juvenile names. He didn't threaten him. He just laid out his opinion of the man's actions in a way that was thoughtful and most importantly, factual. Here's how he opened his speech, and it's pretty brilliant:
'In America, my home, they're persecuting people for their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. That's happening now. In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world's poorest children to sickness and death. That's happening now. In my country, they're taking sadistic pleasure in the pain they inflict on loyal American workers. They're rolling back historic civil rights legislation that led to a more just society. They're abandoning our great allies and siding with dictators against those who are struggling for their freedom. That's happening now. They are defunding American universities that won't bow down to their ideological demands. And they are removing residents off American streets without due process of law and deploying them to foreign detention centers and prisons. That's happening now.'
So maybe that's it. It's the honesty.
Most of my friends have never been convicted of a felony. Most of them have never been accused of rape, especially by multiple sources. Most of my friends wouldn't think of referring to another country as a 'sh–hole country.' They wouldn't think to lump an entire race of people into one group and make sweeping generalizations about those people. Most of my wealthy friends wouldn't think of rubbing their wealth in your face, or bragging about the fact that they don't pay taxes, because they do. Most of them wouldn't brag about going into the dressing room of a bunch of teenage girls while they're getting ready for a pageant.
Most of my friends wouldn't encourage people to beat the crap out of other people. Most of them wouldn't make up lies on the spot just to make others look bad because they got their feelings hurt.
So the only thing that I can think of that makes liberals scary is that they try like hell to be honest, and if there's one thing that scares Republicans at this moment in time, it's the truth. Springsteen is fortunate to be huge enough that he can lose a huge chunk of his fan base without worrying about his career going off the rails.
But of course that doesn't stop Donald Trump from trying his damnedest to discredit the man. And among other things, that means hitting him over the head with the dreaded 'liberal' label. It didn't stop Springsteen from doing the same thing at his next few stops, to the dismay of many of his long-term fans, and as someone so accurately pointed out, have they not been paying attention to what this man has stood for from the beginning?
The saddest part about Trump's tantrums is how utterly childish they are. He always resorts to the most basic insults, saying he never liked Springsteen and that he has no talent—a meaningless insult coming from a guy who pals around with Kid Rock and Ted Nugent. Trump has and always will resort to the lowest form of attack, and that is exactly why he is so threatened by someone like Bruce, who did just the opposite.
So I guess I'll keep doing what most of my friends have been doing, trying to become better people, failing here and there, but always striving to improve. Telling the truth as well as we know how, without resorting to hissy fits when someone offers constructive criticism. And hopefully it will continue to scare the hell out of these people.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign
Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign, citing a call by the head of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency urging the Department of Justice to probe Cook over alleged mortgage fraud. Representatives for Cook could not be immediately reached for comment on the allegations posted by FHFA Director Bill Pulte on X earlier on Wednesday. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press

California redistricting vote begins with overwhelming support, Newsom pollster says
California redistricting vote begins with overwhelming support, Newsom pollster says

USA Today

time9 minutes ago

  • USA Today

California redistricting vote begins with overwhelming support, Newsom pollster says

Newsom has called for a Nov. 4 special election on the new maps. The California state legislature, where Democrats have a supermajority, would first need to vote to put the measure before the voters. WASHINGTON ― California Gov. Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal aimed at creating five new Democratic congressional seats begins with overwhelming support ahead of a planned November referendum when voters would decide its fate, according to a survey conducted by his longtime pollster. The proposal is backed by 57% of California voters and opposed by 35%, the poll taken by Democratic pollster David Binder found, according to a report by Axios. Another 8% of voters in the heavily Democratic state said they were undecided. Newsom has portrayed his mid-term redistricting push as necessary to offset Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's pursuit to create five new Republican congressional districts in Texas. President Donald Trump has publicly lobbied for the gerrymandering in Texas to boost Republican chances in the 2026 midterm elections. Newsom last week called for a Nov. 4 special election on the new maps. The California state legislature, where Democrats have a supermajority, would first need to vote to put the measure before the voters. The poll found 84% of California's Democratic voters support the redistricting plan while 79% of the state's Republicans oppose it. The 57% in overall support for the redistricting plan is a jump from the 51% who said they backed redrawing California's congressional maps in a July poll. California currently has 43 congressional seats held by Democrats and nine by Republicans. The creation of five new Democratic-friendly districts could sway California's delegation to a 48-5 advantage for Democrats. Yet the move comes with risk for Democrats because it might create several competitive seats that Republicans could target. "I know they say, 'Don't mess with Texas,'" Newsom, widely considered a potential presidential candidate in 2028, quipped at a Democratic rally kicking off the redistricting campaign last week. "Well, don't mess with the great Golden State." California has an independent redistricting commission that is designed to limit partisan influence on the map-drawing process, but Newsom said the measure would allow a new process to draw maps that would go into effect for House elections in 2026, 2028, and 2030, before ceding power back to the commission to draw maps ahead of 2032. Redistricting in all states is required by federal law every 10 years following the release of new U.S. Census Bureau figures; however, Trump pushed Texas Republicans to jumpstart the process in the middle of the decade, setting off a cross-country redistricting fight. Redistricting efforts are also ongoing in Florida and Ohio that could benefit Republicans, while Republican-controlled Indiana and Missouri are also discussing redrawing their maps. Control of the U.S. House of Representatives at stake, with Republicans currently holding a 219-212 majority. Contributing: Erin Mansfield of USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store