one of the great political myths is that conservatives see human
nature for what it is while liberals tend to be naively optimistic.
there is some truth to this, but naivete regarding human nature cuts
both ways. recently, david mamet wrote a piece in the Village Voice
on why liberalism is braindead because it trusts in human nature.
but, liberalism is just as skeptical about human nature as
conservatism is while conservatism is just as optimistic about human
nature as liberalism is. they mainly differ in their selectivism.

for example, liberals--by which we mean white liberals--are totally
skeptical of the human nature of white folks(especially heterosexual
white males). no matter what, white hetero males are always suspect.
they are deemed to be cause for all the misery in the world. anti-
white-male-hetero-ism is like anti-semitism of old. so, liberals
feel that white people--especially hetero males--are guilty and
untrustworthy forever; whites must be told over and over and over that
they suck, that they are guilt of all the evils in the past and that
they must make up for their evils forever and ever. (indeed, white
liberals trust obama more than they trust themselves despite the fact
that we know very little about the Real obama.) but, when it comes
to certain favored groups like blacks and gays, liberals say they are
oh-so-good even when they are bad. so, black people can burn down an
entire city or act crazy; liberals say they are good people who've
simply been driven to desperation. or africans can carry out tribal
wars and kill 100,000s but they are NOT guilty; they are just acting
out of frustration, hunger, ignorance, and such--mostly due to white
folks. no matter how crazy blacks act, they are always good, noble,
salt-of-the-earth. so, reverend wright can preach hatred and rage;
since he's black, he must be good or, at least, deserving of our
sympathy. and many white liberals will listen to his anti-white
sermons and accept them as deserved punishment and feel grateful to
wright for giving them a chance to atone for their white sins. since
blacks are noble and whites are evil, blacks have a moral right to
insult and attack honkey; and honkey should accept such judgment as
though from god himself. in this equation, wright is the old
testament version of negro-as-god; he's judgmental, all fire and
brimstones and full of vengeful fury. and, obama is the new testament
version of negro-as-messiah. if wright is negro as righteous rage,
obama is negro as forgiving love. it's all so manipulative, but many
willfully naive liberal whites have fallen for it. (i say 'willfully
naive' because these white liberals can be extremely skeptical and
downright cynical about MOST things. some people suffer from selective
amnesia while others suffer from selective naivete. remember how
theodore white was extremely analytical with every detail of american
politics but willfully gullible with maoist propaganda; he believed in
the claims of chinese communism in the 70s)

and, there is a similar thinking about gays in the liberal community.
gays are just sooo noble and wonderful. never mind that most gays are
rather silly, no better than you or i. but, liberals make gayness
itself noble. according to liberalism, any people associated with
'oppression under evil white hetero male power' is noble and eternally
good. and, whites--especially hetero males--are evil forever. so,
liberals are only optimistic and trusting of certain human natures--
black, jewish, gay, etc.--while totally skeptical, suspicious, and
even pessimistic about whites--especially hetero males. nothing white
hetero males can do can make them good people. the only acceptable
white hetero male is a LIBERAL because he hates himself; so, chris
matthews is a good white male because he loves to kiss obama's ass. or
ken burn is a good white male because he grovels before wynton
marsalis and tavis smiley. so, whites--especially hetero males--are
guilty forever and can only be good by constantly purging the ugly
evil within. this is not an optimism about universal human nature.

liberals are also skeptical of human nature in the much of the arts
and culture they prefer. to be sure, there are do-goody liberal movies
with all-too-sweet humanism that suggests that good-will and
progressive ideas will greatly improve the world; consider the
sickening films of stanley kramer and other suck do-goody drek. these
movies are indeed overly optimistic, preachy, wishfully and willfully
naive about human nature and people. (but, they are also cynical
because the makers of such films may not REALLY believe in what they
show us; they show us such mushy goo because they figure the unwashed
dummies need some do-goody moral instruction and uplift--like children
need santa claus. in that case, many liberal movies are actually very
cynical and manipulative, not hopeful about human nature.)
but, there is the other side of liberalism. liberals welcomed
modernism and appreciate art--literature, drama, movies, etc--about
dark themes. most art films(made by liberals) from europe present a
very dark and pessimistic portrayal of human beings. the main
audience for such films are liberals, not conservatives. most great
playwrights who wrote about the darkness of human reality and the
ugliness of the human soul were people on the left. and, their fans
were also mostly liberals and leftists. think of brecht, o'neill,
miller, williams, etc. not exactly a bunch of conservatives. and
think of the films of mike leigh, ken loach, etc, etc. now, these
films are not without hope or a sense of goodness. but, many of them
unflinchingly show us the darkness and ugliness of life. yet, these
films are all by liberals and leftists. one could argue that their
works are meant to be critique of capitalist society. in other words,
human problems exist because of capitalism; once capitalism is
replaced by socialism, problems will go away. to be sure, such morons
do exist on the left. but, many liberals and even leftists have been
highly critical of the failings in socialist nations also. indeed, it
was the liberals in soviet union who were most critical of the
failings of the socialist system. so, great many liberals and even
leftits have been skeptical of utopian promises of marxism. they are
not as naive as they are accused of being. to be sure, some are
dogmatic when it comes to certain ideological precepts, and some of
this can be deemed naive about human nature. for instance, the liberal
idea that we are all inherently equal, and that IQ is purely a matter
of social factors IS naive. but, not all liberals think this way.

of course, many liberals tend to be naive when it comes to certain
'victim' groups such as blacks or gays, but they cannot be said to be
generally trusting of human nature.
indeed, one could argue that liberal big governmentism is proof of
liberal distrust of human nature.
to be sure, there are two versions of big government ideology.
there is the naive and optimistic big governmentism that says if we
spend more money on social programs, society will be better and poor
people will no longer be poor. Great Society liberals were such
idiots. they were indeed naive about human nature--especially when it
concerned negroes.
but, there is another school of big governmentism that calls for
greater government role BECAUSE human nature cannot be trusted. this
argument says that people are greedy and will do anything for a buck
or act crazy with freedom. therefore, government must play a role as
regulator or distributor to ensure that society is more fair. NOT
because people can be trusted but because people cannot be trusted.
this school says that rich will pull any dirty trick to make more and
more money. and, there is some truth to this. in latin american and
asian nations, the rich rig the system to rake in more money and use
all sorts of corrupt practices this school of thought sees
government as a strong referee. in sports, we can't trust the
coaches and players to follow all the rules. the rules must be
enforced because if players are left to own devices, they will cheat
to win the game. so, this school of liberalism promotes bigger
government not as a naively utopian problem solver but as a skeptical
watchdog of humanity. (if even realistic--as opposed to idealistic--
big governmentism is flawed about human nature, it's becasue it
emphasizes CARING more than ENFORCING. pro-government conservatives
say that government must flex its muscles to keep bad people in check
or under control. pro-government liberals emphasize spending more on
social programs that will HELP the poor; problem is many poor people
simply wanna take without following any advice. so, while liberals
give to the poor and tell them what to do, the poor take but don't
listen to the instructions. they continue to have kids out of
wedlock. also, many government workers are forbidden from passing ANY
moral judgment on the dependent poor. they are only supposed to help
the poor to get more benefits. rudy giuliani's pro-governmentism in
NY was truly conservative in that it distrusted human nature
altogether and believed that bad people must be shown force to back
down from committing bad deeds. generally speaking, liberatarians
tend to be trusting of human nature of the rich and well-to-do while
distrusitng of human nature of the poor, whereas liberals are just the
opposite. liberals may argue that they are NOT more trusting of the
poor than of the rich; rather, they are more worried about the rich
because those with more money have more power. there is some truth to
this, but liberals fail to understand that the poor can be more
powerful because there are more of them than of the superrich. bill
gates cannot burn down a city whereas a bunch of poor blacks can burn
down LA or Cincinnatti. bill gates and larry ellison can do a lot of
harm but they cannot destroy entire cities like the people of detroit
or parts of philadelphia. does anyone fear getting raped, mugged,
robbed, or killed by bill gates or his cronies?)

in contrast, conservatives can come across as very naive and trusting
of human nature. this is especially true of libertarians. though
they claim to have a realistic and even dark assessment of human
nature, libertarians--like anarchists--think that if people are left
alone, everything will work out just fine. does this make sense?
conservatives say people are, by nature, 'greedy', 'selfish',
'brutish', and so on and on. yet, they think that freer a people are,
better off they are. does this make sense? to be sure, traditional
conservatives are more sensible on this issue than libertarians.
tradcons believe in the importance of social morality, social
conventions, moral values, and civil institutions associated with
them. so, tradcons are not only about individualism; they believe that
individuals must stick to certain principles and values handed down to
them thru the ages. tradcons believe that bigger government diminishes
the importance of these values and civic institutions. bigger
government materializes everything as though everything can be solved
thru distributing dollars and cents from one sector to another. so,
tradcons are both wary of big government and individualism-gone-wild.
but, what about libertarians who are for individualism-gone-wild?
they claim to have the realistic assessment of human nature yet they
say MORE freedom for humans will lead to a better society. why? if
people are a bunch of dark-souled animals, why would they be better
off by being allowed to run free? to be sure, libertarians believe in
law and order; they are all for police power. even so, libertarians
are for people being free as much as possible. some even argue for
legal prostitution, unfettered gambling, and legalization of all
drugs. now, if people are dark-souled animals, why would everything
work out under a totally free system?
libertarians, in their stupid naivete--naivete even more alarming than
that of liberals--believe that even though humans are dark-souled
beasts, humans are above all rational beings who make the right/
sensible choice under a system of near-total freedom. so, no matter
how dark-souled we are, our rationality trumps our instincts.
really? supposedly, the mechanism of reward and punishment doled out
by the freemarket system will guide most of our behavior to sensible
thoughts, actions, and deeds. this is behavioralism gone wild. for
all the talk of freedom and individuality, libertarians see humans
like B. F. Skinner's pigeons.

what libertarians don't take into account is the addictive behavior
among many folks. also, many rewards are long terms and cannot be
experienced by short term rewards and punishment. for example,
becoming a doctor requires long term commitment; it's a case of 'no
pain, no gain'. there is no reward for many many yrs. yet, using
drugs and throwing a wild party is immediately gratifying. the reward
is obvious in the short term; in the long term, such lifestyle may be
damaging. but, many people choose shortterm gain and pleasure over
longterm gain and pleasure. for idiot folks, it's completely
rational. using drugs feels good. so, they use drugs. it's rational
in the immediate sense. it's the same reason why more americans prefer
to be couchpotates eating junk food and watching tv than exercising
and eating right. the former is much more pleasurable than the latter
which is 'no pain, no gain'. both are rational. one is rationally
appealing in the shortterm sense. the other is rationally productive
in the long term sense.

but, short term rationalism is often bad in the long term. and long
term rationalism may be painful in the short term. the fact is, in a
value-free hedonistic society, more and more people are blind to long
term rationalism. and this is where libertarianism is really naive.
it seems to think that most people are capable of long term
rationalism based on free market mechanism. for example, if we allow
legalization of drugs, some people will use drugs and mess up their
lives. they will learn their lessons and embark on more intelligent
lives. but, what if by the time they realize the stupidity of drug
use, their brains are all fried and their health is all ruined? they
will be too fuc*ed up to take advantage of their precious lesson; they
are damaged goods.

in essence, libertarian view of human nature is merely an excuse to
pay less in taxes. since humanity cannot be improved, why spend
taxpayers' money on problems that cannot be solved thru government
programs? okay, so far so good. but, if libertarians are so
pessimistic about human nature, why call for total freedom? if people
are such dark-souled idiots, does it make sense to allow people to be
as free as possible? can we trust people to be rational over
emotional, intelligent over instinctive? can we rely purely on some
invisible hand of market forces to sort everything out? in Nature,
there is some kind of unregulated balance of forces, but it's the
product of ceaseless and countless violence. what is the guarantee
that peaceful balance will prevail among humans under a system of
minimal government and regulation? libertarians fail to understand
society because they fail to understand the all-important role of
culture in human society. in other words, a culturally advanced
people will do better under libertarianism or liberalism than a
culturally idiotic people. the real secret is culture, not social
ideology. it's surely true that free-maketism is essentially better
than socialist policies. but, more important is the culture of a
people as long as the society is essentially free--not communist.
so, the success of netherlands has much less to do with their social
policies than with the culture of the dutch.

another proof that conservatives can be awfully (and willfully)naive
about human nature can be gleaned from the kind of culture they
prefer. for all their professed understanding of darkness of human
nature, they panic whenever such darkness is examined or explored in
the arts. so, it's conservatives who clamor for gooey family movies
as though the world could be a wonderful disneyesque themepark. or,
they like simple good guy/bad guy movies as though moral order is
simply about good guys whupping the bad guys. it was liberal sidney
lumet who gave us the dark and complex 'prince of the city'.
conservatives prefer movies where good guys establishe order simply by
shooting the bad guys. 'death wish' movies are adored by
conservatives. have good guy bronson shoot all the eviloids and
that's that. conservatives can argue that they stress such simplistic
morality BECAUSE the world is a dark place. since the human soul is so
dark, we MUST encourage and promote the good because, if we don't, we
succumb to the bad. conservatives can argue that since the human
soul is dark, it should not be allowed to dwell in the morally
amibuous world of liberalist art. conservatives may argue that
liberalist dwelling in the grey and dark areas in art and culture is
proof of liberal naivete; liberals seem to think that people are
intelligent and sophisticated enough to understand and navigate thru
the noir-ish moral labyrinth. conservatives may argue that people are
not so trustworthy. most people must be offered a clear-cut vision of
morality and right/wrong because people easily got lost in the realm
of 'complexity'.
there may be some truth to this. 'goodfellas' is an excellent,
intelligent, and insightful movie about the ganster world, but MANY
people see it as a 'cool' gangster movie. and, many people got a kick
out of the Sopranos. they came to see tony soprano as a kind of hero.
so, conservatives may argue that because people are dark-souled tards,
they should be presented with simple good/bad morality. offering
people ambiguous stuff and expecting them to sort out the morality
themselves is asking for trouble.

finally, much of the debate is confused because we are speaking of
human nature as being the same among all of us. this is like assuming
that all breeds of dogs have the same temprament.
the fact is while the human nature of all people have same spectrum,
different people have different degrees of emotional coloring. this
is partly due to social upbringing but it's also due to personality.
hitler was born with an unpleasant personality. pope john paul and
ronald reagan were born with pleasant personalities. all three went
thru unhappy childhoods and youths, yet they turned out differently.
reagan had a drunken no-good father. john paul saw his country ruined
by WWII. yet, they turned out to be good people. hitler turned out
evil. it was partly due to his chosen ideology, but he chose an
extreme ideology because he had an extreme personality. this is why it
makes no sense to speak of human nature as one and the same for
everyone.

human nature matters because even if a small minority of people have
nasty human nature, it affects all of us. suppose it can be
empirically established that 80%% of people have good trustworthy human
nature. suppose these people, under proper upbringing and education,
can indeed be ideal human beings. but, suppose 20%% of the people are
born with negative human nature. no matter how you try to teach them,
instruct them, and help them, they are not pleasant or trustworthy
people. so, you have 80%% good folks and 20%% bad folks. since most
people are good, should good people trust human nature in general?
no, because they will be burned by the 20%% who will take advantage of
the goodwill and naivete of the good 80%%.
take a neighborhood. suppose out of 100 people, only 3 are bad folks.
so, 97 people would never steal from his neighbor while only 3 would.
so, should the people of that neighborhood trust everyone and leave
their doors unlocked? no. even if only 3 are untrustworthy, everyone
must lock their doors and not 'trust human nature'. for one thing, you
never know who is good and who is bad. who are the bad 3? bad
people don't say, 'look, i'm the Bad Guy'. so, it doesn't matter if
the human nature of most of us is trustworthy. even the presence of
few bad apples should make all of us wary of humanity in general
because we never know who is good and who is ba