Are there Liberal traits that you DON'T like?

[Spider Jerusalem]

131. In the context of American politics?

Most of them are the mirror image of conservative traits I also dislike.

Smug elitism and a sense of superiority. "If those people were only informed/only knew what was good for them they'd vote in what's clearly their best interests!" with the frequently implied but just as frequently overt idea that "those people" are ignorant/stupid/inbred. Some of these are the same people who, when someone asks "can anyone help me fix this problem I have with my PC?" will snidely respond "get a Mac", apparently not realising that in relative financial terms it's the equivalent of telling someone who says "hello, I have this problem with my Ford, any ideas?" that they should go get a BMW.

Conspiracy theorism and anti-science woo. "GHW Bush was the gunman on the grassy knoll and LBJ had JFK knocked off so he could make millions off of his Bell Helicopter shares by ramping up the Vietnam War!" "Big Pharma is evil!" "Vaccines cause autism! RFK Jr said so!"

A willingness to excuse undemocratic and authoritarian acts committed by foreign leaders who are broadly "leftist". (See: Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro. NB that conservatives are just as bad, with Pinochet, the Shah, etc.)

A lack of pragmatism and appreciation of politics as the art of the possible. "Congress should have impeached Bush!" (never mind that the votes were never there.) "Obama should have gotten single-payer healthcare through Congress!" (never mind that the votes were never there.) etc.

Environmental hypocrisy. "We need to do something about global warming BUT GASOLINE COSTS TOO MUCH!" (spot the cognitive dissonance.)

Sweeping generalisations. "Red states." (no such thing. Purple, but not red. Even in the deep South 15-40% of voters vote Democratic.) Bashing of entire regions based on the admittedly shameful history of segregation and the Confederacy (which does as much to perpetuate Southern resentment over the whole Civil War thing as the Sons of Confederate Veterans or any number of Confederate flags, thanks).

Excessive pacifism. It's all well and good to seek the resolution of disputes between states by peaceful, diplomatic means, and military action should never be employed save as a last resort, and out of necessity. But there are cases where it is a necessity, where diplomacy is ineffective; there are questions of the obligations of the global community as embodied in the UN to take action when a UN member is acting against its own people; see Syria (and I have to say I don't find the argument that the Syrians, or Libyans for that matter, might choose a government for themselves that we don't approve of as a persuasive reason for not intervening). I think that military action should be reserved for extreme cases, and should only be undertaken as part of an international effort with allies under the auspices of an international organisation like the UN or NATO, if possible, but I don't think that it should ever be off the table.