Board political breakdown.

[Upchurch]

I was rather surprised at the low conservative turn out in my Marriage Poll. I don't know if that was due to the subject matter was not of interest to conservatives, or if the board is just predominately moderate to liberal.

If you would, please take the time to click on one of the above choices that best fits your world view. I know it is a complex world out there and people can have both steriotypically liberal and conservative view points on different issues (or even the same issue, from time to time). What I'm asking for is, if you had to put yourself down as one or the other, which would it be?

[Jocko]

I agree, there has been a complete political breakdown on this board. ;)

(Social moderate, fiscal conservative)

[Upchurch]

I agree, there has been a complete political breakdown on this board. ;)
Touche.

[Bandersnatch]

diLiberal.

[BPSCG]

I put fiscally conservative, socially moderate, which may come as some surprise to someone who recently insinuated my preferred evening attire would be a white sheet and a hood, with a torch and a rope for accessories. Be interesting to see what a poll question, "How do you rate BPSCG on the political spectrum?" would show.

[Dr Adequate]

Mind you, having voted, I don't think any USAian would think I was "fiscally moderate".

They can't spell "aluminium" either, you know.

[Upchurch]

Mind you, having voted, I don't think any USAian would think I was "fiscally moderate".Speakin' o' which, it was my intention that this poll be open to the entire board, not just the Americans, but in case there is any confusion, lets go with the American flavors of liberal and conservative.

[ImaginalDisc]

Since I was unsure whether advocating socialized healthcare and socialized retirement constituted "moderate" under *American* definitions, I voted fiscally liberal, no matter how mainstream that is in Europe.

[BPSCG]

Since I was unsure whether advocating socialized healthcare and socialized retirement constituted "moderate" under *American* definitions, Of course they do. We have Medicare and Social Security.

Now, if you mean more socialized healthcare and socialized retirement, or totally socialized healthcare and socialized retirement, that's another story.

[Jocko]

Since I was unsure whether advocating socialized healthcare and socialized retirement constituted "moderate" under *American* definitions, I voted fiscally liberal, no matter how mainstream that is in Europe.

You chose accurately.

[ImaginalDisc]

Of course they do. We have Medicare and Social Security.

Now, if you mean more socialized healthcare and socialized retirement, or totally socialized healthcare and socialized retirement, that's another story.
Ha! Universally avilable? No. If it's not universally avilable it fails to meet the criteria for "socialized".

[BPSCG]

Ha! Universally avilable? No. If it's not universally avilable it fails to meet the criteria for "socialized".What Jocko said, then.

[Upchurch]

Ha! Universally avilable? No. If it's not universally avilable it fails to meet the criteria for "socialized".
I'm not overly familiar with Medicare and Social Security, but I believe it both are universally available, excluding some age requirements. I think what they're talking about is that for each individual it may not provide 100% of their coverage.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm not overly familiar with Medicare and Social Security, but I believe it both are universally available, excluding some age requirements. I think what they're talking about is that for each individual it may not provide 100% of their coverage.
Well, let's not turn this into a debate over the merits or demerits of our social safety net.

[Upchurch]

Well, let's not turn this into a debate over the merits or demerits of our social safety net.
Fair enough.

As of this writing, only one person has identified themselves as socially conservative, which surprises the heck out of me. I realize I probably need to give at least a day (and a week would be even better), but I'm still surprised.

[Cheesejoff]

I didn't vote because Socialisism/Communism isn't on the poll. Liberals, although left-wing, believe that socialist goals can be acheived within the current capitalist system, whereas socialists believe in overthrowing capitalism.

I guess you could put an "other" category up for anarchists, commies, fascists, etc.

[Jocko]

I guess you could put an "other" category up for anarchists, commies, fascists, etc.

If I wasn't a social moderate, I'd have you rounded up and put against the wall just for suggesting that. :D

[Darat]

Speakin' o' which, it was my intention that this poll be open to the entire board, not just the Americans, but in case there is any confusion, lets go with the American flavors of liberal and conservative.

Quite seriously what's the difference between the USA flavours of liberal and conservative? It can't be that the Democrats are liberal and the Republicans are conservative since you need a feeler gauge to measure the differences between the parties.

(ETA)

I do need to know to be able to vote!

I'll have a stab at it a USA Liberal is for small government, as little intervention into personal life as possible by the state and wide provision of social services. The USA Conservative is for a larger government, increased regulation on industry and more state policies to control personal freedoms but less social services?

[Ducky]

Planet X!

[Jocko]

I'll have a stab at it a USA Liberal is for small government, as little intervention into personal life as possible by the state and wide provision of social services. The USA Conservative is for a larger government, increased regulation on industry and more state policies to control personal freedoms but less social services?

That could not be more backward if you tried (with the exception of social services).

ETA: I'm talking platforms, not any specific issue. As Upchurch points out, there are significant points of deviation from the norm.

[Upchurch]

I'll have a stab at it a USA Liberal is for small government, as little intervention into personal life as possible by the state and wide provision of social services. The USA Conservative is for a larger government, increased regulation on industry and more state policies to control personal freedoms but less social services?
Wow. That's pretty much exactly backwards from what most Americans would say (except for the social services), but I can completely see how you drew that conclusion, given the gay marriage debate and all.

[Meadmaker]

Quite seriously what's the difference between the USA flavours of liberal and conservative? It can't be that the Democrats are liberal and the Republicans are conservative since you need a feeler gauge to measure the differences between the parties.

(ETA)

I do need to know to be able to vote!

I'll have a stab at it a USA Liberal is for small government, as little intervention into personal life as possible by the state and wide provision of social services. The USA Conservative is for a larger government, increased regulation on industry and more state policies to control personal freedoms but less social services?

The self described conservative in the USA wants less regulation on industry, while the self described liberal wants more.

I put socially liberal, fiscal conservative, but I almost put "Planet X". The "fiscal conservative" part comes from me being a "deficit hawk". I don't care what you do, it just makes me mad that we're borrowing money from our kids.

The social liberal label will surprise many, because once again I think the labels are all messed up in America. A liberal ought to allow people to live in any way that doesn't harm anyone else. That doesn't mean he ought to think that no way is better than any other, and it doesn't mean that government ought to support every possible way of living. If you want government out of your private life, demand that they get out, instead of demanding that they get in, on your terms.

[Jocko]

The social liberal label will surprise many, because once again I think the labels are all messed up in America. A liberal ought to allow people to live in any way that doesn't harm anyone else.

Right on. Modern, institutional liberalism is all about complete freedom for everyone - as long as you accept the definition of freedom they give you.

Conservatism used to be about getting the government out of the discussion altogether (the only correct answer, IMHO) but sadly has just substituted its own version of the same technique.

[Darat]

OK - you have left me utterly confused.

Normally I just try to nod condescendingly when you USAians change the meaning and spelling of the words of our language but you've gone too far this time! You need a nationwide campaign to get your political terms back into some sort of sensible alignment with the rest of the world.

Serious questions this time:

What does liberal and conservative mean for a USAian?
Do the terms "liberal" or "conservative" have any bearing on which party you support?
Can either party be described as "conservative" or "liberal"?

[Meffy]

@Darat: The confusion lies between the official party platforms and what office-holders actually do. The "conservatives" used to moan endlessly about "tax and spend liberals," until the Bush administration and Republican-held Congress made previous expenditures under liberals look paltry by comparison with their excesses. Same with governmental intrusion into private affairs; under Bush it's the thing to do. On the other side of the aisle you have some nominal "liberals" in Congress who talk a good line about social justice while turning a blind eye to problems they could address in their home districts. And so on and so forth. Hypocrisy knows no wingedness, there's enough to spread around. :-(

[edited for clearer wording]

[Meffy]

P.S.: Always remember -- "Old statisticians never die, they just get broken down by age and sex."

[Upchurch]

What does liberal and conservative mean for a USAian?
Classically, a "liberal" challenges the status quo and a "conservative" maintains it. For example, liberals are generally for gay marriage because it challenges the traditional social value that homosexuality is immoral or wrong. Conservatives would oppose it because it represents a change to the status quo.

Conservatives generally support smaller government because that is what our country was originally designed to have. Liberals tend to support larger government programs, not specifically because smaller government is the status quo, but because it tends to support social issues and ideas that do challenge the status quo.

Do the terms "liberal" or "conservative" have any bearing on which party you support? Can either party be described as "conservative" or "liberal"?[/quote]Not for me, because neither party are strictly liberal or conservative, or even remotely so. The labels are definitely misapplied.

[RyanRoberts]

I voted liberal/conservative. Even though I am from the UK, my economic politics are roughly in line with the right wing of American opinion. I would privatise the NHS for one. This marks me as pretty much crazy in the eyes of most of my countrymen.

[Dragonrock]

Okay, Let me take a stab at definitions.

Socially
Liberal - Whatever you want to do with yourself, as long as you don't hurt anyone else
Conservative - Limits are needed for a society to function

Fiscally
Liberal - The only one who really knows what to do with money is the government, therefore give it all in taxes and let us divide it up
Conservative - Touch not my money! I earned it, I do with it as I see fit

The political parties can generally be divided up as
Socialist/Green - fiscally liberal and socially conservative
Libertarian - fiscally conservative and socially liberal
Democrat - Fiscally and socially liberal
Republican - Fiscally and socially conservative

ETA: I see that Upchurch has given dictionary definitions of "liberal" and "conservative", my definitions are based more on how the words are used to describe political views.

[BPSCG]

I'll make it easy:

Conservative = patriotic Americans
Liberal = treacherous, traiterous slimeHope this helps.

[Upchurch]

Socially
Liberal - Whatever you want to do with yourself, as long as you don't hurt anyone else
Conservative - Limits are needed for a society to function

Fiscally
Liberal - The only one who really knows what to do with money is the government, therefore give it all in taxes and let us divide it up
Conservative - Touch not my money! I earned it, I do with it as I see fitI agree.

The political parties can generally be divided up as
Socialist/Green - fiscally liberal and socially conservative
Libertarian - fiscally conservative and socially liberal
Democrat - Fiscally and socially liberal
Republican - Fiscally and socially conservative
Ideally, yes, but this is not the reality, at least not with the Democrat and Republican break downs. I would say both parties are, based on your definitions, fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

[Upchurch]

Maybe I should have included a "legal" or "governmental" distinction as well?

[ImaginalDisc]

Upchruch, you did a very good thing to seperate the fiscually and poltically conversative and liberal bits. I'll take a stab at it.

Acording to classical defintions, Libertarians are "liberal" poltically and fiscally, because they claim that people should be free to do as they please, without hinderance or help from the government. Both the Democrats and Republicans in the Us advocate spending lots of money, the only difference being that Dems advocate taxation, and Rep advocate borrowing, in general. In that sense, neither party is fiscally "liberal". They only differ on how much to allocate, not how much to spend.

[Upchurch]

A liberal ought to allow people to live in any way that doesn't harm anyone else. That doesn't mean he ought to think that no way is better than any other, and it doesn't mean that government ought to support every possible way of living. If you want government out of your private life, demand that they get out, instead of demanding that they get in, on your terms.
Close, but not quite. A social liberal, in thinking that people ought to be able to live any way that dosn't harm anyone else, would think that the government should not provide unequal support to a particular way of living over another for no reason other than an outdated social moral.

It is not an issue of whether or not the government should be in people's lives. It is an issue of whether or not the government is treating it citizens equally or if it is creating a social class system.

[Meadmaker]

Thinking about "fiscal conservative" versus "fiscal liberal" I came up with a way to explain why I think of myself as a fiscal conservative, even though I'm way out of step with the Republican party.

A conservative, just going by the word itself, would be someone who wants to keep things the way they are, or using a slightly different sense of the word, would not want too many new things. When it comes to government spending, I think government ought to stick to things government ought to do, and not try to get involved in a whole bunch of new stuff. That makes me conservative. On the other hand, I think the things government ought to do, like fund education, might be pretty expensive.

[Meadmaker]

Close, but not quite. A social liberal, in thinking that people ought to be able to live any way that dosn't harm anyone else, would think that the government should not provide unequal support to a particular way of living over another for no reason other than an outdated social moral.

It is not an issue of whether or not the government should be in people's lives. It is an issue of whether or not the government is treating it citizens equally or if it is creating a social class system.

By that concept of liberalism, an extremely restrictive government would be liberal as long as it repressed everyone equally.

I think the American left went astray by thinking that "equality" was a worthy goal.

If government is indeed supporting one way of living over another, that would be at least somewhat illiberal.

[Meffy]

Popeye is a fisk-al liberal. "WwwwwwwWHAM! An' I gots more where that cames from."

[Upchurch]

By that concept of liberalism, an extremely restrictive government would be liberal as long as it repressed everyone equally.Only if that were a complete definition of "liberal".

I think the American left went astray by thinking that "equality" was a worthy goal.Equality is a liberal idea because it challenges the inequality status quo of the past.

If government is indeed supporting one way of living over another, that would be at least somewhat illiberal.I have no idea how you draw that conclusion.

[Grammatron]

I put down Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative.

Of course, what you mean by either may change that vote, hope that helps :p

[DaChew]

Uh. I was looking for Social drinker - Fiscally irresponsible but it's not there.

[Genesius]

Yeah, what Grammatron said.

"Socially liberal" was the easy part: pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage. In favor of gun regulation - I don't mind if you want a pistol for self-protection or a rifle to hunt, but I don't think you have a right to a .50-cal fully-automatic weapon with armor piercing rounds.

Not quite sure of the dividing line between fiscally conservative & moderate. I believe in small government, but I believe that government does occasionally need to regulate business otherwise we'd go back to the days of the robber barons. Universal healthcare would be nice if we could find a way to do it that doesn't either bankrupt the country or make people wait 6 months to see their doctor. Don't send troops overseas unless someone attacks us first or it's part of a UN operation - lots of better uses for the money we've spent in Iraq right here. I guess I could have picked either conservative or moderate and been happy with it.

[Freethinker]

Socially
Liberal - Whatever you want to do with yourself, as long as you don't hurt anyone else

That seems more Libertarian than Liberal to me.

[CFLarsen]

For such a big country, you have a remarkably small number of political alternatives.

[Genesius]

For such a big country, you have a remarkably small number of political alternatives.

Proving the old adage "Money talks, and B.S. walks." Hasn't been a third-party with enough $$$ to mount an interesting campaign since Ross Perot.

[Upchurch]

Proving the old adage "Money talks, and B.S. walks."Technically, I think it is "B.S. with Money talks."

[CFLarsen]

Proving the old adage "Money talks, and B.S. walks." Hasn't been a third-party with enough $$$ to mount an interesting campaign since Ross Perot.
Money controls politics, and not the voice and will of the people?

Gee.

[Upchurch]

Money controls politics, and not the voice and will of the people?

Gee.
No, money controls the voice and will of the people.

[Mycroft]

I agree, there has been a complete political breakdown on this board. ;)

(Social moderate, fiscal conservative)

Hey, you voted what I voted. Let's start a political party!

[Meadmaker]

Equality is a liberal idea because it challenges the inequality status quo of the past.


If I advocate repeal of the first ammendment, I would be challenging the status quo, but I wouldn't be being liberal.

Liberal policies often challenge the status quo, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to do so in order for a policy to be liberal.

[Jocko]

Hey, you voted what I voted. Let's start a political party!

It's about time someone did, that's fer damn sure. If only the Libertarians weren't so uniformly loopy (that's capital "L" as in party members), they might actually hold some appeal.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ok, maybe we need to standardize our definitions. This political compass site is one I visted in the past, and also seperates the axis of social and fiscal political ideology. Thier website is: www.politicalcompass.org

The analysis of their terms and their methodlogy is here, but they strongly recomend that you take the test before reading their analysis.

http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/analysis2.php

For the record, I'm somewhere down and to the left of Ghandi.

[Jocko]

If I advocate repeal of the first ammendment, I would be challenging the status quo, but I wouldn't be being liberal.

If you did it in the name of excising all religious language in the public square, then yes you would be.

If you did it in the name of curtailing "hate speech," then yes you would be.

If you did it in the name of banning certain protests, like those at abortion clinics, then yes you would be.

All of which goes to my assertion that the modern liberal is all for absolute freedom, as long as you don't question what the definition of freedom is.

Liberal policies often challenge the status quo, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to do so in order for a policy to be liberal.

Liberal policies often challenge reality, IMHO. Again, I'm talking about the modern liberal establishment, not the term as it was once used.

[Meadmaker]

If you did it in the name of excising all religious language in the public square, then yes you would be.

If you did it in the name of curtailing "hate speech," then yes you would be.

If you did it in the name of banning certain protests, like those at abortion clinics, then yes you would be.

All of which goes to my assertion that the modern liberal is all for absolute freedom, as long as you don't question what the definition of freedom is.



Liberal policies often challenge reality, IMHO. Again, I'm talking about the modern liberal establishment, not the term as it was once used.

I think what you mean, correct me if I'm wrong, is that modern "liberals" want to do those things, despite the fact that they rather obviously curtail freedom. That's why I say that American "liberals" aren't very liberal.

I don't want to derail the thread too far, because I think what upchurch wanted was a general poll on where we lie in the generally accepted American political spectrum. However, I find the whole topic of liberalism and what it means interesting, so I'm starting a separate thread.

[Jocko]

I think what you mean, correct me if I'm wrong, is that modern "liberals" want to do those things, despite the fact that they rather obviously curtail freedom. That's why I say that American "liberals" aren't very liberal.

Spot on. Nor are "conservatives" very conservative, alas.

[a_unique_person]

Where are they all? Good question. My tip is they don't like getting bullied.

[BPSCG]

Where are they all? Good question. My tip is they don't like getting bullied.Jesus H. Christ on a playground, did you get your lunch money stolen every day when you were a kid? Why is it every time three or four guys disagree with you or your intellectual confreres, they're suddenly a bunch of bullies? Man, if there were a "Weenie" category in the current poll, I know where you'd fit.

[Globert]

I end up moderate moderate.

socially liberal gun nut.
fiscally conservative give me a raise public employee.

[Mycroft]

It's about time someone did, that's fer damn sure. If only the Libertarians weren't so uniformly loopy (that's capital "L" as in party members), they might actually hold some appeal.

If we could skim the not-so-loopy Libertarians and then draw the moderates from both the Democrats and the Republicans...hmmm.

[CFLarsen]

No, money controls the voice and will of the people.
Is that supposed to be better?

[Kerberos]

If we could skim the not-so-loopy Libertarians
I'm afraid one of them got totally disillusioned with voting. You might have a chance with the other one though.

[Cain]

Well, I do see a whole lot of BS in this thread, which is to be expected. How can we classify the Greens/Socialists as "socially conservative"??

And what does "fiscally liberal" mean, anyway? Could we call the current regime "fiscally liberal" since they spend money like mad while running up deficits? Or is conservative because they're taxing future generations and spending money on the military?

What if with socialized medicine we end up spending less on health care. Does that then make such a policy more fiscally conservative than the current system?

On the social side we have arguments over legitimate interference in our personal lives (homosexuality and abortion are the two major issues). Is that an appropriate role for government? Then there's the question about regulating business to protect the environment and workers, in addition to providing healthcare and education. Some people here will say these are illegitimate functions of government in principle, which puts them at odds with most of public (as well as the civilized world).

Now of course these are not entirely separate spheres. Economic regulations can be imposed for social reasons (think of blue laws), and social policy can have an economic dimension (gay rights as far as inheritance, taxes and medical coverage is concerned).

[slingblade]

If you did it in the name of excising all religious language in the public square, then yes you would be.

I've no desire to curtail all such speech in the public square. I won't tell you that you can't speak it, if you won't tell me I must listen. Deal?

If you did it in the name of curtailing "hate speech," then yes you would be.

I don't have the right to curtail it. I'd like to eliminate whatever's behind such speech, whatever causes it, but that's a pipe dream. In fact, I worry more when such folks get quiet. At least when they're talking, I know clearly where they stand.

If you did it in the name of banning certain protests, like those at abortion clinics, then yes you would be.

Honey, protest them all you like. Be loud, be proud; hell, be obnoxious if you like. Just don't bring bombs or guns and such stuff.

All of which goes to my assertion that the modern liberal is all for absolute freedom, as long as you don't question what the definition of freedom is.

As a liberal, I really hate being automatically included in your definintion.
I don't fit it, I'll wager some 4 points out of 7, say. Something like that.
Maybe more, maybe less.

Liberal policies often challenge reality, IMHO. Again, I'm talking about the modern liberal establishment, not the term as it was once used.

Oh, the philosophical debates we could have about "reality."
How's this: as a liberal, I cherish and espouse healthy, progressive change; things that attempt to make life more equitable, more "user-friendly," more healthy for mind and body. But I don't want to do it by taking away from others the rights I also cherish and espouse.

That's the kind of liberal I am. I doubt I'm alone.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, I do see a whole lot of BS in this thread, which is to be expected. How can we classify the Greens/Socialists as "socially conservative"??

And what does "fiscally liberal" mean, anyway? Could we call the current regime "fiscally liberal" since they spend money like mad while running up deficits? Or is conservative because they're taxing future generations and spending money on the military?

From the website I linked above.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

[Upchurch]

Is that supposed to be better?
No, simply more accurate, albeit cynical.

[DreadNiK]

On a forum I used to visit, someone posted one of those 'political' questionnaires that places you on a four sector graph, then they did up the graph with everyone's positions. I'm not sure how good the questionnaire was, but the results seemed fairly accurate, at least in an ordinal sense.

[ImaginalDisc]

On a forum I used to visit, someone posted one of those 'political' questionnaires that places you on a four sector graph, then they did up the graph with everyone's positions. I'm not sure how good the questionnaire was, but the results seemed fairly accurate, at least in an ordinal sense.
You mean like this one? www.politicalcompass.org

I think we should really stick to one comprehensive set of defintions to work from or the thread will go like this.

"I am pro-pick-up-truck, but anti-corn-fuel. I have given myself the political label of 'orange'."

"You fool! I was calling myself an orange while you were still an itch in your daddy's pants. I am pro-corn-fuel. Ergo, you are an apple!"

"You are both wrong, I am orange colored apple (fuji) and I am anti-everything! You are both doric columns."

"No, you are wrong. Fuji apples are yellow."

[Upchurch]

You mean like this one? www.poiliticalcompass.orgYour link isn't working for me.

[ImaginalDisc]

Your link isn't working for me.
That is because I cannot spell. It's www.politicalcompass.org

[Upchurch]

That is because I cannot spell. It's www.politicalcompass.org
Economic: -1.75
Social: -5.18

[ImaginalDisc]

Mine:
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

Edit: I took this test about six months ago, and got almost exactly the same score. Since then, it looks as though they have changed a few questions, probably to reflect the current political issues.

[davefoc]

...

And what does "fiscally liberal" mean, anyway? Could we call the current regime "fiscally liberal" since they spend money like mad while running up deficits? Or is conservative because they're taxing future generations and spending money on the military?


I wondered about this exact question when I was thinking about the poll.

I think that part of the answer is that the current administration and perhaps the national Republican party in general are driven more by corruption than ideology. Rewarding benefactors as a way to gain campaign contributions and even direct personal benefit has become the standard motivation behind Republican governance.

My suspicion is that corrupt legislative bodies are the norm, but at least in the American system, the idea is that the corruption of the legislative branch will be held in check by the executive branch. Bushco has stood this idea on its head. The US is now in desperate need of a legislature to provide oversight of the executive branch and so far the legislative branch has not shown any inclination to fulfill such a role.

[Meadmaker]

Economic -3.75
Social -3.33

[davefoc]

Thanks for the poll Upchurch. One of the questions that I get when I describe the forum to other people is what is the general nature of the political views of the participants.

Fair enough.

As of this writing, only one person has identified themselves as socially conservative, which surprises the heck out of me. I realize I probably need to give at least a day (and a week would be even better), but I'm still surprised.

As of this writing there have been about four people (3 % of the poll participants) that have identified themselves as social conservatives. I was surprised that the number was that high.

I was also surpised at how few social/fiscal liberals there were. Given the number of Walmart is evil threads that pop up around here I would have thought there would have been more fiscal liberal voters.

There seems to be an undercurrent of views that strongly favor unions around here another indicator (I would have thought) of fiscal liberalism.

[demonologist]

holy crap, i didn't think i would be with the majority here.

[Upchurch]

As of this writing there have been about four people (3 % of the poll participants) that have identified themselves as social conservatives. I was surprised that the number was that high.Proportionally, that's the same amount as when I posted.

[Jimbo07]

Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

I was socially liberal, fiscally moderate. Should I change my vote to socially moderate/fiscally liberal? :confused:

[Meadmaker]

I was also surpised at how few social/fiscal liberals there were. Given the number of Walmart is evil threads that pop up around here I would have thought there would have been more fiscal liberal voters.

I identified myself as a fiscal conservative, but if it had asked about an economic leaning, instead of a fiscal leaning, I would have identified myself as moderate to liberal. The compass put me in with economic liberals.

[ImaginalDisc]

I identified myself as a fiscal conservative, but if it had asked about an economic leaning, instead of a fiscal leaning, I would have identified myself as moderate to liberal. The compass put me in with economic liberals.
Read their analysis page, it explains some of the seeming contradictions.

[Genesius]

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08


Hmmm. . . looks like I'm more moderate than I thought.

Better get out there and start burning some flags, smoking some pot, and aborting some babies to get my numbers up.

;)

[Deus Ex Machina]

I was rather surprised at the low conservative turn out in my Marriage Poll. I don't know if that was due to the subject matter was not of interest to conservatives, or if the board is just predominately moderate to liberal.

If you would, please take the time to click on one of the above choices that best fits your world view. I know it is a complex world out there and people can have both steriotypically liberal and conservative view points on different issues (or even the same issue, from time to time). What I'm asking for is, if you had to put yourself down as one or the other, which would it be?


The problem I have with your poll is - what the hell is "socially liberal"? I cannot get my understanding around the categories. What would "fiscally conservative" mean? Does it mean believes in less taxation or does it mean an idealistic belief in people paying their own way? Or does the difference lie in supported for graduated income tax? Socially I would describe myself as "private" which means I do not wish to interfere in the social lives of others if at all possible and I am prepared to be sociable polite and nice to anyone who reciprocates. Live and let live I guess. Fiscally I support flat tax, pure and simple. I think governments are usually the worst way to invest money in projects but sometimes I doubt there is a better alternative.

[ImaginalDisc]

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08


Hmmm. . . looks like I'm more moderate than I thought.

Better get out there and start burning some flags, smoking some pot, and aborting some babies to get my numbers up.

;)
I'm still mistified as to how I became so liberal without ever doing any of those things.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Thanks for the poll Upchurch. One of the questions that I get when I describe the forum to other people is what is the general nature of the political views of the participants.



As of this writing there have been about four people (3 % of the poll participants) that have identified themselves as social conservatives. I was surprised that the number was that high.

I have no idea what I would call meself.


I was also surpised at how few social/fiscal liberals there were. Given the number of Walmart is evil threads that pop up around here I would have thought there would have been more fiscal liberal voters.


why would opposition to Walmart be fiscally liberal? Why is this "liberal"? It smacks to me of conservative fiscal policies - not liberal ones.


There seems to be an undercurrent of views that strongly favor unions around here another indicator (I would have thought) of fiscal liberalism.

this is where I have problems with trying to answer this poll (fascinating though I find it) Support for unionism isn't liberal it is conservative. Unionism seeks entrenchment of the status quo, it opposes competition and free labor policies how on earth is it "liberal"?

I guess I am running into the US redefinitions? I sometimes find it hard to talk with my neighbors on this because they seem to think liberal = Left Wing or socialist and somehow I don't see the state taking control of the means of production as being "liberal"

[slingblade]

this is where I have problems with trying to answer this poll (fascinating though I find it) Support for unionism isn't liberal it is conservative. Unionism seeks entrenchment of the status quo, it opposes competition and free labor policies how on earth is it "liberal"?

I guess I am running into the US redefinitions? I sometimes find it hard to talk with my neighbors on this because they seem to think liberal = Left Wing or socialist and somehow I don't see the state taking control of the means of production as being "liberal"

Not the unionism with which I am familiar. My parents were both strongly Democrat and strongly pro-union in my childhood. My dad rose to become a fairly big local union muckety-muck with McDonnell-Douglas in the '70s. My mom was a shop steward at Zebco-Brunswick. These are large corporations in the U.S. and McD-D is (or was?) heavily involved in military aircraft design and construction.

The notion I got of unionism from them was of an effort to give or return some of the power within the means of production to the workers, not to the state. That's Socialism, isn't it? Democratic Socialism? Their unions sought to change the status-quo, taking power away from the narrow group of corporate bosses and giving it to or sharing it among the workers.

I don't know the unionist policy on market competition. What I know about this comes from childhood, and I can't say I've done much research on it as an adult.

Free labor restrictions? Yes, I guess so, as I recall the conviction of my parents that if all workers didn't belong to the union, it made the union weaker overall. Knowing them, however, I'm sure my mother didn't approve of bullying or intimidating people to join, but my father quite probably did.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Economic: -1.75
Social: -5.18

mine:


Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

When I was looking over the site I didn't see any "well known" names in my little quadrant!

[Deus Ex Machina]

Not the unionism with which I am familiar. My parents were both strongly Democrat and strongly pro-union in my childhood. My dad rose to become a fairly big local union muckety-muck with McDonnell-Douglas in the '70s. My mom was a shop steward at Zebco-Brunswick. These are large corporations in the U.S. and McD-D is (or was?) heavily involved in military aircraft design and construction.


I come from a long line of militant coal union members, I've been a shop steward in engineering unions and I have stood on picket lines. Even if I do say so m yself I have pretty good leftie dna.

So given the fact that your parents were employees of big corporations and involved in sharing out the production - how does that make them different from the managers? The fact that unions in big corporations seek ever more stringent job protection for their members and, ultimately the exclusion of non members from the workplace - how is this liberal?


The notion I got of unionism from them was of an effort to give or return some of the power within the means of production to the workers, not to the state. That's Socialism, isn't it? Democratic Socialism?


I am not sure that it is, but I am not dogmatic about it.


Their unions sought to change the status-quo, taking power away from the narrow group of corporate bosses and giving it to or sharing it among the workers.


It is more akin to going back to guilds. At least that is one of the conclusions I came to. My disenchantment with unions has been an ongoing process since I watched the engineering unions in the 70's and 80's in England cause their own members untold misery thanks to their reflexive adherence to left wing ideology at the expense of the jobs of the people they were suppose to represent.


Free labor restrictions? Yes, I guess so, as I recall the conviction of my parents that if all workers didn't belong to the union, it made the union weaker overall. Knowing them, however, I'm sure my mother didn't approve of bullying or intimidating people to join, but my father quite probably did.

You made some good points, I hope we can continue the discussion

[Cain]

I was also surpised at how few social/fiscal liberals there were. Given the number of Walmart is evil threads that pop up around here I would have thought there would have been more fiscal liberal voters.

There seems to be an undercurrent of views that strongly favor unions around here another indicator (I would have thought) of fiscal liberalism.

I think the word "fiscal" biases the question. Jay Leno described himself the other night as "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative." But what does that even mean? Can Bill Clinton describe himself in those terms (inspite of DOMA, his military policy, etc?)

What people are REALLY interested in learning is whether or not a person agrees with the stated aims of the two major parties. Generally, of course, these aims overlap: Stronger America, freer America, Richer America, blah blah blah. Plus, the Democrats are so pussy-whipped that even their stated aims are unbelievably weak. What about pot legalization or gay marriage? It's not there. All they have is abortion. The Republicans talk about balancing budgets, but always somehow fail (inspite of having a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress). An indicator is the Norquist "no tax pledge" that all of them sign. Republicans, so far as I know, do not take a "balance our budget" pledge, even if it would be more responsible.

The differences between the hardcore economic conservatives on this board, and the so-called liberals/moderates can be kind of obvious at times. The former will say things like virtually all business regulations are illegitimate, or exacerbate the situation. Nearly all unions are terrible (because there's government interference propping them up). Minimum wage laws are bad, and living wage laws are perverted. Taxation is another word for theft, and redistribution is evil. These sort of people will also rarely take the initiative to criticize corporations ("Yeah, I disagree with corporate welfare.")

Now the vast majority of people, even in a relatively conservative country like the United States, take a far more nuanced view. Almost everyone, for example, believed the government had an obligation to the Katrina victims in New Orleans. Everyone is also upset about the fraud. People will support tax cuts, but they will not support tax cuts if the issue is framed differently (such as tax cuts versus paying down the debt, social security, healthcare, the environment, military defense, and so on down the line).

See for instance this White House memo, starting a couple paragraphs down on "Your role is..." http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/archives/000058.html

The problem with polls such as this is that the right-wing has been very successful in the ways in which it frames issues. "Oh, you think everyone deserves healthcare? Well, that's socialism. It's literally socialized medicine!" The military is also socialized. Conservatives even glorify military life, even if it involves wearing uniforms and leading a highly regimented life dictated by powers above. Look at how Castro dresses up.

The mushy "moderates" on this board, who probably do not participate in the vast majority of discussions, define themselves against these people with a well-formed ideology. "I think government has a role to play in somethings -- global warming, environment, workplace safety, minimal aid to the poor -- but "sometimes goes too far." They're "moderates" since they can attribute blame to the excesses of the market (emblems of ruthless capitalism like Walmart) as well as blame excesses of government (funding for some stupid program). However, others on this board will almost always blame government for everything, and if Walmart is evil, or deregulation doesn't work, then, sorry, if you look deep enough you'll discover that it's actually the fault of government. Moreover, and this does bear constant reptition, it's worth noting that libertarians and conservatives on this board not only think government intervention is inefficient, but that it's illegitimate; the notion that government is overstepping a sacred philosophical boundary. For example, it's secondary that minimum wage laws lead to inflation, economic inefficiency, etc. What's problematic is that the government is butting it's head in and restricting the negotation of a free contract in a free market.

[Dragonrock]

That seems more Libertarian than Liberal to me.

If you read down my post a bit further, I state that libertarians are generally socially liberal.

[Dragonrock]

Well, I do see a whole lot of BS in this thread, which is to be expected. How can we classify the Greens/Socialists as "socially conservative"??

Well, "We" didn't classify Greens as "socially conservative", I did. My reason for that is I believe a socially conservative person feels the need to control the personal lives of other people.

[bob_kark]

Well, this kinda surprised me:

Economic Left/Right: 1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

I thought I'd end up being a bit more moderate on both counts, shows what I know.

I do have to say however, some of the questions were a bit loaded.

[Meffy]

"Always be careful where a question is pointed. It might be loaded."
-- me, just now

[Cain]

Well, "We" didn't classify Greens as "socially conservative", I did. My reason for that is I believe a socially conservative person feels the need to control the personal lives of other people.

Well, "we" is merely an expression, and if I recall correctly, the thread starter agreed with you. In any event, we can see how legislation can protect employers from regulating a person's private life. Should an employer be allowed to fire a person for his sexual orientation, political beliefs, recreational drug use (assuming these characteristics and activities do not affect work). By conventional standards Greens and socialists are not by any stretch of the imagination classified as "social conservatives," although I am pleased to see you recognize your view as personal and idiosyncratic.

[daenku32]

As long as you are in the majority, you can be social conservative and fiscal liberal, and not be any better than someone socially and fiscally conservative.

Mobs and money easily compensate for the lack of offical representation.

[a_unique_person]

Jesus H. Christ on a playground, did you get your lunch money stolen every day when you were a kid? Why is it every time three or four guys disagree with you or your intellectual confreres, they're suddenly a bunch of bullies? Man, if there were a "Weenie" category in the current poll, I know where you'd fit.

How do you explain the number of 'liberals' who don't post here, but vote in polls? I have had PMs from people asking me how I put up with it. I explain to them that most of the US people, for example, are ordinary moderate people, despite vocal minority who readily resort to abuse.

[Globert]

Economic Left/Right: 0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51

small 'L' libertarian, middle o the road Economicaly.

none of the answers could be "none of the above" so I dont think my apathy was well represented.


-edit for dyslexic tendencies.


-Globe

[Darat]

Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

I do wish they'd start to add a "pragmatic" part to these compasses, my responses are based on what I think are best overall for "humanity" and not fettered by an idealogical approach. So whether a particular solution can be labeled "free-market", "capitalism", "fascism" and so on should not have any relevance to deciding whether a particular solution is the best available solution.

[Cain]

How do you explain the number of 'liberals' who don't post here, but vote in polls? I have had PMs from people asking me how I put up with it. I explain to them that most of the US people, for example, are ordinary moderate people, despite vocal minority who readily resort to abuse.

In other words, you're admitting liberals are in fact pussies...?

[DreadNiK]

You mean like this one? www.politicalcompass.org


Exactly like that one. That one. :P

[Zep]

I'll make it easy:

Conservative = patriotic Americans
Liberal = treacherous, traiterous slimeHope this helps.Yep. Helps us understand what's going on in your head, anyway... ;)

[BPSCG]

I'll make it easy:

Conservative = patriotic Americans
Liberal = treacherous, traiterous slimeHope this helps.
Yep. Helps us understand what's going on in your head, anyway... ;)Oh, Jeeze, that's what happens when I post something while I'm tired. I should have posted as follows:

I'll make it easy:

Conservative = patriotic Americans
Liberal = treacherous, traitorous slimeHope this helps.:D My apologies for the misseplling and lack of smiley.

[Dancing David]

Great poll. Break out!

Social liberal, fiscal conservative.

I believe in universal health care because the cost of administration in canada is less than the us, I think we should fund education, policew those who would harm other, encourage a wide variety of capitalist ventures and have an efficient military.