Awwww, You're All Just A Bunch of Rabid Right Wing Bush Supporters

[Foolmewunz]

Obviously not!

But it's surprising that while most of the real extreme right wing are lurking and sock-puppeting on the various CT boards, the LC mob, to a man/woman, seem to think anyone who questions their insanity and inanity is automatically a status quo supporting Republican, has at least a hundred thousand shares of Halliburton, and cashed out of Enron two days before all the "little people" got hurt.

Annecdotal evidence only, please..... Not a formal poll. All are welcome - not looking for only liberals or only conservatives, but a fair enough cross-section.

I'll start - I am so NOT a Republican! My politics are probably to the left of the Clintons, in fact. Yet, anyone who's seen my posts can surmise that I'm violently (in a pacifist sort of way) anti-CT.

[gumboot]

Here in New Zealand, I'd be seen as slightly left on a lot of issues, slightly right on a lot of others. I guess I'm kinda in the middle.

Not sure how that fits into the USA. But I could never vote for a political party that used religious rhetoric, which both Republicans and Democrats seem to use from time to time.

-Andrew

[CptColumbo]

Since I started to be eligible to vote, I've yet to vote for the man elected president. I've always back the wrong horse. This might be due to the fact that I vote 3rd party often (but not always).

Yeah, I voted for Jesse Ventura in '98, and given the candidates that year I'd do it again.

That being said, this might be a thread better suited to the Politics forum. Which I hope all visitors who think we're all right-wing will visit, before forming that opinion.

[apathoid]

Independant, usually non-voting left-leaning moderate. Looking forward to a new administration in '08. :)

[Oliver]

I'm violently (in a pacifist sort of way) Anti-CT.

I´m not political at all, having 13 Parties and they´re
all nuts. But why does america only have 2 political
parties? For God knows how much people? Do they
all have just 2 meanings? Or do they choke other
movements?

This is a serios question to the world most powerfull
country on the planet.

[jhunter1163]

It seems to me that Bush is the victim of the six-year rule.. we get bored of our presidents after six years and try to come up with some way to get rid of them, Clinton with Whitewater/Lewinsky, Reagan with Iran/contra, and Bush with whatever it is they're trying to pin on him. Now I'm not saying they don't have some reason for this, but every second-term president hears calls for his impeachment, no matter what he does.

[aerosolben]

Since I started to be eligible to vote, I've yet to vote for the man elected president. I've always back the wrong horse. This might be due to the fact that I vote 3rd party often (but not always).
Hey, me too!

Of course, my reason is less third parties, and more that the first presidential election I was eligible to vote in was in 2000....

[apathoid]

I´m not political at all, having 13 Parties and they´re
all nuts. But why does america only have 2 political
parties? For God knows how much people? Do they
all have just 2 meanings? Or do they choke other
movements?


Great point. But, there are more than 2 parties(Greens, Libertarians, Communists, I think we even have a Labor party). Its just that they are even more looney than the Ds and Rs.

[Oliver]

Great point. But, there are more than 2 parties(Greens, Libertarians, Communists, I think we even have a Labor party). Its just that they are even more looney than the Ds and Rs.

And what about millions of not wealthy and poor
people over there? Who represents them?

[Foolmewunz]

That being said, this might be a thread better suited to the Politics forum. Which I hope all visitors who think we're all right-wing will visit, before forming that opinion.

Attention Mods - unless it turns into a political back-and-forth, please leave in CT. It's a CT related sampling.

The intention was to get some anecdotal data to offer as responses to the "Oh, you're all bunch of .....(whatevers)!" I think most JREFers would think that to be totally absurd, as we fight like cats and dogs amongst ourselves, but that's in Politics, Religion, History, and especially Humor! :rolleyes: .

[DarkMagician]

I'm pretty much a Democrat through and through. If there were anything to these CTs, I'd be one of the first crying out for blood. However, no matter how I feel, a CT is an extraordinary claim, and they do not put up the evidence to prove their CTs.

[SezMe]

Independant, usually non-voting left-leaning moderate. Looking forward to a new administration in '08. :)
I'm interested in the "non-voting" part. Why do you usually not vote?

[gtc]

I´m not political at all, having 13 Parties and they´re
all nuts. But why does america only have 2 political
parties? For God knows how much people? Do they
all have just 2 meanings? Or do they choke other
movements?

This is a serios question to the world most powerfull
country on the planet.

Oliver, I come from Australia.

The US has two dominant parties because of the way they count votes.
The winner in the US is the party who gets the most votes.

Say there are two parties, Democrat and Republican and the votes go like this:

Democrat 12,000
Republican 10,000

The Democrats obviously win.

Now, what if the Democrats split into two parties, the Social Democrats and the Greens. The votes might go like this:

Republican 10,000
Democrat 8,000
Green 4,000

The Republicans win, because the left wing vote has been split.

[Brainache]

Well I'm Australian and I usually vote Labor and/or Greens. Would never consider voting for the Libs.
So I guess in US terms I'm left of the Clintons and leaning towards Ralf Nader.

[Oliver]

Now, what if the Democrats split into two parties, the Social Democrats and the Greens. The votes might go like this: The Republicans win, because the left wing vote has been split.

So the Republicans and or Democrates are
coalitions of several subparties, right?

Thanks for your help, GTC - i never understood it very well.

[stateofgrace]

Try this.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

I’m sure you guys will have seen it before but here are my results.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.88&soc=-0.82

[Brainache]

The thing I find most strange about US politics is the apparently small number of people who turn out to vote.
Of course here voting is compuslory which I don't entirely agree with, but I like to think that if voting was voluntary we would get more than half the elligible population to vote. I may of course be over estimating my fellow Australians' political energy.

[gumboot]

Try this.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

I’m sure you guys will have seen it before but here are my results.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.88&soc=-0.82


Oh neat. I gave it a crack (http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.13&soc=-2.41).

Turns out I'm slightly in the Libertarian Left camp (very similar to your self, stateofgrace, just a tad more libertarian and a tad more right. Interestingly the only New Zealand party they put in that spectrum were the Greens, who I can't stand. Heh. Not sure if it's to do with the particular policies that most interest me, or my poor understanding of politics... ;)

-Andrew

[Brainache]

OK I did the questionaire:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-8.13&soc=-7.03

Seems I'm left of Ghandi.

[Peephole]

I'm a European social-democrat.

[kevin]

i tend to be socially liberal and economically conserative. I voted for bush sr, and clinton (both times). Under no circumstances could you have gotten me to vote for bush jr. I have always considered him to be an idiot, even before the war in Iraq.

The only action he's taken that I agreed with (and this includes all his domestic policy too) is attacking afghanistan. Which he promptly pissed away attacking Iraq on fabricated evidence that I didn't believe when I heard it!

The complete incompetence at fabricating evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 or accomplishing building WMD's is pretty damning in claiming they pulled off 9/11 conspiracies.

[fuelair]

Well I'm Australian and I usually vote Labor and/or Greens. Would never consider voting for the Libs.
So I guess in US terms I'm left of the Clintons and leaning towards Ralf Nader.

Ralph Nadir ( purposeful, point-making misspelling) has turned into a publicity hungry (only appropriate words are rule 8). But, hey, if that's what people want.

[MarkyX]

Moderate right winger here. I despise Bush for being an incompetent leader.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

OK I did the questionaire:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-8.13&soc=-7.03

Seems I'm left of Ghandi.

There doesn't seem to be anything in the quiz that approximates rhino philosophy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Party)

[kevin]

And what about millions of not wealthy and poor
people over there? Who represents them?

theoretically whoever they vote for represents them, it's not like you have to have money to vote (any more). Traditionally the democrats have claimed to represent the poor. although it tends to be the urban poor that votes democrat. the rural poor tend to vote religion (therefore republican) even if it is economically disadvantageous to them.

[calebprime]

I guess I'm slightly to the libertarian left of dead center. Way to the libertarian left on issues of personal freedom, but think we need some regulation of business, some environmental laws, taxes to raise money for public schools, strong national defense, etc. Not sure if this a coherent position.

Strongly, strongly anti-Conspiracy Theory. I'm slightly ashamed if any of the CT'ers are identified with the 60's left, or current progressive causes. I support protest against the Iraq war , and I'm ashamed to see it associated with lunatics.

[Jocky]

Try this.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

I’m sure you guys will have seen it before but here are my results.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.88&soc=-0.82

Ah yes, seen this before. We gave it a whirl over on UK-Skeptics a few weeks ago.

All ten of us who did the poll came out in the bottom left quadrant! My score (Economic -5, Social -4.15) was close to the average for the group. Admittedly, my politics are left of centre - I'm a Liberal Democrat voter, and here in the UK they are comfortably the most left wing of the three major parties (the only one which came out against the Iraq war, for instance, an option which seems to have been denied to US voters). But I am no rabid socialist!

However, I am a tad skeptical of how accurate a barometer this test is, ingenious as it may be - interpretation of both questions and results are subject to cultural bias. I suspect you'd have to be a pretty dedicated fan of jackboots and low, low taxes to end up very far away from the bottom left quadrant.

[asmodean]

Same as Peephole: basically social-democrat.

Results from PC:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

with the graph: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-5.63&soc=-4.97

[negativ]

I really can't stand the fact that the Repblican party has been for at least 25 years bending over and taking it from the religious right. The Democrats, however, have raised "being pathetic" to an art form.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=0.13&soc=-4.82

[CurtC]

I'm pro-freedom. I think people should be allowed to make arrangements for their money and their labor with minimal government involvement, and if the government gets involved, there needs to be a damn good reason.

Another facet is that people should be allowed to do what they want to do personally, as long as they're not harming someone else. There are limitations on all these, for living in a society with lots of other people, but overall these should be the guiding principles.

I think that puts me as a small-L libertarian. I used to identify with Republicans on 90% of the issues, but that was back when 90% of the issues before the government were economic.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There doesn't seem to be anything in the quiz that approximates rhino philosophy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Party)

Meh, haven't really changed since the last time I did it:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.38&soc=-4.92

[Darth Rotor]

I think that puts me as a small-L libertarian. I used to identify with Republicans on 90% of the issues, but that was back when 90% of the issues before the government were economic.
I never registered for any political party. I'll be voting for Kinky Friedman this November for Texas governor. Now and again a protest vote is appropriate.

The Reagan Republicans did some good, and the Republican house vs Clinton did some more good, particularly in knocking down deficits.

My second biggest disappointment with the current crowd, beyond various wars, is the irresponsible abuse of debt financing. This is LBJonomics at best, slash and burn at its worst.

My biggest disappointment is failure to enforce Article IV of the US Constitution. Neither party has the guts to do that, it seems.

If the Libertarians were actually organized, I'd consider joining them.

DR

[Axiom_Blade]

Great point. But, there are more than 2 parties(Greens, Libertarians, Communists, I think we even have a Labor party). Its just that they are even more looney than the Ds and Rs.

Well, there are a lot of Republicans who would vote Libertarian, and a lot of Democrats who would vote Green, but they don't feel that such a vote would be "realistic", and would just split the vote, causing the election of the opposition. (See the Democrats' fear in '01 and '04 over Nader "splitting the vote" and "helping" Bush to win.)

The system is set up to favor two parties. A third party has only broke through once in US history, when the Republicans overthrew the Whigs with Lincoln. The third parties are "loony" in that they actually represent interests of the people: the two major parties represent interests of their funders (usually large corporations) (see the many similarities between Bush and Kerry in the '04 election. Many US voters feel they are merely choosing between the "lesser of two evils".)

I'm a Green Party member, who sometimes votes Libertarian.

[Brainster]

I'd classify myself as center-right. Among others, I've voted for Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton (first time) and George W. Bush. I'm economically conservative, socially libertarian and a foreign policy hawk. I support the President, but not everything he does.

[G-K-4]

But it's surprising that while most of the real extreme right wing are lurking and sock-puppeting on the various CT boards, the LC mob, to a man/woman, seem to think anyone who questions their insanity and inanity is automatically a status quo supporting Republican.

I'm with you, Foolmewunz. I'm certainly farther to the left than conservative Democrats such as the Clintons, and possibly farther than you, but I can't stand conspiracism. In fact, conspiracism runs counter to normal leftist ways of understanding the world. It looks like the populist Right has been making inroads over the last twenty years.

If you are interested in learning more about this problem, I recommend the articles called "Right Woos Left" by Chip Berlet. I can't post URL's yet, but it's on his "Public Eye" (dot org) website.

And I'm glad to know that not everyone is falling for these tall tales, and some of us are fighting back.

[0oTITANo0]

I am very liberal socially and an economic centrist.
I believe that everyone should have sex, drugs and rock and roll to their own level of satisfaction and in their own way. This of course is qualified by the fact that all parties are consenting adults.
Economically I believe that the motivation to profit is valuable however we need comtrols that protect consumers and employees.

[jon]

it's because I'm on the left politically that I find all of this CT stuff so worrying - if this catches on in left-wing political movements (which it may do) it would be a really spectacular way of shooting ourselves in the foot*. Aside from that, it's a shame to see so much anti-Bush, anti-Blair etc. energy being wasted in the '9/11 truth' movement.

*repeatedly. And after each shot listening to Alex Jones blaming the globalists, while CTers reload the gun and moan about the bleeding.

[Moochie]

Was left, never right, now frozen in time and violently ill whenever anyone asks me to vote for any of the clowns that are regularly trotted out during elections.

M.

[jskowron]

I'm pretty far to the left, especially socially. I usually vote democrat, usually not because I like them, but because I generally don't like the republican platform and feel, at this time in the US, my vote would be wasted on a candidate from a more left-leaning party.

[ArmillarySphere]

I'm pretty much in the center. Of Swedish politics, that is, which means that I would be a long distance to the left of the Democrats if I lived in the US.

Speaking of the republican-religious merger, I had an interesting view of the BBC documentary "The power of nightmares", which went some way to clarify things, especially part two. (each part is an hour long, so it takes a while to watch it all)

I'm probably not allowed to post links yet, so modify as appropriate.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7930933565201168
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649090417189127240

[Elizabeth I]

Social liberal, economic conservative. I think both the Democrats AND Republicans are crooked panderers, although the Republicans do a better job of making it look like they are stating their OWN opinions rather than just kissing up to the religious right.

I have a theory that no one can stay in politics - at least in the U.S. - if she or he is both intelligent and honest. If you're honest but dumb, you won't see the crookedness. If you're intelligent but crooked, you'll just join the rest of the thieves. If you're honest and intelligent, it will make you sick and you won't be able to last more than a couple of terms (of course, if you're President that's all you need - I'm thinking more about Congress and state legislatures.)

[Brainster]

it's because I'm on the left politically that I find all of this CT stuff so worrying - if this catches on in left-wing political movements (which it may do) it would be a really spectacular way of shooting ourselves in the foot*. Aside from that, it's a shame to see so much anti-Bush, anti-Blair etc. energy being wasted in the '9/11 truth' movement.

Some of the liberal bloggers will latch onto this after November if the Democrats don't retake both houses. There seems to be a notion (I think very naive) that if they do manage to retake both houses there will be serious impeachment proceedings on the basis of Iraq prewar intelligence. But if they don't take back both houses there would be no chance, and Isome, believing that two more years of the Bush Administration would be devastating to the (pick as many as you like) economy/environment/civil liberties/foreign relations would see 9-11 Denial as the Hail Mary pass.

[Foolmewunz]

I took a day off - I'm in Asia for the past four years, and by the time the 9/11 events were getting started in the USA yesterday, I could sit at home in the evening and watch. Still rattles me. Five years ago I watched the whole thing live from Jersey City - 19th/20th floor of 10 Exchange Place, and it was my absence from New York and its environs that got me curious as to the political makeup of the 'debunkers'. (In single quotes because I know CTers refer to themselves as debunkers of the OCT.)

Interesting assortment of political ideologies. Obviously simple to classify into one group. "Intelligent Homo Sapiens". :p

[Hamradioguy]

I grew up a democrat in a centrist republican household. Probably Moderate Libertarian would fit best- legalize most drugs, support the 2nd Amendment, limit the size of government, keep government out of snooping into peoples lives (and out of the bedroom).

Lyndon Johnson was the only presidential candidate I ever voted for who actually won, and I'm not too proud of that. Do a lot of ticket splitting and voting for third party candidates who of course never have much of a chance at winning. (BTW my 94 year old father is convinced the NY Times is a communist paper and that his beloved Wall Street Journal has been taken over by left wing democrats. Let's hope I don't go down THAT road....)

[Axiom_Blade]

it's because I'm on the left politically that I find all of this CT stuff so worrying - if this catches on in left-wing political movements (which it may do) it would be a really spectacular way of shooting ourselves in the foot*. Aside from that, it's a shame to see so much anti-Bush, anti-Blair etc. energy being wasted in the '9/11 truth' movement.

*repeatedly. And after each shot listening to Alex Jones blaming the globalists, while CTers reload the gun and moan about the bleeding.

Ehh...I'm afraid it already has caught on. At least, in my neck of the woods.
(But it IS Northern California, so there ya go.)

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to ameliorate this trend, any more than any other type of brainwashing.

[G-K-4]

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to ameliorate this trend, any more than any other type of brainwashing.

I would say that you shouldn't treat them all as a monolith. There are, of course, the obsessives who build their lives around 9/11. They are probably most of the believers you see online or at the WTC site. That kind of exposure may color your view of the larger group.

On the other hand, there may be many people who just believe the conspiracy theories because they haven't thought about it very much. Or maybe because a friend of theirs does. But an example of another friend can sometimes make an impression, especially over time. If they seem like the right kind of person in the right frame of mind, you can share non-conspiracist "alternative points of view", and I expect some people (maybe many) would reconsider. Just don't force it.

And we'll probably find it easier to do this in 28 1/2 months.

[Pardalis]

I always vote for the social democrats here in Québec, they always seem to have the better progressive ideas. If I was an American, I would probably be a Democrat, but not too Liberal. I don't really like affiliating myself to one party, I like to be free to appreciate good ideas wherever they come from.

[Pidge]

Oh neat. I gave it a crack (http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.13&soc=-2.41).

Turns out I'm slightly in the Libertarian Left camp (very similar to your self, stateofgrace, just a tad more libertarian and a tad more right. Interestingly the only New Zealand party they put in that spectrum were the Greens, who I can't stand. Heh. Not sure if it's to do with the particular policies that most interest me, or my poor understanding of politics... ;)

-Andrew

Gah! Me too! (http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.75&soc=-2.87)

[Bronze Dog]

Not used to political speak, so bear with me.

I find it funny when CT nutbars and other woos call me a conservative. I don't think I'm a liberal (yet), but I am most certainly not a conservative, or at least nothing like those people out there calling themselves conservatives.

W is the first president I actively hated. And I hated him long before it was cool. Primarily because he's in favor of discrimination against atheists with that whole thing about why we shouldn't be considered citizens. I think he's evil, but thankfully, I think his incompetence prevents him from realizing his full evil potential. Unfortunately, that brings up lots of other problems.

I don't categorically trust the government, and I don't categorically distrust it either: It's not a monolithic entity. Lots of people are working at cross-purposes. There's simply no way it could pull off a big conspriacy with such massive internal conflict.

[Axiom_Blade]

Bah.
The more I understand politics, the less sense these "right" and "left" labels make. It's just a way to keep people divided.

For example, Libertarians are considered "right-wing". But, many people you ask will say that being anti-war and pro-choice is "left-wing".

I've also met many "left-wingers" who think that the War on Terror is a Good Thing, although they believe that Bush has mishandled it. I think there's quite a few people who you could move from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[KingMerv00]

W is the first president I actively hated. And I hated him long before it was cool. Primarily because he's in favor of discrimination against atheists with that whole thing about why we shouldn't be considered citizens.

Wasn't that Bush Sr.?

[Hellbound]

Axiom:

I actually agree with you. I hate the two-party system, but due to the prevelence it's gained and the expense of campaigning, it's hard to come up with a viable alternative.

Might be nice to see some sort of independent campaign idea, without parties, where individuals can donate to a general campaign fund. Candidates would have to meet certain requirements (maybe petitions of 1,000 names from each state, or something) to get on the ballot. Then the genral campaigning fund is distributed to the various candidates, with all campaign contributions disallowed. Of course, I'd imagine such a system would be unworkable (just cause I'm not that smart, and I figure it has a flaw somewhere).

I'm left-wing on some issues (pro-choice), right wing on others, but generally I tend towards the middle. For example, I'm generally anti-war, but also understand that sometimes it's a necessary evil (although other options should be exhausted first). On gun control, I'm for the right to bear arms, but I would like to see some sort of licensing system for gun ownership and use (not of the guns themselves, but the users, much like a driver's license is handled).

I'd probably be in the left-wing group you describe (I think the war on terror is needed, but also think they Keystopne Kops would do a better job than Bush and Co.).

[aggle-rithm]

Axiom:

I actually agree with you. I hate the two-party system, but due to the prevelence it's gained and the expense of campaigning, it's hard to come up with a viable alternative.

Might be nice to see some sort of independent campaign idea, without parties, where individuals can donate to a general campaign fund. Candidates would have to meet certain requirements (maybe petitions of 1,000 names from each state, or something) to get on the ballot. Then the genral campaigning fund is distributed to the various candidates, with all campaign contributions disallowed. Of course, I'd imagine such a system would be unworkable (just cause I'm not that smart, and I figure it has a flaw somewhere).

I'm left-wing on some issues (pro-choice), right wing on others, but generally I tend towards the middle. For example, I'm generally anti-war, but also understand that sometimes it's a necessary evil (although other options should be exhausted first). On gun control, I'm for the right to bear arms, but I would like to see some sort of licensing system for gun ownership and use (not of the guns themselves, but the users, much like a driver's license is handled).

I'd probably be in the left-wing group you describe (I think the war on terror is needed, but also think they Keystopne Kops would do a better job than Bush and Co.).

The problem with the American political system was summed up nicely in a Simpson's episode where aliens replaced the two presidential candidates. When the deception was revealed, it was too late to do anything:

Aliens: You have to vote for one of us! It's a two-party system!
Voice in the crowd: I'll support a third-party candidate!
Aliens: Sure, throw your vote away!

I'm a Republican, by the way. Please don't tell anyone.

[Hellbound]

aggle:

Yep. I almost always end up voting for the lesser of two evils. Because the parties have tried so hard to distinguish themselves from each other, they tend to represent the two extremes more than the (IMHO more reasonable) middle ground. I can't recall a President that I felt represented me or my views.

I'm an independent (not the party...I just vote for whoever I want to and affiliate with no party).

[Cleon]

The problem with the American political system was summed up nicely in a Simpson's episode where aliens replaced the two presidential candidates. When the deception was revealed, it was too late to do anything:

Aliens: You have to vote for one of us! It's a two-party system!
Voice in the crowd: I'll support a third-party candidate!
Aliens: Sure, throw your vote away!


I used to have Homer's classic quote from that episode as my sig line.

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"

:D


I'm a Republican, by the way. Please don't tell anyone.


It's ok, nobody's perfect. And you've already taken that first step of admitting you have a problem.


;)

[G-K-4]

In terms of the world-wide political spectrum, U.S. politics are relatively
narrow around the center-right. This includes the Democratic Party, although there are certain people who are registered Democrats who are to the left of that party. (Which puts them to the global Center, trailing off toward the Left.)

There are a few reasons why the two main U.S. political parties cluster near each other (including the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral system), and one of the effects of this nearness is that sometimes people switch parties. In fact, many times people vote for two different parties for different offices. (For example, voting for an incumbent Democratic Congressman and voting for a Republican Presidential candidate.)

A "wing" (as in "left-wing" and "right-wing") tendency means a position farther out from the center. I think that some of you who say they are on a wing are actually just on a shoulder.

One thing I'd like to know is how the 9/11 conspiracists fall. I heard today that Alex Jones supports the Minutemen. Is that true? If it is, it wouldn't surprise me. They are out on the right wing, by the way, not just your run-of-the-mill conservatives.

[ktesibios]

It's really hard to say just where the typical 9/11 denier falls in the political spectrum. I think it likely that many, especially the Loose Change demographic, would self-identify as "progressive", but the banfests at the LC forum and the schismatic wars among the "Scholars" show an ugly tendency to authoritarianism which I would never associate with a politically liberal orientation.

This description might seem kind of familiar:

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

Sound like the Troothers? That's taken from Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and when it was published in 1964 he was talking about the political far right.

Up until the turn of the 21st century, that kind of paranoid conspiracism remained mostly the province of the right-wing fringe. Remember the "militia movement"- you know, the living-in-a-fortified-compound-in-Idaho-fondling-our-guns-and-waiting-for-the NWO's-black-helicopters types? They were a very fertile source of paranoid fantasies about an impending police state with concentration camps and 107,000 government-owned white boxcars with built-in shackles to haul people thereto. The "tax protestor" movement has had a similar tendency to view the world through the window of conspiracism.

Noone would have ever mistaken these birds for the political left. The same goes for representatives of the paranoid conspiracy theory industry like Alex Jones.

Hofstadter traced what he dubbed the "paranoid style" back through the populism and nativism of the 19th century, and I think that the Troothers could legitimately be dubbed a manifestation of extreme populism; with their vehement rejection of education, expertise and scientific thinking as tools for understanding the world they remind me uncomfortably of the Great Simplification from A Canticle for Liebowitz.

Measurements on a "liberal-conservative" ruler or even on a coordinate plane like the Political Compass don't seem to correlate all that well with tendencies towards the conspiracist worldview and mode of thought. There's some other set of factors at work that might have to do with how we've learned to interrogate reality and how we cope with things we can't completely understand.

And now, to add to the evidence adduced in this thread that "left-right" classifications of opinions aren't predictive of one's tendency to CTism, here's a link to an anarchist Web site's 9/11 CT debunking page. You'll notice that links to Gravy's work are prominently featured.

http://www.infoshop.org/texts/debunking911.html