12 replies to this topic

[kngnothin]

Just taking a gander at the political awareness of the average tech student. I added a bonus question.

[Josh]

In the years when one party controls the House and/or Senate and the White House, they always lose seats in the midterms. So this year's predictions aren't much of a surprise. Nevertheless, a House takeover is highly unlikely, and a Senate takeover is almost beyond possible.

Obama won't be a one-term president despite the 2010 losses; expect the GOP to be greatly fractured by the time the 2012 nominating season begins due to their roots uprising. The early caucus in Iowa also doesn't help, if some Tea Party favorite like Palin actually does make a run for it (she's going to be in Iowa later this month).

Finally, not to question your political awareness, but a poll that only has the options Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian/Other is a little weak.

[kngnothin]

Josh, on 03 September 2010 - 12:49 AM, said:

Finally, not to question your political awareness, but a poll that only has the options Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian/Other is a little weak.

And what would you prefer? Those are the three main divisions in American politics today. Sure, there are others if we take into account every political philosophy, every fringe group, but those are the three main ones today. I would love it if you would have offered more. I could have edited the poll to include them within a certain time... or even then I could just keep track and record them on my own. Whatever the case, I appreciate your helpful criticism.

[MaiAndy]

Democrats are probably going to lose seats but they'll still have the majority. I also don't see Obama as a one term president because the other side does not really have anything to offer as a candidate against him. And I identified myself as "Other" because I don't play the politic game.

[Josh]

kngnothin, on 03 September 2010 - 12:52 AM, said:

And what would you prefer? Those are the three main divisions in American politics today. Sure, there are others if we take into account every political philosophy, every fringe group, but those are the three main ones today. I would love it if you would have offered more. I could have edited the poll to include them within a certain time... or even then I could just keep track and record them on my own. Whatever the case, I appreciate your helpful criticism.

Many people identify as moderates or progressives (not the same as liberal).

You should have known that there was something wrong with your poll when it wasn't equally spaced out on the continuum. You have one left-leaning philosophy, one right-leaning philosophy, and one stronger right-leaning philosophy. Basically, on a scale of 1-10, you only gave the options 1, 3, and 7 (libertarian, conservative, and liberal, respectively). "5" would be moderate, and "10" would be progressive, if we want to use the same data coding system.

Sorry I wasn't helpful enough previously; I was intentionally vague as I was hoping you would figure this out without me spelling it out. I can edit the poll if you want me to.

[kngnothin]

Josh, on 03 September 2010 - 11:27 PM, said:

Many people identify as moderates or progressives (not the same as liberal).

You should have known that there was something wrong with your poll when it wasn't equally spaced out on the continuum. You have one left-leaning philosophy, one right-leaning philosophy, and one stronger right-leaning philosophy. Basically, on a scale of 1-10, you only gave the options 1, 3, and 7 (libertarian, conservative, and liberal, respectively). "5" would be moderate, and "10" would be progressive, if we want to use the same data coding system.

Sorry I wasn't helpful enough previously; I was intentionally vague as I was hoping you would figure this out without me spelling it out. I can edit the poll if you want me to.

That's reasonable. You can edit my poll to add whatever you want on the 3rd quesiton. As the pollster, I'm remaining as a type of neutral arbitrator, so I'll only respond on my position after a month or so.

However, it is funny that you would criticize me for not including one position, "progressive." I do not follow a scale, but I know that most liberals do have a progressive agenda in mind. Sure, include progressives but liberals and progressives are more similar in ideologies than, let's say, libertarians and conservatives are way different from one another. Add progressive if you feel that it will make any difference; I doubt it.

[kngnothin]

Cont. (hopefully with more clarity)
Progressivism is the direct opposite of conservatism, not so much libertarianism. In America, over the course of its history, liberals have adopted many positions that are considered "progressive," thus Liberalism today is considered a direct opposite to conservatism. Meanwhile, Libertarians are not viewed as being so similar with Conservatives. This is why I included those 3 options and only those 3 options. My one mistake is that I didn't include "Choose not to Answer" or "None." But again, you can add that one single option if you think it will make a difference; you are the college boy after all.

[Josh]

First off I'd like to thank you for not being anywhere near as angry and reckless as many people in your situation (conservative fish in a liberal pool) would be.

Moving on, in the same way that you may find it a distinction without a difference to separate liberal and progressive, I would make the same argument about conservative and libertarian. Core conservative values (Goldwater Republican values) are very similar to core libertarian values. In actuality, I only added "progressive" because you added "libertarian," simply to make this point.

Ultimately, the simplest poll would have been liberal/moderate/conservative -- if you had picked that, you wouldn't have gotten this talking-to from the "college boy." ;)

[kngnothin]

Josh, on 04 September 2010 - 12:15 AM, said:

First off I'd like to thank you for not being anywhere near as angry and reckless as many people in your situation (conservative fish in a liberal pool) would be.

Moving on, in the same way that you may find it a distinction without a difference to separate liberal and progressive, I would make the same argument about conservative and libertarian. Core conservative values (Goldwater Republican values) are very similar to core libertarian values. In actuality, I only added "progressive" because you added "libertarian," simply to make this point.

Ultimately, the simplest poll would have been liberal/moderate/conservative -- if you had picked that, you wouldn't have gotten this talking-to from the "college boy." ;)

Spot on. NY is a very liberal city. But why would I be angry, and I wonder why did you assume that I was a con?

We are talking about today. I do not agree that libertarianism is anywhere close to conservatism, today, despite the roots, since it is anti-war, anti-military, anti-government, etc. A real extension of conservatism would be neo-conservatism. A real extension of libertarianism would be anarchism. Progressivism is very similar to today's liberalism, since both ideologies support growing entitlements and dependencies, are generally anti-war, and are fond of big government.

Moving on, the thing is, to be frank, wth is a Moderate? It is a person who doesn't agree with both left and right, correct? So, I just included it in "other" with all the other philosophies that do not agree as well.

I don't really see how you told me anything except for things that have wasted my time.

[kngnothin]

Here is a good definition I found online:

Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

Libertarians are not very relevant to both parties. So, yep, I'm correct and you're not.

[Josh]

kngnothin, on 04 September 2010 - 12:31 AM, said:

Spot on. NY is a very liberal city. But why would I be angry, and I wonder why did you assume that I was a con?

We are talking about today. I do not agree that libertarianism is anywhere close to conservatism, today, despite the roots, since it is anti-war, anti-military, anti-government, etc. A real extension of conservatism would be neo-conservatism. A real extension of libertarianism would be anarchism. Progressivism is very similar to today's liberalism, since both ideologies support growing entitlements and dependencies, are generally anti-war, and are fond of big government.

Moving on, the thing is, to be frank, wth is a Moderate? It is a person who doesn't agree with both left and right, correct? So, I just included it in "other" with all the other philosophies that do not agree as well.

I don't really see how you told me anything except for things that have wasted my time.

kngnothin, on 04 September 2010 - 12:43 AM, said:

Here is a good definition I found online:

Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

Libertarians are not very relevant to both parties. So, yep, I'm correct and you're not.

(I've been following your posts for a while and have taken a guess at your ideologies; my apologies if I am wrong.)

With respect to the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, I think your mindset is too "recent-biased" and you are mis-understanding what the two actually are. Conservatism is not pro-war, it has just manifested that way in American politics in the last thirty years. For most of the 20th century, war was carried out by the liberals, and opposed by what is now a seemingly un-kosher alliance between progressives ("hippies") and conservatives.

Similarly, you are throwing around the term "liberal" without giving its meaning much justice. Not all liberals are fond of big-government. Many people identify as liberals for social/human rights reasons only (take for example, gay rights) -- which makes them much more in line with libertarians -- but still believe in more conservative economics.

You shouldn't dismiss the idea of a moderate so brashly, or suggest that it is an "other." A lack of association between either "pole" on the continuum of political ideologies does not caste someone into a third category off the "traditional" political continuum of conservative-liberal.

For example, I could consider myself a neoliberal, but still support high government involvement in an area of the economy by way of high entitlement spending. For an example of how that may manifest, all you need to do is look at Thatcherism, especially with respect to the NHS.

By suggesting you add "moderate" to your poll, I was hoping you would understand that you haven't set forth an equal continuum. What if a person supports supply-side economics, but supports a healthly level of government oversight and intervention if necessary? Are they instantly "others" to you? Because to me, with respect to the issue of economics, that seems like a very moderate approach to me.

The point of all this has been to show you that there is more to this than the poll. The poll is a metonym for your unfair ideological categorization. But if I've "wasted your time," please accept my most insincere apology.

Edit: As for you're cute "I'm right/you're wrong" quip which you added after I started composing this reply, I believe that through this post I've demonstrated how libertarian beliefs can often be cross-cutting between "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies, especially historically.

Edited by Josh, 04 September 2010 - 01:05 AM.

[kngnothin]

Woah there, a bit long. In regards to what you wrote, I am only interested in the here and now, as I hope everyone else is. I posted the options under the assumption that everyone understood we were talking mainstream, not 100 years ago or in England. Everyone knows mainstream Cons and mainstream Libs. Everyone knows that there is a fine line between them and that is why there is so much friction. Mainstream Liberals advocate for social reform and social change (healthcare reform, immigration reform, social justice like gay rights and such) and, I said generally, are anti-war. Mainstream Conservatives traditionally believe in less government except on powers ordained by the constitution; they advocate policies like less taxes, no national healthcare, no amnesty, less regulation, but want a strong Fed to deal with federal issue like war, immigration, and other powers of the constitution. There a myriad of other issues that separate these positions; people may not agree with EVERY issue on either platforms but both parties have a huge tent.

Everyone differs at economic issues. Reagan's "trickle down" economics only became conservative doctrine since it seemed to support the wealthy class while many liberals today wish to redistribute or put a cap on that weatlh. Economic schemes don't really define political philosophy. It depends what YOU identify with as a whole. I mentioned in the paragraphy above what a "mainstream" whatever is. Anything else can fit in the "other" category which I believe is another word for moderate. Let us use an example: Clinton was fiscally conservative but socially liberal, but people identify his presidency as a liberal one. He is also identified as "moderate" Democrat but everyone acknowledges him as a liberal and, today, he is an advocate for the movement.



Listen, I'm tired of bucking in this thread-devouring discussion, which only you started. I excluded Progressives because they are almost identical to mainstream liberals today. Mainstream libertarians and conservatives are not; you did not prove anything otherwise and you are wrong about that no matter what. I could have included moderates but I felt that since one doesn't hear about them often and no one can really can define their philosophy concretely, they can be excluded into the other section, many lean right or left anyway. You wished for me to "balance," whatever that means, the ideologies but it is already as balanced as it gets. In the end, it's my poll and I can do whatever the f*** I want. So, I don't really want to hear about this anymore. It is really getting uninteresting.

[kngnothin]

I didn't want to jump in and comment on my position until much later, but do you really think the Dems will keep both houses this year?

http://www.gallup.co...ric-Ballot.aspx

The last time a party had such a lead was 68 years ago. A 10% lead on a generic ballot is huge. Imo, I do not think Republicans will take the Senate, but the House is as good as gone. The Republicans will have to take 10 seats in the Senate to earn a majority. That is a very hard thing to do; even in 1994 they only won 8 seats, which is the most likely result for 2010. If Nevada and Illinois fall to Repubs then they will, unless there is an upset, take the senate with 10 seats.

If the economy doesn't miraculously swing up, Obama is gone. The economy is his life support. If a state like Ohio, which voted for Obama, has 1/2 of its voters wishing for Bush back then I think that says everything: http://www.nationalr...ver-obama-50-42