Liberal vs. Conservative

[Gordar]

Social democrat

 

[soaring]

I'm with the French Right, so I think it's closer to the Liberal.

But In France it's different 'cause the Left is very strong : Socialists + Neo-Communists + Ecologists = 50%

Also we use to thinks that the US liberals are quite cloise from the french Right and the US conservative no so far from the Extreme-Right...

To be simple :

Extrème Left (communists) = 10%
Left (socialists and ecologists) = 40%
Right (liberals) 35%
Extreme Right (conservatives and fascists) = 15%

Huh, very interesting Johan. I am very ignorant to French politics. I had no idea there were so many socialists in your country.

I have no idea the political breakdown by percentage in the U.S., but I can tell you where people vote for whom:

Urban areas vote 70% Democrat. (Liberal to Moderate)

Rural areas vote 70% Republican. (Moderate to Conservative)

I believe the majority of registered voters in the U.S. are Moderate Republicans. The Republicans sway voters because they are simply better at politics. They go for the throat at election time and they have more money. Money is what makes this country tick. We vote for whoever gets us more. The U.S is the epitome of the Capitalist society, so what else can be expected? Race does play a major part in this as well, but many people would not admit this amongst the Republicans.

 

[McRocket]

As Om3ga typed - sort of; that is a heck of a bump.

I believe that a government should provide a complete safety net; a small, clean place to live, workfare job, basic education, food, clothing, medical and dental. But only to those that want/need it. And you have to work for it - if you can.
And I think they should help with nothing else, practically (police, military, health and safety standards notwithstanding). Everything else should be market driven. No old age pension, no unemployment insurance, no corporate bailouts, no tax incentives (a flat tax for all), no money for the arts or sports, no frills. You want a museum? You pay for it. You fuck up, you can go on workfare; but otherwise, you are on your own.

I do not know what kind of system that is. I call it democranism (sort of a democratic communism). But that is probably not it.
I just think no one should have to ever worry about a place to live or food or medical, etc.. But I do not want the government budding their noses in the economy - at all; except for setting health and safety standards.
And if less people own houses, so what? It's far more important to me that everyone feel secure then many have way more maoney then they need and far too many worry about where their next meal will come from.
The latter should never be allowed - ever.

 

[member20672]

I'm to liberal to be conservative, but to conservative to be liberal. IMO you really need a balance of both for a better society.

 

[Gordar]

Totally forgot to add my graph... Hope someone can merge my two posts somehow...

my graph

 

[Sweeper]

People that are FAR RIGHT WING are nuts.
and
People that are FAR LEFT WING are nuts.

I reside somewhere in the middle, and I guess that's not good enough.

 

[D-rock]

I would classify myself as an extremely staunch independent. I would do whatever was best for the people no matter what side of the political spectrum that would fall on. I never saw the logic of placing all your ideas into some sort of political affiliation. Although I am sure the way our system is set up it forces politicians to do just that. I don't know whether I am conservative or liberal. There are too many definitions of those to know what they mean. Most of the time it just means Republican or Democrat. I guess I am neither except for perhaps where the Constitution is concerned. Then I am probably as absolutely conservative as possible on that. Otherwise it might as well not exist at all if it somebody can just go willy nilly on it whenever it pleases him. It is nothing more than fluff text at that point.

 

[Member2019]

Politics Test (a Very Good/Accurate/Detailed One)

1-dimensional thinking is rather bland. Not only are their more than 2 sides to a story, but sometimes the 2 sides argue against each other so much, they lose total track of the original problem. This is the major issue with the Democrat and Republican parties right now in the US -- and why both are having major identity issues.

About the only thing I like about the US system, which saves it from becoming either a socialist or a tolitarian state, is that the Legislative and Executive branches can be from different parties. A gift from our founders, and it works quite well at times. Most would agree that a Republican US Congress and a Democrat US President has produced some excellent results -- more conservative spending combined with a no non-sense executive. And God knows the best thing the Republicans gave Clinton was the line item veto (but why won't the Republicans do the same with W.?).

I agree about 20% with the US Democrats, 40% with the US Republicans and 80% with the US Libertarian party. In the screwed up US terminology, a Libertarian is a Social Liberal (Democrat-like on freedoms) and Fiscal Conservative (Republican-like on financial). Of course, there are quite a number of exceptions to the rule -- as both Clinton and W. have shown. They both sport features of thei opposing party.

In fact, and quite hypocritically, I really think a two-faced, unprincipled (in his business ventures, I could care less about his personal life) individual like Clinton was an ideal President -- promising liberal social and welfare programs in the public, while turning around and supporting most of the terms of the Contract with America (all parts except the Balanced Budget Amendment) that radically cut spending. The problem with W. is that he says something, and then does it, and that is causing him to spend more on social and pork than anyone (even more than Reagan with the Democrat Congress) -- especially as an "appeasement" for defense increases.

But that all aside, one of the better "political tests" I've seen is here:
http://www.okcupid.com/politics

Of which, here are my results ... 75% Social Liberal, 83% Economic Conservative
http://www.geocities.com/profv469/poltest.html

I guess it didn't come through in the code, but I like the part when it said I was extremely well behaved and I knew "right from wrong."

I hope everyone can appreciate I'm not only almost equal-distant from a Democrat and the Capitalist-Republican (closer to Capitalist than Democrat, closer to Democrat than Republican), but actually on the opposite side of Totalitarian (of which, both of which share borders with Democrats and Republicans) and far enough away from Centrist so I still think "too far outside the box" for many people.

Now some might label me as a border-line Anarchist, I would say I'm still a little ways from that. But yes, I believe that if everyone knows right from wrong, we can do great things, without dipping into Anarchy. That's why I don't really have much faith in organized religion, because it's largely geared towards those who don't realize the obviousness of the truth of how to make yourself better, which results in a better world. It's also why I don't believe I should rely on the government to help people, which only builds new, inefficient agencies, and would rather see politicians lead by reaching into their own pockets -- which would inspire others to do the same.

As I always say, the best leader would be a Libertarian, borderline Anarchist, who is a complete saint in both his personal and professional lives. Until then, it seems an unscrupulous "do as I say not do as I do" individual, ironically enough, makes the best -- at least Clinton did. Probably my personal favorite of Clinton, which most people blame on W. but it was Clinton, was the Kyoto Treaty. It was shot down 0-98 in the US Senate (including virtually every single member of Clinton's own party -- not a single one voted for it!) during the Clinton administration -- something the Clinton administration knew full well wouldn't pass the US Congress until it was equally enforced on China (something W. is now demonized on). Clinton often agreed to many things only because he knew they would never pass the US Congress -- but made him look good.

 

[McRocket]

I was 76% & 31% respectively.

 

[Member2019]

I was 76% & 31% respectively.

I think most will be 70+% on the social end here.
The variance will be on the economic end.

A high percentage on the economic end might suggest Republican, but given the social rating, I'd say most of the Republicans here are really more Capitalists or Libertarians.
Of course, going the opposite way, there is no end of Democrats or even Socialists here.

Of one note I want to point out, there is often the confusion of a "leader" and a "stateperson" or "politician."
E.g., Ghandi was largely a spiritual leader, and pushed for people to help themselves (as a group), as he did not hold any government position where he pushed a socialist agenda as a formal policy of the government.
As an individual person or leader of a small group, I very much agree with Ghandi's views.
But as a ruler of a larger country, I know they utterly fail as there is less peer-disciplining and holding people accountable -- so I'm the exact opposite on the economy scale when it comes to my vote.
I'd rather put my own dollars and time into charity, than hoping the government does it more efficiently -- because I know they won't (at least not in the US, some countries are much better).

It's why many communist utopian societies/communities flurished in the US.
Yet country-wide communist rule results in almost a totalitarian state.
Socialism only works when you hold people accountable -- and that's not possible if the rule is indirect because of size.
The capitalist, democratic-republic is not anywhere near an ideal form of government, but it's the best most Americans believe there is because of the natural balances -- especially with the US' 3 branch approach that pits all 3 branches against one another.

 

[Member2019]

Bushers and Gorons

People that are FAR RIGHT WING are nuts.
and
People that are FAR LEFT WING are nuts.

Sometimes people have such irrational views based on political alignment, they completely invalidate their viewpoint.

My personal favorite was people who voted against W. and for Gore in 2000 because his father, George H. Bush, raised taxes a decade earlier.
Anyone who knows anything about the "budget stalls" and the resulting political fallout knows that Gore was a key participant in not only drafting and signing that tax increase in the US Senate, but using the media to get H. some bad press as a result of not passing the budget with that tax increase, while signing temporary budgets to keep the government moving.
Thank God when Gore tried to resell that non-sense on This Week with David Brinkley in 1992, Mr. Brinkley exposed Gore's hypocrisy.

I have a name for such people ... Gorons.

I have no love for the Bush's either -- and never voted for a Bush for President either.
I've had enough of the "Bushers" too -- spoiled rotten dad and kids, and the only Democrat to exceed them was Kerry who married into more money.
Sigh, there's just so much the American public doesn't know.

I reside somewhere in the middle, and I guess that's not good enough.

But where is the middle?
Libertarian? Socialist? Or the various flavors of "Moderate"?

In fact, one thing that really gets to me is a clear Socialist who calls themselves a Libertarian.
The second I make them aware that Libertarians are for far less social programs than even the Republicans, they don't believe me until I show them the official Party platform from their web site.

 

[D-rock]

I came out at 88% and 25%.

 

[hedgehog]

I came out 76% and 8%. No surprise there LOL

 

[Member2019]

I was 76% & 31% respectively.

I came out at 88% and 25%.

I came out 76% and 8%. No surprise there LOL

All Democrats and Socialists.
Any Capitalists or fellow Libertarians out there?

 

[hedgehog]

I actually hold quite a few libertarian ideals, with regard to personal freedoms. It's the dominance of our politics by the economic elite which offends me. I think that any reasonable study of history will show that during historical periods in which laissez faire economic policy has prevailed, the less fortunates in our society get the shaft.

I am very much of the opinion that anything occuring between two consenting adults in the privacy of their homes is their business. I find the war on drugs an incredibly backwards policy (why can't anyone stand up and say, "Hey this isn't working! Let's try what the Netherlands have done." but I digress). I could go on and on...

 

[Member2019]

I actually hold quite a few libertarian ideals, with regard to personal freedoms.

That's not a Libertarian.
A Libertarian realizes that the economic freedoms are related to personal freedoms.
Anytime the government gives you a "safety net," they take away choice as well.
Not only that, but the dependency and diminishing returns of the US economy versus those of more socialist Europe are completely visible.
The more socialist we become, the more our wealthy economy will be gutted, just like most European nations.
Our strength comes from being less socialistic -- that's why a national healthcare system is being fought so hard, the income tax rate to support it will destroy our strong economy.

It's the dominance of our politics by the economic elite which offends me.

Offends you how?
By what the media tells you?
Or the realization that Democrats are just as much about "big business" as the Republicans?
Clinton is an excellent study on this -- if you want a starting point, read up on Loral.
Under Clinton, R&D on missile defense bloomed -- making a lot of defense contracts very well-to-do.
Under W., he actually started fielding missile defense, which gutted out much of the profit, and put strict margins on production units.

I think that any reasonable study of history will show that during historical periods in which laissez faire economic policy has prevailed, the less fortunates in our society get the shaft.

And I'd say your view of history is rather skewed.
By increasing income taxes, you prevent the poor and lower middle class from obtaining wealth.
All the meanwhile income taxes do NOTHING to affect those who already have wealth.
It's one of the greatest ignorances of the American public.
Rich has 2 forms: income and wealth
Increased income taxes only prevent those without wealth from obtaining it.
Ironically, both a Democrat (JFK) and Republican (Reagan) President have proved this in the past with their tax reforms.

 

[McRocket]

That's not a Libertarian.

He did not say he was a Libertarian. He typed that he holds quite a few Libertarian ideals - as do I.

Anytime the government gives you a "safety net," they take away choice as well.

Well, I live under a Canadian safety net - what choices do I not have?

Our strength comes from being less socialistic -- that's why a national healthcare system is being fought so hard, the income tax rate to support it will destroy our strong economy.

We in Canada have a national healthcare system. Your GDP per capita (according to the CIA World Factbook) is $40,100. Ours is $31,500 - and amongst the highest in the world. We both have big houses and two cars per family and swimming pools and cottages. Ours are just - apparently - 20% smaller. And curable diseases amongst the less fortunate are not death sentences as they often are in your country.
Now I grant you our national healthcare needs work but it hasn't destroyed our economy yet.

Offends you how? By what the media tells you?

Are you actually suggesting that the economic elite does not dominate politics - especially in the U.S.?

And I'd say your view of history is rather skewed.
By increasing income taxes, you prevent the poor and lower middle class from obtaining wealth.
All the meanwhile income taxes do NOTHING to affect those who already have wealth.

I do not think he typed anything about increasing income taxes. The poor and lower class can be perfectly well taken care of with reasonable tax rates as long as the money is properly allocated - imo.

Our Canadian system needs work. But, our national debt and our national income taxes are being cut. And yet more money is being spent (after inflation) on the safety net; not less.
Your country has (roughly) 1/2 trillion dollar trade and budget deficits. And your financially misfortunate have far worse standards of living then our 'poor' in Canada.
There are things about the US system that are great.
But all out, full bore, free enterprise at all costs will not work. Not with normal, greedy human beings. Not possible.
There has to be safeguards.
And the ones who say that it does not are usually the ones that have way more then they need. Not want; but need.
As I strongly suspect you do.

Have a nice day.

 

[member20672]

You are a

Social Liberal
(63% permissive)


and an...

Economic Moderate
(43% permissive)


You are best described as a:


Centrist

 

[D-rock]

And I'd say your view of history is rather skewed.
By increasing income taxes, you prevent the poor and lower middle class from obtaining wealth.
All the meanwhile income taxes do NOTHING to affect those who already have wealth.
It's one of the greatest ignorances of the American public.
Rich has 2 forms: income and wealth
Increased income taxes only prevent those without wealth from obtaining it.
Ironically, both a Democrat (JFK) and Republican (Reagan) President have proved this in the past with their tax reforms.

It isn't just about income tax. You could also factor in working conditions like pay, benefits, safety, and human dignity. One thing life has taught me is that businesses under no circumstances should be allowed to police themselves. Most of the time they are run by people that have little ethics and are morally bankrupt, or at least they have to run their businesses that way to compete with the others who are. They don't care about their workers, the quality of the products they produce, the environment, or what they do to society. They care about a number they can get at a bottom of a sheet of paper and perhaps the shareholders of the company. You are right about some things on income taxes. When the ultra rich can just sit on their wealth for the rest of eternity and create an aristocratic section that rules over the rest of us we have a problem. Of course we could start taxing the rich so the poorer people don't have to carry as much of the burden as they do now. When you add everything up, the taxes the rich pay in is only about one cent more on the dollar than the taxes everybody else pays. Making it worse it that it seems the gap between the poor and the rich is getting bigger. Some of the people in the middle class might have moved up, but more have been coming back down. It makes me wonder if someday, at the rate we are going, if we will even have a middle class that encompasses a significant percent of the population.

 

[arealous]

I would consider myself a more liberal Republican, which is probably rare for a college student these days. The parties really do overlap in various areas, as I really only focus on economic policies of America rather than the moral and religious issues.

In any case, I really wouldn't say my alliance lies anywhere too deep in either party, I really just care about my country :2 cents: