City of IF

[sparta12]

Just another one of my classic, random polls. Only this one is for the somewhat-politically-inclined.
I consider myself to be a Liberal.

Mind you that this topic is not one made debating political topics but is just another thread that should help give us another way of viewing the diversity on this website.

[TruePurple]

Those terms can mean very different things depending on what country you're in, assuming it means anything at all.

Plus I suspect many of us have views that don't easily fit into one label. I know I don't.

[Alegria]

In the American veiw, I'm definitely Centrist.

[TruePurple]

From a US PoV centrist AFAIK just means your somewhere between a republican and a democrat. But that's a very large field.

[Lord Byron]

Toltalitarianism, Far Far Right.

[D-Lotus]

I pick and choose. But mostly I'm liberal. However, all of these terms mean different things in different countries, so it's hard to figure out how IF stands in terms of ideology.

[sparta12]

Lord Byron wrote: Toltalitarianism, Far Far Right.
Totalitarianism is actually far, far left. Far, Far Right is Fascism.

[TruePurple]

Basic principles of being a liberal/"left" in US politics, is that of freedom of thought, expression, lifestyle. And that those who are in need should be helped. Just think of what the word liberal means. Thats nothing like totalitarianism, which is exactly the opposite. Facism too, has nothing to do with being extremely republican/"conservative", they don't even appear on the same map, not even on the extremes. No comparison at all.

[sparta12]

TruePurple wrote: Basic principles of being a liberal/"left" in US politics, is that of freedom of thought, expression, lifestyle. And that those who are in need should be helped. Just think of what the word liberal means. Thats nothing like totalitarianism, which is exactly the opposite. Facism too, has nothing to do with being extremely republican/"conservative", they don't even appear on the same map, not even on the extremes. No comparison at all.

It's actually the originating ideas of the political beliefs that puts them on the left and right side of the spectrum. Totalitarianism relates to Socialism and Communism which is placed on the Far Left side of the spectrum due to their ideas of removing classes in society. I'd go in to more detail about it and explain why Fascism is on the right end of the scale but I must be off to school now.

[Alegria]

I think that Totalitarianism is actually on the right. It's based upon one person totally controlling a government that totally controls the people, with limited freedoms. That's pretty much on the right.

[TruePurple]

Socialism and communism are concepts about equal shares and equality. Experiments in such have often failed leading to authoritarian regimes (but there have often been reasons beyond just the concept itself for this, and some countries have successfully become pretty socialist without such failure) But that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Taken from dictionary.com
Quote:
fascism:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Which means fascism is a version of authoritarian, rather then being on the very opposite end of a spectrum.

[TruePurple]

@Alegria
The "right"/republican US principle from my perspective boils down to a anarchist principle:
Kind of a heartless darwinian idea, of people having the right to do what ever they want short of the extremes of theft & murder etc., those too weak to survive, well tough shit for them. There are bound to be a few that don't make it by principles of chance. If anyone wants to help them charity wise, they are free to do so, but the people of the US as a whole shouldn't be held accountable or be required to help.The bit about christianity and the rest that's in the mix is a strange bit of politics, that's a separate issue.

While the left indeed has some principles of socialism in that they often believe in equal treatment of everyone (which is why they were the first political party to be against slavery) something the right would say is nice in principle but in practice doesn't work.

One way you could put it, though not entirely true is.. The left believes in freedom of thought, the right believes in freedom of action.

You would think those were the same thing, right? Well... republicans often seem willing to suppress expression of thought/protests that they feel would suppress their freedom of action. And democrats would suppress actions that would lead to the suppression of their freedom of thought. Which is why many democrats are proponents of press freedoms such as reporters not being forced to reveal their source.

The ironic thing is, that republicans idea of freedom of action often especially applies to big business. Which has lead to big business controlling our lives as much as big government (and corrupting big government as well, just another way to control everything)

Of course there are lots of stupid party shit, in both parties. I am only talking about some of what I see as the core principles in the two.

[Lord Byron]

Totalatarianism applies to both far ends of the spectrum, i like the right side.

[D-Lotus]

Quote: The "right"/republican US principle from my perspective boils down to a anarchist principle:
Kind of a heartless darwinian idea, of people having the right to do what ever they want short of the extremes of theft & murder etc., those too weak to survive, well tough shit for them. There are bound to be a few that don't make it by principles of chance. If anyone wants to help them charity wise, they are free to do so, but the people of the US as a whole shouldn't be held accountable or be required to help.The bit about christianity and the rest that's in the mix is a strange bit of politics, that's a separate issue.

While the left indeed has some principles of socialism in that they often believe in equal treatment of everyone (which is why they were the first political party to be against slavery) something the right would say is nice in principle but in practice doesn't work.

Heh- curiously, the republican party was the one that granted slaves their freedom. And I don't think they would be opposed to the idea of equal treatment. Perhaps you are being misled by their free-market politics, but I can assure you that Republicans can be as humane and charitable as Democrats.

They simply don't believe in distributing wealth, and indeed, they may have a point, considering that Social Security, Medicare, and other welfare programs heavily contribute to our 9 trillion dollar debt. By 2050, Social Security taxes will have to be raised considerably in order to maintain the system.

Usually those who vote Democrat are those who have felt disadvantaged and want a more equal treatment, demanding welfare programs, while Republicans believe that through protecting their self-interests they can create an economy that will ultimately help everyone. Democrats want a big government that spends, and Republicans want a small government that lets them spend their own money.

It's funny that though Republicans are against big gov, they support tougher laws which expand the scope of the gov. Also, Democrats who like big gov don't want governmental interference in their freedoms.

[vgmaster]

I believe that government is bad. If you are going to organize people, put them all on the same level and have them behave well or leave.

[TruePurple]

Quote: Heh- curiously, the republican party was the one that granted slaves their freedom.

I was wondering when someone was going to mention that. But I would point out that at some point the parties effectively switched names with each other. Back then, republican meant liberal.(its all very strange)

So it was the party we now call democrats that freed the slaves, under the name republican. I bet if Lincoln was around during modern times he'd consider himself a democrat, if he identified with either party.

BTW, a bit OT, I just recently found a site and IRC chat room filled with such racism, that I thought could not exist now adays any longer in any scale. It made me feel so depressed for the human species.

As far as my view on republicans, it is in part shaped by RL republicans I have spoke to who talk very strongly (though not specifically) in a darwinian survival of the fittest way. Also what I see on the news, even from some republicans trying to get elected, seems to suggest this.

Consider how its more likely for a republican then a democrat to spew hate crap about illegal immigrants, absolutely refusing to see the human side of it. Or how semi-common republican 'insult' is "bleeding heart liberal", which kind of implies that they are anti-compassion. Granted, I wouldn't call such things "core republican principles" but such is all too often found in that party.

[The White Blacksmith]

Personally, I'm a conservative. Interestingly enough, once you get onto the far reaches of the political spectrum the views aren't that different. The far, far right has one person (or select group of people) controlling what others do/have. The far, far left has everyone doing the same thing/having the same thing, as dictated by their rulers. Compare the Nazi party's stance - people rigidly grouped, an ideal of what the perfect person was that everyone should strive to achieve - with the Communist party's stance - everyone exactly even, the party's rules showing exactly what people should be like.

[Alegria]

Actually, people usually get something wrong about the left and right about whether either supports big government or not.

Liberals support big government in the economy- social programs, redistribution of money, etc... but small government in more social aspects- gay marriage, immigration, abortion, they don't want the government to interfere in those.

Conservatives suppor small government in the economy- they are guided by the "invisible hand" principle, which states that if everyone is working to benefit themselves then logically, the whole economy benefits, so government should lay off and leave us to our own devices. However, conservatives want bigger social government- banning gay marriage and abortion, kicking out immigrants, etc. They WANT the government to interfere there.

Now, at Purple. We seem to disagree a lot... ;) . I think the Republicans are less free action, otherwise they wouldn't try to ban gay marriage and abortion and so on. One could say more correctly that Republicans are more strict on adherence to laws and morals.

Anyways, here's 2 sprectrums I found on the web that may help in this discussion:





And here's where some famous people fall on the list:

[D-Lotus]

Quote: As far as my view on republicans, it is in part shaped by RL republicans I have spoke to who talk very strongly (though not specifically) in a darwinian survival of the fittest way. Also what I see on the news, even from some republicans trying to get elected, seems to suggest this.

Consider how its more likely for a republican then a democrat to spew hate crap about illegal immigrants, absolutely refusing to see the human side of it. Or how semi-common republican 'insult' is "bleeding heart liberal", which kind of implies that they are anti-compassion. Granted, I wouldn't call such things "core republican principles" but such is all too often found in that party

It's hard to remain objective, and anyway most people have 'selective hearing', meaning that they only pay attention to those things that they already agree with. So the examples you are citing may be the product of your own selective hearing or predetermined ideology, or even your reduced environment. I don't think that when McCain was condemning torture he was appealing to callousness or anti-compassion. Besides, many republicans may think that democrats are the anti-compassion side, especially with the issue of abortion. They believe that human life must be protected and that those who excercise their choice in getting an abortion are doing something exceedingly cruel.

It's all relative and very subjective, so be very careful with what you say and try not to demonize a group of people who, let's be honest, you probably don't know a great deal about nor very intimately. The first step to tolerance is understanding- give the other side a chance to expose their arguments, then judge them based on that, and not on a superficial impression which doesn't have much evidence to back it.

[TruePurple]

Well said Alegria, yeah that is definitely one facet of the two parties. By saying that, I am not recanting what I said earlier.

@D-Lotus
I am not grouping any group of people together. But I appreciate why you would think I was.

I know about as much about democrats and republicans as most people who observe politics without getting into it or any party in the US. My vision isn't as limited as you claim. I would say I am more open minded then many too. I have many years of talking to many people about politics and observing politics as my guide.

As far as Mcain, he was a good candidate & represented the better half of what it means to be republican. I would have been happy if either won but I preferred Obama. Anyway from what I could tell of Mcains running mate, she wasn't very good.

As far as abortion, this would not be the right thread to debate that. But I will say cruel is the wrong word. Cruel means to willfully cause pain. Those who get abortion do not aim to cause pain. Furthermore, before a certain point in time,(for sure before two weeks time) it lacks nerves of any kind which are required to feel pain (or think/have emotions for that matter)

[Alegria]

Please, let's not get into and Abortion debate... That never comes out well.

Palin was admittedly a risky choice. She had the potential to become either the best or worst thing about the McCain campaign. After he picked her, she quickly became a favorite. It was hard not to like her. Then she started to make a few too many mistakes and was quickly given a semi scapegoat status, being blamed for the sole reason that McCain lost the election.

We all know how Obama won--he represented an ideal that the American people wanted. He's young. He had confidence. The media absolutely loved him and did everything they could to promote him without being labeled "biased." He raised more money and got more air time as a result. He ran one of the best campaigns in history. McCain didn't lose because of his running mate. McCain lost because the American people wanted something else.

Also, the fact that Bush was so hated (a hate he did not deserve, in many ways) didn't help McCain either.

It's interesting to note, however, that while Bush had an all time low of a 34% approval rating at the end of his terms, congress CONSISTENTLY has a 19% approval rating, but 94% of the time, we send the same people back to congress. That's why the system doesn't work as well. It's missing it's core factor-- us.

[D-Lotus]

I'm glad you are open-minded, TP, that's good to hear. I was only using the abortion example, by the way, to promote my argument that what TP described as 'anti-compassion' is a very subjective issue. Not that I was arguing in favor or against abortion or saying that anything is the absolute truth. I was only explaining what the rationale is behind a conservative mindset.

Quote: It's interesting to note, however, that while Bush had an all time low of a 34% approval rating at the end of his terms, congress CONSISTENTLY has a 19% approval rating, but 94% of the time, we send the same people back to congress. That's why the system doesn't work as well. It's missing it's core factor-- us.

The question as to why the same representatives are re-elected is actually not so difficult to explain. It's simply because they have incredible advantages over their opponents. Incumbency is the most important factor to win an election, and this is especially true when you have franking priviledges (meaning that the government pays for the postage of all of your newsletters which are usually propaganda), when you can claim that all the extra funding received for projects in your district are a result of your abilities (this, of course, is facilitated by the tremendous amount of pork spending in Congress), when your opponents are usually not organized (because everybody knows they probably won't win), when you know that all of the PAC are going to invest in someone who is likely to win (meaning the incumbent), and when you can outspend your opponents by 17:1.

Usually House Representatives win by over 60% of the votes, whereas Senators, because they have more organized opponents and have a larger, more diverse community to convince, usually win by a little bit less. House Representatives also tend to be re-elected more often than Senators.

It's easy to say that citizens aren't doing their job in electing their representatives, but many times, the election is a foregone conclusion before it even begins!

[TruePurple]

She was't a scapegoat, more like it was hard to like her. She said alot of stupid meaningless sound bites. Which maybe worked their sound bite magic with a select group, the rest of us I think saw such stupid statements as stupid. I can't recall hearing her talk nonsound bite and/or stupid once. Her background was fine, she just needed to not open her mouth or get a better speech writer/a speech writer or something. Maybe she could have actually bothered to find out about issues so she could have something intelligent to talk about. It said something about Mcain too, to have picked her.

It didn't help that the campaign tried to turn her into a victim in extremely lame and transparent ways. Most notably, the lipstick on a pig thing.

Now congress, that's a amorphic scapegoat if I ever heard of one. Its not reasonable to ask what people think of such a large group, it's like asking them what they think of government period, and someones always bound to have something that upsets them about the government. Not saying congress is great or anything. But the question isn't very good & the question makes all the difference in the world for polls.

As far as seated congressmen often getting reelected, thats partially the belief in the population that you should hire those with experience. As far as money buying election, thats partially american general population to be blamed for that, that is, people who vote based on ads seen rather then debates and so on.

@Alegria that last chart thing is certainly bull, showing communism on one side and neoliberalism on the other. Unless you are giving these terms meaning other then the ones I am familiar with. Now communism and capitalism would be on opposite ends of a scale.

[Alegria]

Palin was definitely a scapegoat. A scapegoat is, according to dictionary.com:

One that is made to bear the blame of others.

Yes, Palin made mistakes, but surely she wasn't the ONLY problem with the McCain campaign. She is being saddled with almost ALL of the blame, much of which was not hers. Simply put, the McCain campaign did not fail because of Palin, but because Obama simply ran a campaign worthy of the history books. Palin is being blamed, however, which, by definition, makes her a scapegoat.

And how was the McCain campaign's offense to the "Pig with Lipstick" ordeal trying to make Palin into a victim? That was a bonafied insult.

People keep forgetting that Palin wasn't supposed to be nearly as popular or despised as she was. It almost seemed like people forgot that McCain was the actual presidential candidate.

How can you call congress a scapegoat? Look at the US constitution (trust me, I'm taking Government in college right now). The framers intentionally gave the legislative branch the most power out of the 3, because they were the largest branch and thus least succeptible to corruption. The scapegoat in America is not Congress, it is the President. Constitutionally, the Congress passes laws and the President only enforces them. Congress is blamed for very little. When's the last time you heard something about the state of the economy and someone said it was Congress' fault? Most people blame it all on Bush.

Now, of course I realize that in a democratic society of Majority rules, we're not all going to be happy with Congress' choices all the times. What I want to call Congress out on are things such as party politics, political ambition, inefficiency, waste of funds on worthless projects, scandals, etc...

Now, in defense of my chart, Neoliberalism (if you study up on it), actually promotes less government intervention in the economy and less restrictions/regulations, which is the opposite of communism.

[D-Lotus]

Quote: Its not reasonable to ask what people think of such a large group, it's like asking them what they think of government period, and someones always bound to have something that upsets them about the government. Not saying congress is great or anything. But the question isn't very good & the question makes all the difference in the world for polls.

I have to agree with this. Perhaps that is another reason contributing to the re-election of incumbents: even though Congress as a whole doesn't receive high marks from citizens, individual representatives cannot be blamed for the actions of Congress as a whole, since they are only a single member of a body. Likewise, they can't claim credit for Congress' actions, but I guess in the end it benefits them, since distrust of government is so great.

Quote: As far as money buying election, thats partially american general population to be blamed for that, that is, people who vote based on ads seen rather then debates and so on.

This is a bit unfair. Remember that a large percentage of the American population isn't politically savvy (as it has been since Jefferson's time), so whatever they get on TV ads and TV debates is usually all that they get. They don't have much to work with, and maybe they don't have time, or are too busy trying to put food on their tables for their family. In any case, you can't expect everybody to be in the political elite.

Quote: The framers intentionally gave the legislative branch the most power out of the 3, because they were the largest branch and thus least succeptible to corruption. The scapegoat in America is not Congress, it is the President. Constitutionally, the Congress passes laws and the President only enforces them. Congress is blamed for very little. When's the last time you heard something about the state of the economy and someone said it was Congress' fault? Most people blame it all on Bush.

As to the question of whether the Congress or the President is a scape goat- well, first of all, I don't like the term scape goat. Let's remember that the president and the members of Congress are elected representatives who voluntarily bear the hopes and dreams of many Americans. What I mean is that these people were not forced into accepting blame which is not theirs, they knew perfectly well what the job entails, and they know that as the representatives of a great number of people, they are bound to be blamed by some and lauded by others. So I don't think that they are scape-goats, but rather, elected representatives who are held responsible for the actions of government.

Furthermore, remember that the government that the founding fathers created is not the same government that exists today. Many things have changed. For starters, 16 amendments have been added. And let's not forget that the President's power has expanded as a result of several strong leaders such as Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and.. well, even W. Bush (he added the presidential power of signing statements, whether you like it or not).

Quote: What I want to call Congress out on are things such as party politics, political ambition, inefficiency, waste of funds on worthless projects, scandals, etc...

Well, you can hardly blame someone for being politically ambitious. As for inefficiency, this is a common complaint, but don't forget that Congress represents a variety of diverse interests, and sometimes it is hard to compromise. Scandals.. I haven't really heard of so many...Pork money- it keep constituents happy and quite possibly provides fuel to the economy. It can also serve as a bunker from which to pass necessary but unpopular bills.

Here's a little something I found about common complaints of Congress. Scroll down and click on Public Criticisms of Congress.

[TruePurple]

Its been awhile so I might not be able to express all the details perfectly but..

I've seen clips showing that a number of politicians have used the expression, "lipstick on a pig is still a pig." to mean dressing up a something to be better then it is doesn't actually change it. Mcain himself I believe has used this expression before. The campaign was intentionally misconstruing what was said to mean Palin-women-lipstick-calling Palin a pig, which was clearly not the case. This was done to falsely villainize the Obama campaign. In other words, dirty substanceless politics/anything but "straight talk".

People don't have to be "politically savvy", but they should be smart enough to ignore ads and just focus on debates and other more substantial candidate references.

But I think there are alot of people lazy about politics. One can usually find a bit of time to take casual glances at candidates. But lots of people, disheartened by politics, take it for granted. If it were otherwise, money would not make as much of a difference. If you have time to watch TV to see political ads, you have more then enough time to watch political debates & do other minor research on candidates.

[D-Lotus]

Once more, I have to disagree, though I understand perfectly your high expectations for constituents.

The reality is that today's politics and bureaucracy is so large and expansive that nobody can hope to understand all of the specialized knowledge necessary to make a wise choice in an election. Even Congressmen and the president are only generalists who must have a cabinet/staff in order to keep up to date. If each Senator needs over 7 assistant to understand the issues, how do you expect the common citizen to understand?

Research has shown that voters' choice is usually dominated by 3 factors: Party identification, candidate evaluation, and policy positions. People are more likely to vote based on education, age, race, gender, marital status, and government employment. Interestingly, a study showed that college-educated voters are actually the most likely to view candidates in terms of their personal attributes. The study argues that better-educated voters are able to make important issue-oriented inferences from these attributes (e.g. A candidate who is unreliable may not be the right person to be commander in chief of the army).

So, even though a voter doesn't have all the info and even though the voter may not understand all the issues, he/she can make inferences from the candidate's personal attributes. Thus it is irrational to have high knowledge expectations for constituents, seeing that they cannot possibly understand all the issues and seeing as how they can draw inferences from the candidate's personality anyway.

[TruePurple]

Considering how it's common knowledge that political television ads are biased self serving propaganda, it is not unreasonable to expect even the most uneducated busiest of individuals to disregard them.

But clearly they do get influenced by such ads. Which puts the fault partly at their collective feet for politicians being able to buy their way into politics.

[TruePurple]

Alegria wrote: I think the Republicans are less free action, otherwise they wouldn't try to ban gay marriage and abortion and so on. One could say more correctly that Republicans are more strict on adherence to laws and morals.

Thats the christian side of things, not the republican side, not what being conservative means. (well it is sort of with a strict definition of the word) But considering how tight the church has gotten with the party its hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Alegria wrote:
Yes, Palin made mistakes, but surely she wasn't the ONLY problem with the McCain campaign. She is being saddled with almost ALL of the blame, much of which was not hers.

Who said that Mcain himself didn't share the failure of his campaign, most all of it even?(few really care as much about who's vispresident, even when it's someone as bad as Palin, whether they should is another issue) He promised straight talk, but didn't use it much during his own campaign. Thats a pretty big failure. He says, "well my opponent uses mud slinging too" well I never saw those ads, I do know Obama didn't resort to that during the debates. Mcain should have been smart enough to match that.

I think he honestly felt it was the only way to win, that he probably would have 'talked straighter' after winning (but thats just a gut feeling) if he had. But if so, I guess he had bad campaign advice. Mcain, your always going to be getting bad advice, if you can't stand up to your own campaign advisers or recognize bad advice when you hear it, what kind of president would you be?

As it is Obama is talking straight (mostly) after winning too. So, looks like the best man won.

That said, Obama has done some stupid things too. Like spending a bunch of campaign money to buy a half an hour ad on a bunch of channels, only to talk about nothing of substance, feels like the waste of his inauguration party.

[D-Lotus]

Listen, sometimes ads work subconsciously on your mind, even if you think you are very intelligent. That's why people pay for ads, because they work.