Poll: Your Political Leaning

[barry_86404]

2) I believe in helping people. In fact it's my strongest belief. I just don't see why I should let people struggle when it's within my power to assist them, and it makes me feel good to do so, so I shall continue to do so.

I do respect you for that but I also respect the freedom you had to make that choice. We all should have freedom to make a choice whether or not to help out

[gadhelyn]

Here's what I think: when it comes to issues that aren't morality based (such as taxes, diplomacy and such), then decide based upon common sense. Example with illegal immigrants: if you're here, stay as long as you don't cause trouble. Cause trouble and you're going home. If businesses can't regulate themselves and they get the economy into a shit-hole, then the government, AS a representative of the people, needs to step in and put up some rules. Now, I don't like the government picking and choosing companies to just give money, but I do like the idea of the government creating projects that will create jobs for individuals and jobs for companies to fill. It's the difference between parents giving their kids an allowance and parents giving their kids an allowance for completing their chores.

And everyone who has been complaining about how Congress has been running lately: remember folks, the majority elected them, and they really are supposed to follow their constituents. If they aren't following the majority of those who they represent, maybe something there needs to be changed! Check your laws and remember who hasn't done what the majority wants when elections come again! Those who will not lift a finger to try and change the current situation for the better cannot complain when something goes a way they do not like.

When it comes to things that are morally-gray, then I believe in letting people make their own choice. Everyone has their own religious and spiritual perspective and I see it as being wrong to force one's own religious and spiritual beliefs onto someone else. If you see abortion as being wrong, then you see abortion as being wrong. That doesn't mean that Sally Smith over there is doing something wrong by getting an abortion, in her religious/spiritual perspective the fetus may not be a living individual. If in the end it was wrong, then Sally Smith will have to atone for that. But that does not give anyone else the right to judge her.

[was1984]

I do not believe anyone on the board would contend that the government is the solution to each humanitarian problem. Nor do I think others on the other side of the political spectrum would believe that each individual needs to provide solutions to their own problems in all cases.

However, I do believe that we can agree that in some circumstances, government intervention can be successful, while in others society is better fit to determine the most appropriate solution for themselves. This is clearly one of the most difficult balances to strike, with different political ideologies having different ideas of what that balance should be.

Personally, I believe that the old proverb "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" is fitting. The question is, what is the balance between giving and teaching?

I definitely don't mean to imply that anyone thinks government intervention is always best. I'm just responding to the notion that those in humanities tend liberal because they are compassionate toward their fellow man. I don't see how left wing politics and compassion for the situations of others are necessarily linked. It is easy to be both right wing and compassionate. I like to think I'm a good example.

[barry_86404]

gadheylen-

I did just that. I voted against everyone in congress or the senate who voted for the "Bailouts" and I will continue to do so.

[GirlattheHelm]

Two, the reason I'm not a libertarian myself, is that if we value having shared services, like sewers and hospitals and trains and the internet, then we need a group to manage and maintain them.

Sigh. Libertarian's are not anarchists! I'm a civil libertarian. BIG difference. We want the individual and our bill of rights to stand supreme against all other things; including government infringement/total socialization of our lives. Self reliance, in so many ways, means that people are supposed to be capable of living their lives, not critiquing other peoples from a higher place. That doesn't mean we're going to let the sewers clog or forget to hand out social security. We are too big of a nation to fail at that at this point, in my opinion.

I do want to keep our system alive; and outright self-policing of over expanding hundreds of millions of people is ridiculous. But if we could be a smidgen better at it we'd help out the system a lot more than having it carry our dead weight.

[barry_86404]

Sigh. Libertarian's are not anarchists! I'm a civil libertarian. BIG difference.

Its actually quite funny a year ago i thought i was a republican until my wife pointed out to me that i more correctly fall under libertarian than republican since i go against three main issues with republicans. The abortion issue, the global warming issue, and homosexual marriage issue

[GirlattheHelm]

Its actually quite funny a year ago i thought i was a republican until my wife pointed out to me that i more correctly fall under libertarian than republican since i go against three main issues with republicans. The abortion issue, the global warming issue, and homosexual marriage issue

Giggle. I thought I was republican for the longest time too. And then I realized I just wanted people to stop yelling at me, "Throw away your guns!" or "Why do you own that breed of dog!?" or "You can't take that medication!" or "You're too young/too old/too something to make life's decisions...Quickly! Die for this country!"

I want to live my life and for other people to live theirs - rather than telling me what they like or dislike about MY life. And sure, I want the world to run smoothly but I also want to make sure I am allowed to be a capable and useful human being - which means I can protect myself in a situation when necessary or make a decision about my life rather than allowing the government to start chewing at my heels about it. I need a giant, "GO PISS OFF" sign for the rest of the world. That's what freedom is; but, I might add, it's a lot of self responsibility.

After seeing most of the graduating class here it's fair to say we're doomed.

[feisty]

Re: disciplines being "right" or "left"

The irony of this (possibly true?) stereotype is that I would gander a bet that the majority of federal government research money goes to subsidize work in the hard sciences, whereas the arts and humanities are probably more reliant on private foundations.

No handouts for the painters.

[yankervitch]

Scientists who identify themselves as "right-leaning" or "far-right" probably don't consider government spending in their area the same as other "wasteful" government spending.

That's always the way, isn't it?

Too true!

[a cup of coffee]

I'm an English major and basically a socialist, though I don't know how those two things are related. I think people are indistinguishable from their participation in society, so we all have to take care of ourselves and each other at the same time. I vote for Democrats not because I think the party line is completely correct, but because we have more influence moving parties' political positions from within them than we do from outside of them.

[Rutabaga]

My fundamental question is still: Why do those in humanities see the government as the solution to those humanitarian problems they encounter in their studies?

Because we have a basic social contract and in return for giving up certain things I expect my government to try its best to establish a level playing field and care for those who are unlucky in health and business. Who else is going to do it? The church? No thanks. Charities? Again, not ideal because the funding base is much too small and there is no legal mandate for the provision of services. I can see the anarchist argument for doing these things in small collectives instead, but I really don't think that's a feasible alternative in the US.

[Yellow#5]

I think that associating yourself as "right" or "left" has alot to do with how you interpret information, or like information presented to you. Scientists like certainty, and republicans/righties tend to frame issues in terms of "this is right, that's wrong" (so "gov. spending = socialism). Democrats talk more in terms of greys. The presentation has a lot more to do with it than the substance in many policy areas, especially economic policy.

[miratrix]

A friend of mine recently suggested that the reason you hear that conservatives are uncompassionate and liberals are unprincipled is that they disagree about how to achieve a just society, not what justice is or what a fair society would look like in the end. Conservatives tend to start with just principles, say "these principles are morally right, so if we follow them we will have a good society. Since we have problems in our society, it must mean we're screwing up and need to be more careful about following our principles." Liberals tend to start with desired outcomes, say "our current society doesn't match up with our idea of a just society in these ways," and try to figure out the most effective ways to achieve the desired outcomes. I thought that was an interesting and somewhat perceptive comment. (Hey Dan, if you read this, sorry for stealing your idea! It's a good one!)

[ewurgler]

Oh fantastic--a conversation with people who are clearly well-read on political and social theory. NOT!

I am far far far left. And to answer the question of why do people in the humanities think the government can do things best--it probably can't, BUT WHO THE FUCK ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT? You? I'm sorry, how much have you donated to non-profits this year? How many hours this week did you spend at the soup kitchen? None? Yeah, thought so.

And to those who say "this system is broken so I don't bother." Excuse my extreme anger, but take some fucking responsibility and pay attention, participate and donate time/money to the causes/campaigns you find worthwhile. If you think its broken, FUCKING TRY TO FIX IT!!!

Yeah, so our programs/public schools aren't the most effecticient, high-functioning entities out there--but you know what? That does not mean we stop trying and give up.

Grow up and take on ALL of your adult responsibilities as an American citizen. Go read Rousseau.

[Louiselab]

My fundamental question is still: Why do those in humanities see the government as the solution to those humanitarian problems they encounter in their studies?

Because they see all the defense money that goes into the sciences and say "wtf, I want it too!" Perhaps funding has more to do with the sciences/humanities split than many are willing to acknowledge. I look forward to being the only conservative in my program, because honestly, leftists make me chuckle...

[HisRoyalHighness]

My views on social issues are radically libertarian. My views on fiscal issues are more left and on foreign policy, believe it or not, I tend to be more moderate-conservative than my peers in the field.

[was1984]

Oh fantastic--a conversation with people who are clearly well-read on political and social theory. NOT!

I am far far far left. And to answer the question of why do people in the humanities think the government can do things best--it probably can't, BUT WHO THE FUCK ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT? You? I'm sorry, how much have you donated to non-profits this year? How many hours this week did you spend at the soup kitchen? None? Yeah, thought so.

And to those who say "this system is broken so I don't bother." Excuse my extreme anger, but take some fucking responsibility and pay attention, participate and donate time/money to the causes/campaigns you find worthwhile. If you think its broken, FUCKING TRY TO FIX IT!!!

Yeah, so our programs/public schools aren't the most effecticient, high-functioning entities out there--but you know what? That does not mean we stop trying and give up.

Grow up and take on ALL of your adult responsibilities as an American citizen. Go read Rousseau.

Does using lots of expletives make you feel powerful? Because to me, all it does is make you look ignorant. You presume to know what people on this board have or haven't read. Go read Locke. Just because a philosopher said something doesn't mean I'm required to agree with it, though I do tend to agree with Rousseau, in context. I don't agree with taking socialism from the idea of general will, though, and I don't really think he would have either. Fall off your high horse.

[anthcat]

A friend of mine recently suggested that the reason you hear that conservatives are uncompassionate and liberals are unprincipled is that they disagree about how to achieve a just society, not what justice is or what a fair society would look like in the end. Conservatives tend to start with just principles, say "these principles are morally right, so if we follow them we will have a good society. Since we have problems in our society, it must mean we're screwing up and need to be more careful about following our principles." Liberals tend to start with desired outcomes, say "our current society doesn't match up with our idea of a just society in these ways," and try to figure out the most effective ways to achieve the desired outcomes. I thought that was an interesting and somewhat perceptive comment. (Hey Dan, if you read this, sorry for stealing your idea! It's a good one!)

I like the way you've put this! This is why folks on the left shouldn't forget there are plenty of compassionate fiscally conservative people out there. And while I don't think fiscal conservatism is the best way to concretely express compassion, that doesn't mean that it reflects a lack of compassion.

True, in my previous post I did blend libertarians with anarchists, which isn't accurate. I was responding more to barry's "everyone can do anything with no help at all" version and pointing out that a free and bootstrapping individual cannot in fact do just anything without resources and social backup. Some libertarians say "small government" and mean "as little government as we can get away with, even at the cost of others' suffering", and that's what I meant to address. Resourceful individuals may well be able to find themselves a survivable place in the system, but they can't build any of the things we take for granted as a developed society. If you ever went to a public school, even if you never needed food assistance or disability benefits and you succeeded and became a productive citizen without any more help ever again, then you still owe society for the chance you got.

Some people are born poor and rely on others generosity and never do anything to help themselves. Others are born rich and never do anything to deserve that privilege. Yet worse are the people are are born into hardship, benefit from public services (like, say, the GI Bill) and then go on to become successful and influential and spend that influence arguing against giving others that same benefit, having convinced themselves they sprang full-fledged and self-sufficient from the head of God. What do we do with these folks? We can't vote them off the island; it's not that easy. So we have to build as system that works despite them: that can keep the innocent children of slackers from dying of rickets, compel tax fraudsters to cough it up, and that doesn't let ungrateful hypocrites deny to our descendents the social supports that helped them when they needed it.

[Yellow#5]

Since when is "the right" fiscally conservative?

Bill Clinton is the last fiscal conservative remaining in DC.

...and I don't think that miratrix was arguing that conservatives REALLY lack compassion, just that they are often accused of it, or perceived that way sometimes because they will vote against a spending bill that is high profile and purports to help the poor.

[ewurgler]

Does using lots of expletives make you feel powerful? Because to me, all it does is make you look ignorant. You presume to know what people on this board have or haven't read. Go read Locke. Just because a philosopher said something doesn't mean I'm required to agree with it, though I do tend to agree with Rousseau, in context. I don't agree with taking socialism from the idea of general will, though, and I don't really think he would have either. Fall off your high horse.

I curse because I want to, not because it makes me feel powerful. When I mentioned rousseau I was referring to the general will, but not to support socialism--to talk about one's responsibilities as a citizen of a given nation.

I agree that one does not have to agree with a philosopher--I have read locke and I generally do not agree.

My anger was mostly directed at those who refuse to engage because they say the "system is broken." This is the ultimate form of laziness and social irresponsibility in my eyes.

[gadhelyn]

I think the joke is:

If you're young and are not a Democrat, then you just don't care. If you're old and are not a Republican, then you just aren't smart.

[HelloFeminists]

But how can you equate this with government oversight? Are there not other methods of dealing with the issues? This is the quantum leap that I've never understood with the far left. I've never seen anyone adequately explain how such a bloated and inefficient system is the proper solution to almost every social injustice. It is certainly the most convenient...

I think it depends on the issue, but in general, I understand that people need to be helped out who are disadvantaged and that a society works better and has a happier, more elevated quality of life when the community works together to help the least fortunate and most vulnerable among them. I also extend my positions beyond economic positions to include issues such as supporting civil rights, which the Republican party in the U.S., especially the religious right, is not too keen on.

[HelloFeminists]

Thats an easy out. Blame the government but again why make it so a person must provide for themselves and get skills to be a productive member of society. Oh wait that actually taked effort my bad

...The government is to blame, especially concerning what the person you quoted was referring to with supposed "free trade agreements". NAFTA is consistently screwing over Latin America and causing people to lose their farms and starve only to subsidize U.S. corporations - U.S. corporations even go into other people's countries, take samples of their local plants and then PATENT the seeds so that the people who have been growing certain foods for thousands of years to feed their communities are all of a sudden banned from growing them anymore. Corporations like Wal*Mart destroy the local infrastructure. Coca-Cola poisons communities' water supply [like in India] and on occasion murders people when they try to form unions [like in Colombia]. Our government allows the global bullying and domination of corporations without any kind of oversight. And don't even get me started about the number of times we've gone into other nations and murdered their leaders just because they didn't follow the neoliberal American agenda, or installed puppet governments, etc. etc. etc. The U.S. GOVERNMENT should "clean up the messes they've created", all over the globe. They're the ones with the massive [super]power, after all.

[HelloFeminists]

I do not believe anyone on the board would contend that the government is the solution to each humanitarian problem. Nor do I think others on the other side of the political spectrum would believe that each individual needs to provide solutions to their own problems in all cases.

However, I do believe that we can agree that in some circumstances, government intervention can be successful, while in others society is better fit to determine the most appropriate solution for themselves. This is clearly one of the most difficult balances to strike, with different political ideologies having different ideas of what that balance should be.

Personally, I believe that the old proverb "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" is fitting. The question is, what is the balance between giving and teaching?

The fish questions is an interesting one to put in context with contemporary politics, because what happens when the following sorts of variables arise?:

a.) How do you teach him/her? Do you pay for it with taxes [omg socialism! ]? Should we leave everything up to the private sector, so that rich people learn the best fishing techniques and get the most / biggest fish?

b.) What if he/she learns how to fish and then has to sell his/her fishing pole during the economic crisis?

c.) What if a corporation comes along and poisons the water the fish live in?

I think my point is made.

[swr22]

I actually know people who were borned with a mom addicted to drugs and father who abandoned him and geuss what he got an education on his own and now has a nice job and a good life all because he took it upon himself to make something with his life. And I personally know about 100 more stories like this just with what Ive seen personally. So one job market dries up go get a new skill. People do that all the time. Is it hard yes but whatever doesnt kill you makes you a better person is my attitude. This is my belief and noone has ever got me to change my mind. Even meeting refugees from the sudane and seeing them succeed in america just makes me feel stronger about my beliefs because they succeed on their own with nothing to start with.

As America is, statistically, the least socially mobile country in the world, what is it about Americans that you consider so much worse than everyone else, then?