Poll: Your Political Leaning

[Tonights]

I reject your language in this post. Why does a centrist view get to be "reasonable" while the liberal view has a "strong bias." Also, correct me if I am wrong, but are not all political leanings biased in their own way?

Void, I think you're reading it wrong. What was said was "reasonable cross section," as in, "a microcosm which reasonably represents actual politics statistics in the population at large." I don't believe a slight was implied.

[was1984]

Ideally, there would be an option for apolitical. I have my own views vis-a-vis different strains of political theory, but I think our (the American) political system is fairly much broken and thus find little to be gained from paying close attention to it, other than aggravation and disappointment.

You could always vote for third party candidates that have virtually no chance of winning like I do. It doesn't really alleviate the frustration, though.

[was1984]

Void, I think you're reading it wrong. What was said was "reasonable cross section," as in, "a microcosm which reasonably represents actual politics statistics in the population at large." I don't believe a slight was implied.

Yep, sorry, I'm an engineer and do not always express myself as well as I'd like in writing!

[storiaitaliana]

Void, I think you're reading it wrong. What was said was "reasonable cross section," as in, "a microcosm which reasonably represents actual politics statistics in the population at large." I don't believe a slight was implied.

But don't you understand that words are EVERYTHING? Who cares what they are actually referring to! That is unimportant. What is important is how they make you feel. If they make you feel bad, that's enough -- they are evil and wrong!! Very enlightened.

[barry_86404]

You could always vote for third party candidates that have virtually no chance of winning like I do. It doesn't really alleviate the frustration, though.

I actually did that too this past election. Really wasn't happy with either candidate so I decided I couldn't contribute to either one.

[HelloFeminists]

I would probably say because most people in the social sciences and humanities spend more time working with social issues and the human condition, perhaps making them more apt to support measures that try care for the disadvantaged in society.

Scientists are just in for the money :wink:

I, too, agree with your statement about people in the humanities Not sure about the scientists, but my own experience dealing with issues of social justice, especially in analyzing not just the conditions of struggle and oppression but how they got that way, leads me to understand the importance of truly embracing a diverse and equal society where everyone has a chance to succeed. I've studied in depth the ways in which dominant paradigms of thinking [capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, et cetera] are harmful to vast groups of people, so it's pretty hard to not be "far left" in the progressive American sense. Plus, my own experience with discrimination helps me additionally understand complicated axes of privilege.

[HelloFeminists]

Why shouldn't we make people responsible for themselves and fyi hard science is one of the toughest degrees and thus maybe in a whole they are correct and realize wait we are america and everyone can accomplish anything for themselves so why not let them. Unless of course you want socialism, the smaller the government the better we are but to bad I have read so many articles pointing out that we as america is really a closet socialist country.

It's not as easy as "people should be responsible for themselves". That kind of capitalist bootstraps mentality consistently proves itself as flawed, especially with the kind of unfettered monopolist workings in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, certain classes of people are born with inherited wealth and access to phenomenal privilege, et cetera. It is easier for some people on Day One.

"we as america is really a closet socialist country." Those articles are pretty laughable. What I will say is that America had better do something different that is more akin to democratic socialist principles [a.k.a. western Europe, Canada] if it wants to pull itself out of its non-sustainable capitalist illusion. By bailing out the CEOs, we're already proving that we're willing to sacrifice the capitalist principle of "everyone for themselves! let the 'free market' reign!" when it suits the wealthy business elite.

[was1984]

I, too, agree with your statement about people in the humanities Not sure about the scientists, but my own experience dealing with issues of social justice, especially in analyzing not just the conditions of struggle and oppression but how they got that way, leads me to understand the importance of truly embracing a diverse and equal society where everyone has a chance to succeed. I've studied in depth the ways in which dominant paradigms of thinking [capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, et cetera] are harmful to vast groups of people, so it's pretty hard to not be "far left" in the progressive American sense. Plus, my own experience with discrimination helps me additionally understand complicated axes of privilege.

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...

[yankervitch]

I would probably say because most people in the social sciences and humanities spend more time working with social issues and the human condition, perhaps making them more apt to support measures that try care for the disadvantaged in society.

Scientists are just in for the money :wink:

As a scientist (or at least, falling more on the technical than the humanities side of things), I'd like to point out that government is also by far the biggest investor in scientific research. So I'm a little surprised that there aren't more fellow left-leaning scientists so far, although, of course, response bias...

[Yellow#5]

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?

[Tonights]

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...

Not to put too fine a point on it, the people I work with are in poverty as a direct response to free trade agreements pushed by the corporation-loving government. The government caused their hardships and therefore has a responsibility to attempt to mitigate them. Then again, I'm a syndicalist at heart and have no abiding love for government, I just think people should clean up the messes they've created. Sometimes there are no other ways of dealing with the issues.

[was1984]

Not to put too fine a point on it, the people I work with are in poverty as a direct response to free trade agreements pushed by the corporation-loving government. The government caused their hardships and therefore has a responsibility to attempt to mitigate them. Then again, I'm a syndicalist at heart and have no abiding love for government, I just think people should clean up the messes they've created. Sometimes there are no other ways of dealing with the issues.

I'm not familiar with your specific situation, so I can't really comment on it. From a much broader perspective, can you address the more general platform of the far left relating to that question? I'm genuinely curious.

[barry_86404]

It's not as easy as "people should be responsible for themselves". That kind of capitalist bootstraps mentality consistently proves itself as flawed, especially with the kind of unfettered monopolist workings in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, certain classes of people are born with inherited wealth and access to phenomenal privilege, et cetera. It is easier for some people on Day One.

"we as america is really a closet socialist country." Those articles are pretty laughable. What I will say is that America had better do something different that is more akin to democratic socialist principles [a.k.a. western Europe, Canada] if it wants to pull itself out of its non-sustainable capitalist illusion. By bailing out the CEOs, we're already proving that we're willing to sacrifice the capitalist principle of "everyone for themselves! let the 'free market' reign!" when it suits the wealthy business elite.

Actually the articles are pretty true with their reasoning. As for the "Bailouts", I was against the first one and I am against the latest one. And I was against the thing yesterday for me to help some stupid person pay off their mortage because they decided to buy a house that they really couldn't afford. If i knew this was coming I should of went out bought a mansion and let you pay for it because basically this is whats happening.

[barry_86404]

Not to put too fine a point on it, the people I work with are in poverty as a direct response to free trade agreements pushed by the corporation-loving government. The government caused their hardships and therefore has a responsibility to attempt to mitigate them. Then again, I'm a syndicalist at heart and have no abiding love for government, I just think people should clean up the messes they've created. Sometimes there are no other ways of dealing with the issues.

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

[Yellow#5]

Actually the articles are pretty true with their reasoning. As for the "Bailouts", I was against the first one and I am against the latest one.

But I hope you notice that the "right" votes for these bailouts when it suits them. This would be the difference between professes to share an ideology, and enacts an ideology.

[avei]

Libertarian here.

[was1984]

But I hope you notice that the "right" votes for these bailouts when it suits them. This would be the difference between professes to share an ideology, and enacts an ideology.

The neo-cons are not traditional right-wing conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. George W. Bush in my mind is as much about big government as Barack Obama, with different applications. I'm not a great admirer of either of them.

[Tonights]

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

I know better than to argue with people like you. I'm sure you feel like a big man to wave away the abject poverty of thousands of people you've never met who were put into their current situations because the American government made it impossible for them to continue being able to practice subsistence farming. Good job!

[dagger]

How did I know this thread was going to deteriorate into this.

[anthcat]

Wow, the fur is starting to fly already!

My take is as follows: Folks who are "far right" in the American sense which tends to blend social conservatism with and oddball kind of fiscal libertarianism tend to assume that the status quo, the proportion and distribution of haves and have-nots, exists for a reason. Starving? You must have f***ed up somewhere - good luck. Folks on the left, for a variety of reasons (some of which are purely ideological, some of which are based in compassion and experience) tend to believe that the status quo can be arbitrary or wrong, and that there is a basic level of subsistence and well-being below which no one should have to live. Starving? Tell me your story while I get you some food, and let's see if we can find a way to keep this from happening to you again.

I do not understand the rightist combination of free market anti-regulation and corporate personhood. The whole point of wanting a small government, it seems, is that recognition that government can be clumsy and wasteful. It's clumsy and wasteful because it doesn't allow individuals to flexibly change their decisions - because a large group of people have to compromise on the best course of action. Compromises and concessions are what make spending bills, for example, wasteful and unwieldy. In order to get enough votes to agree on the whole, most people have to get their own bit in.

But this is not a feature unique to federal government. Homeowners associations, the ideological children of the current-day approach to government, can be just as unwieldy, wasteful, and oppressive of freedom. Inside a corporation it's the same: some people get shut down, many get some of what they want, and the whole thing gets bigger. Why on earth would a cadre of large corporations be any better at deciding how things ought to be for the average person than a government??

So the reason why I identify as far left, even though I don't approve of the kind of big, porky government we currently have, comes down to two things.

One, I am incredibly socially leftist, as happens more often to people who are poor, or black/asian/latino/etc, or women, or in my case queer. This is a point that many libertarians who've posted on this thread have made, and I thank you for that.

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. This is what government is for - doing the things that individuals need but, whether because it is not profitable or is too capital- or labor-intensive to start alone (or even in a small association). It sounds like a corporation would do as well, but there is a key difference. Corporations do things to make money, which means they won't do something that won't turn a profit no matter how much it is needed. Government does things solely because they are needed, even if that means losing money.

So here's a leftist who insists that government is not the solution to most problems, but probably ought to be working on more of the problems we currently have instead of handing control over to the corporate sector. I'm with you on the syndicalism, Tonights, though it can be so hard to get that to work.

[Tonights]

I'm not familiar with your specific situation, so I can't really comment on it. From a much broader perspective, can you address the more general platform of the far left relating to that question? I'm genuinely curious.

1984, I tried a couple of times to write a good response, but I have to admit failure. Unfortunately, we're too varied of opinion on the left for me to be able to speak for anyone else. I believe the axiom is "like herding cats?" :wink: Anthcat, though, has written a really wonderful response that I would like to echo.

I don't even believe in the Democrats to be able to solve society's ills, but I vote Democrat because their social positions are the closest to my own among the available options. I see myself as "love thy neighbor," while I think people on the far right tend to sorta see society as "every man for himself." I believe we have an obligation to help our fellow humans, especially when untrammeled capitalism has been the cause of many of their ills.

[barry_86404]

I know better than to argue with people like you. I'm sure you feel like a big man to wave away the abject poverty of thousands of people you've never met who were put into their current situations because the American government made it impossible for them to continue being able to practice subsistence farming. Good job!

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.

[Tonights]

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.

I respect your opinions (despite what it might seem because of what I fully admit is my really terrible temper). But the fact remains that first of all:

1) the particular folks I used as an example are not in America, despite the fact that the American government has terribly damaged their lives, and have very little chance of pulling themselves up by their nonexistent bootstraps in the countries in which they DO live, and

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.

[was1984]

1984, I tried a couple of times to write a good response, but I have to admit failure. Unfortunately, we're too varied of opinion on the left for me to be able to speak for anyone else. I believe the axiom is "like herding cats?" :wink: Anthcat, though, has written a really wonderful response that I would like to echo.

I don't even believe in the Democrats to be able to solve society's ills, but I vote Democrat because their social positions are the closest to my own among the available options. I see myself as "love thy neighbor," while I think people on the far right tend to sorta see society as "every man for himself." I believe we have an obligation to help our fellow humans, especially when untrammeled capitalism has been the cause of many of their ills.

I appreciate the effort. I wish people didn't see fiscal conservatives as every man for themselves. It isn't about that at all, it's all about the limitation of government, the organization that history proves time and time again as the most oppressive ever imagined by humans. I believe government should be as limited as possible. But I also believe that the downtrodden in society should be provided for, I just don't believe that the government is a remotely appropriate vehicle for such provision.

I also tend to agree with the Democrats' social positions in many situations, but I cannot stomach their fiscal policies any more than I can stomach those of the neocons.

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?

[dagger]

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?

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?