i've noticed that liberal people tend to believe well...in everything liberal. and conservatives tend to believe in well...everything conservative. it's really kinda annoying. i mean, why can't you have views on both sides of the fence? i'm not talking about being moderate. i'm talking about being liberal without believing in every single piece of liberal propaganda. i'm talking about being conservative without believing in every single piece of conservative propaganda. while the two party system here in america seems to work better than the alternatives, it seems like it almost blinds people to the issues. as soon as they label themselves, they automatically lean towards that stance when it comes to every issue without having a single unbiased look at the facts. thoughts?
well thats kinda like how I am in a way. I like the liberal side but some views I have are conservative...does that answer your question....
I have to disagree Deranged, I find that most people do have supporting views on both sides it's just that one side has more to offer in their mind opposed to the other. I've said it before, I like to weave through the bullshit on both sides and support the issues which serve my point-of-view. I think you are right in a way though because politics or rather the parties lines are so black & white they hardly ever find a gray middle ground. Unfortunately our political system is so sneaky people often support issues they wouldn't if they fully understood them. My $.02
yeah, i dunno. i've been reevaluating my political views lately and it seems like when i labeled myself at 15 a "liberal," i pretty much, without really noticing it, took liberal stances on most everything. it just annoys me when people can't see any merit in the opposing side.
The more someone cares and informs themselves about their views/sides opens up their mind. This can lead them to not necessarly agree 100% with the group they are associated with, but still overall stick to one side over the other.
would they though? i mean, still looking at all the facts, i know i used to dismiss what opposed my prematurely decided view and support and flaunt what supported it. hell, abortion for example. i was raised catholic. so of course i was against abortion. then at 15, i became an atheist liberal. i had no real opinion on abortion, yet i supported it, since i was liberal. i've noticed this in other people too.
Since we're on the subject of abortion, some people are pro-abortion but that literally means a woman can have an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy regardless of how healthy she or her unborn child is. Pro-Choice on the other hand is (mostly, some groups vary in some states) for abortion but only during the first trimester or if there is obvious health risk to the child bearer or unborn child seen by doctors.
yeah, lately i've been leaning towards anti-abortion sentiments only once the child has reached the point where their cognitive abilities have reached a certain level. i dunno though, it feels like i only believe this because i define myself as a liberal. whatever. lol
Deranged But there isn’t an absolute left and a right. There are shades of left covering the whole spectrum as there are for right wing views. For example let’s look at Keynesian economics Many on the right consider it left wing But many followers of it consider themselves of the right But there are many on the left that support Keynesian ideas. However many left wingers consider it right wing The issue is – do you believe in a totally or near totally unregulated free market – a regulated and controlled market – or no market at all. * Seems to work better than what alternatives? In what way is it working? You see I disagree basically in the US you have a deficit in democracy with basically two right leaning political groupings. And a first past the post system that basically leaves half of any electorate without a voice. * The problem is that some people come here claiming to be politically unbiased but who are very clearly not. It is not the label that makes the stance it is the stance on the issues that reveals a persons viewpoint. I’m a supporter of Keynesian ideas – so to some I’m of the left and for others of the right. But for some Keynesianism is about keeping the market and ‘saving’ it from alternatives, while for others it is about using the market for the benefit of all the community rather than a few. The first stance is of the right the second of the left. So am I of the left or right? I’d say I’m of the left. * It is possible that the problem in the US is that due to a concerted campaign over many years, many people there have come to associate any left leaning ideas with those of rampant authoritarian communism. So some people in the US, who hold views that they think of in an American context as thrillingly progressive or even left wing, are seen outside of that context as mundane and mainstream. For example I’ve had American right wing libertarian types claim they are ‘not of the right’ because they have nothing against such things as gay marriage. While over here in the UK Alan Duncan MP is an openly gay man who’s married to his partner and is a member of the right wing Conservative party’s shadow cabinet. * Debate of the issues is the best way to understand a person’s stance, but once that stance has been revealed for what it is, why shouldn’t it be categorised? Is a Dolphin a fish or a mammal? The issue is examined and it is decided that it is a mammal; do you then not call it a mammal because you don’t want to label it? Are Free Market ideas of the left or right? The issue is examined and it is decided they are of the right; do you then not call it a right wing viewpoint because you don’t want to fix a label to it or its supporters? *
essentially, i'm talking about how the two party system prevents a 2004 nader-influenced political outcome. and i'm fairly ignorant when it comes to politics, so i may be missing out on some nifty alternatives. yeah, democrats in america are conservative compared to the rest of the world. once it is revealed though. i don't know too many people who have done all the research necessary from an unbiased standpoint to make a logical decision as to what their stance on that issue is. it seems that too often, the label (liberal or conservative or whatever) determines one's stance on issues. no, but if you see quite a few fish, then see a dolphin, you might label it a fish. your stubbornness might prevent you from believing it is a mammal even after someone showed you a book. i don't think political opinions are as cut and dry as biology though. i'm not talking about mislabeling views like this. i'm just saying that if the world decided that gay rights was a conservative idea, i gander quite a few conservatives would then support gay rights(probably a bad counterproductive argument, but i hope you see my point) basically what i'm saying is that too often people label themselves liberal or conservative and that determines their stance on issues. once they define themselves as liberal or conservative, they'll have a bias leaning one way or another when looking at the facts. the only way for you to really know what you believe is to consider yourself a nothing, look at all the facts, then decide, ignorant to what political view shares that opinion. i have a feeling i could learn a lot from you dude. /me really wishes he hadn't looked down on being educated and having a good vocabulary in high school. lol
yeah, i've calmed down a bit. don't pay this thread any mind. 'cause well, i lose mine from time to time.
The problem is that most of those that have come here claiming to be ‘libertarians’ have turned out to be right wing. As I’ve said above they seem to think that somehow believing in such things as legalisation of drugs or not being interested one way or the other about gay marriage makes them left wing. But that is rubbish; it just means they are not a traditionally minded conservative (small c). The thing is that I know people that have left wing views and consider themselves left wing who are opposed to the legalisation of drugs for instance. What makes such libertarians, right wing, is their stance on such things as economic policy, welfare, healthcare, etc – which all seem to favour the interests of wealth over the interests of those in the rest of society.
You mean you think they are right wing. No they think it makes them small government libertarians. Falling on that side of those particular issues is typically considered "left wing", but those are specific issues. Its not rubbish, and you can play with labels like traditional liberal, small government conservatives, or libertarian, but I know most people here know what I mean when I say libertarian. I don't see how this is relevant. We are all individuals Balbus, nobody is going to fit perfectly into a box. No, that is the part of their views which are typically classified as "right wing". It doesn't mean they can simply be treated as right wing for failing some Balbus defined litmus test of views.
I am registered green, but prior to that I was republican and prior to that I was a democrat. So you or the party try to tell me what I think. I am not buying it. And I think more people are where I am. Legislators do your jobs or face early retirement. And someday I hope elected officials receive no lifetime benefits. Might wake them up to the plight of their fellow citizens. They might vote with their constiguents instead of the lobbyists.
libertarian=free market, free people. conservative=free market, restricted people liberal=restricted market, free people fascist(wrong term here i think)=restricted market, restricted people i gander there might be people that disagree on the definition of these terms though. anyway, i basically wasn't talking about how people mislabel themselves. just how they allow their label affect their views.
Nader didn't lose Gore's election. Gore did. I am not a label I am a citizen. Gore couldn't win Tennessee. Maybe he can save the polar bears but I doubt it.
i don't think anyone's really following what i'm saying here's a site worth checking out: http://politicalcompass.org/ take the test and try to keep note of why you believe what you believe in each issue. is it merely because you define yourself as a liberal and know that the option you chose is a liberal stance? i know i sometimes feel that way
I find that Americans are more confused about their own political compass because they only have 2 parties that represent the entire map.
