Full Version: Political labels
Over the past few weeks, particularly in debates involving Ron Paul there have been a number of statements by people that run along the lines of "You're not a real conservative if you don't support Ron Paul". Stuff like that. People label themselves in their profile here as liberals or moderates or independents by the way they see themselves I suppose, but not everyone would choose that label for them. So, I wonder, how useful is it attach a label to oneself? Could it actually hamper that person in a debate because they become more concerned about "what a conservative would say" than about what they truly believe?
Were I to be forced to actually describe my political philosophy I would call myself a "Reagan Republican" for a number of reasons that I won't go into here, and that would be an ironic thing to do. Ronald Reagan didn't like labels like that and refused to use them. This interview on Meet the Press was Reagan's first interview on the program way back when he was running for Governor of California. He was asked if he was "still a Goldwater Republican" or a "Goldwater Conservative" and he declined to define himself in that fashion. He said he was a Republican, period. He felt it was more important to define oneself by stands on issues than it was with a hyphen. Like many of the things Reagan said, I agree.
I have read from time to time here on AD people making the claim "Reagan wasn't a real conservative" and talking about the growth of government under his watch and yada-yada-yada.
And from those people's perspective and concept of what a "real conservative" is, they are probably right. And Reagan wouldn't have cared because he didn't define himself with labels. He defined himself with issues. Still a lot to learn from the Gipper I think.
So, the questions for debate are......
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
And, since I have invoked his name so often here, it is only fitting that I pay a little respect to Dutch. Man, could we ever use you now!
Aquilla
Were I to be forced to actually describe my political philosophy I would call myself a "Reagan Republican" for a number of reasons that I won't go into here, and that would be an ironic thing to do. Ronald Reagan didn't like labels like that and refused to use them. This interview on Meet the Press was Reagan's first interview on the program way back when he was running for Governor of California. He was asked if he was "still a Goldwater Republican" or a "Goldwater Conservative" and he declined to define himself in that fashion. He said he was a Republican, period. He felt it was more important to define oneself by stands on issues than it was with a hyphen. Like many of the things Reagan said, I agree.
I have read from time to time here on AD people making the claim "Reagan wasn't a real conservative" and talking about the growth of government under his watch and yada-yada-yada.
And from those people's perspective and concept of what a "real conservative" is, they are probably right. And Reagan wouldn't have cared because he didn't define himself with labels. He defined himself with issues. Still a lot to learn from the Gipper I think. So, the questions for debate are......
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
And, since I have invoked his name so often here, it is only fitting that I pay a little respect to Dutch. Man, could we ever use you now!
Aquilla
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
It can be either helpful or harmful. There are times when such words are used only as insults by one side or the other. Although I am sure you could find examples from both sides, my own experience is that the term "liberal" is used in this way all the time. It is also true that such terms are often overly simplistic.
However, it cannot be denied that that there is there are fuzzy sets of related ideas -- what we might envision as a cloud, changing shape, sometimes breaking up, but often remaining together as a mass -- which can be given such labels accurately. In American politics, a pretty good model can be made up of four such clouds. We can call them conservative, liberal, libertarian, and populist. All of them overlap from time to time, and the individual people who make them up -- the water molecules, if you like -- may move from one to another, but they are no less real for being protean.
There is some evidence, in fact, that our political philosophies are determined, to some extent, by factors which are beyond our control.
Link
(Insert joke here about how liberalism or conservatism is a genetic disorder.)
Given that very broad categories of political philosophy (not loyalty to a particular political party) seem to be influenced, to some extent, by genetic factors (probably the same factors which influence general personality types), it seems to me that would should accept these categories as real, useful entities.
The experience that many of us have with various political tests (the Political Compass, etc.) demonstrates that certain political beliefs are correlated with each other. Even if the questions on such a test are less than perfect, statistical methods can be used to show that, for example, most people who answer "Yes" on Question One are likely to describe themselves as "conservative." With this kind of data, we can determine the characteristics of our clouds. We can have honest debates about the exact nature of these clouds, and reach fairly good definitions of them.
It is important, of course, for us to determine our opinions on the various issues and then decide which cloud we belong to. It is a mistake to say something like "I am a liberal, therefore I must believe such-and-such."
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
It's hard for me to imagine anybody denying that I am a liberal, unless they are using that term in a way which is clearly inaccurate, by any normal standard. Someone might insist that a "real" liberal is a person who believes in an absolutely unregulated free market. This is clearly not the way the term is normally used in the United States in 2007. Therefore, it would be hard for me to consider myself offended. Even if someone uses a term which is deliberately insulting -- to call me a feminazi, for example -- I would be more amused than angry. Such a person clearly has no real understanding of feminism or fascism, and such opinions can be ignored.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
Well, it's pretty clear to me that any GOP candidate is going to stay away from the term "liberal" as if it were poison. Rudy Giuliani probably isn't going to admit that he has "liberal" views on cultural issues. Most of them are going to insist that they are "conservative" or even "the only real conservative." Even many Democratic candidates are going to shy away from the word "liberal," due to the absolutely brilliant propaganda campaign of the 1980's to demonize that perfectly honorable word.
But most candidates are going to use other words. "Experienced" or "strong" or "honest."
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
To some extent, sure. If somebody agrees with me on almost all issues, but labels herself as "very conservative," I'm going to wonder why. Also, if somebody labels herself as "conservative," I am going to expect certain opinions, and to expect that I will argue against those opinions.
Labels have important limitations, to be sure; but they are not entirely useless.
It can be either helpful or harmful. There are times when such words are used only as insults by one side or the other. Although I am sure you could find examples from both sides, my own experience is that the term "liberal" is used in this way all the time. It is also true that such terms are often overly simplistic.
However, it cannot be denied that that there is there are fuzzy sets of related ideas -- what we might envision as a cloud, changing shape, sometimes breaking up, but often remaining together as a mass -- which can be given such labels accurately. In American politics, a pretty good model can be made up of four such clouds. We can call them conservative, liberal, libertarian, and populist. All of them overlap from time to time, and the individual people who make them up -- the water molecules, if you like -- may move from one to another, but they are no less real for being protean.
There is some evidence, in fact, that our political philosophies are determined, to some extent, by factors which are beyond our control.
Link
QUOTE
In a study reported in the May issue of the American Political Science Review, Alford and political science colleagues Carolyn L. Funk, associate professor with Virginia Commonwealth University, and John R. Hibbing, professor at the University of Nebraska, challenge the long-held assumption that our political orientations are shaped by our parents and upbringing. In reality, they argue, our political ideology is determined by our genes.
. . .
Alford and his colleagues found that genetics accounts for approximately half of the difference in political attitudes between parents and offspring. Only 11 percent of the variance is due to early childhood socialization, including parental influence.
“In the case of people’s tendencies to possess any political opinions regardless of their ideology,” Alford claims, “genetics explains over one-third of the variance, and their upbringing or parental influence was inconsequential.”
. . .
Alford and his colleagues found that genetics accounts for approximately half of the difference in political attitudes between parents and offspring. Only 11 percent of the variance is due to early childhood socialization, including parental influence.
“In the case of people’s tendencies to possess any political opinions regardless of their ideology,” Alford claims, “genetics explains over one-third of the variance, and their upbringing or parental influence was inconsequential.”
(Insert joke here about how liberalism or conservatism is a genetic disorder.)
Given that very broad categories of political philosophy (not loyalty to a particular political party) seem to be influenced, to some extent, by genetic factors (probably the same factors which influence general personality types), it seems to me that would should accept these categories as real, useful entities.
The experience that many of us have with various political tests (the Political Compass, etc.) demonstrates that certain political beliefs are correlated with each other. Even if the questions on such a test are less than perfect, statistical methods can be used to show that, for example, most people who answer "Yes" on Question One are likely to describe themselves as "conservative." With this kind of data, we can determine the characteristics of our clouds. We can have honest debates about the exact nature of these clouds, and reach fairly good definitions of them.
It is important, of course, for us to determine our opinions on the various issues and then decide which cloud we belong to. It is a mistake to say something like "I am a liberal, therefore I must believe such-and-such."
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
It's hard for me to imagine anybody denying that I am a liberal, unless they are using that term in a way which is clearly inaccurate, by any normal standard. Someone might insist that a "real" liberal is a person who believes in an absolutely unregulated free market. This is clearly not the way the term is normally used in the United States in 2007. Therefore, it would be hard for me to consider myself offended. Even if someone uses a term which is deliberately insulting -- to call me a feminazi, for example -- I would be more amused than angry. Such a person clearly has no real understanding of feminism or fascism, and such opinions can be ignored.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
Well, it's pretty clear to me that any GOP candidate is going to stay away from the term "liberal" as if it were poison. Rudy Giuliani probably isn't going to admit that he has "liberal" views on cultural issues. Most of them are going to insist that they are "conservative" or even "the only real conservative." Even many Democratic candidates are going to shy away from the word "liberal," due to the absolutely brilliant propaganda campaign of the 1980's to demonize that perfectly honorable word.
But most candidates are going to use other words. "Experienced" or "strong" or "honest."
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
To some extent, sure. If somebody agrees with me on almost all issues, but labels herself as "very conservative," I'm going to wonder why. Also, if somebody labels herself as "conservative," I am going to expect certain opinions, and to expect that I will argue against those opinions.
Labels have important limitations, to be sure; but they are not entirely useless.
QUOTE
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
Well, when it comes to people, everyone has their own opinion of what a "conservative" is. Or what a "liberal" is.
In our own political circles with people we agree with, the terms can invoke a stereotype that, while silently celebrated, is often an oversimplification of what constitutes someone's belief.
So yes, I think it adds to the debate because then you discover and face what that opposition is really all about. And it's not as bad as we're told it should be.
When people start spouting about "real conservatives" or "real liberals", there's an assumption that there is a set standard of conservatism or liberalism. But there's not.
Liberal women tend to be more confident and dress sexy, though. There's certainly something to be said about that.
Raowwwllll(was that too stereotypical? was anyone offended?)
QUOTE
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
Not really. I am what I am. As Silverwolf noted, it might just be in my genes.
I do get a little miffed when, as a conservative, I see people get labeled with "neocon", which is a deliberate negative stereotype rarely used among actual conservatives towards each other. Again, its an oversimplification of a complex and dynamic set of beliefs that I see used primarily as a "clean" insult, and it's grossly misused and overused.
I'd consider myself pro-life but I understand that others have situations and attitudes that differ from mine. It's not for me, but it is the law, and it needs to be respected. For that reason alone, I abhor the people who stand around abortion clinics. What a terrible example of self-righteousness. That said, if I KNOW someone is a liberal or moderate, saying I'm pro-life, even for just MYSELF produces images of storming a clinic, driving a van with pictures of chopped up parts, or being a complete religious intolerant, and nothing could be further from the truth. I'll bet just typing "pro-life", SOMEBODY grits their teeth and thinks I don't want women to have rights. Not true.
I'm an NRA guy. Not many people attack the Second Amendment, but I don't find it insulting if they do. It's an opening of intelligent dialogue. And a chance to share my opinion. If I get called a redneck for owning a gun, I figure I'm dealing with a mental midget. Talking to a brick wall would make more sense than wasting my time with someone who has already made up their mind about me without even asking a question. I'd rather lick the phlegm from Flipper's blowhole than argue with that. I'd rather jump into a swimming pool filled with double edged razor blades. I'd rather crazy-glue my nostrils together. I'd rather clean all the bathrooms in Grand Central Station with my tongue... you get the point.
QUOTE
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
Every one of them is. It's "their image". Which is a shame. I wish they'd just state their opinions and let the people decide.
Saying "I'm the most conservative" is a huge red flag for me. Oh yeah? Well, if you were, then you wouldn't have to say it. Your voting record would reflect that. Your attitude and policies would reflect that. That sentence itself says to me, "I'm the loudest, arrogant jerkwad, but I'm closest to YOUR beliefs, so vote for me you stupid sheep. No thinking, just vote for me, The Most Conservative Candidate".
Meh. You LOSE your vote when you say stupid crap like that.
Eventually you'll have to face people who don't like you if you win the primaries. You'll dump that whole "Most Conservative Candidate" after the primaries like an ugly prom date to run to the center to pick up the independent/undecided votes. Gee, thanks for your proclamation of conservative values. Now, go raise taxes and pander to your opponents like you swore you'd never do and forget all about us....
QUOTE
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
Sort of. I like to engage with people who disagree with me more, because it's not interesting to have a big dumb conservative love-fest uncontested. Everyone has something to contribute, and I like to listen to new ideas and how people react to different situations.
That said, if someone says, "I agree with AZWW", I find that to be one of the highest compliments. Especially from someone who is NOT from my political affiliation. But I like a fellow GOP'er to pat me on the back occasionally too. IF it is deserved.
I'm a lost conservative voter who picked "Republican" because I've always thought the two were connected. Not so much anymore. I don't have a chosen candidate yet. So since I don't know where I belong, I can't slam someone for saying I don't have vision of my own party. I don't. I really don't think Republican Leaders are in touch with the voters. So when someone accuses Republicans of abandoning traditional conservative values for the hispanic vote, or the black vote, or the moderate vote, or the independent vote, they're absolutely right.
They pander to groups instead of rallying an idea. So if it's true when someone says something negative, I'm not offended if they're right.
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
I think it helps to an extent. You get a rough idea of where the person feels he/she belongs, and that can be informative.
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
Not at all. Happens all the time to me because I'm rather difficult to classify, though I do consider myself to lean conservative. I supported Gore over Bush the second, though I was a very strong supporter of his father Bush senior. I never liked Clinton, but I would have supported Tsongas had he made the presidency, and I don't like Bush.
Warning, stream of conscious ramble ahead: I do think this is a recent phenomenon...the "not a real conservative" label. IMO, Bush isn't conservative. On the other hand, I thought Clinton was definitely liberal, but he made some policy changes that I agreed with, and they were conservative changes (balancing the budget, for instance). Actually, he and Bush have a LOT in common...From my perspective, Bush is simply taking the expanded power that Clinton set up. Bush's foreign policy, too, is similar to Clinton's. I think that Republicans and Democrats are bipolar on this, attacking one side while accepting and embracing when their own side does exactly the same thing. Once upon a time, Republicans heatedly disagreed with the Kosovo intervention and didn't wish to expand NATO. Once upon a time, many conservatives wanted to remove troops from Saudi (I'm not sure how the government got around that one in the first place, absent of a SOFA agreement. Historically the USSC has barred the executive branch from entering into unconstitutional treaties). You can read all of this from Pat Buchanan's writing, as he used to be considered a relatively mainstream conservative, during Clinton's time. I have actually received identical SPAM from conspiracy theories of yesteryear, with the name Bush placed where Clinton had been, and it applies equally. I remember Republicans sending e mail concerns about this new president who called his program the 'New Covenant'.
Anyone else recall this? I wouldn't be surprised if liberals had the same identity "problem" during the Clinton presidency. Clinton was 180 out from the personal philosophy of many liberals.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
Not sure.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
I don't think so, but that's probably because I've been here such a long time. I can usually guess where a member will stand on an issue after they've posted about five times in the forum, regardless of the label they choose for themselves. Occasionally I'm surprised, but not usually.
I think it helps to an extent. You get a rough idea of where the person feels he/she belongs, and that can be informative.2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
Not at all. Happens all the time to me because I'm rather difficult to classify, though I do consider myself to lean conservative. I supported Gore over Bush the second, though I was a very strong supporter of his father Bush senior. I never liked Clinton, but I would have supported Tsongas had he made the presidency, and I don't like Bush.
Warning, stream of conscious ramble ahead: I do think this is a recent phenomenon...the "not a real conservative" label. IMO, Bush isn't conservative. On the other hand, I thought Clinton was definitely liberal, but he made some policy changes that I agreed with, and they were conservative changes (balancing the budget, for instance). Actually, he and Bush have a LOT in common...From my perspective, Bush is simply taking the expanded power that Clinton set up. Bush's foreign policy, too, is similar to Clinton's. I think that Republicans and Democrats are bipolar on this, attacking one side while accepting and embracing when their own side does exactly the same thing. Once upon a time, Republicans heatedly disagreed with the Kosovo intervention and didn't wish to expand NATO. Once upon a time, many conservatives wanted to remove troops from Saudi (I'm not sure how the government got around that one in the first place, absent of a SOFA agreement. Historically the USSC has barred the executive branch from entering into unconstitutional treaties). You can read all of this from Pat Buchanan's writing, as he used to be considered a relatively mainstream conservative, during Clinton's time. I have actually received identical SPAM from conspiracy theories of yesteryear, with the name Bush placed where Clinton had been, and it applies equally. I remember Republicans sending e mail concerns about this new president who called his program the 'New Covenant'.
Anyone else recall this? I wouldn't be surprised if liberals had the same identity "problem" during the Clinton presidency. Clinton was 180 out from the personal philosophy of many liberals.3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
Not sure.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
I don't think so, but that's probably because I've been here such a long time. I can usually guess where a member will stand on an issue after they've posted about five times in the forum, regardless of the label they choose for themselves. Occasionally I'm surprised, but not usually.
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
No and no. Terms need to be defined in debate, so the use of undefined labels just clouds issues. Labels can be like acronyms though, basically shortcuts to reduce verbiage. An undefined acronym is as useless as an undefined label.
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
I find it a hoot that some people jump to conclusions that a "liberal Democrat" would think one way or another. No, I don't consider it a personal attack, but this does tell me something about people who jump to conclusions.
Maybe people figure out from content that I am for basic liberal Democratic values, and if so, then that's not jumping to conclusions. What might surprise some is that I'm also for conservative fiscal responsibility and against being so open minded that the marbles fall out of the bag. What's not so surprising is that I am for working US citizens and against too much power in authority. I also see that our present system has huge problems, as opposed to waving a flag and smiling into the camera for your mug shot.
I don't like churches, detest malls, drink beer and bourbon, drive a Jeep Cherokee Sport that has over 100,000 miles on it, cook well, play guitar, and currently earn my money through freelance writing. You tell me what the hell I am.
They don't give you the choice of Human Being, Working Class Hero, or Bachelor Norwegian Farmer. I know I'm not a Soccer Mom or Silent Majority or Illegal Immigrant. Someone thinks I'm Devil Spawn. Eh, she's whacked out. Another one thinks I'm a dirty "L" word. He's irrelevant, but his kid is annoying.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
I imagine all the candidates are concerned that the press labels them with the proper brand names. It's marketing. Some candidates are not marketing to me, that's for sure.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
My preference is to play with ideas and not get personal about it. There are times that something ticks me off, and I've learned to go do something else. It's not like I don't have anything else on my platter.
No and no. Terms need to be defined in debate, so the use of undefined labels just clouds issues. Labels can be like acronyms though, basically shortcuts to reduce verbiage. An undefined acronym is as useless as an undefined label.
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
I find it a hoot that some people jump to conclusions that a "liberal Democrat" would think one way or another. No, I don't consider it a personal attack, but this does tell me something about people who jump to conclusions.
Maybe people figure out from content that I am for basic liberal Democratic values, and if so, then that's not jumping to conclusions. What might surprise some is that I'm also for conservative fiscal responsibility and against being so open minded that the marbles fall out of the bag. What's not so surprising is that I am for working US citizens and against too much power in authority. I also see that our present system has huge problems, as opposed to waving a flag and smiling into the camera for your mug shot.
I don't like churches, detest malls, drink beer and bourbon, drive a Jeep Cherokee Sport that has over 100,000 miles on it, cook well, play guitar, and currently earn my money through freelance writing. You tell me what the hell I am.
They don't give you the choice of Human Being, Working Class Hero, or Bachelor Norwegian Farmer. I know I'm not a Soccer Mom or Silent Majority or Illegal Immigrant. Someone thinks I'm Devil Spawn. Eh, she's whacked out. Another one thinks I'm a dirty "L" word. He's irrelevant, but his kid is annoying.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
I imagine all the candidates are concerned that the press labels them with the proper brand names. It's marketing. Some candidates are not marketing to me, that's for sure.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
My preference is to play with ideas and not get personal about it. There are times that something ticks me off, and I've learned to go do something else. It's not like I don't have anything else on my platter.
QUOTE
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
I do believe that it is helpful. While you might be wrong about guessing a given candidate or person's views, knowing they are a liberal or a conservative will generally help you figure out where they stand on a given issue.
QUOTE
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
No, not at all. I am a liberal on social issues, though there are a few where I digress from the label. I am pro-life, ardently so. I'm also for vouchers and private schooling, and so I've left the reservation in regards to education. I am also, for the most part, a conervative when it comes to economic issues. I'm more of a "blue dog" democrat on most issues-maybe I need to change my "liberal" moniker.
Wow, thanks for the sudden realization.QUOTE
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
Oooooh yes. If they didn't care, Huckabee wouldn't be dressed in hunter orange with a shotgun looking like a dufus. If none of them cared, they wouldn't mind answering a question from someone during the debates holding up a Bible, or visiting Bob Jones University like McCain did. Liberals do it too all the time. Some candidates attend the DailyKos convention in Vegas and others have to have the blessings of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP.
4
QUOTE
[b[. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?[/b]
Not really, I disagree with the board liberals about abortion and other issues from time to time. Politics makes for strange bedfellows at times, so it's not unusual for me to "side" with someone whom I just have been disagreeing with rather vehemently with in another thread. I do get particularly petrubed by those who never waiver from a given view, who never appear to examine their viewpoints, and who despite all the hyperlinks to the contrary, still drink the party kool-aid about an issue that they are clearly wrong on, but just can't admit it.
QUOTE
And, since I have invoked his name so often here, it is only fitting that I pay a little respect to Dutch. Man, could we ever use you now!
I can't remember what debate it was, but it was one of the earlier ones. It was quite telling that the GOP candidates sought to invoke Reagan, and not a sitting, Republican president who is in charge now. Quite telling.
Great topic Aqulla.
Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
No, they're not - and no, it doesn't. I have spent 60% of my life in the US and 40% in The Rest of the World - and our usage of "liberal" and "conservative" are through the looking-glass. What's considered "liberal" here would be moderately conservative in most other places and what's considered "conservative" here is beyond the spectrum of political positions in most of the civilized world. Then again, the terms are entirely relative. In the former Soviet Republics, "ultra-conservative" means hardline communist, while here it means neo-fascist - opposite ends of the right-left continuum (though they are roughly identical on the authoritarian-libertarian scale). Even though I've been back in the US for nearly ten years, I am still astonished by some of the ridiculously conservative positions held by alleged "liberals".
Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
Nope - and nope. I've only gone with the "liberal" label due to the limits of our vocabulary. I doubt there are many who would claim I was not liberal in most of my positions (though my stance on the Second Amendment, for example, stymies some who enjoy pigeonholes) - and a lot of them are beyond the ken of many Americans to whom "liberal" simply means "not quite feudal".
Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
Hell yeah. Most of the Democratic candidates are terrified of being labeled "too liberal", while for Republicans there's no such thing as "too conservative".
Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
No, I don't. In fact, I seldom look at those details in the left panel. To me, they are virtually meaningless.
And, since Aquilla invoked his name so often here, it is only fitting that I say, "Thank God President Reagan has gone to his richly deserved Reward - I trust his reception in the afterlife was appropriately warm."
No, they're not - and no, it doesn't. I have spent 60% of my life in the US and 40% in The Rest of the World - and our usage of "liberal" and "conservative" are through the looking-glass. What's considered "liberal" here would be moderately conservative in most other places and what's considered "conservative" here is beyond the spectrum of political positions in most of the civilized world. Then again, the terms are entirely relative. In the former Soviet Republics, "ultra-conservative" means hardline communist, while here it means neo-fascist - opposite ends of the right-left continuum (though they are roughly identical on the authoritarian-libertarian scale). Even though I've been back in the US for nearly ten years, I am still astonished by some of the ridiculously conservative positions held by alleged "liberals".
Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
Nope - and nope. I've only gone with the "liberal" label due to the limits of our vocabulary. I doubt there are many who would claim I was not liberal in most of my positions (though my stance on the Second Amendment, for example, stymies some who enjoy pigeonholes) - and a lot of them are beyond the ken of many Americans to whom "liberal" simply means "not quite feudal".
Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
Hell yeah. Most of the Democratic candidates are terrified of being labeled "too liberal", while for Republicans there's no such thing as "too conservative".
Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
No, I don't. In fact, I seldom look at those details in the left panel. To me, they are virtually meaningless.
And, since Aquilla invoked his name so often here, it is only fitting that I say, "Thank God President Reagan has gone to his richly deserved Reward - I trust his reception in the afterlife was appropriately warm."
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
Let me give you a mental preview, my 2 favorite Presidents -- who have served in my lifetime that is, are Reagan and Clinton. Reagan gave me pride in being an American when I was young, and Clinton was so good at beating a Republican leadership that was too smug and a bit hateful--this is where I started walking away from the GOP -- at their own game I just had to respect it.
Today I think JFK would have been a Republican.
I don't think the labels are helpful at all except for reporters and talk show hosts. I would label myself conservative in so many areas regarding finance and taxes and Liberal in others - as in basically as long as you don't force yourself on another person and violate their rights, anything goes. I can't be libertarian because I like national parks and our highway system and would never stand for allowing private persons to purchase them.
That's why the 2 party system drives me insane and I find anyone who ever believes in "big tents" a bit of a pushover.
I lean Republican but have found the leadership and its pandering to certain religious groups so distasteful I would vote against it often.
I am anti abortion BUT the fact that someone believes they have any right to decide affairs related to my own body makes me angry enough to start swinging.
I always get labeled across the board. One thread I am a Leftist (anti Iraq war) and on another a conservative nazi (don't buy the Global Warming strategies). Its always entertaining. Offended, No. I usually found I have won after they have to resort to statements like "typical Leftist pandering...yada yada yada....." or the opposite coin of I must be 'Heartless'.
Sadly Politicians always pander for the labels they need to get elected. It was depressing to watch McCain become such a whore after the fun of watching him get in the leadership's face for so long.
I let others words speak for themselves. I see way too may people label themselves things they are not. Like Libertarians who are for big government?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
Let me give you a mental preview, my 2 favorite Presidents -- who have served in my lifetime that is, are Reagan and Clinton. Reagan gave me pride in being an American when I was young, and Clinton was so good at beating a Republican leadership that was too smug and a bit hateful--this is where I started walking away from the GOP -- at their own game I just had to respect it.
Today I think JFK would have been a Republican.
I don't think the labels are helpful at all except for reporters and talk show hosts. I would label myself conservative in so many areas regarding finance and taxes and Liberal in others - as in basically as long as you don't force yourself on another person and violate their rights, anything goes. I can't be libertarian because I like national parks and our highway system and would never stand for allowing private persons to purchase them.
That's why the 2 party system drives me insane and I find anyone who ever believes in "big tents" a bit of a pushover.
I lean Republican but have found the leadership and its pandering to certain religious groups so distasteful I would vote against it often.
I am anti abortion BUT the fact that someone believes they have any right to decide affairs related to my own body makes me angry enough to start swinging.
I always get labeled across the board. One thread I am a Leftist (anti Iraq war) and on another a conservative nazi (don't buy the Global Warming strategies). Its always entertaining. Offended, No. I usually found I have won after they have to resort to statements like "typical Leftist pandering...yada yada yada....." or the opposite coin of I must be 'Heartless'.
Sadly Politicians always pander for the labels they need to get elected. It was depressing to watch McCain become such a whore after the fun of watching him get in the leadership's face for so long.
I let others words speak for themselves. I see way too may people label themselves things they are not. Like Libertarians who are for big government?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Dec 29 2007, 04:12 AM) 
Over the past few weeks, particularly in debates involving Ron Paul there have been a number of statements by people that run along the lines of "You're not a real conservative if you don't support Ron Paul". Stuff like that. People label themselves in their profile here as liberals or moderates or independents by the way they see themselves I suppose, but not everyone would choose that label for them. So, I wonder, how useful is it attach a label to oneself? Could it actually hamper that person in a debate because they become more concerned about "what a conservative would say" than about what they truly believe?
Were I to be forced to actually describe my political philosophy I would call myself a "Reagan Republican" for a number of reasons that I won't go into here, and that would be an ironic thing to do. Ronald Reagan didn't like labels like that and refused to use them. This interview on Meet the Press was Reagan's first interview on the program way back when he was running for Governor of California. He was asked if he was "still a Goldwater Republican" or a "Goldwater Conservative" and he declined to define himself in that fashion. He said he was a Republican, period. He felt it was more important to define oneself by stands on issues than it was with a hyphen. Like many of the things Reagan said, I agree.
I have read from time to time here on AD people making the claim "Reagan wasn't a real conservative" and talking about the growth of government under his watch and yada-yada-yada. And from those people's perspective and concept of what a "real conservative" is, they are probably right. And Reagan wouldn't have cared because he didn't define himself with labels. He defined himself with issues. Still a lot to learn from the Gipper I think.
So, the questions for debate are......
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
And, since I have invoked his name so often here, it is only fitting that I pay a little respect to Dutch. Man, could we ever use you now!
Aquilla
Were I to be forced to actually describe my political philosophy I would call myself a "Reagan Republican" for a number of reasons that I won't go into here, and that would be an ironic thing to do. Ronald Reagan didn't like labels like that and refused to use them. This interview on Meet the Press was Reagan's first interview on the program way back when he was running for Governor of California. He was asked if he was "still a Goldwater Republican" or a "Goldwater Conservative" and he declined to define himself in that fashion. He said he was a Republican, period. He felt it was more important to define oneself by stands on issues than it was with a hyphen. Like many of the things Reagan said, I agree.
I have read from time to time here on AD people making the claim "Reagan wasn't a real conservative" and talking about the growth of government under his watch and yada-yada-yada.
And from those people's perspective and concept of what a "real conservative" is, they are probably right. And Reagan wouldn't have cared because he didn't define himself with labels. He defined himself with issues. Still a lot to learn from the Gipper I think. So, the questions for debate are......
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
And, since I have invoked his name so often here, it is only fitting that I pay a little respect to Dutch. Man, could we ever use you now!
Aquilla
Good points there, I liked Regan myself.
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
It depends on the context in which the terms are used I suppose. There are many preconceived notions for conservatives and liberals alike and also stereotypes that many of us have to put up with at one time or another.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
Many if not most of them probably are, it can be difficult to tell who is most guilty of this but appearance is obviously important to some more than others. Some candidates try to appeal to as many people as they can, while others are ok with the fact that the stance they have chosen on any given issue will be unpopular to a large group of people. I like the ones that accept that their stance will not always be appealing to everyone. Now my opinion on who is the most concerned about their appearance in both parties is Hillary Clinton for the Democratic party and Ron Paul for the Republican party. Although there are others in both parties that I suspect are guilty of changing positions or taking positions based primarily on how they think it will be percieved by others.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
I'll be honest and say I do pay attention to affiliations, but I don't judge based on affiliation. Some liberals I can talk to, while some at times seem to have a loathing of conservatives if they believe in something like fighting the war in Iraq for example. It does go both ways though, I've seen some conservatives act childish in debate toward liberals. Often times it is these labels that separate us I believe. Many issues that I'm strongly opinionated on actualy have nothing to do with politics in my eyes. Global Warming Ive researched a good bit, but I researched the science and varied theories. In doing so ive come to the conclusion that the planet is warming, and the probability that man kind is playing a role in this warming trend is real. Come to find out, this is a stance that is more in line with left wing America than Right wing America.
In fact in most cases I look at the individual issues in their original context before paying any mind to where it would put me politicaly. For example Global Warming in its original context is a Scientific issue not a political one. Abortion rights in its original context is an issue of morals rather than politics ect.. ect..
Many issues are less political than people make them out. I consider myself a conservative republican simply because I agree with the right on more issues, and I have more candidates that share my views to choose from if I'm registered Republican. Unfortunately there are those that encourage division between the right and left. Ive seen some play politics as if it were a sport and its wrong, especially when some of the people doing that are themselves politicians.
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
I don’t think it’s really helpful at all. Like Wertz, other than checking out a new member, I don’t look at the left panel. Not only have the terms Liberal and Conservative been skewed beyond all original recognition, but in this day and age, one label cannot possibly fit all positions. In my opinion, only a scant few people are fully one or the other on all issues.
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
It doesn’t bother me at all. I consider it ignorance on the part of the debater. I’m more offended when someone attempts to take my stand on one specific issue and assume that it translates into a broader context.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
All of them except for Kucinich and Paul are concerned about how the press views them and labels them.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
Nope, I debate the merits of a case, not a members chosen identity.
I don’t think it’s really helpful at all. Like Wertz, other than checking out a new member, I don’t look at the left panel. Not only have the terms Liberal and Conservative been skewed beyond all original recognition, but in this day and age, one label cannot possibly fit all positions. In my opinion, only a scant few people are fully one or the other on all issues.
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
It doesn’t bother me at all. I consider it ignorance on the part of the debater. I’m more offended when someone attempts to take my stand on one specific issue and assume that it translates into a broader context.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
All of them except for Kucinich and Paul are concerned about how the press views them and labels them.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
Nope, I debate the merits of a case, not a members chosen identity.
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
I think it really used to define your political positions, and pretty much stopped being useful when those labels were over-used for the wrong poeple- the actions of a politician vs the speech of a poltician makes all the difference in the world. Like with Aquilla's example- Reagan STATED he hated big goverment, made lots of cute quips about it- then went on to create even bigger goverment - stated he hated terrorism, and then went on to fund terrorists in central America- he stated he loved freedom, yet supported the some of the most authoritarian regimes in the world at the time- it IS quite useful on winning elections though- I know for a great deal many poeple, if a politician is able to have the press call them "conservative" - then all the issues don't matter, thier voting records don't matter etc. That is why we have Republicans fighting over who is the "most conservative" yet have nothing substansive to really position themselves as conservative.
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
Usually one is called "liberal" today for not supporting GW - and that applies to traditional conservatives like DTOM or DR, who are pretty classical in thier small goverment old guard beliefs.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
It is vitally important, because, for the most part, Americans are very ignorant of thier candidates, and have no clue, except when they get to the polls, they remember who the MSM designated as "liberal" and "conservative" basically wins an election based on those labels, with the exception being the single issue voters.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
When they contradict thier positions, and call themselves one thing and try to make something diametrically opposed to that thing in thier posts. This is why I started the "social conservatism vs conservatism" debate- they seem diametrically opposed as well- you can't have big goverment solutions to social problems and then advocate for smaller goverment, now can you?
I think it really used to define your political positions, and pretty much stopped being useful when those labels were over-used for the wrong poeple- the actions of a politician vs the speech of a poltician makes all the difference in the world. Like with Aquilla's example- Reagan STATED he hated big goverment, made lots of cute quips about it- then went on to create even bigger goverment
- stated he hated terrorism, and then went on to fund terrorists in central America- he stated he loved freedom, yet supported the some of the most authoritarian regimes in the world at the time- it IS quite useful on winning elections though- I know for a great deal many poeple, if a politician is able to have the press call them "conservative" - then all the issues don't matter, thier voting records don't matter etc. That is why we have Republicans fighting over who is the "most conservative" yet have nothing substansive to really position themselves as conservative. 2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
Usually one is called "liberal" today for not supporting GW - and that applies to traditional conservatives like DTOM or DR, who are pretty classical in thier small goverment old guard beliefs.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
It is vitally important, because, for the most part, Americans are very ignorant of thier candidates, and have no clue, except when they get to the polls, they remember who the MSM designated as "liberal" and "conservative" basically wins an election based on those labels, with the exception being the single issue voters.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
When they contradict thier positions, and call themselves one thing and try to make something diametrically opposed to that thing in thier posts. This is why I started the "social conservatism vs conservatism" debate- they seem diametrically opposed as well- you can't have big goverment solutions to social problems and then advocate for smaller goverment, now can you?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Dec 29 2007, 04:12 AM)
So, the questions for debate are......
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
And, since I have invoked his name so often here, it is only fitting that I pay a little respect to Dutch. Man, could we ever use you now!
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
And, since I have invoked his name so often here, it is only fitting that I pay a little respect to Dutch. Man, could we ever use you now!
1. I'm going to go against the prevailing sentiment and say the "liberal" and "conservative" label is helpful. As individuals, most of us will say, "I'm more complicated than just being branded one thing or the other." For the most part, that's true. I'm a pro-choice liberal who supports the death penalty. Like most people, there are some parts of liberal orthodoxy of which I am a heretic and non-believer.
But sometimes you need to cut to the chase. Tell me what you believe and it's easier for me to figure out where you're coming from. For the sake of efficiency you can't always deal with everyone on a one-on-one basis. Sometimes you have to go by what general category they fit into: Man. Woman. Black. White. Young. Old. Republican. Democrat. Conservative. Liberal. It saves time and makes the seating arrangements so much easier.
2. Depends on who you are and how much I value your opinion. If you're a nobody and your opinion doesn't mean squat to me, why should I care what you think? Most people are perceptive enough to figure out where I stand politically without too much trouble. The stupid ones who can't aren't worth being bothered with.
3. Oh, it depends on who's saying it and why. If Mitt Romney calls Mike Huckabee a "liberal" for some of his decisions as governor of Arkansas, that probably bugs Huckabee a bit. If Huckabee snaps back that Romney vowed to defend a woman's right to an abortion when he ran for governor, but now opposes it since he is running for president, how can Romney really get upset about the truth?
With the possible exception of John Edwards, probably all of the remaining Democratic contenders would decline to be called a "liberal." Of course, all of the Republican candidates trip all over themselves to be considered the "most" conservative candidate. Which only goes to show how political labels wax and wane in popularity. Call a conservative a conservative and they'll reply, "Thank you." Call a liberal a liberal and they'll say, "Who me? I'm a moderate. Or a progressive. Or a pragmatist. Just don't call me a liberal!!!"
4. Sure I do. And others debate me the same way according to how I self-identify.
If Ronald Reagan were still among us today he'd be close to 97 years old. You might think wistfully Aquilla, that we could use him now, but I'd hazard a guess that at such an advanced age, Reagan wouldn't have much more to give.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jan 7 2008, 12:24 AM)
If Ronald Reagan were still among us today he'd be close to 97 years old. You might think wistfully Aquilla, that we could use him now, but I'd hazard a guess that at such an advanced age, Reagan wouldn't have much more to give.
You're probably right on that one, NT. 97 would be a bit on the old side for a President, even for Reagan, but his particular brand of politics would be useful today I think. I do wonder how it would play in the Republican Party though. I find it ironic and sad that all the Republican candidates and conservative pundits continue to try to "out Reagan" each other when in reality, on some issues of the day (like immigration), they are diametrically opposed to Reagan's position. In a book called "Role of a Lifetime", Lou Cannon sums it up the following way:QUOTE
Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, rankled nationalist sensibilities in the neighboring nations. But Reagan was serious in his proposal. Though he traveled only once outside the North American continent during his first 57 years, he was neither insular nor isolationist. California has windows to the world in Asia, and Reagan thought of the US as a Pacific power as well as an Atlantic one. He also had a Californian’s consciousness of Mexico and an actor’s appreciation of Canadians, who are well-represented in the film community. The dream of a North American accord would drive the successful pursuit of a US-Canadian free trade agreement and a future-oriented “framework” trade agreement with Mexico
In this op-ed piece from FOX News, Matt Hayes writes.......
QUOTE
It’s been said that toward the end of his life, President Reagan’s illness prevented him from recognizing even familiar and beloved things. Had he been in perfect health, he might have had difficulty recognizing today’s Republican party on the issue of immigration.
He's right. I wonder how Reagan's position would play out today in the primaries.
I guess it does demonstrate that sometimes labels can be deceptive.Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Dec 29 2007, 04:12 AM)
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
1.) Not so much helpful as it is a mean's of tagging a person to a set of political ideals for the audience. It is like classifying who wrote the book when you say "Plato's Republic." By identifying Huckabee as a "conservative" you are sending a signal to a core group of people what his ideology is largely all about. In a way, it can be both a good and bad distinction if you fit the bill for either buzz word "liberal" or "conservative." I think the important thing to remember is that "Democrat" and "liberal" do not always have to go together, likewise for "Republican" and "conservative."
A case can be made that there are some extremely liberal Republicans and some fiercely conservative Democrats. I don't think anyone here would call Ron Paul a liberal, but does he fit the contemporary bill of conservative? To most people, no. This is because "conservative" has become coupled with the images of George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, etc. Ron Paul is a Republican, but even though the dictionary definition may support his classification as a conservative, modern understanding of the word does not lend itself and may even be a negative to his campaign.
2.) Not really. I am secure enough in my political beliefs and identity to stand up for what is right and the truths I have discovered for myself.
3.) They have to be to play the game. Case and point: Hillary Clinton. Some Republicans were breaking out the Hugo Chavez rhetoric [see "Great Satan speech"] and spitting fire when they heard her name, they classified her as such a left-wing liberal. However, she has made her way more to the political center commentators have noted. Why else would she go about a shift in behavior unless it would benefit her in the eyes of the media and potential voters?
4.) Not once.
I'm not convinced conservatism, so often associated with Christianity, has lost its home with the Republican Party. I just think conservatism was ill-defined to begin with, and what it stands for is a group of oft-conflicting principles.
I can see how a Christian can oppose abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem-cell research. But how can a Christian support the death penalty? Or war-mongering? Or taking from the poor to give to the rich (something today's tax cuts can produce)? Or treating immigrants, regardless of legal status, as subhuman enemies? Or not seeking to provide universal health care (should such an option ever be feasibly available to us) to take care of our nation's weakest and poorest?
As is often the case, I find the truth is somewhere in between. It's almost like the Democrats are more right on the economic issues and Republicans more so on the moral issues.
And regardless of which issues are right, a very present danger I see is that all of these issues are being grouped together as conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican, patriotic or unpatriotic. It's as if thinking for yourself on them means to deny the whole party, even if it only results in differing on one issue.
I think people need to stop voting as conservative or liberal and start thinking for themselves. Maybe they reach the same conclusions as either party, and that's fine.
What is conservative? Sticking to old traditions? Sometimes change is needed for better efficiency or progress. What does liberal mean? Changing from old traditions? Change for the sake of change can be a bad thing.
Neither one is always right. People need to think through the issues for themselves, and not just vote the way their ancestors did. There is never an excuse for omitting the thought process from our voting.
I can see how a Christian can oppose abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem-cell research. But how can a Christian support the death penalty? Or war-mongering? Or taking from the poor to give to the rich (something today's tax cuts can produce)? Or treating immigrants, regardless of legal status, as subhuman enemies? Or not seeking to provide universal health care (should such an option ever be feasibly available to us) to take care of our nation's weakest and poorest?
As is often the case, I find the truth is somewhere in between. It's almost like the Democrats are more right on the economic issues and Republicans more so on the moral issues.
And regardless of which issues are right, a very present danger I see is that all of these issues are being grouped together as conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican, patriotic or unpatriotic. It's as if thinking for yourself on them means to deny the whole party, even if it only results in differing on one issue.
I think people need to stop voting as conservative or liberal and start thinking for themselves. Maybe they reach the same conclusions as either party, and that's fine.
What is conservative? Sticking to old traditions? Sometimes change is needed for better efficiency or progress. What does liberal mean? Changing from old traditions? Change for the sake of change can be a bad thing.
Neither one is always right. People need to think through the issues for themselves, and not just vote the way their ancestors did. There is never an excuse for omitting the thought process from our voting.
1. Is the use of labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful? Does it add to the debate?
Not at all, not to me. I really don't pay too much attention to the label. I focus mostly on what the poster is saying, and what his or her points are. That's much more important to me than any darn label, IMO.
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
Oh, good grief, no. My label, if I use one, is my own choice. If someone else doesn't like it, it's not my fault. If anyone wants to argue about what I call myself, I would say they don't have anything better to think about.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
I think McCain is. He calls himself a real conservative. I have no idea what that means. Does that mean there are fake ones? Does it matter? The candidates' stands on issues is what's important, not what the press thinks. We're not voting for Reporter of the Year here.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
No. Again, I look at what they are saying, and the points they are making. You see, a lot of people may call themselves one thing, but they may be a little conservative when it comes to one issue, or a little more liberal when it comes to another, so really, the label doesn't matter. Their words do.
Purrs,
Pookie
Not at all, not to me. I really don't pay too much attention to the label. I focus mostly on what the poster is saying, and what his or her points are. That's much more important to me than any darn label, IMO.
2. Does it offend or bother you if someone disagrees with the label you have selected for yourself? Do you consider it a personal attack?
Oh, good grief, no. My label, if I use one, is my own choice. If someone else doesn't like it, it's not my fault. If anyone wants to argue about what I call myself, I would say they don't have anything better to think about.
3. Do you think the various candidates for President are concerned about how they are labeled by the press? Which ones?
I think McCain is. He calls himself a real conservative. I have no idea what that means. Does that mean there are fake ones? Does it matter? The candidates' stands on issues is what's important, not what the press thinks. We're not voting for Reporter of the Year here.
4. Do you tend to debate others here on AD with an eye towards what label they have chosen for themselves?
No. Again, I look at what they are saying, and the points they are making. You see, a lot of people may call themselves one thing, but they may be a little conservative when it comes to one issue, or a little more liberal when it comes to another, so really, the label doesn't matter. Their words do.
Purrs,
Pookie
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.