News What political inclination would you describe yourself as?

[Cryxic]

I am a radical, social liberal. I support a strong welfare state that helps people assert their identities along with growing global cooperation and interdependence.

 

[Al68]

Conservatism in Maine is not the nationalistic pro-big-business stuff we see in DC every day.

What's the difference between economic liberalism and "pro-big-business"? I'm certainly pro-business (big and small and in between), but not the twisted way that Democrats hatefully talk about. Which do you mean?

Giving tax cuts to the wealthy, and to businesses that export jobs overseas is NOT conservatism.

Talking about tax cuts as if they're something "given" by government is certainly not conservatism. It's propaganda intended to manipulate children and clueless adults.

The biggest political fraud in history is the manipulation of those that don't know any better, convincing them that economic liberalism/libertarianism is equivalent to "pro-rich", "not for poor people", "not for working people", etc.

Such propaganda precludes anything resembling honest debate, which is the whole reason they do it.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm one of those people who hate both the Democratic and Republicans, but choose the lesser of two evils in a vote. In 2008, it would have been Obama, as Sarah Palin scares me. Maybe in 2012, the Republicans will find a relatively good (for a politician, so a scumbag compared to us honest people on this forum) candidate. Whoever it might be, it won't be Palin.

 

[Jack21222]

There are only 2 sides of the political spectrum: "Conservative" and "Liberal" (with the modern meanings of the words).

Things like "Libertarian", "Populist", "Progressive", etc., are meaningless, in my opinion.

I don't think it's a matter of opinion. A libertarian is somebody who wants both economic freedom and social freedom. Those are the people that want to deregulate industries, cut government spending and curb welfare programs. A libertarian will be for the legalization of drugs and for tax cuts for the rich.

An authoritarian, or statist, or however you want to put it would want government control of almost everything. They want strict control over social issues, such as no gay marriage, no drug legalization, et cetera, and they'd also support higher taxes to pay for all of these government programs.

You'd put them in the same category: centrist. Your opinion that these words do not have meaning does not make it a reality.

 

[mugaliens]

Other - realist. I go with whatever works. Personally, I think our two party political system is outmoded, inefficient, and ineffective. The amount of money spent on campaigns is embarrassingly massive, and would be far better if it went to more noble causes. I think it should be capped at $1 Million.

 

[Char. Limit]

Other - realist. I go with whatever works. Personally, I think our two party political system is outmoded, inefficient, and ineffective. The amount of money spent on campaigns is embarrassingly massive, and would be far better if it went to more noble causes. I think it should be capped at $1 Million.

I'd support that. Good choice, BTW, not that any choice is better than any other. After all, everyone is equal, and if they aren't, we'll make them so.

Sorry, the liberals made me say that. Anyway, as I was saying, all this country needs is a Smith & Wesson to shoot the gays with in the name of Jesus Christ, perfect Son of God.

Sorry, the conservatives made me say that. Anyway, I was talking about... Ah, yes! A campaign funds cap! Why not just say for every dollar over a million, 25 cents goes to... Say, Habitat for Humanity, or perhaps ASPCA.

 

[czelaya]

Other - realist. I go with whatever works. Personally, I think our two party political system is outmoded, inefficient, and ineffective. The amount of money spent on campaigns is embarrassingly massive, and would be far better if it went to more noble causes. I think it should be capped at $1 Million.

Agreed. Stongly agreed.

 

[noblegas]

I think everyone who participated in this poll by default is a statist since each person, whether they be liberal , conservative, or libertarian , or whatever want the state to carry out function they expect the state to carry out, whether it be only protecting the civil liberties that a person possess, or they want the state to provide services to people rather than the free market, or they want to legislate morality.

 

[Char. Limit]

Statist is defined here as "wishing a relatively large degree of both social and economic control by the state", the opposite of a libertarian.

 

[jtbell]

I'm a non-labelitarian. Anyone who slings around political labels as a form of insult drops several points in my estimation.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm a non-labelitarian. Anyone who slings around political labels as a form of insult drops several points in my estimation.

I do nothing of the sort! I am offended that you label me as someone who "slings around political labels as a form of insult".

Relax, it's a joke.

 

[noblegas]

Statist is defined here as "wishing a relatively large degree of both social and economic control by the state", the opposite of a libertarian.

Yeah, I don't thinking anyone who describes their political affiliation as liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. is a full-blown statist, but I believe if you want the central government to have exclusive control over one sector of the economy , then you believe in some elements of statism.Many Liberals believe that the government should have full control over healthcare and education because they believe these services are rights. Even full blown statists are not complete statists because it isn't possible for the government to control all sectors of your life, such as your own psychological and character development .

 

[Jack21222]

I think the reason "statist" is now used on the quiz is because the old term, "authoritarian" has a negative connotation.

Since "everybody who responded is a statist," do you have a better term?

 

[Char. Limit]

Statist is used on this quiz to complete the Nolan Chart. Pure and simple.

 

[edpell]

I want only four things from government/pols 1) a balanced budget 2) peaceful relations with other nations 3) energy independence 4) a rule of law that applies to the rich not just the working class.

 

[Char. Limit]

What about a defense force? Don't you want that?

 

[vertices]

I think the reason "statist" is now used on the quiz is because the old term, "authoritarian" has a negative connotation.

Since "everybody who responded is a statist," do you have a better term?

These political terms are so arbitrary and frankly stupid. There is nothing "authoritarian" about wanting goverments to "take control of" (read: run) things.

Also the terms 'left', 'right' and 'centre' are very relative. Your 'centre' (ie in American politics) is our extreme right, here in the UK.

 

[Al68]

These political terms are so arbitrary and frankly stupid. There is nothing "authoritarian" about wanting goverments to "take control of" (read: run) things.

LOL. Then what does authoritarian mean, if not that?

 

[vertices]

LOL. Then what does authoritarian mean, if not that?

It was in reference to a previous poster who berates goverments that actually "take control" of things. I don't think there is anything "authoritarian" about this. The idealogies of communism or collectivism are truly authoritarian systems of goverment.

I do know that there is a tendency in America to brand any modest social program as "authoritarian" (eg the "public option" in regard to healthcare).

I personally do believe that if a government pools resources and redistributes them, this is a better, more reliable way running a country.

Take the "social safety net" - we could leave it to individuals to look after the mentally ill, sick, old, etc by means of charity, but this is simply not sustainable. A civilised society needs a reliable system which has resources which it can release to people as and when needed.

 

[Jack21222]

It was in reference to a previous poster who berates goverments that actually "take control" of things.

...

I do know that there is a tendency in America to brand any modest social program as "authoritarian" (eg the "public option" in regard to healthcare).

That's EXACTLY what I said, that "authoritarian" has a negative connotation. That's why it is no longer used on the "World's Smallest Political Quiz." That's why they use the term "statist." I was replying to somebody who stated that everybody is statist to some degree.

If you were referring to me in your post, you'll have to point out where I "berated" anything. I didn't see any other post to which you could be referring, and I'm the one you quoted, so correct me if I'm wrong.


So what DO you call it when the government wants to control everything? I'm not talking about just health care... but what about when the government tells you who you can or cannot have sex with? What substances you can or cannot put in your own body?

The American left wants the government to more strictly control the economy, but give people personal freedoms. The American right wants to keep their hands off of the economy, but want to control the personal lives of people. Libertarians want government to keep their hands out of both the economy and out of our personal lives.

What do you call the people that want the government to control the economy AND our personal lives? We can't call them "authoritarian," because it has a negative connotation. We can't call them "statist," according to someone in this thread, because then everybody is a statist to some degree. All my post asked was "so, what is the correct term then?"

So what CAN we call such people?

 

[Nebula815]

I do know that there is a tendency in America to brand any modest social program as "authoritarian" (eg the "public option" in regard to healthcare).

The problem is that there is nothing "modest" about the idea of a "public option." It is a Trojan horse to eventually make the road to single-payer healthcare.

 

[Nebula815]

The American left wants the government to more strictly control the economy, but give people personal freedoms. The American right wants to keep their hands off of the economy, but want to control the personal lives of people. Libertarians want government to keep their hands out of both the economy and out of our personal lives.

The hardcore Left (not the center-Left, the hardcore Left) seek to control both the economy and people's lives, with a few exceptions. That is why they want to control the economy. You control the economy, you control everything. The hardcore Left want to regulate everything people can say, do, eat, drink, drive, energy use, gun ownership, smoking, religious displays (they want freedom from religion as opposed to freedom of religion, etc...the only exceptions are gay marriage, allowing abortions, and a few other things. The Right want the economy left free because that means a free society.

The hardcore ultra religious portion of the Right, unfortunately, want to ram religion down people's throats, and thus seek to control things like marriage (no gay marriage) and being pro-life to the point of saying birth control is evil.

 

[Char. Limit]

The problem is that there is nothing "modest" about the idea of a "public option." It is a Trojan horse to eventually make the road to single-payer healthcare.

Not to hijack the thread, but it's NOT. If people choose this public option, and it's cheaper and more effective, and eventually becomes the dominant plan, then the free market will have spoken. Also, no one would be angry, except right-wing pundits.

 

[Nebula815]

Not to hijack the thread, but it's NOT. If people choose this public option, and it's cheaper and more effective, and eventually becomes the dominant plan, then the free market will have spoken. Also, no one would be angry, except right-wing pundits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E&feature=player_embedded

A public option is not "free-market." In a free-market, companies that can fail compete with one another for market share, and they seek to offer cheaper prices and better service then the competition. A government-subsidized company that can never fail, and thus can offer artificially lower prices then the private companies, is not free-market. It is a complete cheat.

If the government tried setting up a for-profit healthcare company that was government-owned and government-run, but for-profit and not subsidized, it would be out of business within a year.

Furthermore, we already have two government-run, single-payer health insurance companies---Medicare and Medicaid---that are in dire financial straits as it is. And the one program that did have lots of money to fund it, Social Security, the government quietly opened up its surplus and robbed it.

And finally, the whole idea about "increasing choice and competition" is bogus as well. We could do that very simply through much simpler and shorter legislation. Except the problem is that such legislation is truly free-market, and the Democrats do not want that. They want government control of healthcare. It is like a religious holy grail to them. They will sacrifice all of their power in Congress and buy off every vote they can to pass this current bill, which they have designed to be mostly unreversible.

As the video says, it is a long-term goal. Pass the current bill, which let's the federal government take informal control over the healthcare industry, give President Obama something thus to sign, maybe lose a ton of seats in Congress later this year, but the bill is unreversible, so then in the future, win back seats, then make the way for a public option as a modification to the bill, then thus move us to single-payer.

And yes I know the Republicans under Bush had eight years to do all the stuff they are saying we should do now but never bothered, yes they blew the pooch on that.

 

[Char. Limit]

Lol, that's quite the conspiracy you've got there. As a cynic, I do support that probability, but not in public.

However, that almost reaches Birther level from the sound of it. Are you sure that Yemengate (trademarked) hasn't unhinged you a bit?

 

[Al68]

It was in reference to a previous poster who berates goverments that actually "take control" of things. I don't think there is anything "authoritarian" about this. The idealogies of communism or collectivism are truly authoritarian systems of goverment.

I do know that there is a tendency in America to brand any modest social program as "authoritarian" (eg the "public option" in regard to healthcare).

I personally do believe that if a government pools resources and redistributes them, this is a better, more reliable way running a country.

LOL again. You are describing communism and collectivism perfectly with that last statement.

I find it fascinating that people who wholeheartedly agree with the core tenets of communism/socialism object to using the words.

 

[Nebula815]

Lol, that's quite the conspiracy you've got there. As a cynic, I do support that probability, but not in public.

However, that almost reaches Birther level from the sound of it. Are you sure that Yemengate (trademarked) hasn't unhinged you a bit?

I do not equate saying the political Left, who control the Democrat party right now, want single-payer healthcare, and are trying to enact fundamental change towards it, with birthers and 9/11 truthers (who are on the same plane as birthers) and so forth.

The political Left want single-payer healthcare. That is the holy grail for them. They have been fighting for it for decades (look at the career of Ted Kennedy). They are true believers in this. And now they finally have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a permanent foot in the door towards it. You think they are going to let that slip?

 

[Al68]

What do you call the people that want the government to control the economy AND our personal lives? We can't call them "authoritarian," because it has a negative connotation. We can't call them "statist," according to someone in this thread, because then everybody is a statist to some degree. All my post asked was "so, what is the correct term then?"

So what CAN we call such people?

There is no term that will be both accurate and not objected to.

People who want government to control the economy will object to being called any word that means "want government to control the economy".

Gee, I wonder why that is.

 

[vertices]

LOL again. You are describing communism and collectivism perfectly with that last statement.

I find it fascinating that people who wholeheartedly agree with the core tenets of communism/socialism object to using the words.

You kind of prove the point I was making - there is a tendency for people to rush to brand others as "communist", "socialist", "authoritarian", etc. I wasn't aware I had discussed the "core tenets" of communism or socialism but surely enough you made the point that I "wholeheartedly agree" with those complex but discredited (in the case of communism) idealogies.

I'm going to give you bit a shock now: Human beings tend to be incredibly mulifacated in their thinking, so it's a bit silly to try and pidgeon hole people like this.

 

[Jack21222]

The hardcore Left want to regulate everything people can say, do, eat, drink, drive, energy use, gun ownership, smoking, religious displays (they want freedom from religion as opposed to freedom of religion, etc...the only exceptions are gay marriage, allowing abortions, and a few other things.

You're just making up your own arbitrary definition of left. What you call "hardcore left," I'd call "authoritarian" or "statist" or whatever. I'm a pretty hardcore atheist, but I haven't heard a single person that wants to ban religious displays. NOT ONE PERSON. We DO, however, want to ban the GOVERNMENT from paying for religious displays, or endorsing one religion over another.

It's a similar thing with smoking. I don't know anybody I'd call "left wing" that wants to ban cigarettes completely. It'd be pretty strange to want to ban cigarettes, but want to legalize marijuana. Every "hardcore left" person I know wants to legalize drugs.

I define "left" the same way the World's Smallest Political Quiz does; somebody who advocates personal freedom, but also advocates tight government controls over economic matters.

You apparently define "left" as "somebody that disagrees with me."