Where do you consider yourself politically (Poll)

[StatGuy2000]

Hi there! I wanted to ask this question about the basic political leanings of the members of PF forums. I will keep this poll open for 60 days, starting today.

 

[William White]

Strange that you have no option for socialist or left-wing?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This poll is very restrictive to a simplistic left/right spectrum. "Liberal" is someone who supports a capitalist market economy with government regulation, welfare and provision of essential services. How does a socialist who does not approve of capitalism answer the poll? What about an anarchist? For that matter how do libertarians answer?

 

[russ_watters]

This poll is very restrictive to a simplistic left/right spectrum. "Liberal" is someone who supports a capitalist market economy with government regulation, welfare and provision of essential services. How does a socialist who does not approve of capitalism answer the poll?

Typically, the economic spectrum has full private/unfettered capitalism on the right and full socialist on the left, with gradually increasing government control as you move from right to left. Today, most people/governments who identify as "socialist" do still utilize some capitalism. So the typical European socialist would just answer "very liberal".

I doubt we'll get any anarchists, but if we do, they can identify thems elves without the poll.

 

[William White]

Russ,
I would consider myself a socialist but very very people would consider me liberal, me included.

I have liberal views on some subjects, and not on others.

Very liberal does not describe my politics, nor does liberal in general.

Socialism does not mean very liberal, especially in Europe. It often means the opposite, especially when it comes to arguments such as private versus public ownership (of the means of production and distribtution of wealth).There is a clear difference, which this poll does not consider. So I have voted none of the above.

Socialism is as far removed from liberalism as liberalism is from conservatism.

Many European countries, the UK is one, have Liberal politcal parties.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ,
I would consider myself a socialist but very very people would consider me liberal, me included.

I have liberal views on some subjects, and not on others.

Very liberal does not describe my politics, nor does liberal in general.

Socialism does not mean very liberal, especially in Europe. It often means the opposite, especially when it comes to arguments such as private versus public ownership (of the means of production and distribtution of wealth).

Are you saying that in Europe, "liberals" favor private ownership? Then what does "conservative" mean to europeans?

If we just clarify that these are USA centric definitions and just use "left" and "right" instead, does that help?

Or do people just mislabeled themselves/their parties? The wiki for the Party of European Socialists says the party is really social democrats.

 

[William White]

the protection of private property is a defining characterisitic of liberalism!

The problem with these things is that people might be broady left wing (as I am) but also hold some right-wing views (as I do) and vice versa.The USA is a lot more right wing than, for example the UK.

Ideologically, there would not be much difference between David Cameron, The Conservative Prime Minister, and much of the democratic party in the USA, including your President.. Indeed there are many in the Conservative Party that are much further to the left than most democratic politicians could openly admit to being.

We don't have many politicians that are as reactionary as the Tea Party (there are a few, but very few). One of the major differences between the UK and the USA is that public figures in the UK don't have to pretend to believe in god. We all know Obama is an atheist, along with many in his party. Being an atheist, of any party colour, does not stop you getting elected in Europe!

 

[rootone]

If we just clarify that these are USA centric definitions and just use "left" and "right" instead, does that help?

Yes I think that would help.
'Socialism' from the US perspective has connotations of totalitarianism and fascism, not really something many would opt for.
The US does have relatively left leaning politicians though, and the term 'liberal' is used for those.
In Europe and elsewhere 'Liberal' is sort of centrist, and left of that there is a broad range of social-democratic type parties which support public ownerships in some form, but are nowhere near suggesting a preference for a dictatorial authoritarianism.

 

[phinds]

This is just a way to narrow our belief systems into little boxes. I just don't find life that simplistic.

 

[russ_watters]

This is just a way to narrow our belief systems into little boxes. I just don't find life that simple.

Big boxes, not little boxes. People want to be unique: they want their own little box, not to be collected into the same big box as everyone else.

My perception with discussions like this is that because people don't like to be put in big boxes, they argue against them instead of just answering the question as best they can. Like it or not, though, people get put in boxes all the time -- they must be in order to analyze group beliefs. Or, to vote in an election: An election is almost literally putting yourself (your vote) into a box.

the protection of private property is a defining characteristic of liberalism!

Classically, liberalism is essentially synonomous with "personal freedom", including private property ownership. But as the wiki on the political spectrum points out, modern liberals (in general) favor social freedom, but oppose economic freedom (private property). And vice versa for conservatives. That's why tax rates are higher in more "liberal" countries. So in that way, the current usage of the word "liberal" doesn't match the original meaning -- it's just a label for the box. But in my googling for information about European political parties, it appears to me that the usage by the OP and in the US is the accepted usage in Europe too, so I don't understand why you are arguing this. Liberal, socialist, democrat, progressive: these are all related/linked ideologies on the left side of the political spectrum, differing largelly in degree, and often put under a "socialist" umbrella (just like the right side is put under a "capitalist" umbrella, highlighting the two extremes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists

You can't argue your way out of a box by arguing about the label. We could easily re-name them "Box 1" and "Box 2" if that would help, but it doesn't change anything so it should not be necessary.

The problem with these things is that people might be broady left wing (as I am) but also hold some right-wing views (as I do) and vice versa.

That's a different issue, but still your problem and not the poll's. Everyone needs to average their own views and weigh them against the choices in this poll and actual elections and pick the closest fit.

 

[William White]

It depends on how little or big the box is!

i.e In broad terms, I share very little, politically with the tea party. I don't think describing my political beliefs as being broadly opposite to the tea party and in broad agreement with the Labour Party (of the UK) as simplistic. Its just a fact. Its like describing somebody as a christian, or a muslim or a jew.

I think it is quite useful to describe people, their cultures, beliefs, political persuasions etc. in broad terms.

 

[William White]

ou can't argue your way out of a box by arguing about the label. We could easily re-name them "Box 1" and "Box 2" if that would help, but it doesn't change anything so it should not be necessary.
That's a different issue, but still your problem and not the poll's. .

NO. This is not a case of a rose by any other name.
The reason I am arguing about this is because I am not a liberal; but you seem to think that I am because I am left wing. There are many liberal policies that are polar opposites of what socialism is about, and vice versa.
The poll (broadly) splits people into conservatives. liberals or other.

Why not liberals, socialists or other?

You might think that the latter option is broken because it ignores a very important political system.Maybe it is because you are an American and are confusing liberalism with socialism because to Americans they mean the same thing. This is NOT the case in the rest of the world, and certainly not Europe. Liberals are just as likely to be conservatives as socialists. The Liberal Party of the UK was in a right-wing coalition with the Conservative party here for the past five years.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes in Europe liberalism is very different to socialism, what tends to be referred to in the U.S. as socialism in Europe is actually social democracy. SD proposes state provision of vital services and regulation of the market but it still advocates markets of private property to do so and social democrats are against socialists. Liberals are a more weak sauce version of social democrats.

 

[Tosh5457]

In some matters very conservative, in the American sense of conservationism, others very liberal, so I chose Conservative. Anyway, like it has been said, in Europe the Left-Right political spectrum is shifted in relation to US, so a right-wing person here in Europe could be considered left-wing in US, and vice-versa. Also someone conservative here is usually much more to the authoritarian side than an American conservative. In Europe someone very conservative actually supports a very strong State, in some sort of dictatorship, while in US someone very conservative is mostly against the government and for free-markets. In the left-wing spectrum, there's also the Conservative Communists, who want to go back to some sort of Soviet state.
As of liberals, Social-Democrats are liberals in both economic and social policies, and are at the forefront of turning European economies into more free-market economies. Socially they usually support gay rights, abortion, etc... So classifying them as left-wing just because they're liberals doesn't make sense, as their economic policy is clearly right-wing.

 

[thankz]

I'm a republican but I have a liberal view when it comes to the environment and abortion.

 

[rootone]

I'm a republican but I have a liberal view when it comes to the environment and abortion.

I am a social idealist but have a conservative view of the environment and consider abortion to be a matter of personal choice for the pregnant woman.

 

[Evo]

Every election year we post this *test* it seems to be fairly accurate.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Here's my score.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes in Europe liberalism is very different to socialism, what tends to be referred to in the U.S. as socialism in Europe is actually social democracy. SD proposes state provision of vital services and regulation of the market but it still advocates markets of private property to do so and social democrats are against socialists. Liberals are a more weak sauce version of social democrats.

All of those are still on the same side of the specturm and differing only in degree (heck, in one sense, you can measure all positions on the specturm by degree of government intervention). Here's a common, multi-national spectrum:

Notice that liberal, socialism, and democrat are all on the left side of the spectrum and essentially overlapping depending on degree.

And:

...and social democrats are against socialists...

That doesn't imply their views are far apart: In the US, we're up to about 20 self-identified Republican presidential candidates, who are all against each other. Heck, they both have "social" in their names!

 

[lisab]

Here's mine (from Evo's link):

 

[russ_watters]

NO. This is not a case of a rose by any other name.

You seem to be arguing both sides of this at once:

The reason I am arguing about this is because I am not a liberal; but you seem to think that I am because I am left wing.

I don't know you and until now, knew nothing of your political views, so no, I haven't been suggesting you are anything -- I'm just analyzing the poll and the political specturm. However, yes, if you are left wing, then by the common political spectrums I'm familiar with, that's the "liberal" side. I agree that the above poll cuts off the ends, though, because I recognize that someone who is far off to one side or another is not commonly referred to by the more mainstream view. So if you are that far left, then it is certainly possible that the categories in the OP are insufficiently narrow. In the US, however, people tend to go the other way and believe they are closer to the center than they really are, so are more likely to self-identify as less extreme. IE, liberals in the US will bristle at being referred to as "socialist" even as they get further and further to the left in the spectrum, whereas in Europe the word is less taboo -- so it's used in the many of the names of the parties on the left side of the spectrum.

So again: liberal is left, conservative is right, by the scale used in the OP. So if you are on the left side, you should pick a "liberal" label even if that's not what you usually use: that's "a rose by another name".

There are many liberal policies that are polar opposites of what socialism is about, and vice versa.

Now you're arguing that they are actually on opposite sides of the spectrum. Presumably (by below examples) that "liberal" is more commonly/properly identified as being on the right side of the spectrum. Please provide an example or two of such a policy.

The poll (broadly) splits people into conservatives. liberals or other.

Why not liberals, socialists or other?

Because as you see in the spectrum I posted, liberal and socialist are on the same side of the spectrum.

Maybe it is because you are an American and are confusing liberalism with socialism because to Americans they mean the same thing. This is NOT the case in the rest of the world, and certainly not Europe. Liberals are just as likely to be conservatives as socialists.

Please provide a better example of liberals being conservative. IE, a "Liberal Conservative Party". For the Liberal Democrats, the Wiki defines them as a social liberal party and an opponent of the conservative party! So I don't see how what you are saying could be any more clearly wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats

The Liberal Party of the UK was in a right-wing coalition with the Conservative party here for the past five years.

My understanding is that that's a contradiction in terms, even in Europe. My understanding is that parties in parliamentary systems form coalitions because they need them to share power if they don't have a majority of their own. So forming a coalition does not imply full adoption of the other party's views (indeed, if they did, they should just merge).

 

[Evo]

Russ,
I would consider myself a socialist but very very people would consider me liberal, me included.

I have liberal views on some subjects, and not on others.

Very liberal does not describe my politics, nor does liberal in general.

Socialism does not mean very liberal, especially in Europe. It often means the opposite, especially when it comes to arguments such as private versus public ownership (of the means of production and distribtution of wealth).There is a clear difference, which this poll does not consider. So I have voted none of the above.

Socialism is as far removed from liberalism as liberalism is from conservatism.

Many European countries, the UK is one, have Liberal politcal parties.

I believe that this poll is due to the upcoming American elections and American values would hold here. @StatGuy2000, please specify if your poll is for Americans for the upcoming elections. If it's not, I don't see the point of the poll.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, like it has been said, in Europe the Left-Right political spectrum is shifted in relation to US, so a right-wing person here in Europe could be considered left-wing in US, and vice-versa.

"Shifted", yes, but not flipped: Typically it is said that the US spectrum's center is to the right of the center of the spectrum in Europe, but that wouldn't make a left-wing person in the US right wing in Europe, it would make them closer to the center.

In Europe someone very conservative actually supports a very strong State, in some sort of dictatorship, while in US someone very conservative is mostly against the government and for free-markets. In the left-wing spectrum, there's also the Conservative Communists, who want to go back to some sort of Soviet state.

That is an issue of "a rose by another name". The word "liberal" refers specifically to freedom, but unfortunately the word "conservative" just means "the way things used to be", so it's meaning could reflect the tradition of a particular country. In most of Europe, ironically, the political tradition is classical liberalism, but I can see how modern Russian communists might refer to themselves as "conservative". That's why "left" and "right" are more generic and should be applicable across national borders.

As of liberals, Social-Democrats are liberals in both economic and social policies, and are at the forefront of turning European economies into more free-market economies. Socially they usually support gay rights, abortion, etc... So classifying them as left-wing just because they're liberals doesn't make sense, as their economic policy is clearly right-wing.

Could you please provide an example of such an economic policy by Social-Democrats that could be considered free market? Frankly, what I tend to see from people on the left side of the spectrum is that they consider outcome to be freedom, and it really isn't.

That isn't to say, though, that a more centrist party couldn't overlap and hold views on both sides of the center.

 

[russ_watters]

My score:

Anyone else thrown by this question?
"Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries."

What does that even mean? Sounds hippie, so I said "strongly disagree".

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a republican but I have a liberal view when it comes to the environment and abortion.

Ditto, but most liberals would probably disagree that I'm an environmentalist...which is fine, because I tend to disagree that they are.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

My chart , I'm a socialist.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-2.63&soc=-2.46

 

[Evo]

My score:
View attachment 86317

Anyone else thrown by this question?
"Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries."

What does that even mean? Sounds hippie, so I said "strongly disagree".

I think it has to do with the misinformation surrounding GMO seeds. I either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

 

[russ_watters]

I think it has to do with the misinformation surrounding GMO seeds. I either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

That's what I figured, but the phrase "plant genetic resources" just sounds like gibberish to me.

 

[Vanadium 50]

My perception with discussions like this is that because people don't like to be put in big boxes, they argue against them instead of just answering the question as best they can.

But sometimes these are the wrong boxes. The implicit assumption in this thread is the left-right axis is the most important descriptor. This is historically untrue - consider Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. They disagreed violently over politics (and this is not hyperbole) but during the American Revolution they agreed on the most divisive political issue of the time: independence or not.

 

[Evo]

That's what I figured, but the phrase "plant genetic resources" just sounds like gibberish to me.

Yeah, it's gibberish.

 

[russ_watters]

But sometimes these are the wrong boxes.

...which does not preclude answering the poll!

The implicit assumption in this thread is the left-right axis is the most important descriptor. This is historically...

The person asking a question is the one who gets to decide what is most important to him/her (what s/he wants to know). That has nothing to do with history.

This is historically untrue - consider Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.

Sometimes untrue in history, sure. But political parties wouldn't self-label on the typically accepted spectrum if it weren't a useful and important measure.

 

[zoobyshoe]

...which does not preclude answering the poll!

Poll: Do you still beat your wife?

Please check only one:

Yes

No

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The questions from Evo's link seemed to lack nuance and have a lot of dichotomies (not unlike this poll). In any case, here's mine

 

[russ_watters]

The questions from Evo's link seemed to lack nuance and have a lot of dichotomies...

They are purposely designed that way in order to force people to take a stand. Otherwise, people tend to select the middle too often.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I believe that this poll is due to the upcoming American elections and American values would hold here. @StatGuy2000, please specify if your poll is for Americans for the upcoming elections. If it's not, I don't see the point of the poll.

The poll was actually inspired more from the upcoming elections in Canada, where I'm from (our federal election is scheduled for October 19), but yes, the American presidential elections of 2016 also played a (small) factor in it.

When I talk about the liberal-conservative bias, I am specifically thinking of the political spectrum as it exists in Canada, which is in certain ways similar to the spectrum that exists in the US and to other English-speaking countries (UK, Australia).

Specifically, among the values that I would consider to be liberal/progressive would include the following (but are by no means exclusive):

1. The importance of egalitarianism and social progress in society.

2. The belief that governments must play an active role to ensure that societies aim toward a more egalitarian society (this would include things like providing strong social programs, taxing the richer citizens more heavily to provide a strong social safety net, etc.)

3. Strong emphasis on civil rights for all citizens.

4. De-emphasis or lack of emphasis on religion in society.

5. Related to #4, the belief that governments and other large social institutions (including private firms, religious organizations) should not be involved in "legislating" morality to the wider society. This would include, among others, such issues like abortion, birth control, same-sex marriage, decriminalization of marijuana use, decriminalization of prostitution, etc.

 

[Dembadon]

Sounds hippie, so I said "strongly disagree".

 

[StatGuy2000]

Ditto, but most liberals would probably disagree that I'm an environmentalist...which is fine, because I tend to disagree that they are.

russ, as an intelligent and thoughtful individual (based on your many posts here on PF) who work in the STEM field and understands the concept of evidence, I really have to ask why you could in all seriousness consider yourself a card-carrying Republican, when over the past several decades we've seen countless Republican politicians express their ignorance of, and hostility of, science and the scientific evidence.

As an example, consider the following Salon article:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_guide/

This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, it's about accepting the scientific method and scientific evidence.

 

[Dembadon]

 

[StatGuy2000]

My political compass (caveat: I agree with Ryan above that the questions lack nuance, so I don't feel that the questions in Evo's link accurately capture my political orientation).

 

[russ_watters]

russ, as an intelligent and thoughtful individual (based on your many posts here on PF) who work in the STEM field and understands the concept of evidence, I really have to ask why you could in all seriousness consider yourself a card-carrying Republican, when over the past several decades we've seen countless Republican politicians express their ignorance of, and hostility of, science and the scientific evidence.

[Thanks for the compliment]
The way I see it, both sides are similarly hostile to science, particularly when it comes to environmentalism - the left just pretends not to be, whereas the right is open about their hostility. The basis of my above statement:

Which is more damaging to the environment:
1. A Republican who favors coal, fracking and nuclear power and believes Global Warming is a conspiracy?
2. A democrat who favors solar and wind and vehemently opposes nuclear power and fracking?

The irony is that the environmentalist on the left favors preventing global warming, but takes positions that cause it to get worse, while the anti-science Republican denies global warming, but takes actions to fix it!

You might argue - and I agree - that the Religious Right is more specifically hostile toward science than any other group (extreme environmentalists tend to believe science is on their side, Republicans openly acknowledge they do not like science), but a lot of those issues are relatively low impact. Ie, which is a bigger issue, global warming or brain death? Or stem cells? And ironically, both extremes include opposition to vaccines.

 

[Intrastellar]

That was not done on purpose

 

[Czcibor]

Big boxes, not little boxes. People want to be unique: they want their own little box, not to be collected into the same big box as everyone else.

Problem is that people may feel annoyed if put boxes scaled for a different country.

For example - do you support constitutional monarchy, Russ? No? So in this case for quiz scaled for United Kingdom you would for that question be marked as "radical left wing". A few more questions, like whether you support idea of state church or upper chamber of parliament with hereditary peers, and you'd discover being by British standards centrist, at best.

My perception with discussions like this is that because people don't like to be put in big boxes, they argue against them instead of just answering the question as best they can. Like it or not, though, people get put in boxes all the time -- they must be in order to analyze group beliefs. Or, to vote in an election: An election is almost literally putting yourself (your vote) into a box.

When I answered this quiz a year ago I got in the centre. Does it mean that I'm so centrist, or just they are not asking me questions in which I'd give very radical answers, because, based on their US-centric view, no-one shares such views?

Classically, liberalism is essentially synonomous with "personal freedom", including private property ownership. But as the wiki on the political spectrum points out, modern liberals (in general) favor social freedom, but oppose economic freedom (private property). And vice versa for conservatives. That's why tax rates are higher in more "liberal" countries. So in that way, the current usage of the word "liberal" doesn't match the original meaning -- it's just a label for the box. But in my googling for information about European political parties, it appears to me that the usage by the OP and in the US is the accepted usage in Europe too, so I don't understand why you are arguing this. Liberal, socialist, democrat, progressive: these are all related/linked ideologies on the left side of the political spectrum, differing largelly in degree, and often put under a "socialist" umbrella (just like the right side is put under a "capitalist" umbrella, highlighting the two extremes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists

OK, you are teaching us American unique feature. In Europe, when someone calls himself liberal, that should be translated to American English as "soft line libertarian". If someone in Poland calls himself "liberał" it means that he wants to lower taxes and slash safety net.

 

[WWGD]

russ, as an intelligent and thoughtful individual (based on your many posts here on PF) who work in the STEM field and understands the concept of evidence, I really have to ask why you could in all seriousness consider yourself a card-carrying Republican, when over the past several decades we've seen countless Republican politicians express their ignorance of, and hostility of, science and the scientific evidence.

As an example, consider the following Salon article:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_guide/

This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, it's about accepting the scientific method and scientific evidence.

To be fair, there is anti-science on the left, with anti-vexxers, radical feminists and Wiccans, etc. Embarrassingly- enough, a good chunk of the country is anti- intellectual, or at least ignorant on the basics of science, evidence, basic statistics and the scientific method.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To be fair, there is anti-science on the left, with anti-vexxers, radical feminists and Wiccans, etc. Embarrassingly- enough, a good chunk of the country is anti- intellectual, or at least ignorant on the basics of science, evidence, basic statistics and the scientific method.

I concede that there are anti-science elements on the left, including the anti-vaccine activists (although from what I gather, the anti-vaccine activists doesn't appear to be particularly found more heavily among Democrats than Republicans -- this is a bipartisan anti-science movement), radical feminists who regard science as being anti-female, Wiccans, etc. But from my reading of it, these anti-science elements are very much part of the fringe, and no Democratic candidate, at least in recent years, have ever openly supported positions (as far as I'm aware of) that was truly contrary to scientific evidence. Certainly no Democrat has ever been openly opposed to or reject evolution, as one particular example.

I fully agree with you that an embarrassingly large chunk of the US population is anti-intellectual and ignorant of the basics of science, evidence, and the scientific method, of which the strong influence of Christian fundamentalism and the poor quality of science education in public K-12 schools in many parts of the country are to at least partly to blame.

 

[BobG]

economic= -3.63 social= -2.62

Moderate.

Different questions and slightly different results from a different one I recently did. The other one I did I was practically right smack dab in the center (+1 economic and -0.5 social).

The selection and wording of the questions can have an effect on a person's results. I don't have a particular ideology that guides my decisions. I tend toward a more pragmatic view with each situation viewed individually. I think the questions tend to be worded to reflect current arguments (vs a more historic view of issues). For example, saying the rich should be taxed more than average wage earners probably earns me a "liberal" rating in today's world, while the historic issue hasn't been whether tax rates should be higher for rich people - it's should the rich be taxed more than half their income.

But, the link probably reflects where I stand in today's environment. Views that would have been considered "conservative" 30 years ago get you booted out of the Republican Party today.

Evo's link provides a better picture than a one dimensional line. I still think it needs a third axis, though, for foreign policy.

(I should draw this. I actually ordered 3-dimensional paper last time my work asked for supply orders. They rejected me the first time, because I wrote 3-dimensional paper on the requisition sheet. I had to call it "isometric bond paper" in order to get them to buy me some. Now that I got the supply guys at work to actually buy me 3-dimensional paper, I need to find a way to use it. Hmm, maybe I can draw 3 red lines.)

 

[tom aaron]

I concede that there are anti-science elements on the left, including the anti-vaccine activists (although from what I gather, the anti-vaccine activists doesn't appear to be particularly found more heavily among Democrats than Republicans -- this is a bipartisan anti-science movement), radical feminists who regard science as being anti-female, Wiccans, etc. But from my reading of it, these anti-science elements are very much part of the fringe, and no Democratic candidate, at least in recent years, have ever openly supported positions (as far as I'm aware of) that was truly contrary to scientific evidence. Certainly no Democrat has ever been openly opposed to or reject evolution, as one particular example.

I fully agree with you that an embarrassingly large chunk of the US population is anti-intellectual and ignorant of the basics of science, evidence, and the scientific method, of which the strong influence of Christian fundamentalism and the poor quality of science education in public K-12 schools in many parts of the country are to at least partly to blame.

I need some category of 'Scientific pragmatist'.

I dislike Conservative neanderthalism and equally dislike Liberal anti-science political correctness.

To blame in the USA?...lots to go around: Christian fundamentalism but also liberal anti-Nature mediocrity. Censorship at both ends of the spectrum.

 

[Tosh5457]

Here's mine

Could you please provide an example of such an economic policy by Social-Democrats that could be considered free market? Frankly, what I tend to see from people on the left side of the spectrum is that they consider outcome to be freedom, and it really isn't.

Sure, I can give plenty of examples from my country. In Portugal the Social-Democrats, who are the majority in the coalition with the People's Party, and clearly more right-wing than them, are applying many necessary cuts in government spending, privatizing public companies (even too many unfortunately, like the ones on monopoly sectors), reducing global corporate tax rates, reducing tax rates for exporting companies, renegotiating public contracts made by the previous socialist government to save tax payers money in useless spending, and so on...

 

[Bystander]

9: None of the above (Disgusted)

 

[Czcibor]

By occasion my stats:

Economic Left/Right: -1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.77

So (allegedly) centrist.

(when I was younger I used to be simply right wing)

 

[micromass]

Here's mine:

 

[micromass]

[Thanks for the compliment]
The way I see it, both sides are similarly hostile to science, particularly when it comes to environmentalism - the left just pretends not to be, whereas the right is open about their hostility. The basis of my above statement:

Which is more damaging to the environment:
1. A Republican who favors coal, fracking and nuclear power and believes Global Warming is a conspiracy?
2. A democrat who favors solar and wind and vehemently opposes nuclear power and fracking?

The irony is that the environmentalist on the left favors preventing global warming, but takes positions that cause it to get worse, while the anti-science Republican denies global warming, but takes actions to fix it!

You might argue - and I agree - that the Religious Right is more specifically hostile toward science than any other group (extreme environmentalists tend to believe science is on their side, Republicans openly acknowledge they do not like science), but a lot of those issues are relatively low impact. Ie, which is a bigger issue, global warming or brain death? Or stem cells? And ironically, both extremes include opposition to vaccines.

Sure, you are correct that both Republicans as Democrats are hostile to environmentalism. That does answer why you prefer not to identify as a Democrat on these issues, but not why you like to identify as a Republican? Why just identify as neither? Do you believe that you must identify as one or another?