America's Ideology

[TeePee4Prez]

Populist

Most polls shows the general public seems to support a good deal of government intervention into the economy (ie regulations on outsourcing, a poll now on fed govt regulations on mines would be lopsided, etc.) white being at least socially moderate with generally opposing gay rights and later-term abortion rights and in large numbers supporting the death penalty.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hit the nail on the coffin.

[Frodo]

Angus,

By 'educated', I don't mean necessarilly in a public school setting, but more informally.  For instance, Philip and Emsworth are each 'educated' on constitutional law, and may have even have had classes on the subject, but they by and large educated themselves on the subject.  Al is similarly 'educated' on labor history.  StatesRights on the Civil War. 

So what I really mean by 'educated' is to assume that the populace at large is 'informed' on the issues, aware of and familiar with various arguments pro and con, and come to their own conclusions based on their own experience and background.

Secondly, regarding ideology:

No, I am not asking whether the populace will lean to 'true libertarianism' or 'true liberalism' or whatever.  I assume everyone here is aware that the general public is in the middle, but I want to know in which direction ideologically they lean towards as centrists.  So if they lean towards libertarianism, it doesn't mean that they suddenly become orthodox libertarians -they simply become libertarian-leaning moderates.  The same goes for all the other ideologies I have listed.

Hope this clears it up for you.

[angus]

But herein lies another mind-boggling paradox:  you cannot have both true libertarianism and one-hundred percent voter participation simultaneously.  The former implies complete freedom, including for those who don't care to vote, while the latter implies a form of authoritarianism.  Once again, any society that accepts this sort of demand will necessarily be more inclined to socialism and other forms of authoritarianism than ours.  Thus the question simply cannot be answered if by "America" you mean the United States of America in its presently-understood incarnation.

does this assumption not preclude at least one of your choices?

[opebo]

But herein lies another mind-boggling paradox:  you cannot have both true libertarianism and one-hundred percent voter participation simultaneously.  The former implies complete freedom, including for those who don't care to vote, while the latter implies a form of authoritarianism.  Once again, any society that accepts this sort of demand will necessarily be more inclined to socialism and other forms of authoritarianism than ours.  Thus the question simply cannot be answered if by "America" you mean the United States of America in its presently-understood incarnation.

The United States is so tremendously far from being libertarian - due to a very high degree of social controls - that your original supposition is false.  I hardly think that in our current Police State the requirement of voting would be very onerous compared to the ban on many drugs and sexual practices.

[Frodo]

But herein lies another mind-boggling paradox:  you cannot have both true libertarianism and one-hundred percent voter participation simultaneously.  The former implies complete freedom, including for those who don't care to vote, while the latter implies a form of authoritarianism.  Once again, any society that accepts this sort of demand will necessarily be more inclined to socialism and other forms of authoritarianism than ours.  Thus the question simply cannot be answered if by "America" you mean the United States of America in its presently-understood incarnation.

does this assumption not preclude at least one of your choices?

Who is to say in a libertarian society that one hundred percent of all eligible (educated/informed) voters cannot somehow participate freely in an election, as opposed to being coerced by law?  I remind you that this is a hypothetical situation.   Everything about this poll is hypothetical. 

[angus]

sorry.  I shall place it up once again in its entirety, with an edit below since your comment came after:


I'm like a cat on Ben-Gay.  Or Flexall 454.

Anyway, I can't stay away from this one, even though I know it stinks so badly I turn my nose away even as I stalk toward the odor.  I still think either there's a total logical fallacy or I'm thoroughly confused.

In any truly free society, there will be a subset of people who choose, for whatever reason, not to vote.  Thus the assumption that all eligible voters are voting assumes a less free society.  Or at least one where the current rules have been invalidated.  In any event a society that accepts the demand by the state they they should vote, on threat of force or fine, would necessitate the need for a new definition of the United States.

The term "educated" still boggles and bugs me.  And I"m not totally clear on your connotation here.

Thus you have two dials, or two variables.  Eventually if you throw enough monkey wrenches into the clockworks its fundamental nature changes.  It may come to resemble more a blender, or a washing machine, or an electric garage door, than a clock.

Also, you seem to think that there would be one overriding, constant ideology even if these variables could be controlled and sorted out.  I don't think so.  Even now we go through great shifts, in cycles of 40 or 50 years in terms of shifts.  One thing is for certain:  If the parties are as they are now exactly, then complete voter participation would ensure no forseeable Republican victory.  Likely it would in short order become Democrat versus something else, with Republicans a distant third.  But then parties shift to meet the demands and the fashions of the time.  That the GOP is slightly to the right of the Democrats, who are slightly to the right of the Greens, who are slightly to the right of the socialists, and so on, is a current, but not fixed trend.  And no doubt both Big parties would want to maintain their co-operative hegemony by shifting to meet the desires and demands of the electorate. 

Beyond this we have to make some assumptions.  Assuming the version of history to which I earlier referred (again, this is just a mental exercise and other versions could be assumed), one would logically conclude its antithesis, Libertarianism, would be result if "education" means what I think it does:  thought control.  Thus I think for the benefit of your thread and the posters in general you should clarify your usage.

But herein lies another mind-boggling paradox:  you cannot have both true libertarianism and one-hundred percent voter participation simultaneously.  The former implies complete freedom, including for those who don't care to vote, while the latter implies a form of authoritarianism.  Once again, any society that accepts this sort of demand will necessarily be more inclined to socialism and other forms of authoritarianism than ours.  Thus the question simply cannot be answered if by "America" you mean the United States of America in its presently-understood incarnation.

And now that the awful-smelling but oh so tempting poision has been cleaned up, I'll go back to licking my paws and cleaning the cockelberries from by ass-hairs.  Although throwing the bottle away in a well-sealed bag would absolutely prevent my return.



edit:

I think I'm clear on "educated" now.  thus it is subjective.  One can describe the Viet Nam war as Containment of Communism.  One can with equal validity describe it as a war for empire.  One can take the Leftist-progressivist view espoused by Baird that the so-called "civil war" was all about two mutually irreconcilable expansionist capitalist systems, Hamilton's heirs (the "rapacious captains of industry") versus Jefferson's heirs (the elitist aristocratic planters), to see who would amass the greatest fortunes, unabated; or one can take Jeff's view:  one of State's Rights versus Strong Central Government.  And these are just two examples, but easily understood.  And probably not the best, but functional.  You get my point.  Education, whether formal or self-acquired, especially when it comes to history, is subjective at its core, and depends heavily on interpretation.

wait, I have a minor emergency!...

[opebo]

But herein lies another mind-boggling paradox:  you cannot have both true libertarianism and one-hundred percent voter participation simultaneously.  The former implies complete freedom, including for those who don't care to vote, while the latter implies a form of authoritarianism.  Once again, any society that accepts this sort of demand will necessarily be more inclined to socialism and other forms of authoritarianism than ours.  Thus the question simply cannot be answered if by "America" you mean the United States of America in its presently-understood incarnation.

Where on earth do you get this idea that the United states is a 'libertarian' and not an authoritarian country, angus?  You are already allowed such a small amount of personal freedom in that benighted land that forcing you to vote would be no great impostion.

[angus]

okay, situation under control.  And rather than attempting cutting, editing, and repasting, along with the consternation it brings to those to whom it appears that I'm playing the Disappearing Post act, I'll just continue with a subsequent post. 

I don't know, I'm not picking on you, but something about the question bugs me.  But at the same time I think it's a great question.  I guess it's cheesey to pick at its faults rather than answering, but I think an honest answer requires some assumptions.  And there's one which I'm unprepared to make.  The assumption that our overall "ideology" is static.  History shows that it's rather fluid, and swings.  Drug laws depend on what the middle class thinks about drugs.  Alcohol prohibition came and went.  Acceptance of chattel slaver was near universal, then when it became no loner profitable in the more populous states began to decline.  New Deal policies were wildly popular, once the fears of the libertarians and rightists were ignored, or their will trampled, but those programs were dismantled beginning under Regean with equal abandon.  Space exploration was fashionable, then went away, now it's starting to rear its head again.  Political fashions, much like moral fashions and clothing fashions, come and go. 

Also, you may be underestimating the level of "information" of your countrymen.  I do that quite a lot.  Your suggestion of an informed public makes me think that the assumption is that it isn't sufficiently informed at the moment.  True, in May of 2003 only about 40% of US citizens could identify Iraq on a map, but I'm not sure that's the sort of information relevant to decision-making.  And even if it is, it's the sort of information that is easily forgotton by folks who just aren't interested in that sort of thing.  And in our society, we have the right not to be interested in that sort of thing.  That's what I'm getting at earlier.

Remember, "openness" doesn't proceed monotonically.  And information and technology gets lost.  And sometimes it's just not shared.  Arab universities were teaching algebra for several hundred before Newton's birth, yet all of Galileo's descriptions of motion relied on geometric descriptions.  How much easier it would have been for Newton if he could have read Distance = velocity times time, rather than having to see galileo's graph of Velocity as a function of time, then be told that the area below the curve of velocity between t1 and t2 represents the distance travelled in that time interval.

Our society may be more or less Socialist, or more or less Libertarian, at the moment, given your conditions, but that wouldn't necessarily be a static or unchanging condition.  I think I have more to add, but both my masters are calling me at the moment.  I'll give it more thought, but any of your choices seem equally valid, since one could probably find some time in the future in which each of them would be individually the case.  And my concerns over temporal variations aren't the same as those "extreme" cases. 

opebo, I am acutely aware of being slave to at least one, and possibly two, other humans.  You're preaching to the choir.  But I am also aware that this condition is the result of decisions I made willfully and with careful consideration of the consequences of my decisions. 

[opebo]

opebo, I am acutely aware of being slave to at least one, and possibly two, other humans.  You're preaching to the choir.  But I am also aware that this condition is the result of decisions I made willfully and with careful consideration of the consequences of my decisions. 

I wasn't referring to that, angus.  I was referring to the State imposed restrictions on your personal life.

[Frodo]

This poll is meant as a snapshot of where the United States is ideologically at the moment in the run-up to the 2006 midterm and 2008 presidential elections -I apologize for having not made any of this more clear and apparent earlier. 

[angus]

opebo, I know what you were talking about.  I mistakenly thought if I was a smart-alek you'd leave off that anti-US diatribe.  Well, one man's right to swing his fist ends where another man's nose begins.  That's just the way it is.

Frodo, specifically I think both major parties would be more to the left (and therefore logically also more authoritarian) than they are under the scenario you describe.  If we assume a ceteris paribus with respect to everything else that's going on in the world.  I can't remember whether "more socialist" was an option, but I think that's what I'd pick in a nutshell for the '06 elections.  But I want to stress that this would be a temporary condition.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Americans tend to be economically leftist and socially rightist. Which sucks.

[MaC]

It's not necessarily populist.

It's more conservative if anything.
(yes why is conservative such a low amount on the polls?)
 Even some people I've talked to on the far left have a few stong conservative stances.  Liberalism is in large due to the countering conservatives.  Ex. (they wouldn't exist in such a large part without conservatives.

As for libertarian/populist it's about 50-50, that is to say going by a broad definition of the terms.  (Do you want more government in your life or less).  Still, many who fit in these categories are conservative nonetheless.

[angus]

Americans tend to be economically leftist and socially rightist. Which sucks.

actually I think we tend to be economically rightist (libertarian), and socially fairly libertarian compared to say Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, and the vast majority of the 300 or so countries of the world.  In fact, the only really large country (comparable to us in size and population), which you could argue you might be more socially libertarian than us is Brazil.  (Of course you could compare our population to ethnically homogeneous tiny countries and make all sorts of counterclaims but that would be absurd.)  Now, I claim that given Frodo's highly improbable scenario we would become much less economically rightist and more economically leftist (socialist) and therefore also more socially authoritarian, since authoritarianism and economic leftism are necessarily linked. 

I do agree with A18's point elsewhere that "populist" is a poor choice of words.  By process of elimination of the choices Frodo offers, I think it's meant to say Socialistic/Authoritarian.  And yes that's the way it would go if you forced all eligible voters to vote, particularly since most of the eligible voters who do not vote are impoverished, undereducated, and socially manipulable.  But then that depends on how you are "properly educating" them.  With libertarian plutocrats in charge of the system, they could be properly educated to support the current system, and even to take it further afield.

[Gustaf]

Impossible to say. Education on a serious scale has never occurred and it's hard seeing it occurring either. My experience is that most people don't care much either way. THey want what is best and if you can convince them that a particular idea is good they'll go for it. Most people are therefore best described as moderate.

I suspect a majority would oppose making abortion totally illegal and also oppose making it totally legal, etc. There would be no clear trend. Obviously, prejudices tend to go down when people are educated, which should generally make people more moderate and probably more libertarian.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One problem with making left/right comparisions between different countries is the fact that the issues and what positions on them are considered to be left or right tend to vary a hell of a lot from country to country. Good example is the view of the role of national governments; in the U.K devolving power away from the national government is a left wing position (and the most centralising government since the 19th century was headed by a certain daughter of a man who ran a chain of groceries in Lincolnshire...).
Welfare is another example; while it's true that the U.S Welfare state is quite small (in terms of people covered not in terms of money) as far as healthcare goes, in many areas it is far larger than in almost anyother country.
Or economically... while a lot of third world countries have or at least had a hell of a lot of state-owned behemoth's, but at the same they generally lack meaningful workplace safety laws (ever seen photos of shipbreakers in Bangladesh? Jesus...) and what unions they have tend to be little more than jokes.

[Democratic Hawk]

It's just too hard to pidgeon-hole in favour of one ideology or another. What I'd like to see - if it's not too complicated (i.e. not confuse voters) - is if they are polled or exit-polled instead of pollsters asking them whether they define themselves as liberal, moderate or conservative, how about asking them whether they are liberal, populist, centrist, conservative or libertarian. It would be interesting to see the findings on both the national and state level

In the absence of such data, I would say that most voters are center-left or center-right, with relatively few belonging to either the far left or the far right (of these two, I'd say the latter is more numerous)

Dave

[opebo]

opebo, I know what you were talking about.  I mistakenly thought if I was a smart-alek you'd leave off that anti-US diatribe.  Well, one man's right to swing his fist ends where another man's nose begins.  That's just the way it is.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic in question.  What prudish nose is present when you are smoking pot in your house, or when I am having sex at the short time hotel?  Then answer is, none, and of course, what we are doing is not at all comparable to swinging our fists. 

[angus]

One problem with making left/right comparisions between different countries is the fact that the issues and what positions on them are considered to be left or right tend to vary a hell of a lot from country to country...

point taken.  And I see that the question doesn't ask us for cross-border comparison, but only a comparison of this version of the universe to some alternate one.  (I've always been rather fonder of the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics than of the more orthox Copenhagen interpretation anyway.)  And my comparison was mostly intended to answer the incessant charges by opebo of an overbearing government intrusion into our personal lives.  I have to admit that I agree that there are lots of silly laws on the books, and there's some truth to the charge, but I also think (1) his charges are exaggerated and (2) there's a reason behind those laws.  (e.g., I may feel like it's none of Uncle Sam's business what I snort up my nose, Uncle Sam may feel that economics necessitate the criminalization of cocaine if it believes those under its influence are likely to requre a greater police presence, etc.  Or, you may feel it's none of uncle sam's business how much smoke is emitted from the stacks at your cement manufacturing plant, but if a majority of representatives in a democratically run republic feel the health risks of dioxins and pyrazine merit scrubbers in the stack, at your expense, then deal with it.  I think everyone exept opebo gets this at this point, so that's not so much directed at you)  Additionally, your Bangladesh shipbreaker examples acutely demonstrates that there's the additional problem of perceptions.  What exactly do we mean by Left or Right?  And Hawk points this out as well.  All of which cut to the point of my long-deleted original post.  The question is faulty.  But, as I said, its potential to generate an interesting discussion outweigh its weaknesses.  I think the youngest among us has perhaps the wisest answer, ironically:  "impossible to say"  But hey, all straw polls are just ruses, anyway.