# All right, make me less ignorant. teach me all there is to know about politics, etc. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2005, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180 "2005-11-29T05:30:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/41 "2005-11-29T23:01:59Z")
**American conservatism and the Republicans:** The modern American conservative movement emerged largely as a reaction to the liberalism (as defined above) that prevailed from the Roosevelt Administration on. It really got its start in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign – which failed to elect Goldwater, but planted the organizational seeds of the later movement. You can read the whole story in _The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America,_ by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004). As those authors point out, “conservative” in post-Goldwater American usage meant something rather different than what it had meant to earlier generations (and still means in Europe): > [@](#): > > The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of “conservative” offered by the _Concise Oxford Dictionary_ are “adverse to rapid change” and “moderate, avoiding extremes.” Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. “Conservatism” – no less than its foes “liberalism” or “communitarianism” – has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed. > > But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles: **a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism.** Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, “preferred the past to the present and the present to the future.” > > To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its **exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three.** The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in “schemes and speculations” like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not. > > If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don’t know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right – unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another. > > The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a “prophet of the past.” Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting. > > As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated “clerisy” of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the “silent majority.” In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president’s son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots – on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold. Now, the above description is incisive but it glosses over the presence of several different and potentially conflicting trends within the modern conservative coalition. In general, we can identify the following currents on the “right” side of the map: 1. Business conservatism: The people Bush famously called his “base.” Far and away the dominant force in the Republican Party (and in American society generally). Shades over into “neoliberalism” (see above), distinguished by matters of emphasis. These are the ones who believe, or at least proclaim, that whatever is good for [name of established business corporation in which you happen to have investments] is good for the country. Union-busting, good. Corporate welfare, good. Foreign military adventurism, acceptable if it provides business opportunities. 2. Neoconservatism: The second most important force in the Republican Party, right now, and arguably the most important in the Administration. Dedicated to spreading the American versions of democracy and capitalism abroad, through military intervention where necessary. Remarkably, neoconservatism is a purely intellectual or “policy-wonk” movement with no mass base of support. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism\_in\_the\_United\_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States). 3. Religious-social traditionalist conversatism: IMO the third most important force in the Republican Party, now, and fighting hard to become number one. “Family values,” the Christian Coalition, and all that. Against gay marriage, for school prayer and teaching of “intelligent design”. This group does have a huge-grass roots support base that almost defines what we think of as the “red states” – but its supporters are mostly middle-class,working-class or poor, which potentially gives them very different material interests than the business conservatives. If they ever decide to split off from the Pubs and go their own way, they have a ready-made vehicle in the Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party) – [http://www.constitution-party.net/](http://www.constitution-party.net/). 4. Paleoconservatism: Nativist, isolationist, anti-immigrant, populist. Not really a voice in the Republican Party at present, because they’re directly opposed to the Iraq War; also, because they’re economic populists and they seem to hate Wall Street as much as Washington. They want NAFTA abolished, immigration restricted, and tariffs imposed to protect the jobs of American workers. Paleocons are in the tradition of the old Populist Party and the interwar America First! movement. Ross Perot’s Reform Party was ideologically incoherent (and ultimately broke up for that among other reasons), but paleoconservatism was definitely one of its elements. Represented, at present, by Pat Buchanan and his America First Party ([http://www.americafirstparty.org/](http://www.americafirstparty.org/)). 5. Libertarianism: Minimal-statists, in some cases verging on anarchism (although the anarchist tradition as such, in politics, is actually heavily influenced by Marxism). Libertarians are pro-market, which is not the same thing as pro-business. Opposed to welfare for poor people; opposed, for the same ideological reasons, to government bailouts of troubled businesses; opposed to American military intervention abroad. Want to decriminalize all “victimless crimes” such as prostitution and drug use. Like the neocons, this is mainly an intellectual movement with relatively little grass-roots presence, but it does have its own political party, the Libertarian Party ([http://www.lp.org/](http://www.lp.org/)), which is probably the single largest and best-organized third party on the American scene, at present. There’s also the Independence Party (one of the fragments that emerged from the breakup of the Reform Party), whose politics have been described as “moderate libertarian”: [http://www.mnip.org/](http://www.mnip.org/) It has no effective presence outside Minnesota at present, but there it did manage to get Jesse Ventura elected governor. Libertarians also have some independent influence in Washington, through institutions such as the Cato Foundation think-tank, which work hand-in-glove with the Republican ruling establishment. 6. White supremacism/separatism: Self-explanatory. Now mostly marginal, at least in its overt form; it’s debatable how much influence racist thinking has in other conservative camps, such as the paleocons, or the immigration-restriction movement generally. (See this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310401.)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310401.)) And the modern rise of the Republican Party to majority status can be attributed in part to Nixon’s 1968 adoption of a “Southern Strategy” which targeted conservative Southern whites (most of them Democrats, up until then) who were still nursing resentment over the end of Jim Crow. But racism’s more extreme manifestations, such as the Klan and the Nazis, are definitely beyond the pale, now. The “militia” movements seem to have been in steep decline ever since the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal courthouse in 1995. They haven’t gone away – but, for the most part, organized white supremacists are so far out there that it would be against Board rules for me even to provide links to their websites. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/42 "2005-11-29T23:26:02Z")
Now, everything I wrote in posts #39 and #41 is about the American “political nation” – i.e., politicians, activists, political intellectuals and commentators – everybody who engages in politics, or tries to, in ways more active than just voting. When we look at the **people,** and their beliefs and values and assumptions, the picture breaks down somewhat differently. Around April/May 2005, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released the fourth version (since 1987) of its Political Typology of the American people: [http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=943](http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=943) (It was last updated in 1999.) Like the previous versions, it was based on surveys of 2,000 randomly selected persons. “Each of the typologies developed by the Pew Research Center has been designed to provide a more complete and detailed description of the political landscape, classifying people on the basis of a broad range of value orientations rather than simply on the basis of party identification or self-reported ideology.” Some of these findings cast new light on the reasons for the current Republican hegemony in the White House and Congress. Nine groupings are identified, three strongly Republican, three strongly Democrat, two independent or centrist, plus the non-participant Bystanders: **ENTERPRISERS** 9% OF ADULT POPULATION 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/Lean Rep) BASIC DESCRIPTION: As in 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act. **SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES** 11% OF ADULT POPULATION 13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 82% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 0% Democrat (97% Rep/Lean Rep) BASIC DESCRIPTION: While supportive of an assertive foreign policy, this group is somewhat more religious than are Enterprisers. In policy terms, they break from the Enterprisers in their cynical views of business, modest support for environmental and other regulation, and strong anti-immigrant sentiment. **PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES** 9% OF ADULT POPULATION 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 58% Republican, 40% Independent/No Preference, 2% Democrat (86% Rep/Lean Rep) BASIC DESCRIPTION: Pro-Government Conservatives stand out for their strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They also express broad support for a social safety net, which sets them apart from other GOP groups. Pro-Government Conservatives are skeptical about the effectiveness of the marketplace, favoring government regulation to protect the public interest and government assistance for the needy. They supported George W. Bush by roughly five-to-one. **UPBEATS** 11% OF ADULT POPULATION 13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 39% Republican, 5% Democrat (73% Rep/Lean Rep) BASIC DESCRIPTION: Upbeats express positive views about the economy, government and society. Satisfied with their own financial situation and the direction the nation is heading, these voters support George W. Bush’s leadership in economic matters more than on moral or foreign policy issues. Combining highly favorable views of government with equally positive views of business and the marketplace, Upbeats believe that success is in people’s own hands, and that businesses make a positive contribution to society. This group also has a very favorable view of immigrants. **DISAFFECTEDS** 9% OF ADULT POPULATION 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/Lean Rep) BASIC DESCRIPTION: Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election. **LIBERALS** 17% OF GENERAL POPULATION 19% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem) BASIC DESCRIPTION: This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999. Liberal Democrats now comprise the largest share of Democrats. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration. **CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS** 14% OF ADULT POPULATION 15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem) BASIC DESCRIPTION: Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats’ views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility. **DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS** 10% OF GENERAL POPULATION 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 84% Democrat; 16% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican (99% Dem/Lean Dem) BASIC DESCRIPTION: Least financially secure of all the groups, these voters are very anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group; nearly a third (32%) are black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Levels of disapproval of George W. Bush job performance (91%) and candidate choice in 2004 (82% for Kerry) are comparable to those among Liberals. **BYSTANDERS** 10% OF ADULT POPULATION 0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 22% Republican, 22% Democrat BASIC DESCRIPTION: These Americans choose not to participate in or pay attention to politics, or are not eligible to do so (non-citizens). (Note the conspicuous absence of neoconservatives, socialists, libertarians – none, apparently, significant enough in popular support to form a grouping in this typology.) Key findings of the new typology report include: - National security is now the key distinguishing issue between the two parties. Republicans and Republican-leaning voters favor an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy; Democrats favor diplomacy and are more likely to believe that the “war on terror” just breeds more hatred and more terrorism. - The Republicans are divided sharply on economic issues. Two of their three core constituencies (Social Conservatives and Pro-Government Conservatives) are skeptical of business and favor stronger government regulation of it. The Pro-Government Conservatives (but not the Social Conservatives) actually think government should do something to help the poor. - The Democrats are divided on moral values. The largest of their constituencies (Liberals) is highly secular but the next largest (Conservative Democrats) is very religious and socially conservative. Note that the three core Democrat-leaning groups (Liberals, Conservative Democrats and Disadvantaged Democrats) account for 44% of registered voters. The Republican-leaning groups (Enterprisers, Social Conservatives, Pro-Government Conservatives) total only 33%. Yet the Republicans have been winning – because, at present, the two centrist or independent groups (Upbeats and Disaffecteds) are mostly voting Republican: > [@](#): > > In some ways, the biggest difference between the latest Pew Research Center typology and those in the Clinton era concerns the groups in the middle of the political spectrum. During the 1990s, the typology groups in the center were not particularly partisan, but today they lean decidedly to the GOP. > > The middle groups include Upbeats, relatively moderate voters who have positive views of their financial situation, government performance, business, and the state of the nation in general. They are generally well-educated and fairly engaged in political news. While most Upbeats do not formally identify with either political party, they voted for Bush by more than four-to-one last November. > > A second, very different group of centrist voters, the Disaffecteds, is much less affluent and educated than the Upbeats. Consequently, they have a distinctly different outlook on life and political matters. They are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with their financial situation. Even so, Disaffecteds lean toward the Republican Party and, though many did not vote in the presidential election, most of those who did supported Bush’s reelection. > > In effect, Republicans have succeeded in attracting two types of swing voters who could not be more different. The common threads are a highly favorable opinion of President Bush personally and support for an aggressive military stance against potential enemies of the U.S. Does all that clear it up for ya, **Idle?** 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/43 "2005-11-30T00:34:45Z")
Idle Thoughts, I particularly like > [@](#): > > Being Left doesn’t seem all that bad…they just seem to want equal for everyone… And in Communism, they do the extreme of actually taking things away that are yours and making them everyone’s. That is as masterful a summation of Leftist economic politics as I have ever seen. Just a few points of clarification/expansion. Conservative/right wing economics doesn’t usually _oppose_ equality. George Bush for example is conservative but would never say he opposes equality, and I genuinely believe that he doesn’t. The difference between that position and Liberal/Leftist politics is that opposition to inequality is built-in to the Liberal political. So a Conservative Right winger like Bush might oppose inequality for personal moral reasons, but he could remain a true conservative and openly endorse what is effectively slave labour. There’s nothing inherently contradictory in being a slave-owning conservative. In contrast a Leftist Liberal like Kerry simply could not endorse inequality and still remain a Liberal. It’s inherent in the definition of a ‘true’ Liberal that they oppose inequality. This is one of those important concepts that can often be hard to grasp. Politics isn’t black and white, where a person either supports apposition or opposes it… While all liberals or conservatives all share a certain set of core characteristics they also have many more non-core characteristics that aren’t shared. Thus a US Liberal may oppose inequality but at the same time they may support market deregulation because they feel that is one way of fighting inequality. And a conservative may support free enterprise but at the same time be an avid supporter of workers rights for personal reasons. I guess the short of it is that while we can say that all liberals are opposed to social inequality it may be equally true that all conservatives are also opposed to it. The difference is that the conservatives are opposed to it for personal reasons, not because it’s part of what makes them conservatives. Similarly all conservatives endorse economic growth but it’s possible that all liberals also endorse that, but for personal reasons, not because it’s a defining feature of a liberal. You can’t say that endorsing inequality is an extreme right wing position, but you can say that endorsing inequality is never a conservative position. Similarly you can’t say that forcing people to live on collective farms is an extreme, leftist position, but you can say that it isnever a conservative position. I hope that’s not too confusing. Capitalism and conservative/right wing politics are very closely linked, but they are not entirely synonymous. Capitalism is essentially a system where people are free to make money however they can, which is perfectly in tune with the conservative philosophy of every man for himself. However the original right wing were monarchists and not particularly dedicated capitalists by modern standards. They believed in a social heirarchy, right by birth and so forth. So while capitalism and conservatism are linked in the modern world one needn’t be a capitalist to be a conservative. The difference between communism and socialism is almost impossible to define. One of the standard replies is that communism is an ideal that is to be strived for but can never be reached, whereas socialism is a working system of leftist/liberal principles. There never has been true communist nation, just as there has never been a true capitalist nation. All nations, including the US, are a blend of socialism and capitalism. But some countries are more clearly communist is principles than others. The US is a primarily capitalist nation with some socialist underpinnings. As you point out the US has social security, free healthcare and so forth which are clearly socialist/leftist in origin and intent. Cuba is a primarily communist nation with some capitalist underpinnings. Contemporary China or much of western Europe are more blurry and it’s hard to decide whether they are primarily capitalist or communist. So in reality all countries are a blend of left and right. Are there any good things about living under Communism? Yeah, lots. Free health care, free education, guaranteed accomodation , a guaranteed job for life. In Eastern Europe under communism everyone was educated according to their level of ability through to PhD level if you were capable. And everyone knew they had a job to go to when they finished their education. Those are pretty major plusses, especially when things are tough economically. The general rule of thumb is that the poor are better off under communism in the bad times, and better off under capitalism the rest of the time. But as you pointed out there is a major limitation that if someone doesn’t pull there weight what do you do? The Soviets believe din ‘re-education’ for such people, which essentially meant being ripped away from their families and imprisoned, beaten and/or brainwashed. That ensured a minimum work effort out of everyone. Unfortunately it also ensured _the_ minimum work effort out of everyone. Nobody worked to capacity, nobody worked any harder than they absolutely had to because there was no reward for doing so. There is no reason why a leftist can’t enjoy living in a democracy. A great many democracies are leftist. The just aren’t extreme leftist (IOW communist). If you are on social security then liberal politics is probably the choice for you. You probably stand to lose the most from unbridled capitalism. However once again you should realise that most conservatives don’t actually oppose social security. Social security has been shown to be essential for a healthy economy, and economic growth is a major concern of conservative politics, so for purely selfish reasons conservatives will support some form of social security at least. Yes there are a lot of parties on each side. They are not just varying degrees of economic political viewpoint, they also vary depending on focus. Greens for example typically focus on the environment and ‘wholistic’ (for want of a better word) aspects of leftism such as ‘community viewpoints’ and ‘global integrity’. So a green leftist may consider saving the whales to be important because it is important to global integrity, future of the children etc. People being underemployed is of less concern provided there is adequate social welfare. Unionists focus primarily on the conditions of the working person. A union leftist may be concerned that people are underemployed no matter how good welfare is, but environmental concerns are only of great interest if workers suburbs or housing projects don’t have enough parks or are too polluted, but saving the whales is of limited concern. A communist may be concerned that Bill Gates has too much money simply because Bill Gates has so much money, no matter what the provable direct impact on workers or the environment. All are leftists, al share similar concerns but all have a totally different idea of what is of importance. Nazis are tricky to define at this stage. Although they call themselves national socialists that was as a deliberate dig at the Soviet Socialists. The USSR considered themselves International Socialists, part of the worldwide brotherhood of workers. To counter that appeal the German fascists adopted the name National Socialists, meaning they intended to look after only the German workers and everyone else could go to hell. The Nazis had a lot of socialist policies, as does most of western Europe today, but they weren’t strictly speaking socialists, they were fascists. This introduces a whole other set of dimensions to politics: the dimensions of state control vs individual liberty and internationalism/nationalism/isolationism/globalism. Up to this point we have been concentrating primarily on economics, how money should be collected and spent by the state. But politics is just as much defined by how the state controls its citizens and how it reacts to its neighbours. But if you don’t mind we’ll leave that until you think you’ve got a reasonable handle on the economic dimension. ---
**Author:** ![David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_God_of_Frogs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/44 "2005-11-30T03:05:12Z")
Well, in the beginning there was this bad guy, so these other guys had to dress up in constumes and party, and ride around on horses until he went away. Their leader became very famous, although today, due to inflation, he isn’t really worth all that much. Anyway, 'round about a hundred years later, it turned out that those guys in costumes weren’t so bright after all, and a dude with a funny top hat had to rescue them. Of course, he didn’t really fix things that well either, and some other dudes had to come around a hundred years after that to fix what he left undone, but I’m getting ahead of myself. Anyway, back in the land of bratwurst, some developments started going down, and we had to come clean up. Again. After that, everyone had had enough of open hostility, so they just went for the suppressed rage, leading to personality changes at home. A deep throat eventually led to the US government’s dismemberment, which amazingly kept going long enough to commit several crimes against humanity. Which brings us to that hero to some, the movie star sent to act out his fantasies of intergalactic warfare. Crush the evil empire he did, leaving an ‘omics’ in his wake. This worked well, until some crazies, acting on their phallic desires, learned to fly, and now we have no idea what works anymore. I hope this clears some stufff up. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/45 "2005-11-30T15:20:12Z")
> [@Idle Thoughts](#): > > So…the left is bad then? It seems to me to be a bad way to be. After all, I’ve always heard about “commies” and all that and was under the assumption it was a bad way to be/live/etc. Think about a line that extends to the left and to the right. There are degrees to everything. Communism is on the extreme left end and fascism is on the extreme right. Practically speaking, communism and fascism are largely irrelevant to politics in Western democracies. Most of the movement is in a narrow band near the middle, so when talking about mainstream politics, the terms “left” and “right” and “left wing” and “right wing” are relative. There _are some_ communists in western democracies (the largest Communist party is probably in France: the Mitterand government was a Socialist-Communist coalition), but they aren’t generally in favour of anything as extreme as literal Marxism (which is really a social and economic theory, not a political movement) or Stalinism (the “bad guys” of your youth). > [@](#): > > So people are still communist today? Are there communist countries out there? There are a small number of people who call themselves Communists, but they’re probably not what you think. There is a very small number of countries whose governments call themselves “communist,” China and Vietnam being among them. Such countries are not as communist as they used to be. There are two states in India – West Bengal and Kerala – whose state governments are ruled by local Communist parties, but they are freely elected parties answerable to the electorate. These states have never been ruled like the Soviet Union or China have been ruled under Communist governments. > [@](#): > > Saying that because I want to ask what the Nazi’s were. Were they communists or a type of communist party? The Nazis were fascists, at the right-wing extreme of the spectrum. > [@](#): > > Exactly. I don’t understand this way of living. What if a person doesn’t pull their weight at all? Do they still get the fruits of the labor (done by others)? Remember that what is being described is the absolute extreme left end of political thought. Very few people, if any, fall in that range. > [@](#): > > That seems like an oxymoron. A leftest therefore, living in a democracy must not like it very much? No, most leftists are very much in favour of democracy. > [@](#): > > I’m on Social Security…so is that something, then, that the Leftists are for? Yes, any monetary aid given to individuals by the government is by definition leftist. > [@](#): > > Ohh, so there’s a lot of parties on each side. So on the Left side there are typical Leftists, Communists, Socialists, and Unionists? They are all varying degrees? You have to remember that _party names_ do not necessarily tell you much. Especially in the United States, where the parties are not based on political philosophy. > [@](#): > > So in that regard, wouldn’t the USA’s standards be both right and left (in a way)? The current system in the United States is mixed, yes, and that is true of most countries. The U.S. system, however, tends to be more to the right than other Western democracies. > [@](#): > > Capitalism? Is that another word for being right winged? Capitalism is not really a political label. It’s an economic model and the opposite of Marx’s communism. You can believe in capitalism and be on the left or the right. However, the right believes in _unregulated_ (or _laissez faire_) capitalism. > [@](#): > > Are Republicans usually more Leftist? Are Dems usually more rightist? > > Or am I mixing facts and comparing apples to oranges? Individual Republicans and Democrats might be either left or right. Speaking broadly, Democrats are slightly right of centre and Republicans are further to the right. So, generally, Democrats are left of Republicans. > [@](#): > > Where do conservatists and liberals fit on the left/right scale? (I’d assume libs would be more right and conservatists would be more left). Again, it depends on what definitions you are using, but in current American lexicon, liberals are to the left and conservatives are to the right. > [@](#): > > Wow…more info. 🙂 I bet the Nazi’s must have been extreme conservatists then…or…reactionaries? That would be extreme (extreme EXTREME) Left? Extreme _right_. > [@](#): > > Okay…so bureaucracy doesn’t have anything to do with political stance then, just the inner workings of a government? Yes, but … Conservatives want the government to do _fewer_ things and be smaller, so conservatives are in favour of smaller bureaucracy. > [@](#): > > Weird. I’d think that feminists would all be on the same side anyway. People often do not agree on what words mean. > [@](#): > > > [@rjung](#): > > > > Liberals believe that people should help each other. > > Conservatives believe it’s every man for himself. > > Ahhh, now THAT is in simple, easy to understand terms. Actually, it’s more accurate to say – Liberals believe that people should get together and help everyone in an organised fashion, through the government (and, in addition, help other people on an individual basis if they want to). Conservatives believe that people should help each other _only_ on an individual basis, if they want to. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/46 "2005-11-30T16:50:55Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Capitalism is not really a political label. It’s an economic model and the opposite of Marx’s communism. You can believe in capitalism and be on the left or the right. However, the right believes in _unregulated_ (or _laissez faire_) capitalism. This I’ve gotta disagree with. Yes, in the US in 2005, most conservatives will tell you they believe in capitalism. However this is not a defining characteristic of conservatism. Pat Buchanan is as conservative as they get and he spends half his time railing against big business destroying American values, the other half complaining about immigration. The more extreme right you are the less likely you are to endorse capitalism. Capitalism is really a liberal value that has been coopted by american conservatism simply because America has been capitalist for so long. And of course it’s also a mistake to think that big businesses and corporations believe in laissez faire capitalism. No, most of them love regulation, they love industrial policy, it keeps out competition and reduces uncertainty. Did Chrysler want lassez faire capitalism back in the 80s when they were begging the goverment to bail them out? How about all the companies that want higher tarrifs on foreign goods? Corporations will back capitalism when they’re winning, but when they’re losing they’ll howl for the government to fix the “failures of the marketplace”. Corporations don’t want capitalism, they want a guaranteed source of money. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/47 "2005-11-30T19:23:33Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Think about a line that extends to the left and to the right. Actually, it’s more complicated than that, as things in general generally are. The labels “left” and “right” come from a brief period during the French Revolution, 1791-1792, when the Fueillants (constitutional monarchists) in the Legislative Assembly ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative\_Assembly\_(France)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Assembly_%28France%29)) sat on the Speaker’s right and the Girondins (liberal republicans) and Jacobins (radical revolutionaries) sat on the left. Today we apply the terms to ranges of issues having nothing to do with those divisions. From the Wikipedia’s “Political Spectrum” article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political\_spectrum:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum:) > [@](#): > > In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy, and fascism (“the Right”) on one end, and socialism, communism, (“the Left”) on the other. Free market liberalism is generally considered to be centrist or center-right; new liberalism or social liberalism is generally assigned to the center, center-left or sometimes (when viewed by conservatives) the left. Christian Democracy may be anywhere from center-right to center-left, depending on the country and era. > > National and cultural differences in the use of the terms left and right are common. In China, left and right have referred to different positions at different times, although the issues were often very different from those in Western nations. > > **Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis** > > There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis, and lines often blur among parties. For more detail see the main article Left-Right politics: > > Equal outcomes (left) versus consistent processes (right). > > Redistribution of wealth and income (left), or acceptance of inequalities as a result of the free market (right). > > Whether the government’s policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). > > Support for widened lifestyle choices (left), or support for traditional values (right). > > Whether the state should prioritise equality (left) or liberty (right). Both the left and the right tend to speak in favor of both equality and liberty - but they have different interpretations. > > Whether human nature is more malleable (left) or intrinsic (right). > > Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religious morality (right). > > Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right). > > Support for internationalism (left), or national interest (right). > > \ > > **Alternative spectra** > > Some people feel that it is not obvious how these various concepts are related. They say that it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are referring to. They believe that one should first establish context by defining the axes upon which different positions will be measured. Many individuals and groups do not fit on such a simple spectrum. > > While the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum. > > The design of a spectrum itself can be politically motivated. > > One alternative spectrum that has been used by political scientists measures the degree of government intervention, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme. > > Another alternative, currently popular among certain environmentalists, uses a single axis to measure what they consider to be the good of the Earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the Earth. > > In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies, offered a new single axis spectrum that measures one’s view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it: stasists. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control: dynamists. The distinction corresponds to the utopian versus anti-utopian spectrum used in some theoretical assessments of liberalism, and the book’s title is borrowed from the work of the anti-utopian classic-liberal theorist Karl Popper. > > Other axes include: > > **Role of the church:** Clericalism vs. Anti-clericalism. This axis is not significant in the United States where views of the role of religion tend to get subsumed into the general left-right axis, but in Europe clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left-right spectrum. > > **Urban vs. rural:** This axis is also much more significant in European as well as Australian and Canadian politics than American. > > **Foreign policy:** interventionism (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. isolationism (the nation should keep to its own affairs) > > **Political violence:** pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). In North America, holders of these views are often referred to as “doves” and “hawks”, respectively. > > **Foreign trade:** globalization (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. autarky (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence). During the early history of the Commonwealth of Australia, this was the major political continuum. At that time it was called Free trade vs. Protectionism. > > **Trade Freedom vs. Trade Equity:** Free trade (businesses should be able trade across borders without regulations) vs. Fair trade (international trade should be regulated on behalf of social justice). > > **Diversity:** multiculturalism (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. assimilationism or nationalism (the nation should primarily represent the majority culture) > > **Participation:** Democracy (rule of the majority) vs. Oligarchy (rule by a limited number of people) vs. Republic (a compromise between the two; this is a specialised use of the term ‘republic’ based on an interpretation of classical history) > > **Freedom:** Positive liberty (having rights which impose an obligation on others) vs. Negative liberty (freedom from interference by others) > > **Change:** radicals (who believe in rapid change) vs.progressives (who believe in measured , incremental change)vs.conservatives (who believe in minimal or cautious change), and sometimes vs. reactionaries (who believe in changing things to the way they were) > > **Origin of state authority:** popular sovereignty (the state as a creation of the people, with enumerated, delegated powers) vs. various forms of absolutism and organic state philosophy (the state as an original and essential authority) > > **International action:** Multilateralism (states should cooperate and compromise) versus Unilateralism (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions). Furthermore, many have criticized the very idea of trying to range all political positions along a one-dimensional “spectrum.” The same article discusses various two-axis political models or maps that have been proposed (such as the Political Compass and the Pournelle Chart), and even a three-axis model that can only be mapped in 3-D space (check it out – way cool graphics!). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/48 "2005-11-30T19:27:58Z")
**BrainGlutton** , I think the idea is to keep it simple. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/49 "2005-11-30T19:30:44Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > **BrainGlutton** , I think the idea is to keep it simple. Come on, you knew the assignment was dangerous when you took it! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/50 "2005-11-30T22:03:28Z")
I don’t want to be rude, or step on your thread or cruelly hijack it or anything, but I’m sort of interested in civics and the curriculum and what people keep from what they learned in high school, so I’ve got to ask - didn’t you learn any of this there? Didn’t you ever have to pass a class in American Government or Civics or World History? Wasn’t any of this covered in, say, elementary school? (At least that, say, China and Vietnam are Communist nations?) Again, I’m not asking to belittle you, I’m genuinely interested in the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Millit\_the\_Frail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/51bf81/32.png) [@Millit\_the\_Frail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Millit_the_Frail)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/51 "2005-11-30T22:23:23Z")
**Zsofia** , maybe I can answer. I took a class in HS called “Government.” I learned a lot in this class. It was probably one of the most educational classes I ever took. It was taught by a well-respected teacher and required for every 12th grade student. However, I didn’t know the difference between left and right politics when I left for college. (I learned quite a bit there, mostly from friends.) In Government class, we learned about things like Constitutional rights, important moments in the history of our national rights (Marbury vs. Madison, Brown vs. the Board of Ed., etc.), the structure of the government, how a bill becomes a law, the judicial process (mock trials!), and lots of other important, interesting stuff. Where the opportunities were really missed was the History curriculum. In 11 prior years of history, we’d covered the Puritans and the Civil War about three times each (somehow, this is true) but had only once broken into the 20th century (I graduated in 1999, so no 21st, of course). It would have been wonderful to have learned the history of the last century and the development of our current political state together. Think of the possibilities. Instead of “Segregation is bad, so we got rid of it,” we could have discussed what Americans’ opinions and attitudes were like in the 1960s. What are the pros and cons of affirmative action? How is this similar to, say gay rights? What is true equality? Why do people see things so differently? And so on. “Why do my parents want us to go to war with Iraq?” “Why are people protesting our fight against the terrorists?” Interesting stuff. I just never got the right idea about which decisions I was “allowed” to make in politics and what I could question. I’m really glad to see all the helpful stuff in this thread, and kudos to **Idle Thoughts** for starting it. It’s hard to just “jump into” this stuff if you’ve grown up without it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/52 "2005-11-30T23:20:46Z")
Perhaps every HS civics course should include a section on “politics” as distinct from “government.” ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/53 "2005-12-01T14:05:12Z")
**Lemur** , I don’t disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Purd\_Werfect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e47c2d/32.png) [@Purd\_Werfect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Purd_Werfect)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/54 "2005-12-03T06:29:41Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > The Democratic party is led by a bunch of hippies who fried their brains on LSD during the sixties. Their heroes are Karl Marx, Osama Bin Laden, and Larry Flynt. If elected they will ban the Bible and force everyone to get gay married. > > The Republican party is secretly led a Cabal of 23 Octogenarian white oil executives who prolong their unnatural lives by harvesting organs from living African-American babies. If elected children will learn nothing but the Pledge of Allegiance, a simplifed Christian Catchesim, and how to stock shelves at Wal-Mart. If talk radio has taught me anything, it’s that this is the truth. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/55 "2005-12-03T19:59:11Z")
So, **Idle,** has this thread diminished your ignorance appreciably? Has it caused you to change, or at least develop a more sophisticated understanding of, your own political views? ---
**Author:** ![firespinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8baadc/32.png) [@firespinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/firespinner)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/56 "2005-12-10T01:07:28Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Politics comes from the greek words “poly” which means “many” and “ticks” which “bloodsucking insects.” If your going to quote someone famous at least give them credit ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/57 "2005-12-10T01:21:41Z")
> [@firespinner](#): > > If your going to quote someone famous at least give them credit Who am I quoting? I made that up myself! ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/58 "2005-12-10T01:32:05Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Who am I quoting? I made that up myself! I believe you thought of it yourself. It’s a fairly obvious joke. However, [Dave Barry](http://www.fen.net/quotes/politics.shtml) _did_ say it first. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180/59 "2005-12-10T01:47:57Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I believe you thought of it yourself. It’s a fairly obvious joke. However, [Dave Barry](http://www.fen.net/quotes/politics.shtml) _did_ say it first. Wow. I am not making this up, 😃 but I did not know that. And I love Dave Barry. (It might be that I read it and forgot it, but it lodged in my subconscious.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-right-make-me-less-ignorant-teach-me-all-there-is-to-know-about-politics-etc/333180.md?page=2)