This is a gross simplification, but I would say the board tends to lean slightly left, but not as much as conservatives here sometimes claim. One thing to remember about bias: you notice it more when it disagrees with your bias.
Adding to this is what one poster in this thread said: no matter what you say, there will be someone on this board who will disagree with it. I think this is good, because it means all points of view are being heard.
A number of my friends and colleagues in real life are very conservative, very religious people. As a group, they are much less in favor of, say, gay rights, than are the conservative and religious people on this board. So in that sense, you could say that even the conservatives here are more liberal. But I think that’s more a consequence of people here being more intellectually curious, which leads to seeing others’ points of view.
FWIW, I would identify myself as fiscally conservative, socially liberal, moderately hawkish (I am an American, and I work for the military).
Only given an extremely limited definition of “socially liberal.” Recognizing gay marriage, supporting a woman’s right to an abortion, abolishing the death penalty, and opposing prayer in public schools are all examples of liberal social positions that don’t require federal spending.
I would say that public discontent with the Bush regime is making folks less agreeable to conservative policies, leading to the widespread perception that this board is more liberal. It’s not hard-core liberalism, it’s just the centrists moving to the left slightly as they get sick of Bush.
I am an American who has never voted Republican for a national office. There exists the strong possibility that I might do so in the future if the right candidate comes along. In the larger political sense that makes me a liberal, or at least a moderate to conservative Democrat.
Here I am certainly somewhat right of center. This whole debate reminds me of the occasional press releases from our two home town newspapers. The Washington Post (excellent paper), would claim not to have a liberal bias. The Washington Times (hunk of crap) would claim not to have a strong conservative bias. To an unbiased observer their political leanings are obvious. I would think a random sample of Americans would find the board to be obviously quite left leaning.
The clearest absence is an dearth of religious conservatives. I am socially very liberal so this absent viewpoint isn’t one I agree with. It is the one difference from the US at large though that can’t be denied. I would guess we have no more than two traditional religious conservatives who regularly post here.
Polls would put religious conservatives at somewhere between 20-40% of the US population. The ones that come here generally get run off very quickly. It is a shame in a way, because if you want a cross section of opinion to debate, you are kidding yourself if you don’t think religious conservativism is a tremendous political force.
I think Rhum Runner said it nicely. There are some very far left view points (lissener for example) and very few examples of even the moderate to far right. Please note by far right I don’t mean racists or fascists. I mean the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority types. I am not sure how I feel about it, because I would rather bang my head against a brick wall than debate an Evangelical Christian (just as effective too). The difference between the SDMB and the political climate at large is worth noting though.
Oh, very likely, but a random sample of the global population would almost certainly find it quite centrist. The membership here is anything but limited to Americans, and so judging the body of posts they produce by how it appears to Americans is somewhat misleading.
The perception of there being more liberals than conservatives could be due simply to the natural tendency of liberals to be so shrill, to form together in hysterical packs, and to peck like mad crows at every conceivable potential offense.
Gorsnak -
You are quite probably right about the political leaning when viewed on a global basis. I can only judge accurately the political leanings of American dopers. I was mentally discounting the many non-US dopers because I don’t feel I have an accurate sense of the global political climate. At least not expressed with the conservative/liberal divide that Americans use.
Bless the Euro-Dopers for not having much of a religious right.
Liberal and conservative are very, very, very, very poorly defined terms.
People who favor isolationist foreign policies call themselve conservative. People who favor interventionist foreign ploicies call themselves conservative. People who favor little or no govt intervention in the private lives of citizens call themselves conservative. People who favor govt intervention in the private lives of citizens call themselves conservative.
People who favor isolationist foreign policies call themselve liberal. People who favor interventionist foreign policies call themselves liberal. People who favor little or no govt intervention in the private lives of citizens call themselves liberal. People who favor govt intervention in the private lives of citizens call themselves liberal.
IMHO, most of the time the terms denote very little actual content. They’re more just empty perjoratives and atempts to do without thinking.
So, in answer to the question about whether there’re more conservatives or liberal on the SDMB, I’d have to say, “Yes.”
The term “religious right” has been used a lot in this thread and I’d like to have somebody define the term to me. I’ve heard this term for years, and I’m not entirely sure what it means.
Is it simply another term for a conservative Christian fundamentalist? Is it simply used to describe conservatives who’s stands on social issues are partially based on their religious beliefs (I.E., “In God We Trust” on money is OK, voluntary school prayer is OK, etc…)
Or somewhere in-between? Thanks.
While I generally agree with SimonX that the terms liberal and conservative are ill defined in many instances, I think a person’s stand on a few issues can be a good indication of which side of the aisle he or she sits:
Do you favor Affirmative Action?
Do you favor more or less involvement by the gov’t in health care?
Do you favor a government imposed minimum wage?
Should US foreign policy be guided more or less by the UN?
Given a budget deficit, is your solution to raise taxes or cut spending (choose only one)?
As I’ve said before the simplest may to determine right or left is by view of human nature. If a person believes that people in general are good and to be trusted then they are on the left. If not, not. I agree that the terms “liberal”, “conservative”, “libertarian”, “moderate”, and so on are generalizations but a genuine and persistent political dichotomy does exist.
As for the prevelance of the sides here on the SDMB I agree with those who have said that the board skews to the left on social issues and to the right on money matters. I think that the reason there are more far leftists than far rightists is a result of the nature of the board. Todays far left ideas are more likely to withstand skeptical inquiry than those of the far right.
It seems that these days, people are trying to define it as simply favoring balanced budgets. Don’t spend more than you have. That’s a very narrow description of fiscal conservatism.
Being fiscally conservative means favoring smaller government. Not just big government that manages to raise enough taxes to pay for its big spending ways. That’s why I said anyone who supports socialized medicine is by default not a fiscal conservative. At least not in the U.S., where it doesn’t exist.
In Canada, where we already have it, you can be a fiscal conservative by simply opposing further expansions of the government, and especially if it is to be paid for with tax increases and deficit spending.
Bill Clinton was close to being a fiscal conservative, at least after the failure of Hillarycare. If I recall correctly, his budget increases were fairly modest, especially in light of the rapid rise in government income due to the dot-com boom. He allowed the money to go to the deficit instead of new program spending. Unlike Gray Davis, who took a 25 billion windfall and turned it into 38 billion in new spending.
Howard Dean can also lay a modest claim to being somewhat fiscally conservative - not just because he balanced the budget, but because he restrained spending.
Restraint of spending is a key component of fiscal conservatism. If you raise taxes by 200 billion, and use the money to produce 200 billion in new government programs, you’re not a fiscal conservative, even if you keep the budget balanced.
And George Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative, despte his large tax cuts. Because he’s a big spender.
I realize that the term ‘fiscal conservative’ is generally tied to ‘cutting taxes’ but does it make sense to permit an industry to continue consuming an ever larger chunk of GDP (from the consumer) rather than a smaller chunk (from the taxpayers)?
Here’s some links on the subject of health care as a % of GDP:
Like it or not…some form of a National Health Service is coming to the United States in the next 50 years or so. The only real choice is how we get there and can we decide fast enough to manage the choice as opposed to letting it be imposed upon us by circumstance.
Oh, and I’m fiscally conservative in the ‘crazy whack job’ camp. The deficit drives me bananas. Not that it exists…there can be solid economic reasons for having one. But that the deficit is now an expected part of government spending. I’d keep taxes high until we paid down the debt significantly and then used the interest savings to cut taxes sustainably.
I agree that cutting taxes to a certain extent can boost productivity (and tax revenues) to a certain extent (and therefore grow out of deficits). But it gets offset when spending outpaces growth consistently.
I beg to differ – depending on how we define a traditional religious conservative, I can think of at least a half dozen SDMB regulars off the top of my head.
Originally posted by Libertarian
…the natural tendency of liberals to be so shrill, to form together in hysterical packs, and to peck like mad crows at every conceivable potential offense.
It’s actually just the normal response of conservatives to disagreement of any kind.