Pew Political Typology 2011. “Solid Liberals” make up 14% of the general population, “Staunch Conservatives” only 9%. (“Left-wing” shows not at all, except perhaps as a subset of “Solid Liberals,” but “Libertarian” is now a separate typology category.)
In most cases, I daresay, that would come down to a non-factual question of value judgment anyway. There are countless areas where people of conflicting ideologies can agree entirely on the facts but put contrary constructions on them all day long.
I think Magiver gives adaher a serious run for his money.
I read adaher’s posts channeling John Hodgman. Adds a lot to the experience.
That’s funny, because righties say the same thing about the Republican Party.
True believers I guess, dead enders. Contrary to popular belief here, I’m not one of those. I’m more self-aware then I let on.
That isn’t from “popular belief”, it’s from the evidence. If you really do know better, it would help you tremendously to act like it.
Then you are admitting that you are a troll…
Not my problem if your act gets you in trouble with management.
There’s a difference between thinking you’re only paying attention to the evidence and actually doing it. Liberals get in trouble because of their arrogance in thinking they are the ones with science on their side. So long as the science is PC, of course, and says that government should intervene in domestic affairs.
What “science” do you think contravenes the liberal outlook? And, since the assumption cannot be granted that you know what it even means, what do you think the word “science” means?
I don’t think any science disproves the liberal outlook, I just think that very little science proves it either. I’d say that like conservatives, liberals are more informed by their values than by science. Which is as it should be, provided it doesn’t directly contradict hard science.
Liberals have been known in the past to misjudge the proper role of science. Not that long ago, many people of the left persuasion thought that society could be ordered through the use of experts applying the latest scientific knowledge. That’s scientific hubris.
You do realize that Jesus is not coming back either, right?
Neither is FDR or LBJ. Or anyone like them. Those days are gone forever.
“History’s ash heap” is what you call the world outside the United States, is it?
Who?
Sorry, but a few big items in science are foolishly dismissed by conservatives. More than once I made the point that I consider this the result of bad timing. Under an environmentalist president like Teddy Roosevelt I think with the issue of global warming the Republicans would had supported doing a lot to solve the issue while the Democrats would had been the ones on the wrong side.
But this is today, and bad timing or not, most Conservatives are wrong not only on AGW but also on Evolution. And academics that only worried before, usually from conservative creationists and Intelligent designers from destroying science curriculums and teaching, now have to worry from the also mostly conservative climate change deniers.
So much so that non-partisan organizations that mostly concentrated on defending evolution in academia from creationists had to add also the defense of the teaching of global warming.
Sez the guy who believes polls are skewed. 
Creationism, climate change denial, “racial realism” … what are the liberal equivalents, do you think?
You’d have to be. [rimshot]
Science never says “should.”
The notion of completely re-ordering society may have faded, but there are still plenty of scientists, economists, sociologists and technocrats giving advice to politicians, and the wiser governments are the ones who listen.