Both Republicans and Democrats, both liberal and conservative, think that the majority of the nation is behind them. The conservatives point to polls like this and claim that the nation is behind them. Liberals point to key issues dear to them where majorities seem to agree with them, like the environment, and claim that means that the nation is behind THEM.
So which is it, do you think? Do polls matter? What’s the best way to determine something like this? Is it even possible? Does recent history, like 9/11, have anything to do with it? Are liberals being shunned by the nation at large, with their influence in a death spiral, as conservatives on the blogs I peruse say? Are conservatives seen as the radical nutjobs they are, with an energized base below the surface, as some liberals argue?
And even if the nation were generally liberal or conservative, what would that mean, exactly, for political issues? In other words, if we were to have a nationwide referendum on controversial issues that split along ideological lines (the environment, abortion, gay rights, etc.), would the results track with the “general political bent” of the country? Or would there be major surprises?
By worldwide standards, we’re staggeringly conservative. No other industrialized nation lacks a national health plan!
By our own standards, we are, of course, a mixed bag, more liberal on some subjects, more conservative on others, averaging out at (by definition!) the average!
I like to think that the majority of my fellow citizens are actually like me…somewhere in the middle. IMO, the loud obnoxious ones on the left and the right are a small but vocal minority, with the rest of the citizens somewhere around the middle. I think that on specific issues, people tend to lean one way or the other, sometimes conservative on certain issues, sometimes liberal on others. They generally pick a party that addresses what they feel are the key issues, but most people are fairly dissatisfied with their party on ALL issues.
I know a lot of republicans who cringe when ever the GOP does its religious schtick, and a lot of democrats that feel that their parties fiscal policies really suck.
Lobsang
Actually this is an excellent point…from who’s perspective are we to judge? From our own, from Europes, from ‘the worlds’? Certainly from a European perspective, America is conservative. Probably from ‘the worlds’ too, though I guess from a totalitarian countries perspective we are liberal enough.
Is it true that ‘socialist’ is a political slur in the US?
Well, depending on who you ask, being called a socialist is about as bad as being called a Red. Anyone calls ME a socialist and we will have to step outside …
I don’t follow the Greens too much, but do even they ever call themselves Socialist in the US? I seem to remember Camejo, in the CA recall election, emphasizing that he was a strong believer in the free market.
Too funny. I always forget who our heridatary ruler is…whats his name again? I can see the vast similarities between the US and Saudi…its certainly obvious. Whats the similarities between the US and South Africa during their Apartheid regime??
You’re right! In the US monarchy, women are not allowed to drive or travel without their husdand’s consent. All Blacks live in Bantustans somewhere outside Tulsa and no white person is allowed to have a Black boss. Alcohol is forbiden, and Christianity is the only religion allowed (preferably the fundamental, homophobic kind).
But you’ll have to search both websites carefully to find any mention of the “s-word”; I’ve never seen it used. Nor is it used on the site of the Labor Party (http://www.thelaborparty.org/). It is pretty much avoided except by political groups who are self-identified socialists to begin with. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the only independent (non-Dem, non-Rep) in Congress, is often described as “the only socialist in Congress” but I’ve never heard that he applies the word to himself. Check out his political party, the Progressive Party of Vermont (http://www.progressiveparty.org/) and decide for yourself.
As for the OP: In his new book, Dude, Where’s My Country? (Warner Books, 2003), Michael Moore devotes all of Chapter 9, “A Liberal Paradise,” to proving that the American people are actually a lot more sympathetic to the left than the right. I haven’t checked his cites, but he has a lot of them, in the chapter text and in his “Notes and Sources” section at the back. Specific allegations:
“Fifty-seven percent of the American public believes that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.”
“A whopping 86 percent of the American public say they ‘agree with the goals of the Civil Rights movement.’ Four out of five Americans say ‘it is important for colleges to have racially diverse student bodies.’”
“Eighty-three percent of Americans say they are in agreement with the goals of the environmental movement.”
“Ninety-four percent of Americans want federal safety regulations enacted on the manufacture and use of all handguns – and 86 percent want this even if it makes guns more expensive!”
“Eight in ten Americans believe that health insurance should be provided to everyone equally in this country.”
“Sixty-two percent of the people you share this country with support changing current laws so that fewer nonviolent offenders are sent to prison.”
“Eighty-five percent of Americans support equal opportunity in the workplace for gays and lesbians.”
“According to a 2002 Gallup Poll, 58 percent thought labor unions were a good idea.”
Not so, Lobsang. Blair is not and probably never has been a socialist. He avoids the S word at all costs.
This is misleading. ‘Socialist’ is political death in Europe, too. Nominally left-of-centre, social democrat parties get elected, but actual socialists? Forget it.
Good point, and that’s an interesting indicator. While it’s not uncommon for citizens to call themselves “liberal”, you rarely hear politicians describe themselves as one. Whereas it’s not at all unheard of that a Republican politician will refer to himself/herself as a conservative. Although I’m not sure if a presidential candidate would do that-- hence the Compasionate Conservatism of Bush II. Did Reagn self identify as a conservative in his campaign speaches? I don’t recall.
Of course Michael Moore makes no more pretense than Rush Limbaugh does of being unbiased. And many conservatives, in right-wing magazines and in this forum, have accused him of misrepresenting some facts in his movie Bowling for Columbine. But, as I said, in this book Moore does provide cites for his poll stats – too many to list here. If you want to call him a liar, you’ll have to check his book out of the library (I won’t even suggest you give him any of your money) and go over them yourself. Chapter 9.
Guinastasia, you are living on Bizarro-Earth if you think “liberal” has become a slur in the U.S.
But I will admit, a lot of left-liberals now much prefer the term “progressive.” I don’t know why, maybe because it just sounds cool and implies a commitment to social progress. And because it provides them (us, I should say) with a label for a political position which isn’t exactly socialism but does stand much farther to the left than ordinary “liberalism,” a word which nowadays sounds rather, well, wimpy.
I have a slight problem with it because the word “progressive” already has a place in American political history and in that place it means something entirely different – the early-20th-century Progressives, a rather puritanical, upper-middle-class-based movement which was committed to the ideas that politics should be void of ideology or class interests; that government should be purely professional and technocratic; and that the logrolling and dealmaking of politics-as-usual is fundamentally corrupt and should be bypassed, wherever possible, by use of the public referendum, initiative, and recall. California has a remarkably “Progressive” constitution in this sense – which is why their governor was subject to recall, and why the new governor is expected to balance the state budget even though he is not allowed to touch the bulk of its financial commitments, which the voters approved in various referenda.
“Progressives” in the old sense survive now only in one wing of the former Reform Party (Pat Buchanan represented the other wing of Reform – conservative nativist-isolationist populists), and in some groups that have emerged from Reform’s breakup, such as Jesse Ventura’s Independence Party. But they don’t call themselves “Progressives,” so I guess us there’s nothing really wrong with we left-liberals appropriating the word.
Whats the similarities between the US and South Africa during their Apartheid regime??