Imagine where Bush would end up in this spectrum then…
How passionate is Gore on any of those issues? Not very, I’d say. Those are the positions you pretty much have to take to be elected to any major national office in America. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that those are the issues he’d base his party choice on were he to move to another country, nor that those are the things he’d campaign on in a country where he didn’t have to.
I also don’t think that the Torys’ meanspiritedness and xenophobia would hold a great amount of appeal for him.
Exactly!
The magnitude of the shifting operation regarding the burden of proof here would surely require a fleet of bulldozers. If he really advocates the abolition of the death penalty and the funding of a true welfare state he should have damned well said so, and indeed should not have stood for President if he could not do so in good conscience.
For heaven’s sake, I never said he advocates those things. I just don’t think that if he were to move to, say, Britain, he would specifically go looking for a party that was pro-death penalty and anti-welfare state. I think he’d go looking for a party that believes in providing some benefits to the less fortunate, that doesn’t publicly accuse the people receiving those benefits of being spongers, that sees a positive role for central government, that doesn’t think its main priority should be lower taxes, that has some degree of concern for equality, that realises there’s only so much abuse the environment can take. I don’t think he’d feel at home in the Conservative Party at all, and not because they’re too far left for him.
Well, ruadh, in determining where he stands in First World democratic politics, all we can do is look at what he has said in the past rather than speculate on what he might say if he were being completely honest.
In any case, Gore was merely an arbitrary choice. I’m sure you’d agree that your posts have confirmed that America is a massively right-leaning political entity, and could never be described as “liberal” when compared to the rest of the industrialised democratic world by even the wildest stretch of the imagination.
C. Dogged by a short attention span. Bored by soccer. Yet, not too cynical yet as to drive stakes into our own eyes.
A lot of the posters here have set up a false dichotomy, creating an Evil Corps of people on the far left and an Evil Corps of people on the far right, and saying theyre in the middle and so very, very reasonable and sane.
I think you have to judge policies on whether or not they make sense to you, not on how they stand in relation to other people’s preferred policies. The conservatives have made many attempts at demonizing the left by calling their policies “shrill” “loony” and “wacky” without bothering to argue rationally against them. Whenever you see a poster using these terms – and you can check back on this very thread and see quite a few – you should take their comments with more than a few grains of salt. It’s just a cheap rhetorical trick.
I’m not speculating on what he might say. Everything that I listed as a probable criterion of a party he’d join is based upon things that he has said, or done, in the past.
shrug I never said otherwise, I just don’t think it means Gore (or any other moderate Democrat) is to the right of the most right-wing Tory in terms of their overall political philosophy.
From page one:
HEAR HEAR!! I know plenty of people who have recently switched from Dem to Rep and when I press them on it (I’m still a moderate Dem) what they end up trying to say is just what GoHeels has summed up so well here. It’s the idea that if you’re uncomfortable with the unborn having no rights, the size of the government, the scope of welfare, the use of public land, then you must be lectured back to the side of sanity by The More Enlightened. Americans usually don’t respond well to that, even when the lecturer is absolutely right.
That the Republican Party have managed to convince the electorate that the left are the elitist snobs, when the tax cuts so blatantly benefitted the ultra-rich and the upper echelons of the party are so crammed with millionaires, is simply staggering.
Nothing can be so absurd as seeing a bunch of plutocrats eating $1500 hot dogs, can it?
Tenebras:
**Voted for Bush the first the first time
Voted for Clinton the first time
Voted for Bush the second **
This means you are that all important political species! The group who decides every election. The so called “soccer moms” and open minded folks who control the American presidency. The Swing Voters. 
Pro abortion rights
I agree.
Pro NRA
I agree.
Pro legalization of marijuana
I agree.
Pro decriminalization of drugs in general
I agree.
Anti censorship of any kind
I agree.
Anti NEA
I agree.
Pro diversity in college admissions
If you mean pro-affirmative action, I disagree. Affirmative action is treating a group of people differently based on race. That is racism. I am against racism.
Atheist (raised as a Catholic)
I am an atheist also. Raised protestant.
Pro universal health care as long as it doesn’t bankrupt the country
I am against universal health care because I do think it will bankrupt the country. 
Anti mandatory sentencing (why have judges?)
I agree.
It seems we are very similar.
I am a conservative. I vote for libertarian and republicans mostly. I would be open to other candidates if I agreed with them on my key issues.
I would however, never vote democrat.
Looking at your issues, many of them would put us in the democrat side of things. However, they aren’t (to me anyways) the important issues.
Abortion isn’t going to be outlawed in this country ever, IMHO. The republicans pay some lip service to the religious right on this but don’t ever intend to try to make a real move here because it would be political suicide and they know it. Even if Roe was overturned, it would be up to the states and most if not all of the states would allow it. (It shouldn’t be a constitutional issue anyway, IMO).
Legalization of Pot and decriminalization of other drugs would seem to be an issue where dems have the advantage. But, both parties want drugs illegal. It’s not as if the democratic party is openly calling for legalization.
Same thing with religion. Both parties are too religious, IMO. Neither party goes against religion, both parties pander to religious groups and leaders. The conservatives tend to be more relgious, but again it’s mostly lip service to the religous right that is the bare minimum required to keep them happy.
Censorship. Wasn’t it Gore’s wife who was leading the charge on that issue? Both parties have been about the same on censorship. Neither party is anti-free speech.
One thing that many people are against is the NRA. This is a very important issue, because it is very much at risk. Given the chance the liberals would take away the right to own firearms. Unlike the other things you mention, this right is actually at a real risk.
The fact that you are anti-NEA (wasteful gov’t), and mention health care bankrupting the country makes me think you are a fiscal conservative. This is my most important issue. The conservatives are the ones interested in smaller government. The liberals look to government as the solution to every problem, which causes the government to grow. This ultimately does more harm than good.
This is a real important issue. Every democrat elected we see he government grow. Every republican elected we see tax cuts. (If Bush were acting more like a conservative, he would be cutting spending as well.)
So, depending on what issues are important to you, and how much you think those issues are actually at risk, you decide how to vote. You seem to agree with me on most issues and I would never vote for a democrat.
Actually, we don’t need to do all this guesswork. It is possible to tell, with figures, exactly how “liberal” and exactly how “conservative” the American people are. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has developed a typology (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=98), based on responses to survey questions on particular policy issues, which divides the American body politic into the following ten groups (they revise and refine the model every election cycle or two, but the model retains its basic outlines):
STAUNCH CONSERVATIVES: 10% of adult population, 12% of registered voters. 72% Republican; 24% independent, lean Republican. Pro-business, pro-military, pro-life, anti-gay and anti-social welfare with a strong faith in America. Anti-environmental. Self-defined patriot. Distrustful of government. Little concern for the poor. Unsupportive of the women’s movement. Predominately white (95%), male (65%) and older. Married (70%). Extremely satisfied financially (47% make at least $50,000). Almost two-thirds (63%) are white Protestant.
MODERATE REPUBLICANS: 11% of general population, 12% of registered voters. 76% Republican; 22% independent, lean Republican. Pro-business, pro-military, but also pro-government. Strong environmentalists. Highly religious. Self-defined patriots. Little compassion for poor. More satisfied than Staunch Conservatives with state of the union. White, relatively well educated and very satisfied financially. Largest percent of Catholics across all groups.
POPULIST REPUBLICANS: 9% of general population, 10% of registered voters. 72% Republican, 25% independent, lean Republican. Religious, xenophobic and pro-life. Negative attitudes toward gays and elected officials. Sympathetic toward the poor. Most think corporations have too much power and money. Tend to favor environmental protection. Almost two-thirds are dissatisfied with the state of the nation. Heavily female (60%) and less educated. Fully 42% are white evangelical Protestants.
NEW PROSPERITY INDEPENDENTS: 10% of general population, 11% of registered voters. 69% independent, 21% Republican, 5% Democrat. Pro-business, pro-environment and many are pro-choice. Sympathetic toward immigrants, but not as understanding toward black Americans and the poor. Somewhat critical of government. Tolerant on social issues. Well educated (38% have a college degree), affluent (almost one-fourth earn at least $75,000) and young (70% less than age 50). Slightly more men than women (55% to 45%, respectively). Less religious (only 13% go to church weekly).
DISAFFECTEDS: 9% of general population, 10% of registered voters. 73% independent, 8% Democrat, 6% Republican. Distrustful of government, politicians, and business corporations. Favor third major political party. Also, anti-immigrant and intolerant of homosexuality. Very unsatisfied financially. Less educated (only 8% have a college degree) and lower-income (73% make less than $50,000). More than one-quarter (28%) describe themselves as poor. Half are between the ages of 30-49. Second only to Partisan Poor in number of single moms. One-fifth (20%) work in manufacturing.
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS: 9% of general population, 10% of registered voters. 56% Democrat; 41% independent, lean Democrat. Pro-choice and support civil rights, gay rights, and the environment. Critical of big business. Very low expression of religious faith. Most sympathetic of any group to the poor, African-Americans and immigrants. Highly supportive of the women’s movement. Most highly educated group (50% have a college degree). Least religious of all typology groups. One-third never married.
SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS: 13% of general population, 14% of registered voters. 70% Democrat; 27% independent, lean Democrat. Pro-U.S., yet disenchanted with the government. Intolerant on social issues. Positive attitude toward military. Think big business has too much power and money. Highly religious. Not affluent but satisfied financially. Slightly less educated, older group (27% are women over age 50). Labor union supporters. Higher than average number (62%) are married.
NEW DEMOCRATS: 9% of general population, 10% of registered voters. 75% Democrat; 21% independent, lean Democrat. Favorable view of government. Pro-business, yet think government regulation is necessary. Concerned about environmental issues and think government should take strong measures in this area. Accepting of gays. Somewhat less sympathetic toward the poor, black Americans and immigrants than Liberal Democrats. Many are reasonably well educated and fall into the middle-income bracket. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) are women and 21% are black. Numerous are self-described union supporters.
PARTISAN POOR: 9% of general population, 11% of registered voters. 85% Democrat; 12% independent, lean Democrat. Xenophobic and anti-big business. Disenchanted with government. Think the government should do even more to help the poor. Very religious. Support civil rights and the women’s movement. Have very low incomes (40% make under $20,000), and two-thirds (66%) are female. Nearly four-in-ten are African-American and 14% are Hispanic. Not very well educated. Pro-labor union. Largest group of single mothers.
BYSTANDERS: 11% of general population, 0% of registered voters. 54% independent, 25% Democrat, 10% Republican. These Americans choose not to participate in politics, or are not eligible to do so (noncitizens). Somewhat sympathetic toward poor. Uninterested in what goes on in politics. Rarely vote. Young (49% under 30), less educated and not very religious. Work in manufacturing, construction and restaurant/retail industries.
We can see that three of these groupings, making up a total of 29% of the population, are on the “conservative” side of the divide and usually vote Republican. Four groupings, making up 40%, are on the “liberal” side and usually vote Democrat. Of the remainder, 11% are “Bystanders” who do not or cannot vote at all, and 19% are somewhere in the middle. But even the “liberal” side in this analysis includes some who are very conservative by European standards. It very would be very informative to view this typology side-by-side with a similar analysis, done with the exact same methods, of Britain or France or Germany. My guess is, in a British, etc., political typology there would be at least one sizable grouping that could be labeled “Socialists” or some equivalent term. Here, the closest things we have to that are the “Liberal Democrats” and “Partisan Poor,” and only a small minority of each grouping would support outright socialist politics.
But, in short, that’s how America is: Less than one-third “conservative”; a bit more than one-third “liberal”; but the political center-of-gravity is clearly further to the right than it is in any country in Europe.
From Evil Captor
You’re right!! Its all a conservative plot. In fact, you found me out…I’m actually an operative from the Republican/conservative party, sent here to subvert you on this board. Damn you are good Evil. As I’m sure you know, its a fairly large, but we thought secret, movement to discredit ‘liberals’ and democrats, since they make such good targets. After all, they never fight back, just meekly taking the slings and arrows we throw at them.
Or, as an alternative thesis…maybe you are just out of touch. Maybe the vast majority of people in this country really ARE closer to the middle (by our own measurements, not those of Europe or anywhere else), swaying this way or that depending on individual issues that they belive in or don’t believe in. Maybe, just maybe, the people making the most noise on both the far left and far right really DON’T represent the majority thinking in this country.
Or maybe you are right, and its a vast conspiricy by the conservatives.
I’ll take Tenebras ‘test’ too.
Voted for Perot (ok, so sue me)
Voted for Clinton (cringes…ok, there was no decent independant OR Republican running against him IMO)
Voted none of the above (went to the polls, stood in line, and then didn’t vote for either Bush OR Gore…again, no decent independant ran)
This time? If Lieberman wins the nomination I’ll vote for him. If Dean wins, I’ll vote ‘none of the above’ again, unless the Independants run someone decent. If any of the rest of the democrats win, I’ll have to make a decision based on my impression of them at the time. I won’t be voting for Bush reguardless.
Pro abortion rights
I assume this means ‘pro choice’? If so, definitely…I’m definitely pro-choice
Pro NRA
No idea what this means. Is this a political position? Well, I own a gun, but am not a member of the NRA. Is the question whether or not I think gun ownership should be legal?? If so, yes…I see it as a right of our citizens to own a gun.
Pro legalization of marijuana
Definitely. Its stupid that its NOT legal when alchohol and cigarrets are. I’m also pro legilization of prostitution. As adults and citizens I think we should be allowed to make our own choices…and pay the consequences for our actions. blah blah blah.
Pro decriminalization of drugs in general
Agreed. See above.
Anti censorship of any kind
Big definitely here. This is one I’m pretty rabid about.
Anti NEA
I’m not sure what this is.
Pro diversity in college admissions
Definitely
Atheist (raised as a Catholic)
I’m more an agnostic, raised as a Catholic. Religion runs pretty deep in hispanics, but I’ve really become disillusioned by the whole thing. It pains my family somewhat, but they respect my decision and I don’t throw it in their face.
Pro universal health care as long as it doesn’t bankrupt the country
I’m pretty much against this. I think there should be health care REFORM, but from what I’ve read on the various positions, I think Universal Health Care is not right for America.
I’m against mandatory sentences. Many things are shades of grey, and thats why we have judges.
I consider myself a moderate independant. I’m fiscally conservative, moderate on foreign policy, liberal on my social issues (just not universal health care :)), moderate on environmental issues. I’m pro a competant military, thinking it a necessary evil (evil in the sense of the expense, not evil because I believe the military is ‘evil’). For the most part, I try and see the balance between the left and right. I listen exclusively to neither side, but judge those issues that interest me by reading as may sides as I can find…and then make the call for myself.
-XT
I don’t but it, BrainGlutton. Which category do I fit in as a pro-choice, athiest conservative?
Your classification scheme mentions how a group votes and how much money they make. Is this a description of the people in that group? Or, is it a requirement for people to get into that group?
I also certainly disagree with your conclusion that there are more liberals than conservatives in America.
According to a Gallup poll on October 8th: (this has expired, so now subscription is required.)
Twice as many Americans identify as conservative as do liberal.
Ah, but all of Europe does not have to worry about troops getting killed, or its business or cultural landmarks being taken down – yet. I know, “imperialist.” Self-administered ten lashes Nor, do many Europeans understand the actual social welfare system as it exists in the United States.
Me: radical “left” stance – freedom of speech (even for Nazis, the ACLU position); I support freedom for revolutionary Communists to speak also. Once you start trouble, “release the hounds.”
If you want “revolutionary change,” freaking vote.
Bizarro moderate postition – abortion. Like most US citizens I support choice, until I don’t at some unspecified future date depending on the circumstances. I let the radicals sort that one out.
Radical “right” position – prosecuting the war on terror and trying to improve the generally crappy situation in ME democracy. Yeah, I know, radical idealist nutjob.
What frustrates me is that is seems like both of the parties have exactly one half of the golden key that will make me vote for them, and the rest of their platform is pure lies and evil.
I really want a strong party that is as perfectly libertarian as possible (the actual Libertarian party is just not up to the task). And to me, the Republican party just seems to be closer to that than the Democrats.
Democrats seem to be pushing their economic stands (which I loathe) harder than their social ones (which I like) and there are several Democrats (cough Lieberman ahem) that just don’t appear to be anything but outright totalitarian, most noticeably by trying to save our children from them evil movies and vid-jer games.
I really, really hate what Bush has done with the Patriot Act and other anti-privacy policies. The thing is, it doesn’t look like any Democrats have the guts to stand against it. So, it looks like I’ll just vote third party next year and wait for another paradigm shift in one of the parties.
As to whether that puts me on the right, the left, or in the middle, I have no idea. I do know that I really don’t like being called a moderate. I am a wild-eyed radical, godammit! I’m just willing to compromise and play each side off of each other to achieve my goals.
Posted by Debaser:
Without knowing more about you, I would guess that a “pro-choice, atheist conservative” would fall into the “New Prosperity Independents” category. But if you want to know where the categories came from, it was based on a phone survey of nearly 4,000 adults in 1999. The methodology is described here: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=83:
Debaser:
I would like to see a cite showing the number of people who want ban guns compared to the number of people who want to ban abortion. And a comparison of the Constitutional language supporting either one.
SentientMeat::
Wrong, at least as it pertains to me.
The Republican Party hasn’t done the first thing to convince me that the left is patronizing, sanctimonious, elitist snobs. It didn’t have to. The left itself has done a perfectly good job of that. It’s not as if the Republicans have pulled me to their side, it’s that the leftists have pushed me away from theirs.
Quite frankly, SentientMeat, when I read between the lines of your statement that I quoted, I read “The American electorate must be a bunch of dumb sheep to not worship at the altar of leftist beneficence.”
Again, as I said to Lobsang earlier, I hear similar statements over here in the U.S. from the lefties in the press, politicians, intelligentsia, activists, etc. That they not-so-subtly smear the people as “sheep” who need “enlightenment” (thus demonstrating their disdain for the actual people they claim to champion) or blame the sinister Republican Party for somehow performing mind-control operations on the masses (as you imply), illustrates the very haughtiness of the left that I perceive.
And I don’t think I’m alone in my perceptions.
Could it possibly be that swing voters are turned off by the sheer arrogance of the leftists, and furthermore they’re unenthusiastic about the left’s underlying ethos? Just maybe?
SentientMeat::
Wrong, at least as it pertains to me.
The Republican Party hasn’t done the first thing to convince me that the left is patronizing, sanctimonious, elitist snobs. It didn’t have to. The left itself has done a perfectly good job of that. It’s not as if the Republicans have pulled me to their side, it’s that the leftists have pushed me away from theirs.
Quite frankly, SentientMeat, when I read between the lines of your statement that I quoted, I read “The American electorate must be a bunch of dumb sheep to not worship at the altar of leftist beneficence.”
Again, as I said to Lobsang earlier, I hear similar statements over here in the U.S. from the lefties in the press, politicians, intelligentsia, activists, etc. That they not-so-subtly smear the people as “sheep” who need “enlightenment” (thus demonstrating their disdain for the actual people they claim to champion) or blame the sinister Republican Party for somehow performing mind-control operations on the masses (as you imply), illustrates the very haughtiness of the left that I perceive.
And I don’t think I’m alone in my perceptions.
Could it possibly be that swing voters are turned off by the sheer arrogance of the leftists, and furthermore they’re unenthusiastic about the left’s underlying ethos? Just maybe?