Over in the Who’s meaner? The left or right? thread in Great Debates F. U. Shakespeare has offered an interesting proposition. S/He believes that more liberals than conservatives would rather be thought of as weak than as mean and that more conservatives than liberals would prefer to be thought of as uncivilized than as cowardly. I think he might be on to something and so I thought I’d start a poll to get some anecdotal evidence. So here it is:
Would you rather be thought of as weak/cowardly, or mean/uncivilized?
Please include your political preference as either leftwing ( liberal, socialist, progressive ) center ( moderate, middle-of-the-road, left-libertarian ) or rightwing ( conservative, fundamentalist, right-libertarian ).
Mean/uncivilized. In this case I’d simply be avoided by those who perceive me as such, and that’s just fine by me. If I were viewed as a weakling, the consequences would not be nearly as benign.
Neither are good things, but I guess I’d rather be percieved as weak than mean on the majority of issues.
But on some things I like to be percieved as mean if it is tough-love or useful to be so. For instance I believe punishment should fit the crime if not slightly excede it (if you can’t handle the time don’t do the crime) as a deterrent.
I’d much rather be considered weak than mean. I was going to say exactly what rjung did - just because people think I’m weak doesn’t make it so. I would hate for people to think of me as mean.
As for political stance - liberal.
I think that F.U. Shakespeare’s theory is interesting, and I’m very inclined to think that it holds true in most cases.
In my personal life, I guess I’d rather be considered “mean” than “weak.”
I’m really torn about how I’d prefer to be thought up in my professional life. Both are the kiss of death at my job. I guess I’d have to say “mean.” Either one would kill my career, but “weak” would probably kill it sooner. If you’re really, really good at what you do, you can get by being “mean” though you probably won’t advance too far. If you’re “weak,” you’ll be let go since you won’t be able to accomplish anything.
I’d rather be thought weak than mean, but if I can be thought of as unpredictably nutso rather than weak or mean, I’ll go with unpredictably nutso. Not dangerous to you unless you try to coerce me.
I’m an anarchist and therefore neither left nor right along traditional lines, but in contemporary American politics that puts me more in alignment with the more leftward leaning parties.
Thanks for starting this thread 2sense, and to everyone for their responses.
As to my answer, I’m on the fence.
Almost no one likes being thought of as mean, or weak.
Politically, I’m a moderate. Registered independent, I vote for Democrats and Republicans with equal frequency. I’m left of center on most social issues, moderate or right of center on economics and foreign policy. (Although when I voted for Bush in 2000, I considered myself more conservative than I do now – either I’ve changed, or the standards have).
I’m still not sure who I’m voting for this year.
My answer (heavily qualified) is that I would rather be thought of as weak than mean.
That said…
I’m starting to realize now that this question really just scratches the surface – a person’s stance in life plays a major role in how they answer this question.
E.g., I have a good job and credentials, money in the bank, and no dependents. But I would be less concerned about being mean (and/or being perceived as such) in career dealings if I had nine kids and worked at Wal-Mart.
To paraphrase Eliza Doolittle from ‘My Fair Lady’, I can afford middle class manners.
I’m also able-bodied and very fit for my age (44) – I have come out on top in all recent bar scuffles. In this context, I don’t really care if you think I’m weak, because I’m pretty sure I could kick your ass.
I should add that I myself think of mean itself as being weak. And I expect some (though not all) other people to have arrived at the same conclusion. If the only way you can obtain the participation of others in your plans is to coerce them, your plans are weak, and any social structure organized around coercion as its primary organizing force is inherently weak and fragile.
Power is not what many people think it is. Power is not a “thing” you can possess; it is a relationship between; it is an interaction. Power is accorded to those who hold it by those over whom it is weilded, and except at the precise moments when the kneee is on the throat it can be rescinded. The most effective and long-lasting forms of power are weilded by whose who inspire the ones they lead to accord them their powers not only voluntarily but enthusiastically. The most typical forms of power are accorded with less enthusiasm and more cynical grumbling but still in a spirit of voluntary cooperation.
What we are trying to compare are the leftwing answers to the rightwing so the preferences of centrists are not as important but I hope that doesn’t discourage anyone in that category from posting. Please do post and let us know if you lean one way or the other. That way we can see if in our sample the preference, if one exists, holds true for the moderate right and left as well as the wings. I am including AHunter3, MaddyStrut, and F. U. Shakespeare in the middle. If you feel I’ve made a mistake please correct me. I haven’t included qts because s/he didn’t indicate any political position.
I would consider myself conservative and in my personal life, I would prefer to be thought of as weak (and usually am). That probably has something to do with my Christian nature and the idea of “turning the other cheek”.
But, if I were a politician, I would defintely prefer to be thought of as mean, since a weak politician can accomplish little to nothing, but a mean one can actually make what I would consider positive accomplishments (i.e. cutting budgets, tougher penalties for criminal acts, etc.) with his/her “meanness”.
Sounds like a transposition of Machiavelli’s question. Niccolo does, however, start his article by stating that the Prince must prefer to be BOTH loved and feared. However he concludes it by stating that whatever the choice, the prince should avoid becoming HATED – which can result BOTH from being (a) overneedy for approval (weak) or (b) gratuituously cruel (mean).
I wouldn’t care either way if it’s a false impression (Moderate Liberal)
I would rather be thought of as mean. I made that choice when I was thirteen or fourteen and realized that I could make bullies leave me alone if I used words to get back at them; sarcasm is a good tool for a bullied kid to develop since few people like being made to look the fool. People who think you’re mean don’t step all over you like they do when they think you’re weak and defenseless.
Conservative checking in. I would join with the posters who say neither is the ideal choice, but if I could only be one or the other, I’d go with mean. Weakness brings on problems, strength deters them.
Conservative/Libertarian here - I would definatly prefere to be though of as mean, rather than weak. In my experience, if people think you are weak, they will walk all over you; if they think you are mean the worst some will do is avoid you.
Thank you for helping me answer a question: What is one single good thing Bush has done?
He has turned an easy going (meek, weak?) liberal Democrat into one of the meanest, most rabid Democrats in Nevada. I went to the Democratic caucus here in Nevada and while they had 600 people show up for the Gore/Bush election 4 years ago, this time they had over 6,000 people show up…also mean and major pissed off.
So yeah…in the past, Dems had a reputation for being meek and laid back…I think those days are long over and the closer we get to November (and the more people see Farhrenheit 9/11) the meaner the Democrats are going to get. The days of Republican dickhead bullies owning the American flag are over.
