Ok. To make this work, I need your participation. I want you to reply with where each of these groups and individuals are on this continuum. Just like this:
A = 2, B = 4, C=4, D = 4, E = 9, F = 4, G = 7
If you can help define Modern Liberal and Modern Conservative with regard to property rights, wealth transfer, safety nets, human basic needs, etc, you earn extra bonus points.
I frustrated Bill over at
MPP by apparently defining Liberal incorrectly, so I want your help in better understanding where the modern Liberal lands on this continuum from your perspective.
Thanks for your help in this very important research project !!!
55 comments:
Oh come now, G2A allows anonymous comments. We will never know who you are. Only my views are always open to all.
Okay, I'll play, but I reserve the right to make my own definitions. First of all, a true communist is a small-c communist, like the early Christians, where everybody shares in the work and in the rewards. It only works in small enough groups where, if you slack off, you are shunned or "excommunicated." A government cannot be a commune, so the farthest left you can get in reality is a socialist, which I label a "1". So, my rankings are: A=1, B=1,C=1,D=6,E=8,F=1 and G=8.
Modern liberals, like Obama and most prominent Democrats, are essentially socialists. Occasionally one of them will stumble across and speak the truth, but he is quickly ostracized, like Mayor Booker. Progressive is the word modern liberals have chosen for themselves because the word "liberal" has become politically toxic, as well it should. John Kennedy promoted tax cuts, a strong national defense and family values most of the time, and he would have ranked even higher were he not a Democrat.
Modern conservatives are mostly of the "compassionate conservative" stripe who have accepted the notions that government can do some good, that some regulation is necessary, and that the monstrous welfare state may be nearly impossible to roll back. We once had a period of unbridled capitalism in this country but it had its excesses. We long ago, unfortunately, went far beyond the optimum point of delivering the greatest good for the greatest number (which I would say was somewhere around a nine). Finally, Obama and Romney seem to be perfectly suited to the ideological base of their party at present.
Notice: J. Ewing
Thank you. I have updated the graphic with our votes. Though I did not adjust communism vs socialism text per you comment. Good point though. Large scale communism would be tough.
It's moving, though I had to draft 2 friends from the office. One more Conservative and One more Liberal.
The L1 label type means Liberal responder #1's responses. Etc.
So if you reply Anon. Just indicate if you consider yourself a Liberal, Moderate or Conservative.
So when will you publish the right answers? :-)
J.
I am M1, so the correct answers are there already... (hahahaha)
I wish Hiram, Laurie or some other Progressives would weigh in or I'll need to survey some of my non-blog Liberal leaning friends.
Based on the initial results and discussions, I am assuming the Liberals see themselves as far more Capitalistic than Conservatives see them. Maybe the scale will need some further refinement.
For instance right now it looks like C1(J) & C2 think that modern France (ie Socialist) is almost equivalent to old time Communist China. And that Progressives /Liberals want our country to go there.
Thoughts?
I added all the data I have so far + indicated the avg for each.
Well I can see why the Conservatives are against the Liberals, they think the Liberals want to turn us into France or worse... And they think Obama is even more Socialistic than the typical Liberal.
More votes wanted !!!
Part of your problem is that liberals see anybody to the right of, say, David Letterman as an extreme right-winger, while they themselves are all moderates, middle of the road, highly intelligent, flexible people that can see all sides of the question and the gray between.
Conservatives see anybody left of Mitt Romney (and we're not so sure about him) as being just a liberal of some stripe, most of whom are just plain socialists.
Perhaps I can suggest a test for the left/right divide. Ask the person how much of the nation's GDP government should spend. If you have to explain GDP you have a liberal for sure. If they refuse to give you a figure, you have a liberal, but a little smarter one. If they give you a real number, like 18% or 20%, you have a real, thinking conservative. If they say 2% you've got a wild-eyed libertarian.
J. Ewing
Excellent comment. Kind of like when Hiram showed no concern about Gov't costs hitting 24% of GDP and on its way up. I'll check out some Socialist countries to see where they land, then maybe add it to the scale.
I still think C1 & C2 are scoring the American Liberals too close to Mao, but that is why it is a survey... We all have our views.
Speaking for myself, I scored based on what these American liberals WANT, or what their wants result in, rather than what they say. They always talk about how "we" are going to give medical care to everyone, but they never talk about the huge expansion of government taxing, spending and intrusiveness that naturally result. Liberals see the world as they WANT it to be, rather than how it really works. Conservatives are at a disadvantage in having to propose something realistic rather than unicorns-and-rainbows promises.
J.
Technically, you scored it based on what you perceive they want. That's why I am hoping some more of them will score these terms based on their perception of reality.
I labelled one of my best friends as L1, though he may almost make it into the Moderate category. He feels that the modern Socialist countries still rely mostly on competition and private companies for many things, therefore he placed "A" at a 5. Whereas he notes that in Mao China most industries were owned and managed by the State.
He put the Liberals to the right of that yet because we hear little or no desire from these folks to have gov't seize companies and industries like in Venezuela.
As for my research, ignoring the third world and small countries, it looks like the "Socialist type" countries start at ~45%. And most aren't playing the role of Global Police Officer to the extent we do. And many have no where near the diversity and multi-cultural issues that the USA does.
Audacious Epigone Govts vs GDP
Wiki Govts vs GDP
communism
socialism
capitalism
Based on the above definitions of the terms, I give the following ratings: A-5, BCDEFGG-10
To go more with the spirit of your topic, I will give a second set of ratings which are similar to L1's: A-5, BCDF-8, EG-9
Excellent and Thank You. I'll update the chart.
Communism: "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production " "a theory advocating elimination of private property" "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed"
Socialism: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property" "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"
Capitalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
Thanks for the Friday-night laugh. What conservative think liberals think is amusing: "Occasionally one will stumble across and speak the truth," posited as the antithesis of communism. And "Liberals see the world as they WANT it to be, rather than how it really works. Conservatives are at a disadvantage in having to propose something realistic rather than unicorns-and-rainbows promises," is hilarious. Did no one watch the Republican convention? It's no wonder you are in search of liberals to participate. Being one myself, why would I want to participate in an exercise with such disingenuous people?
Anon, Thanks for stopping. Hope to hear from you again when you want to participate. Have a great weekend!!!
Everyone else, I updated the graphic with L2 (Laurie's 2nd vote) and the Gov't Spend as % of GDP info.
Thoughts?
A gift from L1... Very interesting.
Youtube Cap, Soc, Com
I think your "government spending as percent of GDP" markers are seriously off. You have them fairly equally distributed and I'm not sure you can do that. On the right side, the pure capitalist, or today's libertarian, does indeed want government greatly reduced, but conservatives all up and down the line have agreed that the postwar average of 18 to 20% is acceptable (and that the current 24% is not). Obviously there is less resistance to the 24% as you move into the "moderate" range but polls show that something like 60+ percent of people think government is too big right now (even if they don't know what GDP is). On the left side I think that communism by definition has to have 100%. Where I have trouble is seeing that the Western social democracies start at about 45% and go up from there. There are no "socialist countries" calling themselves that and even those we sort of suspect seem to blend in – spending wise – with our allies in Western Europe. Suggestion: consider the Index of Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
J. Ewing
Hey, anonymous: excuse me for responding in kind to name-calling, but "disingenuous"? Really? I don't think that word means what you think it does. And I don't think "thinking" really applies to leftists, anyway, does it? :-)
J. Ewing
J,
Play nice. Anon seems to be unaware that everone's truth is different based on their perspective, experiences, maturity, etc. Maybe Anon will figure this out if they stick with our little diverse cross thinking group.
J, What percentages would you apply to which numbers? I think they look pretty good. I would say that 50% fit pretty well with our soft socialist countries like France. 70 plus % would be a hard Socialist/Communist state like old China. And 20% is lined up with Conservative . How would change your scoring if this is the scale?
Anon,
If you do choose to comment again, please try to avoid labels. We often disagree and our "truths" are very different, but they are the truth from our perspective. Sounds crazy if you don't understand paradigms, but we are all very genuinely seeing the same facts totally differently. That's why I focus on self awareness and ask lots of questions, instead of telling people how to vote.
Based on your updated graphic I would like to change my rating for Socialist to A=0 (btw L1 and I seem to have been most accurate in our ratings based on your revised scale)
Also, France is not listed among socialist countries, current or former. I believe social democracy is a more accurate term and Sweeden may have the largest safety net/most wealth transfer.
Lastly, I don't know what anonymous found amusing, but I think rating Obama as one step away from communism is a funny example of radical/delusional conservative pt of view.
Lastly, (for real) I also invite anonymous readers to keep commenting, preferably with a name. Sometimes the topics here generat an interesting dialogue.
I'll update when I get back to my computer.
I think we need to identify "A" differently. I am ok with Social Democracy or Soft Socialism. I intended it to equate to Sweden, Norway, etc. The high wealth transfer / work rule oriented countries.
By your pure definition, I sense you see Socialism as equal to Communism. So their is no point scoring it twice.
Where would you put "A" given the definiton clarification? Preference on name?
After some looking, I am going with Democratic Socialism. Wiki Demo Soc
Laurie,
Just as the C1 & C2's seem too low for B,C,F. It seems your scores are too high for B,C,F. My rationale is that we are already at 24% in the USA and the Progressives seem to keep wanting more. (ie healthcare, education, etc)
Isn't the modern Liberal wanting a system like Northern Europes? (ie Democratic Socialism) Thoughts?
All, Please send in new scores if the term adjustment changes anything for you.
John,
Obama wants to reduce the deficit by cutting spending, making my rating accurate (not at all comparable to scoring him an almost communist.)
I will revise my ratings of BCD to a seven. When Kennedy was pres I believe the top tax rate was 90%. Obama's call for a return to 39% marginal rate is very moderate.
Also, my putting socialism at the opposite end of the spectrum from capitalism is also accurate. I believe communism best applies to a theory or a party and has never existed in state form. My list of socialist countries includes China, USSR, Cuba and many others. I find your determination to apply the name socialist to Western European countries amusing.
The term mixed economy applies to America, Europe and most other countries which are found between (freemarket-Laissez-faire) capitalism and various forms of socialism. Market economies can be either social (Germany) or socialist (China)
Okay, with that redefinition I will change A, B and C to 2, since that lines up with the 60% GDP ratio. I am leaving F at a 1 since I am convinced he would prefer a command and control economy. Just look at the number of executive orders he has issued, sometimes bypassing the Congress.
It isn't really fair, in some sense, to lump modern liberals and Democrats in with the Democratic Socialists or even Socialists, because I don't believe they consider themselves such. They would be appalled to hear the standard conservative pundit say of them that "they believe the only reason socialism fails every time it's tried is because THEY haven't been in charge of it." I think they believe that wealth can be redistributed without, somehow, taking it away from anybody. Free health care for everybody! I merely point where their intentions lead.
J. Ewing
Obama is not a socialist
Funny link, apparently the jury is out and we are trying define something that is very fuzzy.
I changed A to "Social Democracy", placed L2's "A" at 0 and fixed C1's vote.
As for Obama cutting spending. (hahahaha) How exactly will he do that while providing Gov't funded healthcare, education, more welfare, not leaving anyone behind, etc.
Unless he wants to cut the Military in a big way. Ironically the military being one of the few things that the Feds are supposed to be in charge of.
The reality is that if Progressive's want the USA to be more like N Europe countries, then some will need to get out the checkbook. (ie they are ~50% gov't to GDP) That definitely will not be a budget reduction.
Laurie is right that almost all modern economies are "mixed economies" and what we are trying to do is to determine what to call the various "mixtures." We assume socialists favor a mixture higher in government and capitalists more private economics, but what the mixture is and where the other names fit in a spectrum is what we are trying to determine. The other element here is how the philosophy of the various nations/parties see the proper mix, and I'm not convinced that all of them see themselves as others see them. I don't know how you put that on a chart.
J. Ewing
What I meant is that calling a nation a social democracy is not determinative of the percent GDP spent by government. And Social Democrats, for example, not only debate about what the percentage ought to be in their country, but about whether any given percentage makes them a social democracy or something else. Calling Obama a socialist, as disturbing as that may be to some here, does not mean that the US is a socialist nation. That might take Obama another term. :-/
I would rate a European social democracy as a 4 and I still think you have misnamed the left end of your spectrum. Has a country with no private property and totally equal income ever existed? Wouldn't that rate 100% on your purple scale?
About Obama, as a senator his voting record was among the least liberal of the democrats in the senate. His policiy positions as president reflect the circumstances of the great recession over which he has presided. And also wanting move closer to the long time progressive goal of universal healthcare, which presidents including centrist Clinton have pursued. Progressives, such as myself, tend to see him as to the right within the (social) liberal spectrum.
This is an exercise in trying to develop standard jargon within our group. Hoping that it somewhat represents how "typical" folks define terms.
Apparently this Liberal writer likes the term European Social Democracy and Laurie came up with it, so I am happy to stick with it. Krugman on ESD vs America
I am just curious if today's Liberals/Progressive's truly want to emulate Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Denmark, etc. Meaning move 50% of our GDP into the Government's coffers. (ie large gov't mandated wealth redistribution) My scores put them at wanting it in the upper 30's. Is that correct. I don't know.
And just like the Conservatives, their ranks are pretty diverse. I am just curious where we as a group think the sweet spot is. We seem pretty consistent on what a Conservative wants. (ie 20% or less and minimal gov't mgmt)
I do wonder how far Left Obama would take us if the Republican Senate filibusters and later the Republican majority weren't in the way????
By the way, here is the plan of the non-Socialistic "Democratic Socialists of America". You had to watch the video to get the joke. DSA Plan
How is this different than the DFL, Liberal, Progressive plan? I am not sure?
Hi Laurie,
I missed your comment last night and have now updated the graphic.
I am not sure why the Conservatives see Obama so far to the Left. I assume it has to do with his desire to implement government managed healthcare, his executive mandates that bypassed standing laws, his seeing government's ownership of GM as a success, his saying we're not leaving anyone behind, etc.
What are your thoughts? Do Liberals want the USA to become as "Social" as the N European countries? If so, what is your rationale for scoring them a 8?
As for the extremes on the scales, would it make more sense to you if I renamed the Left end Socialism then? My view is that neither end has been proven to be sustainable.
What is the purpose of your post and comments? Are you intentionally annoying when you refer to a prominent, nobel prize winning economist as a liberal writer? Thanks for the interesting Krugman link, btw.
About the DSA plan, do your own research in comparing it to the 2012 Democratic National Platform I am sure you will find they have little in common. I don't know which you misunderstand more, socialism or democrats.
About do liberals want to emulate European social democracies (which is closer to 40% btw), I would prefer to live in a country with a similarly high level of social expenditure, but I am an ultra liberal and a realist. I think progressives mostly want to maintain the level of social spending we have, including the new $ going towards healthcare.
The thing that is most different about liberals and conservative is nearly all GOP voters identify as conservative and are represented by politicians who vote for/ support (extreme:) conservative policies. Only 20% of people identify as liberal and democratic politicians are moderate in their votes and policy preferences. I think democratic voters want to maintain current levels of spending while about 10-20% who identify as liberals would like to increase spending slightly. That is why I moved BCD to a 7.
U.S. political ideology
The one big thing Obama wanted to do that didn't get done in his first term is immigration reform. I believe he also wanted to negotiate a long term plan for reducing the defict with tax hikes and spending cuts that would take place when unemployment was lower. This was not possible with the GOP complete refusal to raise taxes.
What is it that you imagine Obama wants to do that is so objectionable?
Because one wins an award does not indicate his bias or lack there of, typically I find Krugman referenced on Liberal websites, therefore I assume his views resonate with Liberal readers. There are plenty of award winning economists that show up mostly on Conservative sites. I kind of assume their views tend to resonate with Conservatives.
I assume you look for differences when you read the DSA and DFL platforms. I on the other hand am looking for similarities. (ie rich pay more, rich less power, education for all, healthcare for all, food for all, housing for all, strong unions, gov't/people to insure this happens, etc) It seems that both don't want people to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions or low motivation, and they want the "successful" to pay more to cover the expense. I assume these are the things that the Conservatives see Obama supporting. (and the GM takeover by "gov't" crossed a key American line)
Thanks for the reminder, I moved your scores to 7 on the graphic.
If Liberals want us to look like N Europe Social wise, how will we do this for so much less than they can?
To clarify line... Govt ownership instead loans.
I forgot. Yes, thanks to the abortion issue the fiscal Liberals and Conservatives end up in strange camps at times. Since, there are really only 2 parties.
Laurie, I think this is a useful exercise because we can, if we succeed, use a shorthand in communicating with one another. If I say that Obama or one of his ideas is "socialist," for example, it helps greatly if you and I understand that word in more or less the same objective terms. How we feel about that label can be vastly different but at least we communicate. You understand I consider it nearly pejorative, and I understand you consider it moderate and desirable.
I also make the same observation, that everybody seems to see the conservatives as pretty much the same, but differ widely on what the more leftward terms mean.
J. Ewing
I am feeling exasperated by your inability to comprehend the term socialism, along with most other comments I make. What I said was "liberals would like to increase spending slightly" not "Liberals want us to look like N Europe Social wise."
I am done with this topic and making comments in general until something else catches my interest. If you want to know what policies liberals support you might look to the Congressional Progressive Caucus (whose members are not socialist!)
Lastly, returning to tax revenue equal to 20% of GDP without cutting defense, medicare or interest payments is not moderate, but you just go ahead and keep reading your nameless, award winning conservative economists, who advocate for policies that led us into the great recession.
I prefer reality-based thinking and am quite capable of separating fact from opinion. Expert, evidence based opinion is not the same as bias.
J,
I guess you shouldn't have called Obama a Socialist that last time... Since yourself and C1 are clearly outliers here. Please explain your rationale for believing that Obama would make govt 55% of our economy?
I could see Liberals, Progressives and Obama increasing Govt into the mid-30's, but beyond that seems a stretch.
All,
I'll change the left label to Socialism/Communism, since it sounds like many see them to be synonymous in practical terms.
Laurie,
Thanks for your participation !!! Have a great week !!!
Hiram,
Where are you ??? Where do you see these folks landing on the continuum?
Laurie,
I did not mean that you personally said that the USA should look like N Europe. However after years of writing, usually the Liberal answer is that "we should be more like" Germany, Finland, Norway, etc. Therefore I assume that is their goal and thus the M1 scores.
As I have said many times, shrinking the military some sounds fine to me. However much of their budget is locked like social security, so there isn't as much there as one may think. Therefore any wave of social justice changes will increase costs, just like they did in Europe.
I am not saying whose system is better. I can see positives in both sides.
FYI, I bumped my M1 BCDF scores up by 1 pt to get them to ~35% of GDP. I'll give American Liberals credit that they are more conservative than Europeans. (I hope...)
One maybe slightly off topic observation is that Barack Obama is a lot better for capitalism than Mitt Romney. Mitt's irresponsible way of doing business was a small part of the large forces that nearly destroyed capitalism in this country. It's Barack Obama who has brought us back from that brink. A return to Mitt's destructive policies could very well mean the end of capitalism in America. When Lenin observed that capitalists would sell the Communists the rope with they will be hung, he had the kind of capitalists represented by Mitt Romney in mind.
--Hiram
Not willing to score the terms?
John, I scored Barack Obama as I have said before, based on his INTENTIONS, not on what he has been able to achieve, and not based upon what he intends the result to be but what the actual result will be. He obviously believes that redistribution is somehow compatible with free market capitalism and of course that is utter nonsense. His naïveté and insular ideology put him in a class by himself.
I may have made another error, however. When you said "Kennedy liberal" I assumed you were referring to John Kennedy, but if you were referring to Ted Kennedy I have a much different opinion.
J.
J,
Since I doubt you are able to read minds or intentions, I assume you are experiencing the "Opponent is Evil" syndrome. This article seems to be aligned with your beliefs, maybe they are using the same mind reading source. Onion Obama
Your vote will stand and yet be somewhat discounted by readers until you come up with some better rationale than "I feel it".
Old folks kept using the Kennedy Liberal term, so I assume JFK.
Hiram,
I must have missed the earth shattering salvation enabling changes that Obama implemented that wouldn't have been implemented under Romney.(ie except healthcare) Seems to me you have a little of what J has...
Really, when you get down to it, I don't think Romney in power would have done things much differently then the president. Going forward, Mitt will try to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy by raising taxes for most of us and by cutting Medicare and Social Security. Doesn't make sense to me, but then I am not supporting him.
--Hiram
Ah, I see the problem. You presume I have no evidence for what Obama's intentions are, but I have all the evidence I need. He has increased federal spending from 20 to 24% of GDP in just one term. He has taken over, or will eventually through Obama care, the healthcare sector, which is another 14% of the economy. He has taken over a portion of the auto industry, something like 3% of GDP. His EPA has effectively assumed control of the energy sector of the economy, and the bailouts and added "oversight" look like a takeover of the financial sector. Total regulatory burden of the federal government is now estimated at well north of $1.5 trillion, or 10% of GDP. Let's see… Carry the two…. I come up with about 51% right now.
J. Ewing
Hiram & J,
Thanks for your very interesting perspectives.
J. Ewing, you can do all the calculations you want, but the garbage in, garbage out rule applies to your results. It's simply a lie to say that Obama has or is going to take over the country's health care. Aside from the VA system, what hospital or health facility does the federal government own that it didn't own prior to this year, when Obamacare was passed? None. What insurance health insurance company has the government taken over? None. What army of health care providers now report to the federal government and didn't 12 months ago? None. So what health care system are you talking about?
Yes, the auto industry represents 3% of GDP, but owning stock in GM and Chrysler hardly can be considered owning the auto industry. Moreover, how many small business owners have outstanding small business loans?
The EPA effectively has control over the energy and financial industries? Get serious. Because it regulates them? The federal government regulates every industry, so does that mean it owns the nation's businesses? Are you suggesting that the energy and financial industries would not be regulated by Romney? And is that something you'd prefer? Do you not remember the recession and what caused it? Do you not remember the BP oil spill? Have you not seen what fracking does to the lands where it is used?
Regulating an industry is not the same as owning it, nor does it necessarily come cheap. Think about how complex even the most simple devices have become. For example, we have more computer power in our cell phones than the entire Apollo 13 mission control and astronaut crews had available to them. I've been amused by those who complained about the number of pages in the Affordable Care Act. Like our health care system is simple. You want simple, try single-payer, universal health care. Not only is it simple, but it's less costly and more effective, but that's another discussion.
In short, your so-called evidence is flawed, selective, and hyperbolic. Therefore your conclusions are no different than simple opinion.
Anon,
By the way, J is used to comments like yours... And he may never see them on a post this old. It seems that folks far from the middle on both sides find it hard using data and seem to like relying on opinion.
Though I don't see Obama as being as bad as my more Conservative commenters do, I personally like to call Obama's steps directionally incorrect. Definitely pulling us toward the dark side. (ie more national gov't, ineffective expenditures and less local control)
Where would you score the terms and people on the list? I'll probably post the continuum again soon to see if I can get some more votes and thoughts...
There is actually a considerable body of scholarly work on this topic that is more scientific, imho, that a blog post.
I was just looking to get a common jargon defined amongst my readers.
Please post a link if you have something better.
Post a Comment