I thought this was interesting and left a comment.
MinnPost Gallup Finds MN not as "Liberal" as Its Reputation
I thought it has a lot to do with our continuum and my belief that people don't like the label "Liberal", my guess the results would change if they used "Progressive" instead. Thoughts?
G2A Continuum
G2A Right, Left, Up, Down
Nolan 1
Nolan 2
Nolan 3
Nolan4
Nolan 5
Nolan 6 (sort of)
Nolan 7
Nolan 8
Nolan 9
Nolan 10
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Inner circle Republicans have long said that Minnesotans, and others, vote liberal and live their lives as conservatives.
I thought this part of Beryl's comment at MinnPost was amusing.
""Progressive" is a term that received more credibility after Wellstone applied it... or was applied to him rather than the less definitive term "Liberal" since liberal polices fused with libertarian suggest one is knowledgeable enough to support social and cultural values, ideologies but are not willing to support the funding; the follow through?"
So I am think a lot of MN citizens value many things as long as they don't have to fund it or be impacted by the consequences... Kind of like at school or Church, 90% want a say in things however only 10% get actively involved.
I think that is a reasonably accurate interpretation, but I don't see that as something intrinsic to human nature. I believe we support social programs-- where government takes our tax money and "cares for the poor"-- because we are naturally lazy and don't want to "get our hands dirty" caring for the poor ourselves. Not only that, the liberal politicians keep telling us that THEY have more compassion than we do (easy with Other People's Money) and will take care of everybody better than we could. And we believe them because we want to believe that people-- even politicians-- want everybody to have the basic necessities of life. We say "private charity can't do it." But "IT" does not need doing the way government does it.
The problems arise because it is a) OPM that is being spent, b)it is a government program, inefficient as all get-out, c) OPM is addictive, d) the bureaucracy that runs it does not exist to put itself out of business but to continue and grow, and e) bureaucracies and "entitlements" do not have the human compassion and gratitude necessary for true charity to work.
Some updates from MinnPost
"I prefer individualist, collectivist, and undecided. The other terms are relative to some point on an ambiguous line." Paul
"Or Selfish, Naive and Confused?" G2A
"Those are labels for your perceptions of other people's beliefs." Paul
"Or I could be making light of the topic and you are too serious.
The reason I created the continuum was to see where folks thought each label landed between pure Socialism (collectivist, naïve, etc) and pure Capitalism (individualist, selfish, etc) , since we live in a Mixed Economy like most/all countries in the world.
The interesting result was that the Liberals / Progressives thought government collecting and controlling ~40% of the GDP was where they would be comfortable. The irony of course is that we are near that point if you count Local, State and Federal collections/expenditures, and yet rarely have I heard a Liberal say that government should stop growing because it is big enough. Typically they say gov't should collect and redistribute more in the name of fairness... I have to wonder how far Left many of them want to go. (ie gov't guiding 50+% of our GDP?)
Whereas the Conservatives seemed more consistent. They thought government was too big and that it should only cost/redistribute ~25% of the GDP... Leaving 75% for the individual citizens to use as they see fit." G2A
"The Far Left here is the middle in the civilized world.
The political spectrum has shifted to the point where we really don't have a 'far left' any more. Not since Bill Clinton appropriated the middle for the Democratic Party.
The other point (not a new one) is that during a recession like the current one, GDP goes down (it is recovering, but that's a relative term) and government expenditures on social services go up.
As the GDP continues to recover, government expenditures as a proportion of GDP will decline even if the absolute amount were to remain constant." Paul
"Directionally Correct
The continuum was not supposed to be precise / perfect.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
Even with business cycle variation it is easy to see that in the 1950 government directed/spent ~25% of our GDP. Whereas today government is directing/spending ~38% of our GDP.
The Liberals, Progressives, Collectivists, Naive, etc folks seem happy with this trend, whereas the Conservatives, Individualists, Selfish, etc folks are alarmed and concerned by it. (matches continuum)
The irony is that the fiscal Liberals keep saying that the fiscal Conservatives "have changed", when the numbers clearly show that it is the fiscal Liberals who keep pulling the country to the Left. That is why I am curious when they will think we have gone far enough. My guess is when they start having to pay for their beliefs from their own wallet." G2A
I object to my views being described as naive.
I think Paul objected to his individualistic beliefs being labeled selfish.
Maybe I should object to my centrist views being labelled confused...
For some rationale regarding my choices...
Many times when I listen to liberals comment, the implication is that those conservatives are unwilling to share with the poor. In summary they are being self centered / selfish.
Well "moderates" do tend to waffle one way or another. Which could be easily be construed as confused, instead of open minded.
Many times when I listen to conservatives comment, the implication is that those liberals live in a unrealistic world where people will work hard, be honest, strive to improve, etc if "government" would only fulfill their basic needs. And that people will work just as hard even if the government limits and takes their rewards to pay for the basic needs of others who are not as motivated or lucky. In summary they are being naïve regarding human behavior. (ie too positive)
This discussion is pointing out once again that there are "loaded words" and that truth is heavily dependent on worldview. "naive" or "confused" are not words I believe I have used, or would use. I don't think I have a word for moderates, but I'm thinking that "not paying attention" fits fairly well. And liberals, I truly believe, see the world the way they want it to be, rather than the way it is. In a word, perhaps, "utopians." I'm not trying to be insulting, regardless of the term. I'm trying to use language to accurately describe my view of their policy positions.
Now, of course, I also believe that any criticism of a liberal policy is taken as an insult by the average liberal, because much of their self-worth derives from holding the "politically correct" views. We've heard the folks at SNL say that liberals have no sense of humor; that's two sides of the same coin.
I like "Utopians" also. I was at a loss for words when I came up with that winner... "unrealistic world"
Post a Comment