How do you identify politically?

[Greg Bernhardt]

The defense of liberal (small L) democracy is not tied to any party. Authoritarian threats exist on both ends. With that said, how do you identify?

 

[gleem]

We must not despair, according to Jon Meacham, Presidential biographer, Distinguished Visiting Professor at Vanderbilt University. I always enjoy his commentary on current events and relationship to history.

Here is an interview with MSNBC commentator Ali Velshi on civic engagement and the fight for democracy.
https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/wa...rting-it-should-be-inspirational-224025669906

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

We must not despair

100%! This community can't just be a despair fest, but productive and working towards recovery.

 

[Klystron]

Excellent question. Before Nov 2024 I would answer "Depends on the topic", casting me as Moderate. Compared to our current shared situation that view might cast me as Ultra-Liberal.

 

[fresh_42]

I consider myself to be liberal. Not in the sense as it is used in the US, and not in the sense of an Adam Smith capitalism, and not in the sense my nephew uses it which is close to anarchy, but in its literal meaning: freedom. This is very short since I believe that personal freedom has its limits if it restricts others. E.g. insults, discrimination, defamation etc. should of course be forbidden. And in our [German] case: incitement to hatred and the use of Nazi symbols, too. Once bitten, you know. The people who wrote our constitution after WWII implemented some hurdles so that this part of our history won't happen again. I can live well with those restrictions. People who know both political landscapes, ours and the American, usually agree that they feel freer in Germany. But I personally don't know Nazis, who might complain about it like Musk has publically done! He openly said that we should vote for a party that our intelligence agencies call right-wing extremists (confirmed by court rulings).

And I think that what we call a social-liberal economy is a good idea: public healthcare (btw.: invented by Bismarck, a conservative royalist to the bones) and similar social securities based on society's agreement to help the poor, sick, old, disabled, or unemployed. This is one of the main differences to the US. A friend of mine would long have been dead by LAM (Lymphangioleiomyomatosis) if she had stayed in NM.

Long story short: everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't restrict others, and all paying a little tribute to help a few is a good concept.

Other positions are: I am against the death penalty, and I find the 2nd in the US ridiculous. It is in my mind a license to kill.

 

[gleem]

This is very short since I believe that personal freedom has its limits if it restricts others. E.g. insults, discrimination, defamation etc. should of course be forbidden. And in our [German] case: incitement to hatred and the use of Nazi symbols, too. Once bitten, you know. The people who wrote our constitution after WWII implemented some hurdles so that this part of our history won't happen again.

I visited Germany this past fall and learned of the anti Nazi program that Germany has instituted in it schools. The US not having a similar experience during its founding failed to introduce protections in its constitution, which would help protect its current form of government, and not only depending on the voluntary adherence to the rules set forth. As I noted in another post, Benjamin Franklin may have foreseen a possible tyranny of the majority to return the US to an autocracy.

If US patriotism is the commitment to the ideal that all men are created equal, and not nationalism there is hope that the people can and must not abdicate their power to keep our government as our founding fathers envisioned.

 

[Grinkle]

TLDR - I try not to ever assume that people mean the same things by "liberal" and "conservative"

It is my perspective that in the years since I was born, the meaning of "politically conservative" has been largely lost, and to the detriment of left-leaning political agendas.

In my opinion, the most appropriate meaning of conservative thinking is thinking that reflects a desire the maintain the status quo. Instead, over the past 6 decades or so, it has gradually come to mean thinking that reflects a right-leaning political ideology, even as the US moved further left in its policies.

When I call myself a soft conservative, I do mean that I think my political views lean slightly right of center; it does me no good to be using the word conservative in a way that no one else is using it, but I do think it is a better use of language to pose questions like this survey question with the descriptors "left" and "right" instead of "liberal" and "conservative".

I think left leaning folks often have an aversion to ever claiming any victory out of concern for either complacency or a desire to demonstrate that that they have not fallen for some great lie that is being propagated by right leaning folks who who want to fool them into thinking that things have improved in some way that they should acknowledge. I think one way of claiming victory would have been for "conservative" to reflect the more-left values that America increasingly represented in the post-Nixon era.

An example of what I mean by a valid use of the word "conservative" would have been a desire to continue Federal protections for abortion rights. Instead, even though it was the law of the land for decades, it was still considered "conservative" to be pro-life, even though a pro-life position was lobbying for dramatic change to the status-quo.

Anyway, according to my own opinion on proper use of the word "conservative", the "conservatives" are in the midst of the greatest setbacks that most have ever in their lifetime experienced. I do not consider most of the changes to status quo that are happening to be consistent with what I think of as typical right-leaning values and I find much of them completely distressing, demoralizing and confusing.

Its very difficult to tell from high levels descriptors what someone's specific policy leanings may be. Trump calls himself Republican because in the US, there are two viable political organizations, and the one he co-opted was named "Republican". If he'd been successful co-opting the Democratic organization he'd be, I expect, just fine calling himself a Democrat while pursing many of the same policies and taking the opposite side on many culture war issues on which, imo, he holds no real personal conviction.

We in the US find ourselves needing many words these days to describe ourselves politically - left, right, liberal, conservative, Republican, Regan Republican, MAGA, Democrat, progressive, socialist, moderate - I'm sure there are others, these are just what spring immediately to mind. None of them feel like a good fit to me regarding my own list of views on various issues, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

In any case, thanks GB and Borg for creating this forum - I look forward to being a part of it maturing.

 

[fresh_42]

TLDR - I try not to ever assume that people mean the same things by "liberal" and "conservative"

We have the nice word "value-conservative". It means that you can have conservative values like loyalty, honesty, etc., and otherwise any political opinion: progressive, conservative, green or whatever.

 

[Pinball1970]

That was hard to pick. The British have not been particularly ideological for a couple of decades now, both parties, probably most parties agree on, racism, women's rights, gay rights and religion.
We vote on Economics and more recently the behaviour of politicians, perhaps the NHS and minimum wage.
I selected "soft conservative" because I work in business, I cannot say I am anti capitalism because that is part of what I do.
It would be hypocritical.
While labour voters said Tony Blair sold out, I thought he was a friend to business but with good ethics.
If I was American I would vote Democrat because of ideology without a second thought.
My politics are naive, I admit that and following day to day on an issue was never my thing.
This has changed recently though under Trump.

 

[fresh_42]

That was hard to pick. The British have not been particularly ideological for a couple of decades now, both parties, probably most parties agree on, racism, women's rights, gay rights and religion.

It is generally hard to describe European politics to Americans because all adjectives have a different meaning. What we call social liberal economy sounds like pure communism to American ears, although it is basically at the center here. Someone like Sanders wouldn't stand out at all. And the fact that we have more than just two parties doesn't make it easier. I think one can have conservative values, stand for ideological liberalism, promote a free economy, and be green concerning what we all have to do. Now press all these into the American two-party system. It's simply impossible. Liberal isn't a curse here, in America it is close to defamation. Our political history dates back to the seventeenth century, if not even to the Magna Carta, from Oliver Cromwell over the French revolution, Napoleon, Bismarck, the Nazis, up to the relatively new green movement. None of such a heritage can be found in the American political landscape. Instead, there is a lot of defamation against the respective political opponents. My nephew votes for independent candidates in the US for years, still hoping to address more than two possible alternatives.

 

[Borg]

Up until 2016, I had voted on both sides of the ticket based on who I thought could lead the best. When I saw the MAGA rallies in 2016 and saw how he was urging violence towards protesters, the outright lies, making childish names for his opponents, and belittling and marginalizing others, there was no way that I would vote for someone like that to lead the country. The first time was bad enough but now I hear more and more people talking about what it would take to leave.

I used to love my country but these days I am just ashamed and horrified.

 

[Rive]

It is my perspective that in the years since I was born, the meaning of "politically conservative" has been largely lost

I too sense some kind of existential crisis behind the still enormous political power, trying to re-define itself. I feel like the current ... issues are also largely connected to this somehow.

As for myself - honestly, I don't know. While I can find good ideas in almost all (acceptable) directions, I think too many tends to forget that not every tool can be used for every problem.

Being kind of liberal with all ideas (including the conservative ones) I just conveniently picked that one.

 

[fresh_42]

Up until 2016, I had voted on both sides of the ticket based on who I thought could lead the best. When I saw the MAGA rallies in 2016 and saw how he was urging violence towards protesters, the outright lies, making childish names for his opponents, and belittling and marginalizing others, there was no way that I would vote for someone like that to lead the country. The first time was bad enough but now I hear more and more people talking about what it would take to leave.

I used to love my country but these days I am just ashamed and horrified.

I still cannot believe why it wasn't over by that incident:



not to mention the pussy grabbing. Each single one of these incidents would have led immediately to the end of a campaign over here. We use to make the following joke about America:

"The first candidate is for a pure capitalism."
"The second candidate wants public health care."
"The third candidate wants strict ecological regulations."
Q: Who will be elected?
A: The one who didn't cheat on his wife.

I miss the times when this joke has worked.

 

[morrobay]

Socially Liberal. Law enforcement, illegal aliens, (the Southern border) Far Right / Nationalist. Ie . Bush , Cheney , Rumsfeld should be held accountable for the Iraq/Afghanistan disasters.

 

[archosaur]

Not to be a pest, but I feel like identification is part of the reason we're in this mess.
This is not another "I don't believe in labels" post by a self-professed "apolitical" person. I definitely have convictions, and many of my convictions intersect with the field of politics and statecraft, but I worry that a focus on identity ("what am I?") has corrupted or completely sidelined the way we think about our convictions (e.g. "what do I value?").

How many of the most ardent "_____-ists" can tell you what they love? If they can, can they also tell you specifically how the "other" is an existential threat to what they love, through a rational chain of consequence? If you really get someone thinking about themselves and the world they live in and if they can disentangle themselves from their political identity and the prescriptive set of policy positions they might have gotten in their welcome packet, you see again and again that we mostly all name the same things.

Now, another post this is not: I will not tell you that these labels are totally fictional and we secretly all get along - that no one is a threat to anyone. We do indeed live in a Warring States period, and among us we do have many mutually incompatible philosophies. We can't all "just get along" without some of us changing our minds about some very fundamental things. But at this time when it is so crucial that minds change, we have the language of identity, which is a significant impediment to the process of changing our minds. How can I change my mind when, because because of the model of politics as identity, that would mean changing what I am? We live in a time when kids are encouraged to pick a side, throw in with their team, denigrate and oppose the "other", right after they've picked their favorite color. It's chimpanzee clan mentality and the death of critical thought. Case in point: the reduction of all political philosophy to a 1-dimensional spectrum (Left-Center-Right), or increasingly, as more and more people throw in with allies of convenience for the sake of the larger ideological war, an irreconcilable binary (Left OR Right), is proof that what we are participating in is not philosophy, not reason, but chimp warfare.

I think many people know this at a fundamental level, and might resent the chimp war but might also see it as inevitable and their participation and toeing the line as a necessary evil. It would be hypocritical of me to say I never throw in with one side during a skirmish. I do. When I shout down a counter-protester, I have indeed reduced them to the color of their hat.

But when I am at my best, I'll say I don't identify politically at all, but am clear-eyed about my convictions. I love peace and the natural world. I believe in the scientific method and its potential to bring peace and reduce suffering. I believe that social organization can and should benefit all and exploit none, and that an educated democratic society is the best way realize this social organization. Increasingly, this has me agreeing more often than not with people who identify as "left" or "progressive", but there once was a time that these tenets comprised the basic stock of a much broader swath of the political spectrum.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I worry that a focus on identity ("what am I?") has corrupted or completely sidelined the way we think about our convictions (e.g. "what do I value?").

Very true! Tribalism is a lot of how we got where we are. A conviction to a set of values is way more powerful than to a group.

 

[fresh_42]

Very true! Tribalism is a lot of how we got where we are.

And not only in America! There are currently strong nationalistic currents in many countries. And they matter. E.g., the Brexit only worked because of nationalism, to mention one instance from many.

The problem is: our economies are global, our environmental sins have global effects, but we are still members of tribes, by citizenship, cultural, political, or whatever. And tribes are local.

 

[archosaur]

Very true! Tribalism is a lot of how we got where we are. A conviction to a set of values is way more powerful than to a group.

At its best, the function of the "group" label is a shortcut to a set of values. e.g. I don't have time to understand all the things you value, so I need a label so I can understand the sorts of things you value. It's a heuristic. In addition to our human tendency toward tribes, I also think that mass media and now social media share a lot of the blame in the entrenchment of the political identity model. We depend on the political identity heuristic simply because we interface with a variety of individuals that is so much more vast than we are equipped to properly process, from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology. Your brain is wired to understand ~100 people very well. When you think of your neighbor in the next cave over, you don't need to summarize their values with a heuristic like "leftist" - they demonstrate their values every day and you know them. Now we interface with any of the billions of humans that have internet connections in transitory, parasocial ways - exactly like this post I'm writing right now. The alternative to ascribing a heuristic label to me ("left" or "right") is being content with not knowing something about me, but uncertainty is an intolerable state of being.

 

[EricDMMiller]

I am a liberal in that I ascribe to philosophically liberal ideals and notions. I am opposed to the nihilistic perspective that is currently trampling on the possibility of global stability.

I believe that this 2019 debate between Bernard-Henri Lévy and Aleksandr Dugin is an effective summary of my position and its opposition to the dangerous ideals masquerading under conservatism and tradition. I am actually not the greatest fan of Bernard-Henri Lévy, in particular, but he more than satisfactorily acquitted himself against the vileness that Dugin represents:
Bernard-Henri Lévy vs. Aleksandr Dugin at the Nexus Symposium 2019

In place of the video, for those who would prefer not to watch it (though I do strongly recommend it), what I oppose is essentially the following:

'Freedom from' is the most disgusting formula of slavery, inasmuch as it tempts man to an insurrection against God, against traditional values, against the moral and spiritual foundations of his people and his culture.

And even if liberalism won all the formal battles and brought us indeed to the cusp of 'an American century: the real battle is still ahead, But it takes place only after the authentic meaning of the past will be genuinely understood, When the metaphysical meaning of liberalism and its fateful victory becomes known in the right measure and the right proportions. Only tearing it out by its roots can defeat this evil, and I do not exclude that such a victory will necessitate erasing from the face of the Earth those spiritual and physical halos from which arose the global heresy, which insists that man is the measure of all things'. Only a global crusade against the US, the West, globalisation, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response.

The elaboration of the ideology of this Crusader campaign, undoubtedly, is a matter for Russia not to pursue alone, but together with all the world powers, who, in one way or another, oppose 'the American century', Nevertheless, in any case this ideology must begin with the recognition of the fatal role of liberalism, which has characterised the path of the West from the moment when it rejected the values of God and Tradition.

- The Fourth Political Theory, Aleksandr Dugin

The physical and spiritual halos that are to be (that are being?) erased "from the face of the earth" are the people and institutions that place any sort of value on individual human existence.

 

[Ian DF]

None of the above
I agree with Trump that borders must be legally protected with all illegal immigration stopped. But I disagree that the legal requirements for entry should be so strict as not to allow people the opportunity to start afresh even if they have no education.
I agree with Musk that government must be efficient to be effective at running the country at the minimum cost and minimum red tape. But I don’t agree that you have to be in the office to be employed, it’s 2025 not 1905.
Biden made things far worse with his but America bill which is costing tax payers billions, but Trumps tariffs won’t fix that.
The climate emergency is not what people are being sold. Billionaires who have invested in green technologies are forcing a lie n the world that needs to stop.
Man has damaged the seas and the balance of nature. Solar energy won’t fix that because solar panels have highly toxic chemicals in them and will poison the ground water doing even more damage
In this I see myself as a person watching the horizon and taking the time to evaluate everything that comes over it.
No labels, just fact based evaluations

 

[MindlessPieces]

Don't really know what a hard or soft liberal is.

But socially I don't think government should be interfering in how people choose to live. Government shouldn't be legislating morality.

I like diversity, as it is interesting and shows that the people have freedoms.

 

[Deric Xavier]

I am a Physics professor from Brazil, a country on the periphery of capitalism, forged through colonization, slavery, and coups d'état. I have always seen my country fall victim to neoliberalism, where the Brazilian state is co-opted by elites to open new markets and ensure profits for large foreign corporations, killing any chance of industrialization and independence.

A simple example for those unfamiliar with Brazil's history: we are one of the countries that buy the most cars in the world. Our automotive market is enormous and generates a lot of money, yet we do not have a national car brand. We are slaves to large corporations (Fiat, GM, Volkswagen, Ford, etc.), whose lobbying has always prevented the production of national cars, co-opting the state to finance foreign companies while making life difficult for Brazilian automakers, such as Gurgel. You can apply this logic to all other sectors of our economy.

Moreover, whenever Brazilian society organizes itself in some way and demands greater independence, coups d'état are financed, both by corporations and governments, as was the case with the military-business dictatorship of 1964, supported by the United States.

That is why I am a socialist and say that we live under a false democracy, or rather, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or a dictatorship of capital. The only solution I see for a true democracy is a socialist revolution, grounded in popular power.

I don’t know how people will react to this text, but I hope we can have a good and objective debate, based on evidence and reason.

 

[gleem]

I don’t know how people will react to this text, but I hope we can have a good and objective debate, based on evidence and reason

It is good to hear of others' issues which may be of value in understanding ours. I am hopeful that participants in this forum can relate their views as truthfully as possible.

 

[YinYangMills]

I am a Physics professor from Brazil, a country on the periphery of capitalism, forged through colonization, slavery, and coups d'état. I have always seen my country fall victim to neoliberalism, where the Brazilian state is co-opted by elites to open new markets and ensure profits for large foreign corporations, killing any chance of industrialization and independence.

A simple example for those unfamiliar with Brazil's history: we are one of the countries that buy the most cars in the world. Our automotive market is enormous and generates a lot of money, yet we do not have a national car brand. We are slaves to large corporations (Fiat, GM, Volkswagen, Ford, etc.), whose lobbying has always prevented the production of national cars, co-opting the state to finance foreign companies while making life difficult for Brazilian automakers, such as Gurgel. You can apply this logic to all other sectors of our economy.

Moreover, whenever Brazilian society organizes itself in some way and demands greater independence, coups d'état are financed, both by corporations and governments, as was the case with the military-business dictatorship of 1964, supported by the United States.

That is why I am a socialist and say that we live under a false democracy, or rather, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or a dictatorship of capital. The only solution I see for a true democracy is a socialist revolution, grounded in popular power.

I don’t know how people will react to this text, but I hope we can have a good and objective debate, based on evidence and reason.

I agree with everything you said, and for this reason I don't know what to answer to this poll. These categories seem too US-oriented. People in most of the rest of the world understand something completely different by "liberal'.

 

[Pinball1970]

I too sense some kind of existential crisis behind the still enormous political power, trying to re-define itself. I feel like the current ... issues are also largely connected to this somehow.

As for myself - honestly, I don't know. While I can find good ideas in almost all (acceptable) directions, I think too many tends to forget that not every tool can be used for every problem.

Being kind of liberal with all ideas (including the conservative ones) I just conveniently picked that one.

The labels are certainly different over here in the UK. I was not sure at all about Labour for last year's election and absolutely detested Corbyn, Rayner, Butler, Abbott.
Starmer got in but now I am glad he did, otherwise we would now have half the cabinet wearing MAGA hats flying over to Trump for his inauguration.
So we re-evaluate, I am left in my views.
Plurality, atheist, women's/gay rights, globalist and everything that comes with that, capitalist.

Values that probably do not quite align perfectly.

 

[fresh_42]

The good thing is that you just have to be a republican these days. And, yet again, that word completely fails in American ears what I meant by it. Republican means in favor of res publicae - people's issues - in contrast to monarchical, and not the equation Republicans = GOP where I even hesitated to write the 'G' let alone deliberately labeled them 'republican'.

Someone said to me that the US can hardly be called a democracy since its chambers and essentially two-party system do not reflect the actual proportions of opinions in the American society. This has never been more obvious than now, where a single person is allowed to act like an absolute Monarch of the eighteenth century.

I find myself in 5/6 labels of this poll depending on the question we discuss.

 

[Grinkle]

the US can hardly be called a democracy

After Trump's electoral college victory in 2016, CNN (I was a CNN viewer at the time, I no longer am) had pundits on who would say things to the effect of "America is not a democracy, its a republic" meaning that there is political power sharing between the states and the federal government, at least I think that is what they meant. They were saying that to explain to folks that our system does indeed allow the election of a president who did not win the popular vote.

Anyway, yet another meaning of the word 'Republic' - power sharing among equal states and a combined federal government. You are correct that when you say Republican or republican to an American they hear GOP, for sure though.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I'm not familiar with the intended meanings of the terms in the vote categories, but I've selected "soft liberal".

In the UK I usually vote for the "Liberal Democrat" party, and my neighbourhood is one of the few places in the UK where they actually win local and parliamentary elections. Their main strength is that they are not as polarized as either of the Conservative and Labour parties, so they can simply opt for common sense policies, but in recent years they have had so few parliamentary seats that they have been unable to influence anything very much.

Their top policy for years has been to try to get some form of proportional representation; we had an election quite a while ago where they got nearly 1/3 of the vote but hardly any parliamentary seats. They formed a coalition with the Conservatives at one point on condition that they got a referendum on proportional representation, which happened in 2011, but the main two parties both ordered all their followers to vote against it, so that didn't go well!

But I'm quite happy with many of policies of the UK Labour party, under Keir Starmer, who seems quite sensible if somewhat boring. I was also quite satisfied with earlier Labour leader Tony Blair, who seemed to have a more intelligent and realistic approach than most of his predecessors. In contrast, I find Keir's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn well-intentioned but too extreme and likely to be disruptive.

On the other side, the current UK Conservative party (especially since Boris Johnson) fills me with horror, and I'm glad it is well out of power for now. That is a big change, in that when I was young, my grandmother was a Conservative councillor and a force for good in the community. When I was involved in organizing orchestral music in Havant, I was very impressed with the intelligence and initiatives of the local Conservative MP, David Willetts, now Lord Willetts of Havant, who was a friend of our conductor - he supported our activities and seemed to have very sensible things to say. He was previously Minister of State for Universities and Science, and is currently president of the Resolution Foundation. He was strongly against Brexit and has worked hard to try to minimize its impact, for example on scientific cooperation with the EU. So I have no problem with him, just with his party leadership.

No specific party seems to totally match my choice of policies, and I've considered other UK parties such as the Greens, but without proportional representation they don't have much chance either.

 

[Klystron]

No doubt a major benefit of this international forum should be promoting understanding of various countries' political systems.

Yet even as a reasonably educated and well-read American, do not expect me to explain our bizarre electoral system or decaying political parties. Archaic structures such as the Electoral College surely do not belong controlling representative elections.

 

[fresh_42]

No specific party seems to totally match my choice of policies, and I've considered other UK parties such as the Greens, but without proportional representation they don't have much chance either.

We have a website here, called Wahl-O-Mat prior to elections, which is basically a multiple choice test where you can distribute weights. The result is how far (percentage) someone agrees on the programs of each party. Pretty helpful to make an educated decision, although I regularly lie diagonal to those programs, as I do to the possible choices in the above poll.

Someone recently stated that America isn't a democracy since the current system does not reflect the opinions in the population, and that the election once designed for 10 million people in 13 states has never been changed to cope with current reality. Not to mention the electoral college, which has been a concession by Lincoln made to the South.

I just said that I wouldn't dare to make such a claim but I see the point. I was even thinking about whether and where I could get access to country-wide polling results that would support such a claim.