Some views are liberal. Some views are conservative. Some views are neither.

[Stinky The Clown]

We all hold many views. Some of the views we hold are antithetical to who we are at our core. For some of us, there are many such antithetical views, for others, not very many at all.

But VERY few of us are purely one or the other.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Pigeon holes are for pigeons.

[arbusto_baboso]

2. But anti-unionism is NOT for Democrats.

Period. No way to justify or spin that one.

[FreeJoe]

10. Really?

What if a person was very pro-choice, very anti-war, for more progressive taxation, for a stronger safety net, in favor of equal rights for everyone, etc, but didn't like unions? Perhaps they had to deal with a corrupt union boss or something. Would you say that they couldn't be a Democrat? In my view, it's a big tent. It can include and even learn/grow from dissention on any given plank. My Democratic party doesn't have single issue based litmus tests.

[OnyxCollie]

13. Since most people don't have a firm grasp

of what liberal/conservative really means (see my post below), they view politics in group terms, i.e., they identify the parties by how they treat groups, including their own.

If someone has strong pro-choice beliefs, but doesn't care about unions, or domestic surveillance, or whatever, because those things are not fully understood/do not have a direct impact, they can put those things aside and still feel like they are a strong Democrat.

[arbusto_baboso]

32. One CANNOT be for economic equality and opportunities ( a HUGE plank of the Dem belief system)

and be anti-union. I'VE had corrupt/ineffective union representation before, and oppose my own union leadership. yet I am still, generally, pro-union.

But that's because I actually UNDERSTAND what it means to be a Democrat.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Exactly. n/t

[onehandle]

3. I'm purely indefinite. nt

[Cary]

4. Meaning what?

Our minds can only process so much information. We cannot process every piece of information we encounter so we necessarily use generalizations as a shortcut. This strategy has advantages and disadvantages, but so what?

If you're interested in this I recommend Robert Cialdini's "Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion" http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=influence+cialdini&hl=en&prmd=imvnsb&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1920&bih=910&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=16248036030475869643&sa=X&ei=Gf68T-viCeiK2gX2s8maDw&ved=0CGYQ8wIwAQ.

But in terms of our opposition, whom I label as "conservatives" (quotation marks necessary), I would first submit to you that they are to the right of real conservatives on the political spectrum. Real conservatives do not believe in reckless, radical change. "Conservatives" today are reactionary, reckless and radical so they cannot claim to actually be conservative IMHO.

I feel safe in that generalization, "antithetical" or otherwise.

Actually "conservatives" are not monolithic, if that's what you are getting at. I would say that you might want to consult Russell Kirk for a definition. I would temper Kirk's definition with the caveat that modern "conservatives" share a profound and irrational hatred of "Liberal", which is a large part of what makes them reactionary and fascist.

Of course there is a certain class of "conservatives" who may or may share this "value" because, with respect to this class, they are only really interested in playing to the fears of "conservatives" so that they can make money. And fear is a big part of "conservatism".

I will be reading Chris Mooney's book, "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality".

[Cary]

5. So I take issue with your post insofar as you may be suggesting that...

...there is something salvageable in today's "conservatives". They have to moderate.

Real conservatives? Sure, they have a noble and valuable tradition. But "conservatives", no way and I will not associate them with real conservatives.

Where are the real conservatives?

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I'm not taking that position at all

I am simply saying that many liberals hold a conservative viewpoint or two.

Your other assertion that today's "conservatives" as defined by the media, are in fact not conservatives at all, but rather, are far right radicals.

The counterpoint to that is my position. Many of the people we like to think of as liberals by today's standards are, in fact, another era's conservatives.

Cory Booker is a good example of this. I'll bet you can name others.

[Cary]

11. Notice that I used the words "may be suggesting"

I was reading something in your post that you may or may not have intended.

I don't believe "conservatives" are defined by the media. They define themselves. Ed Schultz right now is making a righteous rant about Congressman Mike Coffman saying that he doesn't know whether or not President Obama is a citizen but he knows that in his heart President Obama is not an American. The Congressman was interviewed on the subject and the Congressman said he apologized but wouldn't say what he is apologizing about or to whom he is making the apology. Ed is saying that this guy will continue making comments like this. This is who "conservatives" are.

Ed is right.

I don't buy your statement about "another era's conservatives". What other era are you talking about? Are you trying to refer to Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley? Are you referring to Ronald Reagan? Herbert Hoover? John Adams?

Who?

I don't buy it. I would agree with Thom Hartmann who says that "conservatives" go through these cycles where they collectively go over the edge and I would add to that my theory about their hatred of "Liberal". The hatred extends beyond their hatred of "Liberal" of course. But this hate is toxic and it literally makes them fascist. The moderate Republicans are totally eclipsed by this hatred. Occasionally a David Frumm or a David Brooks pokes his head out their pit of hatred, but they're affected as well.

This has nothing to do with Cory Booker. He is a left leaning moderate and in no event would he be considered conservative.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. More to the point, individuals disagree on which is the liberal viewpoint.

I'm a liberal, and I am comfortable defending my views on that basis.

Science? Independent inquiry? Equality of rights? Social justice? If your argument can be defended on those grounds, no one has the right to claim that you are not a liberal.

[Cary]

17. I have seen this "disagreement"

I think it might be more about personality and procedure than substance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. Sure.

I don't really think either are true, but a better case can be made that I'm rude as opposed to illiberal.

[Cary]

22. I would not accuse you being rude or illiberal

I am merely suggesting that the disagreements I have seen and been a part of were more about procedure than an actual difference. Or else there was some sort of personality difference that yielded a communication breakdown.

That's pretty much human nature.

[Cary]

18. On your edit

There is something to what you're saying here and I think your theory here is backed up by the book I cited above.

[Cary]

19. Interestingly this does not let us off the hook here.

"Conservatives" have a different way of thinking. We need to understand that better and we need to cope with it in a more functional way.

I think that's something that is mentioned in "The Republican Brain" as well but having only seen the Papantonio interview I am not sure, yet.

I find this subject to be fascinating.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. A consistent way of thinking can lead to dissimilar conclusions

Thus, the Paulites and the Bush fan club, although they differ in major ways (eg war in Iraq) are both conservatives.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm a liberal because of how I think, not what I think.

[Cary]

29. That makes sense, I think n/t

[Romulox]

7. But there ARE "purity tests" here, and in life. E.g. advocating rightwing social issues

isn't allowed here, but advocating Rightwing economic issues is...

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Yup

<-----I agree with your sentiment

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. So long as I'm the one who gets to define the "rightwing issue", I'm down with that.

Oh, wait.

[OnyxCollie]

9. People are all messed up.

Read this. I think you'll find it interesting.

The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics
http://politicalbubbles.com/The_Nature_of_Belief_Systems_in_Mass_Publics_Converse_1964.pdf

Converse: The nature of belief systems in mass publics
http://wikisum.com/w/Converse:_The_nature_of_belief_systems_in_mass_publics

A great majority of people neither adhere to a full, complete set of beliefs which produces a clear ideology nor do they have a clear grasp of what ideology is. This is measured by a lack of coherence in responses to open-ended questions. Ideology of elites is not mirrored by the masses and voter revolt to a political party does not reflect ideological shifts.

Converse analyzes open-ended interview questions to measure conceptualization of ideology. He concludes that the liberal-conservative continuum is a high level abstraction not typically used by the man in the street because of response instability and lack of connections made between answers. There is no underlying belief structure for most people, just a bunch of random opinions. Even on highly controversial, well-publicized issues, large portions of the electorate do not have coherent opinions. In fact, many simply answer survey questions as though they are flipping a coin.

[Cary]

12. I agree with this but I will not let the masses off the hook

"Conservatives" are the purveyor of The Big Lie. "Conservatives" do not have the logical argument but they also have no problem lying.

And of course you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time.

The masses seem to get fatigued by the truth and logic. When this happens "conservatives"/Republicans work the gap.

[OnyxCollie]

23. "Conservatives" are corporations.

Economic interests beget communal interests beget political interests. Alternatively, economic interests beget political interests beget communal interests, or, economic interests beget communal/political interests simultaneously.

Corporations tell people what to think, and conservative views are the most beneficial to corporations.

Need a cheap labor force? Tell people that illegal immigrants are destroying America, and that any legislation to allow citizenship to illegal immigrants threatens our existence.

[Cary]

24. Greed is not good

Some people will never subordinate their own interests to the greater good or the long term. The problem with corporations is that they are a legal vehicle for separating people from the consequences of their actions. In some contexts that's good. We want people to take risks. In other contexts people get away with fraud.

[OnyxCollie]

26. People (and corporations) are self-interested.

Convince people that corporate interests are their interests and you're golden.

[ellisonz]

21. Some views are just plain dumb...

[Zanzoobar]

25. Did you wake up wishing we would bomb Iran, or something?

[Stinky The Clown]

31. What was it in my OP that caused you to ask that?

[Zanzoobar]

33. It sounded like you were having a republican moment and felt guilty about it.

It was a joke.

[tralala]

27. "Scratch a liberal bourgeois and you will find a police sergeant in a brand new uniform"

[RZM]

30. I agree. And I think 'neither' is much more common than people think

Too many people seem to believe that which is not demonstrably left is automatically right and vice-versa. Reality is mostly shades of gray.