Poll:Are you a Centrist, Liberal or Far Left Whacko?

This is the core question undrlying much of the fuss and feathers about candidates, and the future of the Democratic Party.

I realize that it's not that cut-and-dried, that one can have a little bit of each in them.
But, if forced to describe your views and what you want to see in terms of the Democratic Alternative, where would you fit on this scale?

Note: This would be what YOU believe in and which you ALSO believe is "electable." (Assume a perfect candidate with obvious winning personal qualities were to represent your views.)


Also there's that distinction between social issues and economic ones. This focuses more on the core issues of Money and Power, and how much the status quo needs to be shaken up or not.

yep, that seems about right to me. ;-)

DDQM

And proud of it. Look around at the world. Why isn't everyone a raving mad liberal wacko?

:bounce:

Call me a far-left-whacko if you need to, but I kind of think the whole "linear spectrum" is a waste of time. :D

Trying to seperate all the personal and strategic nonsesnse from what people really believe. Also what people really think could be "electable" without the crap like Dennis K.'s ears or Clark's impressive military resume.

In the last debate, my wife kept pointing out Dennis's body language. She said: Look at him, standing there with his head cocked like that. He's listening intently to everything. He's thinking, the whole time. His body language expresses reflectiveness.

That & those cute little ears - I can live with that!

Anyway I think people can guess how I voted...

I probably tend toward the "whacko" end myself.

Especially when viewed from the perspective of the people now in charge.

Funny how common sense - what might be even be called 'conservative' - gets labeled 'liberal' nowadays.

Take a liberal and plunk them down in most places on earth and they would be considered moderate or even right-wing! National health care is everywhere, for instance.

The only thing in the middle of the road are dead skunks and a yellow streak.

The founders were not centrists, they were not conservatives, they were radicals that created the best country in the world--until the radical right wing took it over, that is.

far left whacko, but you fooled me and didn't give me that option.

Oh, well. When Agnew talked about the "effete corps of impudent snobs" I wanted to sign up.

I forgot to include those.

nabob? a proud Nattering whatever here! :hi:

I would never insist on imposing on the majority of american people who I know agree with me.

That applies to politics, philosophy, speech, and any number of areas. I try to live my life one way, according to what I feel is best for me. But I recognize that realistically many of these will not realistically work on a grand scale for the majority of the american public.

I'd rather get half of what I want then none of it.

.

One of the funniest canards I see on DU occurs in the occasional "socialism" threads, where someone invariably says, "It's been tried, & it doesn't work."

Does anybody really think that capitalism "works?" If you look at the countries of the world, does capitalism work for Central & South America, for Africa, Indonesia, Turkey, Haiti, etc? If you look INSIDE the USA, does capitalism "work" for the bottom 80 or 90% of the population?

Kevin Phillips' "Wealth & Democracy" establishes convincingly that capitalism stopped working for ordinary Americans sometime in the mid 1970's. Since that time, there have been virtually no real gains in income for 80+% or so of the population, & almost all the gains that have occurred have accrued to the top few percent. By many quality-of-life measures, including hours worked, access to health care & affordable housing, the great majority of Americans are WORSE off today than they were in 1978. (This, DESPITE the stock-market run-up of the '90's, which gave an illusion of prosperity that did not extend very deeply in society & was largely based on fraud anyway.)

Overhaul. The system is broken.

Thank you ....and I agree with you 100%...

My ex is a repub accountant ( :shrug: yeah,I couldn't figure that out either)
he always says how capitalism is the answer to everything and the free economy is the only way and everybody wants what we heve here in the US and blah blah blah....

capitalism is NOT the answer...

and yes we need to fix the system- bigtime!

Peace
DR

socialism is working very well in many places, such as Scandinavia and the USA! Yes, right here in the US we employ socialism in many avenues of our economy and institutions... social security, post office, colleges and universities, police and firefighters, etc. These are not private companies with stockholders. And they work very well. What percentage of capitalist businesses go bankrupt?

top 1% - more than doubled
1970 9%
2000 22%

top 0.1% - increased four fold
1970 2.8%
2000 11%

top 0.01% - increased five fold
1970 1%
2000 5%

"What went wrong"
Paul Krugman
rtsp://real.dialnsa.edu/REAL_BEARD/spring2003_events/schwartz.rm (realplayer)

Left-wing whacko here, agreeing completely.

Throw the bums out! Or, as they say in Latin America:


!Que se vayan todos!

:bounce:

Leftist, card carrying IWW member here. Whacko is in the eye of the beholder. To me, the most curious whackos were those who identified themselves as "Reagan Democrats". Nothing more whacko than deliberately voting against your own interests, in my not so humble bloody opinion.

IWW too? Damn, ya' got me beat, SP-USA here.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

The Professor

None of the others fit me at all.

--Peter

put me in the rational socialist department.

Therefore, I am a far-left wacko, and possibly a dadaist.

and "whacko" to boot.

Just giving you grief.

category. During a political discussion yesterday with an avowed ex-hippie and Deadhead, she said, "Wow...and I thought I was radically liberal."

This is my personal favorite definition of radical, as it relates to fellow Lefties and Progressives:

designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased tissue <radical surgery>

:)

see why there's so much fighting here. DU certainly has both a "left wing" and a "right wing." The distribution looks like two very distinct peaks with nothing in the middle (as opposed, say, to a peak in the center tapering off sharply at either end).

Perhaps the "Twin Peaks" curve?

bell pit?
bell hole? (sounds kind of dirty)

Ask a statistician and you will get a statistical answer! A distribution with more than one peak and distinct curve shapes representing divergent responses is called bimodal. Not too unusual in social statistics.
The Professor

left/right schism here at DU, left/right schism in the country

I think the terms are being erroneously self-applied by the poll voter(s)

:hi:

and is a total and utter failure, but I dont think rehauls happen, so I think the route to change is through bringing radical thought through less radical means.

n/t

Dems need to understand that Americans are tired of being taxed to death!! What people want is government ACCOUNTABILITY and lower taxes!

Government waste, fraud, mismanagement is what is costing us, not a shortage of taxes!!

but if forced I'll wear the traditional liberal, welfare state liberal, center-leftist label....

Why is Ted Kennedy a traditional liberal and Paul Wellstone a pragmatic progressive?

>>>Why is Ted Kennedy a traditional liberal and Paul Wellstone a pragmatic progressive?<<<

Wellstone tended to be more basic in his critiques of things like Corporate Concentration of Power, and called for fundamental reforms.

Kennedy is more accepting of the status quo in a structural sense, in the manner of a traditional liberal.

It's probably more generational than anything.

But they're both great. Kennedy is my senator and I wouldn't want it any otehr way.

Fast.

I am a centrist that seems to be somewhat unique in the realm of centrism as viewed on DU.

I do not stand with the timid "centrists" who counsel caution and fear and often attack the liberals in the party with similar language as the Busheviks.

I do not stand with those who say we dare not speak the truth about Emperor Bunnypants* and his Minions of Fraud and Theft.

I believe this: That ultimately, extreme Left and extreme Right are BOTH nuts (in their own way) and that to give the Left the kind of unchecked power that the Busheviks currently have would lead to at least as disasterous situation as we have now.

The True Moderate (as I see it) is not necessarily someone who's ideas all reside in the mushy middle...they might believe in some right views and some left and some middle that add up to a more neutral view.

The True Moderate's job in society is to stomp on the opposite side of the seesaw when one side gains to much power. And yes, at times it means standing with the Righties to check the power of the Left.

Of course, with the Busheviks about to abolsih the American Experiment, I don't have to worry about that side of it for awhile.

But liberalism is NOT dead. It has just been redefined Orwell-style by the same Bushevik Totalitarians, as they have strategically done repeately both before and after the Bloodless Coup of 2000.

Mr. Paine,
Your brand of centrism is not what most DU-type liberals or progressives criticize.

The current political spectrum has shifted so far to the right that just to be a mainstrean moderate with liberal tendencies is branded as "too far left." My God, I can remember when Ted Kennedy was part of the party's mainstream, instead of verging on being a maverick simply by standing up for traditional liberal values.

And I have been told that before, as well.

You are right about the purposeful "shifting of the politcal spectrum". That, in addition to creating an indigestible mass of Party-Loyal Automatons, is one of the prime objectives of Goebbels v2.0, IMHO.

(this is similar to the objectives of Goebbelsv1.0, undertaken by Grandpa Bush's business partners -- what a coincidence!)

I just wanted to lay it out, as it were. Not all us centrists are of the "mushy-middle counseling caution and cowardice" type.

At this point, I am a Radicalized Moderate, as ALL moderates should be, witnessing one side of the seesaw being granted all powers. Of course, the purposeful and propagandistsic "shifting of the political spectrum" is meant to hide that.

I am usually ahead of the curve on these things, so I expect every day the ranks of Radicalized Moderates are growing in response to embryonic Bushevik Imperial Tyranny (which will grow and metastasize greatly unless it is stopped).

And you are right. I'm a stout left-centrist with (as I said above) a healthy distrust of both extremes. Not to mention a veteran.

And somehow, Goebbels v2.0 has painted me as some kind of Stalinist because perhaps I believe that the "free market" needs to be policed or that Bushevik Crony Capitalism is wrong or that it's wrong to expose hundreds of thousands (including the bravest of rescue workers) to off-the-scale toxins by lying to them.

Just who the fuck was dumb enough to believe ANY Bushevik organization about ANYTHING.

As with so many things I have predicted correctly since Totalitarianism has held sway after the Bloodless Coup of 2000, they very DAY the EPA came out with their grotesque lies post 9/11, I called it a lie and was 100% certain of it

But before I break my arm patting my moderate self on the back, let me say that Third World and Totalitarian Nations (like the old Soviet Union, Marcos' Phillipines, etc.) as the Amerikan Empire is becoming, are VERY EASY TO PREDICT.

So really, my incredible streak of correct predictions (we won't find WMDFs in Iraq, Bush will invade Iraq no matter WHAT the UN says, Bush will yank off his phony mask of moderation--that's an old one) has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the State of the Empire.

I support the abolition of the 50-state-system. Hence, I am radical on the issue of federalism. States provide more bureaucracy rather than act the way they should, which is more accountability for spending, etc. We live in a region of 50 separate nations as far as I'm concerned. It's time to bring the power of the national government back.

That would explain the bitter hatred for Wesley Clark over here.

This is actually a pretty interesting poll. The last one like this had about a 50/50 split in people who were self-identified Socialists, versus non-Socialists.

I will be sure to cite both of those polls the next time someone tries to claim that DU is representative of the Democratic Party, much less America as a whole.

DTH

Pick your battles and be realistic about what the majority of American people will accept. Sometimes reform causes more problems than existed in the first place. The concept that child molestors could be cured by treatment contributed to the Catholic Priest problem. Idealism without concrete evidence that supports claimed results is just another rigid ideology.

of what I heard him say. And I can not help but suspect the BFEE of having something to do with causing the crash of that plane.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

Ever watch, "I, Claudius". Tiberius had the same kind of "luck" that our own Emperor Bunnypants* has.

His enemies just conveniently keep dying in the most fortuitous ways.

Liberalism, radical progressivism ... the terms are fairly vague ...

it's sad that what passes for liberalism today often fails to take into account the great disparities in our rights and freedoms between the wealthy and the poor ...

we cannot, on the one hand respect the "self-made millionaire", and on the other expect him not to have a greater say in running the country than the homeless man ... "the best government money can buy" highlights the need for radical change ...

what do we expect to happen when the wealthy fund political campaigns? what do we think will happen to workers' rights when corporate boards are comprised only of wealthy stockholders?

under the thumb of capitalism, money is power ... not "one man one vote" power but rather a distortion of democracy ...

perhaps there was a time that "liberals" called for an end to capitalism ... perhaps there was a time that liberals understood that workers should have significant ownership and control of the corporations they work for ... liberals today seem to "nibble at the edges" of these problems ... they call for raises in the minimum wage ... they call for worker safety ... and that's great ... but as long as the super wealthy can export their jobs and control their lives in the workplace to a significant degree, our progress is only illusory ... we win the right to unionize and they close down our plant and move them out of the country ... we pass minimum wage laws and there go the jobs ... we win the right to have the air quality in the plant improved and they "can't compete" with less costly foreign plants ...

and the liberals do what about the exporting of american jobs? they vote for nafta ... well, some do ... they vote for WTO ... where are the liberals? my agenda? penalize companies that export jobs from this country ... my agenda? let the damned companies be banned from selling their products here if they create more jobs elsewhere than in the U.S. ...

i don't see myself as a protectionist ... i see nothing wrong with international trade and fair competition ... but that's not what we have today ... it's about time the left argued for tax policies that discourage the export of American jobs ... we first saw manufacturing jobs exported ... it gave us the "rust belt" ... so we became a "service-oriented" economy ... and now we're seeing the death of our software industry ... it's not too late if someone will stand up to the wholesale export of software jobs ...

companies should be free to leave if they want to ... but our government should be able to provide whatever incentives and disincentives are necessary to protect american jobs ...

it's time for some radical changes ... let's hope they occur before things get so bad we can't recover ...

i didn't like that choice.

But that is the gist of centrists who believe that liberalism as traditionally defined is outmoded and needs to be replaced by the equivalent of Tony Blair's "Third Way."

I am also confused much of the time by my own, radically corrugated set of beliefs.

I've tried to fit in, but I know I never will. That is exactly why I became a Democrat! :-)

... that most of us are populists, to greater or lesser degrees. We may be extremely liberal socially, but moderate of even conservative fiscally, e.g. . I stll say "labels are for cans". :)

;-)

I think Dean and I differ a little bit on two issues.

I like to think of myself as a mainstream liberal with semi-libertarian tendencies on some aspects of business, and Canadian-style pseudo-socialist on the other fiscal issues. I'm probably as libertarian as everyone else in terms of civil liberties when I say that the Patriot Act should be repealed, and the government has no right to spy on the populace, or have anymore control on the citizen's lives.

I am for gun rights, abortion rights, gay rights, more civil rights, and legalization of drugs. I also support a radical reduction in our defense spending and a 25% shrinkage of the federal government. We have to clean up the waste in Washington.

but in reality, closer to Wellstone than anything else.

From the Sloth & Indolence Party's 'Whacko' wing.

No really, - on you it looks maaahrvelous.

;-)

:hi:

But I think 'moderate with strong Liberal tendencies' describes me quite well.

I voted in the liberal progressive Wellstone category.

like our economic system. This materialism disgusts me.

:scared:

Like Lyndon Baines Johnson.
John
God rest his ballot box-stuffing soul.

N/T