The Democratic Underground and the ideology of its members

I only have spaces for 10 choices and I've had to combine choices to fit them on the poll. Apologies if your choice is not included.

I compose this poll every few months to see if the political make-up of D.U. changes over time, or if not at all.

Vote away, I'll be interested in the results... and post a message if you can.

is probably closer to the mark

anarcho-libertarian-communist?

Just kidding.

Over the years I have become a mixture of anarchism, liberalism, libertarianism, and regular old conservatism depending on the issue.

I'd say I'm mostly liberal, though, or I wouldn't be here! ;)

on edit: I forgot to add green!

Political mutt. I like it.

I used to be a moderate Democrat. Then I got angry.

My idology, such as it is, hasn't changed. I'm just hardened, and have little or no patience for RWers of most stripes. The truly principled moderate Republicans, OTOH, I'm happy to talk to.

I should have joined the Green Party years ago.

A right wing libertarian opposes government because it restricts the wealthy

A left wing libertarian opposes government because it oppresses the poor

Repugs. use state power to suppress our liberties...Our demands for civil liberties is something shared by Leftists, Libertarians but not Republicans...Repugs mostly want to pulverize those they dislike..Libertarians might let us starve to death, but they would not use the power of the state to destroy the rift raft.

right wing libertarians oppose big government, and most government, generally. It's not a matter of favoring the wealthy. It's a philosophical difference about the role of government.

It seems to me the left and right of the political spectrum meet at libertarianism and anarchism. Their idea of what society should be differ, but both see government itself as corruptive of social harmony.

Libertarian Socialists are nothing like the U.S. Libertarian party. They're more Libertarian in the European tradition.

Notable Libertarian Socialists include Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky. Wikipedia has a page on it if you want to learn more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist

you gave me quite a reading assignment there ... verrrrry interesting ...

i especially like this: "Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power."

we must be able to protect our democratic institutions from the exploitation of big money or we must restrict wealth to the degree necessary to prevent these abuses ... we cannot allow those with greater economic power to petition our government with greater success ...

:)

State Socialism in any form involves giving too much power to government.

it's a synonym of Anarcho-Socialist for example :)

the libertarian part applies to social issues. The socialism part applies to economic issues. See http://www.politicalcompass.org/ for an explanation.

word means, but this is what came up for me when I took the test recommended by someone here on DU when I recently asked a question.

Where is it?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

By "sheer coincidence" (??) the following question came up under "iconochasms":

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Who signed legislation permitting doctors to remove the life support system of patients in a persistent vegetative state, regardless of the wishes of the family ?
George W.Bush
Ronald Reagan
Jesse Helms
Jeb Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------

pnorman

They believe the way towards the libertarian socialist ideal is through use of labor unions. They wish to use them as a basis of organization where they then spread out and begin changing the surrounding area and economy.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labor movement. Anarcho-syndicalists view labor unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

They advocate labor unions as the first vehicle towards change whereas most libertarian socialists are more pragmatic in approach using whatever opportunity or vehicle comes their way, which may include labor unions as well. Regardless, it is a minor distinction at best. Hell, as a libertarian socialist, I don't regard them as any different from me.

of peers talking things over and taking decisions about group welfare. For example, the owners of a co-operative (i.e., socialist) business getting together and hashing out how to run the business.

I suppose whoever thought it up decided it sounded better, or at least shorter, than 'someone who believes in deciding things by everyone getting together and talking about them'.

bring it on .

but I find myself fluid on a lot of issues.

with no belief other than power for the sake of power, I think the best course for patriotic Americans of all stripes is simply to be anti neoCONs. Republicans can only win by dividing us into camps.
Or we can all say, we're part of the reality based community. People who believe in some variation of evolution and thinks the government and the church should have a firewall of some reasonable sort. I'd like to see us define are ourselves in as wide a terms as possible instead of as narrow as possible.

The Scott Ridder interview<http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=219>

It's a celebration of diversity.

thanks for the awesome link :)

It's been a while since I heard from Ritter and as always it is a pleasure to read his thoughts.

Green on the outside, but RED on the inside!

but ask me tomorrow and it'll likely be a variation on that theme.

Not quite a Weatherman.

Wanta still blow shit up, but too old & comfortable to do it.
What does that make me?

Went for anarcho liberal


http://www.kliljedahl.net

If I had to label myself, I'd say that comes the closest.

I like the sound of that.

I believe that the Constitution is a great idea

I believe in progress toward the future to bring the ideas in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights forward, allow them to fully grow and take the shape that is most able to both fit our broader understanding and the issues of today.

I beleive everyone deserves a good education, not a zoo for teaching parroting.

I believe everyone deserves to be allowed to speak their mind (No matter how much I wish they'd shut up at times) That doesn't go so far as believing that people should be able to legally lie when supossedly reporting a news story.

I believe that we have the right to a transparent goverment. Some things should be kept secret, but nowhere near the level they are today.

I believe that the freedom of the press should not be dictated by media conglomerate that own all the presses. (Just like England did)

I belive that people should be free to worship as they wish, but not to me! This means you can pray and fell however you want about your religion, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on me.

I believe that any politician who uses GOD in his arguments should be strung up to dry for ridicule. You can't argue against GOD's will. Seperation of Church and State doesn't mean he can't have his beliefs, but the second someone brings an argument that it's such a way as when GOD said it, it nulifies all arguements since GOD doesn't seem o physically be present at the moment so cannot confirm nor deny anything said on his half. In court, saying what someone said without any witnesses is often thrown out as Hear-say - A politician saying he was elected by GOD should be unelected since it's the American people who should have elected them.

I beleive that everyone should have the same rights.

I believe that this country was not founded on capitolism, but on being a Democratic Republic with the aims of being there for all the people, not just those who can afford it.

I believe that someone making 300 million or more a year can afford a small paycut if they are cutting jobs!

but the two are interconnected as far as I'm concerned. My politics are driven by my faith convictions that, generally speaking, tend to run as far to the left of my conservative upbringing as possible.

If the poll have given the option of selecting "rebel" that would probably have fit me the best.

I think that neo-classicial economics is fundamentally flawed, not the least because it is based on infinite growth, which is fundamentally impossible on a finite planet. I would be Green except I think it's truly too late and politically impossible to save human civilization from collapse...within this century.

So now I'm apocalyptic as much as anything.

extra emphasis on the populist...

description I have found http://www.liberalslant.com/liberalism.htm

i'd be interested to see your analysis of how DU has or hasn't changed over time ...

First, someone starts a poll like this every few months. The options to choose are always worded differently with the exception of "liberal."

Secondly, as we can see by the responses, everyone who responds has their own nuanced definition of what they are.

...and speaking of responses, generally the same amount of people respond to each poll, representing a small amount of actual DU posters.

Though I see no indication of it this time, polls like this are often started after some blow-up on a thread between posters with differing ideologies. In other words, someone tries to prove their point with a DU poll.

One of the better attempts I've seen at trying to garner this info was a poll that listed various politicians with ideological labels attached to them. But then people argued over whether that politician was really a proponant of that idealogy.

Another tried to use a series of polls on specific issues to tie into the various ideologies but that, too, suffered from limited responses and disagreements on how the issues played into each ideology set.

So I don't believe a DU poll is the answer to finding out that question, and I really don't think we want to know.

i agree with much of what you wrote ... i'm always concerned about anything, regardless of methodology, that tries to put people into neat little boxes ... but still, as a broad indicator of where the DU community stands, the information would be interesting ...

and polls, especially polls constrained by the DU software, are clearly not the best mechanism to truly understand how people view the world ...

i was especially interested in your last comment though ... "I really don't think we want to know." ... does this suggest you disapprove of the DU community? or perhaps that you would expect to disapprove of most people here if you truly knew more about them? why wouldn't you want to better understand the community you participate in?

..and I don't want anyone to get offended at the terms I use here because that isn't my intention.

I believe everyone here is a liberal. There are just varying degrees of liberalness. I know some here will disagree with that statement. So be it.

Many people further left feel that they are the majority here. Many moderates feel that the further left are just more outspoken, thus giving the impression that they are the majority and that the moderate populace here is greatly underrated when it comes to numbers.

So, if there was a truly scientific and accurate way to first define the varying ideologies and then count them, the results may bring about "you're outnumbered" and "you're kind aren't welcome here" types of comments. We already do see that attitude in some flamefest threads from time to time. I recall once in particular someone stating that DU began as a socialist-leaning website!

It would be very divisive in my opinion.

you're concerned about a "tyranny of the majority" (i.e. "you're outnumbered" and "you're kind aren't welcome here" ... is that what you're saying?

i agree with you that that much of the battling on DU comes without a sufficient definition of views on the issues (you said "degrees of liberalness") ... but i think the problem is even worse than you described ...

many of those identifying with the "far left" (and I often see myself that way) will make a much stronger case (and a more frequent case) against the "corporate state" ... i rarely if ever see this phrase used by moderates ... i think both those who think themselves centrists and those who think themselves lefties agree that making a significant issue of the "corporate state" is more of a left-wing view ... feel free to correct this but that's what i think most DU'ers would agree to ...

but here's the thing ... a week or two ago i posted a thread that included quotes from such notable far-lefties as James Madison and Teddy Roosevelt ... both quotes warned about the risks of corporations gaining too much power and corrupting our democracy ... and all DU'ers are familiar with Eisenhower's famous warning about the dangers to our democracy posed by the military-industrial complex ... the point of all this is that we have come to see such fundamental, common sense views that worry about threats to our democratic institutions as "left wing" ... it's too bad that we just don't see such beliefs as common sense American patriotism ... why are we radicals when we seek to honor the principles on which the country was founded?

perhaps there is some value to political labels as broad-brush generalizations of what we believe in ... the reality is that labels probably do more harm than good and only serve to divide us ... i think there can be value, and perhaps interest, in polls like this ... but they should never be, nor do i think this poll was intended as, a substitute for a clear articulation of values and positions on the issues ...

...without breaking it down into individual issues, a "tyranny of the majority" could ensue.

Here are my personal observations about DU...

I lurked on DU for several months after it was created. I really saw no left liberal/moderate liberal divide then. It was mostly a "defeat the Republicans" atmosphere. I joined - under another username - but didn't post much.

I came back in 2002 and did notice a small left liberal/moderate liberal divide mostly carried out by a small group.

This intensified during the primaries and continues to this day. I'v even seen posts declaring moderate and centrist dems are more of an enemy than the GOP.

So, if we ever got a definitive breakdown (especially if it were limited to far left liberal - moderate liberal (which would include DLC Dems), then that would be harmful to the DU community IMO.

I'm not, and the majority of responders aren't. A lot of people like to have a term that is an apt description of their beliefs. To me, it's meant as a broad indicator. Should every D.U. poll be regarded as illegitimate because it's unscientific? But yet people like to do polls anyway.

I don't think this poll is going to cause people to fight on D.U. In fact, people appear to be very respectful of each other when it comes to political philosophy. There are some exceptions, but it's those exceptions that are the problems.

"...and I really don't think we want to know"
I know that I want to know. I'm sure other people do too.

On some issues (Drug legalization) I am ultra left, some (gun control)I can fit in with almost any RW, and on some (Socialized medicine) I am moderate left.

No real slot for me. I don't fit in the round holes or in the square ones either.

Depending on the issue-liberal-moderate-moderate-liberal-progressive-slightly left of center- DEMOCRAT.

I identify more with that description than Green.

I'd have said anarcho-syndicalist but that doesn't cover my environmental concerns. Green seems to be more basic left of centre, its environmentalism homocentric, not the best fit for my Deep Ecology philosophy.

Ecosocialism is a term I recently came across in Grist Magazine, it seems to fit nicely.

first, last and always

edited for typo

:)

Parties can shift their allegiances, I tend to support progressives who maintain a healthy sense of pragmatism and understand the vagaries of human nature.

And, yes, I just found out about the wikipedia. :-)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
"Progressives shared a common belief in the ability of human nature to improve by bettering its living and working conditions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
"The basic principles of progressivism are:

Social safety net
Those that work hard and play by the rules should receive a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity.

Democracy
Minimize concentrations of political, corporate, and media power so that individuals have a stronger voice in their government. Publicly finance elections to reduce the influence of wealth in the political process. Improve public education, especially in civics and history so that more citizens can take part in the political process. Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not just stockholder control.

Role for government
Government provides public services that the private sector cannot or is not doing effectively, or ethically. Government should promote and, if possible, provide greater democracy, more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life, less violence, and the building and maintaining of public infrastructure.

Ethical business sector
In the course of making money by providing products and services, businesses should not adversely affect the public good, as defined by the above values.
Foreign policy
The same values governing domestic policy should apply to foreign policy whenever possible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

"Populism is a rhetorical style that holds that the common person is oppressed by the "elite" in society, which exists only to serve its own interests, and therefore, the instruments of the State need to be grasped from this self-serving elite and instead used for the benefit and advancement of the people as a whole. A populist reaches out to ordinary people, talking about their economic and social concerns, and appeals to their common sense."

I define myself to others as a card-carrying liberal. But, I noticed after visiting here for awhile, that my beliefs on a few issues are not as left as I originally would have pegged myself to be.

That show is the best

:)

I'm liberal on many issues, but somewhat conservative on others. I think the far-left is just as wacky and dangerous as the far-right.

who believes in the death penalty for the gacys, bundys, rapists and pedophiles of our country. what does that make me?

ellen fl

not one of those judean people's front rotters.

The DLCers will be sad to be left out. :(

Many DLCers will perhaps choose that one?

If you haven't run across the rightwingers here, give it time - you will.

... all the far left socialist "Dems" must still be asleep. :)

Next we'll be signing praises to Mao and donning our hammer-and-sickle insignias.

Oddly, WW, I don't consider you a rightwinger. Just confused about the true motives of the DLC. I have nothing against you personally.

Well, I'm off to go redistribute the wealth of the rich!

I'm completely aware of the "true motives" of the DLC, which is why I back them about 75% of the time.

I would say it is the DLC's detractors who are confused.

We have our own opinions. Thankfully, more people everyday seem to be agreeing with mine, and I think that's beneficial to our fellow citizens.

I bid you a good day.

Perhaps I don't fully know their true motives. Sometimes I'm uncertain why they really pursue the policies they do - is it because they share the same ideology as the right? Is it because they believe their policies will enact something other than the real-world results that actually occur? Are they just dumb?

So I think it's fair to say I don't *know* their true motives. Suspect, yeah, but not know fully. I doubt you understand them fully, either, though you may know more about their motives than I from closer proximity to them.

I do know I oppose most of their policies, and you support them. Hence, the disconnect in the way we individually perceive the organization.

but I described myself as "progressive populist"

<---For reasons like clean air, aid to the cities, care for the elderly, civil rights and, yes, I was a hawk for a good portion of the Vietnam war, too. (I'm not for war as a general principle any more.)
John
Who enlisted in the Army at 17 in 1974 and who has a large "Peace" banner in the front window of his house today.

of the definition anymore. The Freepers have used it from every thing from A to Z. As a Boomer it was always pretty clear! No matter, I'm still calling myself a Proud Liberal!

The more power the people have directly, the better. If you give the government more power to fix society's problems its only a matter of time before that power is used to make things worse.

Wish politicians representing me would be so proud.

Man, is this ever interesting...I didn't know I was one. I've aways been big on labor unions and thought there was something inherently wrong with capitalism....and I've never wanted a government trying to tell me what to do...so I'm kind of an anarchist...on the other hand I like to see government functioning in the liberal sense of promoting civil rights, health, education, welfare, infrastructure, the whole social safety net thing....

maybe the only one left alive, but I think that progressivism with a touch of capitalistic self-sufficiency is the best form of government.

Bright green leftist libertarian

Mostly liberal, a tiny bit conservative maybe, but not conservative enough to be "conservative", so I'll go with mutt!

I choose liberal,
"not because it's easy but because it's hard". (speaking of heroes)

right wing liberal..... or so a brit marine coined me