Three-Dimensional Humans
Liberals want gun control; conservatives are pro gun ownership.
Conservatives are anti-abortion; liberals are pro-choice.
Democrats push for government intervention in everything; Republicans want small government.
Republicans are fiscally conservative; Democrats are spendthrifts.
Do you hate generalizations as much as I do? Do you dislike stereotypes? Are you tired of people putting words in your mouth?
You know what? I doubt that the majority of Americans would fit neatly into any stereotyped ideological box. (Don’t you hate it when people offer statistics with no sources to back them up?) When listening to liberal pundits, I’m quite good at predicting the position that they’ll take on any topic. Same with conservatives. But these are people in the media, with ratings to consider, books to sell, agendas to push. Those of us not making a living at it? I think we’re a lot deeper and more complicated than that. (See Shades of Gray…)
Where do you fit on an ideological plane? How do you self-identify? Some people have called me liberal, some moderate…but I think I’m more of a moderate liberal. I’m not a Democrat; I’m Independent. But I bet there are issues where my stance would surprise you…where I don’t fit into the neat mold of a liberal. And I’m guessing that most of you are complex individuals, too.
So that’s what this post is about. Considering how you self-identify, in what areas to you diverge from the stereotype of that group? Where don’t you toe the “party line?” I’ll bet there are matters about which some of us agree that we wouldn’t have predicted. Also, there may be disagreements that remained hidden because we assume we know each other’s stance. I’m not intending this to be a post where we argue the merits of any of these issues; I’m searching for a venue where we can break out of our typecasting. I think we’re more than a bunch of Stepford ideologists. So, tell us, where are you a misfit?
I’ll start. I’m really against relaxing drug laws; I think many are too lenient already. (Heck, I wish prohibition had worked.) The only, very strict, exception I would allow would be for medical marijuana use.
To accompany that, I think that drunk driving laws are too lenient. I used to believe that once someone gets a DWI s/he should lose the privilege to drive forever. Then I decided that doesn’t allow for the possibility of rehabilitation. But I think laws need to be tougher than they are.
I could go on, but now it’s your turn. (Not to tell me why I’m wrong about drugs or alcohol; write another post about that. It would be interesting.) Where don’t you fit in, ideologically? What would surprise us? Inquiring minds want to know…
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
April 27th, 2007 11:37
Hi Susan,
OK, I’ll go.
I’m a generally a progressive/liberal. This should come as a surprise to none who read this site. Here’s the 3-D human part:
1. I think setting a date for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq is gutless insanity. I simply can’t fathom the logic of it. If you tell your enemies when you’re leaving, they will simply stay until the day after, and then take over. We made this mess. We have a moral obligation to clean it up.
2. I support the availability of legal abortion in the U.S. I ALSO support significant limits on the availability of abortion. These limits broadly center on how late in a pregnancy an abortion should be allowed. I support the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion.
3. I am against the death penalty. HOWEVER, my resistance is based solely on the fact that the death penalty system in the US is simply broken. Too many innocent individuals get executed. If you could fix the system, I believe there are crimes for which execution is a viable societal option. These broadly center on crimes victimizing children, and the killing of law enforcement personal.
April 27th, 2007 17:11
Hi Grant-
Thanks for playing. I guess I could add your #2 to my list as well.
I’ve got to admit the troop withdrawl bothers me, too. As much as I want the war to be over, I think the issue you raise is a valid one, and I haven’t heard anything to counter it…yet…
Susan
April 27th, 2007 17:21
I think Susan is right we are all complex.
I am generally liberal on most social issues and support social spending. I want universal healthcare, and serious pension benefit guarantees, and social security reform, and publically funded elections. I want abortion to be legally available on demand without restriction. I want a real cap and trade policy for carbon emissions, and a stronger EPA. I favor the licensing of handguns. I fear monopolist capitalists. I know that most of my wish list means higher taxes, but I am willing to pay for effective programs - more taxes for a stronger societal safety net and better services ? Sign me up!
Generally, rather than failing to toe any particular line, I think I am more a bundle of internal contradictions.
I hate governmental regulation that infringes on individual liberties (for example, I think adults should be free to smoke and drink what ever they like, and as much as they want) but I also want society to protect me from the irresponsible adults among us (I want much stronger DWI laws, and if your habits cause disease, society should not have to pay for it.)
I believe in free markets identifying the most acceptable choices for the largest number of people in almost every situation, but a favor government regulation to help drive the market to positions the market won’t currently support in order to serve a societal benefit (i.e. subsidies for green technologies) Too, I think that the market serves the lowest common denominator and may be we need government to require more than that (anyone else remember flying before deregulation ? - those were the days)
Anyone else chiming in?
April 27th, 2007 17:44
Hi Todd-
You’ve got all that going on inside you? I”m exhausted just reading it! : )
Seriously, thanks for chiming in.
Susan
April 28th, 2007 09:36
Hmmm…
pro choice re abortion
anti gun — in the extreme - no citizen should own a gun without a strong reason to use one in their employment (e.g. rancher, crocodile hunter, police) — ban recreational gun use — damn it, if people want to kill animals, let them learn a higher skill and use less lethal weapons that they have to make themselves, maybe bow and arrow. Where’s the fun in ‘easy’??
pro universal health care (it works here in Oz)
anti-unilateral military action (e.g. US into Iraq)
pro strong regulation of anti-social activities (smoking, drinking, graffiti) though not as far as Singapore takes it (no spitting)
anti-death penalty
pro early intervention programs to fight poverty and promote social justice (infant mortality in US for blacks is 17 per 1,000, for whites it is 5.6)
pro carbon trading and major intercessions to reduce human impact on global warming - the alternative will be MUCH more expensive
pro foreign aid to alleviate poverty
pro market forces in conjunction with checks and balances
pro decriminalising of drugs, pro major initiatives to reduce demand for illegal drugs — it’s the demand that creates the market
pro peace initiatives — get to the table and keep talking/listening, carry the big stick but walk softly, listen respectfully and talk firmly
don’t know HOW the US should get out of Iraq - but they should get out ASAP, if that means setting a date, do it.
tell the truth, be kind to others, admit your mistakes, apologise, make amends, move on, share your wealth with those who have less in a way that gives their kids real opportunities
Here’s a question — how do you win a slow-bicycle race when the survival of all depends on everyone getting across the line as soon as possible? The world needs all countries to cut carbon emissions, but each country says, ‘I will when he does’. No one is prepared to lead. So where is the umpire or the cajoler who will encourage all parties to cycle a little faster?
Jeffrey Sachs predicts that by 2010 there will be a post-Kyoto agreement and the US, China, and India will be among the signatories. Now THERE’S a man with optimism. Perhaps he is the cajoler who can encourage everyone to pedal faster.
April 28th, 2007 10:06
In a broad sense I’m a social libertarian. The behavior of consenting adults is none of my concern. I think the rights of individuals should be limited only in the cause of limiting harm to others.
At the same time, I am in favor of taxes, and believe in certain federal programs. I’m in favor of our national highway system, a national health-care system, a nationally funded education system, national defense and a national economic regulatory system. I don’t believe in equality of outcome, but I do believe in equal opportunity in terms of education, health, and the like.
My closet secret: I’m a republican. Not in the modern, social conservative, Bush-Reaganite sense, but in the small federal government, states rights, representative government sense. Government more in the frame of the founding principles (including its secularism).
April 29th, 2007 08:37
I didn’t write for a long time but I came see what was happening. This time, even though I am not American, I hope you will give me the opportunity to give you an “outside view” on your debate.
As you maybe know, I am French, but I never actually lived in France for any long period, I was raised in Germany, live now in Canada and have lived in England and my family is part Italian, but of course whether in Germany or in Canada, I have always lived around American people. People actually can never tell from where I am, so my answer is: I am a citizen of the World, and this is exactly how I feel and what we should all be.
OK, sorry about this interlude.
I am not a political person and, seeing all what is happening around us, I am starting to actually hate politics and politicians. Even though our system is not quite like yours, in the end, it amounts to the same thing and it looks like our political people have all been raised or trained in the same schools or cloned or come from the same families!!!! Scary!!!!
The only thing I can see, objectively is that there is absolutely NO difference in THEIR mind, and whatever the advocate at the moment is only because the place was taken on the other side. The only interest they have is THEIR OWN and long is forgotten the PEOPLE’S interest.
Don’t you remember that WE, the people are the ones who put those people in place and that WE, the PEOPLE have the power to ask them for answers. They are only our REPRESENTATIVES, where did we loose the sense of that and did we get so afraid to say what we had to say!!!! and ask for answers!!!!
Now, for your particular problems, I cannot go into them, I am afraid I would take for ever and this is certainly not my place to comment about them.
The only thing I will say something about is when it comes about FREEDOM.
FREEDOM is a wonderful thing. BUT. It is NOT something that is given unconditionally, and this is what everybody seems to have forgotten.
EVERY MEN’S(human) FREEDOM STOPS WHERE THE OTHER MEN’S FREEDOM STARTS.
Yes, we indeed live in society and the more we are, the more it will be difficult to be free. Politeness, respect, unselfishness and all those really important qualities that we used to teach our children, and that made life so much easier, maybe, just maybe, would help us make the world a little better place.
And how about we got rid of all those politicians and started to administrate our countries ourselves… Replace them with better people, people that would do the job for once…
Martine
April 30th, 2007 11:16
Hi Gillian-
Not knowing enough about Australia leads me to ask the questions….are any of your beliefs considered non-standard for your ideological leanings…or perhaps you don’t self-identify with any specific political party or social construct?
Susan
April 30th, 2007 12:45
Susan,
You bring up many good points, especially that the media only sees black or white (or red and blue as the case may be) and the talk show hosts need to consider their audience and ratings. I honestly believe that the Ann Coulters and Al Frankens (or whoever the left equilivent pig is) only says the most outrageous things because it gets them publicity.
I myself am a social libertarian, who believes in a solid jeffersonian model of government. In other words the fed has no role or responsibility to do anything not explicitly layed out in the constitution. If it ain’t in the Constitution then it is the states role to deal with it. This means smaller more efficient federal government that is able to provide national security for defensive purposes.
I believe our troops would be much better served here working to prevent terrorist activities at our ports and borders, not fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan where it seems we can accomplish very little in the big picture.
This means leaving a decision on a woman’s body and health in her hands, not in the hands of some men who have chosen a different path. Yes I believe that pro-life individuals have in fact chosen to be that way, and that is fine. They need to recognize their choice and allow other individuals to make their own choice.
I believe the 2nd ammendment has significant value, but the sale of automatic assault rifles serves no purpose for home protection or hunting wildlife. Nothing wrong with a .22 or good old fashioned shotgun.
I believe we as citizens should not be grouped directly for demographic purposes since we all have varying and often different opinions even within our own parties or ideologies. I could go on, but I hope you get my point.
Jeff
April 30th, 2007 13:55
Hi Jeff-
I think I get your point…not only are the distinct groups often inaccurate (I still don’t think we fit into nice bundles), they also serve to divide…”us” against “them.”
I also agree that many pundits are primarily being provocative for the publicity. When I hear an outrageous statement, my first thought is, “Did s/he really say that?” That is followed almost immediately by, “Of course, because now we’re talking about him/her.”
Susan
April 30th, 2007 15:52
Hi Susan,
Where do my views sit in the pantheon on Australian ‘norms’? Well, I’m definitely up the left end of the spectrum. But I wouldn’t be regarded as an extremist here. I think it probably runs something like this–
Abortion - Aust has liberal laws that are widely supported even by our very conservative PM
Guns - Aust has some of most restrictive laws in world and this is very widely supported
Health care - we have universal health care and it is very widely supported, no one wants to see it eroded.
Iraq - most Australians think our govt was stupid to support Bush. In elections this year we are likely to have a change of govt and the opposition is in favour of withdrawl, so I think we’ll be out of there.
Global warming — at this point the community is probably ahead of the Govt on this issue - they are dragging their heels. Aust is one of the countries that didn’t sign Kyoto.
I am at an extreme on the issues of decriminalising drugs, foreign aid and early intervention for social justice.
Individual vs community — Aust is more community-oriented than US and much more ready to use legislation to compel pro-community versus pro-individual choices — e.g. gun control, seat belts, bicycle helmets, planning controls for urban development, random breath testing, etc, etc. Not that the US doesn’t have these things, but Aust usually does it quickly and comprehensively because it is more socially accepted here to over-ride individual rights where the community as a whole is negatively impacted.
I live in a country where voting is compulsory, there is no death penalty, we have universal health care, more volunteer organisations than any other country, and outperform the US on most measures of health and education. On the other hand, we’re not as wealthy as the US, and the life expectancy of Aboriginal Australians is shockingly low.
I’m probably your classic bleeding-heart leftie. Someone here referred to ‘kumbaya-singing’. Yep, that’s me. I married a US Mennonite five years ago. We’re a good match on values.
April 30th, 2007 19:52
Hii Gillian-
Thanks for the information. It’s very illuminating. I have a lot of questions, but I’ll start with the most startling to me now. Compulsory voting? How does that work? You may be aware that we have less than stelllar turn-outs for many elections in the US…
Susan
April 30th, 2007 20:29
Yes, it’s a doozy! I used to take it for granted as the norm - surely all democracies make sure that everyone votes!! Then I discovered that Aust is one of only 10 OECD countries that enforce compulsory voting. The main benefit is that no one has to spend a dime getting voters registered - everyone is registered and they get a fine (nominal in Aust) if they don’t turn up to vote.
If you don’t want to vote and don’t want to pay the fine, then the answer is an ‘informal’ vote - you get yourself ticked off, take the forms, scribble insults/smiley faces on them and put them in the box.
We have three levels of govt, so we do a LOT of voting.
– local councils (take care of local roads, rubbish, libraries, sports fields, etc — NOT schools)
– State Government (take care of schools/ colleges/ universities, hospitals, major roads, and other stuff)
– Federal govt (take care of everything else, and residual rights go to fed govt not to states)
Does compulsory voting make for better govt? I’m not sure it makes a huge difference to outcomes. Our two-party system is a lot like any other. I suspect that we may have a more engaged population.
Of course, schools do well out of it because most polling stations are in schools and every time there is an election the school has a nice big captive audience for their cake stalls, sausage sizzles and raffles!
I was interested to catch up on the recent issue of electoral fraud in the US. I gather that this was used as a scare tactic to cause States to implement more rigorous voter registration that happens to disadvantage low-ability / low-educated / poorer voters — who happen to lean towards Democrats. The NYTimes reported on a recent study that shows that there was no substantive electoral fraud, so the whole thing sounds like a Republican beat-up.
Of course, that probably depends what side you’re on.
“The more we learn about the White House’s purge of United States attorneys, the more a single thread runs through it: the Bush administration’s campaign to transform the minor problem of voter fraud into a supposed national scourge.”
Wikipedia has a useful article that lists the pros and cons of compulsory voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
I suspect that the US would find it hard to implement cos some would see it as an infringement of the individual’s right NOT to vote (or perhaps their right not to face the sausage sizzle!).
April 30th, 2007 21:46
Now here’s a surprise…
Alberto Chong and Mauricio Olivera have done a study “On Compulsory Voting and Income Inequality in a Cross-Section of Countries”. The abstract reads –
This paper explores the link between compulsory voting and income distribution using a cross-section of countries around the world. Our empirical cross-country analysis for 91 countries during the period 1960-2000 shows that compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, improves income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population. Our findings
are robust to changes and additions to our benchmark specification. Since poorer countries suffer from relatively greater income inequality, it might make sense to promote such voting schemes in developing regions such as Latin America.
Seems to me that when people oppose compulsory voting, they should realise that they are supporting greater inequality, and they should be aware of the social costs of inequality.
This raises the question of ‘evidence or ideology’. When there is evidence that a policy has particular benefits, then ideological arguments become less relevant. Or do they?
April 30th, 2007 21:50
Thanks, Gillian. Very informative, right down to the sausage sizzle, which my husband would love. Me, I’m all about the cake.
Susan
May 1st, 2007 23:32
I’m a registered Democrat in the US but find myself more and more annoyed by the restrictions both parties are putting on our freedoms. “A plague on both your houses” ?
Having said that, I break from party lines on a number of issues. I will allow for limited gun control but would oppose any outright assault on our right to bear arms. I think parents should have the ultimate decision in educating their children, whether that be in public schools, private, at home or some alternative arrangement, and that the government should financially support each of those alternatives. I support individual property rights, so much that the fact that I am currently a member of a home owner’s association annoys me to no end.
A great discussion! It’s my first time here, but I plan to return again soon!
May 2nd, 2007 04:34
Nicole, I am curious about your reasons for wanting citizens to be able to own and carry lethal weapons?
May 2nd, 2007 09:13
Hi Nicole-
Wecome to Brave Humans.
I find your stance on education interesting. I’m going to have to think about it…not sure where I come down on that. I’m a former public school teacher (and child of a public school teacher) who is sending her child to private school, for which we happily (and heavily) pay. I’m not trying to start a debate (since that is not the intention of the post); I’m just looking for info (since that IS the intention of the post). Why do you think that the government should financially support alternatives to public education? (I’d love it, but I personally don’t know how to justify it. We’re not in a bad public school district.)
Thanks
Susan
May 3rd, 2007 00:20
Wow. Y’all don’t waste anytime engaging a newcomer. I am happy to oblige and will try to keep my comments succinct.
RE: guns. I grew up in a family where almost everyone had a gun in the house, safely locked up, and use for hunting and target shooting. While I realize that rifles and shotguns can be used for violence, I support the right of US citizens to own these weapons for sport. No one needs an AK47 to shoot a deer, or to protect one’s property, and that is why I would support limited bans on assault weapons. Overall, however, I take the “right to bear arms” in our Constitution as relevant and just.
RE: education. The goal of publicly funded education is to ensure that all children receive an opportunity to learn, and that this learning puts them in a better place to be productive citizens. However, there are many paths to that same goal, including charter, private, and home schooling — but only one is provided financial “sanction” by government. I’d offer, Susan, that you are in a unique position: you have both the privilege of a good public school and the financial means to choose a private school. Many people have the opposite: a poor public school but no ability to pay for a private education. Homeschooling adds additional twists, because families must absorb not only the cost of materials, but the salary of the teacher — potentially sacrificing the income of the parent who stays home to educate the children. Homeschooling isn’t an option for families in which both parents are required to work in order to subsist. Again, lending financial support to a homeschooling parent/teacher makes educational options more just.
To me, a voucher system evens that playing field and leaves the decision about a child’s education in the hands of the people who deserve to make it — the parents.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts! I’d love to hear yours as well.
May 3rd, 2007 01:10
Hi Nicole,
Here in Australia, the govt gives partial funding to private schools, as well as running the public school system.
As well as your ‘fairness’ argument, there is also the view that private schools save the govt money cos they don’t have to provide as many places in public schools. So, some of the money saved should subsidise the kids in private schools.
The trouble is that the more the govt subsidises the private sector, the bigger it grows and there are fears that we are drifting into a two-tier system where only the poorest kids will end up going to public schools. This kind of division doesn’t help society in the long-term. Public education seems to work best when it serves a wide spectrum of the community.
We also have the problem of these govt subsidies applying to ALL private schools, including some very wealthy ones. Many of us think that isn’t right. Parents who can afford school fees of $18,000 pa should not get the benefit of govt money for the wealthy school, even if they HAVE paid taxes. All of these schemes should be means tested so the poor and vulnerable, who need a larger share of services just to keep even, do get the larger share. Otherwise, the wealthy school uses the govt money to fund a heated swimming pool, while the public school in a disadvantaged area is struggling to get enough remedial teachers and homework supervisors.
Just my ramblings …
I’m glad we don’t have a ‘right to bear’ arms in our constitution as it seems to give the US no end of problems (shockingly high homicide and suicide by firearm rates) that appear to be intractible.
May 4th, 2007 09:38
Hi Nicole-
Thanks for answering my question. I see your point.
My view is that public school could be more effective for more people. The research is there; it’s just not changing in any significant way. I’d restructure the whole thing. There would still people who, for serious and real reasons, would chose avenues as more appropriate for their children. I think, however, that a revamped public school system could meet the needs of more students.
Hope you keep coming back and participating!
Susan