With the exception of groups blatently bought off ( unions, some corporations, some religous groups,etc) the typical Democrat tends to LOVE politics and rage and rant against the machine read all the cool news journals, write politically themed songs and movies, etc: while typical Republicans seem to be far more apolitical and apathetic of politics.
Also is it just me or has the democratic party in the past decade or so switched from kind of a populist image to a much more blatent elitist one? And the Republican party seems to have went from elitist to populist
I think your typical conservative has always been more cerebral than a democrat. Social democrats really have zero political philosophy, or grasp on economics. Even the most so called intellectual social democrats such as Paul Krugman has no understanding of political economy to be taken seriously. The social democrats have always put faith in elected leaders to expand the government wherever it may be necessary, essentailly surrendering all sovereignty to the technocrats who they believe are the experts scientific elites. Conservatives have a stronger inellectual tradition in the roots of classical liberalism, and free market economics. The liberals have their roots in German continental philosophy and marxism, which is existential, spiritual, and rejecets all economics as beurgious (cutting taxes? investment, savings you must come from the suburbs RAAAAWR…Free trade? what, you must be wealthy cotton planter) and inferior to abstract class interest.
Personally, I’ve had an easier time explaining my socially liberal values to so-called conservatives than I’ve had explaining it to so-called liberals. Most conservatives grasp the points I make, even if they disagree, and they’ve been able to raise valid objections to them. Where as with so-called liberals I’ve had either the “shrug response” or unbridled scorn (with no rhyme or reason as to why) to the point that it became an inquisition for some unspoken sin(s).
I’ve even been able to convince with logic and reason conservatives why many social values that they claim as conservative are in fact universal in nature (essential human values). I’ve never had any luck explaining to liberals why certain liberal values are universal values (they seem to draw mental blanks as to why tolerance and empathy are necessary to living among human beings…).
I do chalk it up to a difference in intellectual capacities or exposure as fezwhatley suggests, too. It’s almost like what Rand said decades ago, neo-conservatives need to abandon the false visage of religiousity for the basis of their values if they want any strength to beat down the mindless horde of the so-called liberals.
In some ways they are as they want to screw people over with their own versions of social programmes, but when it comes to social norms they want to tell everyone and their brother how-to behave. Oh crap, you’re right, liberals do the same thing. Forget it.
One time, I tried to argue against some interventionist policy by employing a little praxeology and was accused of “economizing” (there’s not even an appropriate English word for it - it means “filling the sphere of human existence with economic meaning only”).
When I compare American political speech to what I hear in Germany, there’s a lot more abstract spiritualization here than in the US. “Free market” doesn’t just mean people trading freely, the word is loaded with historical, philosophical and even religious connotations that are much more important than the actual meaning of the word.
I think that in contemporary politics both so-called “liberals” and “conservatives” roughly equally become blindly authoritarian whenever it’s their guys in power, and become quasi-libertarian (in rhetoric at least) when their guys are out of power only insofar as opposition to the other party or side goes. That’s how political power tends to work. On the most basic of fundamentals, all of the partisans tend to generally agree (although for different reasons and motivations). They are all possessed by the same basic fixed idea of the body politic. Together, all the same, they are the partisans of the state.
Which puts the question onto another axis - not liberal/conservative, but statist/libertarian.
In response to the OP, I’d have to agree - Democrats do seem to be more statist than Republicans, but only to a small degree - one I’ve never considered terribly important.
I tend to agree with that comment. However, when Bush was in office most right wing types (maybe about 40% of people I now) I knew didn’t particularly care for Bush one way or the other. However most left wing types I know tended to go HATE over Bush and then LOVE Obama. The more Republican type of people I know(outside of religous type biases) have little of opinions on foreign policy, and just seem to have a natural reaction to dislike lefty types of people. The people on the left I know seem far more involved in politics, they seem to relish in it. It is as if they always want to fight or rage for justice (minus maybe some of the auto union type people, who seem only to care about their local union). These are just my observations and most of them are based off of Ohio, Mich, Illinois, and NYC (All burroughs minus Staten Island) people so the perception may be very distorted.
it’s quite simple. Liberals are the in-party. They have been since FDR. They don’t need to be intellectually rigorous, they don’t need to prove themselves to anyone. They are the default position. If you disagree you are the one who has to justify yourself.
Statism is, indeed, a quantifiable concept. If a test can be devised to measure a person’s degree of intuitiveness, introspection, or extroversion, any other attitude or trait they have can be quantified and measured. In a very basic and simple form, it’s been done to measure people’s level of statist beliefs, right here. A more accurate, extensive test is obviously possible.
There are as many possible units of measurements as there are units of measurement to gauge the distance between my house and yours - anything from microns to AUs can be used to measure distance.
The (admittedly very soft) science of psychology has been working for decades on tools to measure aspects of the human personality. Degree of statism is easily measured by the tools they’ve already devised, and a more accurate tool could be had - this is known art. A crude, simple, but fairly accurate tool that does, indeed, measure and quantify one’s statist attitudes has already been pointed to.
Unless, of course, you’re of the amusing subset of people who view the spectrum as two possible shades - total anarchist vs. everyone else, who is automatically a whole-state proponent, in which case I’m likely wasting both of our time by trying to communicate. By ignoring the data already offered, you seem to indicate that this is the case.
Come to think of it, even in that case, there’s a unit of measurement - a single digit in binary scale.
More accurately, I think what would be measured would be the capacity for coercion, both socially & physically. I think that would make it more clearer than a measurement for Statism, which might be had at measuring other known characteristics, such as coercion, entitlement, etc.
But this is being predicated of individuals, i.e. their given propensity to support statist measures, which exists regardless of the person’s capacity for it; the issue is not a measure of statism within any given area.
Enough. Can you offer one single unit of measurement of statism???
No, you can not because (1) there is none and (2) statism is not a measurable concept as much as you want to believe it is.
Wrong. That would be a number. I am asking for the unit measurement.
Granted, the only way your binary scale is valid is if in fact “the amusing subset of people who view the spectrum as two possible shades - total anarchist vs. everyone else, who is automatically a whole-state proponent” is the only correct way of looking at current affairs.