Americans are fundamentally a conservative populace despite their sometimes odd votes

[Little-Acorn]

In another thread, a poster ventured that Americans were basically centrist. This opened a subject that deserves its own thread.

Comments?



America is predominantly... centrist I guess.

Really?

I believe that very few Americans would walk into their neighbor's house, take money out of his wallet, and use it to buy health care for a homeless person - they're far more likely to use their own money.

And I doubt many people would force their neighbor at gunpoint to quit landscaping his back yard, filling in a muddy area, and building a treehouse for his kids. Even if the treehouse is unsightly, they are likely to leave the neighbor to his own devices.

And if the neighbor was in financial difficulty, most Americans would not go to all the other neighbors and force them to pay money to help the destitute neighbor. They might ASK the other neighbors, while contributing a lot of their own personal resources, offering him a job, etc.

And most Americans would certainly not go around regularly to all their neighbors, demanding to know intimate details of what they are doing, how much they are earning, how much they spent and on what things, etc., for the purpose of knowing what they could later force out of them for any of the above situations.

The vast majority of Americans would use their own personal resources, while asking only for VOLUNTARY help from neighbors if they asked at all; and only in extreme circumstances would they interfere at all. They are far more likely to let things be, and to respect the judgement and privacy of those around them, unless someone was in real trouble. And even then, they are likely to ask only politely, using no coercion other than a vague implication that one course is the right thing to do. And if meeting a refusal at that point, they will take the other's decision as the dominating imperative, acknowledging that the other is the best judge of his own capabilities. Only if he finds someone (neighbor or otherwise) doing actual direct, major harm to another, might he step in with force, and then only cautiously.

At the same time, most Americans willingly contribute to PRIVATE groups (charities, churches, hospitals, food banks etc.) that engage in methodical charity; while turning a cold shoulder to anyone who tries to compel them to do such giving.

In other words, most Americans are fundamentally CONSERVATIVE.

For the oddity where some of them will then turn around and vote for people who say they will interfere as the voter never would, coerce as the voter never would, and threaten as the voter abhors, I have no explanation. But aside from that bizarre voting tendency of some, they themselves are basically conservative in their own lives.


How did BO get elected with a democratic majority congress if America is predominantly conservative?
The former republican majorities in Congress and the Presidency were becoming more and more liberal, doing exactly the things that Americans would seldom if ever do, often with little or no justification from "extreme situations" such as impingent crime, terrorism, 9/11 etc. And the mostly-conservative populace didn't like it, and especially didn't like their protests being ignored on matters from spending to border security to unconstitutional decisions and entitlements.

A new guy showed up offering "Hope and Change", and describing fairly moderate approaches - more moderate than the Republicans were enacting. And barely enough of them were taken in, that the newcomer got a slim majority, as did most of the Congressional seats that changed hands.

Of course, that moderation, and hope, lasted only as long as the polls remained open, and then went hard-left to a degree that even the liberal Republicans never dreamed. And we are seeing the people's reaction to that now, and will see it starkly on Nov. 2.

[SassyLady]

I believe liberals/progressives have gone so far left that it doesn't take much to be a conservative in today's world. 20 years ago I would have been labled a liberal ... and today I am considered a conservative.

The Overton Window theory at play.


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

The Overton window, in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)political theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_theory), describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on a particular issue. It is named after its originator, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)Joseph P. Overton (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_P._Overton&action=edit&redlink=1)<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window#cite_note-0)</SUP>, former vice president of the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)Mackinac Center for Public Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Center_for_Public_Policy).<SUP id=cite_ref-1 class=reference> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window#cite_note-1)</SUP>

Overview

At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office. Overton arranged the spectrum on a vertical axis of “more free” and “less free” in regards to government intervention. When the window moves or expands, ideas can accordingly become more or less politically acceptable. The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:

Unthinkable
Radical
Acceptable
Sensible
Popular
Policy
The Overton Window is a means of visualizing which ideas define that range of acceptance by where they fall in it. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public so that the window either “moves” or expands to encompass them. Opponents of current policies, or similar ones currently within the window, likewise seek to convince people that these should be considered unacceptable.
Other formulations of the process created after Overton's death add the concept of moving the window, such as deliberately promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas, with the intention of making the current fringe ideas acceptable by comparison.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)

[Abbey Marie]

The examples of Conservatism given in the OP, support what I have come to believe- that "Conservative" today means anti-large Gov't, fiscal conservatism. The popularity of the tea party only reinforces this theory.

I think a discussion of the rise (or fall) of Conservatism needs to include the point that social Conservatives are perhaps being left behind, as strictly fiscal Conservatism marches on. I wonder what impact this will have in further fracturing the Republican party. For example, the attacks on Christine O'Donnell from within her own party and without, may be partly due to her social Conservatism.

[Kathianne]

The examples of Conservatism given in the OP, support what I have come to believe- that "Conservative" today means anti-large Gov't, fiscal conservatism. The popularity of the tea party only reinforces this theory.

I think a discussion of the rise (or fall) of Conservatism needs to include the point that social Conservatives are perhaps being left behind as strictly fiscal Conservatism marches on. I wonder what impact this will have in further fracturing the Republican party. For example, the attacks on Christine O'Donnell from within her own party and without, may be partly due to her social Conservatism.

I agree. I'll add that many Americans would be happy with the states taking on some of the functions of the fed regarding mandatory spending with the likes of New Deal. Some would certainly argue for SSI types of benefits, if the Fed didn't provide them, at least at the beginning, others would balk. Let the states decide those issues.

On the other hand, borders shouldn't be state patrolled, unless the Fed wants to be toothless. It's right up there, with national defense.

[Sweetchuck]

In another thread, a poster ventured that Americans were basically centrist. This opened a subject that deserves its own thread.

Comments?



Really?

I believe that very few Americans would walk into their neighbor's house, take money out of his wallet, and use it to buy health care for a homeless person - they're far more likely to use their own money.

And I doubt many people would force their neighbor at gunpoint to quit landscaping his back yard, filling in a muddy area, and building a treehouse for his kids. Even if the treehouse is unsightly, they are likely to leave the neighbor to his own devices.

And if the neighbor was in financial difficulty, most Americans would not go to all the other neighbors and force them to pay money to help the destitute neighbor. They might ASK the other neighbors, while contributing a lot of their own personal resources, offering him a job, etc.

And most Americans would certainly not go around regularly to all their neighbors, demanding to know intimate details of what they are doing, how much they are earning, how much they spent and on what things, etc., for the purpose of knowing what they could later force out of them for any of the above situations.

The vast majority of Americans would use their own personal resources, while asking only for VOLUNTARY help from neighbors if they asked at all; and only in extreme circumstances would they interfere at all. They are far more likely to let things be, and to respect the judgement and privacy of those around them, unless someone was in real trouble. And even then, they are likely to ask only politely, using no coercion other than a vague implication that one course is the right thing to do. And if meeting a refusal at that point, they will take the other's decision as the dominating imperative, acknowledging that the other is the best judge of his own capabilities. Only if he finds someone (neighbor or otherwise) doing actual direct, major harm to another, might he step in with force, and then only cautiously.

At the same time, most Americans willingly contribute to PRIVATE groups (charities, churches, hospitals, food banks etc.) that engage in methodical charity; while turning a cold shoulder to anyone who tries to compel them to do such giving.

In other words, most Americans are fundamentally CONSERVATIVE.

For the oddity where some of them will then turn around and vote for people who say they will interfere as the voter never would, coerce as the voter never would, and threaten as the voter abhors, I have no explanation. But aside from that bizarre voting tendency of some, they themselves are basically conservative in their own lives.


The former republican majorities in Congress and the Presidency were becoming more and more liberal, doing exactly the things that Americans would seldom if ever do, often with little or no justification from "extreme situations" such as impingent crime, terrorism, 9/11 etc. And the mostly-conservative populace didn't like it, and especially didn't like their protests being ignored on matters from spending to border security to unconstitutional decisions and entitlements.

A new guy showed up offering "Hope and Change", and describing fairly moderate approaches - more moderate than the Republicans were enacting. And barely enough of them were taken in, that the newcomer got a slim majority, as did most of the Congressional seats that changed hands.

Of course, that moderation, and hope, lasted only as long as the polls remained open, and then went hard-left to a degree that even the liberal Republicans never dreamed. And we are seeing the people's reaction to that now, and will see it starkly on Nov. 2.

There's a lot of cognitive bias in your statements. Look it up if you must, but I appreciate your pointing this subject out. I will respond accordingly.

I don't know if American voters are primarily centrist, I stated as much. I'm only guessing, but I don't agree that Americans are primarily conservative. That's a ridiculous statement however if you can support it with factual, UNBIASED data, I'll certainly consider it. I might learn something also, but your stating that Americans would and wouldn't do this and that isn't something I can rationalize with. It's illogical.

Factual data, not innuendo.

I'm basing my assumption on the fact that support for liberals and conservatives ebbs and flows with changing political conditions. A reasonable person wouldn't suggest that America is primarily conservative considering BO's election along with a majority liberal congress.

I expect a voter focus on throwing incumbents out of office in November, not liberals necessarily, but if there is a conservative landslide, it would be naive and irresponsible to suddenly label the voting populace as primarily conservative based on the results of one election. You have to consider historical voting trends and quite frankly, your arguments/statements provide nothing of substance and only your unvalidated opinion.

Dig up some factual data that support your argument and this discussion may begin to become relevant.

[Pagan]

I take the hard line of small and limited government. But I'm labeled a NeoCon from by the Left and a Liberal by the NeoCons.

So I guess I'm a NeoCon Liberal for believing in small government with limited power.

[Sweetchuck]

I take the hard line of small and limited government. But I'm labeled a NeoCon from by the Left and a Liberal by the NeoCons.

So I guess I'm a NeoCon Liberal for believing in small government with limited power.

That's what the indoctrinated, small-minded do - try to smear.

It's because they're incapable of debating and rationalizing. It's a sort of thug mentality. If you can't match someone intellectually, then try to kick their ass.

[Little-Acorn]

I agree. I'll add that many Americans would be happy with the states taking on some of the functions of the fed regarding mandatory spending with the likes of New Deal. Some would certainly argue for SSI types of benefits, if the Fed didn't provide them, at least at the beginning, others would balk. Let the states decide those issues.

On the other hand, borders shouldn't be state patrolled, unless the Fed wants to be toothless. It's right up there, with national defense.
I'm all for states taking on some of those functions. Then, people who like them, can move to those states, while people who think they're a bad idea, can move out to a state that isn't doing them.

A few years ago, Oregon tried to put Universal Health Care on its ballot as a Ballot Initiative. Various people started pointing out that, if Oregon passed it, people with expensive, chronic medical problems would be tempted to move there, while people who make a lot of money that would be taxed to pay for it all, would be tempted to move out.

The initiative was defeated in a rout.

Yes, I'm WAY up on states trying these things, while I oppose the Fed govt doing it. Competition between the states - the best way of finding out what works!

Americans are fundamentally conservative, including most of those who describe themselves as "liberal" or "progressive" (same thing). That some of them turn around and vote for politicians who will do exactly what they themselves would never do (as I described in the OP), is one of the odd puzzles of our age.

[Little-Acorn]

(oops, double post, sorry)