Centerfield

Im not sure I follow you. you think that because 42% of the people do not ascribe to either a liberal, a conservative, or a whackjob point of view that they dont know what is going on?

I am sorry, but:
I am not a liberal
I am not a conservative
I am not a libertarianarchist
I am not a populist
I am not an idiot either. I know more about what is going on than any conservative, liberal or whacko I know. I have specifically consistent views, but am willing to compromise. Is willingness to compromise now seen as lack of "coherent understanding"?

Please, fill in the blanks for me Simon, because right at this moment. I am quite insulted.

Posted by: Dan at June 14, 2006 10:31 PM

Is willingness to compromise now seen as lack of "coherent understanding"?

Cømpromise is not a philosophy, it is a modus operandi. You have to have principles to start with that can be sacrificed in part or whole in order to compromise. Posted by: Simon at June 14, 2006 11:24 PM

ok, so because I dont subscribe to one of your 4 perspectives, I have no principles now?

I have very specific points of view on varying subjects like gay marriage, abortion, the war etc, but I do not fall into one of your camps, I fall into the 42% camp of no affiliation.

Really, I had thought I landed on a true blue centrist site, yet, I am starting to see extremism in various forms here as well. The 4 labels you list do not compromise, ever, in their point of view, they just push for more. To this date, no side has compromised on gay marriage, abortion, the war, illegal immigration, taxes, healthcare, or any other issue you can think of. It is really a wonder that this country actually works any more because of these 4 camps. the Libertarians are 1 shade away from anarchism, the populists one shade away from fascism, the Democrats(liberals) one shade away from socialism, and the Republicans (conservatives) one shade away from theocracy. your 42% non-aligned is the only thing keeping any of those 4 disasters from happening.

Posted by: Dan at June 14, 2006 11:42 PM

Dan, you seem a bit quick to take personal offense at a very general comment. Why don't you read the study and describe the flaws you see in it, rather than find ways to take it personally.

Also, contrary to your assertion, it is entirely possible to have principles in one of the 4 areas described in the study but still be willing to compromise. It's all in how you balance competing principles.

As a general rule, I am the one always railing against labels precisely because there's no essential reason why having a particular view of, say, the Iraq war, should mean you also have a particular view of gay marriage. Broad-stroke labels like liberal, conservative, libertarian tend to mask significant distinctions. But I don't take it all that personally.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 14, 2006 11:59 PM

From what I have seen many are far more interested in watching American Idol than they are in watching a serious news show. So much of T.V. news is infotainment and fluff, most people aren't talk radio or NPR listeners, and newspaper subscriptions are at a low.

How can people have an idealogically consistent viewpoint when they avoid that which would allow them to actually form a opinion?

Posted by: Dyre42 at June 15, 2006 02:36 AM

Has it occurred to any of us who are so "wise" in our "grasp" of politics, government and the way things "oughta be" that those 42% of the folks out there in T.V. Land who Dan says don't have a "grappling of world events" may have a better grappling than us?
Has it occurred to us "thinkers" as it perhaps has to the 42% Dan mentions, that it just really doesn't matter? (by the way, are you Alec Baldwin posing as someone else??? See his debate against Hannity a few months ago).

Are we of the “coherent understanding of world events” base per chance seeing something that those we mock have actually realized that when paying for their kids education in 1934 under FDR, that in 1938 the tuition for the younger sister was higher (also under FDR), and that in 1958 their grandkids education was higher under IKE, and in 1962 their 2nd grandkids education was higher under JFK and now under GWB it's higher for their great grandkids?

Is it possible that in 1948 one could buy a Ford for $850.00 under Truman but in 1984 under Reagan you couldn't buy a Ford for less than $8000?

So who's screwing it up for us that make it so much more expensive to live???

Is it the guy who tossed our household garbage on Tuesdays and Thursdays into a truck in 1965 for $1.10 an hour while LBJ was President?

Or perhaps we should blame his grandson in 2006 doing the same for $14.00 an hour with union benefits and GWB in the Oval Office?

The same holds true for anything of product value...homes, cars, education, food, and prostitution...supply and demand (especially prostitution---we can thank Slick Willy for the rise in their prices).

Funny thing though...as the price to live rose throughout the years under Dems and GOP alike, the ability to pay for the price to live also rose, under Dems and GOP alike.

The more people there are, the better the quality of life increased through technology, the more demand for something goes up and alas, the higher the provider can charge for it. Sounds like capitalism and free market enterprise to me...

So anyway my point is (should I really have one)...there isn't one shred of difference between how things for the average American of my folks generation was under JFK than there is now for my kids generation under GWB...just a different letter of the alphabet surrounded by parentheses when we watch the news. The White House, SCOTUS, US Congress have nothing to do with how things are, Republican or Democrat.

It all boils down to which major NYSE investor gets a bug up his ass to dump a bunch of money in XYZ Widgets because his ugly daughter is marrying the stepson of the Chairman of XYZ Widgets and the little investors in suburbia follow suit (not knowing why) and all of a sudden XYZ Widgets is worth a billion dollars and someone in the government is happy about it and someone in the government is pissed about it, and then one day, NYSE investors son decides he has eyes for his pool-boy instead and now NYSE investor has to buy into a chemical company in Tennessee that produces chlorine and everyone follows that. (See Warren Buffet and his minions).

Politicians are as useless as tits on a bull, just as they were 75 years ago. It's all about the moneymen.

The only reason the President of the United States is considered the most powerful person in the world is because he has one little toy Warren Buffett doesn't...a button connected to a shitload of bombs which he can dispense on Topeka if he really wants...hence, the guy with the button wins.

Of course I'm exxagerating, but I don't think I'm too far off base in my theory.

"What say you?"

Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at June 15, 2006 03:20 AM

I believe you can have strong principled views on issues without being consistently falling into the labeled categories. I think that on an individual level most people have a few issues that they care deeply about and other “hot button” issues that don’t affect them personally and they support or oppose them on general principals. For an example a person might generally feel opposed to government regulations but for some reason favor strict regulation of environmental issues. In a short survey this would come out as inconsistent.

Another possible explanation may be the way issues are presented in the news. When issues are not presented from a strategic viewpoint but instead explained through stories detailing an individual and how that person would be affected. If you generally support liberal social policies but have seen news reports on smoking destroying a person’s life you may favor strict limits on tobacco.

I personally feel that many Americans have a wide range of inconsistent beliefs that are based on principals that don’t neatly fit into one of the categories, however a larger question base would reduce the percentage.

Posted by: Bernie at June 15, 2006 05:13 AM

RealRepublican: you incorrectly mentioned me. My post was quoting Simons original post. I contend that if the figures are correct, that I am a member of thos 42%.

Pat: I take offense because the "general comment" is just another label. I find that people that dont label themselves are usually far more informed than those that do, being that they actually think about the issue rather than just bowing down to party leadership.

Dyre: you may be correct in that assumption, but I think that it is much broader that the neatly packaged 42% - I personally love American Idol and have not picked up a newspaper in several years, yet I am highly informed.

Posted by: Dan at June 15, 2006 07:22 AM

Take it down a notch guys. Isn't it pretty safe to assume that among those 42 who don't match one of the 4 checked-for philosphy, there are several distinct subsets including:

--those who pay very little attention to politics and don't identify with any political philosophy because they don't give a crap and can't be bothered, they are too busy working, taking care of their families, or involved in a more rewarding absorptive pursuit

--those who are too busy amusing themselves to death

--those who think a lot about politics and think that each of the 4 offered ideologies is by itself insufficient, too simplistic an ideology to provide all the answers

Simon, I disagree with your contention that compromise is not a philosophy. It can be. You love to say its only a method, but it's not only a method. If a method works, a philosphy grows around it which values the method for its effectiveness. Compromise is indeed a means to an end, but it's not necessarily only a means to an end. [Brian's lesson for the day, cribbed from Robert Pirsig: watch out for rhetoricians who use "only" as a sneaky pejorative].

It's a very trivial insight to point out that compromise for the sake of compromise is a philosophy that lacks merit. Why? Because pointing this out conceals the other and far more important insight, which is that when substantial divergence of opinion exists on resolving a problem, compromise is usually the only way to reach a resolution. The point? Easy. Compromise is not always essential, but entertaining compromise IS. And if resolution of a given problem is declared essential, then governmentally speaking it would seem that compromise would have to approach essentiality when deep divisions exist.

Dan, we regulars here know that Simon is a "bright-liner." It's both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness. He would have to completely revise his world views in order not to be disturbed by the inability of 42% of people to fall into neat categories.

We're still hoping to get a look into Simon's sock drawer. If Freud is right, he probably only craps once a week. :-)

Posted by: bk at June 15, 2006 08:09 AM

I've said before, and I'll say again, that if someone is consistently toeing the party line, they're not thinking critically. Just my opinion.

Posted by: JP at June 15, 2006 08:17 AM

Dan,

Around here we work real hard to have civil discussion about issues, rather than emotional diatribes in one direction or another. That's much harder to do when a participant in the discussion works as hard as you seem to be doing to take very general comments as personal insults.

Nobody's perfect, both writer and reader here make mistakes from time to time. I myself went overboard in taking some labels personally recently... but those general labels were "bigot" and "slave-owner". That writer and I have since mutually apologized, and things are fine again.

Again, I would suggest to you that a better response (i.e., a response more likely to get people to understand your position) would have been to discuss why you think labels are inaccurate or even dangerous in political discussions.

P.S. You've already told us several times how "highly informed" you are. That accurately describes most of the regular posters on this blog. If you think saying so gives extra weight to what you write, you're wrong.

Look, you obviously have some strong opinions and some thought-out opinions. I've enjoyed the perspective you've brought in your recent comments in other threads. But please, take it down a notch here.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 15, 2006 08:47 AM

Pat, my saying "highly informed" was not a knock on other posters here, but a response to Simon for what I took as a knock against anyone who does not ascribe to the points of view in question.

I am quite passionate about my centrism. To that end, I positively despise being lumped into a group which does not accurately define my viewpoint. I am not a conservative, yet some of my views, such as economic, I am quite conservative. I am not a liberal, yet some of my social views could be considered as such. I am not a libertarian, yet I hold some of their views quite in high regard. I am not a populist, but I believe in some cases big government is nessecary. I view each issue on a case-by-case basis and do not fall into a category. Simon went out of his way to say that if you do not label yourself, you "simply aren't succeeding in grappling with the issues and developing a coherent understanding of events". By taking offense, I hope to show him that, regardless of what he may think, he is 100% incorrect in his broad assumptions of ignorance.

Posted by: Dan at June 15, 2006 09:04 AM

if someone is consistently toeing the party line, they're not thinking critically

Be that as it may, though, just because someone does not toe the party line does not mean that they are thinking critically. Apropos:

For an example a person might generally feel opposed to government regulations but for some reason favor strict regulation of environmental issues. In a short survey this would come out as inconsistent.

That's an interesting example to pick, because it's not readily apparent why it doesn't just appear inconsistent. If a person is generally opposed to regulation, but supports regulation in one particular area, my first instinct would be to ask: what is the premise that drives you to oppose regulation, and what would be your best argument for why that premise would not apply to this thing that you do want regulated? Or do you simply carve out an exception for this one area, and if so, is there any basis - in philosophy or fact - for doing so? Usually, if someone espouses an inconsistent set of views, it means quite the opposite of what I take to be your point: that they have not yet developed a consistent approach to considering issues, and are thus far more susceptible to simply toeing the party line. Think of it in these terms: it is perfectly okay to say "I don't follow this section of the Bible" if you can produce a rationale for not doing so that is slightly more principled than "because I just can't agree with this". Likewise, it's fine to generally oppose regulation and support environmental regulation, but only if the basis on which you oppose regulation in general inherently fails to apply to environmental regulation in particular, or if there is a particuarly strong reason to make an exception which is not in headlong collision with your base assumptions.

Simon, I disagree with your contention that compromise is not a philosophy. It can be.

If you don't start with a philosophy that is external to the compromise, what is it that you're compromising on? By definition, "a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions" requires both sides to desire settlement, and to be willing to make concessions, but it also requires differences to start with.

those who are too busy amusing themselves to death

Roger Waters reference? Posted by: Simon at June 15, 2006 09:08 AM

Philosophy: A system of values by which one lives.

I have to say that I don't see how compromise can be a philosophy. Compromise isn't a system of values, it's how you deal with cognitive resonance or dissonance in your system of values. It's similar to saying "Values that start with the letter Z are the only right values." Both are a way to deal with values as you encounter them but they are not values in and of themselves.

Am I being entirely too pedantic here? Or did I read entirely too much Rand as a small child?

That being said, I'm guessing Brian is right that there are several subsets of the 42%, the largest probably falling into the "I have a life to live and politics isn't really a part of it" group. In the end though, Ambivalent is a label and apparently lots of us are stuck with it. :-)

Posted by: Scotch Drinker at June 15, 2006 09:15 AM

If you don't start with a philosophy that is external to the compromise, what is it that you're compromising on?

If you exist in an environment where testy divisiveness is the norm, compromise is valid as a philosophical approach to the circumstances of your environment. You are right, it requires differences to start with...

...do you have a real-world point to make here? Do you think philosophies must come from or be applied to places where differences don't exist? IMO, it's pretty reasonably to assume that differences virtually always DO exist.

"Amusing Ourselves to Death" is a book by the late Neil Postman. Here's an excerpt, the foreword, which I'm assuming is fair use to reproduce, since someone else, English prof David Sheftman, already did it:

We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions".
In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

Worth checking out, IMO.

Posted by: bk at June 15, 2006 09:27 AM

Simon,

While I recognize that apathy is a problem in many quarters, I think that 42% doesn't necessarily represent a vacuous, apathetic, confused part of the electorate, but rather those not indentifying with any particular ideology. Only ideologues should think of this as a problem.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at June 15, 2006 09:39 AM

What Rafique said, and more.

At least two highly questionable assumptions there, Simon: One is that coherency can only arise from (generic) ideology, ideology per se. The other is that a philosophical ideology produces better results than inherent self-serving Darwinian behavior, or even random behavior. That ideology is inherently superior to non-ideology. Why should it be?

Not being ideological does NOT equate to being unable to grapple with issues, or even to being incoherent in world-view. Inconsistent, maybe, but coherent and consistent are NOT synonyms. Pragmatic self-direction quite often grapples with issues more effectively than any fixed ideology, and is goal-seeking, not an ideology. The pursuit of self-interest and survival does not require philosophical coherency or consistency to be efficacious for either groups or individuals. Indeed, ideology can restrain the ideologue from the most effective and realistic approaches, sacrificing efficacy for the sake of ideology. Life and reality are organic, not mechanistic.

Reality can be both coherent and consistent without having any ideology at all. Or not. But ideology is an artificial construct, NOT natural law. In short, ideologues always consider their ideology superior, and by extension consider any ideology superior to non-ideology. But that's begging the question, a petitio principii fallacy, a completely self-referential assumption. Ego-syntonic.

Posted by: Tully at June 15, 2006 10:08 AM

While I recognize that apathy is a problem in many quarters, I think that 42% doesn't necessarily represent a vacuous, apathetic, confused part of the electorate, but rather those not indentifying with any particular ideology. Only ideologues should think of this as a problem.

Precisely and perfectly stated, and saved me a thousand keystrokes to say the same thing.

And, indeed, even for the pedantic, Pragmatism is indeed a philosophy, with all the bells, whistles, academic departments and intellectual patron saints, and the practice of evaluating a procedure, or even a belief system, on the basis of its utility rather than its conformity to "a foolish consistency" falls squarely within that 42%.

BTW, the problem is never having read too much Rand as a child. We all did that; she is an ideal companion for an 11th grader. The problem is failing to see through her as an adult. :)

Posted by: Greg63 at June 15, 2006 10:26 AM

What Tully said.

In some ways, philosophy and ideology are to human behavior what mathematical theories are to physics. Useful, even necessary tools, but always bedeviled by troubling reality. Plus, one can have a quite coherent understanding of gravity without being able to explain that the Gravitational Force equals the Universal Gravitational Constant times the product of the masses of the two objects divided by the square of the distance between the objects.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 15, 2006 10:31 AM

LOL on Rand, bonus points for mentioning children. Am I the only one who's ever noticed that Randian heroes/heroines never have offspring? Darn kids interfere with self-actualisation and force consideration of external pre- and post-mortem consequences of one's actions on others. Can't have that, it would conflict with the Randian ideology of me.

Strictly for the sake of pedantry: Pragmatism is indeed a philosophy, but it's not an ideology. One can be utterly pragmatic without being in the least ideological. Or the least philosophical, for that matter. You don't even have to know how to spell "pragmatism," or know the word exists.

Posted by: Tully at June 15, 2006 10:35 AM

The results of this poll are very similar to the XY analysis results of the "political compass." If you've never heard of it here's the address:

http://jpagel.net/politicalcompass/index.php

The compass attempts to plot political leaning on not just the X axis of left/right but also on the Y axis of libertarian/authoritarian.

Both Dan and Simon (and other posters on this thread) are right. There are folks who fall into the ambivalent category both because they have thought about politics and because they have not.

The poll provides some interesting demographic data, but otherwise doesn't seem to be of much use.

Love the Huxley/Orwell post.

Posted by: Serfer at June 15, 2006 12:10 PM

There are folks who fall into the ambivalent category both because they have thought about politics and because they have not.

True also for those who are consistent. Posted by: Greg63 at June 15, 2006 01:35 PM

Wow. Where to begin??

I wonder if some Centrists don't come to their viewpoint by thinking that all or most disagreements come about because people simply CHOOSE not to agree. CHOOSE to not search for compromise or even a common basis for mutual respect.

I think that in this world there IS, in fact, plenty of that. This is what I would term PARTISANSHIP. And I don't think you have to be a Republican or Democrat in order to be this way. Heck, it's probably just a matter of degrees for ALL of us, if we were truly honest about it.

Then there is IDEOLOGY. Theoretically, someone who was ideological but not partisan would be someone who was very secure in their belief system, but willing to test it constantly.

I don't know why the 42% feels the way it does. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't 50 reasons rather than one.

One reason I take encouragement from this survey is that (assuming it isn't that these folks just don't care) it means that partisanship (untested thinking) is probably in decline. People are unwilling to let others tell them what to think. I think that's a good thing.

The resistance of these folks to be labled may be a sign that, at least on occasion, they think deeply about issues and come up with their own answers.

Heck, I consider myself a Conservative, but there isn't a single pundit or politician with whom I agree on half, let alone ALL the issues. And for about a decade now, I have found the so-called Conservative party to be MORE offensive than the Liberal one. Which is why I post here.

So what does it serve me to declare myself in only one of those 4 categories? It doesn't.

I think I do understand Simon's peeve, though, I question whether the survey really indicates what he thinks it does.

Peace seems to be a very strong Centrist 1st principle, that is, peace among fellow Americans, at least.

Mediation is considered a noble calling. And partisanship then, is the mortal enemy. But isn't there any standard of right and wrong greater than peace? Greater than mere mediation? When does a Centrist say, nuh-uh?
And is there only one Centrist opinion on this?

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 15, 2006 02:55 PM

Only 42%? How disappointing.

Boy, you must be pretty bored today, Simon.....

Posted by: Jon Kay at June 15, 2006 11:48 PM

...I mean getting on your soapbox is nice and all but will it put meat on the table; will it make the trains run on time?

Posted by: C3 at June 16, 2006 10:44 AM

Not being ideological does NOT equate to being unable to grapple with issues, or even to being incoherent in world-view. Inconsistent, maybe, but coherent and consistent are NOT synonyms.

Funnily enough, I was reading earlier today an article Ann Althouse wrote a few years ago -- Electoral College Reform: Deja Vu, 95 N.W.U. L. Rev 993 (2001) -- and I think she puts the point very well:

Legal minds tend to respond to [] statement[s] of clear and compelling principle . . . [and] [u]pon identifying aprinciple, they crave consistency. To stop and think who will win and who will lose is to sacrifice legitimacy.

I don't know that it's true only of legal minds, but certainly, the consistent application of principle is the holy grail of political (and, yes, legal) thought for me. Posted by: Simon at June 18, 2006 01:00 AM

Simon, why does "consistent application of principle" have to mean I have to sacrifice my principles to have an ideology consistent with the narrow views of the 4 you mentioned? why does my being liberal on some issues, populist on others, quite conservative on yet others, and libertarian on even some others, make me inconsistent?

I support gay marriage, which would make me a liberal.
I also support school choice, which makes me conservative.
I support deregulation of illicit drugs, which makes me a libertarian.
I also support a strong federal government, which makes me a populist.

None of those issues conflict, so how am I wrong here?

BUT: "Liberals" support gay marriage and do not support school choice.
"Conservatives" support school choice and a heavy crackdown on illicit drugs.
"Populists" support strong federal government and heavy regulation of illicit drugs.
"libertarians" support deregulation of drugs and a weak federal goverment.

How can I side with any ideology unless it matches my beliefs? I cannot support any of them wholesale because each has at leat one major point which I disagree with.

Which are you Simon? Are you conservative, liberal, populist, or libertarian?

If you have chosen, why did you chose it? Give me some reasons why I must bow to the almighty confines of these labels - because I bet, if you really break it down, anyone who is truly knowledgable, does not fall into any of these confines, even if they do "mark" themselves that way.

Posted by: Dan at June 19, 2006 09:21 AM

The craving for consistency may be the Holy Grail of legal thought--but in political and human reality, it's a straitjacket. Stagnation. The human race is not a card catalog. See above, re: organic vs. mechanistic, and categorical assumption errors. That you and others may desire it does not make it a condicio sine qua non of either politics or law, nor more particularly of human advancement or survival.

To stop and think who will win and who will lose is to sacrifice legitimacy.

Althouse also ignores the point, and the commits the same error. In Nature legitimacy is restricted to the winners, the losers being unable to argue the issue.

Posted by: Tully at June 19, 2006 02:03 PM

the consistent application of principle is the holy grail of political (and, yes, legal) thought for me

I think that's a sociological error called reification -- investing the model with the attributes of the reality (including actual existence) it's trying to model.

Political principles are occasionally useful as tools in helping us decide what to do in certain ambiguous and complex situations. But they lose all value or relevance when we are presented with a situation in which we already know what to do. And they become downright pernicious when we lose all sight of reality and instead attempt to compel our thinking and our actions to be consistent with the model. That's following the fire escape path into the flames when safety is one foot away in the opposite direction.

Posted by: Greg63 at June 19, 2006 02:04 PM

Yup. Treating abstractions as concrete objects. Akin to the map/territory abstraction error, or (to wander farther afield) the idolatry error.

There's a somewhat relevant Alexander Hamilton quote niggling around the back of my mind somewhere. From the Federalist Papers, I think.

Posted by: Tully at June 19, 2006 02:34 PM

Dan:

Simon, why does "consistent application of principle" have to mean I have to sacrifice my principles to have an ideology consistent with the narrow views of the 4 you mentioned?

It doesn't mean that you have "to have an ideology consistent with the narrow views of the 4 [I] mentioned" - it means that you should have a worldview which is internally coherent. I have no idea where you're getting this idea - repeated twice now - that I'm suggesting that the groupings that the article suggests are exclusive. The quoted text says that "[42%] do not hold ideologically consistent views at all," not "42% do not hold one of these views."

(I'm not sure, by the way, where you get the idea that "support[ing] a strong federal government" would make one a populist - it seems to me that it makes one a liberal or a neoconservative).

Lest I be accused of dodging the question, I suppose I fall somewhere in between a conservative, a libertarian and a neoconservative. I think all three of those groups have areas where I think they are either wrong or inconsistent, and as a result, I see no problem with borrowing concepts from all three.

Posted by: Simon at June 20, 2006 09:12 AM

Simon, why don't you think it's reasonable to presume that this survey "tested" for ideological consistency only among the ideologies it lists? IMO, it's not sensible to think that any such study has a means to check for all axes of conceivable ideological consistency.

BTW, I think it's a shame that they're apparently not checking for utilitarianism or enlightened self-interest. If they did, I expect they'd find quite a bit.

Posted by: bk at June 20, 2006 09:22 AM

I always rode under the assumprion that a liberal viewpoint was one of big government, not "stong" government. Neo-cons are for strong, but lean government - populist, I always felt were for strong federal government with weakened state governments. I feel that in many cases, this is applicable. Certain states have become so corrupt in their state offices that they are nearly incapable of self governing - my state of Rhode Island is a PRIME example of this. 3 Governors have been arrested and convicted of taking kickbacks, the state awards a no-bid contract to a company minority owned by the Speaker of the state senate, judges who are appointed who are married to other elected officials. Nepotism in all its glory at teh state DMV - RI is RIPE for a federal takeover.

Posted by: Dan at June 20, 2006 10:06 AM

"RI is RIPE for a federal takeover."

Whatever other philosophical attributes you might adhere to, it's certainly a liberal mentality to expect the Federal government to bail you out. If Rhode Island has become intractable, that's a matter for Rhode Island to sort out. Call a constitutional convention; sack your legislators; do whatever seems appropriate to fix the problem -- but call the Feds to fix it for you? How far we have fallen.

Posted by: Simon at June 20, 2006 10:55 AM