Surly Political Windsock Poll 2018

[bernorange 8,377]

So, it looks like it's that time again.  I've done this poll periodically (~every two years) for a number of years now.  Sadly, the history is buried under a mountain of scat, so you will just have to take my word for it.

Previous (shaggy) results:

~28% Dem/lib vs. ~13% Pub/conservative in 2018

~17% Dem/lib vs. ~24% Pub/conservative in 2016

~29% Dem/lib/"moderate" vs. ~25% Pub/conservative in 2014

~26% Dem/lib vs. ~26% Pub/conservative in 2010

~25% Dem/lib vs. ~25% Pub/conservative in 2008

~~~

A legend for folks who haven't seen my previous polls:

Republican = Party partisan
Democrat = Party partisan
Libertarian (big L) = Party partisan

conservative = ideologue generally aligned with GOP
liberal = ideologue generally aligned with Dems
libertarian (small l - classical liberal) = ideologue that has liberty issues as paramount (could vote any party)

moderate/independent = undefined - if you self identify as this, please tell us what it means to you

[936horn 942]

I am a (fiscal) conservative, but would point out that by and large the current GOP does not in any way represent my political beliefs contrary to the bit you have at the bottom of the post.

[Fozzz 152]

Scratch a “classical liberal,” and a fascist bleeds. 

[Dick Tremayne 103]

I voted none of the above. I'm a leftist. There is no political party for anyone further than slightly left of center. Our politics in America are so skewed to the right that there is very little representation for those of us on the left. I feel like that may be changing, but it's a slow process.

[bad_teammate 13,345]

I am a registered, card-carrying Democratic Socialist.

[edit]

Socialist should be an option under "l"ibertarian

Edited May 8, 2018 by bad_teammate

[bernorange 8,377]

5 minutes ago, 936horn said:

I am a (fiscal) conservative, but would point out that by and large the current GOP does not in any way represent my political beliefs contrary to the bit you have at the bottom of the post.

The definitions of words, and the perceptions of political parties, change over the years.  I agree with you that the GOP is not (and has not been for some time) true to the conservative brand that they trumpet, but this poll is more about self identification, so you are free to select whichever option you think best fits your idiom.  I've kept the same language for the poll options/legend for consistency so there is some basis for comparison to previous polls.

 

 

[Dick Tremayne 103]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am a registered, card-carrying Democratic Socialist.

[edit]

Socialist should be an option under "l"ibertarian

I would have chosen Socialist also had it been an option, so that's two for socialist.

[936horn 942]

5 minutes ago, bernorange said:

The definitions of words, and the perceptions of political parties, change over the years.  I agree with you that the GOP is not (and has not been for some time) true to the conservative brand that they trumpet, but this poll is more about self identification, so you are free to select whichever option you think best fits your idiom.  I've kept the same language for the poll options/legend for consistency so there is some basis for comparison to previous polls.

 

 

Fair enough

Separately, I am fascinated by the socialist responses so far. Since the Venezuela thread is on my mind from earlier today, I'd be interested to hear why people see real world examples of socialism in government (Venezuela), see it fail and fail spectacularly and think "yes, that is what I want here in the States." Why would it succeed here, where it has failed pretty much everywhere else?

Edited May 8, 2018 by 936horn

[F250 28,990]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am a registered, card-carrying Democratic Socialist.

[edit]

Socialist should be an option under "l"ibertarian

Sounds like some a Russian bot would say.

[RDCanecutter 26,570]

I want multiple local passenger trains with machine-gun turrets on top of them. I am constantly disappointed.

[hpslugga 4,069]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

Sounds like some a Russian bot would say.

if Russian bots were capable of rendering a fact-based statement, I might agree

[bad_teammate 13,345]

5 minutes ago, 936horn said:

Separately, I am fascinated by the socialist responses so far. Since the Venezuela thread is on my mind from earlier today, I'd be interested to hear why people see real world examples of socialism in government (Venezuela), see it fail and fail spectacularly and think "yes, that is what I want here in the States." Why would it succeed here, where it has failed pretty much everywhere else?

You're in a nation where Donald Trump is president and is leading the world in incarcerated citizens and you're worried about Venezuela?

And in your mind the concept of socialism is best typified by Venezuela's current situation?

Fuck off

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

I like to think I’m a pragmatist.  My decision process basically is just: does this make any sense?

[wildcat09 29,454]

3 minutes ago, bernorange said:

The definitions of words, and the perceptions of political parties, change over the years.  I agree with you that the GOP is not (and has not been for some time) true to the conservative brand that they trumpet, but this poll is more about self identification, so you are free to select whichever option you think best fits your idiom.  I've kept the same language for the poll options/legend for consistency so there is some basis for comparison to previous polls.

 

 

I think I could honestly select 4 different categories. Back in the day, to the extent I had some sort of ideological framework, I considered myself a libertarian but with a different perspective on what constitutes harm that government should be able to pass laws to prevent than most libertarians had. Now I try not to adhere to a specific ideology because I think they're generally bad, but the collection of my views on issues would certainly be described by most people as liberal. And while I'm not a registered Democrat I'll certainly vote Dem so long as they're the only possible alternative to Trump-style and Paul Ryan-style Republicans, but I'm not going to consider a political party full of disparate types brought together by honest opposition to horrible people and a common ability to continually find new ways to fail as integral to my identity. 

[936horn 942]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're in a nation where Donald Trump is president and is leading the world in incarcerated citizens and you're worried about Venezuela?

And in your mind the concept of socialism is best typified by Venezuela's current situation?

Fuck off

I didn't mention Trump once. I also didn't vote for him if that matters. My situation, upbringing, etc etc. has made it hard for me to understand people who identify as socialists, so I was just asking for someone to flesh out their thoughts? Why do I need to fuck off?

I mentioned Venezuela because like it or not, that is a real world example of a socialist government in a large(ish) nation. Why do you believe it is not a real world example of that?

Edited May 8, 2018 by 936horn

[hpslugga 4,069]

Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I like to think I’m a pragmatist.  My decision process basically is just: does this make any sense?

That’s too broad of a concept. What makes sense for you may not make sense for society, which may or may not make sense for the government. There are too many variables at play to be asking such an ambiguous question.

[hpslugga 4,069]

2 minutes ago, 936horn said:

I mentioned Venezuela because like it or not, that is a real world example of a socialist government in a large(ish) nation.

What is socialism?

[936horn 942]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

What is socialism?

What is it to you? I've already stated that I believe Venezuela is a socialist state.

[hpslugga 4,069]

I asked you what it is because you very confidently asserted Venezuela is a “socialist government.” I can’t help define the term for you in order for you to connect the two. You have to do that.

[hpslugga 4,069]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am a registered, card-carrying Democratic Socialist.

That's basically what a libertarian is. The problem is that all 3 of those words (libertarian, democrat, and socialist) have been severely perverted to the point of total obscurity, which is a huge success for Western propaganda. When you obfuscate the very definitions of terms that large groups either embrace or attack, it's hard to converse with anyone except for the people already predisposed to agree with you (i.e. our own little cults and ghettos). 

[Dick Tremayne 103]

19 minutes ago, 936horn said:

Fair enough

Separately, I am fascinated by the socialist responses so far. Since the Venezuela thread is on my mind from earlier today, I'd be interested to hear why people see real world examples of socialism in government (Venezuela), see it fail and fail spectacularly and think "yes, that is what I want here in the States." Why would it succeed here, where it has failed pretty much everywhere else?

I'm happy to give you my thoughts knowing full well that most won't agree and I'm ok with that. First, when someone uses Venezuela as their example of socialism without ever bringing up the Scandinavian countries, I question if they are truly curious or are just trying to score cheap shots. My idea of what our country could and should be looks much more like those countries than it does Venezuela. Second, my personal belief is that capitalism has failed the vast majority of citizens of the United States. There is massive income inequality that continues to get worse. The power and wealth in this country is concentrated with such a small number of people, but they have convinced people that the "American Dream" is real and if you continue to support them and hand over what you have to them, you can achieve it. I also believe that capitalism is morally wrong. Any system that allows on person to be worth ~$130 billion while others can't afford basic necessities is not one that I can reconcile with the idea of right and wrong. A system that requires every decision to take into account the accumulation of as little as one more dollar above any other considerations, is not good. It is not right. I'm not sure if that's what you wanted, but that is a very broad view of my feelings.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Dick Tremayne
clarity

[Fozzz 152]

Now we can get to the part where people argue that even social democracy like in Scandinavia is impractical in this country because, unlike them, we have too many swarthy undesirables.  

[bad_teammate 13,345]

13 minutes ago, 936horn said:

Why do I need to fuck off?

(Since the Venezuela thread is on my mind from earlier today, I'd be interested to hear why people see real world examples of socialism in government (Venezuela), see it fail and fail spectacularly and think "yes, that is what I want here in the States.")

What else do you say to someone who purposefully makes up an argument, shoves it in your mouth, and says, "Defend the argument you didn't make but that I made up for you!"?

Fuck off seems like a pretty good response to me.

[936horn 942]

2 minutes ago, Dick Tremayne said:

I'm happy to give you my thoughts knowing full well that most won't agree and I'm ok with that. First, when someone uses Venezuela as their example of socialism without ever bringing up the Scandinavian countries, I question if they are truly curious or are just trying to score cheap shots. My idea of what our country could and should be looks much more like those countries than it does Venezuela. Second, my personal belief is that capitalism has failed the vast majority of citizens of the United States. There is massive income inequality that continues to get worse. The power and wealth in this country is concentrated with such a small number of people, but they have convinced people that the "American Dream" is real and if you continue to support them and hand over what you have to them, you can achieve it. I also believe that capitalism is morally wrong. Any system that allows on person to be worth ~$130 billion while others can't afford basic necessities is not one that I can reconcile with the idea of right and wrong. A system that requires every decision to take into account the accumulation of as little as one more dollar above any other considerations, is not good. It is not right. I'm not sure if that's what you wanted, but that is a very broad view of my feelings.

Thanks, that's well articulated. I agree, if I count Venezuela, I have to count Scandinavia as well amongst socialist states. My main contention is the scale at which those countries have achieved success and that Scandinavian countries and their populations are orders of magnitude smaller than the US. I have trouble seeing how the entitlement programs that have seen so much success there could be translated to a country with 300MM+ people in very diverse (culturally, geographically, etc) settings.

[Dick Tremayne 103]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

Now we can get to the part where people argue that even social democracy like in Scandinavia is impractical in this country because, unlike them, we have too many swarthy undesirables.  

Right? God forbid we try to improve things for all citizens.

[David Dennison 19,140]

8 minutes ago, 936horn said:

What is it to you? I've already stated that I believe Venezuela is a socialist state.

Using Venezuela as an example of a socialist state is akin to using Guatemala as an example of capitalism in a representative democracy.

[bernorange 8,377]

30 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am a registered, card-carrying Democratic Socialist.

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's basically what a libertarian is.

I have read b_t's posts.  He's not a libertarian.

[Brian Fantana 6,727]

25 minutes ago, 936horn said:

Fair enough

Separately, I am fascinated by the socialist responses so far. Since the Venezuela thread is on my mind from earlier today, I'd be interested to hear why people see real world examples of socialism in government (Venezuela), see it fail and fail spectacularly and think "yes, that is what I want here in the States." Why would it succeed here, where it has failed pretty much everywhere else?

What about other real world examples of socialism like...roads. 

[F250 28,990]

I'm a pesca-pescatarian.

 

 

[Dick Tremayne 103]

1 minute ago, 936horn said:

Thanks, that's well articulated. I agree, if I count Venezuela, I have to count Scandinavia as well amongst socialist states. My main contention is the scale at which those countries have achieved success and that Scandinavian countries and their populations are orders of magnitude smaller than the US. I have trouble seeing how the entitlement programs that have seen so much success there could be translated to a country with 300MM+ people in very diverse (culturally, geographically, etc) settings.

Listen, I will never claim to have all of the answers. I appreciate that you seem to be discussing this in good faith. I suppose my answer would be that I strive for something better. Not just for me, not just for my family, but for all Americans. I'm fully willing to admit that it would be difficult and might even be impossible, but if we don't strive for the best for EVERYONE, then what is the point of living in a society?

[936horn 942]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Using Venezuela as an example of a socialist state is akin to using Guatemala as an example of capitalism in a representative democracy.

Just a couple posts up I acknowledge the Scandinavian countries. I "literally" mentioned Venezuela after reading a thread in this forum about that exact topic. Use either example you like, but Venezuela is a real life example of socialism in a larger country. I agree, the system works well in tiny countries in Scandinavia, but a country that has just 30mm people (more than all of Scandinavia combined) is struggling under the system. How does it translate to 300MM+?

 

 

[David Dennison 19,140]

Just now, 936horn said:

Just a couple posts up I acknowledge the Scandinavian countries. I "literally" mentioned Venezuela after reading a thread in this forum about that exact topic. Use either example you like, but Venezuela is a real life example of socialism in a larger country. I agree, the system works well in tiny countries in Scandinavia, but a country that has just 30mm people (more than all of Scandinavia combined) is struggling under the system. How does it translate to 300MM+?

 

 

Look to larger countries like Germany, France, Canada, and the UK to get an example of what an expanded welfare state might look like in the US.

[bernorange 8,377]

Quote

Bernie Sanders has single-handedly brought the term “democratic socialism” into the contemporary American political lexicon and shaken millions of Millennials out of their apathy towards politics. Even if he does not win the Democratic nomination, his impact on American politics will be evident for years to come.

Sanders has convinced a great number of people that things have been going very badly for the great majority of people in the United States, for a very long time. His solution? America must embrace “democratic socialism,” a socioeconomic system that seemingly works very well in the Scandinavian countries, like Sweden, which are, by some measures, better off than the United States.

Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.
...

More:  https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

Quote

Many leftists hail Scandinavia as a socialist haven that demonstrates the inferiority of capitalism. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders recently declared that the United States ought to emulate Scandinavian countries because they provide education and healthcare “for free.”

There are many problems with this line of thinking. For one, it is fallacious to claim that a system that works for homogenous countries like Finland and Norway would also succeed in a massive, diverse country such as the United States. For another, it is incorrect to refer to Scandinavian countries as “socialist,” given that no Scandinavian countries nationalize their means of production.

Scandinavian countries—specifically, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland—are perceived as socialist because their citizens pay very high income taxes. However, these countries still suffer from many of the social and economic ills that socialism is supposed to prevent. Additionally, the United States taxes wealthy Americans at much higher rates than Scandinavian countries tax their similarly wealthy citizens, yet leftists such as Sanders are still displeased with how our tax system is organized. Finally, another European country defies the liberal “Scandinavian socialist success” narrative so completely that it demonstrates why capitalism is the best economic model in existence.
...

More: http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

 

[bad_teammate 13,345]

 

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Now we can get to the part where people argue that even social democracy like in Scandinavia is impractical in this country because, unlike them, we have too many swarthy undesirables.  

 

6 minutes ago, 936horn said:

Thanks, that's well articulated. I agree, if I count Venezuela, I have to count Scandinavia as well amongst socialist states. My main contention is the scale at which those countries have achieved success and that Scandinavian countries and their populations are orders of magnitude smaller than the US. I have trouble seeing how the entitlement programs that have seen so much success there could be translated to a country with 300MM+ people in very diverse (culturally, geographically, etc) settings.

[F250 28,990]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What about other real world examples of socialism like...roads. 

Henry Bartell Zachry would string you up for that comment.

 

 

[hayden_horn 11,374]

venezuela is a fascist country. this is a common misconception when countries or strongman leaders wrap their ideology in socialist colors. 

the same goes for nazi germany, the soviet union, and any number of strongman dictatorships with a central economy. 

[Dick Tremayne 103]

Just now, 936horn said:

Just a couple posts up I acknowledge the Scandinavian countries. I "literally" mentioned Venezuela after reading a thread in this forum about that exact topic. Use either example you like, but Venezuela is a real life example of socialism in a larger country. I agree, the system works well in tiny countries in Scandinavia, but a country that has just 30mm people (more than all of Scandinavia combined) is struggling under the system. How does it translate to 300MM+?

 

 

It also has a lot to do with the people in charge. Regardless 0f the system, if the people in charge are corrupt and self serving, then you are going to see negative outcomes. In my mind, capitalism attracts corrupt and self serving people to power. Will those same people try and maybe succeed to take power in a socialist system? Sure. You've given a good example of a place that happens. Again, I try to strive for the positive and I think there are a lot of people in America that truly care for the good of all. If those people were to take power with the consensus of most Americans, then I believe a Scandinavian type social democracy could and would be very successful here. 

[hayden_horn 11,374]

for instance, to build on my point, do yall consider north korea a democratic republic because they call themselves such?

[Dick Tremayne 103]

3 minutes ago, bernorange said:

More:  https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

More: http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

 

In response to your article from the Federalist(lol), Norway's oil industry was nationalized in 1972.

[hpslugga 4,069]

Scandinavian countries aren't socialist either. Do their central governments incorporate socialistic elements for the benefit of the general public? Yes, much in the same way that Guatemala incorporates capitalism for its population as well. But you're going a bridge too far in labeling them as "socialist governments."

What hayden just said is absolutely correct. It's one thing for a corrupt despot to call himself a socialist, but being a socialist isn't about waving flags, repeating words over and over, embracing labels, etc. And it's not about one person either. So let's pretend Bernie won the 2016 election. I doubt very seriously that we'd be living in a socialist society just because the leader happened to like that word. Socialism is a 100% participatory society that, like HH implied (as I understood him, I could be wrong), when exposed to centralized power, crumbles by its very definition. 

[936horn 942]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

 

 

Low effort per usual. Are you trying to argue that wouldn't be a barrier here in the States? The homogeneity of Scandinavian countries is well documented as a contributing factor of their success. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[hpslugga 4,069]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

for instance, to build on my point, do yall consider north korea a democratic republic because they call themselves such?

I like how people shirk that question very easily when they say things like "Nazi Germany was socialist because their flag was red."

Edited May 8, 2018 by hpslugga

[wildcat09 29,454]

Just now, bernorange said:

More:  https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

More: http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

 

I'm pretty sure Bernie has never advocated for nationalizing the means of production either. But, in the sense that the word "socialism" is typically used here in this country (where it basically equals government spending on things intended to benefit either society generally or a class of people that aren't the professional or ownership classes), the Scandinavian countries are pretty socialist. 

[bad_teammate 13,345]

1 minute ago, 936horn said:

Low effort per usual. Are you trying to argue that wouldn't be a barrier here in the States? The homogeneity of Scandinavian countries is well documented as a contributing factor of their success. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

I didn't see evidence for that anywhere in your link.

But yeah, I have no reason to think that a blonde-hair/blue-eye deficit would be an issue.

[wildcat09 29,454]

1 minute ago, 936horn said:

Low effort per usual. Are you trying to argue that wouldn't be a barrier here in the States? The homogeneity of Scandinavian countries is well documented as a contributing factor of their success. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

I don't think racial or cultural homogeneity is a requirement for such a system to work. I think it makes it easier to establish the system in the first place, because wealthy capitalists use racial/cultural issues to drive a wedge between labor to keep it from organizing effectively. 

[Fozzz 152]

I believe it was Marx who said that one of the iron laws history is that once a socialist country reaches a critical mass of either total population or non-whites the gulags start going up. 

[936horn 942]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't think racial or cultural homogeneity is a requirement for such a system to work. I think it makes it easier to establish the system in the first place, because wealthy capitalists use racial/cultural issues to drive a wedge between labor to keep it from organizing effectively. 

I would agree. Not necessary but makes it a hell of a lot easier. Don't we have about 20 concurrent threads going right now about how whites/asians/green people are holding down blacks/hispanics/purple people? Is that suddenly going to go away when we decide to implement socialism? 

[bad_teammate 13,345]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't think racial or cultural homogeneity is a requirement for such a system to work. I think it makes it easier to establish the system in the first place, because wealthy capitalists use racial/cultural issues to drive a wedge between labor to keep it from organizing effectively. 

 

[David Dennison 19,140]

Just now, 936horn said:

I would agree. Not necessary but makes it a hell of a lot easier. Don't we have about 20 concurrent threads going right now about how whites/asians/green people are holding down blacks/hispanics/purple people? Is that suddenly going to go away when we decide to implement socialism? 

It's not an either/or choice. It's not socialism or capitalism. We already have socialism in the United States working side by side with capitalism. Mixed economies work well in representative democracies.

[hayden_horn 11,374]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't think racial or cultural homogeneity is a requirement for such a system to work. I think it makes it easier to establish the system in the first place, because wealthy capitalists use racial/cultural issues to drive a wedge between labor to keep it from organizing effectively. 

i think we have a culture here, and that trying to say that culture is a wedge is a conservative trope. i guess i'm agreeing with you.

american black folks are part of american culture. like white folks, and like all the folks. it's part of why europeans laugh at american obsession with genetics and heritage. i once had an irishwoman ask me about it. i said something like "most of my heritage is in the UK. i'm part irish, part scottish, part english, with some welsh in there."

she laughed in my face and said i was none of those things. "you're american, what more could you want?"

she went on to say if europeans tried to trace and anchor their genealogy it would be a fool's errand.

we keep cutting american culture into different demographics. that's led to an incredible splintering of the voters. honestly, most hispanics and older black folks are conservatives. why don't they vote republican? because there's a doorman at the big tent entrance.