• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should DP add 'independent conservative' and 'independent liberal'?

Should DP add 'independent conservative' and 'independent liberal' options

  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
Jerry said:
Libertarian is a party, and as such there are conservative libertarians ( who emphasis personal responsibility) and liberal libertarians (who want all drugs legalized).
Click to expand...

Capital L Libertarian is a party, yes.

Small L libertarian is a values set. Fiscally conservative, socially "live and let live," and foreign policy mindful of George Washington's admonishment to avoid foreign entanglements.
 
While we're at it, can somebody tell me WTF a "neocon" is?

Or is there a thread on that?

I first heard the term in the 80s when Pat Buchanan described Dems who sided with Reagan on the Cold War as such, but since the Bush 43 years, I hear it as a term of derision from libs talking about mod repubs.

Since they're libs, I tend to assume they don't know what they're saying, . . . but what exactly do they mean?
 
LuckyDan said:
Capital L Libertarian is a party, yes.

Small L libertarian is a values set. Fiscally conservative, socially "live and let live," and foreign policy mindful of George Washington's admonishment to avoid foreign entanglements.
Click to expand...

The whole big-letter/little-letter gadget is artificial and is generally ignored even more then your lean anyway.

Generaly, the X axis is Left/Right, the Y axis is Con/Lib, and the Z axis is overall importance.

"Value set" is defined by these 3, it is not it's own attribute.
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
While we're at it, can somebody tell me WTF a "neocon" is?

Or is there a thread on that?

I first heard the term in the 80s when Pat Buchanan described Dems who sided with Reagan on the Cold War as such, but since the Bush 43 years, I hear it as a term of derision from libs talking about mod repubs.

Since they're libs, I tend to assume they don't know what they're saying, . . . but what exactly do they mean?
Click to expand...

It's one of those cute little nick-names liberals made up to troll conservatives, which doesn't actually mean anything, thus it's utility as a trolling tool. It's a pulp label.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Actually Neocon means something.
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of pulp-labels: they mean whatever you want them to mean, so yes in a literal sense they do mean something, they just don't have a fixed definition.

The whole idea of sub-types of conservative is rather silly anyway. That's like going out of your way to say what kind of American you are, when the question was simply what country are you a citizen of.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
That's the beauty of pulp-labels: they mean whatever you want them to mean, so yes in a literal sense they do mean something, they just don't have a fixed definition.
Click to expand...

No. There's actually such a thing as a neocon, and it has a very specific definition. Ask Irving Kristol.

The whole idea of sub-types of conservative is rather silly anyway. That's like going out of your way to say what kind of American you are, when the question was simply what country are you a citizen of.
Click to expand...

No, it's really not. There exist different strains of conservatism with varying beliefs. This really isn't a debatable point.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
No. There's actually such a thing as a neocon. Ask Irving Kristol.
Click to expand...

Right I'll just give him a call real quick....

StillBallin75 said:
No, it's really not. There exist different strains of conservatism with varying beliefs. This really isn't a debatable point.
Click to expand...

I know there are, but what I said was it's a rather silly thing to feel the need to point out. It doesn't matter to most people on this forum because most of us don't even notice your lean before reading your argument. I think you're one of those who is trying to put to fine a point of this. It's just a lean, a vague, general idea, not your entire world-view summerised in a word.
 
Jerry said:
The whole big-letter/little-letter gadget is artificial and is generally ignored even more then your lean anyway.Generaly, the X axis is Left/Right, the Y axis is Con/Lib, and the Z axis is overall importance.

"Value set" is defined by these 3, it is not it's own attribute.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, by those who have no point of reference for the term to begin with.

I think of the political leans as more of a quadrant than a strait line, with one axis running from lib to con, and the other from economics to social policy. Thus

economically conservative/socially liberal = libertarian
economically liberal/socially conservative = populist

Then libs and cons falling into their respective spots.

Not exact no, but a starting point, which is pretty much all the "lean" question is about.
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
Maybe some people are just putting too fine a point on it. The question is "lean?" Not "define your philosophy in one word."
Click to expand...

That still, essentially, leaves me at 'Other'. 'Libertarian', in the literal sense, would be correct, but it's virtually never used that way in the United States, where it means almost the exact opposite.
 
Jerry said:
SSM and abortion are both topics I spend a lot of time on here, yet in the real world care very little about.
Click to expand...

Then your presentation here, does not reflect your actual presentation.

You're mixing political theory with the practical application of policy.
Click to expand...

The two cannot be separated in the discussion we are having.

To answer your question, yes, I probably would vot for him, because abortion isn't a big deal to me. It's just fun to debate. Same with SSM. Liberals are right, these things don't effect me, and so I don't care; but this isn't the real world, this DebatePolitics.com, a video game, and it's fun to argue the hot-topics.
Click to expand...

Then my example doesn't apply to you.

In truth social issues aren't going to make or brake my support for any given candidate. I am a social conservative, but it's not a big deal. I didn't vote against President Obama because he was pro-choice, but because he's on the record in strong support of single-payer nationalized healthcare. The social issues and speaking gaffs (57 states; "punished with a baby", etc) were just tools to troll the left here, nothing more.

If a liberal came out and was strong on SSM, abortion rights and nationalized healthcare, yet immovably resilient on national security and the 2nd amendment, then this conservative would be voting for a liberal.

That doesn't change my positions on those various issue, though, which means who I support doesn't define what I am.

Put all of those same social issues in front of me in a ballot box, and though I overlooked them when considering a candidate's total political platform, I would still vote to oppose elective abortion and SSM.
Click to expand...

All you are saying is that, inside your "lean", social issues are not so significant. However, you have demonstrated my point in your position on the 2nd Amendment. Who you support does not define who you are... nor does a compendium of everything you support. You have your "hot button" issues like everyone else, and you will vote for someone who supports that issue, often regardless of their positions on other issues. If Obama came out as strongly supporting the 2nd Amendment, and his opponent in 2012 was more neutral, I'd think you might vote for Obama. That would not make you a liberal.
 
NGNM85 said:
That still, essentially, leaves me at 'Other'. 'Libertarian', in the literal sense, would be correct, but it's virtually never used that way in the United States, where it means almost the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

So go literal.

When I read a post and glance at the "lean" chosen, I contrast the lean to the post. Most often I'm surprised to see "Conservative." Liberals who claim to be such often match their lean choice. Cons don't. Of course I'm bringing my own POV to all of this, but then aren't we all?

The result is I come away from a session thinking there are more variances among conservatives than among any other group here. If those who lean liberal or whatever would choose something besides "ain't gonna tell ya,", it might help give us all some perspective on where others are centered, if not anchored.
 
Last edited:
So, Jerry...

DemPeaceTheory means I believe world peace is most achievable through the democratization of all nations - and I'm militant about it (thus, a hawk).

Green means cap-and-trade, wetlands preservation and restoration, sustainble agriculture (especially organic), proper use of the endangerd species act (for key and indicator species only), community management of habitat and wildlife resources, industrial emission control, externality accounting, mandatory recycling, new mpg classifications, etc. I would like to eliminate the farm-bill, if that means anything to you.

Legalization of soft drugs, maybe hard drugs too.



LuckyDan, as soon as I bust out the neocon foreign policy, libertarian (with a small l or not) will cause a full-on crapstorm. You know this. I cannot identify with libertarians as a hawk. Pro-life and state-green doesn't sit well with the libertarians either, but hawk blows it out of the water.


You two should just admit that independent is the best lean available for me. I've proven my case. Stop being haters.

OR

Have them add "Pro-life, Green, Hawk Libertarian" to the available leans.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Then your presentation here, does not reflect your actual presentation.



The two cannot be separated in the discussion we are having.



Then my example doesn't apply to you.



All you are saying is that, inside your "lean", social issues are not so significant. However, you have demonstrated my point in your position on the 2nd Amendment. Who you support does not define who you are... nor does a compendium of everything you support. You have your "hot button" issues like everyone else, and you will vote for someone who supports that issue, often regardless of their positions on other issues. If Obama came out as strongly supporting the 2nd Amendment, and his opponent in 2012 was more neutral, I'd think you might vote for Obama. That would not make you a liberal.
Click to expand...

What I am determines who I support, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
So, Jerry...

DemPeaceTheory means I believe world peace is most achievable through the democratization of all nations - and I'm militant about it (thus, a hawk).

Green means cap-and-trade, wetlands preservation and restoration, sustainble agriculture (especially organic), proper use of the endangerd species act (for key and indicator species only), community management of habitat and wildlife resources, industrial emission control, externality accounting, mandatory recycling, new mpg classifications, etc. I would like to eliminate the farm-bill, if that means anything to you.

Legalization of soft drugs, maybe hard drugs too.
Click to expand...

'Slightly liberal' to 'liberal' libertarian.

World piece is a dream only the naive believe is possible, so that identifies libertarians.

Cap-n-Trade is just a tax, so supporting it identifies a left-based political outlook.

Legalization of hard drugs (which necessarily means doing away with prescriptions altogether) is another naive and rather uneducated dream of the libertarian, but you don't sound very passionate about it so it doesn't push you to far into the liberal spectrum.
 
Last edited:
Fine. I'm a liberal libertarian who wants to invade Iran immediately.


I'm staying with independent. Thanks for your time.
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
So go literal.
Click to expand...

I thought about it, and I still might, my only reservations were;
A: I don't want to be incorrectly associated with a political ideology I don't endorse, and, in fact, emphatically reject.
B: I don't want to have to spend all of my time disabusing people of their misconceptions. Well, at least, not just about this one thing.

Of course, I'm fully aware I'm not responsible for other people's failings, but, again, I'm not sure I want to subject myself to the aggravation.


LuckyDan said:
When I read a post and glance at the "lean" chosen, I contrast the lean to the post. Most often I'm surprised to see "Conservative." Liberals who claim to be such often match their lean choice. Cons don't. Of course I'm bringing my own POV to all of this, but then aren't we all?

The result is I come away from a session thinking there are more variances among conservatives than among any other group here. If those who lean liberal or whatever would choose something besides "ain't gonna tell ya,", it might help give us all some perspective on where others are centered, if not anchored.
Click to expand...

On the first point, at least, I agree completely. It's a testament to the kind of Orwellian doublespeak common to our political discourse, at least the mainstream political discourse, that George W. Bush can be called a 'conservative' with a straight face. Sadly, this is common, like 'capitalism', 'socialism', etc., the word has been misused and perverted, to the point of being almost evacuated of all meaning.
 
Jerry said:
Except that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are not parties :2wave:
Click to expand...

As already pointed out to you - "Liberal" and "Conservative" exist as parties elsewhere in the world. In fact, we invented those parties.

Misterveritis said:
I think independents are gutless. They are neither fish nor fowl, hot nor cold...
Click to expand...

Equally wrong comment, even within a party system such as operates here in the UK there have been many genuine "Independent" representatives. Some have been largely single-issue candidates who served for one term or two such as Martin Bell MP

Martin Bell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bell took on one of the Conservative parties safest seat holders and beat him thoroughly. There will be other examples around the word but it's safe to say - being independent of the mainstream requires thought and constant self assessment. IMO, it's far easier to fall in line with the mainstream generally and that includes here at DP.

It's not too hard to extend that and imagine that here on DP, some posters here have non-mainstream or non-affiliated views on different situations and arguments thus "undisclosed" or "independent" fits the bill perfectly.The alternative could be wasting time in discussion explaining why your views on one subject do not reflect what someone else thinks your lean affiliation is supposed to be.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
As already pointed out to you - "Liberal" and "Conservative" exist as parties elsewhere in the world. In fact, we invented those parties.
Click to expand...

DP has always been oriented on American politics.

If you're suggesting the labels change to now reflect international political views, I agree with that. There is a world of difference between the American conservative lean and another countries Conservative Party, though, and that distinction should be clear in any new label system.

Infinite Chaos said:
Equally wrong comment, even within a party system such as operates here in the UK there have been many genuine "Independent" representatives.
Click to expand...

That's the UK.

DP is in America, and most of our sub-forums are focused on American issues.

If this is to change, that's just fine, but if we're describing the current label system then it's important to realize that it was not made with international politics in mind.

Infinite Chaos said:
It's not too hard to extend that and imagine that here on DP, some posters here have non-mainstream or non-affiliated views on different situations and arguments thus "undisclosed" or "independent" fits the bill perfectly.The alternative could be wasting time in discussion explaining why your views on one subject do not reflect what someone else thinks your lean affiliation is supposed to be.
Click to expand...

90% of the time we just troll each-other anyway, so it's not a big deal.
 
Misterveritis said:
I think independents are gutless. They are neither fish nor fowl, hot nor cold...
Click to expand...

Would you care to take a survey to see who really places any value as to what you think? I think you might be surprised. But nobody places any value on what I think either so whether you are surprised or not, it really wouldn't matter. Just have some fun getting it off your chest.
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
Would you care to take a survey to see who really places any value as to what you think?
Click to expand...
Do you think it matters? Do you visualize me wetting my finger, sticking it into the air to sense which way the wind is blowing before I render my opinion?
But do as you wish. You might also ask, in a poll, how many people are fooled by your claim to be "Independent". You might be surprised as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom