Powered by TypePad

« Problem Solved | Main | Valerie Plame - The Cooper Appeal »

May 11, 2005

Comments

Gerry

Tom,

Where would the Libertarians come from? Despite a rather impressive presence (in both quality and quantity) in the blogosphere, they simply don't have sufficient numbers to merit their own typology. I would imagine that the majority would end up in either the upbeats or the enterprisers, but making up a minority of them. These categories are not totally homogeneous.

If you may be interested in my take on the study, follow this link.

Jammer

Liberals support an assertive foreign policy? That sounds like TNR/DLC libs, who I thought were on the outs. Whither the MoveOn types? Why no actual "left" grouping?

Gerry

Jammer, it says "They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy", not that they support one.

Huggy

McCain is a facist who talks one way and does another. You want free speach? Don't support McCain.

Jeff

I'll go read Pew, whose work must be smarter than this list indicates. Speaking for the liberals, let me say that this is pure propaganda: "This affluent, well-educated, highly secular group is consistently liberal on social issues..."

That's the spin from the other team, not an accurate description of liberalism (for reference, go back to William Jennings Bryan and move forward in time until you reach, say, me).

Forbes

These are actually some of the funniest descriptors, and descriptions, of political typology that I've seen--or maybe just the most recent, so it stikes me as humorous.

Some thoughts...

Where would Bill Clinton fall? Upbeat--he being the one Democrat among all the Republicans?

And Joe Lieberman? He must be the exception that proves the rule.

And what's the difference between a Conservative Democrat and a Social Conservative--geography, ethnicity? (In a color blind society, these lefties--Pew--keeps carving us up into our native tribes and clans.)

Even though they've split it evenly--left, right, and center, it pretty much shows the decimation of the Democrats given the tilt of the descriptions. The Democratic Party looks to consist of the Bystanders, Liberals, and Disadvantaged Democrats. As Bystanders are defined as those that don't vote, it's not much of a constituency for the Dem Party. (Funny how there are no Republican descriptors.)

TM's libertarians are either Liberal Enterprisers, or Enterpising Liberals--so they get a foot in each camp, therefore falling out as the small voting block they are. (If you don't look for them, you can't count them.)

Then look where women are classified: Social Conservatives-"This largely female group..."; Pro-Government Conservatives-"predominately female group..."; Disadvantaged Democrats-"heavily female". I guess the gender gap favoring Democrats was a figment of the media's imagination.

One could go on, but it seems silly.

Jor

I only put "Strongly Agree" on the question about books in the library and the conscientous objectors of war. Everything else, was 'Agree', some would have been neutral if there were more options (Corportations make too much $$, vs. too regulated -- neutral). As is no surprise I came out as "Liberal". In any case, people oughta post their results w/their comments.

chrisg

this survey only covers the center of the political spectrum. There are no questions that have answers that would put a survey taker out of the political mainstream.
But I suspect the number of people who hold what could be characterized as "extreme" views (of whatever flavor) is not insignificant.

Half Sigma

I have to agree with the commenters who suggest that because libertarians are such a tiny percent of the electorate (2% maybe?) that they don't get a group. If they are religious libertarians then they fall under Enterpriser.

SteveMG

Hmm, I'm defined as an "upbeat".

Guess I'll have to scrape off that "Life sucks, then you die" bumpersticker from the car.

SMG

Joe Mealyus


I see three questions where by my lights you are forced to agree with an idiotic statement (to complete the survey).

For example, they pair "Poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return" with "Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently."

Who thinks poor people have it easy? And who agrees with the "because" part of that second one? (I mean, besides a few tens of million dopey liberals).

And then with "Government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest" versus "Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good" I want to agree with both.

I'm wondering if the writers meant to pair opposites and just didn't realize they didn't have opposites, or whether they did this intentionally.

I came out upbeat....

Henry B.

Right, where are the libertarians? I could not find myself in this list. Some leftist groups, such as almost anything funded by the Pew Foundation, have a bizarre view of libertarians as some sort of National Socialists, about the opposite of reality. Perhaps because of that, they simply choose to ignore libertarians, hoping that somehow we'll fade away.

Forbes

Yeah, JoeM, you're absolutely right regarding those, and some other questions--they should be polar opposites, or mutually exclusive, and they're not. That being the case, each statement should've been evaluated on its own, along a "strongly agree" to a "strongly disagree" spectrum, rather than as against some "alternative" statement.

At least given the descriptions, I knew where I would come out--and the test did confirm me as upbeat, despite the cynical pessimism shared with SteveMG.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame