What am I?

[migrendel]

Since the Boss is doing this, I thought "What the hell"? So, what am I? I would appreciate it if you evaluated me separately in social and economic issues.

[ShapeShifter]

You are a Liberal. Big time. Both on economic issue and social.

[Gustaf]

You seem to be socialist, on both economy and social issues.

[Michael Z]

I'm sure you know where you stand and don't need others to tell you, but, regardless, I personally would see you as a dyed-in-the-whool socialist.

[dazzleman]

I think you are a socialist.

Winston Churchill once said that a person who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, and a person who is still a socialist at 40 has no head.

I think that socialism is an honest attempt to deal with the real problems caused by capitalism, the central one of which is that capitalism, to one degree or another, produces winner and losers.

However, the problem with socialism, in my opinion, is that it does not take stock of human nature, and ultimately expects people to act in ways contrary to their own interests for the sake of a greater good.  This is an unrealistic expectation that almost never works out for very long.

I think modern socialists often fail to recognize the link between economic and social issues.  Traditional Christian values have become taboo for many on the left, yet these values could constitute the best anti-poverty program available.  Encouragement of stable marriages in which to raise children will radically reduce our poverty rate, and increase the non-monetary quality of our children's upbringing, which will lead to better education and less crime.  I don't know why so many are hostile to these concepts, and instead favor the subsidization of untenable family structures that have been proven to lead to problems that no amount of money can fix.

Also, the more we subsidize family structure that cannot be self-sufficient, the fewer people there will be to keep these families afloat, which will lead to an overall degredation of societal standards of living.

Anyway, that was a long diversion.  We'll see where you are at 40.

[migrendel]

Second question: Am I more liberal on social or economic issues?

[Gustaf]

Second question: Am I more liberal on social or economic issues?

I'd say more liberal on economic ones, since oyu appear to be more to the left of the mainstream on economy.

[JohnFKennedy]

would you be mad at me if i said communist? lol j/k

you are very liberal, liberal libertarian I would say, maybe more left on social issues not sure though.

[PBrunsel]

On economic issues you are a Populist. On Social issues you are more of a moderate.

[angus]

Since the Boss is doing this, I thought "What the hell"? So, what am I? I would appreciate it if you evaluated me separately in social and economic issues.

you are what Daniel Elazar calls a moralist (as opposed to traditionalist or individualist).  Statesrights, by comparison, is stereotypically traditionalist.  I'm fairly individualist.  Those are the three cultures.  The GOP has the upper hand with traditionalists.  The Democrats have the upper hand with moralists.  They fight over the individualists.  These correlations change, with periods of about 50 to 100 years.

Libertarians would call you authoritarian.  Socialists would call you a social democrat.  Neoconservatives would call you a bleeding-heart.  Defense hawks would call you a dove.   Californians would call you a progressive.  Germans would call you a Yankee.  Mexicans would call you a gringo.  I call you a concerned voter.  (unless i'm in a bad mood.)

[migrendel]

I've never heard those terms before. It seems very interesting, so could you explain more about moralism, traditionalism, and individualism?

[angus]

Well, I don't know whether he invented the phrase 'political culture' but he's certainly credited with its explanation.  I had assumed every freshman polisci textbook contained a discussion of political culture, as I believe it is the prime model for explanaining voting proclivities from the 50s onward.

Briefly, he identifies three groups, and locates them according to the original settlers in the 'colonies' of the American East:

Moralist (originating from puritan culture)

Traditionalist (originating from planter culture)

Individualist (originating from dutch/german/english cultural mix)

Since these groups were already in place before the revolution, they could be identified by the three regions of the East (east of appalachains):

Moralists are the dominant group in New England.
Individualists were the dominant group in the Middle Atlantic.
Traditionalists were the dominant group in the South.

(Daniel Elazar uses the orthodox Mason and Dixon surveyors line, the border between MD and PA, to demarcate the Middle Atlantic from the South.)

Moralists are associated with moralism.  Egalitarianism, good schools, authoritarianism, community, church, etc.
Traditionalists are associated with elitism (think rich planters and their white endentured servants and black property), loyalty to tradition, etc.
Individualists are associated with mistrust of government, and populism, and limited governmental interference.

After about 1780 these groups spread out.  Moralist culture now extends to the Great Lakes region, and as far westward as Central Minnesota.  Nowadays it usually means good schools and hospitals, public spending on parks, etc, and of course the all-important authoritarianism (bitching about divisive symbols such as the battle flags).  Massachusetts is a special case.  As you know you could not get a tattoo in MA until very recently.  And the restrictive liquor laws and blue laws are still in place.  And the anti-sodomy laws (which took hold and spread throughout the country) which the SJC finally overturned in about 1998.  By the way, moralist ideas prevail in the US in general.  Boston has an effect on USA disproportionate to its relatively small population and size.  It remains an educational and medical technology powerhouse, even though its metro area population ranks about tenth among US census SMSA at about five million.

Traditionalism spread westward too.  Limited in the North by around Dayton/Columbus, or just a little south of there, all the way west to somewhere around San Antonio or San Marcos/New Braunfels area in the west in a curve.  (Fort Worth is a Midwestern city whereas Houston is distinctly Southern).  Traditionalists in these parts exhibit a high level of comfort with capital punishment, for example.  Individualism was carried westward quickly and occupies pretty much the entire western half of the country, as well as a thin band connecting it with NJ/NY/Philly running just north of Columbus and just south of Cleveland, through Pittsburgh, which has elements of all three cultures.  There are also pockets of moralism in the west and pockets of traditionalism in the west.  But individualism dominates here.  You may have noticed distinct differences when you drive down the Northeast corridor from Boston to New York to Washington.  Nowhere else in the USA are these three regions so closely linked in such a heavy density that in a days drive you can really observe all three.  Consider four states in which I've voted:  CA, FL, MA, TX.  California is certainly individualistic,  Massachusetts is the epitome of moralism, Texas is usually described as TI (traditionalistic with a good mix of individualism, presumably owing to its geograhic placement), Florida is usually described as TM (traditionalistic with a good mix of moralism, though its geographic placement doesn't explain why).   Never lived deep in Traditionalistic territory, but definitely on its periphery, nor deep in Individualistic territory (as this part of California is more IM or MI depending on how close to SF you get), but I have lived deep in Moralistic country (somerville and boston).  My own observations make me think Elazar had developed a very good model.  {California is a bizarre case of progressivism gone amuck, but that's for an entirely different thread.}

To be sure, you may come from a very individualistic familial culture and live in a traditionalist or moralist dominated area, or from a, whatever combination.  I try to make the call based on posts not on Red and Massachusetts (but who knows how prejudiced I am...)  We are the most mobile society in the world.  where else can you drive for 3400 miles without showing a passport or bribing anyone?, and that accounts for mixing on a scale unprecedented, and the lines are beginning to blur.  In fact, The Atlas has an excellent link to a commonwealth magazine article which attempts to give a new look at the old problem of political culture, and divides the counry into ten political regions.  This is a new and untested idea, but I like it.  So Elazar's model may be under review by some serious academics.

Nevertheless, Political Science textbooks will probably continue to use Daniel Elazar's model for some time.  So it's good to be familiar with it.  Here's a link I found about Elazar.  You can probably find more detailed material if you search.
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/aboutdje.htm

Here's a bunch of links more relevant to the topic:
http://isbndb.com/d/person/elazar_daniel_judah.html

[nclib]

angus,

I find your use of the word moralist interesting--I had usually thought of moralism as being associated with the religious right.

[angus]

angus,

I find your use of the word moralist interesting--I had usually thought of moralism as being associated with the religious right.

traditionally and originally with the religious left.

at least in the late eighties when I was in college.

who the hell knows now?  Facial jewelery, what the hell is that all about?

The preceding, for example, contains element of both what you are talking about and what I'm talking about.  Note the weird juxtaposition of massachusetts on virginia there.  I think that's the combination of moralism and traditionalism that is confounding.

It is America.

[angus]

 sure okay I'll buy that.  I remember from the same class (oddly) that the only one of the four or five original american forms of music that came from massachusetts was country.  all the others came from deep in the lower mississippi river valley, like jazz, blues, and rock.  and way back in my head I somehow associate country with that old protestant church music you hear from movies.  yeah, maybe that's the connection in the popular arts between moralism and its cultural spread down the appalachian hills and valleys throughout the land to say missouri, a land of individualism and traditionalism and moralism, all intermingled.  but I wouldn't swear I ever heard an instructor say that.  just musing...

[Huckleberry Finn]

Your are "moderate" communist on economic and left liberal or anarchist on social issues.

[12th Doctor]

anarcho-communist.

[opebo]

migrendel, I hate to say this, but your views are so far left that if there was ever a chance of them being put into power, the propertied classes would produce a Pinochet and you'ld be disappeared.  I'm just saying its fine to talk but if push comes to shove people do fight back.

[dunn]

migrendel, I hate to say this, but your views are so far left that if there was ever a chance of them being put into power, the propertied classes would produce a Pinochet and you'ld be disappeared.  I'm just saying its fine to talk but if push comes to shove people do fight back.

He soon will be in power....Chief Justice of the (atlas) SC...

[Ben.]

I think it is probably best if we just use this thread for people to get judged… as otherwise I reckon the threads are just going to swamp the board…

Agreed?

So on that note… where do you guys reckon I stand?    

[migrendel]

I'd say a moderate overall. Definitely centrist on cultural issues. I'm not, however, sure of your fiscal views.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think it is probably best if we just use this thread for people to get judged… as otherwise I reckon the threads are just going to swamp the board…

Agreed?

So on that note… where do you guys reckon I stand?    

Moderate-to-Populist

[Gustaf]

I think it is probably best if we just use this thread for people to get judged… as otherwise I reckon the threads are just going to swamp the board…

Agreed?

So on that note… where do you guys reckon I stand?    

Moderate-to-Populist

Yes.

[Ben.]

I'd say a moderate overall. Definitely centrist on cultural issues. I'm not, however, sure of your fiscal views.

I’d say that I was to the left on many moderates (such as Gustaf for example) economically I do have a populist streak, that said I say that fiscally I pretty much on a par with John Edwards, Culturally somewhere close to Evan Bayh and foreign policy wise pretty far to the right really (Scoop Jackson if he where still alive but probably somewhere close to McCain) that said I did oppose the Iraqi war, or more precisely the reasons why we went to war…  

So Al is probably right I’m probably a Moderate to Populist…

As for the original post migrendel, I’d probably say you where a pretty staunch liberal socially pretty much on a par with folks like Pelosi and that liberal wing of the party, who I have to say I have some big disagreements with, economically I’m not sure…But I wouldn’t say you’re a socialist or a communist, then again I haven’t heard much from you concerning the role of government in society…but yeah I’d say a solid Liberal…                    

[??????????]

Migrendel, what am I? Try and be fair now