There was a different study indicating that opponents of vaccination tend to be associated with extremes of right and of left, rather than of right or left per se.
So I instantly have issues with something that looks at ideology around the world, and uses "right", "left", and "moderate" as I don't believe those mean the same thing between Europe and America, much less anywhere else.
Then I start reading and within the first five paragraphs I have major issues with the givens-
-"Democracy is under threat." Is it? I mean, any more than at other times?
-" libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics" Seriously? Libertarianism is about as far from fascism as you can get, I think. I know there are fascists/socialists who have created a kind of 'libertarianism' to suit them, but it's not consistent with the basics of libertarian thought. I think that claim withstands the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
-"the so-called antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles." Antifa plainly state that they are in favor of things that are clearly inconsistent with classical liberalism.
-" The survey asks respondents to place themselves on a spectrum from far left to center to far right." This is probably the *least* useful way to see what groups of people believe. It's almost as if they wanted to deliberately no analyze actual ideological beliefs, and rather people's impressions of the political spectrum (which I started by questioning in the first place).
I agree with douglas, but am content to take this data as approximate rather than discard it entirely. We all get used to applying a discount to anything an academic researcher says about the political spectrum. They just can't see some things. Ww work around it as best we can.
I hazard that those on the extreme are more likely to believe that democracy is being thwarted by the nefarious few on the other side, and if things were run fairly, the votes for their side would be devastating.
I define myself as the center, because I am correct, and that is therefore where the real center is. Left or right wing is defined in relationship to me.
It does suggest that it’s worth reconsidering what Trump is doing as potentially more dangerous to democracy than I’ve been inclined to do so far. There was a huge push to tie him to radical right wingers and “Alt Right” and it never passed the smell test.
But if the sort of ordinary person who strives to see themselves as a “moderate” has lost faith in democracy and is looking for a strongman to protect them, that’s more serious. That’s not a fringe movement but a mass movement; and it would explain why Trump seems not to lose much or any support when he defies traditional ideological standards for Republicans. He’s not great on guns, terrible on the National debt, hardly exemplifies any religious virtues, defies norms of civility and honor, but those who love him love him. Maybe that’s because these people were never ideological themselves; they’re “moderates” who’ve lost faith in the system and want a protector.
One of the tropes of the anti-populist Left, and to an extend the Right as well, is that the vast muddle have been fooled or tricked into supporting Trump. I think Bloomberg has made this claim quite specifically. It's also factored into some of Romney's condemnations of Trump. The claim is pretty much always that if the middle understood what Trump was really about, they'd reject him.
You can certainly point to times when Trump hasn't been a traditional Republican, which often things he says, but there are often just as many things that he's done which are, or at least the GOPe claimed they were til Trump came along. Those conservative judges McConnell is getting confirmed didn't nominate themselves. Congress hasn't passed regulation reduction legislation. Our embassy in Israel wasn't moved on its own nor, I'll add, was it moved by any previous Republican President even though every one of them promised to do it. Every Republican President since Reagan has opposed abortion but Trump is the first one to actually show up at the March for Life.
Yes, he's bad on the spending but which prior Republican was actually good on it? Both Reagan and GHWB made bad deals on tax increases for spending cuts that never materialized. W made some noises but in the end punted on even partially privatizing Social Security. Even here there is some indication that Trump's 2021 budget is going to move to reduce spending.
Part of Trump's continuing strong support by Republicans is because he's governed as a Republican in terms of implementing Republican priorities. If there is an element to that of Trump as a protector of the interests of Republican voters I think that's entirely rational given what we saw happening during the Obama administration, and what the current crop of Democrat candidates have been promising to do if they are elected.
@ Christopher B - thank you for mentioning the judicial nominees. McConnell owns most of the credit, first for slow-walking the Obama nominations, then for getting the current crop passed, but Trump has deferred greatly to the Federalist Society in making those nominations, which I don't think would have been true for any other nominee.
6 comments:
There was a different study indicating that opponents of vaccination tend to be associated with extremes of right and of left, rather than of right or left per se.
So I instantly have issues with something that looks at ideology around the world, and uses "right", "left", and "moderate" as I don't believe those mean the same thing between Europe and America, much less anywhere else.
Then I start reading and within the first five paragraphs I have major issues with the givens-
-"Democracy is under threat." Is it? I mean, any more than at other times?
-" libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics" Seriously? Libertarianism is about as far from fascism as you can get, I think. I know there are fascists/socialists who have created a kind of 'libertarianism' to suit them, but it's not consistent with the basics of libertarian thought. I think that claim withstands the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
-"the so-called antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles." Antifa plainly state that they are in favor of things that are clearly inconsistent with classical liberalism.
-" The survey asks respondents to place themselves on a spectrum from far left to center to far right." This is probably the *least* useful way to see what groups of people believe. It's almost as if they wanted to deliberately no analyze actual ideological beliefs, and rather people's impressions of the political spectrum (which I started by questioning in the first place).
I stopped reading at this point.
I agree with douglas, but am content to take this data as approximate rather than discard it entirely. We all get used to applying a discount to anything an academic researcher says about the political spectrum. They just can't see some things. Ww work around it as best we can.
I hazard that those on the extreme are more likely to believe that democracy is being thwarted by the nefarious few on the other side, and if things were run fairly, the votes for their side would be devastating.
I define myself as the center, because I am correct, and that is therefore where the real center is. Left or right wing is defined in relationship to me.
It does suggest that it’s worth reconsidering what Trump is doing as potentially more dangerous to democracy than I’ve been inclined to do so far. There was a huge push to tie him to radical right wingers and “Alt Right” and it never passed the smell test.
But if the sort of ordinary person who strives to see themselves as a “moderate” has lost faith in democracy and is looking for a strongman to protect them, that’s more serious. That’s not a fringe movement but a mass movement; and it would explain why Trump seems not to lose much or any support when he defies traditional ideological standards for Republicans. He’s not great on guns, terrible on the National debt, hardly exemplifies any religious virtues, defies norms of civility and honor, but those who love him love him. Maybe that’s because these people were never ideological themselves; they’re “moderates” who’ve lost faith in the system and want a protector.
One of the tropes of the anti-populist Left, and to an extend the Right as well, is that the vast muddle have been fooled or tricked into supporting Trump. I think Bloomberg has made this claim quite specifically. It's also factored into some of Romney's condemnations of Trump. The claim is pretty much always that if the middle understood what Trump was really about, they'd reject him.
You can certainly point to times when Trump hasn't been a traditional Republican, which often things he says, but there are often just as many things that he's done which are, or at least the GOPe claimed they were til Trump came along. Those conservative judges McConnell is getting confirmed didn't nominate themselves. Congress hasn't passed regulation reduction legislation. Our embassy in Israel wasn't moved on its own nor, I'll add, was it moved by any previous Republican President even though every one of them promised to do it. Every Republican President since Reagan has opposed abortion but Trump is the first one to actually show up at the March for Life.
Yes, he's bad on the spending but which prior Republican was actually good on it? Both Reagan and GHWB made bad deals on tax increases for spending cuts that never materialized. W made some noises but in the end punted on even partially privatizing Social Security. Even here there is some indication that Trump's 2021 budget is going to move to reduce spending.
Part of Trump's continuing strong support by Republicans is because he's governed as a Republican in terms of implementing Republican priorities. If there is an element to that of Trump as a protector of the interests of Republican voters I think that's entirely rational given what we saw happening during the Obama administration, and what the current crop of Democrat candidates have been promising to do if they are elected.
@ Christopher B - thank you for mentioning the judicial nominees. McConnell owns most of the credit, first for slow-walking the Obama nominations, then for getting the current crop passed, but Trump has deferred greatly to the Federalist Society in making those nominations, which I don't think would have been true for any other nominee.
Post a Comment