“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

[Desertdog]

Maybe some day the GOP will realize that the conservatives are really the dominate group and start trying to get us to vote for them by talking conservative instead of moderate or extreme left.


“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
Percentage of “liberals” higher this decade than in early ’90s
by Lydia SaadPRINCETON, NJ --

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
Continued at;
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx

[MicroBalrog]

Remember Coulter's dictum. "There is no such thing as a moderate".

[zahc]

What does "conservative" mean again?

Last I checked, conservatives were still calling me liberal because I support freedom, and liberals were still calling me conservative because I support freedom.

[roo_ster]

What does "conservative" mean again?

Last I checked, conservatives were still calling me liberal because I support freedom, and liberals were still calling me conservative because I support freedom.

When one is reviled by two diametrically opposed philosophical groups, sometimes it is because one has found a different but coherent philosophy not shared by the original two. 

But, sometimes it because one is just a jerk and everyone has figured it out.

[I jest, I jest.]

Well, for the most part.  I have no great love for "moderates" who think that moderation is some sort of singular virtue, claim to be some sort of Solomon, and then slicing the child in two.

[MicroBalrog]

"Moderates", as Coulter points out, are just another brand of liberals. THe current status-quo is ALREADY leftist is nature. Wanting to retain it makes you a leftist.

[RevDisk]

What does "conservative" mean again?

Last I checked, conservatives were still calling me liberal because I support freedom, and liberals were still calling me conservative because I support freedom.

Liberals think I'm a right wing extremist because I like my guns.  Conservatives think I'm a moonbat liberal because I don't think religion and govt should be mixed.  Both sides flat out hate me because I think their pet projects are money soaks. 

I call myself moderate.  Not because I want to maintain the status quo, but because 'right' and 'left' carry connotations I don't accurately portray.

[S. Williamson]

I think of it all as a circle, 0 deg at the top, increasing clockwise (think navigation).

Republicans are at 90deg.
Democrats are at 270deg.
"Moderates" are at 0deg.
Rev is at... 180deg?

[Strings]

Rev ain't alone at 180*...

[RevDisk]

I think of it all as a circle, 0 deg at the top, increasing clockwise (think navigation).

Republicans are at 90deg.
Democrats are at 270deg.
"Moderates" are at 0deg.
Rev is at... 180deg?

Does that make me an anti-moderate?   

[AZRedhawk44]

I think of it all as a circle, 0 deg at the top, increasing clockwise (think navigation).

Republicans are at 90deg.
Democrats are at 270deg.
"Moderates" are at 0deg.
Rev is at... 180deg?

Yep, but more like an X-Y 2 dimensional graph.

Most folks only think of the X axis, left or right.

Problem is, you can be far left or far right and still be a Statist on the Y axis.  Statist extreme left positions include income redistribution and prohibition of assembly for religious purposes of any kind.  Statist extreme right positions include militant police state fascism and mandatory assembly for worship.

I can count the number of people in Congress that fall where I want them on the Y axis on one hand, be they left or right.

[jackdanson]

Liberals think I'm a right wing extremist because I like my guns.  Conservatives think I'm a moonbat liberal because I don't think religion and govt should be mixed.  Both sides flat out hate me because I think their pet projects are money soaks. 

I call myself moderate.  Not because I want to maintain the status quo, but because 'right' and 'left' carry connotations I don't accurately portray.

Same here.

IMHO anyone who says "RAAAAWWWRR Republicans are awesome, Democrats are idiots" or "RAAAAWWWRR Democrats are awesome, Republicans are idiots" has problems thinking for themselves.  If you agree over 90% with one party's stated platforms you might need to consider the fact that you are a lemming.

[makattak]

Same here.

IMHO anyone who says "RAAAAWWWRR Republicans are awesome, Democrats are idiots" or "RAAAAWWWRR Democrats are awesome, Republicans are idiots" has problems thinking for themselves.  If you agree over 90% with one party's stated platforms you might need to consider the fact that you are a lemming.

Or, if you disagree with a party that much, you need to consider that you are deluding yourself that you are "open-minded" and "free".

The parties take certain positions because numerous people in the country hold those positions. The people don't "follow the party", the party "follows the people".

To claim someone is a "lemming" because a major politcal party has adopted most of their preferred positions is foolish.

[MechAg94]

It never fails that there are all sorts of different people:

1.  People who think they are Conservative.
2.  People who think someone else is Conservative and they are moderate.
3.  People who think they are Liberal and someone else is Conservative.
4.  People who think they are Libertarian and someone else is Conservative.
5.  and People who think they are Conservative.

All 5 (or more) think they know what a Conservative is and all 5 often have different definitions.  And that makes overly generalized discussions like this sort of pointless. 

IMO, you really have to go issue by issue to pin down someone's political views.  IMO, people define those political labels based on different sets of issues.  One issue may be the biggest for one person and not even on the radar for another.  One person's conservative is a another person's socialist. 

[Balog]

Conservative, liberal, right, left.... it's all so subjective as to be worthless. I'd wager a lot of people think of themselves as "conservative" who disagree with what we would consider the basic tenants of "conservatism." Just as most of the people who self-identify as "Christians" have a world-view that's actually fairly inimicable to the basic doctrines of Christianity.

[makattak]

Conservative, liberal, right, left.... it's all so subjective as to be worthless. I'd wager a lot of people think of themselves as "conservative" who disagree with what we would consider the basic tenants of "conservatism." Just as most of the people who self-identify as "Christians" have a world-view that's actually fairly inimicable to the basic doctrines of Christianity.

I'll quite agree with that.

Part of the problem is that "conservative" has become a designation of the left for those who believe in classical liberalism. As a result, "conservatives" now encompass a rather large coalition of those who "stand athwart history yelling 'stop'" and those who stand against government yelling "Laissez-faire" as well as any combination of these positions.

[BrokenPaw]

The parties take certain positions because numerous people in the country hold those positions. The people don't "follow the party", the party "follows the people".

That may once have been the case, but I do not believe that it is the case any more.  The Parties have become impressed with themselves, and cannot hear the people over the sound of how awesome they are.

-BP

[makattak]

That may once have been the case, but I do not believe that it is the case any more.  The Parties have become impressed with themselves, and cannot hear the people over the sound of how awesome they are.

-BP

Very true.

Perhaps I should say: A party cannot long survive that does not "follow the people". For a time, it can ignore what their supporters want, but they cannot last. I cannot ignore the fact that both parties are trying to ignore the general populace, especially on matters pertaining to illegal immigration.

[Balog]

Very true.

Perhaps I should say: A party cannot long survive that does not "follow the people". For a time, it can ignore what their supporters want, but they cannot last. I cannot ignore the fact that both parties are trying to ignore the general populace, especially on matters pertaining to illegal immigration.

They've been getting away with it for quite a while now. Bread and circuses work wonders. Also, BP has officially won the thread. 

[MechAg94]

On individual issues, Parties can ignore popular sentiment as long as other issues are important enough to overshadow those issues and affect voters.  I think it is one of those delayed response things and often takes a new leader coming in who hits the right issues in the right way to attract voters. 

IMO, Republicans ignored the spending issue in 2004 and survived on the Iraq War and the Terror stuff.  4 year later, those two issues are less significant and spending became much bigger.  Voters turned away.

[roo_ster]

IMO, Republicans ignored the spending issue in 2004 and survived on the Iraq War and the Terror stuff.  4 year later, those two issues are less significant and spending became much bigger.  Voters turned away kicked them in the jimmy and called 'em worthless.

That is more my view of things.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Same here.

IMHO anyone who says "RAAAAWWWRR Republicans are awesome, Democrats are idiots" or "RAAAAWWWRR Democrats are awesome, Republicans are idiots" has problems thinking for themselves.  If you agree over 90% with one party's stated platforms you might need to consider the fact that you are a lemming.

The poll was about political ideologies, not political parties.