March 26, 2009
Twice as many now believe 'U.S. evolving into socialist state'
Before Obama was elected president a good friend disputed our impassioned arguments that America is becoming a socialist country. "I've been to Europe many times and I know what socialism looks like. We're not there and we're not going there anytime soon." Every time I see him I resist the urge to ask him about this again. But TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence has been asking, and compared the answers now to those from last August.
A thumbnail summary of the results is that among Republicans and independents, the group who believes America is becoming a socialist country has doubled (from 1/3 to 2/3 of Republicans and from 1/4 to 1/2 of independents). Democrats, more eager to support the ideology than speak its name, were more likely to see socialism in our future under Bush than Obama.
The link is a brief essay and explains the results of the larger poll as representing three groups: Undeclared Socialists, Passionate Capitalists, and Hybrid Deniers. (Worth reading just to see those in the squishy middle called "deniers.")
Economics and Markets Government Obama Administration Philosophy Politics Posted by JohnGalt at March 26, 2009 5:12 PM
Great post (the Colorado wing is snowed in, we might be prolific).
Disturbing that only 65% of Republicans and 57% of conservatives fell into the "Passionate Capitalists" segment. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I feel that this is the issue of our time. It is distressing to find the opposition to the current creep. (I meant the creep toward Socialism, I was not name calling, Mr. Taranto).
Posted by: jk at March 26, 2009 6:15 PMjg and jk: I don't know about y'all, but I'm floored by some of the things in this article. I'm seeing a huge gap between what people want, what people think, and what is.
The paragraph beginning "Passionate Capitalists strongly oppose..." describes key elements of that group - and the next paragraph says the 57% of conservatives fall into this segment. What?!?! I may be obtuse here, but who are the 43% of conservatives who don't, and what makes them think they're conservatives? Do we have a problem here with people who self-label as conservatives but reject those basic stances?
I'm also disturbed that there are more Republicans falling into that group than conservatives. I was under the impression that a big part of our problem the RINOs. Shouldn't we then see more conservatives than Republicans in that segment?
Here's a fact: America is becoming more socialistic. Are we agreed on that? That's "what is."
The Undeclared Socialists want us to become more socialist, but "the majority don't believe the U.S. is evolving into a socialist state." So it's happening, they want it to happen - but they say they think it's NOT happening. Stoned, or stupid? They're the ones who you'd expect to be cheering, because the fact it's happening seems pretty undeniable.
The grid on jg's post alone makes my head spin about who is less cognizant of what's happing, who is more, who's getting smarter, who doesn't know whether he agrees or disagrees...
It boggles the mind.
Posted by: Keith at March 26, 2009 7:31 PMKeith: I'm less enamored tan others 'round these parts with the label of "conservative." My hero Hayek, closes his magnum opus with the Chapter "Why I am Not a Conservative."
The 43% are Mike Huckabee-type populists and social conservatives who see a government duty to help those who are hurting as President Bush famously said.
Posted by: jk at March 26, 2009 7:47 PMI've argued with an infamous Hucksterbee supporter at my friend's blog, alarmingnews.com. He always dodges my pointed questions.
The Huckster is a believer in the "Fair" Tax without a provision to eliminate income taxes, raising taxes in general, increasing government social spending, spending hundreds of billions on infrastructure which will supposedly create jobs (remember your Bastiat), and that we need to align man's laws with God's laws. Think of him as the love child of Arlen Specter and Pat Robertson.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 26, 2009 10:58 PMEh, I'd wager there is no small number of Paleocons in that group as well.
While the left likes to paint Conservatives with one great clichéd brush, the ideologies which fall under the title really are quite diverse. There should be little cause for surprise in the discrepancies found in the various member's positions- particularly now, as the Conservative movement is in a rut, seeking to make itself marketable again.
Posted by: T. Greer at March 26, 2009 11:05 PMAnd therein lies the danger of labels. Consider that, in my field, that danger is magnified only to the degree that the label affects not merely this life, but the next, and you'll understand where that leads.
To be able to sit 'round the fireplace with all of you at once for an afternoon, with a plentiful supply of Irish coffees, would be like paradise on earth for me.
Is there anyone here that would consider Huckabee any flavor of "conservative"? Me less than probably any of you. But you've demonstrated something I've long felt - that the labels "liberal" and "conservative" have become truly unsatisfactory. First of all, more axes are needed (military/pacifist, gun rights/gun control, small government/big government, Federal/States' Rights, etc.), and second, there needs to be the harsh realization that the left wing and the right wing touch at their tips. There is little difference between a left-wing dictatorship and a right-wing dictatorship. A better model would seem to be a big sphere, with the poles labeled "Individualist" and "Statist," and many meridians running between them. Takers? Agreed or disagreed?
Posted by: Keith at March 27, 2009 12:58 AMHuckabee has his faults, but I've come to appreciate him more than McCain. Hearing from him directly (on his FNC show) without the MSM filter has served him well in my and dagny's eyes.
I largely disagree with your multiple axes of distinction. There is one that really dictates the rest: Individual liberty with a constitutionally checked government power on the one hand / statism on the other.
I'd like to add some new grist for this debate. Two weeks ago I referred to the 'Uncle Eric' books, one of which is "Are you Liberal, Conservative or Confused?" We recently received our copy and find it to be a concise and precise treatment of political philosophy. We highly recommend it. (And after you've read it you can surreptitiously give it to the children of your leftist/Democrat/moonbat relatives so they'll have a chance at a happy and prosperous life!)
Posted by: johngalt at March 27, 2009 10:35 AMHow many axes? I like the question and can think of three (I'm taking an MIT Linear Algebra course online and wish it were more interesting dimensionality).
jg is right with statist vs. individual liberty. Keith, I see a few of yours collapsing into that. Gun rights are a component of individual liberty; small government follows as well, as does States' rights for me: less, smaller and more localized government are all friends of individual liberty.
I posit that you need an axis of tolerance of government enforcement. I break with many libertarian friends by being a real "law and order" guy. I want Bastiat's idea of law: understandable and avoidable. Then, I want an almost-Singaporean enforcement nechanism. America has zillions of stupid laws that go unenforced and society moves along -- yet, as Bastiat warned, there is always the chance of capricious enforcement. The speed limit is 55 but everybody goes 60 and you can probably do 65 or so but maybe not if you're black or driving an expensive car...
I give the example of Hizonner Rudolph Giuliani: an authoritarian libertarian. He was the only guy in the GOP field who really understood free market economics. He was perhaps too tolerant of alternative lifestyles for the party he was seeking to lead. Yet he was a prosecutor through-and-through. Everything the gang at Reason hate all rolled up into one package and they couldn't look beyond it.
The third axis is the same as the second but for international affairs. I appreciate the Constitutionalism and founders' intent behind Rep. Ron Paul's principled non-interventionism, really I do. But I thought it completely inappropriate for the present times. I've crossed swords with Perry over Deepak Lal. I'm a Lalite, believing the benefits of free world trade are well worth the application of blood and treasure to ensure pax Americana.
Everything else is an issue that affects your placement on these axes. I find it hard to consider other, independent axes. But I'll listen.
Posted by: jk at March 27, 2009 12:31 PMjg: wow! Huckabeeism at ThreeSources. And consider the source...wow indeed.
I saw his show once and admit he's much better suited to talk show host than President. As I can like a person if they collect the right enemies, so can I be concerned when a guy goes out of his way to pick fights with the Club for Growth - WSJ Ed Page - Kudlow axis of the GOP. Had he come out against puppies it would have been a quadrefecta.
His Arkansas record is statist no matter who's doing the filtering and the "Make our law match God's law" comment was the worst thing I've heard out of a Republican in, well, forever.
Uncle Eric looks pretty intriguing but I don't think I have any young folk the right age to pass them on to and I don't think I'll pony up for my library. Maybe when we get together with Keith for Irish Coffees (mmm coffee...) I'll look them o'er.
Posted by: jk at March 27, 2009 12:53 PMJK & JG- You have taken everything I was going to say about the liberty/centralized power scale out of my mouth. Darn.
For the record, I am also a fan of those nice quandrant political scales. The one used by the Republican Liberty Caucus is my favorite of such sorts.
Posted by: T. Greer at March 27, 2009 1:42 PMYes, I found it ironic myself that I found so much common ground with the Ozark preacher. (Preachers ain't all bad, right Keith? :) The best parts of Christianity really are just Perry and the founder's 'Natural Law' and Uncle Eric's 'Juris Naturalis.' This is very similar to Rand's "true nature of man as a rational animal" development for an objective morality. As such, I'm on board.
If the "social conservatives" like Huckabee would just "get out of our bedrooms" they would find much less resistance to the balance of their values.
Posted by: johngalt at March 27, 2009 3:29 PMjg: The best parts of Christianity really are just Perry and the founder's 'Natural Law' and Uncle Eric's 'Juris Naturalis.' Ummmm... not sure I'll go that road; somehow I'm more comfortable saying the best part of Christianity is that it's objectively true in its claims, thereby appealing to the rational animal in me. On the other hand, I'm totally satisfied with Rand's "man as a rational animal" parallel, but as Christianity is not a blind leap of faith into the unknown so much as a well-informed, evidence-based faith.
jg, I find as ironic as you do the fact that you find more common ground with Huckabee than I do! What's clear is that you and I are running on some parallel tracks; the task of sorting people into Conservatives/Non-Conservatives can be as problematic as that of sorting them into Christians/Non-Christians. We've dealt with that more than once on my side; for a teaser, see this:
http://alhbible.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/what-is-a-christian/
One thing that's clear in both discussions is that neither self-identification nor media judgments are definitive. Complicating matters on my side, of course, is that the ultimate decider on who falls into which category have some longer-lasting consequences...
I don't have any children, but I'm going to have to check out the Uncle Eric books.
Posted by: Keith at March 28, 2009 3:19 PMI realize that this post is almost off the page and this is straying from the topic but I can't let it go. Keith states that Christianity is based on, "a well-informed, evidence-based faith." Please, Keith, can you explain what that means? My understanding is that the main definition of faith in religious terms is, belief WITHOUT evidence. I was raised Catholic BTW. I therefore have an overwhelming philosophical problem with this concept. If I am supposed to believe in God without evidence, who gets to decide what God says and wants? Unless God is speaking directly to me (and he hasn't) do I believe my priest? My Rabbbi? My Mullah? The Bible, which was written by men and re-translated many times?
Now we have a new can of worms. If I take what religion teaches without evidence, what else can I be talked into believing? Global warming? Keynesian economics? Multi-culturalism? Subjectivism in general?
So please tell me, what EVIDENCE am I supposed to base my faith on? This is not a rhetorical or sarcastic question, but one I have been asking for years to a chorus of ridiculous answers.
Finally, and on yet another subject, there has been a lot of traffic lately on the subject of, "Mark to Market," accounting rules not the least of which comes from my beloved. And as Keith says above, "Once again, I'm late to the table on a subject where I'm actually qualified to weigh in." I'm looking forward to a detailed "weigh-in" on this subject from an accounting perspective in the next month or so. But I claim that no one can expect such from someone in public accounting in the last 2 weeks of MARCH. So you can all look forward to a boring, expository filled with TLA's in the future.
Posted by: dagny at March 28, 2009 9:38 PMExcellent comments, all. I'll be directing my personal contacts to this discussion. Huckster vs. McCain? C’mon, old news, let’s move along. The Preacher is good at what he is; let him reside there. I'd like to take up the discussion of political classifications, even hoping it gets its own post. I see there’s a Wiki article started on this.
1. I think classifications are useful, as people do want a 'team' to be on, to root for, and feel like they are in the game.
2. The way to get classifications into widespread use, is to get people to adopt them. Labels are assigned from the top down, a social model that nearly never works but that’s so easy, and feeds the egos of those from Rush 2 Obama; thus, their frequency. The easy part, btw, is what makes popularity in the media world, not the real world.
3. To get widespread use, they need to be simple and understandable.
So, I think two-axis (Lib/Cons. R/D, Socialist/Capitalist, etc….) approach is too divisive to get broad appeal. Even the very simple, 4-quadrant approach now adopted by RLC, as noted by TG (for more, see the end) I think is too complex.
I propose a three-axis model.
Economic Freedom
Personal Liberty
Moral(ity) Index
The first two are well known, hopefully well understood, and useful, powerful, pertinent, and rooted in our constitution. The third is where I’m moving into new ground, inspired by JK’s comments on morality and the need for force to back up the rule of law, even to create the peace necessary for it to develop, at times. I used a vague term for the third leg intentionally. I want those who participate to paint their own portrait of just what this implies. The overall thrust must once again be, as The Founders struggled with, how much power over these items must government be granted?
I think I need help from TS’ers. Probably first is how this is described: labels are bad as we all agree. “Classifications”, “categories”, etc. are all too pedantic and scream “top down” with all the divide&conquer implications they deserve. “Parties” has been used and abused. I want a new word that evokes the concept of ‘teams’, much like Tiger Teams in the working world. It implies voluntary association, as well as a direction and progress in a way the term ‘focus group’ does not. Hmm, caucus is reasonable. What say you?
I grant TS the right to share my eMail address to any who wish to contribute off line.
As an aside, let me take a moment to proselytize on the 4-axis from Nolan’s ideas, and now adopted by the Rep. Liberty Caucus. It looks identical to the 4-quandrant scale used by the AfSG folks who picked up on Nolan’s ideas to start the 10-question, “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.” I was once vastly enamored of the idea, and the implementation. If this had some lasting affect, I missed it. Pity, since I think our 100-year experiment with the current party system has run its course.
Posted by: nanobrewer at March 29, 2009 12:52 AMDagny and All: My apologies - as you can probably imagine, Sunday is a a busy workday for me, and I didn't have the opportunity to come back and participate in the conversation.
Out of respect for you, my gracious hosts, I'm going to not postjack ThreeSources and turn this into a theology blog. Instead, I'm going to invite you all to let me shift the venue for the faith part on this topic over to my turf here:
http://alhbible.wordpress.com
I hope y'all will forgive me the presumption, but I have taken the liberty of dedicating the thread to Dagny and JohnGalt, owing to it being their comments on this post and the "Virtue of Selfishness" post that prompted mine. The red carpet has been rolled out...
Posted by: Keith at March 30, 2009 5:35 PM | What do you think? [15]