Electability Poll

[vcczar 1,227]

This poll will help in creating hypothetical scenarios from 2024 to 2050, by seeing how forum users respond to these questions

[Patine 514]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

This poll will help in creating hypothetical scenarios from 2024 to 2050, by seeing how forum users respond to these questions

Why not include members of non-Abrahamic religions and Native Americans, as well? Those would be real watermarks.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

1) I chose many

2) Yes when they really represent my ideology I'm not bothered when they are combination of most of these attitudes. For example: why shouldn't I vote for a gay Republican man, if he represents my views more than a straight Democratic man. Who cares if he's gay or not? I don't. He would perhaps not agree on my stance on ssm, but a Democrat would disagree with my positions way more...

3) I chose many again. But only those which are also practical to me. 

[vcczar 1,227]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

Why not include members of non-Abrahamic religions and Native Americans, as well? Those would be real watermarks.

I thought I'd start with these. The primary reason for their exclusion is that I have a max of 20 choices on the question. I think those I listed up there need to be accomplished before we get to the watermarks you've listed. I possibly could have worded a question to include these. 

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

11 hours ago, JohnnyK said:

I have no problem any of those people too, but I was thinking of a Authoritarian or Socialist, that's why I said no. Anything that undermines American Democracy

I see. 

[vcczar 1,227]

9 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I see. 

Even though I am blocking JohnnyK, I could see your quote from him. His understanding of the popular forms of socialism is very weak and propagandist. I do agree with him that an Authoritarian undermines American Democracy, but Democratic Socialism, also known as Social Democracy, is actually an expansion of Democracy, and it would be an expansion of American Democracy if it ever became mainstream, since it would definitely be an American variant of this, and still very much capitalistic. 

The flaw that many conservatives have in their understand of socialism is that they believe that all the forms are exactly the same thing. That would be like saying all Republics are identical. America is a Republic, but so are many authoritarian governments, in which the parliaments are mere puppets. Likewise, you have abominable forms of Socialism that have been terribly corrupted, just as Republics have been corrupted. I'd say about 99% of Americans that view Sanders favorably, have the Nordic/Scandinavian Socialisms in mind when discussing Socialist values. These are countries that are also capitalistic in many ways. I'd also say that most Americans probably don't want a replica of this either, since America is a much different country. I think what they want, are the best parts of this system applied to their own system to improve it, and make it better than those forms in Scandinavia. 

So the charge that socialism undermines American Democracy is a feeble claim. Would one argue that military pensions, VA hospitals, Social Security are undermining American Democracy? Social Democracy, which is what Bernie Sanders is, is actually a populist form of government, in which the people have a greater and more direct say in the govern, making the government work for them. How is that anything but more Democratic? Even if one finds Democratic Socialism or Social Democracy impractical or unwanted, a rational thinker has to notice the good intentions among those desiring it. I would say that a conservative should find a non-socialistic means of meeting those desires for those that feel eked out by the capitalistic machine. I consider myself both a capitalist and a social democrat. I don't see these things as necessarily separable. I think it is possible to fuse both, as we have. Our government, and our lives, are probably at least 25% Socialism. I bet if you polled the majority of Americans on things like military pensions, VA hospitals (socialized medications for vets), Social Security and the rest, that most Americans would not vote to get rid of it. In fact, most Americans favor Obamacare when it is worded as the "Affordable Care Act" instead of "Obamacare," and even more favor it if there wasn't a fine for not participating. 

What these shows me is that the government could experiment with something called an "opt-out clause." You could have state social programs and national social programs. States could opt out of the national ones for either a state program, or none at all. However, for the national program to work, and be affordable, it usually needs a lot of contributors partaking in it. As such, the government would probably have to penalize non-participating states by withholding some federal funds that usually go to those states that are opting out. The state then has a choice of receiving more federal funds for roads, schools, etc., and opting into programs, or being more self-reliant, taking the penalty (which really isn't a penalty since it's just opting not to received a federal handout), and doing state programs or none at all. The government could lessen the penalty if the state creates a near identical program. 

The upside to this is that the states and voters would be able to determine, somewhat, how much federal government they want in their lives. This would also make the federal government more proactive in building programs that are cost-effective and effective so that more states vote to get on board with the national programs. 

Most of the poor states are in the South, and they receive a lot of government handouts, despite being opposed to big government. These states would be forced to vote on keeping those handouts and programs, and having the luxury of idealogically rejecting those handouts and being self-reliant on their own programs. 

I guess in this way, I am a capitalistic socialist, but also one that likes to allow for choices among regions. I think by allowing a choice, people are going to be less opposed to the only choice that they had had all along. I think under something like this, federal, state, local, private companies, and voters would all have to step up to compete in building the best programs for America. 

Obviously, there's probably some complications in this that would have to be ironed out, and some that I probably haven't thought about yet. Overall, I think Bernie Sanders-style American Democratic Socialism (or Social Democracy) is an extension of Democracy and in no way undermines it, especially since would take Democracy (voter participation) to institute its parts in the first place. 

[jvikings1 40]

18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Overall, I think Bernie Sanders-style American Democratic Socialism (or Social Democracy) is an extension of Democracy and in no way undermines it, especially since would take Democracy (voter participation) to institute its parts in the first place. 

While I agree that some people do not understand that socialism can be democratic, the last sentence isn't completely true.  Just because people are elected to do those changes doesn't mean that it could not be democratic.  The Nazis were voted into office by the people and then got rid of the system.

[Patine 514]

1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

While I agree that some people do not understand that socialism can be democratic, the last sentence isn't completely true.  Just because people are elected to do those changes doesn't mean that it could not be democratic.  The Nazis were voted into office by the people and then got rid of the system.

Despite a certain misleading usage of the word "socialist" in the full name of the Nazi party, the Nazis were NOT in any way, shape, or for socialists or communists. They were far-right-wing nationalist reactionaries. In fact, Hitler DETESTED socialists and communists, and members of the Communist Party of Germany, Social Democratic Party of Germany, and other left-leaning parties, and those accused of being strong supporters of those parties, were actually the FIRST in Nazi Germany to be targeted outright, rounded up, and put in concentration camp-like situations, several years before Jew, Romani, non-Whites, migrant workers, homosexuals, and other groups later added to the pogrom were. It is a BIG mistake, in accuracy, anyways, even in rhetoric, to attack socialism of any sort based on ANYTHING the Nazis did or believed.

[jvikings1 40]

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Despite a certain misleading usage of the word "socialist" in the full name of the Nazi party, the Nazis were NOT in any way, shape, or for socialists or communists. They were far-right-wing nationalist reactionaries. In fact, Hitler DETESTED socialists and communists, and members of the Communist Party of Germany, Social Democratic Party of Germany, and other left-leaning parties, and those accused of being strong supporters of those parties, were actually the FIRST in Nazi Germany to be targeted outright, rounded up, and put in concentration camp-like situations, several years before Jew, Romani, non-Whites, migrant workers, homosexuals, and other groups later added to the pogrom were. It is a BIG mistake, in accuracy, anyways, even in rhetoric, to attack socialism of any sort based on ANYTHING the Nazis did or believed.

This period of time is my favorite to study in history.  I was pointing to the part about being democratic.  Look at the context of my statement.  Lots of people like to throw around that the Nazis were on the right.  But, that it very misleading.  They were also for extreme control of the economy by the government.  Many prominent Nazis hated capitalism.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

And the Nazis generally hated the Church too. Another thing in which they are different from most people on the right.

[Patine 514]

47 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

And the Nazis generally hated the Church too. Another thing in which they are different from most people on the right.

That doesn't make them left-wing, and certainly doesn't make them socialist. Plus, many other Fascist movements that arose at that time, like Franco's Falangists, Antonescu's National Legionary State, Tiso's State of Slovakia, Pavelic's Independent State of Croatia, Szlasi's Arrow Cross, Petain's Vichy France, Oliveira's Estado Nova, and Mussolini's Fascists (the latter two coming into power in their own countries several years before Hitler came into power in Germany) were all staunchly pro-fundamentalist Roman Catholic (or Romanian Orthodox, in Anonescu's case) movements, and saw restoring Church re-eminence to social, judicial, and legislative authority as a BIG part of their platforms.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

31 minutes ago, Patine said:

That doesn't make them left-wing, and certainly doesn't make them socialist.

I didn't say that. I know that not all left-wing parties are strictly against religion. Nazi extremism is other than ordinary left- or right-wing extremism imo.

31 minutes ago, Patine said:

Plus, many other Fascist movements that arose at that time, like Franco's Falangists, Antonescu's National Legionary State, Tiso's State of Slovakia, Pavelic's Independent State of Croatia, Szlasi's Arrow Cross, Petain's Vichy France, Oliveira's Estado Nova, and Mussolini's Fascists (the latter two coming into power in their own countries several years before Hitler came into power in Germany) were all staunchly pro-fundamentalist Roman Catholic (or Romanian Orthodox, in Anonescu's case) movements, and saw restoring Church re-eminence to social, judicial, and legislative authority as a BIG part of their platforms.

Yeah that's like the 1934 - 1938 Federal State of Austria. Not very good, but better than the Nazi rule four years later. That's why Chancellor Dollfuß/Dollfuss stood up against the Nazis and was murdered by them although he was very right-wing himself. He was very Catholic and against the anti-Catholicism of the Nazi regime (same with his successor Chancellor Schuschnigg - who later became an US citizen). Some still view Dollfuß as an evil dictator and others more like a hero who fought against the Nazis. Otherwise the Nazis would have gained power in Austria already in 1933/34...

 

Dollfuß is one of the most interesting and controversial historical Austrians to study, I think. I'd recommend you all to read about him if you don't much about him already. Especially @jvikings1 because I know, you like this historical period very much,

[Patine 514]

20 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I didn't say that. I know that not all left-wing parties are strictly against religion. Nazi extremism is other than ordinary left- or right-wing extremism imo.

Yeah that's like the 1934 - 1938 Federal State of Austria. Not very good, but better than the Nazi rule four years later. That's why Chancellor Dollfuß/Dollfuss stood up against the Nazis and was murdered by them although he was very right-wing himself. He was very Catholic and against the anti-Catholicism of the Nazi regime (same with his successor Chancellor Schuschnigg - who later became an US citizen). Some still view Dollfuß as an evil dictator and others more like a hero who fought against the Nazis. Otherwise the Nazis would have gained power in Austria already in 1933/34...

 

Dollfuß is one of the most interesting and controversial historical Austrians to study, I think. I'd recommend you all to read about him if you don't much about him already. Especially @jvikings1 because I know, you like this historical period very much,

Tangentially on Austrian history, I had read, interestingly, that the old Dual-Monarchy of Austria-Hungary between 1867-1918 had a very diverse population indeed. My high school Social Studies teacher picked out just three men born in what was politically the Dual Monarchy at the time and place of their birth who all later became very famous and prominent internationally as good examples of this diversity - Adolf Hitler, Sigmund Freud, and Josip Broz Tito...

[Patine 514]

@Conservative Elector 2

Another good example for you of a far-right-wing ideologue who was staunchly anti-religious - although many modern Americans seem to fully believe and take for granted the notion that Libertarianism and Christian-based Social Conservativism go hand-in-hand (such terms as "Christian Libertarianism" float around, and I've heard some saying "the Bible and Atlas Shrugged go nicely on a bookshelf together) - it may surprise you (and possibly others) to learn that, Ayn Rand, herself, detested Christianity and other religions, calling them "Death Cults," and personally believed they were just as detrimental, in her view - to the individual and society as a welfare state, overreaching government authority, or overregulation, and that they choked off a person's own merit, independence, and liberty.

[Reagan04 658]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

Another good example for you of a far-right-wing ideologue who was staunchly anti-religious - although many modern Americans seem to fully believe and take for granted the notion that Libertarianism and Christian-based Social Conservativism go hand-in-hand (such terms as "Christian Libertarianism" float around, and I've heard some saying "the Bible and Atlas Shrugged go nicely on a bookshelf together) - it may surprise you (and possibly others) to learn that, Ayn Rand, herself, detested Christianity and other religions, calling them "Death Cults," and personally believed they were just as detrimental, in her view - to the individual and society as a welfare state, overreaching government authority, or overregulation, and that they choked off a person's own merit, independence, and liberty.

 

Indeed, Ayn Rand was a wacko bird, in the bottom 5% of American Philosopher's of that era, right down there with Margaret Sanger. Her rants against our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, her atheistic approach, and her Oprah's favorite things style approach to abortions is what earns her my condemnation.

[jvikings1 40]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

@Conservative Elector 2

Another good example for you of a far-right-wing ideologue who was staunchly anti-religious - although many modern Americans seem to fully believe and take for granted the notion that Libertarianism and Christian-based Social Conservativism go hand-in-hand (such terms as "Christian Libertarianism" float around, and I've heard some saying "the Bible and Atlas Shrugged go nicely on a bookshelf together) - it may surprise you (and possibly others) to learn that, Ayn Rand, herself, detested Christianity and other religions, calling them "Death Cults," and personally believed they were just as detrimental, in her view - to the individual and society as a welfare state, overreaching government authority, or overregulation, and that they choked off a person's own merit, independence, and liberty.

Well, Americans use the word liberal wrong.  That is why many are confused when the "liberal" parties in Canada and Europe are actually right leaning parties.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

3 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Well, Americans use the word liberal wrong.  That is why many are confused when the "liberal" parties in Canada and Europe are actually right leaning parties.

That seems to be true. In Europe left-wing would be used for the American liberal label, while European liberalism is more like libertarianism (perhaps not that "extrem" as in the US). However, the words libertarian or libertarianism are pretty uncommon here among political pundits.