• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How would you decribe my political "lean"?

How would you decribe my political "lean"?


  • Total voters
    21

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Pretty simple question. I'm curious as to how others perceive my political lean based on my views on the issues.

Choices are:

Hard Left
Left
Slightly left of center
Center
Slightly right of center
Right
Hard Right
Other (please explain)


If you could explain your answers, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance
 
Pretty simple question. I'm curious as to how others perceive my political lean based on my views on the issues.

Choices are:

Hard Left
Left
Slightly left of center
Center
Slightly right of center
Right
Hard Right
Other (please explain)


If you could explain your answers, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance

slightly right of center. isn't your right leg shorter than your left?

i think you are a fiscal conservative, for the most part, and pretty moderate socially.
 
Pretty simple question. I'm curious as to how others perceive my political lean based on my views on the issues.

Choices are:

Hard Left
Left
Slightly left of center
Center
Slightly right of center
Right
Hard Right
Other (please explain)


If you could explain your answers, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance

None of the specific answers are sufficient.
Maybe crazy would best suit you. :2razz:

I think since your a decentralist, you are most likely an issue by issue guy.
 
Last edited:
You seem pretty much in the middle, so I go with Centrist.
 
I haven't been around here that long, but from what I've read you seem to be right in the middle. So I picked center.
 
Just to the left of right of center.
 
Well since you're a White Sox fan, I'd say your lean is douche bag.


HAHAHA, I'm just kidding with ya! Or am I?

*hides plans to burn down the South side*


Go Cubs!
 
slightly right of center. isn't your right leg shorter than your left?

i think you are a fiscal conservative, for the most part, and pretty moderate socially.

Ditto...... That's where all great minds reside.
 
Pretty simple question. I'm curious as to how others perceive my political lean based on my views on the issues.

Choices are:

Hard Left
Left
Slightly left of center
Center
Slightly right of center
Right
Hard Right
Other (please explain)


If you could explain your answers, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance

I voted slightly right of center.
 
Pretty simple question. I'm curious as to how others perceive my political lean based on my views on the issues.

Choices are:

Hard Left
Left
Slightly left of center
Center
Slightly right of center
Right
Hard Right
Other (please explain)


If you could explain your answers, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance

On what issue?
 
Though you vary by issue, I always think of you as slightly right of center.
 
I would have to agree with many, I would say you are slightly right of center. However, I think you are like me in that you take each issue as its own and don't adopt 1 political philosophy to determine every political opinion ;)
 
Well, I've eliminated the two choices that include the word "hard" in them..........


You strike me as being fairly moderate, though.
 
Other. You have a Federalist/Anti-Federalist lean based on constitutional principles so really you can't be put on either side of the spectrum, and since you weigh individual issues based on the above principles really you just kind of "are" politically.
 
I've never really come across you debating economics (not really my area of interest) so I wouldn't know whether you were fiscal conservative or not. I think you tend towards the socially liberal and to me, liberal = centrist, so that's what I voted.

Why do you want to know what we think, btw?
 
Why do you want to know what we think, btw?

Mostly it's just curiosity about how my decentralist philosophies are perceived in relation to the the modern political spectrum.

I think I have an extreme political philosophy, but the conclusions I come to using this philosophy as my foundation tends to make my positions on the issues wildly variable within a single topic in comparison to the modern "Issues-based" view of the right/left dichotomy.

For example, on the topic of Immigration laws, I'm vocally pro-illegal immigrant but I also support Arizona's right to pass their own immigration laws as they have.

The same foundational philosophy being applied in both positions, but it leads to a dualistic view that fits the "extreme" left and the "extreme" right simultaneously on that issue.

I wanted to know if holding extreme views in both directions simultaneously could be considered a centrist view.
 
I think I have an extreme political philosophy, but the conclusions I come to using this philosophy as my foundation tends to make my positions on the issues wildly variable within a single topic in comparison to the modern "Issues-based" view of the right/left dichotomy.
And the basis of that philosophy, beyond just a general decentralist inclination? Where does it come from and whose writing and theories do you refer to?
 
And the basis of that philosophy, beyond just a general decentralist inclination? Where does it come from and whose writing and theories do you refer to?

That's a great question, but it has a very complicated answer.

On the surface, I could simply point towards the anti-federalist and federalist papers as the basis, but that would only tell a small portion of the story and it wouldn't be accurate as to how I derived the philosophy. It merely helped me see a way to approach the philosophy.

This is because my philosophy has evolved from my own theories about a plethora of subjects.

If anything, I'd say that the most basic principle of my worldview is the fact that humans are pack animals and that pack animals are adapted to smaller groups with shared beliefs and characteristics.

Modern society is more like that of a hive animal, and I believe that inherent opposition to this structure is the basis for most of the discord in society today, since most of the basic survival needs of the society are met and are not constantly worried about (In the US and other western societies).

In truth though, I'd spend days writing a response that adequately answered your question.
 
When you've been drinking, you lean at approximately 45 degrees.
 
That's a great question, but it has a very complicated answer.

On the surface, I could simply point towards the anti-federalist and federalist papers as the basis, but that would only tell a small portion of the story and it wouldn't be accurate as to how I derived the philosophy. It merely helped me see a way to approach the philosophy.

This is because my philosophy has evolved from my own theories about a plethora of subjects.

If anything, I'd say that the most basic principle of my worldview is the fact that humans are pack animals and that pack animals are adapted to smaller groups with shared beliefs and characteristics.

Modern society is more like that of a hive animal, and I believe that inherent opposition to this structure is the basis for most of the discord in society today, since most of the basic survival needs of the society are met and are not constantly worried about (In the US and other western societies).

In truth though, I'd spend days writing a response that adequately answered your question.

That's a good description.
I agree.

Pack animals being a general (not super formal) hierarchy while hive being a caste.
 
Pack animals being a general (not super formal) hierarchy while hive being a caste.

That's one way to view it.

There is more variance from a within group standpoint for a hive, but there is far greater variance between groups in the packs.

But the larger variance within the singular group is due to the population size more than anything else. But it makes the group as a whole far less susceptible to change.

While a small amount of variance within a pack coupled with a large degree of variance between packs makes for a more dynamic system that is far more susceptible to change.

I look at the times when major socio-political advancements have occurred in history. Normally, it occurs in the build-up to a hive-like society. Once the hive-like society is complete, though, it will ultimately stagnate and fall.

The "fall" is regression towards decentralization, and it is never consciously implemented. It occurs when the hive-like, centralized system can no longer sustain itself and it collapses.

Then the process renews itself, with a period of totally decentralized dynamic change followed by a period of advancement again towards the centralized society. The greatest advancements occurs during this buildup, IMO.

I would prefer to consciously alter the cycle. Removing the period of regression and replacing it with a consciously implemented system designed to spark that dynamic change without the chaotic underpinnings.

To do this, one would require some degree of centralized government that works for the benefit of a collective of smaller sovereign governments. Sort of like what the US was originally implemented as.

Generally, I would like to see something that fits somewhere between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The AoC created a central government that was a little too weak, but the Constitution created one that was a little too strong (if using a Hamilton-style interpretation of the constitution, which is the prevailing interpretation these days. A Madison-style interpretation would have been closer to what I'm talking about, but the wording was left too vague to maintain that perspective over time).

I also believe this would be the most utilitarian approach to governance, since I adhere to a belief that happiness is in part dictated by a person's sense of autonomy. The more willing a system is to allow for variability of thought, the greater the potential for autonomy there is.
 
Back
Top Bottom