• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

National Survey Finds Bipartisan Support for Expansive View of Rights

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
40,981
Reaction score
10,198
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

National Survey Finds Bipartisan Support for Expansive View of Rights

Heading into the 2020 election, a national survey of American attitudes toward rights and freedoms in the United States finds surprising bipartisan support by substantial majorities of Americans for rights that are now frequently under political attack. At the same time, the poll reveals that majorities of people feel that rights are facing “serious threat” and are not “secure” and that neither the US government nor US citizens are “doing a good job enforcing and respecting rights.”

The research was led by the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard Kennedy School, with support from the School’s Institute of Politics. The poll is part of a larger Carr Center initiative analyzing the condition of rights in the United States in 2020 and American attitudes toward rights and responsibilities. The project also includes focus groups in Phoenix, Arizona; Detroit, Michigan; and Atlanta, Georgia. The Reimagining Rights Project will publish conclusions and recommendations for policymakers in a major research report in October.

The report is part of a Carr Center project on Reimagining Rights and Responsibilities in the United States, directed by John Shattuck, Carr Center Senior Fellow and former US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. The report and the project are overseen by a faculty committee chaired by Carr Center Faculty Director Mathias Risse, with the participation of Executive Director Sushma Raman, and the support of the Carr Center staff. The nationwide poll of 2,093 adults was conducted by NORC, an independent research institution at the University of Chicago, between July 6-28, 2020. The margin of error for this study is +/-2.76%.

Key Takeaways:

1. At a time of deep partisan and demographic divides related to the 2020 election, more than two-thirds of Americans surprisingly agree that they “have more in common with each other than many people think,” including 74% of Democrats, 78% of Republicans and 66% of Independents.

2. Americans express surprisingly strong support for rights; the strongest support is for rights that are most under threat, such as privacy of personal data (considered important by bipartisan 93% majority), voting (93%), racial equality (92%) and affordable health care (89%).

3. Bipartisan majorities of Americans have an expansive view of their rights beyond those specified in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

4. ...

...

10. ...

COMMENT:-

One of the most encouraging signs in a long time and one that sustains my faith in the basic soundness of the American ethos.

Now if only someone could get EITHER (but preferably BOTH) the "Republicans" (whatever that means) and the "Democrats" (whatever that means) to pay some attention to the findings.

The site also has what appears to be complete transparency on data and DOZENS of cross-tabs so "datafreeks" and "cheripikrs" can have a field day.
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,618
Reaction score
21,883
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
One of the most encouraging signs in a long time and one that sustains my faith in the basic soundness of the American ethos.

There should be nothing surprising about this. Americans are constantly exposed to all sorts of education, indoctrination, debate, etc. about "rights."

Our whole foundation, including both the Constitution's Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence declare them.

The problem has always lain in just what kind of "rights" one is arguing for:

1. Natural Rights, i.e. rights established by existence in a state of nature. Think of this as those kinds of rights individuals exercised and self-enforced pre-Statism.

2. Legal Rights (including civil rights, political rights, economic rights). These are those rights established in law and custom by governed States...enforced by the power of the State.

3. Moral Rights. Rights based on the human mind's view of right and wrong. Based on an individual's sense of goodness and justice.

So if you ask someone born and/or raised in the USA if they support "Rights," then of course you will get a majority who will say they want people to have more "rights" and that "rights" need to be protected.

The problem is what kind of rights does one mean when they discuss "expanding" them.

Fer example. I do NOT agree that we should have "rights" to free/cheap medical care. This means the State can compel medical practitioners to "serve" the health needs of others, limiting their ability to profit on their training and skills. It also means that some will pay MORE than others to allow those who can't afford the State-mandated medical care access to such care.

Moreover, the more power we give to the State, the less and less freedoms citizens have. Exchanging freedoms for security, thus exchanging individual rights for civil rights placing one more and more under the control of those who dictate how such civil rights can be exercised.
 
Last edited:

lemmiwinx

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
5,103
Reaction score
1,923
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Rights hell yes I was just looking for some more rights. What rights do I not have that I need? (other than legal weed I mean).
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
40,981
Reaction score
10,198
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There should be nothing surprising about this. Americans are constantly exposed to all sorts of education, indoctrination, debate, etc. about "rights."

Our whole foundation, including both the Constitution's Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence declare them.

The problem has always lain in just what kind of "rights" one is arguing for:

1. Natural Rights, i.e. rights established by existence in a state of nature. Think of this as those kinds of rights individuals exercised and self-enforced pre-Statism.

2. Legal Rights (including civil rights, political rights, economic rights). These are those rights established in law and custom by governed States...enforced by the power of the State.

3. Moral Rights. Rights based on the human mind's view of right and wrong. Based on an individual's sense of goodness and justice.

So if you ask someone born and/or raised in the USA if they support "Rights," then of course you will get a majority who will say they want people to have more "rights" and that "rights" need to be protected.

The problem is what kind of rights does one mean when they discuss "expanding" on.

Somehow your response seems to indicate that you didn't bother to actually read the linked article or look at the internally linked survey data.

Fer example. I do NOT agree that we should have "rights" to free/cheap medical care.

And where did you see anyone say that YOU did?

This means the State can compel medical practitioners to "serve" the health needs of others, limiting their ability to profit on their training and skills. It also means that some will pay MORE than others to allow those who can't afford the State-mandated medical care access to such care.

Does it?

Maybe you should actually take a look at how "universal healthcare" and/or "single payer healthcare insurance" works in actual practice.

You might also think about how ANY "pooled risk" insurance program (for example "fire insurance") works.

On the other hand, the option to totally ignore reality is ALWAYS attractive to some people.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
40,981
Reaction score
10,198
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Rights hell yes I was just looking for some more rights. What rights do I not have that I need? (other than legal weed I mean).

Your response is an almost 100% certain indicator that you didn't bother to actually read the article and/or take a look at the internally linked data sets before commenting.

You might want to go back and take a look at "the right to vote" to see how important people think it is and whether or not they think that it is under attack.

But, then again, maybe you don't think that you actually need "the right to vote".

Or you might want to go back and take a look at "the right to equal treatment regardless of _[fill in the blank]_" to see how important people think it is and whether or not they think that it is under attack.

But, then again, maybe you don't think that you actually need "the right to equal treatment regardless of _[fill in the blank]_".

After all, when one lives by the maxim

All people are created equal
(but some are more equal than others)

it's pretty easy to be dismissive of those so-called "rights" - isn't it?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,618
Reaction score
21,883
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Somehow your response seems to indicate that you didn't bother to actually read the linked article or look at the internally linked survey data.

I did look at it. Hence my response expanding on both the foundations of why Americans polled would be all for "expanding rights," while at the same time pointing out the three main types of rights that people will be conflicted on.

And where did you see anyone say that YOU did?

I was providing an example. You, know expanding on MY point in MY response?

Does it?

Maybe you should actually take a look at how "universal healthcare" and/or "single payer healthcare insurance" works in actual practice.

I have. I've seen the British model, the Cuban Model, and other models over time. Socialized healthcare is not a new talking point you know. It's been an issue for decades. With various pluses and minuses in each "form."

You might also think about how ANY "pooled risk" insurance program (for example "fire insurance") works.

I am also familiar with this. The problem again being (as usual) as the pool of funds is drained by those who "overuse" them, it has to be re-funded by those other's who don't.

On the other hand, the option to totally ignore reality is ALWAYS attractive to some people.

There it comes, the ad hominem attack as the "final argument" submitted to show moral superiority over someone one does not agree with (or who dares challenge) one's views. :naughty

Tagline time. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom