Two groups of people that don't fit into today's political spectrum

[Ignacio Upton]

In today's spectrum, we have one party that is socially liberal and economically liberal, while the other is socially conservative and economically conservative (although these labels are relative). However, there are two types of people who don't fit into today's spectrum: Populists and Libertarians.

Populists (and I'm not just alking about those band of renegade Midwestern farmers who campaigned to unlimited coinage of silver) are basically people who are economically liberal but socially conservative. They might vote Republican because of fear of gay marriage, or irrational fear of counter-culture (look at how many blue-collar workers were part of the "silent majority" backlash against the Hippies). However, they economically liberal, support Fair Trade, protecting the New Deal from right-wing onslaught, and maybe support Universal Healthcare. Interestingly enough, many of the people in the Populist Party were social conservatives. Many of them were Nativists, some anti-semetic or racist, so this pattern is not new in any stretch of the imagination.

Libertarians, on the other hand, are not just the Libertarian Party (which, beyond all doubts, is cooko) but could be anyone who is economically conservative and socially liberal. Many of them have good intentions with social issues. They recognize that government should not be storming people's bedrooms or regulating their health. However, their distrust of government puts them in an area where they somewhat trust big corporations more. Many of them believe in a new Gilded Age, although it will be some kind of utopia where volunteerism and privatization will make us much richer.

What do you think? Is this an accurate assesment of two groups that have been "left behind" in today's political spectrum

[Iris]

1. If Libertarians really think Big Business is any better than Big Gov't.

Well, they're dreaming.

[Ignacio Upton]

2. I think many have that position

some of just too idealistic. In the same way that many Socialists or Communists (I mean outright Marxist in Socialism, not Social Democracy like they have in Sweeden) believe that government nationalization of everything can make a country prosperous and fair, it creates economic inefficiency, and power can still be concentrated into the hands of government politicos who would become the new elite.

[Iris]

4. Well, then, they fit my definition of garden-variety Libertarians -

they think like 7th graders or, at best, college freshmen.

[welshTerrier2]

5. "power can still be concentrated"

welcome to DU, Ignacio Upton !!

a few points ...

first, i think your descriptions of populists and libertarians are as good as any ...

but i don't agree that this encapsulates those who are "left out" ... half of the American population does not bother to vote ... perhaps they are more turned off by our absurd electoral process and the self-serving nature of candidates running for office than they are turned off by the political philosophy of the two major parties ...

and even within the Democratic Party itself, there's a war on ... at a time that 55% of the American people want troops withdrawn from Iraq, and only 18% believe staying there to achieve any kind of objective is worthwhile, "leading" Democrats are still equivocating over their brilliant plans to create stability or democracy or both ... it's clear that many Democrats are very alienated by their own party's failure to represent them ...

and finally, allow me to take issue with your points criticizing the "nationalizing of everything" ... do you believe the current system that allows Big Oil and Big Pharma to dictate government policies is better? and to say that "power can still be concentrated into the hands of government politicos who would become the new elite", while true, should not be a criterion for dismissal ... any and all systems can become corrupted ... the benefit of nationalizing certain industries such as oil and pharmaceuticals (and health care), is that, for critically needed services and commodities, at least there would be a possibility of serving the interests of the American people ahead of corporate interests ... as things stand now, powerful corporations are controlling our government and the only thing they care about is making more money ... perhaps removing the profit motive would return the vision to serving people before profits ... of course, there are no guarantees ... perhaps, though, we should worry less about a perceived loss of capitalistic efficiencies, if any, and worry more about who is ultimately being served by our government ...

if our corporate state cannot be made to bend to the will of the people, it should be dismantled ... and if our government cannot be made to bend to the will of the people, it should be overthrown and replaced with one that does ...

[wiley]

6. Isn't it possible......

that that 20% actually benefit financially from conflict and its relatives like rebuilding, surveillance, etc.?

[welshTerrier2]

8. not sure i follow you ...

what 20% are you referring to ??

are you pointing out that some people benefit financially from warfare ??

run that by me one more time ... not sure i understand your point ...

[Robeson]

9. Great post welshTerrier2....

...Your last paragraph is dead-on. I agree with it 100%.

[welshTerrier2]

10. great !!

when the revolution starts, you're getting a phonecall !!

bring some snacks along in case it takes awhile ...

[Robeson]

11. A phone-call for the revolution....

...is one I've been waiting on for a long time!...:toast:

[maxsolomon]

3. Socialists don't fit either

it is a stretch to call dems "socialists".

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Populists are unfortunately a dieing breed

The so-called economically liberal, socially conservative populists have been brainwashed into worshiping the free market.

[Ignacio Upton]

12. Yeah, the plaform of the Kansas GOP is pro-gold standard!

William Jennings Bryan must be turning in his grave right now (also because of the fact that he couldn't stop evolution from being taught, but that's another story.)

[KoKo]

13. I'm a cross betweena Populist and a Socialist. I believe in fiscal

conservativism, but hope for National Health Insurance and support Social Security to the Death. I'm not so keen on Gay Marriage in a Religious Ceremony but believe in Civil Ceremonies and
Survivor Rights...I might even go with child adoption for gays...but that's one I'm still thinking about.

I for "Right to Choose" but want to make Birth Control more common than abortion and want THE FATHER held responsible which no one much talks about. Vasectomies!

Believe in "Free Trade ...if it's FAIR TRADE" (question is...who decides what trade is free or fair?) :shrug:

But, everyone of my Repug friends has accused me of being either a Populist or Socialists depending on their Repug view of their own philosophy.

I think it's very complicated with many of us "morphing back and forth."

I don't think many folks who have lasted on DU, though could be the 38% of Bush supporters...NO MATTER WHERE WE FALL between Socialism to what used to be the Conservative Repugs (back maybe after WWII) before the THUGS took over.

We fight about our differences ...but here in this Oasis we are free to Morph...and argue about it. If only America could get back to a more Diverse Politics where we could teach each other by discussing, instead of the "Hate Politics" of the Rove's Right Wing and the Libertarian Right Wing. And...if we could get those DLC'ers to understand about Corporate Greed and Crime. :-)'s