How accurate are political stereotypes? In many places, politics are explained in a one-dimensional line from "Liberal" to "Conservative". In those stereotypes, liberals are left wings, while conservatives are right wings. This is fair enough, but the terms also carry along non-economic qualities, such as environmental protection, equal civil rights, pro abortion and anti-racism for liberals, and religious fundamentalism, environmental ignorance, nationalism, homophobia for conservatives. The Political Compass tried to split this into two dimensions, but I still see most that people taking that test fit into those stereotypes.

 

 

 

How accurate do you think these stereotypes are? Are they enforced by political parties based on them?

 

 

 

To find some statistics, I have made a survey. If you would like to take part in this survey, here it is. If you would like to say that you come from Tip.it, put "Tip.it" into the Organisation field. If not, leave the field blank or completely skip the whole survey.

I think labeling a person to a political field is unnessecary. I know not many people think this way, but I beleive that there is no real "norm" for each party and that is greatly shown in the presidential campaigns, where from term to term people of the same political party often have very differing political views. I've met people who call themselves conservatives who are pro-abortion and atheist, and people who call themselves liberal who think we need to occupy Iraq for years more. It is the views that can be labeled, not the people - people differ (unless of course you are a blind rep/dem and simply go with anything your party beleives in.

 

 

 

Because of this, and because I am not even of age to vote, I can't say I can label myself into a political party. I tend to agree most with the smaller parties, but would try to look for the "lesser of two evils" when making my vote in years to come.

I think that the way people are grouped into political groups and all aspects of policies seen to be describable in one statement -- in the minds of many voters -- shows that most people are either not willing or not able to fully understand politics (I'm not claiming that I do, but I certainly will make sure I am before I ever vote). Which is why I don't support democracy.

.

Socialism = OMGORWELLIANISM.

 

 

 

True story.

 

Yeah it's a great system which helps the poor, only 100 million or so have died from it right?

Liberalpedia sums up political stereotypes in a satirical way.

 

And if you don't like satire, fascists at Conservapedia also have a view.

 

:P

In your terms, no. Also, Conservatives are ignorant of the enviroment, not at all, it's just not top on the list.

A line I heard today:

 

Democrats like to tax and spend, Republicans like to borrow and spend.

I would just like to say, that bit underneath "gnder" is hilarious. :thumbup:

I'm a liberal Christian.

 

Taking away the fact that I live in Massachusetts (So the default position is liberal), most people assume that I'm conservative. Solely because I'm Christian.

 

But in my mind, I have a separation of church and state. Though Christian values are generally my values, I'm not going to be Democratic or Republican because "Jesus was." I just happen to have been influenced this way, and I ended up really far left-wing.

 

So then people assume I'm a communist. Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm socialist. I have no idea. But then those people decide that because I'm communist, I suck with money and I'm the devil.

 

Eh.

 

Still, it's not like I have purely liberal ideals.

One thing I don't get.A republic basically means without a head,right?Doesn't that make it anarchy?And how can a republican run for president?

 

 

 

Teach me of this "political science".

Think of the political spectrum on any INDIVIDUAL issue as a bell curve. Liberal on left, Conservative on right. The vast majority of people are going to be near the center and the smallest on the extremes.

 

 

 

The problem we get into is that everyone likes to lump EVERYTHING together into one political view, which does not work. You can be conservative on some issues, liberal on others. At least you should. People in the extremes tend to come off as obnoxious and pretentious.

In your terms, no. Also, Conservatives are ignorant of the enviroment, not at all, it's just not top on the list.

 

Well, it's a stereotype, isn't it?

 

 

 

I'm a liberal Christian.

 

Taking away the fact that I live in Massachusetts (So the default position is liberal), most people assume that I'm conservative. Solely because I'm Christian.

 

But in my mind, I have a separation of church and state. Though Christian values are generally my values, I'm not going to be Democratic or Republican because "Jesus was." I just happen to have been influenced this way, and I ended up really far left-wing.

 

So then people assume I'm a communist. Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm socialist. I have no idea. But then those people decide that because I'm communist, I suck with money and I'm the devil.

 

Eh.

 

Still, it's not like I have purely liberal ideals.

 

Yay! Someone who doesn't fit into a stereotype!

 

 

 

I noticed that quite a few people wrote in the additional information box that they don't think "Do not wish to answer" fits with "Don't know". It is not supposed to fit. If you are uncertain, select the option you think is closest to your opinion.

 

Yay! Someone who doesn't fit into a stereotype!

 

 

I know, I'm special, right? \

 

You can have a political spectrum on individual issues. But you can't lump all those issues together and create a single political spectrum.

It is usually true only for people who are very far left or right, most people seem to be quite close to the center but choose 1 party over minor yet important differences from their view.

 

 

 

The very far left seem to be anti-gun, socialism supporting and pro recreational drug use.

 

The very far right do seem to be much more religious which often ensues with homophobia, anti-immigration and rather patriotic.

 

 

 

Now that is only a small minority, as I said many are in or close to the center of the divide.

[...]. I tend to agree most with the smaller parties, but would try to look for the "lesser of two evils" when making my vote [...].

 

 

 

That's the situation I'm in. I always choose the best of the parties, but every time I voted, no parties seemed to be good with my ideas. I'm pretty much of a liberal christian though, since I have more liberal views than conservative views. I never wanted Harper as Canada's PM, not even the first time, but he got in because everyone voted against the liberal party, not for the conservative.

I think it's stupid, often true, but never true when you try to bring it up. Just one of those things.

 

 

 

I, for example, hate politics, but if I have to have a view, I'm more conservative with most things that are considered differences (unimportant things like abortion and gun rights). But I know about both sides and I at least consider myself relatively open-minded.

 

 

 

Wutevlol.

Think of the political spectrum on any INDIVIDUAL issue as a bell curve. Liberal on left, Conservative on right. The vast majority of people are going to be near the center and the smallest on the extremes.

 

 

 

The problem we get into is that everyone likes to lump EVERYTHING together into one political view, which does not work. You can be conservative on some issues, liberal on others. At least you should. People in the extremes tend to come off as obnoxious and pretentious.

 

 

 

100% agreed. I think some in America (some notable media personalities come to mind) do people a disservice by labelling them as either purely left or right wing.

 

 

 

I remember Chris Rock doing a comedy routine on this issue... I might dig it up later.

Socialism = OMGORWELLIANISM.

 

 

 

True story.

 

Yeah it's a great system which helps the poor, only 100 million or so have died from it right?

 

A valid jibe, considering democracy has only ever created sunshine, rainbows and happy faces wherever it has gone.

Nice survey. :thumbup:

 

 

 

I guess another stereotype is that Republicans are Southern, Gun-Totin, strongly Christian hicks. (I sort of agree :o

 

I guess another stereotype is that Republicans are Southern, Gun-Totin, strongly Christian hicks. (I sort of agree :o

 

 

 

I say the Bible Belt brings this stereotype to us loud and clear.

 

I guess another stereotype is that Republicans are Southern, Gun-Totin, strongly Christian hicks. (I sort of agree :o

 

 

 

I say the Bible Belt brings this stereotype to us loud and clear.

 

 

 

Having lived in the Bible Belt, it's not like that. Sure, there are hicks. But almost every city in the Bible Belt has a major university in it (Texas Tech, Abilene Christian, Texan Christian, Ouchita Baptist etc) (note: while many of these schools have Christian names, they are liberal arts schools that differ only by having more theology classes available. They have equal ratios of liberal/conservative students like most universities). You will find a lot of educated people from all sorts of political and religious beliefs.

 

 

 

I for one am really getting tired of the "hick" stereotypes. People do not carry guns in the streets or in cars (it's illegal), we do not ride horses, the KKK fears popular opinion, most Christians are nice people, and hicks are looked down on. The South is just like any other part of the country except for our accent. The reason it's called the Bible Belt is because of the string of universities originally started as Christian schools which now are liberal arts schools. It stuck.

 

I guess another stereotype is that Republicans are Southern, Gun-Totin, strongly Christian hicks. (I sort of agree :o

 

 

 

I say the Bible Belt brings this stereotype to us loud and clear.

 

Having lived in the Bible Belt, it's completely like that! Perhaps there are different Bible Belts in different parts of the world. :-k

Socialism = OMGORWELLIANISM.

 

 

 

True story.

 

Yeah it's a great system which helps the poor, only 100 million or so have died from it right?

 

A valid jibe, considering democracy has only ever created sunshine, rainbows and happy faces wherever it has gone.

 

Thanks for admitting communism/socialism and democracy cannot coexist? :\ and I consider attempting to deny (or even worse, justify) the mass murder carried out in China, Russia etc just as bad as attempting to deny the holocaust.

Socialism = OMGORWELLIANISM.

 

 

 

True story.

 

Yeah it's a great system which helps the poor, only 100 million or so have died from it right?

 

A valid jibe, considering democracy has only ever created sunshine, rainbows and happy faces wherever it has gone.

 

Thanks for admitting communism/socialism and democracy cannot coexist? :\ and I consider attempting to deny (or even worse, justify) the mass murder carried out in China, Russia etc just as bad as attempting to deny the holocaust.

 

Funny how you mention the Massacre of and the Holocaust, when they aren't valid points here. They can coexist, provided you break down each system to their simplest forms. The best I could pull from them is as so:

 

 

 

Democracy: 2 parties control some of the country, uses a voting system.

 

Communism: One ruling party, but everyone works together and gets their fair share

 

Socialism: Redistribution of wealth, and helping the poor.