Forum Political Ideology Poll

[vcczar]

New poll. I understand that my descriptions are simplistic, but I only get so much room for the description. You should be able to construe the basic gist of each ideology. 

*Note: Please do not comment on this poll until after you've taken the poll. Don't be a backseat driver. As noted, my terms aren't perfect, but I have two options that should be more satisfactory for each question for those unhappy with my terms. 

 

[DakotaHale]

Right-wing populist descriptors should be re-written for two main reasons.

1. It’s written a little patronizing and demeaning (in my opinion).

2. Middle America may evolve differently in the game than IRL. Perhaps an Anti-FDR Presidential figure could occur who aided Middle America more in a large economic downturn in a way that cements Middle America as a solid blue wall for decades instead of assuming it to be an economically and socially right wing bloc automatically.

Just my opinion.

[Hestia]

20 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

Right-wing populist descriptors should be re-written for two main reasons.

1. It’s written a little patronizing and demeaning (in my opinion).

2. Middle America may evolve differently in the game than IRL. Perhaps an Anti-FDR Presidential figure could occur who aided Middle America more in a large economic downturn in a way that cements Middle America as a solid blue wall for decades instead of assuming it to be an economically and socially right wing bloc automatically.

Just my opinion.

I agree, I think it should sound similar to left-wing populist in the sense that it's more flexible with time and more neutral-sounding.

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, Hestia said:

I agree, I think it should sound similar to left-wing populist in the sense that it's more flexible with time and more neutral-sounding.

Yeah. Populism is inherently flexible lol. I wonder why? Because it derives from the mandate of the MASSES! 😛

[Ishan]

I'm a European/classical liberal/center-libertarian and I'm a social libertarian. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Ishan

[DakotaHale]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

I fully agree, not to mention deliberately declaring by intent modern U.S. ideological labels, thus shoehorning, or specifically cutting out from any realizing, accurate answer, non-Americans and out-of-the-box thinkers - something not at all new to the thread starter. And if he gets mad at me posting this complaint without filling out the the poll as written, that will confirm the consistent problem, here.

That would be true but it’s a game strictly about American politics and history. Also you should take the poll. I don’t see any problem with the other labels.

[jvikings1]

32 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Yeah. Populism is inherently flexible lol. I wonder why? Because it derives from the mandate of the MASSES! 😛

Populism doesn’t necessarily have to have no ideological basis. I’d argue Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign and Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign (as well as the resulting movements) were very populist/anti-elitist driven.

However, populism was more of the vehicle rather than the ideology in those cases. One who is ideologically populist (like Trump) is bound to wherever the masses taken him.

[DakotaHale]

Just now, Patine said:

It's in the political, not the AMPU, sub-forum. It's thus not strictly tied, by nature, to any game.

You’re correct — I missed that. But there still exist “too complicated” poll options for people such as yourself to take out of respect for @vcczar

[WVProgressive]

I know that you didn't ask for us to explain what we meant when selecting one of the 'more complicated' answers, but I figured this was as good an opportunity as any to broadly explain my beliefs, as they've changed a great deal since the last time I did so.

1. I believe that the current economic system capitalism has outlived its usefulness, and that it ought to be replaced by an entirely new system. In this new system humanity would live sustainably with nature, recognizing the living system of Earth (or Mars, or wherever else we are able to colonize) as equal to the living collective of Humanity, in contrast to the current system, which sees nature as a thing to be exploited for human greed. This does not mean that I am opposed to technological advancement, the opposite in fact, I believe that technological advancements is essential to progressing from Capitalism to this new system. I also believe that technological advancement will  allow for 'full unemployment' as Arthur Clarke once put it, where a human's worth will be decoupled from how productive they are, and the majority of society's labor is done by machines.

2. Let me begin by stating that I do not believe that all human beings are born equal. I do not believe that we are born with equal attributes, nor with equal individual destinies. Some humans are born smarter, or stronger, or more attractive than other humans, and some humans are born with the potential to be leaders, while others are not. Because of this, I do not believe that 'equality', in an amorphous sense, is a worthy, or even moral, goal. However, I do want to clarify that I do believe that the ideals of equal justice, and equal opportunity are things that should be strived for. 

I know that my ideas are very far out of the mainstream, but I hope that we can have a calm, productive conversation about our ideological differences, rather than a pointless, aggravating argument where we each admonish each other for not agreeing.

[DakotaHale]

3 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

I know that you didn't ask for us to explain what we meant when selecting one of the 'more complicated' answers, but I figured this was as good an opportunity as any to broadly explain my beliefs, as they've changed a great deal since the last time I did so.

1. I believe that the current economic system capitalism has outlived its usefulness, and that it ought to be replaced by an entirely new system. In this new system humanity would live sustainably with nature, recognizing the living system of Earth (or Mars, or wherever else we are able to colonize) as equal to the living collective of Humanity, in contrast to the current system, which sees nature as a thing to be exploited for human greed. This does not mean that I am opposed to technological advancement, the opposite in fact, I believe that technological advancements is essential to progressing from Capitalism to this new system. I also believe that technological advancement will  allow for 'full unemployment' as Arthur Clarke once put it, where a human's worth will be decoupled from how productive they are, and the majority of society's labor is done by machines.

2. Let me begin by stating that I do not believe that all human beings are born equal. I do not believe that we are born with equal attributes, nor with equal individual destinies. Some humans are born smarter, or stronger, or more attractive than other humans, and some humans are born with the potential to be leaders, while others are not. Because of this, I do not believe that 'equality', in an amorphous sense, is a worthy, or even moral, goal. However, I do want to clarify that I do believe that the ideals of equal justice, and equal opportunity are things that should be strived for. 

I know that my ideas are very far out of the mainstream, but I hope that we can have a calm, productive conversation about our ideological differences, rather than a pointless, aggravating argument where we each admonish each other for not agreeing.

I think it’s very interesting to meet someone with socially right views and economically left views. Definitely an anomaly. 

[MrPotatoTed]

I don't have a broad economic philosophy, I'm more case-by-case (if I care enough to form an opinion at all).

I care much more about social policies (liberal) and foreign affairs (conservative, apparently, though I don't necessarily agree with that label).  

But generally, I'm a moderate status quo guy.  I'm happy to support change, as long as it's been thought through and there's a solid plan in place.  But often proposed changes don't seem in step with real-world considerations/obvious hurdles.

[MrPotatoTed]

6 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

I know that you didn't ask for us to explain what we meant when selecting one of the 'more complicated' answers, but I figured this was as good an opportunity as any to broadly explain my beliefs, as they've changed a great deal since the last time I did so.

1. I believe that the current economic system capitalism has outlived its usefulness, and that it ought to be replaced by an entirely new system. In this new system humanity would live sustainably with nature, recognizing the living system of Earth (or Mars, or wherever else we are able to colonize) as equal to the living collective of Humanity, in contrast to the current system, which sees nature as a thing to be exploited for human greed. This does not mean that I am opposed to technological advancement, the opposite in fact, I believe that technological advancements is essential to progressing from Capitalism to this new system. I also believe that technological advancement will  allow for 'full unemployment' as Arthur Clarke once put it, where a human's worth will be decoupled from how productive they are, and the majority of society's labor is done by machines.

2. Let me begin by stating that I do not believe that all human beings are born equal. I do not believe that we are born with equal attributes, nor with equal individual destinies. Some humans are born smarter, or stronger, or more attractive than other humans, and some humans are born with the potential to be leaders, while others are not. Because of this, I do not believe that 'equality', in an amorphous sense, is a worthy, or even moral, goal. However, I do want to clarify that I do believe that the ideals of equal justice, and equal opportunity are things that should be strived for. 

I know that my ideas are very far out of the mainstream, but I hope that we can have a calm, productive conversation about our ideological differences, rather than a pointless, aggravating argument where we each admonish each other for not agreeing.

I agree that some humans are born smarter/stronger/more attractive than other humans.  I think that's easy to accept with some obvious examples to point to on both ends of the spectrum.

I do not agree that some humans are born with potential to be leaders and others are not, though.  We're all born as babies, and no baby is capable of leadership.

Leadership is learned -- via education or upbringing/environment or both.  

[Mark_W]

6 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

1. I believe that the current economic system capitalism has outlived its usefulness, and that it ought to be replaced by an entirely new system. In this new system humanity would live sustainably with nature, recognizing the living system of Earth (or Mars, or wherever else we are able to colonize) as equal to the living collective of Humanity, in contrast to the current system, which sees nature as a thing to be exploited for human greed. This does not mean that I am opposed to technological advancement, the opposite in fact, I believe that technological advancements is essential to progressing from Capitalism to this new system. I also believe that technological advancement will  allow for 'full unemployment' as Arthur Clarke once put it, where a human's worth will be decoupled from how productive they are, and the majority of society's labor is done by machines.

2. Let me begin by stating that I do not believe that all human beings are born equal. I do not believe that we are born with equal attributes, nor with equal individual destinies. Some humans are born smarter, or stronger, or more attractive than other humans, and some humans are born with the potential to be leaders, while others are not. Because of this, I do not believe that 'equality', in an amorphous sense, is a worthy, or even moral, goal. However, I do want to clarify that I do believe that the ideals of equal justice, and equal opportunity are things that should be strived for.

I know that my ideas are very far out of the mainstream, but I hope that we can have a calm, productive conversation about our ideological differences, rather than a pointless, aggravating argument where we each admonish each other for not agreeing.

What are individual destinies?

I think smarter/stronger/attractive/leadership qualities are all pretty subjective, and the conventional meanings of those things are pretty strongly shaped by our current system, the media and people in power. Just because people are born different because of their genetics doesn't mean they're not equal. It's our societies understanding and acceptance of different physical and mental traits, combined with the environment you're born into that make us unequal. Now obviously changing that will be an incredibly slow process, and not something we can possibly hope to achieve in our lifetimes, but I don't think it's helpful to perpetuate it.

[Fbarbarossa]

I suppose I could have put progressive for my views but at the same time with the way progressive was described it seemed a little off. To but it plainly I identify as a Socialist and while I consider myself to be very progressive I don't feel that progressive is the correct way to describe my views. 

I think a degree of this comes from the fact that my particular Socialism is a kind of learned Socialism. I'll openly say that I haven't read any literature on the subject, rather what I believe comes from me conversing with people who identify as Socialists, listening to Socialist politicians and reading manifestos/policy views of Socialists and agreeing with that more than any other ideological viewpoint.