The Language of Politics (moved from who sucks?)

[Magic Poriferan]

She used an unusually high number of Republican words and a low number of Democratic words. I found that discomforting.

The whole speech itself was just incredibly generic. Perhaps extraordinary only in how ordinary it is. As someone that almost always wants the Democrats to win, Pelosi frequently makes me go :doh:.

[pure_mercury]

She used an unusually high number of Republican words and a low number of Democratic words. I found that discomforting.

The whole speech itself was just incredibly generic. Perhaps extraordinary only in how ordinary it is. As someone that almost always wants the Democrats to win, Pelosi frequently makes me go :doh:.

"Barack Obama was RIGHT, John McCain was WRONG!" It's like she was trying to drill the points into the skulls of stupid children. I guess 50-60% of the group there for the convention would qualify, but I don't. It annoyed the hell out of me. She (kind of like the late William F. Buckley, Jr.) is also the rare American who pronounces the "t" sound in words like "liberty" and "writer", etc. That is strange to hear sometimes.

P.S. Which words are Republican, and which are Democratic?

[Magic Poriferan]

P.S. Which words are Republican, and which are Democratic?

Haha. I'm not sure that I can provide a list off hand. You might want to look up George Lakoff, as he was the guy that started compiling the frequency with which certain words were used by either party.

[pure_mercury]

Haha. I'm not sure that I can provide a list off hand. You might want to look up George Lakoff, as he was the guy that started compiling the frequency with which certain words were used by either party.


Hmmm. . . I am not familiar with his work, but I do find linguistics fascinating. I just wish eminent linguists would stop thinking that they are somehow eminent sociopolitical theorists (*cough* Chomsky *cough*). His "strict father" vs. "nurturant parent" concept seems pretty flimsy to me. Of course, I am a libertarian, and I don't really see the government as anything approaching a parent, anyway. I happen to LIKE my parents.

[Magic Poriferan]

Hmmm. . . I am not familiar with his work, but I do find linguistics fascinating. I just wish eminent linguists would stop thinking that they are somehow eminent sociopolitical theorists (*cough* Chomsky *cough*). His "strict father" vs. "nurturant parent" concept seems pretty flimsy to me. Of course, I am a libertarian, and I don't really see the government as anything approaching a parent, anyway. I happen to LIKE my parents.


My opinion on this will probably insult you to at least a minor extent, but my experience/observation has been that Libertarians are not very good with sociology. My theory for this is that the very concept of sociology might bother Libertarians, since it is based on taking a collective look at human behavior. The Libertarian individualist streak probably wouldn't want to give to much credit to anything a sociologist says.

[pure_mercury]

My opinion on this will probably insult you to at least a minor extent, but my experience/observation has been that Libertarians are not very good with sociology. My theory for this is that the very concept of sociology might bother Libertarians, since it is based on taking a collective look at human behavior. The Libertarian individualist streak probably wouldn't want to give to much credit to anything a sociologist says.

Yeah, that's a little insulting, especially with Sociology having been one of the subjects I studied in college (and I also think that you still have some misconceptions about libertarianism and its followers, too). I don't disagree that libertarians are underrepresented in sociology, but there are a few prominent libertarians who should be considered sociologists (even if something else is their primary concern). Mancur Olson would be one major one. Murray Rothbard was an Austrian economist, but his work also covered history, sociology, and political science. Robert Nozick was more of a philosopher and political scientist, but he touched upon sociological concepts in his work. Chris Michael Sciabarra writes about sociology from a Randian/Ohjectivist perspective, too. I don't think that libertarians are allergic to looking at collective behavior (believe me, I've spoken to Libertarian Party organizers who know all too well about collective behavior in regards to U.S. elections). I just think that a lot of the people whom it attracts tend to come from the applied sciences or "hard" social sciences, like economics, poli sci, and history, rather than the "soft" social sciences and the humanities. Personally, I straddle the categories, and I've actually found some worthwhile things in classes like American Ethnicity and Sociology of Race and Racism. I was certainly the most vocal person in the class, along with one or two African-American classmates. I think it was very interesting. I really enjoyed Anthropology, as well.

[Jack Flak]

Yeah +1 merc, maybe sociologists are not very good with history. Free markets and free people drive economies into the stratosphere.

[pure_mercury]

Yeah +1 merc, maybe sociologists are not very good with history. Free markets and free people drive economies into the stratosphere.

I think that sociologists often start out with a result in mind, and then use research to support them, instead of doing research to figure out what the results are. Plus, as sweet as my sociology professors were, they were absolutely illiterate about economics, science, even popular culture sometimes. Most of their departments within the universities are very closed-off from the real world and utterly political.

[Jack Flak]

Most of their departments within the universities are very closed-off from the real world and utterly political.
This applies to a great deal of the college protocol. Very detached, ethereal, Ivory Tower mentality.

"College sucks."

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, maybe sociologists don't know history, but then who's defining history? There's supposedly a disproportionate number of left-wingers among historians. That would reinforce the notion that there is a bias.

That being said, there's also supposedly a disproportionate number of right-wingers among economists. So, which one do we believe?

My observation is that libertarians are most often economists or law students. On the other hand, socialists(in the, as oppose to libertarianism, sense) tend to be sociologists or psych students. Annnnd, I've found that debates between the two sides often break down those lines.

Of course there are exceptions, but these are the trends that I see.



EDIT: *sigh*, where's Zergling when you need him? :D

[ajblaise]

That being said, there's also supposedly a disproportionate number of right-wingers among economists. So, which one do we believe?

I don't know about that.

American economists strongly support the Democratic Party, with their views on policy being largely in accordance with the Democratic platform. The vast majority, 63%, identify as progressive and less than 20% as conservative or libertarian.[17] In a 2004 survey of 1,000 American economists, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a 2.5 to 1 ratio. The majority of economists favored "safety regulations, gun control, redistribution, public schooling, and anti-discrimination laws," while opposing "tighter immigration controls, government ownership of enterprise and tariffs."[18] Other surveys have found Democrats to outnumber Republicans 2.8 to 1 among members of the profession. A study in the Southern Economic Journal found that "71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the United States should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government."[19]

The latest study is based on surveys conducted in 2003 of members of various disciplinary associations. On the question of political affiliation, the survey found the following breakdown of Democrats to Republicans:

* Anthropologists and sociologists — 21.1:1
* Political and legal philosophers — 9.1:1
* Historians — 8.5:1
* Political scientists — 5.6:1
* Economists — 2.9:1

[pure_mercury]

I was going to add that the median mainstream American economist is most likely a Keynsian-influenced Democrat these days. Economists just seem more right-wing than they are because they will probably be more pro-free trade than the average Democrat/center-leftist, but they are usually supporters of a moderate welfare state. Also, libertarianism isn't really a right-wing movement, so that is also a factor.

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't know about that.

Well, I stand corrected,

Also, libertarianism isn't really a right-wing movement, so that is also a factor.

Well, right-wing has never had an actual definition, it's meaning only exists in terms of contemporary trends. I'm afraid that it's becoming more and more common to call libertarianism right-wing, and I think this is because it is largely associated with Republicans, and because it is so clearly counter to most of the left-wing ideology.

[pure_mercury]

Well, right-wing has never had an actual definition, it's meaning only exists in terms of contemporary trends. I'm afraid that it's becoming more and more common to call libertarianism right-wing, and I think this is because it is largely associated with Republicans, and because it is so clearly counter to most of the left-wing ideology.

Well, true, "right-wing" is a relative term. However, libertarianism is descended from the British liberal tradition of the 18th-Century. In fact, in many places in the world, what I believe would be called "liberal." I don't understand libertarianism being considered a Republican phenomenon, either. If you look at their platform, it's a litany of anti-liberty policy. Perhaps fifty years ago, when you still had people like Robert Taft and Howard Buffett as prominent libertarian anti-New Deal Republicans, but there are almost none of these Old Right types left in the party, and cultural libertarianism has become a major part of the philosophy since the 1960s, especially protesting Vietnam and the War on Drugs. There were even tactical alliances between libertarians and the New Left at the time, although circa-2008 American liberalism is pretty much antithetical to libertarianism.

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, true, "right-wing" is a relative term. However, libertarianism is descended from the British liberal tradition of the 18th-Century. In fact, in many places in the world, what I believe would be called "liberal."

I know. In some countries, they use the word "liberal" to refer to what we call conservatives. It's craaAAAAaaazy! But you know, it's because human beings are chronically prone to distorting language.


I don't understand libertarianism being considered a Republican phenomenon, either. If you look at their platform, it's a litany of anti-liberty policy. Perhaps fifty years ago, when you still had people like Robert Taft and Howard Buffett as prominent libertarian anti-New Deal Republicans, but there are almost none of these Old Right types left in the party,

Amaricans can't remember fifty years back. What they do notice is that now, people who call themselve libertarian are way more likely to registrer with or vote for the Republican party than the Democratic party.


and cultural libertarianism has become a major part of the philosophy since the 1960s, especially protesting Vietnam and the War on Drugs. There were even tactical alliances between libertarians and the New Left at the time, although circa-2008 American liberalism is pretty much antithetical to libertarianism.

There's an interesting gap between culture and politics in this country. More than there rationally should be. So it's hard to gauge the political environment based on cultural movements.

Never the less, even in the sixties, it was people like Goldwater, a Republican, that were more known for libertarianism.

[pure_mercury]

I know. In some countries, they use the word "liberal" to refer to what we call conservatives. It's craaAAAAaaazy! But you know, it's because human beings are chronically prone to distorting language.

I'd actually like "liberal" back for us. It makes the most sense of any of the words. Plus, the right has done a great job of making it a pejorative for the center-left, so they don't even like to use it anymore (hence, the rise of "progressive").



Amaricans can't remember fifty years back. What they do notice is that now, people who call themselve libertarian are way more likely to registrer with or vote for the Republican party than the Democratic party.

Perhaps in the Reagan/Bush I era, but I don't think that is as true anymore. Outside of the Ron Paul fans, most libertarians don't seem to get involved in major party politics. They go with the LP or vote the lesser of two evils by individual races. There is some ideological affinity between libertarians and small-government Republicans, but there really aren't that many small-government Republicans around anymore. I think your assertion is another misconception, as I had been saying before. There are a bunch of moderate libertarians prepared to vote Obama in swing states right now, because of massive McCain hatred/war protest.



There's an interesting gap between culture and politics in this country. More than there rationally should be. So it's hard to gauge the political environment based on cultural movements.

Never the less, even in the sixties, it was people like Goldwater, a Republican, that were more known for libertarianism.

Goldwater was pretty libertarian, his hawkishness notwithstanding, but I think you are a little unaware of how tiny and out-of-step the libertarian movement was post-WWII. It could be measured in the tens of thousands in America. The American consensus was a big-government, big-military managerial state, and the oppositional right was the Buckleyite, National Review "God and Country" crew. The libertarians at that time were completely beleaguered, until dislike of LBJ and Vietnam caused rifts that brought about the New Left, and the remaining anti-war Old Right types started to coalesce with the libertarians. Then, Nixon freezing wages and prices and taking us off the gold standard completely precipitated the start of the Libertarian Party in 1971. It was clear at point that the Republicans had no intention of rolling back the welfare state, and we were in Vietnam for about five years after Nixon was elected. The Reagan Administration had some libertarians involved and he did some good things, but they were so hawkish and the budget deficit ballooned and the Christian Right got into things. It was a squandered opportunity.

[booyalab]

I don't know about that.

It depends what type of economics we're talking about. I don't see how a classical economist could reconcile their principles with the idea that wealth should or can be "redistributed" by the government.
Heterodox economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics)
Behavioral economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics) behavioral economists are probably more likely to be Democrats than conservatives.

[booyalab]

but there really aren't that many small-government Republicans around anymore. How are you defining small here? Compared to what libertarians want? Many of whom, according to you, want to vote for Obama? I'm not following this logic.

[ajblaise]

It depends what type of economics we're talking about. I don't see how a classical economist could reconcile their principles with the idea that wealth should or can be "redistributed" by the government.
Heterodox economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics)
Behavioral economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics) behavioral economists are probably more likely to be Democrats than conservatives.

That's true, of course to find a classical economist we'd have to go back to the 18th and 19th centuries.

If you look at the polls, there are some Republican and conservative and libertarian economists, just not that many of them.

[pure_mercury]

How are you defining small here? Compared to what libertarians want? Many of whom, according to you, want to vote for Obama? I'm not following this logic.

"Small-government" meaning "significant tax cuts, significant spending cuts (including the military), less interventionism abroad." How many Washington Republicans ACTUALLY want to make the government significantly smaller? Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, and who else?

And I didn't mean to say "many libertarians support Obama," just that some would vote tactically for him (or for Barr in a swing state) because of McCain dislike. Outside of being better on free trade and the possibility of slightly more gridlock with a Republican POTUS while Congress is Democratic, he has very little appeal to libertarians. He sucks on the First Amendment, he's a warmonger, and he knows almost nothing about economics. That's like the exact opposite of what libertarians like.

[ajblaise]

A libertarian will most likely vote for Obama if they care more about social and foreign policy over economic policy.

[pure_mercury]

That's true, of course to find a classical economist we'd have to go back to the 18th and 19th centuries.

If you look at the polls, there are some Republican and conservative and libertarian economists, just not that many of them.

There are classical economists in this day and age (usually, we call them "neoclassical" economists). Mainstream microecon has a classical/neoclassical basis, but macro usually has more of that Keynesian policy flavor.

[Ivy]

Split from who sucks? (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/arts-entertainment/7580-who-sucks.html)

If you have a better name, p_m, let me know.

[Jack Flak]

Uhh, could you please split my line "College sucks" back into the "Who Sucks?" Thread. I'm getting confused.

[Ivy]

I'm all Zergled out today, sorry.

[pure_mercury]

Uhh, could you please split my line "College sucks" back into the "Who Sucks?" Thread. I'm getting confused.

Splitting splits sucks.