Gallup recently completed a poll in all 50 States where citizens were asked to describe where they stand politically. In every State more people declared that they were conservative than liberal; only the District of Columbia had more liberals that conservatives.
The most conservative states probably fit your preconception; they were either in the Southeast or in the Northern Great Plains.
The most liberal states probably fit into your preconceptions also; they were in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast.
Conservatives aren’t necessarily Republicans.
Two notes of caution on this poll!
• Possibly, a conservative in Vermont might be far more liberal that a liberal in Alabama.
• Historically, there are many more conservatives than Republicans. Conservatives tend to have an independent streak and are less political than liberals are. Also, there are many less liberals than Democrats. Many non-liberals join the Democratic Party because of labor beliefs and economic populism.
The results of the poll are below, but also note that the Gallup website has lots on other interesting information for those of you interested in the details of the poll.
The Conservative advantage by state.
Related posts:
1. Statistics are the flag of people who don’t want to admit that they don’t have an argument.
2. The Libertarian political party used to hand out these little cards that asked a series of questions and then on the other side it had a graph between four separate labels; conservative, liberal, libertarian, or socialist. Point being that rarely are things so simple as being linear. We just put them into linear understanding so its easier for our brains to process. I assume the linear guys went to college with the statistic guys.
3. It can be assumed that there is no possible list of questions/issues that could proclaim a standing position for America. Is there any way you could get that list?
4. If this is the case why is it that a Representative based system of government is constantly moving towards a more liberal expression of society and rarely back tracks to reclaim lost conservative ideals?
Our system favors two sided issues: a member of congress votes yes/no on a given bill, a judge or jury rules guilty/not guilty in court. Citizens only get to vote once every 2 years for the House, 4 years for president/governor, and 6 years for the Senate. We vote for candidates based mostly on what party they come from, or what they say they will do in office. Why do we have to depend on what the candidate said she was going to do during the campaign, or which party she belongs to? Why can’t candidates use polls and statistics to keep in touch with voters?
By their nature polls and statistics are biased. Besides we are more a republic than a democracy. When we vote for people we want them to do whats best for us as opposed to doing what we want them to do. The founding fathers made it that way so the minorities won’t be ignored. In that sense we do vote for party ideals before we vote for individuals, at least at the Congressional level.
You are assuming that I don’t know what is best for me, but that Congress does. I have a hard time believing that. If I can’t figure out what course of action will benefit me, who can?
In the State of the Union address, Obama asked members of Congress to stop treating every day like election day. Do you agree that politicians will do what is best for themselves (i.e. whatever it takes to get re-elected)?
You are limited to only knowing what is best for you, and you and liked minded people can get close to what’s best for your group. What you have no ability to know, is what’s best for the entire pool of those who vote for and share your representatives. When I say “best for us” I mean the group of us and our diversity.
As to the question, yeah representatives will do whatever it takes to get re-elected and that is the point. I’m not saying they are not responsible to us, the etymology of responsibility is established during the constitutional debates. I am saying that they are responsible to all of us, the majorities and minorities of every issue and concern.
Furthermore, they are responsible to the Constitution and ideologies of the United States. So I don’t want them to do what we want per se, and the system wasn’t designed for them to do what we want. But if they are not doing a good job or we, as a people, hate what they are doing then there is plenty of room for them to be removed.
To a certain point, however, I hire my car mechanic to make my car work, not to do what I think will make my car work. I want an itemized list with prices of what it took to make my car work but I do expect him to have a more specialized knowledge of the topic than I do, an ability to get results that I wouldn’t know how to get, without his help. If my car runs I’m happy, if my car runs very well I’m super happy, if it doesn’t run I’m mad, if he gives it a paint job when I (and who ever else owns the car with me) didn’t want one then I’m very mad. This helps me decide whether or not to hire him again.
I would note that the data listed above is “self-reported” and probably shows fluid results over time. The individuals that reported probably compared their beliefs to the political situation both in Washington and in their home State.
I would guess that if McCain won the presidency and that the same individuals responded to the same set of questions; then the poll would show different results.
It also bothers me that there must be issues included in that list that have become trophy arguments for the conservative or liberal factions without actually being conservative or liberal ideal bases. The best example I can think of is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial. The argument of whether this should be tried at a state level or a federal level neither promotes any concepts of liberalism or conservatism (it might if there was a conflict between Obama and the State of New York but there isn’t so it doesn’t matter). Just the same, both ideologies started waving their flags in order to prove that they were smart and the other side was dumb. I know I have a list of these kinds of issues in the back of my head I just can’t seem to find it right now. Just the same, a complete non-issue became the most important expression of presidential powers until health care (a real issue) came back into the lime light. In other words I’m still convinced that you can’t actually draw a bright line distinction between conservative and liberal ideals (which Mr. Denby suggested). Especially if you think that not many liberals would have supported gay marriage a hundred years ago while their counter parts wouldn’t believe that women should be voting and especially not the primary King maker like Palin is.
As for who won the non-issue debate, my side. They always seem to have the most compelling non-conclusive arguments.
Bull Moose,
A couple of points:
• The argument about KSM’s trial is military vs. civilian, which would be a conservative vs. liberal issue since John Adams’ time.
• Republican vs. Democrat isn’t the same thing as conservative vs. liberal. Most arguments line up that way, but the political parties throw bombs at each other for political gain. Conservative vs. liberal is more about how people view the world. In my opinion, most American liberals have the same core values as most American conservatives; however, they prioritize them differently.
• Breaking down arguments into “A” or not “A” is something humans do. This binary thinking can sometimes seem over simplistic, but it is just the way we make decisions. If you like Obama’s policies (generally) but I don’t, then both of us will make broad personal generalizations when he makes a new speech or a new decision. I see no problem with this type of decision making as long as the decision maker is self aware. Objectivity really isn’t possible, American Media shows that everyday.
R. Denby
KSM is still a non-issue because there is no true conflict. The conservative or liberal debate comes from whether the executive branch can force a criminal who is not under official title of an opposing military force into military court. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it hasn’t been an issue whether the executive branch has to try such a person in military court.
I absolutely agree with this second point. Its an unfortunate result of American politics that things get caught up in the name of debate and policy ideals get indistinguishable from party defense to a point that you defend things that are not any actual care. For example, and this isn’t mine by any means but something you hear a lot of lately, John Edwards as a bad or good person. His policies and his really bad life decisions are separate and if you defend one you shouldn’t have to feel that you should defend the other. People will of course, but it still seems unnecessary, a sovereign public’s conflict of interest.
As to binary thought, I agree that individuals work that way and it doesn’t seem that simplistic in consideration of how many of those decisions we make at any singular moment. A lot of simple decisions can add up fast and create a complex pattern of thought. However, a group of people will not create the same result or pattern. A group of people addressing any given situation will pull it in every direction there isn’t too much resistance. Group think doesn’t apply the same linear understanding but rather lends itself to the generality of issue resolution. Linear thought is great for the individual but, like you said, objectivity isn’t possible so declaring that “people” think along a linear line of reason is going to be near impossible.