Political International Kitchen Sink LJ Poll....

[shadowkat]

Does anyone really read posts on the weekends, besides me? Since I can't read them during the week? And how often do you actually respond to the posts you read? Do you read or do a quick scan? How often do you regret the responses you've made and wish you could retract it like an errant email before it gets read as opposed to merely deleting? To what degree are you immersed in politics? Where do you get your information? What information do you trust as reliable, what don't you trust? And do your question your views or just hunt for information that reinforces it?

I ask too many questions. It's not that I want to know so much as I want to understand. It's why I've taken psychology classes at different points and read the books - the attempt to understand how others think and how I think. Seldom works. Except when I force myself to step outside my own perspective completely.

Anywho...here is a poll, that I'm doubtful will get many responses since I'm posting it at 9:45 pm on a Sat morning and not during the work week - when many people are surfing to deal with boredom/downtime at work. Then again, I may be wrong about that - perhaps there are few out there like myself who do? If so, please take a moment. Also if you can link to it that would be great...more responses the better.

[In hindsight, I should have probably put "All of the Above" as a category for one of those entries...oh well.]




[Poll #1259205]

Comments

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

I live and vote in the U.S.

I rely primarily on PBS and National Public Radio for daily political info. Also read Newsweek. I read books for historical political context.

In terms of editorial commentary, I regularly read David Brooks, George Will, Thomas Friedman, and Andrew Sullivan on the conservative side, to balance (saner) conservative perspectives against my tendency to lean a bit left of center. In the center, I love reading Fareed Zakaria and Maureen Dowd (yes, I’m aware those two are poles apart in terms of what they focus on, but still equal opportunity supporters/bashers). On the liberal side of things, I read The Huffington Post.

Most reliable sources: BBC and Factcheck.org. Also reliable: NPR and PBS, but they sometimes trip on two banes of journalism in the U.S. (obsession with “fair and balanced” even on issues that actually are “fact” vs “bullshit”; and a tendency to spend a lot of time analyzing “horse race” aspects of politics/media, as opposed to facts and policy positions.

Political affiliation: I picked “other.”

I’m a raging conservative on issues of personal responsibility, personal finance, and things like national debt. I also see first hand that federal government is often bloated and inefficient and supportive of mediocrity within its ranks, and smaller localized government or deregulation is more efficient when dealing with some issues. HOWEVER...

...I’m liberal when it comes to federal gov’t policies that affect national “security”: that is, policies relating to health care, social security, education funding (this local-tax-based approach to K-12 funding seems medieval to me), and the support and development of sustainable energy independence, environmental protection, and the military.

I’m a moderate when it comes to things like immigration (one of the few topics where I supported W and Co.) and free trade (although I recognize the costs/benefits are unequally distributed across our society, I'm also concerned about increasing quality of life in poor nations).

I’m liberal on taxation in the sense that I support a progressive system, with reasonable redistribution of wealth to maintain a solid middle class. The knee-jerk Libertarian stance most Americans seem to adopt about taxes is moronic. I’m happy to pay taxes if they go toward creating national security (in the broad sense I discussed above) and opportunity. I’m perfectly willing to have my investments taxed at a higher rate, or pay several-thousand more $ in income tax every year, if it means fixing health care, or jumpstarting the U.S. on the road to green energy, or funding functional education in a sensible and equitable way.


I’m liberal on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and the separation of church and state. If we never heard another word from a politician about their faith it would make me ECSTATIC.


I hate oversimplification of complex issues in terms of black/white, opinion/counter-opinion, good/evil, right/wrong. Life is nearly always way more complicated than lots of people apparently believe or wish. I tend to maintain entrenched beliefs only on issues about which I’m quite knowledgeable. Since it pisses me off no end how many people who seem to have no understanding of (for example) basic scientific concepts nevertheless spout off opinions about science-policy issues, I try not to do that on topics that I haven’t studied.

I read most of my f-list, and reply regularly to about a quarter of them, I guess. I don't tend to post in the heat of the moment, and I avoid kerfuffles, so I rarely regret posting.


Re: politics in general...

In politics, media, education, and everything, the overwhelming current of anti-intellectualism in America horrifies me. The last 8 years have been agonizing on a deep psychological level, and this election cycle is terrifying and upsetting me to the extent that I actually fear for my sanity and health should McCain/Palin win, I don’t even know how I’ll be able to handle the grief and the rage, except by utterly disengaging from the civic life of a country with which I’m no longer sure I want to be identified.

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

I should clarify my "liberal when it comes to policies dealing with the military".

I meant that I support a strong military, well-funded via federal government, and deployed only when really needed. So that's a mix of current and conservatism (strong, well-funded), old-school conservatism (deploy only when needed), and liberalism (in the sense that small government cannot effectively handle military security).

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

Also, I guess Thomas Friedman could be considered liberal or conservative, depending on the issue under discussion. Maybe I should classify him as moderate? Heh.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

"I don't tend to post in the heat of the moment and I avoid kerfuffles, so I rarely regret posting."

Sigh. Very very wise. I unfortunately do the opposite 50% of the time so often find myself deleting. I'm emotional writer - as in I have written to handle or deal with emotions, and a bit of a venter. This has pros and cons. Sometimes it results in lovely poetic posts, others in embarrassing outbursts that I later regret and pray people excuse.

"anti-intellectualism in America horrifies me"

Me too. Although I'm not sure it is completely anti-intellectual - there are a few intellectuals of a William S. Buckley bent that support McCain, for much the same reason Buckley support Bush Sr and Barry Goldwater. I vehemently disagree with their views partly because I'm a pacisifist and believe that 80% of the time war and violence leads to horrible things - as the last three-four major armed conflicts we've engaged in have proven. But, I can appreciate other pov - even if it makes my blood pressure sky-rocket to hear it.

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree intellectualism isn't limited to liberals, for sure. I didn't contexturalize that comment very well. The conservatives I listed in my post are certainly intellectuals. I was bitching about more of a general trend in American citizenry and media and politics, a constant dumbing-down of discussion and entertainment, a pride in simpleness and shallowness, working class parents who hope to see their kids go to school, but then consider college grads to be "elite and out-of-touch". It's not a new trend, either. I keep meaning to read the classic by Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-intellectualism in American Life". I recently read Susan Jacoby's "Age of American Unreason" and found it fascinating.