Hobbes Counts to Three
Some great posts from Vay in the Osama/Che thread inspired me to look for a few of the
Hobbes -
Well done. Good construct for examination. When political/social/economic decisions are put to graph it does tend
to solidify what might otherwise be rather nebulous or assumptive positions.
It is hard to set the parameters, or relevant markers for something like this.Without it being tediously complex one
can risk being tritely abbreviated. You have done well with your 3 choices.
In your listed examples, IMO, I would move a fw of US President G.W. Bushs’ positions a bit.
George W. Bush
EL <----------------—I---------------------> EC
SL <--------------------I--------------------> SC
FL <--------------------I----------------*----> FC
His domestic spending policies are much more liberal than is commonly acribed and his social platform is also
more to the liberal side.
As far as impeached ex-President Clinton*, you seem to have than one spot on. He was much closer to being a moderate or even
or even abit on the conservative side than most thought. But the Presidency does tend to move all office holders to the mid ranges.
As for my posiioning on your chart:
Tainancowboy
EL <--------------------I--------------------> EC
SL <--------------------I–------------------> SC
FL <--------------------I------------------*–> FC
I tend to be more socially liberal than most would think.
Good exercise. I hope more will join in.
I agree with Tainan Cowboy’s reading of Bush’s economic policies. The man spends way too much money for my liking and should hack hack hack away at these failed education and social programs. Cut the money now.
As to my own political leanings, I recognize that society must have some taxes and govt has some role to play so put me a sixth of the way from the farthest right on the economic scale, smack in the middle for social and for foreign policy also smack in the middle. I do not approve of US interventions abroad unless absolutely necessary so Afghanistan and Iraq yes but NOT Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia and Haiti and Rwanda and Sudan et al.
:bravo: Can’t help but applaud the old college try. Yes, I think many of us latch onto identifying with one party or another without really having analyzed our positions (I’ll admit hypocrisy on occasion 
). It’s hard to sort out serious argumentation from merely harassing the other side. For the record, I would fall asleep were I to share the table without a nice vituperative argument for some daily upheaval. Many liberals are just boring. 
On the other hand, most Republicans I know are easy to bait and thus render themselves vulnerable to my mental depredations. :ohreally:
On your scheme I estimate I’d be much like Clinton but probably more socially liberal. Economically I’d have to lean left since Reagan’s ‘trickle down’ economics has proven to be a sham and the middle class seems to be shrinking according to what I’ve read in the Economist. I’m actually not as disappointed with Bush’s policies as I’ve let out to be; he’s no Reagan, and he’s won more of my admiration as time passes. He certainly isn’t very threatening. He reminds me of one of the lost street dogs who lives on my alley, the one who comes up to me to get a pat on the head before I go upstairs. I gave him a bowl of noodles once. :mickey:
My ire I save for those who, in their fantasy world, deny the considerable amount of human suffering that has resulted from US (and other hegemonic powers’) foreign policy and somehow feel that this suffering was necessary and had some greater purpose. They undoubtedly would not wish that ‘pro-democracy’ terrorists rape their mothers and then slit their throats, but for some reason they feel that if it is funded with US taxpayer money and the victims are not Americans it is acceptable. :loco: This attitudes shrouds an ethnocentric view of the world and a flat-out rejection of Wilson’s tenet of self-determination, what I consider a truly American concept. Such a view is neither liberal nor conservative. The view that ‘sometimes you have to blow up a village to save it’ is also neither; it’s just sick.
Chewycorns
EL <--------------------I–------------------> EC
SL <----------------—I--------------------> SC
FL <--------------------I-----------*---------> FC
I don’t agree that Bush is a foreign-policy conservative in any meaningful sense, but with the caveat that for these purposes it’s about the willingness to use force then I’ll mark myself as follows:
Mofangongren
EL <--------------------I–------------------> EC
SL <-------------------I--------------------> SC
FL <--------------------I–*------------------> FC
I don’t believe in abortion but don’t think we should order around people who believe differently and don’t believe 99% of the bullshit I hear from both sides of the debate. I own guns (in the U.S.) but don’t believe in people going about with machine guns and cop-killer bullets and have reviewed enough stats that I keep my guns well locked up and away from kids. I don’t believe the government should stick its nose into people’s bedrooms, and I couldn’t give a rat’s ass who’s sleeping with what or whom unless it involves children, unwilling particpants or livestock.
I think the government should be on a solid financial footing and that we shouldn’t make our grandkids pay for junk we do today. I expect value from my government decisions – transportation, infrastrucure, safe streets, swift courts, relatively clean government, and decent schools. I don’t want to get stuck paying for the baby boomers because somebody wants to muck with the system right now.
I believe in economic sense dictating when the government privatizes and what it privatizes – but I believe in a long-term, macro view of things. I believe it is in the macro interests of the United States to offer basic fairnesses to its citizens, regardless of their wealth, race, ethnicity, etc.
On foreign policy, I expect us to use force only when we have to, not merely when it is convenient or just because we “want” to. Wars fought for our actual defense, not for our oil companies or for neo-conmen wet dreams about the “Project for a New American Century.” I expect us to be honest with our soldiers – they’re on the line and they should have some idea what we’re fighting for. What we’re fight for should be worth the sacrifices.[/b]
[quote=“sbmoor262004”]:bravo: Can’t help but applaud the old college try. Yes, I think many of us latch onto identifying with one party or another without really having analyzed our positions (I’ll admit hypocrisy on occasion ). It’s hard to sort out serious argumentation from merely harassing the other side. For the record, I would fall asleep were I to share the table without a nice vituperative argument for some daily upheaval. Many liberals are just boring. On the other hand, most Republicans I know are easy to bait and thus render themselves vulnerable to my mental depredations. :ohreally:
On your scheme I estimate I’d be much like Clinton but probably more socially liberal. Economically I’d have to lean left since Reagan’s ‘trickle down’ economics has proven to be a sham and the middle class seems to be shrinking according to what I’ve read in the Economist. I’m actually not as disappointed with Bush’s policies as I’ve let out to be; he’s no Reagan, and he’s won more of my admiration as time passes. He certainly isn’t very threatening. He reminds me of one of the lost street dogs who lives on my alley, the one who comes up to me to get a pat on the head before I go upstairs. I gave him a bowl of noodles once. :mickey:
My ire I save for those who, in their fantasy world, deny the considerable amount of human suffering that has resulted from US (and other hegemonic powers’) foreign policy and somehow feel that this suffering was necessary and had some greater purpose. They undoubtedly would not wish that ‘pro-democracy’ terrorists rape their mothers and then slit their throats, but for some reason they feel that if it is funded with US taxpayer money and the victims are not Americans it is acceptable. :loco: This attitudes shrouds an ethnocentric view of the world and a flat-out rejection of Wilson’s tenet of self-determination, what I consider a truly American concept. Such a view is neither liberal nor conservative. The view that ‘sometimes you have to blow up a village to save it’ is also neither; it’s just sick.[/quote]
sbmoor262004 -
I have to agree with Mr. Smiths comments about you sb. You are a worthy of having around.
The cliched parody you constantly present is a benchmark. We all can guage our political sanity by the standards you present.
You really must join Hobbes in his next experiment like this.
Thank you for…for just being you. :bravo:
Compliment reciprocated 
The people I run into during the day bore me, so it’s nice to have somewhere to start or worsen a ruckus. A ruckus-free life is not worth living.
[quote=“David Frye”]Nixon: My political position is expressed daily in newspapers throughout the country.
Buckley: You mean of course in syndicated editorials.
Nixon: No. In the Nancy and Sluggo comic. You see, politically, I am right of Nancy, but left of Sluggo.[/quote]
Richardm
EL <—----------I—----–-----------> EC
SL <—-----------—I-----—------------> SC
FL <----——-----—I---——**-----------> FC
i think once you start getting to the extremes of your established parameters, the labels get too blurred. for example, the idea of using military force in order to establish democracies has not traditionally been a conservative trait. conservative has traditionally meant the preservation of the status quo. so, for example, the congress of vienna was a prototypical “conservative” event in which borders were redrawn to revert europe back to the status quo pre-napoleon. by way of contrast, the treaty of versailles(1919) was downright liberal with wilson pushing the idea of self-determinism and a brief window of self-rule for several eastern european countries. for most of history, using military power to affect change(especially in support of establishing democracy) was considered a very liberal ideal. heck, the 2 most “liberal” events of the past few centuries(american and french revolutions) were secured by military actions. the defeat of the british in the us and the defeat of the austrian army by the french revolutionary army.
one of the words used frequently to describe liberals is “progressive”. progress, change, pushing for something new and better. and yet today in the middle east it is the liberals who are declaring that we should have left saddam in power and should not have upset the status quo while it is the conservatives who are dreaming big about making major changes to region and trying to reshape a democratic middle east. seems the labels have gotten switched.
my quibbles aside, here’s my best approximation of my location on the spectrum based on your general criteria:
EL <--------------------I--------------*------> EC
SL <---*----------------I---------------------> SC
FL <--------------------I------------------*--> FC [quote=“mofangongren”]
EL <--------------------I–------------------> EC
SL <-------------------I--------------------> SC
FL <--------------------I–*------------------> FC[/quote]
Holy s***, I’m almost mofangongren!
EL <--------------------I–------------------> EC
SL <-------------------I--------------------> SC
FL <--------------------I–*------------------> FC
