So I took an informal survey of people I've added to my friends list over the last week. Now, I don't do anything to seek out liberal friends. I went to more CLA and CR meetings in college than College Dems. I'm pro free trade, an unabashed Baptist, am sick of hearing about gay rights like it's the most pressing national issue of our time, happen to know many East coast liberals that are elitist, have no problem with hunters and sportsmen, and if I had to make a choice, I'd rather be a southern gentleman than a yankee 9 days out of 10.
Nonetheless, fewer than 13% of my friends admit to being conservative, which is about the same as admit to being very liberal. Not a single one, even a former president of CR, listed their profile as very conservative.
Interesting, eh?
5 comments:
today's conservative is either a neo-con (iraq war), a christian conservative (constitutional ammendment), or an economic conservative (social security reform).... neither of the 3 are really that popular these days. no one wants to admit that they are a conservative. of course, no one really wants to admit that thier a liberal as well. i wouldn't know, i'm a moderate. =P
Yeah, I don't really know either. It just surprised me, especially looking at high school friends. Since being 4th grade class prez, I've never been politically active; my interests have always been about issues, regardless of what their party label is. I was always one of the good kids; after saying no to marijuana in 7th grade I was never even asked again! (That is just one of the many things that amaze me about the underground economy of the drug trade; their market research is second to none--the only error is that they assumed because I was one of those kids, I would tell on the kids who were using drugs.)
I found it really interesting that an albeit limited, self-reporting sample, showed I tended to gravitate toward more liberal personalities, even if that was never a conscious criteria in the selection process.
Nate & Eric--You both remind of that famous quote from Pauline Kael about how no-one she knew voted for Nixon.
It depends on who you hang out with as to whether or not Eric's tags are popular. Eric is a college TA. It's almost a genetic requirement that he be somewhat liberal--even though he says he's moderate. I've read some of his blog and it's decidely liberal in flavor if not form. And Nate, with your tux, I think your liberality stems from your aversion to authority that you have alluded to in the past.
The liberals I know, which is most of the folks I work with, are unabashedly liberal. We have grand, titanic, and revealing conversations in the faculty work room. I'm often outnumbered, but we are always respectful of each other. Well, to a point, my media specialist wouldn't speak to me for a week after the last election.
Plus, I think, once you get involved with a family, I think you re-think some things. It would be interesting to hear from both of you on where you see yourselves in 10-15 years.
Charles
Charles --
I'm not a college TA. The blog you are reading is completely fabricated. I'm a phlebotomist at BJC hospital and I write plays on the side. Steve Guttenberg isn't really dead.
But I am interested in how you say my blogs are liberal in form. Also keep in my that my calling myself a moderate was a reference to the previous statement in the posted comment.
Hmm, I'm afraid I haven't heard of the Nixon quote, but he ran on a supposed secret plan for peace and then ended up bombing the heck out of Cambodia. He also resigned in disgrace.
Unfortunately (from my perspective) many liberals have no problem with authority, either. President Clinton had no problem spending massive resources on the drug war or enforcing sanctions on Iraq and Cuba. The Democrats in control of the party in Washington seem as eager to increase the size of the military as reduce it.
I'd love to see the conversation that prevents talking for a week.
You seem to think that I have my outlook on the world in spite of children and people I care about. The whole point of supporting a more sensible use of resources and distribution of power is because it makes people better off. Families would be stronger, kids would be healthier, and there would be greater opportunity if we stopped the massive boondoggle that is destruction. Eisenhower's warning is almost cliched, but that doesn't render it any less significant. There is a direct tradeoff between military arms and civilian goods.
Post a Comment