Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

[HerrDrFunk]

6 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I said more educated, not smarter. 

That's just commie cultural Marxism social engineering.....or something. 

[Lockout Casualty]

23 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Even that is a myth to a degree.   In terms of more liberal arts, law and some sciences - yes.   In terms of many sciences, engineering, medicine - no.

Source?

[coastal.view]

20 hours ago, Baer. said:

Regardless of whether or not it was rising before 2012, they still had the highest murder rate in the world despite the gun ban.

 

Furthermore, my argument was that a disarmed nation is much easier to control, and that's exactly what's happening. I wasn't arguing for or against gun control.

i don't agree with that

that is what the pro gun lobbyists repeatedly state

and want everyone to believe

it is not true or accurate

 

when dictatorships emerge

they do not firstly disarm a population

what they first do is to ensure their propaganda platform is not derailed

and seek to quiet the intellects and others who might be more independent thinking

 

it is not that hard to control the thoughts of someone who has a distorted view of the value of a firearm

and if you control or persuade thinking. you control actions as well

[Hugor Hill]

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Even that is a myth to a degree.   In terms of more liberal arts, law and some sciences - yes.   In terms of many sciences, engineering, medicine - no.

Most scientists (that I have heard speak) are centrists to centre left.

Like, who has ever heard of a hard right natural scientist before?

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Hugor Hill said:

Most scientists (that I have heard speak) are centrists to centre left.

Like, who has ever heard of a hard right natural scientist before?

 

Aren’t universities usually left?  Maybe scientists lean left because of their university connections?  There are those scientists who work for cigarette and big oil, who I guess would be right?

[Nuxfanabroad]

Has The Western World...

 

..Jumped The Shark?

..Lost The Plot?

..Sold Out?

..Become mired/Bogged Down In Trivial Pettiness?

 

Or (e), all of the above?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(depends who you ask)

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Source?

multiple....lots and lots of articles/papers/studies.

 

For example, this one got a lot of attention a few years back:

 

Your Surgeon Is Probably a Republican, Your Psychiatrist Probably a Democrat

 

PUBLIC HEALTH

Your Surgeon Is Probably a Republican, Your Psychiatrist Probably a Democrat

By Margot Sanger-Katz

• Oct. 6, 2016
•  

We know that Americans are increasingly sorting themselves by political affiliation into friendships, even into neighborhoods. Something similar seems to be happening with doctors and their various specialties.

New data show that, in certain medical fields, large majorities of physicians tend to share the political leanings of their colleagues, and a study suggests ideology could affect some treatment recommendations. In surgery, anesthesiology and urology, for example, around two-thirds of doctors who have registered a political affiliation are Republicans. In infectious disease medicine, psychiatry and pediatrics, more than two-thirds are Democrats.

The conclusions are drawn from data compiled by researchers at Yale. They joined two large public data sets, one listing every doctor in the United States and another containing the party registration of every voter in 29 states.

 

Eitan Hersh, an assistant professor of political science, and Dr. Matthew Goldenberg, an assistant professor of psychiatry (guess his party!), shared their data with The Upshot. Using their numbers, we found that more than half of all doctors with party registration identify as Democrats. But the partisanship of physicians is not evenly distributed throughout the fields of medical practice.

 

The new research is the first to directly measure the political leanings of a large sample of all doctors. Earlier research — using surveys of physicians and medical students, and looking at doctors’ campaign contributions — has reached somewhat similar conclusions. What we found is that though doctors, over all, are roughly split between the parties, some specialties have developed distinct political preferences.

 

It’s possible that the experience of being, say, an infectious disease physician, who treats a lot of drug addicts with hepatitis C, might make a young physician more likely to align herself with Democratic candidates who support a social safety net. But it’s also possible that the differences resulted from some initial sorting by medical students as they were choosing their fields.

 

Dr. Ron Ackermann, the director of the institute for public health and medicine at Northwestern University, says he remembers his experience rotating through the specialties when he was in medical school. “You’ll be on a team that’s psychiatry, and a month later you’re on general surgery, and the culture is extraordinarily different,” he said. “It’s just sort of a feeling of whether you’re comfortable or not. At the end, most students have a strong feeling of where they want to gravitate.”

 

Dr. Ackermann, who trained as an internist, helped conduct a survey of physicians on the idea of a single-payer health care system, a liberal policy goal, in 2008. His work found similar trends of support and opposition clustering in certain specialties. (A co-author of that study is Aaron Carroll, an Indiana University medical school professor and an Upshot contributor.)

 

There is no way to know exactly why certain medical specialties attract Democrats or Republicans. But researchers who have studied the politics of physicians offered a few theories.

 

One explanation could be money. Doctors tend to earn very high salaries compared with average Americans, but the highest-paid doctors earn many times as much as those in the lower-paying specialties. The fields with higher average salaries tended to contain more doctors who were Republican, while the comparatively lower-paying fields were more popular among Democrats. That matches with national data, which show that, for people with a given level of education, richer ones are more likely to lean Republican (possibly because of a concern over the liberal policy goal of taxing the wealthiest at a higher rate).

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, Hugor Hill said:

Most scientists (that I have heard speak) are centrists to centre left.

Like, who has ever heard of a hard right natural scientist before?

 

Those who are providing the global trends on temperature back thousands of years, those who go into medical surgical practice, geologists (a natural science) and in particular geologist that end up in mining and petroleum careers....for but a few examples.

[Lockout Casualty]

Spoiler

 

 

This article shows "all doctors" being 46% Republican, meaning 54 56% are Democrats. Any more? 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Lockout Casualty

[Shift-4]

1 hour ago, Lockout Casualty said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

This article shows "all doctors" being 46% Republican, meaning 56% are Democrats. Any more? 

 

pretty sure the extra 2% of them failed math   

[Hugor Hill]

14 hours ago, Alflives said:

Aren’t universities usually left?  Maybe scientists lean left because of their university connections?  There are those scientists who work for cigarette and big oil, who I guess would be right?

A good paycheque helps.

[Hugor Hill]

13 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Those who are providing the global trends on temperature back thousands of years, those who go into medical surgical practice, geologists (a natural science) and in particular geologist that end up in mining and petroleum careers....for but a few examples.

Who they work for does not imply their core believes. 

[Ghostsof1915]

On 2018-07-30 at 7:42 PM, xereau said:

Here is how you guarantee centrist moderate governments.

 

1.  Have many parties.

• Forces cooperation and partnerships, coalition governments.  Grinds everything radical to a halt immediately.  Even good legislation can be picked to bare bones via compromise.  Having sleek, simple legislation is the best for Liberty.

- Fine

 

2.  Have a None of the Above option.

• If None of the Above actually wins an election, you should not be able to run again.  Full reboot of candidates.  This will force honest, simple platforms that have nothing to do with scaring you about the other guy, rather, forcing you to show the people why you are the best choice.  This leads to:

 

-No it means no one gets elected. You should have a blank slot to vote. And you can vote for whomever you want, or nullify your vote.

 

3.  Make all advertisement only about your platform.

• Attack politics are a ridiculous strategy that does nothing what so ever for the people.  Ban it.  Make it so that you can only tell the people what YOU are going to do for them.  Nothing else should be tolerated.  (Nice Hair Though)

 

- Pointless, since most politicians lie. 

 

4.  Severely limit the money flow in campaigns.

• Force candidates back to the stump, and back to the pavement.  Get them out, meeting the people.  One at a time. Door to door.  Massively unbalanced cash advantage for establishment party candidates hurts the people.  This leads to:

- Fine as well

 

5.  Severely limit or eliminate all pensions for elected public service.

• This will push out the establishment lifetime political class, and bring in passionate real people into the equation.  It disgusts me that an 8 year term MP gets a 108k a year pension.  Disgusting.  This leads to:

- Compared to the golden parachutes private industry has. $108k is a paltry sum. CEO's get millions and stock options when they retire. Abolish the senate in Canada makes more sense in the long run. Saves money too. 

 

6.  Establish a one term, non consecutive term limit.

• Again, it is the career politicians that are ruling the roost in all western governments.  No term limits, and unlimited money in campaigns establishes nothing less than intergenerational money laundering mafia operations.  It has to end.  This leads to:

- No, the problem already is polticians only think about today, they don't think long term. This makes it worse. Limits to 3 terms is fine. 

 

7.  Mandatory sociopathy and psychopathy testing for all elected positions.

• Let's get some people with actual moral compasses in power, eh?  I have had enough of warmongers, and pork barrel spending kleptocrats posing as public servants.  And finally, this leads to:

- Who makes the decisions on this and what if politics corrupts the testers? How about criminal checks and you have to have an audit done? 

 

8.  Limit government spending.

     - So if there's an economic collapse or major disaster then what? Government should balance it's budget and try to pay off it's debt, even if it takes years to get the debt paid off. The problem isn't spending. It's how it's being spent.  Sweden has high taxes but gets value for it. 

• No matter how good the intentions, there are going to be those elected that look as the public coffers as theirs, or as a money laundering slush fund.  Get rid of almost all of it, and the stakes in their sickening game shrink.  Give the money back to the people where it belongs.  Take it out of the hands of these professional, and mildly competing money laundering mafias posing as public servants.

None of those things other than more choices will result in more moderate government. In fact one term politics nothing will get done, and probably be more radical.

Pay MP's in a mix of cash and bonds. That way if the economy does well they get rewarded. It would also encourage long term planning, instead of short term goals. 

 

 

[taxi]

On 7/30/2018 at 6:04 PM, Undrafted said:

I think you're only half-correct.  What you haven't taken into account is the fact that the definition of where the centre is and who a moderate is has changed over the last few years.  Today's "centre" is more on the right and a "moderate conservative" is what used to be a hard-right conservative; what used to be a centrist position is now considered to be on the left. 

 

Myself, I used to be considered centre-right (as a former "Red Tory" Progressive Conservative voter).  These days, people would consider my views to be "hard left" as a "social progressive" even though my views themselves have not changed very much.  I mean, just look at how Conservative voters viewed Michael Chong: he and his supporters were lambasted for being "fake conservatives" (never mind the many racists in the party who simply didn't like the fact he wasn't 100% white).  For me personally, that was the last straw when it came to the Conservative Party--it was clear that people like me were no longer welcome because I'm a "fake conservative".

 

IMO, all this lies at the feet of today's conservatives.  It started with the introduction of "wedge politics" by the US Republicans of the 1980s, which in turn was embraced by conservative political parties across the Western world, including Harper's Conservatives.  And now the wedge has been driven so deep after all these years of it, that we have the divided society we have now.  That wedge has dumbed down political discourse from being a nuanced discussion of issues to blind cheerleading for one's party, especially on the conservative side.

 

I'm also from the generation that used to be taught: "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the government."  I used to honestly believe in that but I don't anymore.  The notion that there's no one worthy of voting for has never been more true than it is today.  These days, IF I vote, it's "negative voting" whereupon I'm voting to keep someone unpalatable out of office and the irony isn't lost on me that in the last federal and provincial elections, I voted against so-called 'conservative' parties.

This line of thinking is very dangerous IMO.  If you think the centre has become far right, then you haven't been around very long. Society's attitudes  towards homosexual marriage, abortion, drug use, mental health, etc...have all changed dramatically towards the left. For example, 30 years ago the debate wasn't about whether gay marriage should be legal, but whether being gay should be legal and what kind of punishment should be associated with homosexuality. Now the centre has generally accepted that gay marriage is legal.

 

What has changed is that the amount of people on the centre has become smaller, as more people lean towards the extremes. The most common rationale for heading towards the far left/right seems to be that the rest of the world has become to far right/left, so I need to counterbalance them. 

[Shift-4]

to hell with right and left

let's just work with right and wrong

[Monty]

12 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

to hell with right and left

let's just work with right and wrong

 Well duh.

 

Problem is that most people don’t agree with what is right and what is wrong.

[Shift-4]

4 minutes ago, Monty said:

 Well duh.

 

Problem is that most people don’t agree with what is right and what is wrong.

k

I will stop being an idealist now

[xereau]

4 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

None of those things other than more choices will result in more moderate government. In fact one term politics nothing will get done, and probably be more radical.

Pay MP's in a mix of cash and bonds. That way if the economy does well they get rewarded. It would also encourage long term planning, instead of short term goals. 

 

 

Nothing getting done is the ultimate end in moderation.  Government doing nothing sounds amazing to me.  Also, pensions for doing what exactly?  They haven't served anyone, except the leader of their party, as this is exactly how Canadian politics works.  Towing the party line =/= Representative of the people.  Also, when you tell the people your platform, instead of just ragging the other guy, you are put down the gauntlet of public scrutiny.  If you LIE, you can be called on it.  Another win for the people.    Term limits puts a limit on the damage any creep can do. 15 years is waaaaayy too long, as per your 3 term limit. If your plan, your vision is that good, it will be carried on by the mandate of the people, through other candidates.

Edited August 1, 2018 by xereau

[xereau]

Here is an interesting quote, and a dire warning from the past.

 

Quote

 

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

 

~ George Washington -- FAREWELL ADDRESS    | SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1796

 

 

[Undrafted]

2 hours ago, taxi said:

This line of thinking is very dangerous IMO.  If you think the centre has become far right, then you haven't been around very long. Society's attitudes  towards homosexual marriage, abortion, drug use, mental health, etc...have all changed dramatically towards the left. For example, 30 years ago the debate wasn't about whether gay marriage should be legal, but whether being gay should be legal and what kind of punishment should be associated with homosexuality. Now the centre has generally accepted that gay marriage is legal.

 

What has changed is that the amount of people on the centre has become smaller, as more people lean towards the extremes. The most common rationale for heading towards the far left/right seems to be that the rest of the world has become to far right/left, so I need to counterbalance them. 

Utter nonsense.  What you describe as "society's attitudes moving to the left" is basic social progress which both sides used to work towards.  That's what the "Progressive" part of the old Progressive Conservative parties used to mean and it is quite fitting that the current iteration of the federal party has dropped the word from it's name.

 

The legality of homosexuality was NOT debated 30 years ago--30 years ago, it was 1988.  When homosexuality was decriminalized in the 1960's, Pierre Trudeau wasn't even Prime Minister; he was the Justice Minister when he uttered that famous line about "the state having no place in the bedrooms of its citizens".  At the same point in time in the US, the South were still trying to preserve racial segregation of blacks.  That was over 50 years ago.

 

It is social conservatives that are the ones who destroyed moderate conservatism.  It used to be that it was a given that moderates on both sides agreed with secularism and the pursuit of equality for all.  Now secularism is considered is viewed as 'anti-Christian', equality is viewed as 'political correctness' and both are considered positions of the "left".