Monday, December 22, 2008

Still Surprised

I heard it again, just the other day. An argument I've written about so many times my regular readers are probably tired of it. But I'm still surprised every time I hear it.

The argument goes like this: Give someone a choice between a real liberal and a conservative pretending to be a liberal and he'll choose the real liberal every time. Sometimes the argument is the same with "conservative" and "liberal" switched. (I am claiming this works about equally well in both directions. Both sides figure it only works in one direction, which is part of how they're fooling themselves.)

There are many factors that sway voters, some political, some not. But if voters want you to be "liberal" on an issue, if you don't at least make a move toward them, they're more likely to reject you, so it can pay to be a "pretend" liberal. And if voters really want "conservative" values, as conservatives claim, then why in the world would they choose a "real liberal" over almost anything else? "He'll ruin the country, but at least he honestly believes in what he's doing."

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The classifications of Lib and Con are farcical chimaeras. Except a small set of ideologues, party hacks, academics and commentators/bloggers, these labels don't matter and in fact even hurt when its over-emphasized. Party theoreticians were a function of the Soviet Union and other horrible examples of state ideology.

To the extent that people vote in a particular inclination in any series of elections, I would guess it relates to immediate issues (economy, war, afforadability, etc...) and and the specifics offered or more likely being fed up with the party in power 1980, 1992, 2000 (sort of- it was clsoe) and 2008 cometo mind. Competence and yes hope (which is powerful but won't last long withot results) have far more to do with the outcome than arcane notions of political philosophy

3:43 AM, December 22, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So your take LAGuy is that liberals are willing to openly run as liberals, or, if not, that it's just nicely equal between liberal reluctance to admit their views and conservative reluctance to admit their views.

One would think that's the least likely thing. Oscillation, sure, but perpetual balance? How . . . evenhanded of you.

5:01 PM, December 22, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter