Labels Matter

[red states rule]

I found this article interesting

Your thoughts?


Labels Matter: Progressive Better than Liberal, Reagan-Like Better than Conservative
Thursday, July 26, 2007

During last Monday’s Democratic Presidential debate, Senator Hillary Clinton indicated that she preferred to be called “progressive” rather than “liberal.” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that is probably a good move--Americans are more receptive to the term progressive.

Just 20% said they consider it a positive description to call a candidate politically liberal while 39% would view that description negatively. However, 35% would consider it a positive description to call a candidate politically progressive. Just 18% react negatively to that term. Those figures reflect a huge swing, from a net negative of nineteen points to a net positive of 17 points.

On the other side of the ideological spectrum, being called politically conservative is considered a positive description by 32% and negative by 20%. It’s much better for a candidate to be described as being like Ronald Reagan—44% consider that a positive description and 25% negative. That swing is meaningful, but not as dramatic as the difference between liberal and progressive. Being called conservative generates a net 12 point positive response that jumps to 19 points when someone is said to be like Reagan.

There are more self-identified conservatives in the United States than self-identified liberals.

Describing someone as a political moderate is viewed positively by 29% and negatively by 12%.






http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._liberal_reagan_like_better_than_conservative

 

[Larkinn]

That the constant linking of liberals to negative actions by the right has actually worked. People like liberal ideas, they just had a negative view of liberals because of constant smear tactics.

 

[Truthmatters]

Same thing as repeting the lies about WMDs and Iraq AQ ties over and over and over and over.

People hear it enough times and assume its true.

which is why they say Democrat party instead of Democratic party.

They are trying to disasociate the Democratic party with democracy.

That is why I always end up with some neocon argueing with me that America is not a Democracy, they want to destroy they Good name of our party in peoples minds.

 

[red states rule]

That the constant linking of liberals to negative actions by the right has actually worked. People like liberal ideas, they just had a negative view of liberals because of constant smear tactics.

Mostly because liberals ideas have NOT worked is the reason it has worked

 

[red states rule]

Same thing as repeting the lies about WMDs and Iraq AQ ties over and over and over and over.

People hear it enough times and assume its true.

which is why they say Democrat party instead of Democratic party.

They are trying to disasociate the Democratic party with democracy.

That is why I always end up with some neocon argueing with me that America is not a Democracy, they want to destroy they Good name of our party in peoples minds.

Ah, Dems did say Saddam had WMD's and was trying to get nukes

Dems are their own worst enemy

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/j9j5o


This study shows how the American people really feel about liberal ideas.

Given the power to make a budget the people make a budget which reflects in the liberal theorys.

Cut Defense and Increase social spendig

 

[Gunny]

That the constant linking of liberals to negative actions by the right has actually worked. People like liberal ideas, they just had a negative view of liberals because of constant smear tactics.

I disagree. There are no "constant smear tactics." Where? Talk radio? One TV channel? A handful of newpapers? Compared to the constant barrage of pro-liberal agenda by the rest of the MSM?

The fact is, liberals kill themselves by never standing "for" anything; rather, always "against" whatever Republicans/conservatives are for. That in itself is a negative message.

I recall watching the Dem presidential debates in 1979 and thought then, the Dems are destroying themselves in national TV. Republicans don't need to do a thing.

Then in the mid-80s I watched to Dem candidates for Congress just mercilessly smear each other and thought, this is the shape of things to come, and so it has been.

So, you need look no further than cleaning up your own house rather than trying to blame someone from outside.

 

[Truthmatters]

Bush called a vietman vet who spent years in a enemy prison an adulterer who had a black illigitimate Daughter after McCain adopted an east indian child.

The Bush team smeared a muliple amputee soldier as a lying about his service and injuries because his injuries werent important enough for them.

I posted a study which proves the American people are liberal in their ideas,Why do Americans think the label that covers their own beliefs is bad?

 

[Larkinn]

I disagree. There are no "constant smear tactics." Where? Talk radio? One TV channel? A handful of newpapers? Compared to the constant barrage of pro-liberal agenda by the rest of the MSM?

A pro-liberal agenda is different than smear tactics. You don't see most of the MSM labeling conservatism as an evil, Bush as an evil, or Republicans in general as evil. There are sites like DailyKOS which do that, but besides for the internet, that type of smear is largely relegated to the right. And yes, talk radio and Fox, and a handful of newspapers.

You make the mistake of thinking that because two things are both biased, they are equally biased.

The fact is, liberals kill themselves by never standing "for" anything; rather, always "against" whatever Republicans/conservatives are for. That in itself is a negative message.

For the pullout of soldiers, for the freedom to have an abortion, for gay marriage, for better healthcare, for workers rights, etc, etc.

I recall watching the Dem presidential debates in 1979 and thought then, the Dems are destroying themselves in national TV. Republicans don't need to do a thing.

Umm thats what primaries are about. Republicans do the same thing.

Then in the mid-80s I watched to Dem candidates for Congress just mercilessly smear each other and thought, this is the shape of things to come, and so it has been.

As opposed to the Republicans who always run a clean campaign. Wait wasn't it just recently that Bush smeared McCain by implying he had an illegitimate half black child? Selective memory much Gunny?

So, you need look no further than cleaning up your own house rather than trying to blame someone from outside.

All your examples were of Democrats. We were talking about the term Liberal. And if you had read the original article you would realize that its not what people DO that are having the effect, its what label is placed on them. Liberal means effectively the same thing as Progressive. If your theory were correct (which it obviously is not), people would have the same reaction to both. But they don't because of a smear campaign against the word liberal.

 

[Bern80]

I posted a study which proves the American people are liberal in their ideas,Why do Americans think the label that covers their own beliefs is bad?

Then you have a major misunderstanding of what constitutes a liberal ideas and probably conservative ideas as well. In fact one could make a very legitimate argument that the the propossed defense cuts are more in line with true conservatism than liberalism. there was an overall theme that there is less need for overpowering force (cut in subs, destroyers, nukes) etc. the days of that type of 'conventional' warfare have passed. Objecitvely (which is a cornerstone of conservatism, and certainly not liberalism) it probably isn't wise in our current state to be dumping tons of money into those.

 

[maineman]

Then you have a major misunderstanding of what constitutes a liberal ideas and probably conservative ideas as well. In fact one could make a very legitimate argument that the the propossed defense cuts are more in line with true conservatism than liberalism. there was an overall theme that there is less need for overpowering force (cut in subs, destroyers, nukes) etc. the days of that type of 'conventional' warfare have passed. Objecitvely (which is a cornerstone of conservatism, and certainly not liberalism) it probably isn't wise in our current state to be dumping tons of money into those.

your continued unsupportable implication that conservatives are these thoughtful objective dispassionate thinkers and that liberals are somehow merely emotional, feeling, irrational bundles of contradictions and hormones makes me so fucking mad I could throw something!

 

[CSM]

your continued unsupportable implication that conservatives are these thoughtful objective dispassionate thinkers and that liberals are somehow merely emotional, feeling, irrational bundles of contradictions and hormones makes me so fucking mad I could throw something!

Now that is funny!

 

[Bern80]

your continued unsupportable implication that conservatives are these thoughtful objective dispassionate thinkers and that liberals are somehow merely emotional, feeling, irrational bundles of contradictions and hormones makes me so fucking mad I could throw something!

Thanks for proving the point. Though I'm guessing you're being tounge in cheek.

And by 'unsupportable' evidence I assume you mean the generally accepted characteristics of the ideologies? Do you deny that liberalism favors emotion over objecitvity?

 

[Gunny]

I disagree. There are no "constant smear tactics." Where? Talk radio? One TV channel? A handful of newpapers? Compared to the constant barrage of pro-liberal agenda by the rest of the MSM?

The fact is, liberals kill themselves by never standing "for" anything; rather, always "against" whatever Republicans/conservatives are for. That in itself is a negative message.

I recall watching the Dem presidential debates in 1979 and thought then, the Dems are destroying themselves in national TV. Republicans don't need to do a thing.

Then in the mid-80s I watched to Dem candidates for Congress just mercilessly smear each other and thought, this is the shape of things to come, and so it has been.

So, you need look no further than cleaning up your own house rather than trying to blame someone from outside.

A pro-liberal agenda is different than smear tactics. You don't see most of the MSM labeling conservatism as an evil, Bush as an evil, or Republicans in general as evil. There are sites like DailyKOS which do that, but besides for the internet, that type of smear is largely relegated to the right. And yes, talk radio and Fox, and a handful of newspapers.

Talk radio, Fox and a handful of newspapers amounts to nothing.

You make the mistake of thinking that because two things are both biased, they are equally biased.

Not even close.

For the pullout of soldiers, for the freedom to have an abortion, for gay marriage, for better healthcare, for workers rights, etc, etc.

Against the war, against the rights of an unborn human being, and for forcing the majority to suffer the tyranny of the minority with legislation that caters only to abnormal behavior. Universal healthcare will create mediocre health care, not make it better, and "workers rights" has put the American employee on the unemployment line.

As opposed to the Republicans who always run a clean campaign. Wait wasn't it just recently that Bush smeared McCain by implying he had an illegitimate half black child? Selective memory much Gunny?

No, out of context response. My point was the beginning of it, not who is doing what now.

All your examples were of Democrats. We were talking about the term Liberal. And if you had read the original article you would realize that its not what people DO that are having the effect, its what label is placed on them. Liberal means effectively the same thing as Progressive. If your theory were correct (which it obviously is not), people would have the same reaction to both. But they don't because of a smear campaign against the word liberal.

More semantics? Obviously, my theory is correct. The Democrats I referenced ARE liberals ... or are you going to call them conservatives to disagree with me?

 

[maineman]

Thanks for proving the point. Though I'm guessing you're being tounge in cheek.

And by 'unsupportable' evidence I assume you mean the generally accepted characteristics of the ideologies? Do you deny that liberalism favors emotion over objecitvity?

no...but I AM being tongue in cheek.

..and "generally accepted" by conservatives, perhaps. I disagree that liberalism favors emotion over objectivity.

I would agree that I might favor the presence of compassion in public policy over cruel self interest, however. how's that?

 

[Bern80]

no...but I AM being tongue in cheek.

..and "generally accepted" by conservatives, perhaps. I disagree that liberalism favors emotion over objectivity.

I would agree that I might favor the presence of compassion in public policy over cruel self interest, however. how's that?

I woud say that is the biased opposite opinion.

 

[Larkinn]

Thanks for proving the point. Though I'm guessing you're being tounge in cheek.

And by 'unsupportable' evidence I assume you mean the generally accepted characteristics of the ideologies? Do you deny that liberalism favors emotion over objecitvity?

I will deny that. Although since you said TM does not know what a liberal means (although regardless what it means, he is correct...liberal in the classical sense most people are, and liberal in the present day again, most people are)...what is your definition of liberal?

 

[Larkinn]

Talk radio, Fox and a handful of newspapers amounts to nothing.

In substance, perhaps, but as far as how widespread they are, they are everywhere.

Not even close.

Actually, very close.

Against the war, against the rights of an unborn human being, and for forcing the majority to suffer the tyranny of the minority with legislation that caters only to abnormal behavior. Universal healthcare will create mediocre health care, not make it better, and "workers rights" has put the American employee on the unemployment line.

All those things (except against the war) are right-wing spins on Democratic positions. They aren't "against everything", rather those on the right portray them as against everything. Anything that you are for, can just as honestly be said that you are against its negation.

No, out of context response. My point was the beginning of it, not who is doing what now.

And why is the distinction between "at the beginning of it" and now relevant in the slightest?

More semantics? Obviously, my theory is correct. The Democrats I referenced ARE liberals ... or are you going to call them conservatives to disagree with me?

What is Semantics your buzz-word for anything you don't like?

Democrats are not Conservatives either. You think maybe your brain can expand enough to include the idea that there are some folks who are neither liberals NOR conservatives? Democrats are more liberal than conservative, but they are hardly liberal. Just as Republicans with their pro-amnesty, pro-supposedly humanitarian war, pro-big government are hardly conservative.

As I said before, Democrat and Liberal are not the same thing. If you don't realize this, you need to read some history on the terms and realize that after 9/11 there were many liberals who are, and have been, staunchly pro-war. I was, for a very long time, against pulling out of Iraq. I'm still not a huge fan of it, I just don't trust our government to run it any better than it has been in the past.

By the way...please tell me how we can avoid semantics in a discussion about the different opinions people have to different words that mean the same thing?

 

[Gunny]

No larkinn, it isn't "right-wing spin." I was raised a liberal in a liberal family, and pretty-well indoctrinated in liberal journalism. I can see the difference between spin and reality, and I can see an issue from both sides.

The negativity and partisan hackery is real. Not saying it doesn't exist on the right, only that it's worse on the left.

I'm marvelling over the fact that you can attempt to blame the negativity on the right with its pitiful little media outlets when the overwhelming majority of them lean left.

 

[maineman]

I woud say that is the biased opposite opinion.

so I only have opinions but you spew "facts"?

whatever blows your skirt up.