NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, I am 17 years old and untill recently politics were of no intrest to me, untill I started playing this game. :) Of course there are many other factors as well.

Anyways, what is the best way to learn about U.S. politics, or politics in general (government types etc.) Enough so that if I could vote I could make an almost intillegible one.

Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!

Your best bet would be to start out by learning about your local electoral system as well as registering to vote since you're going to soon be eligible to vote. Once you've registered, you should take the time to get literature about the party that best correlates to your beliefs.

When you register, you may be given an opportunity to ask questions, use it wisely and find out what you can or find out where you can get more information.

Do it in small steps.

Watch the news, read the newspaper. Read the internet and think about stuff.

Essentially how I did it.

all politicians (and in the big scale humans in general) are self-centered thieving weasels who only avoid global apocalypse because it might actually affect them and cause some sort of loss for a change

and that is all you need to know

all politicians (and in the big scale humans in general) are self-centered thieving weasels who only avoid global apocalypse because it might actually affect them and cause some sort of loss for a change

and that is all you need to know

You... you... how dare you insult weasels! Apologise at once! :)

all politicians (and in the big scale humans in general) are self-centered thieving weasels who only avoid global apocalypse because it might actually affect them and cause some sort of loss for a change

and that is all you need to know

My dad would agree on this quote here, Im sure thats what I would believe as well if I were to ever fully understand them

Your best bet would be to start out by learning about your local electoral system as well as registering to vote since you're going to soon be eligible to vote. Once you've registered, you should take the time to get literature about the party that best correlates to your beliefs.

When you register, you may be given an opportunity to ask questions, use it wisely and find out what you can or find out where you can get more information.

Do it in small steps.

I did begin to do this, reading the paper and such, but it seems that everything I learn is backed by something that I have no idea about, if you get what im saying.

Eventually I get to confused and throw the paper to the ground in realiziation of my ignorance, or flip the channel to G4. Oh how I wish there were more entertaining yet informative games/shows. This type of thing should definitely be thaught more in school. I never learned a thing about politics, maybe this is done on purpose, to keep the majority of our population ignorant and therefore more easily control the few that are manipulatble. I will never know...

Watch the news, read the newspaper. Read the internet and think about stuff.

Essentially how I did it.


Pretty much this.


Watch tv and read articles in the newspaper and online (make sure they're at least semi-reliable sources :p), form opinions from them, and find politicians or parties that share similar views.

You... you... how dare you insult weasels! Apologise at once! :)

like they wouldn't pound the world into their own little sandbox of vice if they had the chance

My dad would agree on this quote here, Im sure thats what I would believe as well if I were to ever fully understand them

just become deeply cynical by reading a tabloid newspaper and it will all make sense (though stay away from most political books unless you like falling into a coma)

also watch science fiction movies like Star Wars and think of the political situation of the Empire and such

Be my apprentice, young Moanarouge ! I will teach you the ways of politics. Then we can rule political forums as father and anon!

Hello, I am 17 years old and untill recently politics were of no intrest to me, untill I started playing this game. :) Of course there are many other factors as well.

Anyways, what is the best way to learn about U.S. politics, or politics in general (government types etc.) Enough so that if I could vote I could make an almost intillegible one.

Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!

Kryozerkia and CoallitionOfTheWilling have some very good advice.

Further advice:

You should still be in high school at seventeen, so pay close attention in your Government/Civics/whatever equivalant class.

If you have another year of school left, try and find out if you can join Close Up (http://www.closeup.org/aboutcuf.htm) or something similar.

If you are attending university or college this coming school year, pay attention in your government courses - most college freshman government courses cover what you should have already learned in high school and appear to have missed. Also, try and take an intro political theory course.

Pay attention when people around you talk politics - ears, eyes, and brain open, mouth closed except for asking questions ("Why?" especially).

Try and get your news from several sources. If your family subscribes to only one news magazine and/or newspaper, go to the local library. Remember: top line magazines (The Economist, The Atlantic, the New Yorker, etc.) > top line newspapers (Wall St. Journal, Washington Post, NYT, etc.) > regional newspapers and average magazines (News Week, Time, U.S. News & World Report, etc.) > radio news > TV news > USA Today. Lean which ones lean in which direction and try to get both sides.

Hello, I am 17 years old and untill recently politics were of no intrest to me, untill I started playing this game. :) Of course there are many other factors as well.

Anyways, what is the best way to learn about U.S. politics, or politics in general (government types etc.) Enough so that if I could vote I could make an almost intillegible one.

Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!I'll go out on a limb and assume you're still going to school. Did/do you have an American history class? They occasionally go into political process. Otherwise, I recommend newspapers. US news channels are woefully inadequate, so I recommend BBC World and CNN International. BBC America is just as inadequate. Blogs tend to be opinionated and are generally less prone to fact checking than newspapers are. When picking a candidate, look at their own website and the website of the party they're running for to find out about their platforms and whether you can identify with that.

I am assuming you're an american...

Liberals generally believe that government should regulate business and stop interfering in social stuff.

Conservatives generally believe that government should regulate social stuff and stop interfering in business.

Authoritarians generally believe that the government should regulate both of them.

Libertarians generally believe that the government should stop interfering in both of them.

Centrists generally take a moderate stance on both business and social stuff (hence the name).

Democratic party tends to be liberal. Republcian party tends to be conservative. Every president since 1853 has been either a democrat or a republican, so the other parties aren't usually taken seriously. Ron Paul is onften considered a libertarian, but registered as a republican because nobody takes the libertarian party seriously (Badnarik got a "whopping" 0.34% in the 2004 election).

Left = liberal = democrat. Right = conservative = republican. Atma opposes the left/right because it'd make both libertarians and authoritarians "centrists" despite their huge difference in belief.

Atma is a democrat.

Pretty much this.


Watch tv and read articles in the newspaper and online (make sure they're at least semi-reliable sources :p), form opinions from them, and find politicians or parties that share similar views.

We should add, 'Read critically.' An important and oft forgotten part. As other people said, several sources help this. Don't take anyone's claim as gospel. You have internet access, check their shit.

Click over to C-Span, they're just going to show the caucus happen.

Yeah, I'd say:
i) Don't listen to your parents.
ii) Read wikipedia, tbh. Or buy (I should imagine it exists) the Oxford Very Short Introduction to US Politics.

I am assuming you're an american...

Liberals generally believe that government should regulate business and stop interfering in social stuff.

Conservatives generally believe that government should regulate social stuff and stop interfering in business.

Authoritarians generally believe that the government should regulate both of them.

Libertarians generally believe that the government should stop interfering in both of them.

Centrists generally take a moderate stance on both business and social stuff (hence the name).

Democratic party tends to be liberal. Republcian party tends to be conservative. Every president since 1853 has been either a democrat or a republican, so the other parties aren't usually taken seriously. Ron Paul is onften considered a libertarian, but registered as a republican because nobody takes the libertarian party seriously (Badnarik got a "whopping" 0.34% in the 2004 election).

Left = liberal = democrat. Right = conservative = republican. Atma opposes the left/right because it'd make both libertarians and authoritarians "centrists" despite their huge difference in belief.

Atma is a democrat.

OMG thanks for this short little summary. I have always wondered what some of these terms meant, and I never really knew what left, right etc. meant. So again thank you!

Kryozerkia and CoallitionOfTheWilling have some very good advice.

Further advice:

You should still be in high school at seventeen, so pay close attention in your Government/Civics/whatever equivalant class.

If you have another year of school left, try and find out if you can join Close Up (http://www.closeup.org/aboutcuf.htm) or something similar.

If you are attending university or college this coming school year, pay attention in your government courses - most college freshman government courses cover what you should have already learned in high school and appear to have missed. Also, try and take an intro political theory course.

Pay attention when people around you talk politics - ears, eyes, and brain open, mouth closed except for asking questions ("Why?" especially).

Try and get your news from several sources. If your family subscribes to only one news magazine and/or newspaper, go to the local library. Remember: top line magazines (The Economist, The Atlantic, the New Yorker, etc.) > top line newspapers (Wall St. Journal, Washington Post, NYT, etc.) > regional newspapers and average magazines (News Week, Time, U.S. News & World Report, etc.) > radio news > TV news > USA Today. Lean which ones lean in which direction and try to get both sides.

We live in South Dakota, so there is barely any type of extra curicular activities that I am aware of, sadly I am certain that there is no close up as it would be an ineresting program to take part in. Since my family does not subscribe to any type of media, I am forced to go to the library anyways, although I only read the local news paper, so I will try all of the listed.

Thanks for the help guys, keep 'em coming if you have any tips or any type help.

I am assuming you're an american...

Liberals generally believe that government should regulate business and stop interfering in social stuff.

Conservatives generally believe that government should regulate social stuff and stop interfering in business.

Authoritarians generally believe that the government should regulate both of them.

Libertarians generally believe that the government should stop interfering in both of them.

Centrists generally take a moderate stance on both business and social stuff (hence the name).

Democratic party tends to be liberal. Republcian party tends to be conservative. Every president since 1853 has been either a democrat or a republican, so the other parties aren't usually taken seriously. Ron Paul is onften considered a libertarian, but registered as a republican because nobody takes the libertarian party seriously (Badnarik got a "whopping" 0.34% in the 2004 election).

Left = liberal = democrat. Right = conservative = republican. Atma opposes the left/right because it'd make both libertarians and authoritarians "centrists" despite their huge difference in belief.

Atma is a democrat.Here we have a young, impressionable mind, and you're already attempting to ingrain some false definitions... :(

Here we have a young, impressionable mind, and you're already attempting to ingrain some false definitions... :(

Oh no, hes wrong! Yikes. I guess it could be opinionated. (spelling?)

Politics is too complicated, just vote for the Fascist party and let Dear Leader worry about politics and government for you...

:D

Politics is too complicated, just vote for the Fascist party and let Dear Leader worry about politics and government for you...

:DS'truth! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gzRYTqTvv-g) :D

Oh no, hes wrong! Yikes. I guess it could be opinionated. (spelling?)
It's basically the term "liberal" which causes confusion. Back in the 18th century, liberalism was developed to mean something along the lines of this (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/). Because it's a pro-freedom movement, it was usually in opposition to monarchist conservatism in Europe.

But for various reasons, in the US it has come to mean the political left, which is pro-freedom on social issues, but in favour of regulations on business and the economy. In Europe meanwhile, it has come to mean pro-freedom movements on economic issues. So when you hear an American call someone a "liberal", they mean a leftist, when you hear a Frenchman call someone a "liberal", they mean someone on the right.

It's odd and occasionally confusing, but hey, that's politics for you. :p

How about we try something: you tell us some of your views on issues like the economy, the political process, social issues (like abortion, gay rights etc) and we'll try and figure out where best to direct you to from there.

Try taking the Political Compass test (you'll see a lot of posters here will have their scores in their signatures) for a reference point on your interests/opinions and how they translate into politics.


Not a perfect test, but it'll give you an indication. :)
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Alternately, you can go to www.politicalcompass.org to get your political position. It may not be perfect, but it should give you some good ideas on where you (and some famous people) are. Atma tends to be near the Dalai Lama.

Also, the US spectrum as a whole tends to be more conservative than the european spectrums. So if you're a centrist in the US, you may be a modersate conservative in europe.

Try taking the Political Compass test...
And don't forget the longer but more detailed pofo quiz: http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=0.25&soc=-3.90

Thats apperently where I stand.

I am a bit confused about the results. A conservative liberal? Help, because for some reason those seem a bit contradicting.

And don't forget the longer but more detailed pofo quiz: http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php

Speaking of which....

Haven't done that in a while - good to refresh myself with it every now and again. Here's my 'now' scores:

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a socially-orientated, materialist, small-government, internationalist, kind of person.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of socialist.

You scored 82 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are more likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.

You scored 67 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.

You scored 70 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.

You scored 71 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.

You scored 58 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.

You scored 50 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.

You scored 42 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.

You scored 45 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.

Jesus.... Talk about my points canceling each other out. :confused:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=0.25&soc=-3.90

Thats apperently where I stand.
Okay. That's a general indication - economically you're fairly centrist, and socially you're generally against people regulating other people's private lives. Of course, that's not how politicians put it (they prefer to call it "family values").

So that means that you're probably not socially conservative. A big part of the modern Republican party is, so they probably wouldn't appeal to you greatly. On the other hand, there are people like Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,526202,00.html), who might be more up your alley in terms of their political views...unfortunately he's never gonna be President. :(

Being centrist on economic issues, there should be a wide variety of potential candidates in US politics that should appeal to you.

Try the other, longer pofo test and we'll see whether we can find a candidate you might agree with the most. It's a pity that in the US it's always about candidates, rather than parties, but with a two-party system there basically is no such thing as a consistent party position.

Get out of politics while you still have faith in humanity! Quick young one, before you end up like us!

So that means that you're probably not socially conservative. A big part of the modern Republican party is, so they probably wouldn't appeal to you greatly. On the other hand, there are people like Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,526202,00.html), who might be more up your alley in terms of their political views...unfortunately he's never gonna be President. :(Demolition Man was a movie about the future where Schwarzenegger was elected and movies never lie! :mad:

On a more serious note, the current Republican party (as well as the Democrat party) in the US is far too big to be stamped with any political label. It covers everything from liberalism to conservatism with some theocratism and nationalism added for good measure. The Republican Party is more conservative than anything else, but its not exactly a conservative party.

Hello, I am 17 years old and untill recently politics were of no intrest to me, untill I started playing this game. :) Of course there are many other factors as well.

Hehe, 17 is fine age to start :) Welcome here.

Anyways, what is the best way to learn about U.S. politics, or politics in general (government types etc.) Enough so that if I could vote I could make an almost intillegible one.

Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!

The first is to learn about history, I think. Recent history, mostly. It's very important to understand modern world.

The second part is to learn about how the current system works, in the US (because you live there), but also in other countries so you can get an idea of different options/ways of doing things.

Then you should try to keep yourself informed on what's going on, but always by checking different sources. There is no "neutral" source of information, every one is biased in a way or another (most are biased towards supporting the system they exist in, whatever the system is, usually), and you should be careful to read the "two sides" (and often more than two) before making yourself a strong opinion.

Good luck !

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=0.25&soc=-3.90

Thats apperently where I stand.

I am a bit confused about the results. A conservative liberal? Help, because for some reason those seem a bit contradicting.

Well, that means you tend to be liberal about social issues (freedom of people to live their personal lives with few interference from government), but that you don't have strong convictions on economical issues, which is quite normal for a "beginner" in politics.

Hello, I am 17 years old and untill recently politics were of no intrest to me, untill I started playing this game. :) Of course there are many other factors as well.

Anyways, what is the best way to learn about U.S. politics, or politics in general (government types etc.) Enough so that if I could vote I could make an almost intillegible one.

Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!
Watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on Comedy Central.

I'm not kidding.

ii) Read wikipedia, tbh. Or buy (I should imagine it exists) the Oxford Very Short Introduction to US Politics.
I can tell you from personal experience that wikipedia is just about the worst place in the world for a political beginner to get his information from. Why? Because most politics-related articles on wikipedia are biased - some very much so - but the direction of the bias is random and sometimes changes several times within the same article, because the article had more than one author.

If you go to a left-wing website, you can expect to get left-wing opinion. If you go to a right-wing website, you can expect to get right-wing opinion. But if you go to wikipedia, you might get opinion that is left or right, conservative, liberal or socialist, and you'll never know which one you got (unless you already know the issues).

So when you hear an American call someone a "liberal", they mean a leftist, when you hear a Frenchman call someone a "liberal", they mean someone on the right.
I think it's better to look at it from a different perspective: Liberals believe similar things and advocate similar policies in the United States and Europe, but in the US these things are seen as "left-wing" while in Europe they are seen as "right-wing" (because the center of politics in the US is to the right of the center of politics in Europe).

I really see no evidence that US liberals are any more left-wing than mainstream European liberals. Quite the contrary. After all, most European liberal parties support universal health care and a level of taxation and welfare far higher than that advocated by American liberals.

So liberals are actually the same in Europe and America - it's just that they are perceived differently on the left-right scale.

I am assuming you're an american...

*snip*
See, that for example is libertarian opinion about everyone else. One of the things about politics is that each group or faction doesn't just have its own views, it also has opinions about everyone else's views. The liberal definition of "liberal" is not the same as the conservative definition of "liberal."

One of the problems of American politics is that it seems to operate under the assumption that there are only two sides to every issue (for example, you either want the government to regulate something or you don't), when in fact there are usually far more than two sides to an issue (you may want to set up incentives to reduce the likelihood of something without directly regulating it, for example, or you may wish to change the law or the system so that something is no longer possible, etc.)

Another problem of American politics is that the choices offered by the two main parties are very narrow. There are only liberals and conservatives in America, while in other countries there are usually at least three sides: liberals, conservatives and socialists or social democrats. Some countries also have a strong nationalist side, and/or a left-wing religious side, and/or an environmentalist side, and so on.

I think most political groups, factions and ideologies fall under one of three main political categories:

1. The Conservative category (or Traditionalist category). Conservatives are fundamentally concerned with tradition, hierarchy, and order. They are often very patriotic, nationalistic, or otherwise passionate about preserving the culture or values of the group of people they feel they belong to. For conservatives, everything is about respect for the traditional way of life and for what they see as the natural order of things. Children should respect their parents. Employees should respect their bosses. Citizens should respect their leaders. Most importantly, everyone should respect and obey the King (in the case of monarchical conservatives), God (in the case of religious conservatives), or the Constitution or some other abstract institution (in the case of republican conservatives). The conservative mindset can be summarized in the motto "For King and Country!"

2. The Liberal category (or Individualist category). Liberals see politics as a struggle between the individual and society, and are fundamentally concerned with upholding individual will, desire and self-interest. They wish to eliminate restrictions to individual behaviour, they believe that the individual owes nothing to society and that he should be under no compulsion to follow any standards, commands or moral rules that go against his own desires, his own self-interest and his own ethical views. In essence, liberals believe that the best society is one where individuals have the maximum freedom and ability to do whatever they want and don't have to listen to other people. All liberals support private property and capitalist markets. Generally, liberals are opposed to government as a matter of principle, but many moderate liberals favour government intervention in areas where they believe it will do more good than harm to the ability of individuals to live their lives as they see fit. The liberal mindset can be summarized in the motto "Every man for himself!"

3. The Socialist category (or Egalitarian category). Socialists are above all concerned with equality between human beings. This refers primarily to equality in terms of wealth, economic power and social status. Socialists uphold the idea that all human beings have equal value, that differences between them are small and superficial, and that inequalities of wealth or power are unjustified. They believe that such inequalities arise because some people oppress, dominate and exploit others, and therefore they are passionately opposed to what they see as oppression and exploitation - which usually refers to situations where a person or group of people is making a personal gain at the expense of others or with no regard for the needs of others. As their name implies, socialists believe that the interests of human society as a whole are more important than the interests of isolated individuals or groups, such as corporations, socio-economic classes, or nations. Socialists argue that all human beings are fundamentally interdependent and interconnected, and therefore we have a moral obligation to help one another. Most socialists agree that the ideal society is one where private property does not exist, where wealth is shared equally and where there are no differences of social status, but the majority of socialists do not believe that such a society is realistically possible and therefore only aim to achieve an approximation of it. The socialist mindset can be summarized in the motto "One for all and all for one!"

These are three very broad categories, and political groups within the same category do not always get along. There is often conflict between moderates and radicals within every group. Many conservatives say that those who do not agree with their particular views are not "true conservatives," many liberals say that those who do not agree with their particular views are not "true liberals," and many socialists say that those who do not agree with their particular views are not "true socialists." And they could be right - the fact is that "conservatism," "liberalism" and "socialism" are pretty vague terms that could be defined in a variety of ways. I used them here in the broadest possible sense to name the three main political categories, but the same categories could be named Traditionalism, Individualism and Egalitarianism instead of Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism.

In fact, it's probably best to use the terms Traditionalism, Individualism and Egalitarianism for the three categories in order to avoid confusion.

In terms of American politics, the views of the Republican Party are a pretty even mix of traditionalism and individualism, while the views of the Democratic Party consist mainly of individualism mixed with a smaller amount of egalitarianism. That's why people outside North America often call the United States a "liberal country" - your two main political parties are conservative liberals and social liberals respectively (although you call the conservative liberals "conservatives" and the social liberals "liberals").

As far as "left-wing" and "right-wing" are concerned, those words mean completely different things in different places at different times, so it's probably best not to bother with them. All I can tell you is that traditionalists are nearly always called right-wing and egalitarians are nearly always called left-wing, with individualists being called one or the other depending on the place and time.

Hello, I am 17 years old and untill recently politics were of no intrest to me, untill I started playing this game. Of course there are many other factors as well.

Anyways, what is the best way to learn about U.S. politics, or politics in general (government types etc.) Enough so that if I could vote I could make an almost intillegible one.

Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/standard/modern/

That site is the one I used to get a A in Modern Studies (politics).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/standard/modern/

That site is the one I used to get a A in Modern Studies (politics).

Thanks for the site, a little childish, but helpful none the less.

I took a profo quiz, a staggering 80+ questions..., and these were my results.

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a materialist, small-government, liberal-market kind of person.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of borderline social liberal. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Liberalism area.


Hey, I actually agree with this descrition. A good canidate/party would likely be...

I can tell you from personal experience that wikipedia is just about the worst place in the world for a political beginner to get his information from. Why? Because most politics-related articles on wikipedia are biased - some very much so - but the direction of the bias is random and sometimes changes several times within the same article, because the article had more than one author.

If you go to a left-wing website, you can expect to get left-wing opinion. If you go to a right-wing website, you can expect to get right-wing opinion. But if you go to wikipedia, you might get opinion that is left or right, conservative, liberal or socialist, and you'll never know which one you got (unless you already know the issues).


I think it's better to look at it from a different perspective: Liberals believe similar things and advocate similar policies in the United States and Europe, but in the US these things are seen as "left-wing" while in Europe they are seen as "right-wing" (because the center of politics in the US is to the right of the center of politics in Europe).

I really see no evidence that US liberals are any more left-wing than mainstream European liberals. Quite the contrary. After all, most European liberal parties support universal health care and a level of taxation and welfare far higher than that advocated by American liberals.

So liberals are actually the same in Europe and America - it's just that they are perceived differently on the left-right scale.


See, that for example is libertarian opinion about everyone else. One of the things about politics is that each group or faction doesn't just have its own views, it also has opinions about everyone else's views. The liberal definition of "liberal" is not the same as the conservative definition of "liberal."

One of the problems of American politics is that it seems to operate under the assumption that there are only two sides to every issue (for example, you either want the government to regulate something or you don't), when in fact there are usually far more than two sides to an issue (you may want to set up incentives to reduce the likelihood of something without directly regulating it, for example, or you may wish to change the law or the system so that something is no longer possible, etc.)

Another problem of American politics is that the choices offered by the two main parties are very narrow. There are only liberals and conservatives in America, while in other countries there are usually at least three sides: liberals, conservatives and socialists or social democrats. Some countries also have a strong nationalist side, and/or a left-wing religious side, and/or an environmentalist side, and so on.

I think most political groups, factions and ideologies fall under one of three main political categories:

1. The Conservative category (or Traditionalist category). Conservatives are fundamentally concerned with tradition, hierarchy, and order. They are often very patriotic, nationalistic, or otherwise passionate about preserving the culture or values of the group of people they feel they belong to. For conservatives, everything is about respect for the traditional way of life and for what they see as the natural order of things. Children should respect their parents. Employees should respect their bosses. Citizens should respect their leaders. Most importantly, everyone should respect and obey the King (in the case of monarchical conservatives), God (in the case of religious conservatives), or the Constitution or some other abstract institution (in the case of republican conservatives). The conservative mindset can be summarized in the motto "For King and Country!"

2. The Liberal category (or Individualist category). Liberals see politics as a struggle between the individual and society, and are fundamentally concerned with upholding individual will, desire and self-interest. They wish to eliminate restrictions to individual behaviour, they believe that the individual owes nothing to society and that he should be under no compulsion to follow any standards, commands or moral rules that go against his own desires, his own self-interest and his own ethical views. In essence, liberals believe that the best society is one where individuals have the maximum freedom and ability to do whatever they want and don't have to listen to other people. All liberals support private property and capitalist markets. Generally, liberals are opposed to government as a matter of principle, but many moderate liberals favour government intervention in areas where they believe it will do more good than harm to the ability of individuals to live their lives as they see fit. The liberal mindset can be summarized in the motto "Every man for himself!"

3. The Socialist category (or Egalitarian category). Socialists are above all concerned with equality between human beings. This refers primarily to equality in terms of wealth, economic power and social status. Socialists uphold the idea that all human beings have equal value, that differences between them are small and superficial, and that inequalities of wealth or power are unjustified. They believe that such inequalities arise because some people oppress, dominate and exploit others, and therefore they are passionately opposed to what they see as oppression and exploitation - which usually refers to situations where a person or group of people is making a personal gain at the expense of others or with no regard for the needs of others. As their name implies, socialists believe that the interests of human society as a whole are more important than the interests of isolated individuals or groups, such as corporations, socio-economic classes, or nations. Socialists argue that all human beings are fundamentally interdependent and interconnected, and therefore we have a moral obligation to help one another. Most socialists agree that the ideal society is one where private property does not exist, where wealth is shared equally and where there are no differences of social status, but the majority of socialists do not believe that such a society is realistically possible and therefore only aim to achieve an approximation of it. The socialist mindset can be summarized in the motto "One for all and all for one!"

These are three very broad categories, and political groups within the same category do not always get along. There is often conflict between moderates and radicals within every group. Many conservatives say that those who do not agree with their particular views are not "true conservatives," many liberals say that those who do not agree with their particular views are not "true liberals," and many socialists say that those who do not agree with their particular views are not "true socialists." And they could be right - the fact is that "conservatism," "liberalism" and "socialism" are pretty vague terms that could be defined in a variety of ways. I used them here in the broadest possible sense to name the three main political categories, but the same categories could be named Traditionalism, Individualism and Egalitarianism instead of Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism.

In fact, it's probably best to use the terms Traditionalism, Individualism and Egalitarianism for the three categories in order to avoid confusion.

In terms of American politics, the views of the Republican Party are a pretty even mix of traditionalism and individualism, while the views of the Democratic Party consist mainly of individualism mixed with a smaller amount of egalitarianism. That's why people outside North America often call the United States a "liberal country" - your two main political parties are conservative liberals and social liberals respectively (although you call the conservative liberals "conservatives" and the social liberals "liberals").

As far as "left-wing" and "right-wing" are concerned, those words mean completely different things in different places at different times, so it's probably best not to bother with them. All I can tell you is that traditionalists are nearly always called right-wing and egalitarians are nearly always called left-wing, with individualists being called one or the other depending on the place and time.

:o Printed this out. Thanks for the time.

:o Printed this out. Thanks for the time.
You are most welcome. :)

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a materialist, small-government, liberal-market kind of person.
Actually, that's amazingly centrist; if I recall correctly, the PoFo quiz measures your views on 8 or 9 axes, and if you only got those three terms back (materialist, small-government, liberal-market), that means you were a centrist on every other axis - all five or six of them.

You are most welcome. :)


Actually, that's amazingly centrist; if I recall correctly, the PoFo quiz measures your views on 8 or 9 axes, and if you only got those three terms back (materialist, small-government, liberal-market), that means you were a centrist on every other axis - all five or six of them.

Aah a bit confusing, Im still not certain on how the whole compas thing works. Either that or my political views change on a day to day basis... (not likely) I think ill skip out on all the quizes, as they seem to do more harm than good. Ill continue reading this thread and reading/watching news!

Oh, I forgot: something that you have to be careful of in politics is about the meaning of the words. Some words are different, and sometimes opposite, meanings in different context and from different people.

That applies to the name of political ideologies (for example, "communism" or "socialism" for someone like me doesn't have at all the same meaning than "communism" or "socialism" had for Stalin), and especially to the liberal/libertarian ones. "Liberal" in USA means favoring freedom in social issues (private lives, sex or drug related for example), while in Europe it tends to mean favoring freedom in economical issues.

But that also applies to what is behind the values like "equality" or "freedom", for example.

When a pro-market person speaks of "freedom", he usually means freedom from the control of the state. There is freedom of press if the state doesn't do anything to censor the press and to prevent you from reading it. That's it. When a leftist or socialist person speaks of "freedom", he usually means the actual possibility to perform the act. A socialist will consider that if the state doesn't censor the press, but doesn't make people actually able to read (through public education, for example), then there is no real freedom of press. In a country with a high illiteracy rate, we socialist will consider that the "freedom of press" is virtual, not real. The same goes for all other freedoms.

The same issue is present about "equality", what do we mean by this word ? Absolute equality just can't exist. Pro-market people will tend to defend equality of chances, saying that anyone should have the possibility to become rich. IMHO, they self-contradict themselves when they favor inheritance and private education (making children's future very dependent of the well-being of their parents), but even without this issue, socialist people like me will tend to reject a society of "winners" and "losers", and to speak of equality of rights - an equal right to receive education, to have a decent life (with housing, food, enough free time, ...) and to receive health care, even for the unlucky ones (be it because of real "bad luck" like a disability or chronic disease, or because of some poor choices, but everyone does some poor decisions at a time).

So, if you want to summarize this in one sentence: be very careful about the actual meaning of words like "liberal", "socialism", "freedom", "equality", because this meaning will change with the person you're speaking to/reading from.

Aah a bit confusing, Im still not certain on how the whole compas thing works. Either that or my political views change on a day to day basis... (not likely) I think ill skip out on all the quizes, as they seem to do more harm than good. Ill continue reading this thread and reading/watching news!
Well, what they do is take a question (a very broad one, and usually a question of principle, such as "Do you think there should be barriers to trade between countries?" - this is the question that governs the Free Trade vs. Protectionism axis on the PoFo quiz), and they turn it into an axis for measuring people's views, where people who would always answer "Yes" in all circumstances are at one end of the axis and people who would always answer "No" in all circumstances are at the other end. Then they ask you more particular test questions to see how you would handle that broad dilemma in several different circumstances.

And if your answer to the broad dilemma is "I don't know," which is probably your case, then you're likely to score as a centrist.

* * *

Going back a little to my introduction of politics and the three main ideological categories - Conservative, Liberal and Socialist - I'd like to point out that most people in each category are under the impression that people in the other two categories are actively opposed to their views, when in fact it's usually the case that people in the other two categories have different priorities.

For example, conservatives often think that liberals and socialists are out to destroy the traditional way of life or the structure of the family or the established social order, when in fact liberals and socialists just don't care about the traditional way of life or the structure of the family or the established social order; they believe that individual choice (in the case of liberals) or social and economic equality (in the case of socialists) are more important.

Likewise, liberals often think that conservatives and socialists are control freaks out to deny their freedom to do whatever they want and live according to their own self-interest, when in fact conservatives and socialists just don't care about individual self-interest; they believe that protecting traditional order (in the case of conservatives) or protecting social and economic equality (in the case of socialists) are more important.

And socialists often think that liberals and conservatives are out to destroy equality, deny people a fair outcome in life and exploit the poor and the working class, when in fact liberals and conservatives just don't care about equality, fair outcomes or notions of exploitation; they believe that individual choice (in the case of liberals) or protecting traditional order (in the case of conservatives) are more important.

Most socialists agree that the ideal society is one where private property does not exist, where wealth is shared equally

Hum, most socialists, AFAIK, consider that a certain amount of "private property" has to exist to protect intimacy of people. What socialists really oppose to is "private property of means of production" ("property" according to Proudhon), but not the fact that you can own your clothes and your bed ("possession" according to Proudhon).

As far as "left-wing" and "right-wing" are concerned, those words mean completely different things in different places at different times,

Well, both come from a very single issue: in 1789, during the French revolution, when the Constitution of what should be at that time a constitutional monarchy was being written, those supported the right of the King to veto any law (the nobility and the catholic church, mostly) seated on the right of the Assembly, while those who opposed the right of the King to veto any law (the merchants and the peasants, mostly) seated on the left of the Assembly. So it was, basically, on opposition between Traditionalists on one side and Individualists/Socialists on the other side, according to your classification.

Then, across time, the "left-wing" usually became the "Socialists" on economical issues. Nowadays, "left-wing" is a mix between Socialism and some part of Individualism, while "right-wing" is a mix between Traditionalism and some part of Individualism.

In regards to the political tests you have been referred to. Pay no attention to them. They are nearly always funded by a right wing think or left wing think tank that tries to deliberately skew your answers to achieve the result they want. "What? I'm a libertarian, I didn't think I was, but I guess so...":rolleyes:

Political Cynic opinion coming. I've edited slightly. My edit is in red.

Liberals generally believe that government should regulate business and ,according to the conservatives, will make the world one non stop orgy of carnal desires, and abortions.

Conservatives generally believe that government should regulate social stuff as they are control freaks. They also believe they should interfere in business to help them and their buddies line their own pockets at the taxpayers expense.

Authoritarians generally believe that the government should regulate both of them as they are the biggest busybodies and control freaks of them all.

Libertarians generally believe that everyone in the world can mystically get along if there is no government. The invisible hand will magically make all the infrastructure work. Private armies and police forces will not be too brutal. It wont degenerate into lawless anarchy.

Centrists generally take a moderate stance on both business and social stuff (hence the name).

Democratic party tends to be (by anything but an American perspective) centrist. Republican party tends to be conservative, nearly to the degree of fascism by non-american perspectives.. Every president since 1853 has been either a democrat or a republican, so the other parties aren't usually taken seriously.

Left = socialist = not represented in US politics. Right = conservative = republican.

-snip-

Fail.

*snip*
Win.

OMG thanks for this short little summary. I have always wondered what some of these terms meant, and I never really knew what left, right etc. meant. So again thank you!

As you can probably see now, that was a little too broad and arguable. Get used to this.

We live in South Dakota, so there is barely any type of extra curicular activities that I am aware of, sadly I am certain that there is no close up as it would be an ineresting program to take part in. Since my family does not subscribe to any type of media, I am forced to go to the library anyways, although I only read the local news paper, so I will try all of the listed.

Thanks for the help guys, keep 'em coming if you have any tips or any type help.

OK. For now, start frequenting the library.

Also, here're some online sources:

Here are the top US newspapers:
http://www.nytimes.com/ - The NYTimes - has a leftyish reputation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ - The Washington Post also has a bit of a lefty reputation, but is pretty centerist
http://online.wsj.com/public/us - the Wall Street Journal - covers business and tends to be righty

Those three are the most influential US newspapers.

Three more influential newspapers:
http://www.latimes.com/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
http://www.csmonitor.com/ (despite it's name, the Christian Science Monitor is a secular paper)

A smattering of good news magazines:

Left/Liberal/Democrat leaning:
http://www.tnr.com/
http://www.theatlantic.com/
http://www.thenation.com/ (probably the leftest of the bunch)
http://www.newyorker.com/
http://www.harpers.org/

Right/Conservative/Republican leaning magazines:
http://www.economist.com/ (British news mag, but cover lots of US topics IMHO, the Economist is the best of the lot)
http://www.spectator.org/
http://www.nationalreview.com/
http://www.nationalinterest.org/ (Mostly international relations)
http://www.amconmag.com/

Some others I read regularly:
http://www.iht.com/ (basically the international edition of the NYTimes)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=0.25&soc=-3.90

Thats apperently where I stand.

I am a bit confused about the results. A conservative liberal? Help, because for some reason those seem a bit contradicting.

Heh. That's pretty close to my own stance.

Oh God politics, just run away while you still can, so many decisions you can make and either one you choose is likely to annoy someone somewhere on the globe.
But yeah the above posts seem to cover it well enough.

But i'd like to mention that politics seems to become less interesting nowadays than it used to be, for example about 50 years ago (UK) there were more Labour politicians who were from a Labour background, now the "new labour" is slipping considerably quickly into the conservative approach (tax cuts etc).

So what i'm trying to say is that increasingly the parties names betray what they actually speak out for, many politicians in the House of Commons for example have been a student at a Oxbridge university, actually limiting political decisions and not really giving people a choice.

As some bills are passed by an opposition vote to the party that's trying to make the bill happen. So yes there is democracy in the UK but is there really? you only get to vote once every 4 years (that from 18-say 98) you get 20 votes that's a drop in the ocean of votes, and the parties you vote for might veer in the opposite direction of their "promises", for various reasons.

So to conclude my non-sourced, opinionated reasoning i'd say you can't trust any politician, there is no real democracy in UK, you make little difference anyway.
By the way i'm probably wrong in some of my reasoning like the "less interesting" bit, or the "bills are passed" bit, but i think i got roughly the right message accross.
Do Not Trust Politicians Or Their Parties.
*runs away*

Watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on Comedy Central.

I'm not kidding.

She really isn't. Despite all the handwringing about what 'side' they support, what they excel at is media criticism, which is to say that they are the most effective critics of how the news is delivered, on how we get information. While they satirize it, they also shine a spotlight on it, and that's well worth the hour four nights a week.

I really see no evidence that US liberals are any more left-wing than mainstream European liberals. Quite the contrary. After all, most European liberal parties support universal health care and a level of taxation and welfare far higher than that advocated by American liberals.
That depends. There are a few real liberal parties: http://wahlkampf.fdp.de/files/363/fdp-chances_of_freedom.pdf

And if you go to Eastern Europe, liberal parties advocate low flat taxes and keeping the state out of the economy, for example in Poland and Estonia.

She really isn't. Despite all the handwringing about what 'side' they support, what they excel at is media criticism, which is to say that they are the most effective critics of how the news is delivered, on how we get information. While they satirize it, they also shine a spotlight on it, and that's well worth the hour four nights a week.
Any form of good satire seems to actually help my understanding of current events. At the very least, it makes it more interesting.

I can tell you from personal experience that wikipedia is just about the worst place in the world for a political beginner to get his information from. Why? Because most politics-related articles on wikipedia are biased - some very much so - but the direction of the bias is random and sometimes changes several times within the same article, because the article had more than one author.
But, if you are 17 and until have never been interested in interesting forms of capital punishment involving elephants or towns in Austria with dirty names, look no further!

Hey, I actually agree with this descrition. A good canidate/party would likely be...
Most likely a moderate Democrat. The Dems are more likely to have liberal social views, and since it's the US you're unlikely to get actual socialists or the like as presidential candidates. Even though you wouldn't think it sometimes with the way the US media portrays things, the Democrats are actually a fairly centrist bunch, at least on economic issues. The only questions where they lean more to the left than right are healthcare (and I don't actually think a socialised system could be any worse than the mess they have right now), free trade (it's quite popular for the Dems at the moment to woo voters by bitching about globalisation and jobs going overseas, which they don't really) and the mortgage crisis (where they're more likely to be calling for bail-outs for the home owners and regulations on the lenders). Other than that they're in principle committed to the market economy.

Obama seems less socially conservative than Hillary, and I'm not sure about Edwards. Wikipedia, bias claims aside, lists political views on all the candidates, so it might be a good place to look - otherwise the campaigns of course have their own websites.

A conservative economic bailouts, is giving $100 million to 1 person. A socialist economic bailout involves giving that same money to hundreds of thousands of people.

If you haven't worked out yet, I am to the left wing of politics, and see the right wing of politics as a function designed purely to keep the rich in power and privilege at the expense of the poor. You can't have rich, without poor.

A conservative economic bailouts, is giving $100 million to 1 person.
No one is going to censor or debate your views in this thread, but given that we're trying to help someone understand politics, please try and stick to good definitions. There is nothing particularly conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative) about what you describe.

Indeed, it is feasible for a conservatively-minded person to favour things like the welfare state and generally left-leaning economic policies. It's common in continental Europe and Scandinavia, where the tradition happens to be some sort of heavily regulated and socially-minded economic system.

Watch the news. Honostly that'll get you well-informed. I personally watch ABC World News every night. I also like BBC World News which I can catch on the PBS station. Look into shows that are focused just on politics. This week with George Stephonopolis, wtc. Also I like Bill Moyers Journal. Try that off for starters.

Hello, I am 17 years old and untill recently politics were of no intrest to me, untill I started playing this game. :) Of course there are many other factors as well.

Anyways, what is the best way to learn about U.S. politics, or politics in general (government types etc.) Enough so that if I could vote I could make an almost intillegible one.

Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!
Well an internet education is the best way to decide what you really think politically, but don't be surprised that your opinion will constantly change the more you view, the best way is just not to get pinned down on any one view - read as much as possible and then decide.

Someone's probably already said this, but you could start by reading A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn.

Political Cynic opinion coming. I've edited slightly. My edit is in red.
You exhibit a strong leftist bias, but some of what you say is correct.
Liberals generally believe that government should regulate business and ,according to the conservatives, will make the world one non stop orgy of carnal desires, and abortions.
This is a good description of right-wing alarmism regarding permissive social policies, but you've ignored the similar suggestion that Liberal business policy will stifle innovation and wealth creation, forcing everyone to be equally poor. No one falls behind, because everyone is kept equally far behind all of the time.
Conservatives generally believe that government should regulate social stuff as they are control freaks. They also believe they should interfere in business to help them and their buddies line their own pockets at the taxpayers expense.
I can't fault that. The modern Republican party does seem to be interested not in a free market, but in the integration of capitalist interests with the machinery of government. They have, for the most part, succeeded, so much so that even the Democrats are in the pockets of big business (often the same ones).
Authoritarians generally believe that the government should regulate both of them as they are the biggest busybodies and control freaks of them all.
No complaint there.
Libertarians generally believe that everyone in the world can mystically get along if there is no government. The invisible hand will magically make all the infrastructure work. Private armies and police forces will not be too brutal. It wont degenerate into lawless anarchy.
Well, not quite. Libertarians often seem to think that those least able to compete in a completely free society will be pushed aside and left behind, but that's okay because they weren't productive. The work of Ayn Rand would be informative on this point.
Centrists generally take a moderate stance on both business and social stuff (hence the name).
Mostly I think this means they can't decide or they're too worried about what people might think of them if they actually held an opinion they didn't know was already held by most everyone they'd ever met.
Democratic party tends to be (by anything but an American perspective) centrist.
True.
Republican party tends to be conservative, nearly to the degree of fascism by non-american perspectives..
No. Prior to 2001, I don't think the level of interference in people's everyday lives was as high as it is (and was) in most of Europe.

Watch the news. Honostly that'll get you well-informed. I personally watch ABC World News every night. I also like BBC World News which I can catch on the PBS station. Look into shows that are focused just on politics. This week with George Stephonopolis, wtc. Also I like Bill Moyers Journal. Try that off for starters.

For the most part I strongly disagree. As I posted earlier: top line magazines > top line newspapers > regional newspapers and average magazines > radio news > TV news > USA Today.

The primary thing most TV news programs are good for is breaking news and the occasional story in which the visual element is important - speeches and that sort of thing. Print media (including the internet) is vastly superior, as it gives a fuller and more in depth understanding of the stories than the TV news. While there are some good TV news programs, even the good ones need to be watched with a grounding that comes from reading the print media widely.

Get out of politics while you still have faith in humanity! Quick young one, before you end up like us!
What he said. ^ ^ ^

Run and don't look back! ;)

No one is going to censor or debate your views in this thread, but given that we're trying to help someone understand politics, please try and stick to good definitions. There is nothing particularly conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative) about what you describe.

I guess it's a case of looking at purist language versus common usage. These days, when people say conservative, they generally mean pro corporate. Active actions to help corporate interests.

The purist, old world usage was, just let everything work, with as little governmental influence as possible. Government runs as little as it can. Justice, defence, critical infastructure, nothing else.

Alos, I think our target audience is American, so we should focus on common usage in American. I'm actually Australian, but I keep a close eye on American politics.

These days, when people say conservative, they generally mean pro corporate.
An incorrect sweeping generalisation.

Alos, I think our target audience is American, so we should focus on common usage in American. I'm actually Australian, but I keep a close eye on American politics.

You think wrong. There are more non-US posters on here.

An incorrect sweeping generalisation.

Indeed, indeed.

You think wrong. There are more non-US posters on here.

Seeing as the OPer is from the US (South Dakota to be specific) and the OP question was "what is the best way to learn about U.S. politics, or politics in general (government types etc.) (e)nough so that if I could vote I could make an almost intillegible one(?)", it doesn't really matter to the question at hand how many non-US posters there are. Of course a bit of internationalism is helpful, but Fish is right - if the question is how one goes about learning aenough about US politics to vote intelligently, then the focus should be on the US.

It really depends upon how much you really want to know about politics and, more importantly, if you want to know more than just the basic trenches and actually have an understanding of politics in general as such and ultimatively an indepenendt mind, then I'd recommend you to read the heavy stuff.
Stuff like Macchiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Kant as examples for some of the older stuff, and then on to things like the Manifest, Keynes, Milton, Hayek etc.
And yes, that's going to take awhile, but if can't ( or won't ) do that, theres a shorter way to enlightenment: Just do what Bottle said.



ALL HAIL COLBERT!

An incorrect sweeping generalisation.

We are labelling political definitions. Conservative, Liberal, etc. They are generalisations. :rolleyes: If you think the sweeping gerenalisation I have appplied is wrong, please say why. In my experience, when people say conservative, they nearly always means pro corporate.