It’s interesting that while you say you find this “debate” a waste of time, you continue to comment in this thread. I don’t consider this a debate really, nor do I consider it a waste of time. Discussing the importance/non-importance of political labels doesn’t need to be a partisan spat.

Let me make my point in different terms:

I recommend a restaurant to my wife on date night. She says “What kind of food do they serve?”

“What a dumb question,” I respond. “I’d like to avoid labels. It’s food.”

“Yeah, but I’d like to have some clue as to what I’ll be eating there.”

“It’s good food. That’s what kind. I could say ‘Mexican,’ but that would be a waste of time because there’s Tex-Mex, Fresh-Mex, Southwestern, Baja, Traditional. What good would labeling it do you?”

Do you see what I mean? There may be nuance in each political category, but the label does serve as a general idea of somebody’s politics. It’s not perfect, but it’s not a waste of time. If I were to come to you and say “vote for this guy.” You’d probably want to know a bit about what he believes before you commit, right? “He’s pro-life,” I tell you. Well, statistically you can bet he also agrees with the basic tenets of modern conservatism. And you’d probably reject him outright, no?

My point is that the labels are a conveniently lazy way to categorize people. I’m not saint here either. I’ve used these terms, especially when I feel like a certain person fits the bill.

One thing I admire about Obama is that he thinks debates on things like this (like ours) are pretty much a waste of time. As a result, he rejects anyone putting a label on him or his politics.

Yeah, pretty much. Today’s average Democratic member of Congress is much more likely to be a modern liberal than the average Democratic voter.

“Is it considered conservative to spend $1.6 billion on programs designed to teach abstinence-only sex education because it has mostly republican support? (which, btw, do not work)”

By my definition (and the definition think tanks and polling companies regularly operate under) your example is morally conservative but fiscally liberal.

No offense, Nikki, but if you’re attempting to refute the claims I’ve made here, please take them head-on and back up your claims. I think I’ve made some valid points. Go ahead, refute them. Don’t just lob drive-by’s.

If you’ll notice, I took your comment, agreed with one part of it, and thoroughly argued against the other. Please at least put up a good fight.

Is it considered conservative to spend $1.6 billion on programs designed to teach abstinence-only sex education because it has mostly republican support? (which, btw, do not work)

Derek, I’m not sure what you’re responding to here.

“I’m not chosing my positions because they come under the banner of liberalism, but rather I’m taking the label of liberal because the things people and groups on the liberal side of the spectrum stand for fits my personal ideology.”

I’m assuming here that you’re responding to my last sentence, which I should have worded differently. What I meant to say was not that people choose positions based on what banner it’s under. I’m saying that while generic, the ‘L’ and ‘C’ labels are usually correct. You call yourself a liberal. Well, I can reasonably bet that you happen to agree with most of the basic liberal tenets.

I actually think personal political worldviews have physiological roots- as in I think conservatives’ and liberals’ brains actually interpret the world differently in a scientific sense. Sure, there are a lot of people who aren’t so polarized, but when it comes down to it, most people- if they really look inside themselves- will find themselves agreeing with the basics of one political ideology or another.

When somebody is labeled “liberal,” they usually do take a liberal positions on the basic issues. Same thing the other way.

This is all subjective, of course. Derek takes some positions that I hardly consider “liberal” at all, at least in the classical sense. Derek is characteristic of modern ideologues (and I’m an ideologue- I’m not knocking it) that apply a label to themselves based more on their interpretation of modern issues and less on classical political theory.

In a nutshell, what matters is what people THINK is liberal or conservative.

The organization conducting the study ranked votes as liberal or conservative based on polling data that reflects the current definitions of those labels in most voters’ minds. Ergo, if a certain position is almost universally held by liberals, though whether it’s truly liberal or conservative ideologically is up for debate, the position was considered liberal.

“For example, being in favor of the 9-11 commission was considered a liberal position.”

That statement is lazy at best, Nikki.

This study is done annually, and there was no vote covered by this study for simply being “in favor of the 9-11 commission.” The only vote this year having anything to do with the 9-11 Commission was Senate bill S-4, which was sponsored by Harry Reid.

As far as I can tell (the thing is about 1000 pages long), Republicans objected to it mainly because it essentially codified the 9/11 Commission into law, when parts of the commission report and recommendations were still disputed. Democrats wanted to implement the recommendations as-is in a lump sum, while Republicans wanted to hold out for a debate on the merits of remaining recommendations individually.

The bill passed 60-38. All but 12 ‘aye’ votes were Democrats.

So there’s a lot of bullcrap to sift through still, but the fact remains that for whatever reason, the only members of Congress who voted for this bill were liberals. It was therefore classified as a liberal issue in National Journal’s study.