Exhausted Majority: US Politically Made Up of Seven Tribes - Progressive Activists Tribe Make Up 8%

RealityForAll said:

LOST said:
In my opinion being an "activist" or being "devoted" are positives. Who are the movers and shakers? Who are the great leaders?
Further, should positions on issues not be evaluated on their merits? 

I would instead say:  positions on issues should be evaluated based on principles advanced and diminished (rather than are the ends good).  I am extremely suspicious/cynical of ends-justify-the-means analysis (government torture, drone strikes and government surveillance all have been justified in this manner).

The ends generally don't justify the means in the cases you've cited. Have they been used that way? Yes. But the "ends" used to justify these were propaganda. 

I took the quiz a few days ago and it slotted me in the "Progressive Activist" category, which, sure I guess, but it feels like an odd fit. I never "caught the bern" and in general have more confidence in reformers than revolutionaries. But maybe slicing up political tribes by temperament gives you different results than doing so by position.

Going by positions, though, I do wonder if my answers around what I guess you might term "identity politics" are what slotted me farther left than I'd self-identify. Which, I think, raises some questions about the embedded biases in these questions. 

For instance, with a question like "These days it seems the rights of Black and Brown people are more protected than the rights of White people," it seems there's an implied audience for this question, no? I think the percentage of people who identify as "Black and Brown" and who would agree with this question are vanishingly small -- not because of ideology or political positioning, but simply by virtue of lived experience. A person identifying as white who takes racism seriously is "left." A person identifying as black or brown who takes racism seriously is -- also left? Even though in the latter case that's less a political act than a simple acknowledgment of lived reality?  Who, exactly, are terms like "moderate," "conservative" and "left" calibrated in relation to?

 RealityForAll said:
I would instead say:  positions on issues should be evaluated based on principles advanced and diminished (rather than are the ends good). 

 I would instead say: positions on issues should be evaluated based on their actual effect on people. 

Take the health care debates -- I've seen plenty of libertarians and conservatives argue that the ACA infringes upon personal liberty, but the practical effect of their positions is make it harder for people to afford health care. It may well be true that regulations prohibiting charging people with pre-existing conditions more diminishes freedom in some abstract sense, but people live in the concrete physical world, not the abstract one of ideas.

PVW and readers of the Black Agenda Report article, what do you make of the black percentages on the wings?

(As it happens, the white representation in the study was inflated by about 9 percentage points, or about 15 percent.)

PVW said:

 RealityForAll said:
I would instead say:  positions on issues should be evaluated based on principles advanced and diminished (rather than are the ends good). 

 I would instead say: positions on issues should be evaluated based on their actual effect on people. 
Take the health care debates -- I've seen plenty of libertarians and conservatives argue that the ACA infringes upon personal liberty, but the practical effect of their positions is make it harder for people to afford health care. It may well be true that regulations prohibiting charging people with pre-existing conditions more diminishes freedom in some abstract sense, but people live in the concrete physical world, not the abstract one of ideas.

The problem is that libertarian/conservative notions of principles such as freedom are one-dimensional and simplistic, and, ultimately, simply selfish.

What good is "freedom" if in the end you die from a disease which could have easily been dealt with if you could have afforded healthcare. It's obviously a shortsighted approach to advocating policy.

Also, the notion of elevating principles above ends has similar problems. The "end" of a principle is as much a part of the principle as the principle itself. You can't have a principle and pretend that it doesn't affect an outcome. There's always an "end". And if your principle produces an undesirable end, your principle has a problem.

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

 RealityForAll said:
I would instead say:  positions on issues should be evaluated based on principles advanced and diminished (rather than are the ends good). 

 I would instead say: positions on issues should be evaluated based on their actual effect on people. 
Take the health care debates -- I've seen plenty of libertarians and conservatives argue that the ACA infringes upon personal liberty, but the practical effect of their positions is make it harder for people to afford health care. It may well be true that regulations prohibiting charging people with pre-existing conditions more diminishes freedom in some abstract sense, but people live in the concrete physical world, not the abstract one of ideas.

The problem is that libertarian/conservative notions of principles such as freedom are one-dimensional and simplistic, and, ultimately, simply selfish.
What good is "freedom" if in the end you die from a disease which could have easily been dealt with if you could have afforded healthcare. It's obviously a shortsighted approach to advocating policy.

Also, the notion of elevating principles above ends has similar problems. The "end" of a principle is as much a part of the principle as the principle itself. You can't have a principle and pretend that it doesn't affect an outcome. There's always an "end". And if your principle produces an undesirable end, your principle has a problem.

 and there are also the questions of what to do when you hold principles that are in conflict with one another, and how deeply some of the principles are held.  I may have a strongly held principle that racism and bigotry are wrong and should be combated, but that bumps up against my equally strongly held principle that people have a right to express bigoted hatred.

The notion that people must be guided solely by principle is a simplistic, rigid, one-dimensional view of a complicated world.  

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

 RealityForAll said:
I would instead say:  positions on issues should be evaluated based on principles advanced and diminished (rather than are the ends good). 

 I would instead say: positions on issues should be evaluated based on their actual effect on people. 
Take the health care debates -- I've seen plenty of libertarians and conservatives argue that the ACA infringes upon personal liberty, but the practical effect of their positions is make it harder for people to afford health care. It may well be true that regulations prohibiting charging people with pre-existing conditions more diminishes freedom in some abstract sense, but people live in the concrete physical world, not the abstract one of ideas.

The problem is that libertarian/conservative notions of principles such as freedom are one-dimensional and simplistic, and, ultimately, simply selfish.
What good is "freedom" if in the end you die from a disease which could have easily been dealt with if you could have afforded healthcare. It's obviously a shortsighted approach to advocating policy.

Also, the notion of elevating principles above ends has similar problems. The "end" of a principle is as much a part of the principle as the principle itself. You can't have a principle and pretend that it doesn't affect an outcome. There's always an "end". And if your principle produces an undesirable end, your principle has a problem.

 Isn't that what a constitution is for, to elevate principles above ends?

RealityForAll said:

 Isn't that what a constitution is for, to elevate principles above ends?

 This reads to me more like a list of "ends" than a statement of principle:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

DaveSchmidt said:
(As it happens, the white representation in the study was inflated by about 9 percentage points, or about 15 percent.)

 I think this results in more quiz participants who are deemed to be Progressive Activists or Devoted Conservatives.  Thereby, slightly inflating the percentage of Progressive Activists or Devoted Conservatives (the two groups that are percentagewise comprised of the most whites).  Let me know if you agree with my analysis.  It also affects the other five tribes (I have focused on the two tribes with the greatest effect).

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Isn't that what a constitution is for, to elevate principles above ends?

 This reads to me more like a list of "ends" than a statement of principle:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Your list of "ends" is more commonly referred to as the Preamble to the Constitution.  In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (see citation and excerpt below), the  Court opines upon the meaning and power of the Preamble.  The Court states that the Preamble indicates general purposes but concludes that the [Constitution] "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

=========================================================

Excerpt from Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):

See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/#tab-opinion-1921099

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments [emphasis added]. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story's Const. § 462.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Isn't that what a constitution is for, to elevate principles above ends?

 This reads to me more like a list of "ends" than a statement of principle:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Your list of "ends" is more commonly referred to as the Preamble to the Constitution.  In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (see citation and excerpt below), the  Court opines upon the meaning and power of the Preamble.  The Court states that the Preamble indicates general purposes but concludes that the [Constitution] "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
=================================

that's exactly what I meant.  It indicates "general purposes" -- ends.

sprout said:

LOST said:

dave23 said:
Which statement do you agree with more?
- Government should take more responsibility to ensure that everyone is provided for
- People should take more responsibility to provide for themselves

 Am I allowed to answer "neither" or "both"?

No -- because it's an annoying binary forced choice question which is designed for quick classifications, not for accuracy. 

 Ha.  Like political choice in general.

All I said was that a position should be evaluated on its "merits". That is, not on who is taking the position or what "tribe" it falls into, but the merits, which can include, principles, goals, means and methods.

 If I take the position that Global Warming results to a great extent from human activity my position should be evaluated based on facts. What measures should be taken to combat Global Warming is something else, and should be evaluated based on principles and pragmatics. 

lord_pabulum said:

 Ha.  Like political choice in general.

 Which statement do you agree with more?

- Beto O'Rourke would make a good Senator

-Beto O'Rourke would make a good President.

ml1 said:
Here's the issue I have with this segmentation. I knew I'd be in the 8% "extreme" group of "progressive activists."  I guess I'm an "activist" because I made a donation to an advocacy group, and I attended a political meeting.  But I'm a guy living in an upper middle class neighborhood.  I'm not against capitalism, and I'm not against a society that has wealthy people.  I don't believe that we should legislate equal outcomes.
But I do think we should have a social safety net more like European countries, and I think we should have affordable health care, affordable higher education, and decent retirement income.  People who work should have a living wage.
If all that makes me an "extremist," there's something wrong with the tool that came up with that conclusion.

I think we are of the same opinion regarding this quiz because I am in agreement with the ideas above yet because I chose the self reliance answers over government involvement, I'm a 57-year-old woman from Mississippi, Traditional Conservative.  Below is their analysis with my comments.

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Isn't that what a constitution is for, to elevate principles above ends?

 This reads to me more like a list of "ends" than a statement of principle:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Your list of "ends" is more commonly referred to as the Preamble to the Constitution.  In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (see citation and excerpt below), the  Court opines upon the meaning and power of the Preamble.  The Court states that the Preamble indicates general purposes but concludes that the [Constitution] "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
=================================

that's exactly what I meant.  It indicates "general purposes" -- ends.

 "General purposes" is too vague for my liking.  My take on the Preamble is that is an aspirational document.  Further, the Preamble lacks nuance.  The Preamble makes no distinction between fundamental rights and aspirational goals such as forming a more perfect union, insuring Domestic Tranquility, etc.

PVW said:
I took the quiz a few days ago and it slotted me in the "Progressive Activist" category, which, sure I guess, but it feels like an odd fit. I never "caught the bern" and in general have more confidence in reformers than revolutionaries. But maybe slicing up political tribes by temperament gives you different results than doing so by position.
Going by positions, though, I do wonder if my answers around what I guess you might term "identity politics" are what slotted me farther left than I'd self-identify. Which, I think, raises some questions about the embedded biases in these questions. 
For instance, with a question like "These days it seems the rights of Black and Brown people are more protected than the rights of White people," it seems there's an implied audience for this question, no? I think the percentage of people who identify as "Black and Brown" and who would agree with this question are vanishingly small -- not because of ideology or political positioning, but simply by virtue of lived experience. A person identifying as white who takes racism seriously is "left." A person identifying as black or brown who takes racism seriously is -- also left? Even though in the latter case that's less a political act than a simple acknowledgment of lived reality?  Who, exactly, are terms like "moderate," "conservative" and "left" calibrated in relation to?

In this survey, 27% of black and Latinos agreed that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks.  The percentage of whites who feel that way is 48%.

It is also surprising, but black Democrats today have more conservative views on race than white liberals and are less likely to see racism as the primary factor in maintaining racial inequality.

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/11/07/economy/white-millennials-attitudes-discrimination-people-color

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/democrat-electorate-left-turn.html

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Isn't that what a constitution is for, to elevate principles above ends?

 This reads to me more like a list of "ends" than a statement of principle:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Your list of "ends" is more commonly referred to as the Preamble to the Constitution.  In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (see citation and excerpt below), the  Court opines upon the meaning and power of the Preamble.  The Court states that the Preamble indicates general purposes but concludes that the [Constitution] "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
=================================

that's exactly what I meant.  It indicates "general purposes" -- ends.

 "General purposes" is too vague for my liking.  My take on the Preamble is that is an aspirational document.  Further, the Preamble lacks nuance.  The Preamble makes no distinction between fundamental rights and aspirational goals such as forming a more perfect union, insuring Domestic Tranquility, etc.

My take on the Preamble is also that it is meant as "majestic generalities" that are contradicted by other sections of the Constitution.  Even aside from the Constitution's protection of slavery, the Preamble contradicts the rest of the Constitution by referring to "we the people," but then conferring a great deal of authority over the federal government onto states themselves.  It is state legislatures who ratify a constitutional amendment, state electors who elect the president, states who have the theoretical power to hold an Article V convention, and, originally, state legislatures who elected Senators.

The contradictions in state constitutions between preambles and the actual constitution are wider, since several state constitutions mention God and yet they all establish secular governments and a majority outright prohibit any financial support for religious agencies in Blaine Amendments.

For instance, this is the preamble to NJ's constitution.  

     "We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution."  (note, NJ doesn't have a Blaine amendment, but the NJ Constitution expressively prohibits giving money to repair a church or pay a minister.)

I find the idea that constitutional questions should be grounded in the Preamble to be worrisome, because absolutely anything could be required under a governmental duty to "promote the general welfare."

https://medium.com/s/thenewnew/its-time-for-a-progressive-reading-of-the-constitution-87c648d51a15

dave23 said:
I don't know that we were ever "together." Everything is louder today because of TV and the internet, but I don't think political opinions are all that different than any other time.

 Sure we were! Back when like 60 or 70% of the country had zero input. 

What % have input today?

Huge turnout for Midterms, but did it even break 50%?

Runner_Guy said:
In this survey, 27% of black and Latinos agreed that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks.  The percentage of whites who feel that way is 48%.
It is also surprising, but black Democrats today have more conservative views on race than white liberals and are less likely to see racism as the primary factor in maintaining racial inequality.

That is a great example of how a poorly constructed survey renders questionable results.  Someone reading that particular item might interpret it as follows:   "Gee...I guess I am being asked whether one type of discrimination is worse than another?  Well, I think any act of discrimination is a problem so my response is "No"...one is not worse than another."   

However, another person may read the item and think: "Gee...I guess I'm being asked whether I think there are as many instances of discrimination against whites as there are against blacks?  Well, I don't know but my guess is that there are more acts of discrimination against blacks so my answer is "Yes".

And, as another poster pointed out, forced choice dichotomous responses have questionable reliability.  A respondent might lean one way or another but forcing that person into a choice with which he/she is not entirely comfortable is problematic.  Their response depends on the day.  Ask them next week and their response could be 100% different. Had the researchers relied on a likert/sliding scale, not only would reliability/consistency be improved but the responses  might better reflect the reality that most of us fall somewhere in between on most of the items.