Political Crossfire Forums

We use two very broad terms to describe people's political stance relative to the "center" ("center" itself may be a loose term). In your experience, are these terms generally sufficient for you to describe someone's politics or do you believe they're too broad? For me, they are generally sufficient.

Are we talking political stance on a particular issue or political stance on issues overall?

It's not that they're too broad, they're just entirely inaccurate at this point.

"Conservatives" bear no resemblance to the conservatism that existed prior to the 2000s and "liberal" simply means anybody who's not in the GOP. Or something that's done that the GOP doesn't like, unless they're doing it, when it's suddenly not "liberal" anymore.

Yes, those terms are insufficient to describe someone's political stance

Most conservatives are liberals in that they subscribe to the rugged individualism of the progressive social gospel and classically liberal LTV.

Most liberals are conservatives in that they advocate a slow, relaxed, well-mannered lifestyle before accepting others into their social circles.

There's very little philosophy in modern political debate, just demagoguery.

Any bipolic measurement of politics, even mainstream politics is retarded.

I'd say they are both too broad AND used inaccurately.

Well the major conflict in society is between those who believe individuals should have equal access to society's wealth and those who believe individuals should have varying levels of access based on rank and privilege.

A bipolic dichotomy is sufficient to express this idea.

As a man who considers himself a liberal conservative, I'd say they aren't even mutually exclusive.

So yes, they are too broad.

The terms are insufficient to reflect all the opinions. I don't agree with everything but am stuck with the current choices.