Americans, mostly women, are becoming more liberal: Gallup
American political ideology as a whole has shifted left in recent years, but women are becoming even more liberal, according to Gallup.
The survey data, released Wednesday, shows that while the country remains largely center-right, the percentage of those identifying as or leaning liberal has increased over the past three decades, and is now just 1 percent under it’s all-time high.
Roughly 36 percent of adults identify as conservative, 25 percent as liberal and the rest identify as either moderate or unsure, according to the poll.
When broken down by gender ideology, women in the youngest and oldest age groups said they were more likely to identify as liberal.
Women ages 18-29 were 40 percent more likely to be liberal in 2023, a slight decrease from 41 percent in 2022 and 44 percent in 2020, but still higher than the 30 percent in 2013. Those ages 65 and older were 25 percent more likely to identify as liberal — a slight increase from the 21 percent reported in 2013.
Weird, it's almost like electing the pussy grabber in chief turned women off from the Republican party. Strange how that happened. There's also the whole Roe vs. Wade thing literally killing women.
Roe versus Wade is not literally killing women. Hyperbole of the century.
Yeah, and what do you call a high risk pregnancy that would normally have ended in abortion? Now women are forced to carry the pregnancy (viable or otherwise) to term putting their health and lives at risk.
Educate yourself on what’s going on before spouting nonsense.
But that's LACK of Roe v Wade! Checkmate or something, lib!
There should be exceptions for when the mother's health is at risk.
Except there isn't, therefore, the repeal of Roe v Wade is, literally, killing women.
There are in many states.
And yet, doctors are still concerned because shit is too vague, so they just... don't do them for any reason.
That's on the doctors and I think it's political in nature rather than as you described. I'm skeptical that this actually happens frequently.
That's fine, but the facts don't really care about your feelings.
It's almost like this was a healthcare decision. That should have been left between doctors and their patients. Not a bunch of balding fascists.
I'm sorry but that's in no way an objective source. On this particular social issue, that's like citing Fox News. I'll take some local news website or something that lists that sources or best of all the scientific study on the reluctance of doctors to perform abortions.
But I will not accept an NPR editorial on abortion as evidence.
Also that slogan is not as pithy as you think. Lol. Kind of makes you sound like a wine mom.
Oh wow, what's this? Is the NPR article linking sources, and to a local news website no less? Wild. But if you won't accept an NPR article, would you accept an interview on PBS?
Or a guardian article (linking a study by the New England Journal of Medicine)?
Or a CNN article citing a study published in the American Journal of Gynecology?
Or a Texas Tribune article?
Or a Fox News article?
Or a second Fox News article?
Does it matter what the source is? Do you even care?
Jesus Christ that was incredibly well cited. That's a top tier comment if I've ever seen one, amazing work.
If you just search "doctor roe v wade abortion", most of these articles are the results on the first page. Econgrad is being disingenuous about what sources they're willing to accept, so I just googled it for them in way fewer words than it took to lie about why they wouldn't take the NPR article.
Why won’t you accept an NPR article?
Follow-up: what is your understanding of the definition of the word “editorial”?
So you want to legislate but don't want any responsibility for your legislation? Why would anybody give a shit about what you think?
It is happening constantly. These laws don't define what they mean when they say the mother's life is at risk, so doctors wait until women are on death's doorstep because otherwise they can be charged with a crime.
Pro-lifers don't actually think about the consequences of their vague ass laws. Women ARE dying because of the repeal of RvW and it isn't their fault, or the doctors', it's the climate of fear that was intentionally created by the extremists who support this bullshit.
Sure you waved your fingers so it magically happened so. Fuck reality right?
One in 3,000 women die from pregnancy or birth complications in the US each year.
Making women remain pregnant inevitably causes deaths.
There should be exceptions for genuine medical life-threatening reasons for abortion. But that represents less than 1% of all abortions.
They're separate arguments from your original claim that RvW is not life threatening.
And while risk of death is fortunately relatively low in the US, it's only one of the many negative consequences of the repeal.
Many women survive the birth only to be inflicted with any one of a range of physical medical issues, including life long disability and chronic pain.
There's also deep mental issues that arise.
Likewise, there are the potential negative health concerns for the baby to consider.
On top of that, there's all the many socio-economic problems.
I'm not saying there are easy answers to all this, but I'm not minimizing the issues either.
Econgrad's goalpost shifting is shameless.
Because it's not. It's extremist state governments that are doing that not the repeal of Roe versus Wade. I attacked the statement because it is a ridiculous statement. The repeal of Roe vs Wade is not killing women.
It's not like roe versus Wade automatically equals total abortion bans.
Most pro-life people accept and support exceptions like rape, incest or when the mother's health is at risk. It's only a small minority of pro-life people that don't believe there should ever be any exceptions. You're literally arguing against a straw man.
It doesn't matter what the majority wants in regards to your claim of no deaths. That's just unfullfilled hopes and wishes.
We're talking about the reality right now. And the reality is that the repeal has directly given the "extremists" the power to cause more maternal deaths, as you just acknowledged.
Again, you're talking about different issues.
Pro-life itself is anti-freedom. I think pro-lifers should be denied representation in government. If you have a problem with that then you're just hypocritical. Its the same as not allowing women to have determination over their own bodies.
I actually think you shouldn't be allowed to vote; Just like you think women can't make determinations about their own bodies and somehow you have more care and wisdom than licensed doctors.
If you have a problem with that you're a hypocrite.
A friend of mine was hospitalized due to a pregnancy complication. Fortunately we live in a state where abortion is still legal so they were able to perform an emergency abortion and save her life. She was still hospitalized for a week. If we lived in one of several states where it's not legal she would have died, no question. The doctor literally told her so. So no, it's not hyperbole, it has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as abortions are illegal.
There should always be exceptions for legitimate health issues or when rape or incest result in pregnancy. But that represents 15% or so of all abortions. Most people who are pro-life agree that there should be exceptions for these things. There's only a very small amount of people that are hardcore fanatics who reject abortion for any reason whatsoever, they're just very very loud.
My problem with pro-lifers is you're all just content to pretend to be the mouth-piece for babies because somehow you think you know better than the person who is carrying said baby.
Conservatives' advocacy for preserving life rings hollow when it's clear they will actively oppose policies beyond birth, like free lunch programs for kids in schools, debt forgiveness for students, and proper sex education with use of contraceptives.
It's clear the real goal is to birth future laborers and christian missionaries. Your entire position on pro-life is actually a desperate attempt to preserve a dying religion. You're devoid of the kindness and love taught by your own God.
I have no respect for people who pretend to care about preserving life.
First respect women, then you can respect their fetus: https://midwest.social/post/8438167
It doesn't matter if there should be exceptions because the reality is that in many states today there are no exceptions. Furthermore questions about who decides what constitutes a "legitimate health issue" or not make many doctors in states where there are exceptions hesitant to perform abortions even in cases where they believe it's in the patients best interest out of fear that it would be deemed not medically necessary after the fact. Even in cases where doctors know a pregnancy is non-viable they delay aborting it until the mother is in critical condition just so that there's no question that it was an emergency.
Show me these exceptions.
Did we make them Ohio for that ten year old? Are we making them in Texas? Cox was a privileged white lady with means to try the system and ability to seek treatment elsewhere. Do you think people with less will be better advocates for themselves? Apply some goddamn logic.
You seem to love this idea about the way the world should work to the extent you ignore how it actually runs. Show me the test that indicates a pregnancy is a product of rape. Or will the woman have to wait until the sentencing? (You do understand many many rapes are never reported?) Birth control fails! A big swath of abortions are from married women with kids who just want to best provide for the families they have. So to 'save' a fetus we condemn other kids? How does that make any sense to you? Arguments to deny reproductive autonomy are completely illogical.
Who woulda thought that taking away women's rights for their own bodies would have blowback?
They're probably just about now realizing they should have taken away the right to vote first, the right to self-determination second. Rookie mistake.
These people don't see women as people, so I'm sure they're shocked.
According to the recent Financial Times article, it isn't just the US. This is a global phenomenon so it is more than abortion.
Your rights end where another person's rights begin. An unborn child is a person. And when you have to weigh a trolley problem when the mother's health is in life-threatening risk it's a serious thing that you have to consider. Abortion should be legal for situations where the mother's health is in literal life-threatening risk but even then it's a very serious choice.
Even if we grant you your invalid position, you are still wrong. So close. You claim the unborn person has rights, but so did the mother.
In no legal jurisdiction in the United States is one person ever required to give up their bodily autonomy for another. This the mother, according to your argument, is under no legal obligation to provide the other person, according to your argument, the mothers body for any reason. If the mother wishes to discontinue the use of her body she can. If the other person dies as a result of this decision, the mother bears no responsibility.
This is well understood case law and common law.
GTFO with this terrible argument.
It doesn't matter what the law is. Laws can and should be changed when they're unjust.
You're fundamentally radical and not living on planet Earth that you think this way about pregnancy. It's the product of a degenerate and corrupt life you've lived that has allowed you to justify unjustifiable immorality.
In other words you've burned your conscience to a crisp through your vices.
It's an abominable position you put forward. You are wholly given over to vice and darkness and sin.
A fetus is not a person its a collection of cells. It's not up to you to weigh any problem. It's up to the woman and their doctor.
A human is not a person it's a collection of cells.
See how ridiculously reductionist that sounds? And it's absolutely up to me because I vote and I live in a society that is a democracy. I will vote on issues that matter to me. And you can do the same. So if you want to support policies that murder inconvenient children, most of which are black by the way which is very racist of you, then that's your choice but I'm not going to support that with my vote or publically in the town square.
It is a scientific fact. Yo're going to vote to see what my daughter's future might be? I think not.
Stating that a collection of cells is not a human being is not a fact.
Human beings are indeed collections of cells.
A human being is a collection of cells with self awareness. People have varr6ing degrees of self awareness as you've displayed
So people who are in comas are no longer human beings?
What about people who are asleep?
What about people who are being put under for surgery?
I think your definition of human being is bad.
Ever hear of Terri Schivo? Brain dead, but peo0le like you decided .... neverind, it's not worth it.
I'm simply making fun of your ridiculous definition of a human being. You're arguing in bad faith so why should I try to argue back in good faith?
I don't care to argue. Fetuses are not people. A heartbeat s not life. You are not the judge of other people's medical needs unless you are a doctor which you are obviously not.
You don't care to argue and then you make statements that invite argument.
Okay I won't argue with you. You're wrong.
There, that's the end of it.
You realize this is where Democrats fundamentally disagree with you, right?
Not all Democrats, only a minority. And I'm not really a Democrat anyway I'm a Christian socialist.
It's a majority.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/05/06/wide-partisan-gaps-in-abortion-attitudes-but-opinions-in-both-parties-are-complicated/
That depends entirely on you phrase those questions. The pro-life versus pro-choice debate has wildly varying response rates based on how the questions are phrased.
True. Also depends heavily on how far along this hypothetical pregnancy is. But in general, most democrats agree, fetuses are not people, at least not until they can survive outside the womb.
Well then I disagree with most Democrats on that.
Ah, a Christian. That explains your inane comments.
Christianity is a disease
I’m not normally one to generalize because I’m content to let people do what they want so long as they don’t bother others, but modern Christianity calls its adherents to go out and pester people at best.
Please stop talking out of your ass
The American political system has done nothing but ratchet to the right for about a hundred years.
It's so far right that people think liberals are left wing. That shit is center right lmao
That was my thought when they said X identified as conservative, Y liberal, the rest moderate or unsure.
How about none of the above since they're all right of center?
Are you guys referring to the labels as applied to the Democratic party, or the people who self-identify as one or the other?
Because while I think it's generally fair that the Democratic party is center-right (largely absorbing any half-relevant positions Republicans once had), self-identifying liberals especially of youth and women probably are leftist despite colloquially referring to liberal. In that respect I'd imagine most of these people are effectively Social Democrats by European standards; meaning a mixed bag of regulated markets combined with a strong national government and select nationalized industries (eg, medical insurance). Basically the Nordic Model.
Social democrats and market socialists. The issue is that Lemmy loves to insist on the idea that liberalism and leftism are not compatible, which is an outdated, reductive idea.
Liberalism is just the idea that individual liberty is critical to democratic agency. Myself, and basically every other contemporary leftist of consequence, would argue that democratic agency is also critical to socialism as well.
The only place where this is a controversial take are internet forums where "leftism" means "violent revolutionary fan service" and the participants are, in turn, educated entirely within this framework which exists basically nowhere in the academic mainstream.
Well to the previous commenter's point, that may just be the result of two people using different definitions of the terms.
Plenty of people do consider their "liberal" beliefs to be incompatible with "leftist" beliefs as evidenced by how many called anybody to the left of Biden as "too radical" during the 2020 primaries. We can debate about the terms but at the end of the day those people have made it clear they openly acknowledge fighting anything to the left of whatever Biden is.
There's a world of difference between "saying something is not viable" and "fighting against something".
You voted against our interests. You and I are not on the same side.
I mean, in the sense that you're on the side of the Russians, that's correct
Buddy if the only choice I have in this country is to support Russians or a strike blocking, genocide supporting piece of shit then our democracy has already failed.
Also, your choices are:
A. Support a strike blocking, genocide supporting piece of shit, or
B. Support the Russians AND support a strike blocking, genocide supporting piece of shit.
Your perfect candidate is not running, if they even exist.
That's not a democracy buddy. Like if not voting for Biden is a vote for Russia then you're only a very reasonable step away from saying "And a vote for Russia is a crime". Game over man.
There were plenty of great options in the 2020 primaries. Piece of shit Boomers rejected all of those.
But like...it literally is a crime.
Do you want to vote for Russia?
Ah fuck you're just another tankie troll aren't you.
If you're against democracy then we're also not on the same side.
I'm not. You are.
So liberal in exactly the same sense American democrats are.. People not liking that "liberal" is a negative in any circle left of those who consider themsleves that, doesn't change what it means..
https://medium.com/the-simulacrum/the-nordic-model-is-not-a-socialist-model-it-is-capitalist-bbe828d17a8a
https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/
No, not necessarily. Social Democracy is one-step further left on the spectrum when considering a balance between Free Markets versus total nationalization and closed markets within the purview of a functioning Democracy. In essence, a truly mixed economy with a strong welfare foundation and regulator control rods for the markets. For all intents, the progressive-left of the Democratic party are Social Democrats while the mainline "corporate dems" are ostensibly Liberals.
Tankies dreams' aside, markets & trade aren't going away anytime soon.
That's a lot of words to say you don't understand what liberalism is.. No mount of "strong welfare" counteracts support of capitalism and the oppression and inevitable fascism that comes with it. Because yes, necessarily.
The fact that you think me saying all of this makes me a tankie is a perfect demonstration of your lack of understanding of these terms and ideas (and/or of your unwillingness to challenge your bias and think outside of the parameters capitalism has set for you).
Cool.
Classical Liberals and especially Neoliberals (what the Democratic party is) are solidly against nationalized industries and while liberalism is ok with either laissez-faire or regulated markets, neoliberalism is strictly anti-regulation.
Socially democratic nations (Nordic nations being the most consistently socially Democratic) have nationalized industries (Norway has its energy, transportation, finance, and communications all nationalized).
Probably the closest the US has ever been to social democracy was when social security and the new deal were enacted. The Democratic party has never been majority Socially Liberal to my knowledge, which is one step right from Socially Democratic, which is yet another step right from Democratically Socialist.
I mean that's what I am, the problem is whenever I use the word social Democrat as an American people have no idea what I'm talking about so I just call myself a Christian socialist instead. After all that's just a more muscular version of social democracy.
How many environmental regulations were there in 1924? How many black people could vote? Child labor laws? Could you vote in primaries, or did party bosses in literal smoke filled rooms choose a candidate? Could states shut down newspapers and ban non-Christians from holding office?
If we go back about ten more years, women can't vote, and Senators are still chosen by state legislators rather than a popular vote.
Why are leftists so quick to forget their successes?
For real; that comment was either made by a child, or someone severely ignorant of history
This is a pet peeve of mine: the term “liberal” has gone through a semantic shift in the US. It used to mean “generally left leaning”. I think maybe the word “progressive” has taken on this role now.
I think the confusion comes from the fact that many European languages always used the cognates of “liberal” to mean “free market”, I.e. “economically conservative”. This is also how the term is used in some academic fields, like economics. But this is precisely the opposite of the other meaning!
It’s pretty clear the article is using the first meaning. They even use “leaning left” interchangeably with “liberal”.
My theory is that since Americans have been interacting with Europeans more online since the 2000s, the terms have become conflated.
To not spam same text I will link it
Liberals/democrats ARE left wing. Always have been. By definition the term is based on seating arrangements during the French Revolution. Democrats have always been considered left wing, just as republicans have been right wing. It’s just that now:.: the tankies think they own the term.
However- in reality… the FAR LEFT has distanced itself so far from the left wing that it doesn’t even resemble what it began as.
The Republicans used to be the more liberal party. The parties literally swapped platforms at one point.
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties
I think you might be misunderstanding the French Revolution. By the time those seating arrangements were in place there weren't any conservatives left. The ones on the right were the Liberals the ones on the left were the leftists. The girondins were in no way conservative. The mountain was in no way liberal.
I wasn’t talking about French democrats/conservatives. Just where the terms came from.
Yeah they've really gone off the rails with this whole "don't block strikes" and "don't support genocide" nonsense. /s
The gaza war is not a genocide
You can call it whatever you want buddy. Only question you have to ask yourself is do you think Biden needs my vote? If not then just ignore me.
Words have meanings. Not every war is a genocide. There's no attempt to exterminate Palestinians. Gaza is as dense as New York City. If they were trying to wipe out Palestinians there would be far more deaths than there have been.
Call it whatever you want. I don't want the U.S. supporting Israel in it. I won't be voting for Biden in 2024.
I'm sorry friend, any knowledge of history or political science is not allowed on Lemmy. You can choose either edgy leftist fan service or a series of escalating bans.
The op isn't even correct [the idea Democrats and Republicans have always been the same as today is objectively incorrect]. The post never got deleted and there isn't even enough people on Lemmy to mass downvote a post... Why do you act like the two of you are being martyred for your opinions?
Exactly.
I thought Lemmy was created to avoid the censorship and bans on Reddit
I'm banned on Reddit politics and worldnews for posting leftist opinions. Frankly I'm fine with this becoming a leftist echo chamber because I'm not interested in rehashing the same tired arguments over and over again.
Don't block strikes. Don't support genocide. If you don't need our votes ignore us. If you need our votes you have to listen to us.
It's pretty simple stuff really. Take it or leave it.
That kind of attitude leads to totalitarianism. You need robust debate for a democracy to actually succeed.
Furthermore when you're surrounded by echo chambers of your own opinions you get dumber over time. That applies to the left and the right and it's a big reason why the right is so bonkers now.
You shouldn't support creating a maga of the left.
Alright. Go solve it on Reddit then.
Why? Looks like they've managed to take over the Republican party. If leftists took over the Democrat party maybe it'd finally be worth a shit.
Put my name into .ml mod logs to disabuse you of this fiction.
I mean communism is trash and tankies are literally against freedom of speech so I'm just glad all of Lemmy is not like that
It was. Then the tankies found a safe haven here amongst leftist mods and now it’s a shit show of flavor of the week manufactured outrage.
Literally the only reason I'm here is to avoid censorship so if this place starts doing that I'll just delete everything and walk away and find another replacement.
Oh. They censor. Trust me, they censor.
Well I won't get too attached I guess. I refuse to help build up another Reddit that is anti free speech.
Oh it’s totally free speech here. Just be careful what you say about Marxism/communism on certain instances. It’s only free speech in those of you agree with the hive.
I mean I will absolutely just stay away from anything with .ml
People have warned me. I value freedom of speech more than almost anything after having it taken from me on the internet. I now understand how precious this constitutional freedom is. And I understand how the lack of it destroys society.
I rest my case.
You're absolutely correct. But I would say on a global scale the American Democrats are still centrist because they embrace managerial capitalism.
They're not even really social Democrats like you see in Europe.
Not even a global scale, just literally as compared to Europe.
Eurocentrists are hilariously blind to their own prejudices. Y'all always say global this, global that when you're exclusively referring to Europe.
Well conservatism, especially in the US, is extremely hostile to women, so that makes sense. It's also hostile to a bunch of other outgroups. And the environment. And truth.
Conservative women confuse the hell out of me. Like conservative brown people.
I grew up in the South, moved to California. Started working with a Latino, who loved guns and idolized the South. Had a rebel flag and everything. He heard my accent and decided we must become friends. I had to very gently inform him that the people he idolizes would gladly tie him to the backs of their trucks and drag him to the Mexican border.
He later decided to throw in with the only other pro-gun group in California: Antifa/far left anarchists, and he seemed much happier with them lol
Confusing to me too.
My black friends supporting trump because Biden is "no better", and when I dig deeper, they parrot inaccurate statements from idiot influencers.
Pure anecdote but I think it's representative of the bigger shitshow Republicans brought upon themselves:
My MIL voted for Trump in 2016 and was a lifelong Republican. Because she has two daughters and is quite a proponent of strong independent women, after seeing the reversal of Roe and watching The Handmaid's Tale, she is now fervently anti-Republican.
After seeing that sudden paradigm shift in beliefs, it gave me a little hope. It also proves yet again that when Republicans actually get to implement the policy they want, it is deeply unpopular.
I mean it's good that she changed her mind but it's a little disappointing it took trump and abortion bans for her to connect the dots. Better than nothing I guess.
I hear you. Though that just goes to show just how strong entrenched beliefs and the right-wing echo-chambers are. If it was easy to pierce the veil, there'd be no Republicans left.
If it was hostile to rich people, it would be gone by now.
That's just nonsense. I don't agree with the conservative movement either but how is it hostile to women? Let alone extremely hostile.
Abortion ban with no exceptions as the other person said. That's dangerous and cruel.
Some are against no fault divorce. That's insane. That's going to keep people in abusive relationships. That can affect men too but is more common in women.
Deny any gender gaps in pay or other economics. If you refuse to acknowledge a problem, it's unlikely you'll remedy it.
Some members seem to think women having the vote was bad, if I remember that Thiel essay correctly.
Generally anti inclusion and diversity stuff.
Frequent apologists for rapists.
At best are indifferent to sexual harassment as a problem.
Bad on social programs, so downstream from that you have like childcare. That affects men, too, but I think via tradition that affects more women.
Bad on child leave. More laws granting maternity and paternity leave is not a conservative position.
That's just shooting from the hip. I'm not prepared to write a well researched essay on my phone on the train at this time, sorry.
Abortion ban without exceptions
How many states is this actually the case and how many is it just an elective abortion ban with actual exceptions put in place?
Shoo, troll.
Most of Lemmy only knows what conservatism is based on the strawman they get from other lefties, and even if they did know what conservatives actually believe, the vast majority of Lemmy users are incapable of evaluating someone else's viewpoint on its own terms; they will declare it internally inconsistent when it is merely inconsistent with their own values.
You're asking a question with the presumption of empathy. That makes you a good person. It also makes you an outcast here.
That's disturbing and I wonder what I've gotten involved with here then cuz I thought this would be the anti-reddit that would support free speech and make it great.
If you find a Lemmy community where you can be yourself without getting encircled by screeching harpies, let me know. I haven't been at home on social media since before Ruqqus got overrun by neo-Nazis.
Why is it that political extremists seem to dominate the conversation on social media? I don't want a forum made up of communists or neo-nazis. Lmao that's so cartoonish that I have to say that but here we are.
Well fucking vote like it then.
Liberal is still too far right.
It's high time we had a strong labor movement in this country.
This poll seems to be focused on social conservative vs liberal, not economic liberal vs leftist
Why people oppose liberals to conservatives? Opposite of conservatives are reformists, not liberals.
Part of it is branding-- in the US the GOP got people to think of them as conserving (ie preserving) something, whereas if people got asked to describe a similar situation they might come up with something like regressive. Liberal generally makes sense linguistically, because it's the same root as liberate, as in you're free to do what you want.
So whether it comes from a brand or a misunderstanding it doesn't really matter because conservative vs liberal is how hundreds of millions of people in the US use and understand the words, and you can't tell people (especially at that scale) that how they speak is wrong because that's not how language works.
You will need to break decades of propaganda ops pushing the idea that labor is equivalent to socialism/communism or at least attached to the forces of evil in some form or another, or that a union is an evil money stealing organization that the ruggedly individualist American should never submit to.
It will likely be easier to wait for the misinformed generations to simply die out than actually affect that sort of change.
This is the page I’m on. I’ve tried to convince my neoliberal parents that: unions are not lazy across the board, that taxes are a heavier burden on the poor than the rich, that China doesn’t have cockroaches infesting every inch of their cities, the violence of the American military, the corruption that exists within our government (on the liberal side), the similarities between conservative and liberal economic policy, etc..
You get tired after a while.
Judging by your comment you and I absolutely do not agree on what is best for the future of our country. Progressive tax is important, corruption exists within all governments but the ‘both sides’ argument is a horrendously stupid take that ignores social and environmental policy, and the similarities between conservative and liberal fiscal policy exist because the Overton window has shifted way too far to the right (in America); to see truly leftist/liberal economic policy, we must shift the spectrum away from the conservative/right side.
Pfffffffffff... 😂🤦♀️
The American political landscape doesn't even have the left on it.
In all honesty, it's really fucking depressing that despite the blatant and open attack by one party on women's rights, and the complete impotence of the other to restore, or hell, even fucking address what bare minimum rights they once had, outside of a campaign speech, more women haven't realised that no one in the system is serving them, and shift to the actual left, but sadly the propaganda seems just too powerful (or on some cases, the other privileges still too comfortable to risk, even in the face of loss of autonomy to the state).
They mean to say women don't want their bodies regulated by men that don't know a damn thing about how a woman's body works. Like that fucking idiot Republican politician who's also veterinarian and said he's done thousands of ultrasounds on pregnant animals and that makes him an authority on women's bodies. Like how the fuck do you make that jump in your head?
By equating women to livestock...
That clearly makes him a cannibal.
What the fuck is this bullshit. This is the opposite of what has happened.
On the whole, the American public is shifting left (view how polls reflect generally more progressive positions compared to elected officials). The vocal minority are shifting right.
Because if you're even remotely educated on what's going on, you'd realize republicans are just objectively evil. They are not even a political party. If anything, liberals are right wing, and republicans are just devil spawn.
That doesn't explain gender divergence.
The party actively working to disenfranchise people who aren't men is losing the support of people who aren't men. That bit seems self-explanatory.
Do you have evidence of a conspiracy to revoke womens' right to vote?
active marketing by republicans as clearly outlined by steve bannon does
Or maybe the divergence of male/female voting has nothing to do with suffrage. Maybe women value social safety nets offered by Democrats or maybe they value the Democrat foreign policy or maybe they just find Donald Trump more repulsive than do men. I can think of a lot of reasons that could explain the divergence that have nothing to do with someone (who, I don't know) wanting to repeal a woman's right to vote.
Steve Bannon worked on the Trump campaign and specifically called out disaffected, uneducated, terminally-online young men as an untapped market for Trump to capitalize on.
In the US parties are large coalitions of a lot of different groups an interests and not all of them mesh well together. This is true of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. To write off the divergence as being explained by upset, uneducated young males who spend a lot of time online seems naive. The population of such males is small and they are an even smaller percentage of the electorate. They might make the difference in a tight election but they do not explain the significant divergence in party association between males and females. Plus the divergence on gender between left and right is not limited to the United States. It is a phenomenon found in many other countries. So there's a lot more to it than a small demographic in a single nation.
And the women who aren't liberal are simply fucking morons. There is no other excuse for supporting the party that so openly hates your gender.
What if some of them are communists that prepare revolution after which they will establish UHC, universal higher education and UBI?
I guess I should be clear that I mean the ones that are conservative Republicans are all morons lol
might be more fair to say “women in the US are becoming less inclined to support a dumpster fire like the self-identified modern Conservative Party”.
conservatives by their actions want women either pregnant or at home taking care of children, whether they are theirs or someone else's, or both. they especially want them silent and totally reliant on their men since hod forbid they get paid for their work.
liberals want to provide equal rights and equal opportunity.
from my perspective, if you aren't white, male, wealthy and christian, I don't know know why you are a republican since the party doesn't care about you.
Americans, mostly Republicans, are becoming more fascist.
Becoming? As in they wern't?
Does this poll support for left/right policies or just labels?
I suspect if you properly formulate and frame questions on political issues you'd end up with the US being far left.
Yep. I think the american public lacks words for what they align with. I also think most of the population would lean left if it weren't for all the popaganda. But I think a lot...
Then you're in a partisan bubble. The US is not even close to far left, I don't think you could even fake it with leading questions. There are far left people but there are a lot of far right and yet more center-right people too.
the terms mean nothing any more, by design.
They do though, but in the US they are used to label a group.
The political compass is still valid, and the US frame is on the right of that compass.
Liberals are the left in the US, but center right in the rest of the world.
Huzzah! More my own copy-pasta!
American "left": maybe we shold do some student debt relief? Just a tini-tiny. If you don't mind.
Rest of the world right: universal education, more funding!
Rest of the world center: universal education, state must provide students with everything(including housing and food) so they don't worry about anything else other than learning, state must provide teachers with everything(including decent salary) so they don't wory about anything else other than teaching, state must provide universities with all necessary equipment, buildings must be maintained in good condition(so ceiling wouldn't fall on students' and teachers' heads)!
I need my copy-pasta again:
American "left": maybe we shold do some student debt relief? Just a tini-tiny. If you don't mind.
Rest of the world right: universal education, more funding!
Rest of the world center: universal education, state must provide students with everything(including housing and food) so they don't worry about anything else other than learning, state must provide teachers with everything(including decent salary) so they don't wory about anything else other than teaching, state must provide universities with all necessary equipment, buildings must be maintained in good condition(so ceiling wouldn't fall on students' and teachers' heads)!
But women of that age group need to vote! Seniors turnout is historically higher than the younger age groups and that trend needs to change.
Seniors will always have the retirement advantage, where they actually have time again in their lives to participate in politics.
All the more reason why its so important to push get-out-to-vote campaigns for younger people. Its the young 20-year-olds who are worried about their kid's activities or work, or things that would get distracted and forget to vote.
Also, look up any laws that benefit voting ability. For example, in Texas, employers are required by law to grant people two hours of paid time off to vote (unless you have two consecutive hours to vote outside of work).
There's also almost always early voting, and the lines are often incredibly short. Basically, look up your options and make a plan. Voting is vital, now more than ever.
Reading articles like this always remind me of this The Dollop about a [teacher](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment%29) who essentially created a cult to demonstrate how Hitler was able to convince people to go along with Fascism that they might otherwise be opposed to.
EDIT - And now I know.you need to use %29 to escape the closing bracket on the url markdown.
False. The entire political spectrum of the US has shifted right, and people haven't changed a bit. They just noticed.
It seems to me that for the most part, the conservatives have become more extreme and as a result people are saying "I guess I'm a liberal now".
There’s been recent studies that show Millennials (my generation) aren’t getting more conservative as they get into middle age. And while I don’t think I’m getting much more conservative, if at all, part of me wonders if it’s more that the party of conservatives is just outpacing us in their mad dash to the right.
Like, I definitely have some further-left ideals and some more moderate-left ones, but damn if the conservatives aren’t going full auth-right faster than I can moderate my views to even see where they’re coming from.
o can say as an elder millennial that not only have I gotten more conservative, I've probably gotten more a little liberal as the conservatives have gotten a lot more extreme.
when the overton window has skewed that far to the extreme right, you have rock ribbed hardcore conservatives like liz cheney, john boehner, paul ryan, george dubya freaking bush and ronald fucking reagan seem like centrists and liberals and this is not healthy for political discourse. and the media making every political thing an equivalency when it clearly is not makes it worse.
I would say that you are an idiot/corrupt/rich if you are a conservative woman/black/LGBT/minority
Too bad "liberals" are still center right.
i'm not in this demographic, but i have also become more 'liberal' as time goes on.. and i started as a progressive minnesota DFLer.
Not gonna matter when the dumbasses elect a fascist rapist criminal.....
Edit. This dumbass can't spell..
Unless I’m reading those graphs on the Gallup page wrong, the only two groups with an upward movement at the end are old women and young men? Everyone else was shown as decreasing from previous highs.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/609914/women-become-liberal-men-mostly-stable.aspx
The United States as a whole has been shifting towards progressive policies since its creation... as has the whole world.
Before its creation, people were much more egalitarian. Native American women could control their own bodies.
Sure things look good when you start right after the last huge anti-egalitarian shift.
And even in more recent times, the pendulum has swung back and forth. FDR put massive public works programmes in place that would never get funding today, and LBJ (despite, y',know, fucking up his entire legacy in Vietnam) introduced Medicare, which would be derided as socialist today. Reagan was a massive backslide, both objectively and in comparison.
Pre-columbian Americans kept each other as slaves for centuries..at the very least. So the lie that native American women controlled their own bodies is a slap in the face of the countless who were kept as slaves. Egalitarian...hardly.
I said “more” and gave a specific example in which way. The property of there being slavery didn't change until much later, whereas the Christians immediately made life worse for women who until then controlled their own bodies.
There is no lie. Why are you trying to catch me in one instead of having a honest discussion?
But the women never controlled their own bodies for thousands of years...likely since the first women. There are "fluctuations" where they have more rights for short stretches is time. You could cherry pick specific locations in a specific century of course. For example right now in the entire US, women have fewer rights than 10 years ago (fluctuation) but far more than 100 or more years ago.
That's Hobbesian fiction, not history. Check out this book for a version less driven by Victorian propaganda: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything
This book denies thousands of years of native American slavery?
No, it pretty explicitly mentions it, but you should read what I'm writing, not looking for a reason to get worked up.
Let me spell it out: losing your bodily autonomy is bad. Therefore it's bad when there's slavery or misogyny. And of course it's worse when there's both. The fact that (a fraction of) tribes had slavery doesn't invalidate that they weren't also misogynist. Unlike the society that followed after, which both had slavery and and believed that a good Christian woman is the property of her man.
So read this, then again from picking out an irrelevant detail to nitpick on.
Yes a "fraction" of tribes had slavery. 25% of the tribal population in the pacific northwest alone were slaves. A horrific and a dominant part of their society. The way women were treated by good Christians was terrible but to compare that in to the sheer number that were held as slaves in the past is disingenuous. Children sold for food. Children and women stolen from tribe to tribe to bolster numbers(forced assimilation which qualifies as genocide today). Were you a natural born tribe member female that hasn't been captured? In that case you had a better life though you did partially through the exploitation of slaves and genocide... for thousands of years. A couple of hundred years of harsh Christan rule was in no way a step backward.
What are you talking about? That 25% number is wrong. You found that on Wikipedia, ignored the statistic it actually applied to, and attached it to “tribal population”. Please don't lie with statistics, even if that wasn't intentional.
And most importantly, slavery increased rapidly as colonialism ramped up. Obviously Christian rule with substantially increased slavery and also misogyny is worse than a smaller degree of slavery and no misogyny.
Just read the book. It's great.
Do you truly believe slavery was rare among pre-columbian native Americans?
Let's say for argument sake you are right. For 30,000 years slavery was a not-so-common occurrence in the America's. Then for 200 years it increased. Then decreased for 150 years to a level far far below any point in history (per-capita). What has been the trend?
That's not data that can be summarized as a trend. Just like climate data, the changes in the last centuries are very drastic compared to before. If the fluctuation before happened mich slower, there's no trend that can be modeled.