Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
November 16, 2021
Do you sometimes get confused over your political identity? While it is easy to register as a Republican or a Democrat, can one’s Party affiliation truly determine where a person falls on a more generic spectrum ranging from Far Right to Far Left? The Pew Research Center has developed a survey to help us better understand where, based upon our personal beliefs, we stand, regardless of our Party affiliation.
The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. They conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, content analysis and other data-driven social science research. And most importantly, they do not take policy positions.
Earlier this month the Pew Research Center released a report entitled “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology.” This is the 8th such study the Center has produced since 1987. The latest report states in part, “[T]he gulf that separates Republicans and Democrats sometimes obscures the divisions and diversity of views that exist within both partisan coalitions – and the fact that many Americans do not fit easily into either one. Republicans are divided on some principles long associated with the GOP: an affinity for businesses and corporations, support for low taxes and opposition to abortion. Democrats face substantial internal differences as well – some that are long-standing, such as on the importance of religion in society, others more recent. For example, while Democrats widely share the goal of combating racial inequality in the United States, they differ on whether systemic change is required to achieve that goal.”
The entire report may be found by clicking here .
Are you a Faith and Flag Conservative? Progressive Left? Or somewhere in between?
To discover where you stand in the political spectrum, take their quiz by clicking here . You will learn which one of their nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center.
The researchers write, “You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.”
Most recent research shows that Americans are much less divided on many issues than the media portrays. As soon as one starts to identify with a political party, more division occurs, as we tend to think we must follow certain policies and platforms. But remove political parties from the equation or question, and similarities emerge that were not there before. Creating false divisions is an age-old tactic of the wealthy and the powerful to keep us concentrating on fighting each other instead of the incredible inequities in our economic system.
Mark, You are correct about the media portraying these falsehoods regarding race relations. The media love to sensationalize and sometimes omit pertinent details, and even outright lie. Look at the terrible division in this country over the Russia collusion. Look at the $$ Millions wasted by the FBI on the investigation. All bogus.
Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. We will see what results from John Durham’s indictment of Danchenko.
Durham indicted Danchenko for lying to the FBI, demonstrating that the Steele dossier was completely false. Russiagate never existed. Clinton’s campaign was the only one that colluded with Russia. So how does the indictment lead to your conclusion that Ms. Harrell is counting her chickens before they hatch?
Indictments, politically motivated by a Barr appointee, validate my comment. You know quite well the “ham sandwich” theory. This is especially important given the information available to the various Directors of National Intelligence on Trump and the Russians that predated the Steel Report.
I disagree with Mark on certain points, but I agree with this.
If people think that one political party (either one) is the root of all evil, they need to widen their information sources. Both political parties have plenty of faults.
The media is a company. Companies are in business to make money. Always have to keep that in mind when listening to the talking heads on the TV.
I have often wondered how politics would change if there were NO parties at all. Each politician being judged on his own merits and agenda for the office.
Seems this would force each candidate to spell out exactly what they planned to support and do when in office.
There wouldn’t be any relying on the party to bail them out, fund them, or form their plans for them.
We see many examples of the legislators crossing party lines already, and this causes serious kickback from each camp. Should there be no party, each legislator would be held to the planks he already ran on.
One advantage for me, is less division amongst the populace.
Surely, it can’t change, as these parties are far too powerful and intrenched to just quit.
Am I seeing this correctly? Maybe not?
I said “results”. Nothing like a criminal trial to bring out details of just who was a Russian asset. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/17/steele-dossier-guide-latest-allegations/
I wouldn’t rely much on the Washington Post for accurate reporting on this particular issue. Last week it corrected and significantly altered two stories related to the dossier and added lengthy editor’s note to at least a dozen other articles concerning the subject.
To Mr. Coe: OK, but that does not explain he findings of the bipartision report of the Senate Intelligence Committee when it was still chaired by a Republican. It confirmed the findings of the intelligence community (again under a GOP administriation) that there was significant interference by Russia durign the 2016 election. The evidence presented in Volume One of the Mueller report also confirms this despite AG Barr’s spin. Not that I expect any evidence would change your belief that this was a hoax.
Thank you for your polite response Mr. Kayne. But there is a huge difference between Russia interfering in US elections and collusion between a particular political party with the Russians. WaPo and NYT flogged the Russiagate story for years and now are having to walk it back. That was my point. I wasn’t advocating for either party–just trying to point out the agenda of the corporate press.
Mr. Coe, that is jsut not true. Nobody has walked back the fact there were 140+ contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign in 2016 (read Volume One of the Mueller report). You do not believe Manifort’s sharing of campaign polling data with Russians is collusion? What the Post walked back was that a couple of many sources for the Steele dossier lied about where they got their information. Read the November 17 article in the Post and you will see that there is nothing that suggests collusion betweeen the Trump campaign and the Russians did not happen. But, as I suggested above, you have bought into a narrative that no facts will change.
Keep drinking the kool aid. Maybe stop relying on a corrupt press for your information and go to the source material. The Mueller report (which itself was the result of a naked attempt to remove a legitimately elected president) specifically found that the Trump campaign did not conspire on illegal Russian election interference nor coordinate with Russia. You can whine about Barr not pursuing the vague “obstruction” issues raised in the report, but if there were any illegality I am confident that AD Garland would be on it.
By no means am I big supporter of Trump but I do uphold the rule of law. The problem for you (and Bob Warner) is that you suffer from Trump derangement syndrome. You gotta let it go. .After all the information that has come out negating Russiagate anyone still espousing it is either stupid or evil. I am sorry to have to say that I place Warner in the former category. But you Mr. Kayne? You’re not stupid.
For the record, Jim Jones did not use Kool-aid. It was the cheap substitute Flavor-Aid. Those damn facts keep getting in the way. Your diatribe still does not address the 140+ Trump Campaign/Russian contacts. And I assume, AG Garland has decided it is more important to focus on a possible conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States than re-litigated Russian interference in 2016. Also, in one of the great conflicts of interest, the former guy preemptively pardoned major players identified in the Mueller report as having bben in contact with Russians which makes it a waste of Garland’s time to pursue them.
BTW, I have never accused you of being a Trump supporter. But you do have a biased view of what “rule of law” means. You seem to be obsessed with Durham’s indictments, but say nothing about Michael Flynn’s pardon after twice PLEADING GUILTY to the exact same charge. Where is your outrage about that?
Steven. Folks can decide our competence and the probity of our positions on Trump criminality – and Russian co option – for themselves.
Executive Summaries from Lawfare of Vol’s 1 and 2 of Robert Mueller’s investigation. Suggest reading.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries
Didn’t expect you to say anything else, Stephen. There are fundamental differences in Grand Jury indictment and trial, lots of differences. There are fundamental issues of news source credibility here. There are not fundamental differences in our intelligence agencies understanding of Trump’s questionable “business dealings” with Russia well before the Steele Report. https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1446386/download, https://www.npr.org/2021/11/12/1055030223/the-fbi-arrests-a-key-contributor-to-efforts-trying-to-link-trump-with-russia, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/politics/igor-danchenko-arrested-steele-dossier.html