If we take a simple look at those who work for change and those who resist change, we find some very important characteristics of progressives and conservatives that may help illuminate the political divide in America. When I refer to change, I’m referring to an innovation—a social policy, an idea, a law—that is new to society. Whenever something new is introduced, we have people who are eager to support it, people who are eager to oppose it, and everyone else somewhere in the middle. As a generalization, progressives, liberals, and Democrats are more likely to accept change and conservatives and Republicans are more likely to resist change. I want to understand the reasons why some people embrace change and some people resist change, even if the benefits of the change outweigh the cost.
First of all, I don’t like the left-right scale in politics, but I will use it for the sake of illustration. But instead of making the scale specifically liberal to conservative, I’m changing the terms to represent those who adopt change and those who reject change.
The scale is as follows (left to right): Innovators—Early Adopters—Early Majority—Late Adopters – Laggards.
On the far left (of this scale and politics), we have the innovators of society. Innovators are venturesome, obsessed with new ideas and change and tend to be daring and risky. Early adopters are the cosmopolites—the folks who are willing to try the new ideas and have the most exposure to new ideas. These two groups tend to represent the liberal and progressive political viewpoints. In the middle, we have the early majority. The early majority is characterized by those who deliberate for a greater amount of time before adopting a new idea. The early majority is composed rather equally of members of all political parties, known as the “moderate” in our society. The late majority are those who are skeptical of new ideas. They do not embrace change and will not do so unless nearly everyone else in the social system has done so. The last group is the laggards. The laggards are completely traditional, the last to adopt any change, and they tend to be isolated socially and greatly suspicious of any change. These last two groups represent conservative politics.
When we look at politics from this angle of change, we can see some pros and cons from both parties. On one hand, some change is very good and should be adopted immediately, but the conservatives in Congress will be the last to vote for any change. On the other hand, some ideas are risky and may need more careful deliberation. Politically though, I cannot understand the laggards. I respect the late majority but relate much more to the early majority and the early adopters of change. Here’s one example why:
If we examine the date when hate crime laws were passed for each individual state, we can see a pattern that reflects the above terms and characteristics. Hate crime laws were passed first by California in 1972; the last state to pass hate crime laws was Mississippi in 1994 (and several states still have not passed hate crime laws!). The hate crime laws are still currently amended in many states to include issues such as sexual orientation and specific punishment of laws. But here’s a quick preview of a few states that have passed hate crime laws and the percentage of people in that state who voted for McCain in 2008. The connections should be obvious.
State 1: The innovator—California. Only 37% voted for McCain. Passed hate crime laws in 1972.
State 2: The early adopter—Washington. 40% voted for McCain. HC laws passed in 1981.
State 3: The early adopter—Oregon. 40% voted for McCain. HC laws passed in 1981.
State 4: The early majority—Ohio, 47% McCain. HC laws 1986.
State 5: The late majority—Texas, 56% McCain. HC laws 1993.
State 6: The late majority—Mississippi, 56% McCain. HC laws 1994.
State 7: The laggard—Arkansas, 59% McCain. No HC laws.
State 8: The laggard—Wyoming, 65% McCain. No HC laws.
I only used a few states to make my point, but obviously, the states that are innovators and early adopters accept change more easily and tend to be progressive and liberal. Early majority states tend to be more moderate—can go either way Democrat or Republican. The late majority and the laggards—conservative all the way. (And FYI: can you believe some states still do not have hate crime protection? In 2010!)
Additionally, there are other important characteristics within these categories. Here are some generalizations about early adopters with brief commentary:
1. Early adopters have more years of formal education. Those who are most educated tend to accept change more easily. Is it any wonder why liberals are labeled as “elite”? Is it any wonder that conservatives criticize colleges, universities, and educators as too liberal?
2. Early adopters have greater empathy than later adopters. Empathy is the ability to feel as another feels. Is it any wonder that progressives fight for health care reform and other policies to help those who need it while conservatives resist any change? If you cannot empathize, you will resist change.
3. Early adopters are less dogmatic than late adopters. Dogmatism is the degree to which an individual has a narrow-minded belief system and is unwilling to negotiate and open his or her mind to new ideas. Is it any wonder why the extreme religions and fundamentalists tend to be conservatives? They are perfect examples of laggards who want no part of change.
4. Early adopters have a more favorable attitude toward science than late adopters. Is it any wonder that progressives and liberals tend to follow scientific evidence while many laggards and conservatives will reject science if it is incompatible with their belief system?
5. Early adopters are less fatalistic than late adopters. Fatalism is the degree to which an individual thinks he or she can or cannot control the future. Is it any wonder that progressives think we can fight for the environment while conservative laggards think the future is determined by fate?
There are about 20 more generalizations I could include. In the end, sometimes we need to take a look at politics from a different perspective. It’s not all about liberal vs. conservative. The labels can be misleading. However, the politics of today presents a remarkable era for change. We can fight for change in the financial industry, health care industry, hate crime protection, education, diplomacy, equal rights, energy, the environment, the oil industry and on and on.
Simply, I ask you: do you really want to be part of a group (be it laggard or late majority) that is resistant to change, dogmatic in principle, skeptical of science, lacking empathy for those who need help, and do not believe you have control over your own future? Label me what you want, but I am a fighter for change, progressive in innovation yet moderate in deliberation. Empathy, scientific evidence, open-mindedness, and education are my guiding principles, and if you accept that you too are empathetic, open to science, open to diverse cultural ideas including religious viewpoints, and value the strength of education, then you too are progressive in thinking.
Do not let your vote be wasted on the laggards in our society. Vote for the innovators of change, for they have the greater potential to make the most positive contributions to our world.
Primary source: Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “sign me up” button on the upper left.
var a2a_config = a2a_config || {};
a2a_config.linkurl = “https://alittlemoreconversationplease.wordpress.com/”;
A little more conversation, please 
[…] If we take a simple look at those who work for change and those who resist change, we find some very important characteristics of progressives and conservatives that may help illuminate the political divide in America. When I refer to change, I’m referring to an innovation—a social policy, an idea, a law—that is new to society. Whenever something new is introduced, we have people who are eager to support it, people who are eager to oppose it, and … Read More […]
Very interesting post. Not sure if I trust the close link between progressiveness and early adopters – though you make a decent case for it. Speaking as an outsider, non-USAer, I suppose it depends on your definition of progressive. I would see, for instance, traditional strong communities and stable families as progressive concepts. Therefore I would not automatically brand someone trying to preserve them as unprogressive. Not everything new is better. Not everything – especially every law – though perhaps well-intentioned, is effective. So, again, resisting a nice-sounding, but poorly drafted seemingly progressive law may make perfect sense.
However, I appreciate the caveat about labels you mentioned at the beginning.
Thanks for reading and commenting. You are right that not everything new is good, and not every new idea represents one specific political ideology. I remember one conservative brought up an idea that all teachers should carry guns to reduce school violence. That idea certainly is not very liberal, but it was a new idea nonetheless.
It may not apply to all laws or economic policies, but the ideas of innovation and early adoption felt like a good connection for many social policies, particularly when it comes to equal rights issues– gender equality, equal pay, same-sex marriage, etc.
God, I’ll certainly keep and disseminate a link to this post as the best illustration that I have seen in a long time of how trendoid and smug liberals view themselves, and how liberalism is really nothing but a narcissitic fantasy and status signaling for people who can’t afford traditional status competition. Really brings back memories of the country I grew up in, when the “progressives” (yes, that’s what they called themselves) told us that all smart people know that Soviet Union is the best and most equal country ever and only very dumb people could believe otherwise. However, one quick point:
“(And FYI: can you believe some states still do not have hate crime protection? In 2010!)”
At least I can believe this quite easily, since I know that most of the world doesn’t have hate crime laws. Besides, isn’t it the enlightened liberals who always tell us that harsh punishments are “primitive” and they “don’t deter”?
Thank you for the comments, and I honestly do hope you share this with as many people as possible. What you call “smug,” I argue is moral.
Is it smug to want to protect people from hate crimes? Is it smug to want health care for all? Is it smug to want financial reform? Or is it simply logical and at times even moral?
Not all conservatives are laggards. As I wrote about in the early majority, several liberals and conservatives fall into a moderate approach to government. Moderate is sensible and respectable, but we also need innovators of change for the moderates in society to even have new policies and ideas to discuss.
Revision should be a constant approach to government. Innovators and early adopters, which yes are more often liberal and progressive, ask the questions as to how we can be better. It’s not always good and it’s not always right, but it’s much better than doing nothing.
Laggards, which are the most extreme of conservatives and not representative of the whole, sit back and do nothing. Do you see yourself as a laggard? Do you really not want any change to issues such as hate crimes, health care, and financial reform?
I for one will not lag on issues that important to the welfare of our country and the protection of its people. I will also not vote for those who lag on such issues, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.
“What you call “smug,” I argue is moral.”
Equating science and intelligence with liberalism is not “smug”, but “moral”? Really?
As if liberals never ever rejected science when it is incompatible with their belief system. Ever been to an anti-nuclear demonstration, or asked another liberal what he thinks about rent control or IQ? Which side, liberals or conservatives, called Newton’s Principia “a rape manual” and shills for postmodernism and “women’s ways of knowing”? Which side opposes free trade and yet claims that Cuba is poor because it doesn’t get to participate in free trade? For all these, science is about as settled as it can possibly be.
Muslims, by the way, not only reject science even more, but every standard complaint that liberals make against conservatives applies ten times more to muslims, as do all the points that you make in your post. So, what do you think about muslims? Liberals seem to think that muslims are the most wonderful people on Earth, revealing a rather curious double standard there, but maybe you have a different view.
Also, again: do you not see the contradiction between advocating tough hate crime laws, and the general liberal worldview that says that harsh punishments are primitive and just don’t work? Aren’t the prisons vastly overcrowded already? Getting “tough on crime” is a conservative policy, so I always find it funny when liberals advocate it.
Sure, you can argue that a hate crime deserves a harsher punishment since a hate-motivated crime terrorizes a larger group of people than just the actual victim. But I accept this argument the second that it is extended to its logical conclusion to also cover crimes where the criminal chose the target for his perceived wealth. The wealthy already know that they are tempting targets for criminals and thus are forced to take extra measures (for example, pay the highly non-trivial costs of having to live in a gated or an otherwise exclusive community) to protect their lives and property.
“Equating science and intelligence with liberalism is not “smug”, but “moral”? Really?”
Not only is it moral, it is logical. But let’s back up a bit, as I want to give any other reader of these comments a little background.
Ilkka “liked” this particular post so much, she copied a part of it for her blog and titled the entry, “Liberals, this is why we hate you”: http://fourthcheckraise.blogspot.com/2010/07/liberals-this-is-why-we-despise-you.html
Hate is of course a powerful word, and as much as I disagree with several conservative ideologies, I would greatly hesitate to say I hate conservatives. I hate several ideas due to their ignorance, but you opened up a whole new door with your “hate.” Although I find it sad that you resort to hate, I find it typical for the counter-conservative argument to resort to name-calling as opposed to creating a logical argument. You must watch too much Fox News. 🙂
But now, back to your comments.
I’m not defined by rent control. It’s an issue where conservatives and liberals should be able to come together. If rent control is the best way to fight rent hikes, then it seems worthy of exploration. If however rent control benefits the wealthy more so than the poor who would be the ones to need rent control the most, then rent control needs to be replaced. What I see in your replies is that liberal politics do not have room for compromise, but that’s where you are wrong. When it comes to science and evidence, liberals and progressives CHANGE based upon the best evidence. Conservatives remain dogmatic—sticking to their fundamental principles significantly more so than liberals. After all, that’s part of the definition of conservative! Your other claims too are worrisome because they are too mutually exclusive: are you telling me that both liberals and conservatives cannot support free trade? Because the majority of both do. Are you arguing that conservatives and liberals cannot fight against nuclear arms? (Hmmm, I seem to remember Reagan doing so, and guess who is doing so now? Obama!)
When I talk about science and intelligence as moral, here’s specifically what I mean:
1. The evidence is overwhelming in the scientific community that there is a need to address climate change and that climate change is man-made. Neither side is doing enough about it, but we need to. Although some conservatives also agree, the extreme right wing mocks climate change. Tea Baggers on the news have driven gas-guzzling trucks to rallies and laughed about their carbon footprint. Where are you on climate change? If you disagree, you clearly reject overwhelming evidence from our scientific communities. Fighting the environment is not only intelligent; it is the moral thing to do.
2. Or even take a general creationism vs. evolution stance of science. How many liberals support the science and are willing to change with further scientific evidence? Too many conservatives—but thankfully not all—still argue for creationist science, even though the evidence speaks to the contrary. Is that intelligent? Not a bit.
Now, those two examples are traditional “science,” but when I say science, I more specifically mean utilizing the scientific method in reasoning. One must be able to test ideas, gather empirical evidence, test the evidence for statistical significance, reliability, and validity. When it comes to issues of IQ or rent control, as you mentioned, the system needs to be tested. The scientific method is currently the best method we have to obtain data. Both sides—conservatives and liberals—must be willing to use the scientific method and then support the results.
Both sides at times have ignored results and falsified tests. But one side is the clear winner for rejecting science overall, and you already know who that is.
Now, let’s talk about the idea, as you wrote, that “Liberals seem to think that muslims are the most wonderful people on Earth.” Without writing a whole essay, which is needed on this subject, I’ll do my best to summarize: Liberals (but all people should) except the idea of freedom of religion. Too many right wing Christians claim that their world view is the only right world view and condemn all other religious beliefs, particularly Muslims. I support freedom of religion, so from a solely religious viewpoint, no religion should be discriminated against. However, from a political and social policy view point, no religion—Christianity or Islam—should control the social rights of individuals. Both Christianity and Islam reject science when it contradicts their ideas. If that’s what you want to think in your household, our government will protect that. But our government calls for a separation of church and state, and so those ideas cannot be made public in business, school, or society. Take gay rights, for example. Do you support gay rights and same-sex marriage? One of my biggest concerns with conservatives is that they do not support same-sex marriage because it contradicts traditional religious beliefs, and that’s an example where religion enters the public sphere and infringes upon human rights. It is not acceptable. When any religious viewpoint enters the public sector, we risk the danger of hurting others. When the Catholic Pope spoke in Africa and told people who run a significant risk to HIV that it is immoral to use condoms, we have a problem. When traditionally strict Christians argue that public schools should teach creationism, we have a problem. When Muslim employers discriminate against women, we have a problem.
We have freedom of religion because we understand the environmental factors of religion. One possesses a religious viewpoint largely because of where he or she grew up and what he or she was taught. It’s that simple. Additionally, those viewpoints create a core foundation that is nearly impossible to change. We have to allow for freedom of religion in the home. We also have to make sure religious viewpoints do not influence government and social policy.
You also wrote: “Also, again: do you not see the contradiction between advocating tough hate crime laws, and the general liberal worldview that says that harsh punishments are primitive and just don’t work?” This is where I wonder what liberal influence you have experienced. I just as much as all of my liberal and progressive friends want to be “tough on crime.” The only difference in our views of punishment revolve around the death penalty, but that argument is as outdated as the punishment. There are ways to be tough on crime without utilizing the death penalty. I simply want people to be protected and for people to realize that discrimination or violence (be it getting fired from work or beat up on the street) simply based on one’s gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation is incredibly wrong. And I could throw the same argument back to you—you find it funny that I want hate crime laws but am not tough on crime. If conservatives are so tough on crime, why aren’t you advocating hate crime laws? Because it doesn’t include the wealthy? I understand your argument about the wealthy, but then are we going to include the poor?
You already answered the definition of hate crime when you wrote, “hate crime deserves a harsher punishment since a hate-motivated crime terrorizes a larger group of people than just the actual victim.” Yep.
I don’t think you understand liberal politics as much as you think. In short, I really ask you to reconsider your view of “Liberals—this is why we hate you” and instead spend your political time thinking about how we can come together to fight the same problems. Although I argue that the extreme base of conservatives does reject science, we need conservatives like you who seem to accept science. Once we have the same set of evidence to discuss, we should be able to tackle problems and share viewpoints that do not have to be labeled purely as liberal or conservative.
Jolly good not to surrender language like “tough on crime” to your adversaries.
Now, I don’t doubt for one second that high school English teachers have a lot to teach us all about science and the scientific worldview and its implications, but first, it’s funny how for all your supposed cultural sensitivity, you don’t even know that Ilkka is a male name.
It’s just that… well, you just illustrate so perfectly the sad truth of how modern Western liberalism is essentially nothing but status signaling for people who want to distinguish themselves from the proles but can’t afford to signal this in traditional means. Which is why, for example, when I asked you what you think about Islam, your answer was to evade the question and just write why Christians are wrong about various things. For all practical purposes, muslims uniformly oppose homosexuality and their worldwide scientific output is virtually nil, but since you gain no status from noticing this or, God forbid, criticizing them for this, you won’t. You happily write about how liberals are smarter and more scientific than conservatives, but you wouldn’t in a million years write an identically argued post about how the Americans and Europeans are smarter than and their culture is superior to that of the people of the Middle East.
An important part of this pretense is the fantasy of the superior liberal intelligence is that science somehow proves and equals liberalism because scientists tend to be liberal (they also tend to be straight white males, but of course we all know that certain lines of logic are better left unexplored), from it it somehow follows that the poor humanities and liberal arts majors who now serve extra fries for engineers, doctors and and other productive conservatives are uniquely capable of centrally planning a good society, that “reality has a liberal bias”, the smug sneer I just somehow know that you have repeated many times. Rather than repeating the arguments against this canard, I’ll link to an essay that I once write:
http://tinyurl.com/37b89ok
No, I do not think that Earth getting one or two degrees warmer in the next century is enough of a threat to destroy the industrialized society over… especially when the same people who tell me that also tell me that nuclear power is evil and expensive, even as they also tell me that no cost can possibly be too big to stop global warming.
Yes, I do believe not just in evolution by natural selection, but also the idea that it rests on by definition: that there are important innate hereditary differences between individuals for this selection to, you know, select for. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to mostly believe in the Blank Slate view that denies the very existence of any important innate hereditary differences between individuals. Of course, they rarely bother to use logic to notice this obvious contradiction. Sure must be weird to be a liberal, celebrating Darwinian evolution because it nicely annoys the “right-wing” Christians, while simultaneously denying the logical implications of the Darwinian evolution.
You also wonder what and where I have learned about liberals and the left. No, it was not from the Fox News, but from growing up and living in a country where the only viewpoint that was ever allowed any airtime was the left-wing one, with the exact same tired old canards that I see the American liberals repeating to this day. It wasn’t until the college and the internet that I ever saw any American conservative person or viewpoint presented in a positive light. So you really don’t need to tell me what the political left really thinks about various issues and how it argues, especially when it gets to be the only game in town. So if you excuse me, I’ll rather believe my own lying eyes over yet another American liberal infatuated with the idea of the Nordic welfare states while I remember their reality that I am glad to have left long since behind.
The hate crime law comparison seems like a good element, but a bit tenuous as well. Just because it’s consistent doesn’t make the pattern solid. i.e. fewer people die in years ending w/ 2’s than 5’s, so 2 years are safer or somesuch… I still believe largely in the idea that today’s progressive is typically tomorrow’s conservative. Once you achieve the change you’re looking for, you’ll defend it after it’s enacted, taking you from one side of the wave to the other. You mention name-calling in your rebuttal, but I do believe saying innovator vs. laggard is in itself, name-calling. I’ve never really thought of it as progressive vs. conservative, as progressive is involved w/ a different branching out of ideology more often than not. It’s on a different ontological level of political science. Liberal vs. Conservative is the statute as I see it, which describes a desire to move towards either different methods or to keep the methods that we have in place. I think most conservatives I look up to are progressive in small ways, but they don’t want to abandon everything all at once — there is something to be respected about taking a slow approach and making sure we don’t buck the nice hum we got going here.
I agree Matt that slow change should be respected as well. That’s why I respect that “early majority,” those who I label as taking a greater amount of deliberation before enacting change.
Your comment that “today’s progressive is tomorrow’s conservative” is interesting as well. In hearing arguments from the right that they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I will argue against it’s repeal. Instead of holding on to it like a conservative though, I will want to improve it by the details, working to continually make it better (progressive) as opposed to going back to the old way of doing things (conservative).
Ilkka: First, let me apologize for the misunderstanding of your name. You are very quick to criticize me for being “culturally aware” and then misunderstanding your name. All I can do is apology. Cultural awareness starts with a desire to learn. Don’t be so quick to judge people.
Second, your sacrasm relating my job to scientific awareness is fallacious and not necessary. I hope if we continue discussions you can learn to reduce the negative attacks and simply stick to the facts.
Did I evade the answer about Muslims? No. I clearly said, “When any religious viewpoint enters the public sector, we risk the danger of hurting others.” That of course includes Islam. Unfortunatley for you, it also ncludes many extreme sections of Christianity that are a part of conservativism. You cannot criticize another group for mistreatment of people and abuse of science without opening the door for your group too to be criticized. I find your harsh criticism of Islam to be rather hypocritical considering how easily you defend conservatives since both possess VERY similar characteristics.
You are interesting to me because you will reject the science of global warming and accept science behind evolution. Of course, you are quick to label scientists as liberals, so when you disagree with something in science, you can easily say, “Oh, it’s just another liberal nut.”
When you wrote your “Liberals this is why we dispise you” (did you change the title after I suggested hate was a harsh word?), you copied this section from my blog as proof:
“Simply, I ask you: do you really want to be part of a group (be it laggard or late majority) that is resistant to change, dogmatic in principle, skeptical of science, lacking empathy for those who need help, and do not believe you have control over your own future? Label me what you want, but I am a fighter for change, progressive in innovation yet moderate in deliberation. Empathy, scientific evidence, open-mindedness, and education are my guiding principles, and if you accept that you too are empathetic, open to science, open to diverse cultural ideas including religious viewpoints, and value the strength of education, then you too are progressive in thinking.”
I don’t care what you label it, but the above paragraph that you copied represents exactly what we need from politics on both sides:
1. Empathy
2. Support of science
3. Education
If we all have the above, we should be able to sit down at the table and talk. Conservatives can have empathy (I don’t see it enough), can support science especially over religion (it’s not very common), and can support education based on evidence, facts, and logic (they’d have to turn off Fox News first). But conservatives, liberals, progressives, Democrats, Republicans, independents, whoever: if we can agree to value education, science, and empathy over dogmatic principles, superstition, and self-centeredness, then we can ALL make PROGRESS.
Re: Joe’s scale of early adoption: If my experience in the tech world has shown me anything, it’s that the early adopters are rarely the ones who are followed. It’s not those who want change, or to progress, or anything else that cause the change – it’s the people who figure out the best way to make a buck off of it that are the true catalyst. Look at tech – the MP3 player was a niche nerdy thing until Apple made the iPod a trendy hip thing to have (Damn them and their sillhouette commercials!). The DVD was an elitist gambit until the PS2 made it downright affordable and all-in-one (same with Blu and PS3). Hell, the TV as we knew it in the 20th Century was invented in the late ’20s, but the first commercial TV networks didn’t appear until over 15 years later, and TV wasn’t a common household item for over a decade after that.
This applies to the rest of the world as well. For example, look at the green movement – saving bags, energy efficiency, it’s all been around for decades. It’s because of the new ways people can make a buck on it (more expensive organic produce, special “green” versions of products, convenient reusable bags you spend $2 on only to forget each time you go to the store, etc) that being eco-friendly has become “cool”. *Note, I’d keep writing, but I tacked this on last minute and I’m already late for rehearsal.*
Follow the money. It’s not about ideals, man, it’s about who takes those ideals to the bank.
Re: Hate crimes: I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but I am against the notion of hate crimes. A hate crime is a crime. Period. A gay man is murdered, and his assailant is a known hater of homosexuals. Should he be tried with extra punishment because of his motivation? No. He should be tried for killing someone, and judged like any other murder case.
I believe it should be the responsibility of the judging party to judge and sentence fairly with each and every case, not let somebody slide because you agree with their bigoted politics or come down with a stinging wrath because they struck down a minority you support. If we started actually treating everyone equally, instead of constantly putting groups down and/or constantly living with a feeling of guilt and reparation, we might have a chance to move beyond all of this label bullshit.
Re: Liberals’ rejection of science (Ilkka): I agree nuclear power is an under-utilized resource, but I believe it has more to do with social/political motivations than anything else (between incidents like Chernobyl, the nuclear fear of the United States lingering from the Cold War, and the fact that we have barrels of this random toxic shit that we have no idea how to handle). Really, this argument is no better than the ones conservatives have against gay marriage or abortion laws – social/religious motivation turned into political action. It seems to me that much like the Religious Right has a terror hold on many American conservatives, a secular anti-nuclear (anti-Reagan?) sentiment holds American liberals the same way.
The problem I see in much of this ‘debate’, both on this blog and in all of American politics, is that people are too wrapped up in their own ideals, while all too eager to smash down the opposition’s. Drop the party line crap and actually talk! Stop speaking on behalf of your ideologies! Actually look at what YOU think, why you think so, and what can be done from there! Otherwise you’re nothing more than a political automaton, spreading someone else’s memes.
Oh, and Ilkka, I’m sorry you are so disenchanted with your Finnish homeland. While I try not to have the idealized idea of Scandinavia many liberals have (having a Swedish best friend and hearing all the difficulties in their nation has certainly helped), I must say that any nation that not only has Jaakko Mäntyjärvi and Jean Sibelius, but also has made the internet a legal right is cool in my book.
hello there…is there any instrument that you use to identify in which category/class adopter were those people’s in?maybe some test?