A new Gallup survey shows that countries with the highest Well-Being Index scores are also some of the countries with the highest acceptance of gays and lesbians, led by New Zealand.
Conversely, several of those countries with the lowest Well-Being Index scores are also some of the countries with lowest acceptance for gays and lesbians (bottom feeders: Zimbabwe, Haiti, Ethiopia and post-Soviet Georgia).
Another interesting poll analysis: The Cato Institute's David Boaz parses the data from a recent Washington Post/ABC News survey that asked Americans about their support for smaller (or larger) government and if they favor (or oppose) civil unions for same-sex couples. He found that:
• Small "l" libertarians who support smaller government and civil unions: 26%.
• Conservatives who support smaller government and oppose civil unions: 23%.
• Liberals who support larger government and civil unions: 26% percent.
• Statists/anti-libertarians who support larger government and oppose civil unions: 17%.
So libertarian-minded Americans (although they might not label themselves as such) who support smaller government and civil unions outnumber conservatives who support smaller government and oppose civil union. Could be that's why Giuliani is seen as a viable candidate for the GOP nomination as more Republicans begin to come round, and still more might be expected to if they perceive that independents or fiscally conservative/socially tolerant Democrats could be up for grabs.
21 Comments for “All in the Numbers (Not About ENDA)”
posted by Brian Miller on
Why would someone who supports smaller government vote for Giuliani?
That’s a serious question, BTW.
posted by Avee on
I agree with you Brian, but I also see Steve’s point: Since Giuliani is a Repbulican, he’d be perceived as the nominee of the party that’s supposed to be against big government. In G’s case, it’s a misperception, but Hillary will be hawking her big government wish list, and G will be making noises about lower taxes, etc.
posted by ETJB on
Again, we do not have a national election, so Giullani’s standing in national polls do not really matter too much.
The more relevant question is how is a candidate doing in state polls, especially in the early states?
posted by another Steve on
OK, take health care. Rudy is for market-oriented health care reform (making the system more competitive to control prices); Hillary is for, if not exactly single-payer, certainly a system that’s highly regulated and controlled (including pricing mechanisms). So, is determining which is the “big government” candidate really that hard?
posted by Brian Miller on
So, is determining which is the “big government” candidate really that hard?
Not really — they both are.
Their only differences are over which big-government programs they intend to fund.
Which is why I again wonder why someone who wants smaller government would vote for either of them, except out of a sense of profound self-deception.
posted by Amicus on
asked Americans about their support for smaller (or larger) government
—-
it’s a shame question, of course, even before one gets to Stephens excellent one.
America has never had “big Government”, unless you include the giant-sized military (or the recently revealed mammoth sum that is for our CIA – yes, the CIA costs more than the entire Federal judiciary).
Most people don’t even know what the proportions of what the government spends its money on, and that’s the fertile ground for ‘small government’ demagoguery.
posted by Amicus on
er…
shame=sham
posted by Craig2 on
Your suggested evolution of the Republican Party sounds rather similar to David Cameron’s ‘new conservatism’ in the United Kingdom. However, there are doubts about that; and here in New Zealand, a once-pluralist centre-right National Party Opposition has been taken over by social conservative extremists.
Good idea, though.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
Wellington, NZ
posted by Brian Miller on
America has never had “big Government”, unless you include the giant-sized military
I beg to differ.
Government expenditure equals almost half of real GDP, and government-related employment now represents over half — a majority — of all employment in the USA.
The US federal government is $9 trillion in debt and budgeted $2.8 trillion in expenditures in 2007, with only $2.4 trillion in receipts.
The total share of the federal monetized debt per taxpayer is roughly $60,000 — the cost of a reasonable home in St. Louis.
When you add in the unfunded future spending in Medicare and Social Security to that liability, it increases to almost $200,000 per taxpayer.
Perhaps you’re right — America’s never had big govenrment, we’ve skipped all the way to massive government.
posted by John M. on
Brian’s point remains valid; most of the “big” government the military.
I also would love to know how these questions were asked. I feel the Dept. of Homeland Security is a waste of my tax dollars. However, I support a single payer health care system. Does that make me a libertarian in favor of big government?
posted by Jorge on
Uh… wha?
And why on earth wouldn’t so-called statists/anti-libertarians be relevant to the Republican primary? Republican votes have drawn a lot more from big government conservatives in recent years. I think the tension is between big government Republicans and social conservative Republicans, not social conservatives and small government people. Especially since this election could easily be another War on Terror/War in Iraq election, with the big/strong government headliners (military, intelligence, and I’ll add foreign policy to Amicus’ observation) taking center stage.
posted by ETJB on
Lori: ETJB, you are a liar. You are an outright liar as well as a fraud.
Prove it. Point out where I have made a false statement, as opposed to a difference of opinion or belief. Meanwhile, you can also try and prove that civil rights laws are somehow unconstitutional.
Lori said: No one has an absolute “civil right” to be employed — upon their demand — by anybody else.
I do not recall suggesting that they did. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find a right that is absolute. Yet, civil rights are not about that.
Equal opportunity is — generally — a civil right as defined by federal and state law. Such laws are constitutional, and you failed to prove that they should be treated as otherwise.
The Constitution does not say that a business owner has a right to be exempt from civil rights laws or that they have a right to hire/fire/exclude whomever they want.
Yes, the U.S. Constitution limits the power of the government, but it also gives the government certain legislative powers; i.e. civil rights legislation.
Did you read the books I suggested? The Libertarian Left does exist, and existed long before the Libertarain Right (that you seem to express) came along.
The founding fathers were NOT libertarians. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in that century who was a libertarian.
You said: Well, nanny-nanny boo-boo, Poopyhead.
Ah, more personal attacks and refusals to have a serious discussion.
You said: I have read the Constitution and understand how it works.
Sadly, you have failed to demonstrate that in your posts here at the IGF.
If you really understood the U.S. Constitution and how it works, then you would not be aruging that civil rights laws are unconstitutional.
As a member of the Libertarian-Right you oppose civil right laws, yet you arguement for doing so keeps changing.
You claim they [civil rights laws] are unconstitutional, but can offer little proof to back it up.
You claimed that they violate a right, but have not been able to back that up, except with some vague references to the founding fathers (none of whom were libertarians).
When I point out these flaws, when I ask you to actually back up your views with credibile facts or valid arguments, you squirm, dodge and engage in personal attacks.
Now, you taken up the argument that “The burden of dissent is upon you.” Lori, you are the person who is ‘dissenting’ by opposing civil rights laws and the consititional legal precedent theirin.
You have to persuade people that civil rights laws are unconstitutional.
posted by ETJB on
BTW, I have extensive non-partisan links on government, law, parties, elections and candidates on my personal webpage;
http://www.geocities.com/edwardtjbrown/usgov.html
It even has a link to a copy of the U.S. Constitution (in case anyone wants to try and claim something about it).
posted by kittynboi on
Zimbabwe is easily one of the worst countries EVER.
posted by Bobby on
“The founding fathers were NOT libertarians.”
—Really? The founding fathers and the first presidents this country had had no taxes, no medicare, no social security, no help for victims of famine and disease, little or no foreign debt, no regulations for businesses, no public schools, they seemed pretty libertarian too me.
It was later on that this American experiment was corrupted with the New Deal, gun control, the war on drugs, the war on tobacco, prohibition, and all the other big government inventions.
The only non-libertarian thing the founding fathers had was those pesky sodomy laws, and slavery. But other than that, it was the way America should be.
posted by Lori Heine on
ETJB, I will not even attempt to answer, point-by-point, your latest childish little screed. I am tired of you, and of your constant attempts to turn it all into a game of gotcha.
The Constitution does not enumerate every right the citizens have. It sets the boundaries on the government’s power. I’ve said that before, and now I’m saying it again.
How old are you, anyway? You sound like you’re about fifteen. If so, and you have read all the books you claim you have (and claim that I haven’t), then you are, indeed, a precocious little whippersnapper.
I disagree that the State has the right to tell businessowners whom they can hire and fire. None of your unhinged rantings have changed my mind. (And yes, you most certainly DID say that. It was how this whole tempest-in-a-pisspot got started in the first place.)
Read what the Founders had to say about their intentions in framing the government. And don’t bother trying to tell me that you have, because you all too clearly haven’t. I’m not going to scramble around looking up references to argue the point with you. I really don’t care that much what you think. You obviously have too much time on your hands.
Maybe you ought to get a job. Though with an attitude like yours, God only knows who’d hire you.
posted by ETJB on
The founding fathers were certainly not libertarian. They were not even one mind politically on various important subjects of the day, which is why the end result was a compromise.
They promoted polices based on what the agarian voting majority wanted; originally white men who owned property and had reached the age of 21. The founders would never have upheld the belief that the government could not regulate the economy.
posted by ETJB on
Lori;
More personal attacks and efforts to dodge or revise your remarks? Hmm.
The Libertarian Party and most other right-wing libertarians oppose civil rights laws because they wrongly believe that they violate associate and property rights.
Your most recent argument in opposition to civil rights laws is the following; it is a right [to violate them] in the constitution, even if it is not mentioned, because it, “not enumerate every right the citizens have.”
This is a horrible argument on so many levels. It basically comes down to, “I think it should be a right and thus I am stating that it is.” An argument that makes about a much sense when used to oppose civil rights laws as when the folks at the NAMBLA use it.
If Constitutional rights exist, just because anyone says so, then we got a lot of problems. If we followed such an argument, then their is nothing to stop a murder or a child molestor from saying, “Well, I think it should be a right and the government does list all the rights, thus it must be a right.”
Yes, the Constitution limits the power of the government, but it does not prohibit the government from enacting legislation to regulate the ecomomy or private property.
If Libertarians such as yourself, want to persuade people that civil rights laws are unconstitutional or otherwise immoral or injust, then you have the burden of trying to persuade people of such a policy choice.
People who want to change things, are the ones who have to convince people that the change is good, noble, just, etc.
You will not get anywhere with making such a case, with personal attacks, or sloppy philosophy, history and constitutional law.
The founding fathers were not Libertarian. They were a collective body of well educated men, who had various religious and political opinions (and often did not really like each other). The result was a compromise.
Public policy was directed by the desires of the majority of voters; white, men who owned property and had reached the age of 21.
posted by Brian Miller on
The Constitution does not enumerate every right the citizens have.
Indeed — in fact it expressly says that, and notes that those rights are still due to “the people.”
ETJB’s vision of socialist centralization (which he refers to as “civil rights”) aims to take rights away from the people and give them to the federal government. He seeks to “set us free” by having the government manage every facet of our lives, insisting that the only way we’re “protected” is through government bureaucrats deciding where we work, what we eat, where we live, how we live, with whom we live, etc., etc., etc.
He can get snarky, hem and haw, or launch his persistent personal attacks, but he cannot escape the simple reality of his position, which can be encapsulated as “government is always smarter than the individual; individuals must always subsume their rights to government in order to meet the goals of central planners.”
posted by ETJB on
A common tactic of the Libertarian Right is to argue that anyone that disagrees with them most be; a socialist, a statist or something like that.
Its cheap, its glib, and its not helpful to a serious debate.
Brian, accuses me of being in favor of ‘socialist centralization’. Translation; anyone who disagress with right-wing politics must be a socialist.
I have never suggested that the government, “manage every facet of our lives”.
posted by Lori Heine on
“‘The Constitution does not enumerate every right the citizens have.'”
“Indeed — in fact it expressly says that, and notes that those rights are still due to ‘the people.'”
Brian, both you and I have done something it has somehow never occurred to ETJB to do, which is to actually read the Constitution before attempting to argue about it.
What a concept!
Of course it’s also abundantly obvious that ETJB has not read any of the other sources he cites here.