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.
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 The issue is that Lemmy loves to insist on the idea that liberalism and leftism are not compatible, which is an outdated, reductive idea.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.
If you’re against democracy then we’re also not on the same side.
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.