Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2010, 06:05 PM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,431,784 times
Reputation: 1208

Advertisements

I don't think you can lump any career group to right or left. I know many people with many different career backgrounds and they span from way left to way right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-12-2010, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,475,124 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajn_australia_1988 View Post
Here in Australia, nurses are very left/liberal; which probably is at least party explained by the fact that here they are highly unionised (in fact they would be second only teachers in terms of public sector union militancy.
I am an RN with 40 years of nursing experience. Nurses seem to be about 60/40 conservative liberal. Granted, I have never worked in a state where nurses are heavily unionized. Most nurses that I know, even the quite conservative ones, tend to be in favor of end of life discussions, and favor quality of life over quantity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Don't be a cry baby!
1,309 posts, read 1,360,213 times
Reputation: 617
It seems that most self-made folks are right tighties where as public assist (not welfare stuff) folks are lefties.
It seems the people who are social providers are right wing and the people who live off of that effort are left wing.
It seems that right wing folks would rather do it where as left wing people wait for it to get done.
It seems that right wing folks rely on themselves for happiness where as left wing wait for you to make them happy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 07:14 PM
 
3,767 posts, read 4,521,086 times
Reputation: 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay View Post
That's been my observation as well. My BIL is a left leaning lawyer and every doc I know is a conservative with the exception of one Jewish radiologist, although he is quite fiscally conservative but socially liberal. He identifies with the democratic party though.
I agree with the lib lawyers and conservative docs. Pretty much down the line. Sort of interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Rural South Australia
41 posts, read 114,903 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
BTW, I have an Aussie internet friend who is a small business man, and very successful, at that, who just doesn't like anything liberal. He put me on the recent happening that resulted in the new PM in Australia and he was very nice to explain how it happened and why. I feel really sorry for him since he is so conservative in a liberal leaning nation. We both thought John Howard was kind of a hero and look what Rudd has been like since Howard left.
Actually this is an interesting point you make; Australia is certainly more left/liberal-leaning than the US.

However, I would say that Austraila is the most conservative-leaning Western nation outside the US.

I personally am a supporter of the Australia Labor Party (ALP); but I didn't like Keving Rudd (who did?; I've never personally met anyone left-wing or right-wing who did!). I do support Julia Gillard however.

Just an question though (which is completely off-topic). You were saying how your Australian friend explained how the leadership changed from Rudd to Gillard. Is it true (not obviously for you), that it is very hard to explain to most Americans how the Prime Minister-ship can be changed so easily in a Westminster system.

A British journalist was explaining how they always had trouble explaining to Americans how Margaret Thatcher was deposed by the Tories in 1990.

It wasn't that they didn't understand the 'mechanics' of how it happened. It's just the idea that for instance the President or Governor could be changed at the whim a party-room vote in the matter of a few hours, is so alien to American political culture that it is hard for them to 'get' it?

Quote:
This is a great thread since people are trying to be truthful with you instead of hacking at each other
I agree, given the highly-charged rhetoric I have seen on some of the other threads!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 07:19 PM
 
Location: it depends
6,369 posts, read 6,394,315 times
Reputation: 6388
I think location has a lot to do with it.

Cities are more liberal (and Democratic) while rural areas and small towns are generally more conservative (and Republican).

The exception to this rule: village idiots are almost always liberal Democrats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 07:27 PM
 
3,804 posts, read 6,157,363 times
Reputation: 3338
In the US lawyers are more to the left because making it easier to get divorced helps divorce lawyers and making it easier to sue businesses and other people/entities with money helps trial lawyers (this is what John Edwards did, and I believe it what Hilary Clinton's law firm did when Bill was governor of Arkansas). Republicans are a pro-business party, and thus say they're for caps on the winning (I mean judgements) for these kind of lawsuits as well as loser pays laws. Similarly they're usually for making divorce harder to get.

Most if not all other English speaking nations make it a lot harder and a lot less attractive to take frivolous civil cases to court in hopes of getting some jackpot justice. In this respect we're the liberal loonies, and that's probably why Australian lawyers are more conservative than American ones. Though if you get into say property or patent law you probably find it slants more conservative.

Now something that hasn't been mentioned is that there are stronger and weaker correlations for political alignment based on race in the US. Whites are on the weak correlation end of the scale as while whites are on average more conservative it goes between 55-60% being conservative. On the other end of the scale blacks strongly correlate to Democrat candidates with around 85-90% of black voters going for Democrats. I don't say liberal because even though blacks do vote Democrat so strongly I've met very few blacks who were on the liberal side of issues aside from affirmative action.

Religion has also been mentioned, and I'll take it a step further. Religious Americans who go to religious services on a regular basis are more likely to be conservative than religious American who don't go to services.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber Queen View Post
I don't think you can lump any career group to right or left. I know many people with many different career backgrounds and they span from way left to way right.
Not necessarily. As the Pew research survey mentioned in the previous poll suggests, being a scientist greatly increases the likelihood of the person being a liberal (only 9% identified themselves as conservatives).

Now, we could debate what makes one a liberal versus conservative. As it is, one can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, as well as a liberal when it comes to foreign policies. If it is aligning with either of the two political parties (ignoring the independents), then the difference could be even greater (only 6% of the scientists characterized themselves as republicans).

Another study I just came across in Discovery Science is about medical students, which, again, indicates liberalism is stronger with that populace as well, with only 26% considering themselves conservatives, while 40% as liberals. The rest consider themselves moderates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Rural South Australia
41 posts, read 114,903 times
Reputation: 34
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by GreenScoutII View Post
    Please forgive my ignorance, and forgive me for taking this thread a little off track, but do you have socialized medicine in Australia? If so, what do you think of it? Does it work well, meet your needs, etc? In the US this issue is very highly charged politically speaking and as such, it is difficult to determine where the rhetoric ends and the reality of such a system begins. I have found it is most useful to ask citizens of countries where they have socialized medicine what it is actually like with that type of system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenScoutII View Post
I really would like to hear your opinion on the whole socialized medicine issue if you don't mind.
I don't really have the time at present to give a full enough description of how the Australian health-care system works, that this important question deserves.

Here is a link to Wikipedia (the artcile is very thorough though), which describes Medicare, which is Australia's universal health care system: Medicare (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


I'm not sure that that qualifies as a 'socialised medicine' policy; I think the term is to some degree a 'scare' phrase used in America by conservatives.

To perhaps use a comparison, we have more public involvement in health-care than the USA, but far less than the UK and Canada.

I think part of the reason why UHC is so unpopular in the US is that the two most commonly used examples are the UK and Canada.

These are both bad examples, for different reasons:
  • UK: The UK NHS is a bad example, because it relies not just on government financing of health-care, but almost full-scale government provision of health-care. Critics of the NHS are not entirely incorrect to say that the internal workings of the NHS are indeed like a 'socialist' command economy (lack of price signals, use of quotas for rationing, etc).
  • Canada: Canadian Medicare is a bad example because of the severe restrictions placed upon Canadian residents who wish to utilise private health-care instead of the public system ie it reduces freedom of choice, even when patients are willing to pay the extra money for private health-care.

You asked do I like the Australian system? Yes; I think it works well. IMHO, it is good for a variety of reasons:


  • Universal provision of high-quality care to all Australian residents, at affordable prices (though not entirely free for some services; important to retain the price mechanism).
  • Except for hospitals themselves, most aspects of Medicare are privately-run (ie doctor's clinics, etc). This is good because it increases efficiency, competition and maintains the doctor's right to practice as a independent professional (as opposed to becoming a public servant, as in the NHS.
  • No restrictions on the ability of patients to access private health-care should they choose to.
  • There are actually incentives for patients to opt for private health-care instead of using the pubilc system ie there are govermnent subsidies and tax incentives to make private health insurance more affordable.
Interestly, when Medicare was first introduced in Australia in the early 1980's, the Australian Medical Association and doctors in general were fiercely opposed, much in the US.

Now, almost 30 years later, they are fiercest defenders of Medicare and would baulk at the idea of any major roll-back of it.

Assuming that the US gets UHC, it will be interesting to see if in 30 years time, American doctors take a similar approach.

Also, to use another example, in Australia in the 1980's, the right-wing of politics were staunchly opposed to Medicare and promised to abolish it or at least seriously roll it back if elected.

However, by the 1990's, John Howard had to be basically promise in a 'hand on his heart' sort of way, figurately speaking, to not in anyway abolish or even roll-back Medicare, in order to be electable.

I assume Republicans are strongly opposed to UHC and promise a roll-back. Political history suggests that if they wish to do this they would need to do within a few years of its introducton.

Once the public get used to UHC (which could take up to a decade), then a Republican presidential candidate in the 2020's might be heard saying, 'I promise if elected to maintain the core elements of UHC', or words to that effect, in order to be electable.


Sorry for the long, off-topic post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2010, 08:01 PM
 
10,875 posts, read 13,787,973 times
Reputation: 4896
Generally the democrats are working class, labor/skilled labor, construction, electricians, plumbers, etc,.. hard working blue collar americans. Also minorities generally favor the democrats.
Republicans generally are white collar, upper middle class to rich, fortune 500 company/wall street/big business types. Though the most common voting republicans are the 45+ males that started supporting the party decades ago, but still support them now even though it's principals have changed vastly. Also poor whites, often in rural areas are heavily pro republican.
Liberals often work for little money in positions such as at animal rescue facilities, artists, musicians, organic farmers, volunteering, community activism..etc Though don't let the right fool you with the ignorant ones saying "liberal" this and that to anything that isn't uber far right.

Also a surgeon i know is as right as they come, and two lawyer friends of mine are both straight down the middle independents. They really take every election with no bias and make their vote on the individual person's views, experience,..etc which we all should do. People who only vote one way or a another, no matter what need a reality check. That is a poor way to view politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top