User Tools

Site Tools


liberal_quotient

Liberal quotient is a new term coined by Conservapedia to quantify how liberal a group is. It is used for assessing political bias and for evaluating statements or positions by such a group.

The liberal quotient is defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group, and, by definition, infinity if there are no conservatives.

According to a Harris Poll from 2005 ://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548, 40% of all Americans identify as moderates, 35% as conservatives, and 18% as liberals. This gives a liberal quotient of about 1:2. These numbers have been fairly constant during the last decades.

A Wikipedia user can choose from 32 different categories to self-identify their political ideology. There are 240 users who chose to self-identify as liberal, and 75 who self-identified as conservative. This means that the group of editors on Wikipedia that chose to self-identify has a liberal quotient of about 3:1. Groups having a high liberal quotient would include university faculties, the National Education Association, the leadership of the Democratic Party, the management of the Village Voice and New York Times, and the leaders of the ACLU. Groups having a low liberal quotient would include a trade association of small business owners, an association of Christian athletes, and worshipers at church on an ordinary Sunday, with the exception of black protestant congregations ://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174.

Comparison to Other Metrics

While some liberals oppose any measurement of their influence, others have proposed different metrics. One alternative proposal of a liberal quotient is the percentage of liberals in a population or group.

This metric fails to distinguish between conservatives and moderates. For example, this metric yields the same result if there were 50 liberals and 50 moderates as if there were 50 liberals and 50 conservatives, even though the two groups have very different political biases.

The formulation LQ = L/(L+C) has also been proposed - the Liberal quotient is the ratio of self identified liberals to the sum of self identified liberals and conservatives. This yields a range from 0 to 1, and is not affected by moderates or the unidentified. But by constraining the quotient to a scale of 0 to 1, it understates a large increase in liberal control. A group having 9 liberals and just one conservative would have a liberal quotient of 0.9, while a group having 99 liberals and only one conservative would have a liberal quotient of only 0.99. Increasing the liberal control eleven-fold would result in only a 10% increase in this quotient. A rebuttal to this criticism is that this is just how percentages work.

Proponent of this measure point out that both measure are mathematical equivalent. Given a liberal quotient defined as LQ=L/C the alternative measure can be obtained by the transformation LQ/(1+LQ). Since one measure can be obtained from the other by a simple transformation, preferring one over the other is simply a matter of taste.

Criticism

Critics of the liberal quotient point out that it discounts groups identifying neither as liberal nor conservative, such as the 40% of moderates in the American public. A group with 97 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative has the same liberal quotient as a group with 1 moderate, 66 Liberals and 33 conservatives, although some might claim the latter group is more liberal. Furthermore, while “conservative” may be considered a general description for someone with right-wing ideological beliefs, “liberal” does not carry the same connotations for people of the left wing; many socialists would not consider themselves to be liberals.

It has also been pointed out that this metric does not differentiate between groups with differing levels of liberal beliefs; an extreme left-wing group may have the same liberal quotient as a mildly liberal group.

The metric can fail to distinguish between conservatives and moderates. The liberal quotient yields the same result if there were 50 conservatives and 50 moderates as if there were 100 conservatives, even though the two groups have very different political biases.

A rebuttal is to these criticisms is that it is unclear what moderates add or subtract to a group. For example, it is argued that the counterweight by provided 33 conservatives to the 66 liberals in the presence of 1 moderate, than that is just as effective as the counterweight provided by 1 conservative to 2 liberals in the presence of 97 moderates. The influence of moderates are in this argumentation purposefully ignored, for the sake of simplicity.

In this context it has also been pointed out that the term liberal quotient can be misleading, and will often be understood to mean liberal fraction. The liberal quotient of 1:2 of the American public, for example, might be mistaken to mean that 66% of all Americans are conservative, although it is only about 35% according to the Harris poll.

A more fundamental criticism is directed to the use of the liberal quotient when applied to media outlets or encyclopedias. Rather than estimating the political orientation of editors, critics propose to consider the political orientation of the actual content. Recent scientific studies on media bias look at the media content, and not at the orientation of the editors, and use in addition other measures than the quotient of articles with a liberal bias versus articles with a conservative bias ://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=947640#PaperDownload://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html. Note, that both studies nevertheless conclude that most media outlets have a liberal bias.

Another problem with applying this metric to media outlets and encyclopedia is that, in contrast to groups, unbiased articles, the analog to moderates, do not swing their orientation in the presence of biased articles. An encyclopedia with 99.7% unbiased articles, 0.2% liberally biased articles, and 0.1% conservatively biased articles, has the same liberal bias as a product with 66.6% liberally biased articles, 33.3% conservative articles , 0.1% unbiased articles. However, the first would be considered a reliable source of information, while the second would be highly unreliable. And this despite having the same liberal quotient. Even if the influence of moderates in a group of people might be unclear, the influence of unbiased articles on on the reliability of an encyclopedia is obvious.

Other criticism of the liberal quotient is directed at the way it is used in comparison of the bias of Wikipedia with statistically sound results from a Harris Poll. The identified problems are:

  • The comparison relies on raw data from a self-selected sample ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_political_ideology.
  • It compares 2 answers of a poll with 3 possible answers, to 2 of 32 user categories.
  • It compares the outcome of a poll in which respondent can only choose one option, with one a self-identification project, in which users can choose as many options as they like.
               

Liberalism

Lefty Topics

AtheismEvolutionismEugenicsGlobalismGlobal warming alarmismHollywood valuesMoral relativismNew age movementPopulation controlProfessor valuesScientologySocialismValuesWicca

AbortionBirth controlAffirmative actionGun controlHomosexual agendaIncome redistributionNanny StateNationalizationObamacarePolitically correctPrayer censorshipSocial JusticeStatism

Tools Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"Cloward and Piven StrategyBiased gradingCensorshipHate speechJudicial activismLiesLiberal intoleranceLiberal logicMainstream MediaMythsNetwork abuseObfuscationPay to playRedefinitionRevisionismScientific fascismSlanderTrapsTricksVandalismVideo game industry

ArroganceBiasBigotryBullyingClass warfareCronyismDeceitDouble standardDenialHypocrisyJournalistic malpracticePropagandaRace baitingStupidityStyleTrollUncharitablenessWhining

Labor UnionsLiberals and friendshipMedia eliteGeorge SorosLiberal quotientNihilismPornographyPublic schools

AtheismEvolutionismEugenicsGlobalismGlobal warming alarmismHollywood valuesMoral relativismNew age movementPopulation controlProfessor valuesScientologySocialismValuesWicca

AbortionBirth controlAffirmative actionGun controlHomosexual agendaIncome redistributionNanny StateNationalizationObamacarePolitically correctPrayer censorshipSocial JusticeStatism

Tools Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"Cloward and Piven StrategyBiased gradingCensorshipHate speechJudicial activismLiesLiberal intoleranceLiberal logicMainstream MediaMythsNetwork abuseObfuscationPay to playRedefinitionRevisionismScientific fascismSlanderTrapsTricksVandalismVideo game industry

ArroganceBiasBigotryBullyingClass warfareCronyismDeceitDouble standardDenialHypocrisyJournalistic malpracticePropagandaRace baitingStupidityStyleTrollUncharitablenessWhining

Labor UnionsLiberals and friendshipMedia eliteGeorge SorosLiberal quotientNihilismPornographyPublic schools


Liberalism can refer to a number of political philosophies derived from Classical liberalism. In this article, the American political platform referred to as “liberal” within the United States is contrasted with other meanings of the word, particularly in Europe and in other parliamentary democratic systems.

  • “Whereas Liberalism is the triumph of emotion over reason (as defined historically), Conservatism is an applied intellectual process; based on observation, deduction, and the study of provable historical fact.” - Sandy Stringfellow<ref>Sandy Stringfellow</ref>
  • Cal Thomas said, “One of liberalism's many problems is that once an idea or program is proved wrong and unworkable, liberals rarely acknowledge their mistake and examine the root cause of their error so they don't repeat it.”<ref>Cal Thomas</ref>
  • Fred Seigel wrote, “Liberalism has become an ugly blend of sanctimony, self-interest, and social connections.” <ref>Fred Seigel</ref>
  • :A distinguishing element of liberalism has been its admiration of autocratic leaders and this explains its embrace of dictators from the likes of the German Kaiser, Lenin and Stalin, through to men like Fidel Castro and his murderous sidekick, Ernesto “Che” Guevera.<ref>The Curse of Liberalism Alan Caruba - September 9, 2013</ref>
  • Michael Savage wrote, “As much as the Left fashions themselves as being progressive, they’re not. In reality, today’s leftist movement is made in much the same way as a sausage—it’s a blend of fascist, Communist, and socialist ideologies from twentieth-century Europe, with a pinch of Nazism, all ground together, yet retaining the flavor of its various parts.”<ref>Quote from ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'' by Michael Savage</ref>

Since the definition of liberalism often – but not always – means to advocate for and be open to change, its specific reference depends on specified context. For instance, American liberalism has changed drastically since the 1960s, with liberals then (see: John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.) advocating for personal responsibility and true liberty, in sharp contrast to modern-day liberals, being very close to leftists, denounce and devalue.

United States

In the U.S. the word liberal is usually used to describe the platform espoused by the Democrat Party, that is, support of social welfare systems, redistribution of wealth, and government regulation of the economy - combined with a certain brand of individual libertarianism, emphasizing social equality, and (to a certain extent, these days increasingly radical) rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality as a proper justification for law.

The economic aspects of this ideology are to a large extent a product of the New Deal policies of the Great Depression era, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson's “Great Society.” It also should be noted that a good portion of the Liberal economic philosophy has certain roots in the teachings of Karl Marx, such as the overall focus on social equality and the outrageous rejection of the Judeo-Christian morals. It should be noted, however, that Liberals are not pureblood Communists: Unlike their redder brethren, Liberals are far more insidious and dangerous, as they have successfully infiltrated the American society and now threaten the American way of life.

The Democrat Party's idea of social liberty and equality, though, came much later, partly as a result of the civil rights and counterculture movements of the late 20th century. It continues to be fueled by various youth movements and the interests of numerous special interest groups.

Europe and elsewhere

In Europe, liberalism refers to a political position that leans toward greater individual liberties and less government intervention in general. In short, this is the philosophy closest to classical liberalism, and is commonly referred to in the United States as libertarianism. In Europe and elsewhere, then, the opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, but authoritarianism.

Because of this, the terms “conservative liberalism” and “liberal conservatism”, which are seen as contradictory in the U.S., are not so in Europe. “Conservative liberalism” simply refers to a less radical libertarian philosophy, and is often referred to as “law-and-order liberalism.” Liberal conservatism is simply a variant of conservatism willing to allow for individual liberties, and, in a way, describes the ideology of the American Republican Party. Such examples of this obvious line of thought include the civil rights movement, when the Republican Party (and a few southern Democrats) just wanted to maintain the African American's right to have the choice of forced segregation.

The Liberal Party of Australia is the right-leaning party, in opposition to the liberal Labor Party, and is not to be confused with liberalism as an ideology.

Nazism and socialism

For more information please see: Nazism and socialism, Gun Control in Nazi Germany

was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party), led by Social Darwinist Adolf Hitler.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>https://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]] The Ludwig von Mises Institute declares:

There is debate about the similarities between Nazism and socialism. Despite whether Nazism is socialist or not, they, with the help of general improvement of economic conditions in Europe, helped propel Germany out of the Great Depression with their economic policy.<ref>http://www.nazism.net/about/economic_practice</ref>

Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism

See also: Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism

Communist Manifesto Nazi Party Platform Analysis
1 “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” “We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.” The stripping away of land from private owners. Liberalism today demands “eminent domain” on property.
2 “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” “We demand the nationalization of all trusts…profit-sharing in large industries…a generous increase in old-age pensions…by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor…and the creation of a national (folk) army.” The points raised in the Nazi platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
3 “Abolition of all rights of inheritance.” “That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.” Liberalism today demands a “death tax” on anyone inheriting an estate.
4 “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” “We demand the nationalization of all trusts.” Central control of the financial system.
5 “Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.” “We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press…editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens…Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State…the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper…” Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
6 “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.” “In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. ” Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things their way in our schools.

See also

References

<references /> Liberalism Anti-American

liberal_quotient.txt · Last modified: 2020/03/12 18:35 (external edit)