Classification. It is a basic conceptual technique, & a skill in which humans excel. Yet many people, understandably, resist being classified. This is because our societal proclivity for these generalizations of others, often, is insufficient, and sometimes downright misleading, when applied to individuals. Nevertheless, though it should be understood that there can be vast differences between the occupants of any classification, there is certainly still benefit in the organizing function of classification. We call things Acids or Bases; Living and Non-living; Animals & Plants; Mammals, Marsupials, Rodents, and Reptiles. It does not mean that there are not similarities that cross these boundaries, or even sometimes hazy places at the borders. Yet it serves a helpful purpose, to be able to group things that are more alike, or which share certain similarities, together. That is the basis behind this thread. I am asking posters, who are willing, to self-classify themselves. I am, however, attempting to have a STANDARDIZATION in these descriptions, or else they are not truly categories. Instead of using the terms that are thrown around arbitrarily-- progressive, liberal, democrat, left, etc.-- I am proposing a specific, bi-part system, mirroring our taxonomical classifications (e.g., Homo sapiens). The first part of one's classification is a choice from three options: Establishment; Non-establishment; or Anti-establishment. Now, a Trump supporter, for example, might fit any one of those categories. Some love Trump because they see him as turning over the apple-cart of our current system. They have no problem condemning former Republicans, like G.H.W. Bush, or present ones like Romney, or even, circumstances warranting, McConnell. These would be Anti-establishers. Then there are Trump supporters who are not unconditionally supportive, but have weighed certain Republican priorities over other issues or concerns. They will be happy to continue supporting mainstream Republicans, making them Establishmentarian. For those, ever on the lookout for bias, who are suspicious of my focus on the right, I did so because the left is a much simpler thing to understand. It is my own, personal, bias that the majority on the left are-- despite the partisan stereotypes of free-spirit Democrats, vs. lock-step Republicans-- Establishment types, supporting Democrats, largely, across the board (and generally very reluctant to praise a Republican for anything, unless it serves the Democratic narrative). Those who fall into one of the other two categories, are obvious to spot: they either support candidates like Sanders or Yang, for example, but can support specific Democratic initiatives (like Sanders, himself), or they are manifestly against anything, if it is contaminated by contact with a major Party. My intention, in this OP overview, is not to personally begin any arguments, however, but only to explain. So, continuing in that vein, the 2nd half of the poster-classification I am suggesting, is placement on the left/right spectrum. I reiterate my understanding that many people, including myself, have views on particular issues that land on different parts of this spectrum. The goal, is to make an assessment, based on the bulk of one's perspective/positions. For the categories, here, I suggest: 1) Far left 2) Left 3) Center: left-leaning 4) Moderate centrist 5) Center: right-leaning 6) Right, & 7) Far right. So those 7 positions, below/after the 3 prevailing dispositions, will give us 21 possible classifications. Now comes the interesting part (I hope). Each participant is asked, along with an explanation of their classification, to provide 1 - 3 posts, supporting their self-assessment. For longer posts, I ask all to only post links, with a single sentence, summing up the post's main idea. THEN, other posters can vote on whether they ACCEPT the poster's choice. Those who dispute it, obviously, should produce evidence (i.e., posts) supporting their objections. At the end, we can all vote on whether we believe in the accuracy of each poster's self-designation. It is, to one way of thinking of it, very similar to a game of Bu!!$hit, except that all the participants are supposed to be offering, what they believe to be, the truth. Though I'm not yet ready to post the full case for my own designation, it will be forthcoming, shortly. Besides, it's probably not a bad idea to give someone else the opportunity to speak (for a bit). I will, however, provide a head's up of where I see myself, in this system. Though, as a child, I was very accepting of the word of those in authority, I think my nature is, or became, basically an anti-establishment, counter-cultural one. Nonetheless, as I aged, I developed my capacities for logic & pragmatism. So, in the final analysis: with views that fail to conform with the prevailing ones, for all the primary issues, typically associated with either Party; and not disposed to automatically agree with, nor to dismiss, out of hand, the arguments of any politician or Party; though long-believing that the two-Party system has intrinsic, and disqualifying, flaws; I would call myself a specimen of the Non-establishment left. Supporting posts & links, soon to follow. Anyone else willing to DECLARE THEMSELVES?
