Living Car Free - Are you a car free Republican/Conservative?

Stereotypically, I think the car free folks are probably all predominately left of center. I'm more right of center, but living car free (I currently do not) makes alot of sense to me. That being said, is there a political leaning from most on this forum?

If I feel like prodding some of the people I know who would call themselves Republican/Conservative, for the sake of a little discussion, I say that I am extremely conservative, shockingly conservative.

To me, "conservative" means sticking with time-honored principles, approaching change cautiously, not jumping into radically different ways of doing things.

If someone were to suggest, hey, let's find all of our finite supply of petroleum, burn it all up as fast as possible so that there is none left for the future, and the atmosphere is polluted on top of that, and then see what happens, I would label that person as a flaming radical. That is something that has never been tried before, could have terrible consequences, and would be irreversible. That's the very definition of radical, right out of the dictionary--"favoring extreme changes."

It seems to be a human trait to consider what one personally knows as normal, the way things should be, and the way things always will be. But this heavy car dependence has been with us for only about one human lifetime. What is really "conservative"? What is really "radical"?

I'm not car free. Not really even car lite, since I own two cars. My wife drives one daily, and I drive one about one time each week.
Having said that, I'm a libertarian. I hate governmental interference in our lives. I think people need to learn how to do more for themselves and ask less of others. I consider myself to be financially conservative and socially liberal.

depends on what definition of conservative you use, the current extreme neo liberal incarnation of conservative as practiced by the admin in power, or the old classic definition

depends on what definition of conservative you use, the current extreme neo liberal incarnation of conservative as practiced by the admin in power, or the old classic definition
Maybe it depends on if the car-free cyclist watches TV or not.:)

could a conservative/republican be a bike commuter/rider and be perfectly happy with the road system? classically, conservatives do not like government, or taxes, invading on their dance space.
government and taxing makes it possible to fund public projects like road repairs and bicycle lanes, plus the general maintanence that it takes to keep roads in order.
coming from northern mass before i moved here, once you cross the border into new hampshire, the roads are a mess - it's mostly a conservative state, and tax free.
but the public suffers for it.

If someone were to suggest, hey, let's find all of our finite supply of petroleum, burn it all up as fast as possible so that there is none left for the future, and the atmosphere is polluted on top of that, and then see what happens, I would label that person as a flaming radical. That is something that has never been tried before, could have terrible consequences, and would be irreversible. That's the very definition of radical, right out of the dictionary--"favoring extreme changes."


+1. Exactly. How would anyone consider that attitude "conservative"? I would think a true conservative would tend more towards conservation. Yes?

Would you agree that hunters, are the best conservationists?

Would you agree that hunters, are the best conservationists?
Absolutely not. Most hunters are good advocates of "wildlife management," and that can include a lot of conservation measures. But many hunters have little interest in preserving wilderness as wilderness. They don't like predators, for example, because they compete for prey. They don't like endangered species, because sometimes prime hunting areas are off limits to hunting in order to protect endangered species. And they sure as hell don't like hikers, mountain bikers, bird watchers, snowmobilers and other users of wild lands.

+1. Exactly. How would anyone consider that attitude "conservative"? I would think a true conservative would tend more towards conservation. Yes?


nope... the status-quo is heavy dependence on cars, and the support of "big business", which is heavily oil-dependent. A political conservative is gonig to maintain the status, protect the businesses, and thus our rediculous lifestyles.

Go out and poll the drivers of the largest SUV's on the road and see what their affiliation is...


If, however, your point is that the terms liberal and conservative are misused, then I agree with you.

Is it a coincidence that most of the employees of defense (read: weapon), oil industries are Republicans?
Is it a coincidence that the governments that seek ways to drill in Alaska and other delicate faunas are Republicans?
Is it a coincidence that a Republican government enabled the business owners to write-off Hummers and other heavy-weight SUVs?
I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule. But I personally have never met a environmentalist Republican.

The Amish are very conservative

I'm independent, with republican leanings. I own a big ol' SUV, ranks right up there with the best of the gas guzzlers. Of course, it hasn't moved under it's own power in about 8 months. :)

It's sitting there waiting for me to fix it, so I can take it up into the mountains next spring/summer.

Would you agree that hunters, are the best conservationists?

No. Too many hunters are out for the "thrill of the kill" and filling the freezer to use a blanket statement like that. A person might do the right thing, but if they do it for the wrong reason you can't call them a conservationist.

Here in Michigan I know way too many people hunt to drink beer and get away from the wife.

How does one seperate being religiously conservative, with economically conservative, with socially conservation, environmental conservation and so on?

If I feel like prodding some of the people I know who would call themselves Republican/Conservative, for the sake of a little discussion, I say that I am extremely conservative, shockingly conservative.

To me, "conservative" means sticking with time-honored principles, approaching change cautiously, not jumping into radically different ways of doing things.

If someone were to suggest, hey, let's find all of our finite supply of petroleum, burn it all up as fast as possible so that there is none left for the future, and the atmosphere is polluted on top of that, and then see what happens, I would label that person as a flaming radical. That is something that has never been tried before, could have terrible consequences, and would be irreversible. That's the very definition of radical, right out of the dictionary--"favoring extreme changes."

It seems to be a human trait to consider what one personally knows as normal, the way things should be, and the way things always will be. But this heavy car dependence has been with us for only about one human lifetime. What is really "conservative"? What is really "radical"?
Now here's a "Conservative" viewpoint I can live with! Colorado typically votes Republican, but in the last election, the entire state actually approved a tax increase Initiative to expand the Light Rail around Denver and Boulder. This tells me that both Conservatives and Liberals want a solution to these problems, but that Political stubbornness usually stands in the way.

not! to both of them.
I do vote for issues that effect me locally, and state wide..but not any person..
Here in Ohio..the poplus voted for a change in the state house..
Gov taft beleive it or not did put alot into building bike trails..Ohio is like the 4 or 5 th state with the most trails? I do hope the clean air act, especially the funding that alows bike paths to be built contiune.
peace though only comes from above..one day! Somebodys comin..

What does it mean to be a conservative? A lot of conservatives were anti-interventionist and fiscally conservative, yet seem to support just the opposite with the current regime. To me conservative means they like a mean father figure government and liberal means they like a soft mommy government. But they are both authoritarian and perfectly happy to use force to maintain the power structure. A thinking person's evolution is thus - conservative to libertarian to anarchist (or liberal to socialist to anarchist). I think it is morally reprehensible to support the idea of government whether liberal or conservative since all government is based on violent means.

The misseries of traffic gridlock is non partisan in nature; as is the price of gasoline. I hope at least, for all our well being.

Is there such a thing as a conservative, left-leaning, (small "L") libertarian or am I one of those flip-flopping moderates that the Neo-Cons warn us about?

The Amish are very conservative
That actually brings up an interesting point. Even though Utah is one of the most socially conservatives states, they are also one of the most environmentally responsible. Some cities in Utah (can't remember which ones) have free (propane powered) bus service with the intent of encouraging people to drive less. There's also a national park in Utah (Zion I think) which prohibits private vehicles during the busy tourist season (again, only propane powered busses are permitted.

That said, I would guess bicyclists in general would tend to be more left-wing. Businesspersons tend to be economically conservative Republicans, but can often be moderate to liberal on social issues. However, since most people are motiviated by profit to enter the business world, I would think they'd be more likely to drive expensive, inefficient luxury cars/SUVs, rather than bike.

As for myself, I don't think I would ever consider myself conservative because to me the term implies being closed-minded. The basic definition of conservative is 'tending to favor conventional or traditional values, ideas, institutions, etc, while being averse to new and/or unorthodox ideas, practices,etc.' I think of myself as a minimalist/pragmatist in regards to most aspects of life, including politics. In my life and society in general, certain thing just need to get done in order for things to work effectively. I want these things done in the most efficient (and least wasteful) way possible: if it that means doing them in a conventional way, that's fine; if it means doing it in an unconventional way, that's also fine. I bike because it's much more cost effective, less wasteful (in terms of resources and pollution), and often faster than driving (during certain times of the day).

Here in Michigan I know way too many people hunt to drink beer and get away from the wife.

Shhh! You're not supposed to tell those guys that they're really camping. ;)

I'm philosophically libertarian and registered independent, but often vote GOP. At this point, esp. on the federal level, I don't see much difference between the parties. I will usually go with the one least likely to try to take away my firearms.

I dislike the left because I find them even more arrogant and invasive than the right. It comes across very clearly living up here in Alaska. I've heard Democrats in the Senate lecture us about why we don't need a gravel road from one village to another or why a bridge to my home is a "bridge to nowhere." They're a bunch of a-holes. I favor drilling in ANWR because I've actually been there and I know how they drill these days. And I think if those clowns from the south really wanted to make a change in the environment they'd forbid new highway and bridge construction in the midwest and east and reintroduce brown bears in California and the mountain states. I fly over the cities down there and see nothing but stinking, paved-over hell holes and THESE are the people who try to lecture ME! They use Alaska as the scapegoat, and figure if they vote to keep us from building a damn gravel road from one village to the next, they've done their good deed for the year. So they drive home in their guzzler and crank up the AC to keep the 120 degree sun at bay.

I'm philosophically libertarian and registered independent, but often vote GOP. At this point, esp. on the federal level, I don't see much difference between the parties. I will usually go with the one least likely to try to take away my firearms.

I dislike the left because I find them even more arrogant and invasive than the right. It comes across very clearly living up here in Alaska. I've heard Democrats in the Senate lecture us about why we don't need a gravel road from one village to another or why a bridge to my home is a "bridge to nowhere." They're a bunch of a-holes. I favor drilling in ANWR because I've actually been there and I know how they drill these days. And I think if those clowns from the south really wanted to make a change in the environment they'd forbid new highway and bridge construction in the midwest and east and reintroduce brown bears in California and the mountain states. I fly over the cities down there and see nothing but stinking, paved-over hell holes and THESE are the people who try to lecture ME! They use Alaska as the scapegoat, and figure if they vote to keep us from building a damn gravel road from one village to the next, they've done their good deed for the year. So they drive home in their guzzler and crank up the AC to keep the 120 degree sun at bay.

this is the kind of backwards twisted argument that keeps me from fully agreeing with the libertarians. It's all about personal rights but not personal responsibility. In the same paragraph you mention how those in the "south" should make changes to how they live before they try to change you. How do you think the indians in the ANWR feel about you (from the "south") advocating drilling on the lands they survive off of?

In case you haven't noticed you live in the United States of America. When the United States buys land and owns development rights and provides road construction money, the United States has the rights to decide how they are used. Just because you happen to live closer than me, doesn't give you more rights. I've never heard any comments about how the state of Alaska should spend it's money, only how the federal government should.

Just as Al-Qaeda have hijacked Islam, the Neo-cons have hijacked the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

A thinking person's evolution is thus - conservative to libertarian to anarchist (or liberal to socialist to anarchist). I think it is morally reprehensible to support the idea of government whether liberal or conservative since all government is based on violent means.

Interesting . . .and to that I would like to paraphrase Noam Chomsky--the burden of proof that the people even need a government is upon the government.

But back to the OP's topic. I consider myself a liberal; although, I am for minimum gov't interference (I would probably turn to walking if I had to register my bike) and only car-lite at the present moment.

I dislike the left because I find them even more arrogant and invasive than the right.
No offense, but if you were minority, or gay, or even a woman, you would have a different perspective. It's the right wingers who tend to be more invasive and more arrogant from our viewpoint. They have little interest in protecting oppressed groups--in fact the conservatives usually are the oppressors.

Also, the environment cannot be conserved by any entity but the government. Corporations and their Republican flunkies lack the desire to preserve the Earth, and progressive individuals lack the power to do it.

Interesting . . .and to that I would like to paraphrase Noam Chomsky--the burden of proof that the people even need a government is upon the government.

But back to the OP's topic. I consider myself a liberal; although, I am for minimum gov't interference (I would probably turn to walking if I had to register my bike) and only car-lite at the present moment.
Interesting. You would refuse to register a bike, yet you willingly register a car.

this is the kind of backwards twisted argument that keeps me from fully agreeing with the libertarians. It's all about personal rights but not personal responsibility. In the same paragraph you mention how those in the "south" should make changes to how they live before they try to change you. How do you think the indians in the ANWR feel about you (from the "south") advocating drilling on the lands they survive off of?

Ha! There are no Indians in ANWR. This is yet another example of people from the left who know less than nothing about Alaska thinking they have a right to dictate to us. Folks who actually live in the NSB would like to see the drilling, so long as it's done properly. There remains no evidence that the ice roads or rigs would somehow impact the caribou in the area. There are herds numbering in the hundreds of thousands that thrive far closer to human development, so why would they run off at the sight of a rig? They never have before.


In case you haven't noticed you live in the United States of America. When the United States buys land and owns development rights and provides road construction money, the United States has the rights to decide how they are used. Just because you happen to live closer than me, doesn't give you more rights.

Thanks for making my point for me--it's the ARROGANCE OF THE LEFT that makes people like you think you have a right to dictate to everyone else. You think you know best, and in your own way you're as arrogant and small minded as the blue haired christians who run the GOP.



I've never heard any comments about how the state of Alaska should spend it's money, only how the federal government should.

Alaska is mostly federal land, and the feds won't give any of it to the state. So if you're unlucky enough to live on federal land you have to get their permission to build a dirt road. If people in New Jersey had to hear Ted Stevens lecture them about how they shouldn't be allowed to build a road from one township to another, they'd rightly be upset.

No offense, but if you were minority, or gay, or even a woman, you would have a different perspective. It's the right wingers who tend to be more invasive and more arrogant from our viewpoint. They have little interest in protecting oppressed groups--in fact the conservatives usually are the oppressors.

What makes you think I'm not? I don't think much of the right, and I really dislike the conservative Christian bluehairs. But I don't see much difference between them and the leftists. They have a burning desire to control one aspect of my life or another.


Also, the environment cannot be conserved by any entity but the government. Corporations and their Republican flunkies lack the desire to preserve the Earth, and progressive individuals lack the power to do it.

Considering how horrible the feds have been at conserving, that's a pretty grim conclusion to come to. I don't think anything will change unless we as individuals make the changes through force of will. No law and no corporate feel-good program is going to matter unless we decide to make a change.

No offense, but if you were minority, or gay, or even a woman, you would have a different perspective. It's the right wingers who tend to be more invasive and more arrogant from our viewpoint. They have little interest in protecting oppressed groups--in fact the conservatives usually are the oppressors.

What makes you think I'm not? I don't think much of the right, and I really dislike the conservative Christian bluehairs. But I don't see much difference between them and the leftists. They have a burning desire to control one aspect of my life or another.


Also, the environment cannot be conserved by any entity but the government. Corporations and their Republican flunkies lack the desire to preserve the Earth, and progressive individuals lack the power to do it.

Considering how horrible the feds have been at conserving, that's a pretty grim conclusion to come to. I don't think anything will change unless we as individuals make the changes through force of will. No law and no corporate feel-good program is going to matter unless we decide to make a change.


Best post of the whole thread!

Ha! There are no Indians in ANWR. This is yet another example of people from the left who know less than nothing about Alaska thinking they have a right to dictate to us. Folks who actually live in the NSB would like to see the drilling, so long as it's done properly. There remains no evidence that the ice roads or rigs would somehow impact the caribou in the area. There are herds numbering in the hundreds of thousands that thrive far closer to human development, so why would they run off at the sight of a rig? They never have before.

http://www.gwichin.org/map-pch.pdf

Your comment about being from the left is very far off. I am extremely conservative, non-religious, and won't vote republican. I am in favor of resource conservation. Doesn't it make more sense to wait until we have evidence drilling won't affect the ANWR, rather than bull forward "without evidence that it will".


Thanks for making my point for me--it's the ARROGANCE OF THE LEFT that makes people like you think you have a right to dictate to everyone else. You think you know best, and in your own way you're as arrogant and small minded as the blue haired christians who run the GOP.

I don't think I know best. I'm willing to admit that certain people know more about certain things than me. If I need help or information I am more than willing to seek out an expert or a pro. If you agree or not, I have just as much right to federal lands and property that you have.


Alaska is mostly federal land, and the feds won't give any of it to the state. So if you're unlucky enough to live on federal land you have to get their permission to build a dirt road. If people in New Jersey had to hear Ted Stevens lecture them about how they shouldn't be allowed to build a road from one township to another, they'd rightly be upset.

This paragraph makes no sense. Why should the federal government give my land away to the state of Alaska? If I came to Alaska and built a road across your property how would you feel?

I don't think anything will change unless we as individuals make the changes through force of will. No law and no corporate feel-good program is going to matter unless we decide to make a change.

+1

One of the BF threads that seemingly got lost in the last mass extinction had some of us taking the "political compass" (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) test, which breaks the liberal/conservative or left/right spectrum into two dimensions. That might help explain why there are different and seemingly contradictory types of conservatives or liberals.

ps;Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

Also, the environment cannot be conserved by any entity but the government. Corporations and their Republican flunkies lack the desire to preserve the Earth, and progressive individuals lack the power to do it.
What is a government entity without people? The solution lies with the progressive individuals who take action. Take any social problem and see what the government has done to fix it (i.e., the war on drugs, the war on poverty, or the war on terror for that matter).

http://www.gwichin.org/map-pch.pdf

The Gwichin are Athabascans who do NOT live in ANWR. Indeed, most of them are from the Yukon in Canada. They've been told by the enviros that the porcupine herd will suffer if there's drilling on the slope. However, there is no evidence that this level of development would impact the herd. The bou there sometimes go to the slope to give birth, but sometimes high water blocks them. It's the sort of bravo sierra fear mongering that enrages me. Drilling on land has almost no impact on the environment as it's done today. The major work is done on ice roads in the winter when the slope is a moonscape. The sites themselves are mostly automated, and the land area involved is larger than most states. How are a few wells going to impact it? Spills of crude on the ground are extremely easy to clean up.

Why don't you jokers put your money and attention into real environmental destruction, like the horrific sprawl and the steady paving of the nation. Why not push for reintroduction of apex predators to all parks? Why not work on developing cities, like Anchorage, that have a healthy population of wild game living side-by-side with people? Why not try to LEARN SOMETHING FROM US instead of lecturing us and assuming you know best?


This paragraph makes no sense. Why should the federal government give my land away to the state of Alaska? If I came to Alaska and built a road across your property how would you feel?

You come up here and live through a few winters, then you can start to tell me how Alaska belongs to you.

I don't think one's political views usually have any effect on whether one is a cyclist or not.

The people in my mountain bike club seem to be about evenly divided among right and left wingers. At least that's the impression I get from what little I could guage, political topics don't come up that often.

Myself I am mostly libertarian, and I happen to hold the belief that people on the extreme end of either the right or the left are idiots.

Go out and poll the drivers of the largest SUV's on the road and see what their affiliation is...

A woman passed me in an Escalade just this afternoon...gigantic, shiny, white Escalade. It had a bumper sticker that said "Want to annoy a Liberal? Work hard, be happy". One of those moments when I really wanted to pull up to a person at a light and find out if they really believed whats on their bumper sticker, or if they just think it's funny.

reintroducing wild predatory species into highly populated areas would be bad for people and even worse for the animals.
that's neither republican or democrat.
it just is.
and what you do is what you do. only you have to live with it. live with the reprecussions, benefits, consequences and results.
if you truly do right by you, you are doing right for all.
political lines are lines drawn to divide, label and file away people.
they mean as much as a palm reading.
we are all liberal. we are all conservative.

One of the BF threads that seemingly got lost in the last mass extinction had some of us taking the "political compass" (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) test, which breaks the liberal/conservative or left/right spectrum into two dimensions. That might help explain why there are different and seemingly contradictory types of conservatives or liberals.

ps;Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

Tests like that don't tell you anything unless you first take into account the political leanings of whoever designed the test.

In answer to the original question, I make up my own mind on individual issues. I am left on somethings and right on others. At different times I've been labelled both a communist and a fascist, and I regard neither term as an insult.

reintroducing wild predatory species into highly populated areas would be bad for people and even worse for the animals.

Really? I live in a city of a quarter million people, but brown bears come here all the time and moose live here year round. There are special greenbelts that run from the wild mountains down through town, with arrangements for wildlife to move under highways and roads. It's worked quite well all around.

Tests like that don't tell you anything unless you first take into account the political leanings of whoever designed the test.
That was a pretty brisk dismissal. Did you look at the test?

That was a pretty brisk dismissal. Did you look at the test?

I looked at the test the first time it was flagged on these fora -- sometime around 2002 I believe. Basically everyone who took it ended up being somewhat left of centre -- even those from P & R who were quite clear about being republicans. Presumably, that says something about the designer of the test.

A woman passed me in an Escalade just this afternoon...gigantic, shiny, white Escalade. It had a bumper sticker that said "Want to annoy a Liberal? Work hard, be happy". One of those moments when I really wanted to pull up to a person at a light and find out if they really believed whats on their bumper sticker, or if they just think it's funny.



I want you to ask her where she got it! It would look good next to my Pabst Blue Ribbon Drinkers of America sticker

and what you do is what you do. only you have to live with it. live with the reprecussions, benefits, consequences and results.

Really. Do you honestly believe this? Everything you do has effects on everybody else. Whether those are negative or positive, small or large, everyone has to live with them.


if you truly do right by you, you are doing right for all.

While I agree with this statement, I do not trust you to do right for yourself thus doing right for all. (please don't take that as an insult, I don't trust anyone to do right, not even myself)

reintroducing wild predatory species into highly populated areas would be bad for people and even worse for the animals.
that's neither republican or democrat.
it just is.
and what you do is what you do. only you have to live with it. live with the reprecussions, benefits, consequences and results.
if you truly do right by you, you are doing right for all.
political lines are lines drawn to divide, label and file away people.
they mean as much as a palm reading.
we are all liberal. we are all conservative.

Black Bears are now living in my area of Northeast Ohio and there haven't been any problems.

djc

Basically everyone who took it ended up being somewhat left of centre -- even those from P & R who were quite clear about being republicans. On both axes?

Some peoples minds are so small that they seem only able to devide anything by two.

Conservative/Liberal
Democrat/Republican
for/against
this/that
us/them

NO! Republicans all drive SUVs to their oversized crappy houses in the sprawlburgs. They golf too ...
biggest waste of land there is. Republicans blow.

true indeed... unfortunately the dems these days drive SUVs just as much... anyone check out Pelosi's ride lately?? last i saw it was a gigantic escalade or something horrible like that..

i say screw the dems and the GOP... they're both owned by big oil, so what's the use? kerry and bush are both in skull n bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones)... and yet that was the choice we were given...

I want you to ask her where she got it! It would look good next to my Pabst Blue Ribbon Drinkers of America sticker

don't drink pabst, if you're going to drink cheap beer, drink Olde English, its union made.

Considering how horrible the feds have been at conserving, that's a pretty grim conclusion to come to. I don't think anything will change unless we as individuals make the changes through force of will. No law and no corporate feel-good program is going to matter unless we decide to make a change.

That's true. So many of the people who worry and fret about things, do nothing to affect any change. There are too many people waiting for the government to do something. Waiving on responsibility is the easy way, and giving the government a bunch of power is fine as long as you agree with what they're doing. Otherwise, it really sucks. The greater good lies within the freedom of the individual, though not even that is a perfect system. There will always be winners and losers, geniuses and idiots, nice people and mean people, etc. and no law will change that.

I think one of the saddest realizations of my life came when I read my church bulletin which was announcing a get-together to write letters to Congress asking for the renewal of some failed government program that had purportedly been developed to help the poor. There was a time when churches actually helped the poor, not just asked some other entity to do it for them. Even now when churches do help, it's often conditional (accept Jesus in your heart, repent, etc.), but I digress. Reliance on the government has done more to hurt charity than anything else I can think of.