People like pjc50
like talking about people with "reality-based" viewpoints. People like this tend not to vote for people like Bush because he lies, and possibly cheats at elections. People like this read about stuff, follow the news and are keyed into developments. I don't like this term. Reality isn't something solid; it is what you make it
. I prefer to call these people "information-based".
How else might we catagorise people? My first thought was "virtue-based". Virtue-based people would vote for people who did things for what they thought were the right reasons, regardless of the outcome. People like this make up some of the core members of the group who oppose "sleaze" in government.
On the other side we have "results-based" people. These people believe that the end does
justify the means. People like this may support Bush on the basis that he removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq; but will reserve eventual judgement on Gulf War II until they see how Iraq ends up.
Then I start moving into hazier zones. You have the "don't cares" who believe that it doesn't make a difference to them who is in government, the "traditionalists" who have voted one way or another for 100 years, the "media-based" people who do what the Daily Mail
or Fox News
tell them to.
Then again, on all sides, you have the idealists. There must be some people out there who actually believe in the
theory of the economy, and support Big Business; just as there are people who believe in a stable communist state.
I'm not going to try ranking these groups into any kind of hierarchy. I'm an "information-based" person, so I tend to think that that way is best; but some of the other approaches I've mentioned make a certain sort of sense to me, and I can see why they might appeal.
On a related note; here's to Clinton/Leech '08...