There isn’t a clean divide between the two things - many social issues have practical impact and many practical issues have a social/moral impact - but ISTM that voters generally fall into two camps, those that care more about social issues and those that care more about practical issues.
For loose grouping/categorizing somewhat:
**Social issues: ** Abortion (pro-life/pro-choice), LGBT, human rights, race and gender issues, religion/atheism, affirmative action, free speech, etc.
**Practical issues: ** Economy, education, environment, national defense, jobs, taxes, health care, science, etc.
Illegal immigration is a particularly tough one to categorize; it has a practical and social component to it. Not sure where to put it in, but if I had to pick I’d go social issues.
Generally, the people I support are with me on both social issues and practical issues. I suppose I’m more on the “practical issues” side of the fence, given that I supported Obama despite his initial opposition to marriage equality and his professed belief in god.
I tend to vote based on practical issues, but some social issues are important to me. For example, I could never support a candidate that was against same-sex marriage no matter how much I approve of their policies on practical matters.
Given that LGBT rights are indeed a matter of practical significance for a great many people, and that for abortion opponents, they’re talking about the largest and most senseless waste of human life ever, I find this distinction rather… silly.
Both are important, but I’d prioritize the practical issues. If I can’t put food on the table, I won’t have time or energy for the social issues. But there are still deal-breakers on both sides. An economic genius that supports discrimination or a perfect equality for all activist that’s anti-vax would both lose my vote.
I don’t find this distinction particularly illuminating either. One distinction I hear in the UK (don’t know if it’s something you use in the US), and which makes more sense to me, is between “retail” and “wholesale” politics: is my vote attracted because of something that particularly affects me, or because of a wider social/economic effect or question of principle?
Like I said, it isn’t a clear distinction but there still is some difference. Obergefell v. Hodges, for instance, probably had zero impact on the United States’ economic GDP or unemployment rate that year, regardless of whether SCOTUS had ruled in favor of or against SSM.
Something like this. There are particular issues of each type that are more important to me than the rest, but i don’t have a preference for either category. It’s usually not the issues per se either, it’s the proposed solutions that make a difference.
This distinction doesn’t make sense at all. “LGBT” and “race” includes things like marriage (very much a practical choice), anti-discrimination laws for jobs (which, obviously involves jobs), anti-discrimination laws in general (which includes the practical question 'can I go out and operate in public), health care (the round of ‘religious freedom’ laws directly impact LGBT people getting health care), national defense (DADT caused significant issues for the US military). I have no idea how ‘health care’ is a practical issue, but a specific medical procedure (abortion) is social and not practical. I have a trans friend who moved out of North Carolina entirely because of HB2, and the fact that the climate around the bill made her fear for her life if she stopped to use a public bathroom. That’s very much a practical issue. Also North Carolina has seen a huge drop in tourism and businesses moving to the state as a result of HB2. Black people I know consider how cops consider race very much a practical issue any time they encounter police. And you have to have very narrow vision to think that ‘human rights’ have no practical application for people who’s rights are being violated.
I think a major problem with this survey is that people who live a safe, majority-friendly life consider things like LGBT or racial issues to be some abstract, soft, pretend issue that’s not solid like ‘jobs’ or ‘health care’. But people who actually have the issues (or have empathy for the people who do) understand that being fired, beaten up, shot, arrested, denied healthcare, kicked out of the military, or denied custody of kids are actually practical issues, not just some abstract theoretical construct.
I’m not seeing the divide the OP is describing. If I were a gay person, I would see the issue of whether or not same-sex marriages are allowed as a very practical issue. The same would be true if I were a pregnant woman considering having an abortion. Or if I was a black person seeking employment in a predominantly white field. These are all very practical issues to some people.
The OP’s divide seems to be between issues which directly affect straight white men and issues that don’t.
Couple friends of mine teach at the elementary level, are married, have two lovely children. They’re lesbians.
When their first child was born, the birth mother got maternity leave. Her partner was denied parental leave (this was in 2010, I think). She had to take unpaid leave to be home for their infant’s first few days.
The birth mother’s parents are deeply rightwing Christians. They disapprove of their daughter’s relationship and told her that if she died, they would exercise their legal right to gain custody of her two children, and her wife would never see the children again.
When Amendment 1 was up for an election in North Carolina (constitutionally enshrining a ban on same-sex marriage), my friends were in my thoughts. I voted against it in part because I feared Amendment 1 would make it easier for these children to lose both of their mothers.
Would you call my vote practical or not?
I get what you’re going for, but I think you’re mislabeling these categories at the very least.
This, to me, is a more meaningful way of framing the question.
Honestly, most political issues, both practical and social, have little impact on me PERSONALLY. I’m a straight white female that has never faced any significant discrimination. I might pay a little less tax under Republican economics, but this is offset by the help I end up giving family members when their assistance gets cut. Even in terms of healthcare, I’ve done the math on both the ACA and AHCA and my out of pocket healthcare costs would be the about same under either plan.
But I do have strong vision of the world I want to live it and that vision is largely based on liberal social and practical values. I really do care.
And my conservative friends and family members just don’t get this. The song I keep hearing from them is “This policy won’t help you, so why do you care?” You don’t need this law, so why are you fighting for it?“. You’ve got yours, so why bother?”
And I’m disturbed that they don’t get this. They really don’t.
If I’m voting for a ballot measure, amendment, etc. like in LHoD’s example, then it’s usually social type issues that come up and I’m more willing to vote for ones that matter to me.
When it’s a vote for a political candidate, I vote for least harm and generally for the one who seems to be more competent, trustworthy, or ethical. If they hold some opinions opposite of me (but not the majority), then I might vote for them as I recognize that they would have very little power in changing the law. We all assign different weights to different issues.
And generally I recognize that both parties approach problems in the wrong way, just using different methods, so there are a lot of issues where holding my nose and voting is inevitable either way.
