I usually see it divided as social/economic. But abortion is pretty important for women’s economic independence. My instinct is to rank issues by how many people they affect. UHC would do more to increase the standard of living for more people than most anything else. People don’t tend to like explicitly ranking issues by number of people affected because it seems like throwing certain groups under the bus or saying one group is more important than another. You also get into arguments like group X may have less people, but they’re more deprived.
Social, because practicalities generally mean selfish priorities (how will this effect ME?), while social generally means putting others first.
But I don’t just pick a single social issue and make it the only one I care about, as I feel that will inevitably be selfish, too. I’m gonna pick the one that affects me most.
But I do allow for that to be the more important one, if I can justify it by how many others it will also help.
Anyways, as I’ve said before, I was against Trump for social reasons, and the practicalities didn’t actually hit me until after his election. So I was scared to death the Medicaid and Social Security would die, and I’d die with them.
Yeah, I don’t see that as viable, either. It would basically mean “minorities don’t count.” And, to me, one of the key messages of civil rights is that minority problems are just as important as the majority’s problems.
Though it does work better if you priorities the things that would help multiple minorities, and maybe even help the majority as well.
Ding ding ding. See also: any claim of “identity politics”, which essentially means “policies that specifically target or affect people who are not straight white men”.
How is education not also a social issue? I’d say healthcare in the US is just as much a social issue as a practical one.
Practical issues. I am “negative” on social issues, if your position on them is extreme then you lose lose my vote but to gain it you need to show some basic competence on practical ones.
Not so. The Gay Wedding industry is a multi-billion dollar business and it’s increasing worldwide.
Here’s an article from 2011, talking about how the gay wedding industry would benefit just the state of NY for a half a billion dollars that year -
And another article from the Guardian in 2015, talking about how gay weddings were likely to bring in 18.5 billion in Great Britain.
A 2015 article from the Wapo talks about how gay marriage would increase the business that wedding industry companies would do.
That article sees the gay wedding industry in America growing to 2.1 billion that year.
Not exactly the military industrial complex - but plenty big enough to have an impact in the hospitality and wedding industries.
Ganja is also a growing segment of the economy, fyi. Attempts to shut it down would strip a lot of money from the states that have legalized it.
I don’t think ‘national defence’ belongs in the practical issues thing here. The debate between isolationists and interventionists (I’m on the isolationist side) is largely not about practical issues, since no one in the world poses a practical threat to America, and probably won’t for the next several decades at least. It’s a debate about values and what you think the role of the America in the world should be. Therefore it really belongs on the social side.
Practical issues. I’d trade some social issues for practical issues. However that does make me a dick in many ways. I’m a hetero white male, my rights are not on the chopping block.
I’'m of the impression that social issues will continue the current trendline of improvement, but practical issues are not guaranteed the same direction. On practical issues, the US was more progressive 50 years ago (medicaid, medicare, voting rights act, etc). Stuff like that would never pass now. But we are more socially progressive.