So have you? Without looking deep into the issue(s), have you at first blush just immediately opposed someone’s ideas or positions just because the are politically affiliated with other positions that are in general opposition with your own?
How often do you react this way?
I believe that this happens all too often on both sides of the aisle in our country.
I’ve done it, not regularly but I have initially felt a certain way and then changed my mind after looking more deeply at the issues.
I consider myself more of a classical liberal (fiscally free market conservative, socially liberal).
Believe it or not, no. Then again, I’ve gone from an arch-conservative to voting mostly for Democrats in the last 15 years, and you don’t get that way by blowing people off based on something as petty as a political appellation.
I had something sort of similar happen a month or so ago.
I live in a small neighbourhood (19 houses) that has an HOA. We recently had a meeting. At this meeting was a small group of owners (maybe half the homes) who were so offensively rude that I instinctively opposed (silently, to myself) everything they said.
One older gentleman who was on the council had his wife recently pass away. While he was being yelled at he said “look, I’ve had a rough few months since my wife died” and one of the screamers yelled “I don’t give a shit - get over it!”.
This went on for over 2 hours and was one of the most unpleasant things I’ve had to sit through.
The thing is, the screechers were actually right in their complaints. One of the issues was that the old guy was paid a day’s wages for having to stay home to meet up with contractors to fix the well. It is specifically stated in the HOA agreement that nobody is supposed to get paid for their time.
So they were right about that and almost all of their other complaints but they were so vile, so rude and offensive that it made other people oppose them.
The end result for us is that we’ve decided that we don’t want to have to deal with these people on an ongoing basis and we’re moving.
If it’s something I would have supported anyway, - no, I wouldn’t oppose it, in fact, I would welcome it even more than if it were by someone on my side. So, for instance, if a liberal supports a robust national defense, that’s great - even better than if a conservative supports strong national defense, because it’s like getting a bonus supporter, an unexpected source of support from the opposing side.
If it’s something I’m on the fence about, or undecided about - then maybe I would oppose it, yes.
All the time, even if I would otherwise support it. If the Right supports something that *seems *good to me my reaction is “Where was I wrong? Where’s the trap?”
This. What’s in it for them that they are uncharacteristically supporting this? Or, if it’s something apolitical or non-controversial, then why say it at all: are they trying to get credit for recognizing the bleeding obvious?
There is a finite amount of time in the day to pursue ideas, and so there are some wonderful ideas out there that I have never come into contact with, and some pretty terrible ideas that get thrown about in my presence from time to time as well.
So, it is less a matter of opposing an idea itself from someone ideologically opposed to oneself, but more a matter of not giving the time to completely understand and accept all of the positions that someone that is ideologically opposed to you may have that are actually good ideas.
So, if on first blush, you hear that Trump (or your political opponent of the day) is proposing a particular action, then my first thought is in fact to oppose it, as more likely than not, that position will be in opposition to my beliefs and preferences.
If it is important enough though, then it makes sense to get enough information on it in order to make a more reasoned decision as to its applicability in furthering the agenda and goals that you share with your opponnet.
Yes, I do it all the time. My mind can be changed, but my first assumption is that there is an agenda and I am likely opposed. That was my reaction to the proposal to privatize air traffic control. Today there was an op-ed piece by some Trump flak supporting extending some provision on surveillance that was claimed to have prevented terrorist attacks. Since the administration lies about everything, I assume he was lying and didn’t bother to read it. Even if he wasn’t, I could not possibly check his “facts”, which were classified.
I’m going to be suspicious. It seems rational to me to use past behavior to judge current behavior. If I’ve caught a person telling a hundred lies in the past, I’m going to doubt what they’re telling me today. But I am willing to consider the possibility that they’re telling the truth this time.
And I’m not going to let my general opposition to a political figure change my mind on issues. If I think something’s a good idea and a politician I don’t like happens to come out in favor of the same idea, I’m not going to reverse my position.
As sort of the opposite of what you’re asking, if a driver in front of me does something reckless or stupid and has a bumper sticker or license plate declaring a particular political affiliation, I will denounce and curse at that entire political group (from the privacy of my car), based on the actions of that one individual.
“Don’t ‘coexist’ with my freaking front bumper, dammit!”
“That kind of driving is not ‘choosing life,’ dumbass!”
Yes, but that is because I tend to get an idea about the motives of some of these people.
I saw Sean Hannity pushing the flat tax, and without knowing anything about it I thought ‘if Sean Hannity likes it, it probably helps the rich and hurts everyone else’. After I investigated it I found that that was pretty accurate. The poor and rich do better, everyone else does worse.
So I do have situations like that. Knowing the underlying ideological agenda of people I disagree with, I usually assume their ideas aren’t actually designed to solve the problems they say they are designed to do, they are designed to push an ideology I disagree with.
But even with Trump who I detest, if he wants to do something good for the nation I say go ahead. If he wants to try to lower drug prices, build infrastructure, create jobs, etc. then have at it. I just don’t think he is competent to do any of it, and/or I think his party places ideology over pragmatism and problem solving. Lots of times the solutions they pass aren’t actually designed to solve the problem or make the problem worse. The true goal is to push an ideological agenda.
I support single payer healthcare, but if people I consider my political opposites can make a good, pragmatic, evidence based case for why free market health care will provide higher quality care for less money, then go for it. If you can provide high quality health care to everyone for 9-11% of GDP (or whatever is cheaper, better and more humane than single payer) using libertarian policies, then by all means do so. I’ll give up single payer and support that instead.
My issue is following politics for so long, I know the reasons given to the public are usually a smokescreen for the real reason to support a policy idea (pushing one religion over another, pushing one racial group over another, pushing one economic class over another, pushing a libertarian ideology I don’t agree with).
I don’t even pretend to be fair and impartial. If you have political beliefs that I find abhorrent, then everything you say on any subject will be actively opposed, disregarded completely or, at the very least, viewed with great suspicion. Including where to eat dinner, what movie to see and how much to tip the waitron.
I’ll cop to a related charge. In California we have all these budget initiatives that are often worded to mean the opposite of what they are, and it’s nearly impossible to figure out what they intend to do. I tend to default to voting no on them, but the voter’s booklet includes major groups who are in favor or opposed to a measure, and if I can’t figure out what the damned thing does, but I see that conservative groups favor it, I think it’s likely that I want to vote no on it.
There was a Florida “pro-solar” initiative on the last ballot that actually made it harder and/or less lucrative to install solar panels, but thankfully (for honesty’s sake if not for the agenda’s sake) the word got out that it meant the opposite of what it proclaimed to mean and it failed.
Basically, I’ll use political preferences as a signal. It’s not the only signal. I won’t reject someone out of hand if I disagree with them on other issues. But if I can’t figure out a stance based on something else, I’ll look at politics.
Another great signal with CA initiatives is to just count the number of all-caps/italics/bolded words in the arguments for and against the initiatives. The dumb side is almost always the one that resorts to shouting in text over a reasoned position.
The more conservative, “old fashioned” or religious they are, the more I’m liable to not agree with them.
I’m an effeminate gay man, people who think of themselves using any of the above three descriptors tend to be uncomfortable around me or wish that I didn’t exist.
In 2015 after the marriage ruling past, I ended up unfriending several members of my dad’s side of the family and several coworkers.
And that is usually a good strategy. If you have groups which typically support cutting people off of food stamps or sawing down the national forests supporting a “common sense” approach to anything, run, don’t walk, as fast as you can in the opposite direction.
