Why is politics in the US more faith based.

After traveling to other countries, I have notice politics in the US are very different than other countries. It is more you are a republican or democratic. I think other countries look at politics more scientific where in US more faith based.

I wonder because other countries have other political parties thus may be it educates the public not to follower party line.

There is lot more picking and choosing.

Well some members may say sweat209 we have the libertarian party and independent party but they are not true party and only a small minority vote for them.

The libertarian party with lot of members backed by the tea party supporters is mostly anti-government welfare and speeding, than a true libertarian party or anti-centrist government of big feds telling states what thy can or cannot do.

I don’t see this changing at all.Well despite most posters here treating politics more intellectual and more centrist government!!! Out side of straightdope it is very divide country and the two party system rule.

I’m not sure why it is like that.It seems after the FDR Americas become very divided country and you and me, than thus allowing politics to be more faith based.

If you said you supported gays and lesbians, death penalty ,end the drug war,support welfare, anti- abortion ,anti-guns ,tough border control you would get some strange looks that you moved to the US.They would say are you from the UK.

“Faith” is mostly for appearances in the U.S., and so politicians drag in “faith” to appear good.

When you say “faith based” are you talking religiously faith based, or faith based in the more general voting party line because you have faith in your party?

I’m saying US politics like people who believe in God.

Than saying yep I support this ,this ,this and that but not that or that.

Since your observation is the key to your thesis may I ask all the countries you’ve traveled too?

I haven’t been to other countries, but I think politics is very moral here and ties strongly into ones sense of individuality and morality. I have no idea if that is the case in other nations or if other nations view politics more as an intellectual exercise.

As far as things changing after FDR, I’d wager they more changed after LBJ. Before LBJ southern whites were heavily democrat, then after civil rights they all became republican. Southern states make up something like 1/3 of electoral votes and representatives, 1/4 of senators. Having those shift from heavily in favor of one party to heavily in favor of another party is going to result in groundbreaking political changes.

Politics is inherently a moral exercise. Political questions are essentially questions about how we (the community) or we (the leaders) ought to act, and questions about how we ought to act are, by definition, ethical questions. Politics, in fact, is a subset of ethics.

I think the contrast you suggest between “one’s sense of individuality and morality” on the one hand and “an intellectual exercise” on the other is a false dichotomy. Can’t we take an intellectual approach to questions of individuality and morality?

There is, though - and I’m not sure if this is at all related to what you are saying - a possible divergence between the US and some other countries about the role of faith/personal morality as an object of politics. Is it the business of the state to legislate virtue? There is a divergence here between - to oversimplify somewhat - Catholic and Protestant traditions regarding what the role of a government is. In the tradition which predominates in Catholicism, the role of a government is to promote the common good (i.e. the good of the community), whereas there is a strong tradition in Protestantism that the government should promote individual virtue. So when it comes to, e.g., prostitution, most historically Catholic countries do not outlaw it - Catholicism regards it as wicked, but that’s doesn’t mean it should be illegal, and the common good is generally better served by licensing, regulating or controlling prostitution than by driving it underground. Whereas Protestant countries have been more prone to outlaw it - sure, it will operate underground, but at least the state will not be complicit in the evil.

The US historically has had strong Protestant influences, and a discourse on public affairs which features indivual virtue as something the state should be promoting is going to play much better there than in historically Catholic-influenced countries. Combine this with the US’s comparatively high religiosity, and you’ll get quite a lot of people who advocate for public policy in support of objectives which, for religious reasons, they regard as virtuous.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, is a member of the Christian Democratic Union party. Their Bavarian counterpart is the Christian Social Union party.

So you are saying religion plays more of role in US and thus explaining why people are so conservative?

Why? Because that does not explain every thing.

That’s break down a typical republican.

-Low Taxes ( belief system ) Higher taxes will cause downsizing and off shoring to countries with cheaper wages.

-Government has no business with healthcare

set A I should not have to pay for other people healthcare sounds less religious like

set B It will allow system with long wait times in ER like the UK.

set C It is big government at work yes big government.

-Welfare and helping the poor.

That is big government we don’t want to be like Europe swimming in debt it not what the founding fathers wanted and what this countries was founded on.

The rights to arms arms.

Any laws to have tougher gun control is violation of Bill of rights of 2nd Amendments.And we have to fear the government.
Well gay marriage, abortion,sex,drugs,prostitution,drinking alcohol such may be religion base some of other stuff talked about above is not religion base.

It also does not explain why some liberal or conservative are not picking on views above but subscribe political party line.
It also does not explain why liberal can be liberal on social issues but conservative on economics or conservative on social issues but liberal on economics.

What other countries are you comparing The United States to?

That is thing Europe is more mix party lines and more parties than US.

I know some people in Europe and Canada who are liberal on social issues but conservative on economics and other people in Canada and Europe conservative on social issues but liberal on economics.

This is alien concept for Americans.

The US is also a very divided country republican vs democratic. Less country unity.

A new civil war today if there was one would not be North vs South but republican vs democratic.

I think religion is more explicit in US politics than in other liberal democracies. I’m not sure that it plays more of a role, though.

And I haven’t suggested that people in the US are “so conservative”. The influence of religion is not necessarily “conservative” - there are plenty of counter-examples, from nineteenth-century abolitionism to contemporary calls for social and economic justice and denunciations of war and torture - so even if the US is more “conservative” this would not necessarily be on account of the influence of religion. It many ways it could be despite it.

I have yet to find a republican in US in person or on the internet subscribing to liberal views or liberal subscribing to republican.

If you said I support republican views but the right to smoke pot or tougher gun control and police under the spotlight more you would get funny looks.

Or liberal saying I support liberal views but not gay marriage, abortion and support the death penalty.You would get funny looks.

There’s plenty of Republicans I know that are socially liberal. That is basically a form of libertarianism. It is not unusual, in my experience. (Some may identify as Democrats, depending on whether they put more emphasis on social liberalism vs fiscal conservatism.) As for the converse, (socially conservative and fiscally liberal), that’s a little more difficult. I have one friend like that, but, otherwise, it doesn’t seem to be as strong and common as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

I’ve never heard of that country, do they speak English there?

They’re just names. Aside from the party names, religion plays very little role in the politics of Germany. The UK has a state religion, but religion has even less of a political role there. I can’t make head or tails of much of what the OP is saying, but it is certainly true that religion has more influence in US politics than it does in most other “secular democracies”.

I think many of the specific examples of the religious right advocating certain political policies, policies not strictly limited to religion is often due to the belief that the rise of the secular state crowds out religiosity. The secular State becomes the faith of people. The history of Northern European social democratic states confirms this belief to an extent. Lower taxes does prevent less offshoring; it also prevents the state getting its hands on excess resources, resources which it then uses to increase its own power over individuals. Thus reducing religiosity.

Lower taxes don’t seem to have a demonstrable impact on offshoring. The US manufacturing sector is no better off than those of the major European economies, despite far lower individual tax rates and lower effective corporate tax rates. Lower wages prevent offshoring, but of course those have their own downsides.

Sure, this may be the case. The point still stands that its a legitimate belief to have that less taxes and less regulation are good for an economy. Less taxation also means less money going directly into the hands of the government; a government which is viewed as crowding out religion. It’s a policy that hits two birds with one stone.

It’s not a wholly unreasonable idea, it’s just one that is rarely actually suggested. The more religion/less government Republican default is more a historical accident than any naturally dovetailing viewpoint. The Republican Party is made up of two largely separate groups: capitalists and fundamentalists. There is very little crossover.