How do you decide your views, particularly those of you who have trouble deciding between one general political philosophy and another because they both have good ideas?
Baruch Pelta
Well, it’s not as if it’s an all-or-nothing deal. I try to hold those political views which best reflect certain core values (civil libertarianism, an abhorrence of racism, etc) and which seem to function best in the real world. I support high taxes and the largest social safety net we can muster, for example, because states that run their economies in this way seem to do well in the UNDP Human Development Index, and there’s a sound argument to be made that this is because the government has a lot of money to throw at development problems. I believe in the broadest possible interpretation of the First Amendment because I find controlling speech, protest or belief to be both morally repugnant and a policy that tends to fail in the real world. And so on.
I generally vote for Democrats, but that doesn’t mean I swallow the platform wholesale. I dislike affirmative action, for example, and I’m a bigger fan of free international trade than many (but by no means all) Democrats in office - because I believe, based on the information we have, that it tends to do more good than harm.
I probably cancel **Mr. E’**s ballot in most elections. I support lower taxes, smaller government, and greater personal freedom without a government sponsored safety net. On this board, I’m considered conservative. That’s because this board is very much left-leaning.
I’m an atheist, pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro gun. I believe the Constitution exists to limit the power of the State and protect the individual. As such, I was frequently at odds with the Bush administration on pretty much every constitutional issue they encountered.
I think a lot has to do with what sort of society you ultimately want to live in. I want to live in a just society, I wouldn’t care how rich the society was if it was unjust, I wouldn’t care how evenly wealth was spread if it was unjust. I don’t care how large or small government is as long as it produced a more just society.
I take a lot of cues from John Rawls and his theory of justice.
This means I believe in democracy, capitalism, and big government.
I am theist, slightly pro-life, pro-civil unions for all (including heterosexual couples), pro-gun control and I believe that the federal government has proven to be more just than local and state governments time and time again.
As a child I considered myself a Republican, mostly because that’s what my parents identified as. I remember asking my mother as a little tyke “What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans?” and she told me “Democrats are poor and Republicans and rich.” and that satisfied me at the time.
Later, when I was in my early teens I talked to my dad about it and he put quite a bit of pressure on me to identify as Republican (he cared about politics a great deal more than my mom). By this point in my life I’d come to the belief that both Republicans and Democrats were full of shit- there were some things (notably social issues) that I agreed with Democrats on and there were other things (notably economic issues) that I agreed with Republicans on and I knew that I supported small government. That didn’t mesh with either party that I knew of and so I just told people I was an independent.
Of course, now I realize that there had been a party that summed up my beliefs the whole time. I’m a Libertarian.
Nevermind. Wasn’t funny.
I used to be a Republican but thanks to the Bush years and the Republican party lacking the balls to tell the religious right to go fuck themselves I don’t have a political home right now.
I can’t bring myself to vote Democrat in it’s present form either so I guess I’m screwed.
I don’t need to decide between two bad choices. I have my own views and no single candidate will match them perfectly. Therefore, I look at voting as picking the lesser of two evils.
It might be useful to distinguish political philosophy, political ideology, and partisan identification. In my mind at least, these are three distinct concepts:
Political philosophy is about what government should do at an abstract level, and about who decides both the answer to that question, and the day-to-day answer of how those powers should be exercised. Into this category, assuming you believe in democracy, falls beliefs about who should get to vote, whether to have representatives and how they should go about representing, how to have elections, and whether there are certain things the government cannot force people to do and who decides what these things are if not the government you’ve set up. Historically, some of these beliefs have split political parties, especially who should vote and who should decide the limits of government power, but more often than not the answers are largely independent from partisan identification.
Political Ideology is a set of assumptions about the world, largely a priori, that inform one’s understanding of how the world works and ought to work. In this category I would include things like whether you think people are basically good or basically evil, whether and to what extent the thing we call human nature is a consequence of social structure, whether you think people basically act in their rational self-interest or not, and fundamental questions of ethics (under what circumstances does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, how much individuals are responsible for their partially-socially determined actions, etc.).
Partisan identification is whether one usually sides with the Democrats or Republicans when one’s political ideology combined with personal knowledge do not yield a position on a given issue. Partisan identification is partly a consequence of political ideology, and partly just a matter of cultural and social factors, like where one grew up and what party one’s parents identified with
Actual political positions are a consequence knowledge about the issue, political ideology, and partisan identification.
Case by case, with an eye for outcome rather than adherence to a particular dogma. I am beholden to no political party, although on high profile races I tend to vote Libertarian (usually because high profile races attract really noisome politicians from the two major parties, see this year’s Illinois governor race for a good example of that). But I disagree with some elements of the LP’s platform, at times strongly. I would call myself a pragmatist if that didn’t sound so egotistical, and if it wasn’t completely bereft of descriptive power.
I’m politically pragmatic, I above all attempt to see whats possible with whats available. I firmly believe that an individuals liberty must be protected in all cases other than what constitutes an immediate inherent legitimate threat to others. I believe the American industrial complex must be abolished for us to thrive. I believe the American democratic system is atrophying but the fault rest at the feet of the electorate. I am both pro and anti taxes depending on how efficiently I think they are being spent. On all levels I want more money for education but I want it to be spent far more wisely. I believe your percentage of tax should directly correspond to your level of wealth, there is only so much a man can use and I have no pity for those who’ve ‘made it’ supporting those who haven’t.
Feels weird writing all that out, I’ve never really put my political philosophy in a short paragraph like that.
I think that government has to be the exact size it needs to be, and not one bit smaller. I think there needs to be a strong social safety net. I think it needs to be positioned to help people remove themselves from poverty. I grew up poor and by luck I got out of it and learned a good trade. Most of the people who lived near me growing up don’t have the education, opportunity or connections to break the cycle. Their children will be poor, and without a strong and well designed safety net, their grand children will be too.
I believe in the maximum amount of freedom. Not in a silly Libertarian way, but that people should be able to read what they want, watch what they want, believe what they want and so on. My love of freedom does not extend to corporations or businesses. I like the FDA, and only a fool wants to go back to the days of sawdust in hamburger (I’m lookin’ at you Ron Paul!). I believe that taxes need to be as high as they have to be. If the people want something, like Social Security, they need to be willing to pay for it. I definitely believe in balanced budgets and deficit spending as a last resort (Say, to stave off a depression).
I want the church out of government and certainly out of schools. I believe that problems should be approached from a factual basis, not by blind ideology.
The left isn’t perfect, but right now, the Conservative side in this country is run by morons. They use bumper-sticker politics to sway the lowest common dreg of their base. This may change someday, and I hope it does. I think we need a credible debate in this country. I hope it happens soon. More than anything, I abhor stupidity in politics.
You’re me!!
You’re me!!
Mr. E’s ballot is still negated! Someone break the tie!
As much as people might want to think their political philosophies are due to rationality, a good deal of it is emotional and due to personality factors. Then you find the rational justifications later.
In the factor 5 personality test people who score higher on openness to experience tend to be more liberal. I am moderately liberal and I tend to score around the 99th percentile in that aspect of the test. Someone who is in the 20th percentile (George Bush was said to not be very curious about the things around him as an example) would likely be more conservative.
I read something in psych today about childhood behaviors and how kids with some behaviors grew up to be conservative while others were more liberal.
So I would say my political philosophy (moderate progressivism or pragmatic progressivism) is largely a result of various emotions and personality traits I really do not control.
I really don’t find myself drawn between 2 political philosophies though. I am reasonably pragmatic, liberal/progressive and socially libertarian. I do not find myself being drawn to the opposite (ideologically purist, conservative or socially authoritarian).
I have certain end goals which are probably pretty liberal (economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, affordable and easy to access health care) but if conservatives have more effective means of achieving them I am open to that. If someone can prove that libertarianism will result in high quality, low cost, easy to access medical care then have at it.
But I think its not just a question of different means of getting to the goals, but different goals that separate political ideologies. I have very little desire to live in a smut free society, and I think many authoritarian conservatives lack my desire to keep the environment sustainable for 500+ years. So I have no methods of achieving their goals, nor they mine. Because our goals really aren’t priorities to each other.
I don’t think libertarians have the same urge to ensure everyone has secure access to health care that a liberal like myself would. And I don’t have the same urge to keep the federal government small that a libertarian would. So both our goals and our policies to achieve those goals differ.
*As a child I considered myself a Republican, mostly because that’s what my parents identified as. I remember asking my mother as a little tyke “What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans?” and she told me “Democrats are poor and Republicans and rich.” and that satisfied me at the time. *
Now see, I was educated thusly: “Democrats care about the poor, Republicans don’t.”
Maybe the ways we were educated are both true 
Bpelta, over half of your threads have been started in the wrong forum.
Please read over the fora descriptions and choose your location more carefully.
For example, this thread, despite being about politics, in general way, is not a debate but a solicitaion of personal experioences regarding how individuals came to their positions. There is nothing to debate, here.
I am moving this thread to In My Humble Opinion and I am strongly suggesting that you pay a bit more attention to where your threads fit in the Straight Dope Message Board.
[ /Moderating ]
No, I’m me. Who the heck are you? /glares at DanBlather suspiciously.
Perhaps we should move to the same state and just spend election days fishing. 