I agree that Ravenman’s post #2 is a good one – people can disagree on values, or they can share values and objectives and disagree on methods, and both sides can still be good people.
I’m at a loss as to what kind of discussion you wanted to promote here. Personally, I don’t automatically judge someone negatively just because of their politics. I tend to judge them negatively for having asinine beliefs that aren’t factually supportable, or, as you suggest, might be morally indefensible, and that applies to both sides of the political spectrum. That’s not judging someone for their politics, it’s more like judging someone for being a birther or a 9/11-truther or a moon-landing hoaxer. Nothing wrong with calling someone out for being an idiot.
My circle of friends is not particularly political, but among those with notable political beliefs is one who is a diehard conservative and is currently on a mission to stop all Muslim immigration and believes that welfare is a handout to undeserving bums, and another who is pretty much a full-bore socialist and believes there is no problem the government can’t solve with generous social programs, and that the only problem with Sweden is that it has too much free enterprise. Both are good friends because I’ve known them my whole adult life, and I know that they are genuinely good people beyond the politics. Humans are complicated and much of our beliefs come from the limited facets of our personal experience, which can be a lot more powerful than the abstractions that we learn academically.
What kind of discussion are you looking to have in which people don’t explain what they think?
Anyway, I think the number of truly indefensible positions are relatively small. “Kill all the Jews” is certainly up there, but only a few fringe elements hold positions like that.
Many of the political positions that I presume you dislike are simply based on the idea that something should be done, it just shouldn’t be done by the government (welfare was once a function of the church, for example, or just part of tribal life before that).
Or based on the idea that a government empowered to do something good is also empowered to do something bad (for every benevolent leader, there’s a genocidal tyrant).
Or it’s even as simple as the idea that the government’s current implementation is so bad, it should just be stopped. (And lest you just think I’m talking about Obamacare or immigration, this same argument was used to stop the death penalty.)
Are you saying that there are no Democrat bigots? No Democrat homophobes? Etc etc? Because you’re just demonstrating the adage that Republicans think that Democrats are wrong and Democrats think that Republicans are evil.
Maybe i phrased my post poorly because that’s the kind of thinking I want to avoid. I was merely trying to make an example on why you shouldn’t make a wide judgement on someone only based on what party they voted for
What about people who go through a political conversion? Some libertarians turn into liberals after they take some college level econ courses. Learning about externalities and multipliers made them nice people instead of selfish jerks? Might be a bit more complicated than that.
If I had to use a shortcut to judge someone’s character I’d go with how they treat the help. Clerks, waiters, porters, and so on. If they’re nice to you but treat them poorly then they’re probably not that nice.
No, I didn’t make the same point in your OP. Even if I did, I look forward to your substantive response to anything I wrote about, rather than whining about other posters.
I’ll even tee up a question for you: if a person votes in a way that you find unacceptable, do you believe it is impossible for him to be a good person? As in, if you vote for Party A all the time, you deserve to be considered a bad person by people who vote for anyone other than Party A?
I’ve never heard anyone say that and I find it utterly ridiculous. It makes no sense at all. How could anyone argue an opinion is like a genetic factor?
I’m going to agree with that. It’s not the only thing to judge a person by, but it’s a very very valid component. And when you know know virtually nothing else about a person, you can judge them by the (political) opinion they’ve expressed when deciding whether or not you want to get to know them more, just as you can judge them by any other opinion or public behavior, especially those that they take action (like voting) to make affect other people.
What I’m saying is this - a person’s political opinion should not be any more exempt from “judgement” than any other opinion they espouse or try to put into action. I don’t think political opinions deserve any special exemptions from judgement. Of course, I’m in the minority, because I don’t think religious ones do, either.
You can be nice to your neighbors and do far more damage than good by voting. For example, say you are in the Jim Crow south and give a lavish Christmas bonus to your maid while voting for policies that keep her weak and helpless and in gratitude to you. Are you a good person? Well, sure. If you ask other white people.
The bolded part is the problem with this line of thinking.
For example, lets take welfare as a subject.
Person A is for welfare. Person B is against welfare. What does that tell you about their character? Not a lot actually though I suspect many on this board would instantly assume that person B is a mustache twirling evil conservative.
If Person A believes welfare is needed because those on welfare are too stoopid and lazy to take care of themselves while Person B believes that most welfare recipients are actually smart enough and capable enough take care of themselves but need to be pushed to get started and will have a better life if they are pushed, which one is ‘treating’ others well?
The big problem, as far as I can tell, with politics in the U.S. is that both the Rs and the Ds run around assuming the worst possible motives as reasons for the other sides beliefs. For abortion? You want to kill babies! Against abortion? You hate women!
Yes, politics can be a sign of a persons character. However you have to actually listen to the persons reasoning on how they got to the position to make any judgement. And no one is doing that these days.
Unless they like Clinton*. Then they are just evil.
Aside from everything else, politics, at least in the US, is heavily saturated with bullshit and uncertainty. We are told that this here action/course/policy will have that effect, when in reality, we cannot know that that is the case. We choose our political positions based on what we believe is most probably going to yield the best results. Very few of the options are so very clear cut, and most of us simply do not understand the subtleties of what we are supporting, so, as a moral metric, political affiliation comes up wanting. Because, in the final analysis, we all want basically the same things, we just disagree about which is the better path for making those things reality.
I find it interesting that in your own example, you don’t seem to be supporting any position or finishing the analysis. You think other white people think this person is good, but what’s your judgment?
Are you saying that anyone who ever voted for Jim Crow laws is entirely immoral regardless of everything else that happened in their life?
What if they never voted for Jim Crow laws specifically, but they voted for congress-people and governors who favored Jim Crow laws?
What if they had received false information and they voted for Jim Crow laws because they honestly believed this made life better for black people? Still immoral?
You mentioned you wanted to have an “agreeable discussion” in your OP. Maybe you should have been more explicit and just said you want everyone to agree with you.
If it were genetic, one would see it dominant in blood kin in a way that cannot be accounted for by upbringing. I am not sure how closely that has been studied, or even if such studies are feasible. But does seem to be a possible physiological basis for ideology. It is not clear whether this is gene-coded, epigenetic or an effect of development, but it looks like some people simply cannot change or are highly resistant to changing.
I have seen some real characters coming out of the woodwork in this last election. Both liberals and republicans. I don’t even like to use the terms right and left wing anymore because a lot of what I see is just wrong. I know more people that voted against the far left liberals than for Trump or against Hillary. The far left just freaks a lot of conservatives out completely. I don’t believe you can judge a person by how they vote.
Politics is a lot more than just deciding what is illegal. Even with a generous definition of the term “violence” as “anything enforced by the legal system” I’m not sure how, say, the decision on how much to fund charter schools fits in.
