The Rift Between Political Ideals

[TMA_1]

I dont know about you guys, but is this getting frustrating?

I lean more towards conservative values, but I am tired of being generalized as a white trash hick that wants to bomb abortion clinics.

I few days ago me and a few friends were hanging out, and one of the people there, who is an uber-liberal to the extreme, was ranting and raving about ultra conservatives. One issue that was brought up was the issue of gay and lesbian marriages.

He asked ME my opinion on the issue, and I said that I disagree with it, because it goes against my moral principles. Though I said that it is up to each state to decide this issue, that I personally dont like the idea.

He then jumped on me, and said that if I disagree with homosexual and lesbian unions, that I must think that interracial marriage is evil as well...

Needless to say I freaked out on him and called him a narrow-minded prick who couldnt stop generalizing.

This isnt the first time I have been attacked. Whenever people bring up things to me and ask my opinion, I wish that my opinion can be at least respected. This kind of stuff doesnt happen all the time, in fact it doesnt happen often at all. The fact is though is that it happens a lot more than it used to.

I have been called a Nazi because of my stance on abortion. THe guy is an idiot because that viewpoint has nothing to do with the ideals of national socialism, but anyways.lol I have been called many names because of my ideals, and usually it isnt me that brings up the subject.

On the opposite spectrum, I have known a few conservatives that have called me a few names as well. I myself am extremely liberal when it comes to economically socializing governments. I believe that all people have an enherent right to decent health care, and some sort of safety net.

[TMA_1]

and why is "g-ay" bleeped out of my post? how is that offensive? kinda ironic considering what I just posted about.lol

[Andrew]

I find it interesting that gay is bleeped out, and is actually bleeped out longer than 3 characters, and the fact that lesbian is left up.

Although my guess is because users on the emperor board were using it a lot, earlier this month. ;)

[TMA_1]

hehe, oh well. and yeah that is weird that they use so many stars for only three letters. hehe go figure. :)

anyways about the rift between the extremists, as that is what the whole thread is about.

[VigilVirus]

I am fairly liberal, but I don't bear hatred for all conservatives. There are specific types of them that I simply can't stand:

- Anyone who considers US to be obligated to "educate the savages" about democracy and freedom

- Anyone who believes that atheism should be made illegal and is detrimental to a society

- Anyone who believes that capitalism benefit the poor classes of the population more than socialism...and trust me, there are people like that in the world

As for homosexual marriages and abortion, my view on those is clearly liberal, but I can see why someone would disagree because of their beliefs. Although for abortions, I simply do not want to see anyone being told what to do with their own body. It's simply unconstitutional.

[ordos45]

Moderate with liberal leanings in some areas, conservative in others.  On moral values, I oppose abortion, however, what leaves me in the middle is the fact that if abortion were illegal we'd have more alleyway abortions that would result in a higher death rate for women.  Also it has not escaped my notice in the Bible there are passages like bashing the young ones against the rocks with joy.  Homosexual marriage...I'm really up in the air on this...on one hand I think it opens the door to other things, but on one hand I could see where homosexual couples might need to sign hospital forms and such for each other, and visit their signifigant other when sick.  I believe in the non-censored media, and that government censorship is a step towards fascism.  I believe in separation of church and state, because any theocracy in history has ended badly or committed horrendous atrocities.  I believe in a free market economy, but with government controls to limit corporate corruption.  I believe that the Estate/Death tax should not be repealed.  I believe that Democracy at gunpoint is no Democracy at all.  I believe that Atheism is just as valid a faith as Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Bhuddism, Judiasm, et al.  I believe in funding the space program.  I believe in a large, well armed, well funded military that should be used only as a last resort after earnest and prolonged attempts at Diplomacy.  I believe Dominionist Theology will bring about the ruin of America if allowed to continue rampaging unchecked.

[nemafakei]

I am economically roughly socialist, and I am liberal insofar as I believe in freedom is equalled a by responsibility not to abuse that freedom. That means, for example,  you can say anything you like, but you can be held accountable if you are lying. Put another way, I am authoritarian in that I believe it is society's responsiblilty to reatrict freedom so that we don't harm others.

By the way, the most recent round of censorships are not mine.

[Dante]

I think a large part of the problem TMA seems to be talking about is due to the fact that this is a very polarised time we live in. No matter what your ideals, be they liberal or conservative or moderate, there will always be someone who disagrees with you. And the world right now seems to be divided into two primary political groups; 'people who agree with [insert name here],' and 'people who disagree with [insert name here].' Very much an "if you're not for us, you're against us" state of affairs. This is in order to categorise ones enemies, making them easier to deal with; and also a form of self defence in that it makes opponents easier to identify, being everyone who is not an ally.

Splitting people into groups is natural. We do it all the time. It can be done by race, gender, religion, age, political leanings, occupation, wealth, nationality, hobby, sexuality, intelligence, hair colour, mental stability... the list goes on. And a primary aspect of this is an 'us and them' scenario. We categorise each other and then fit ourselves into neat little categories because it makes the world easier to deal with. The problem with this is that it is difficult to take notice of shades of grey with this method, thus giving rise to the complaint of generalising, which of course is what it is. You cannot group all people who are socially liberal together and expect them all to have black hair and identical views on the economy. But people do. Well, maybe aside from the black hair. But that just goes to show how nonsensical it really is.

I personally get rather tired of people assuming that just because I'm a monarchist I must therefore be against immigration, abortion, and women's rights; while supporting fox hunting, the death penalty, and abolition of the welfare state. None of this is true. Let the immigrants in, I say, women can and should have equal rights, abortion is the mother's decision. Fox hunting is justifiably illegal now, the death penalty is prohibitively expensive, and what idiot would want rid of free healthcare? I'm not even a stereotypcial monarchist, I have some choice views about how the monarchy should be run as well... But that doesn't matter, because the moment I say 'monarchist,' other right wing labels such as 'fascist' and 'nazi' crop up. The latter certainly isn't applicable, and I have come to realise that the former isn't either.

[Caid Ivik]

I think your country is on so good state that it is becoming rather decadent. You forgot even how to politically argue...

[Dante]

Was that directed at our politicians or at me personally? If the former, I think I agree with you.

[Caid Ivik]

Actually at first TMA's post, altough options provided by you weren't that bad  ::)

[nemafakei]

Grouping people is fine, so long as you know how to use a Venn diagram.

The problem is, people do think in a 'them and us' way, and, especially when a 'them and us' question (be it pro-war, anti-war, Democrat or Republican, christian or atheist etc) is asked too often, people forget that there are other questions.

For example, I oppose the war that happened in Iraq. That doesn't make me any of:

- an outright pacifist

- left wing

- liberal

- a musilm

- a Democrat

- a Bush-hater

- a Communist

- a terrorist

- a supporter of Saddam Hussein

- French

I could be non, any or all of those. Many of them, I could be and still support the war. I could even oppose the war (that happened) and yet support a war (if done in a different way or under different circumstances).

And it is not merely a question of in which camp we stand on different categories of issues. It is rather a question of how far from each camp. You can be left-wing without being a communist. You can be authoritarian without being in favour of a police state. You can even be divided on some issues on moral and practical grounds (and/or other grounds), as per Ordos' example "On moral values, I oppose abortion, however, ... we'd have more alleyway abortions that would result in a higher death rate for women".

[TMA_1]

... YOu guys here that live on PRP are so used to arguing that you forgot that some people here dont post to argue. I myself posted this to find commiseration, to see if anybody else has had thsi problem. geesh I thought it was pretty clear that I am not making an argument. I didnt write my post as an argument, and i thought that was pretty clear. It is because America is such a heck hole these days that I am posting about how stupid things are becoming here. I just thought people would understand that this is just basically a rant.

[Dante]

Who's arguing? Everything I can see is analytical.

[TMA_1]

not arguing maybe, but drawing sides, or debating the issue. I had no intentions of doing this, only to vent my frustration. I wasent speaking to change peoples minds, only to see if others felt teh same way  I do. I just wanted to see if any of these things have alienated people from participating or studing about politics like it has for me somewhat.

I wanted to see if these huge gaps between ideologies has made people feel left out, thats all. :)

[danielsh]

I don't really feel like my politics isolate me from people.  Part of that is probably because at my age, people think it's cute that I'm a communist.  I'm pretty secure in my politics, and I don't have a problem defending them when necessary.  Then again, there are a lot of people who think that "communists" are people who believe in oligarchy and like mass murder.  (As we all know, wealth cannot be equitably distributed unless 22 million people die in the process.)  Which is why I usually call myself a Marxist and let listeners draw their own conclusions.

I can usually talk politics with other people, but not if they're unreasonable.  I have problems talking to some Republicans because of that hangup (especially when it comes to social issues; I use common sense, a lot of social conservatives seem to use tradition and/or the Bible), just as I have problems with some Democrats because of it.  (Anyone who thinks that all liberals think out their positions carefully is horribly wrong; there are 'cause-my-parents-are Democrats and Republicans.)

There are some issues that I have a lot of trouble talking about.  Gay marriage kills me, because I'm gay.  I have a difficult time arguing with people who tell me that I chose to be gay, that I'm actually diseased, that a few years of prayer could solve the problem, and so on.  If a person is interested in a rational discussion of the issue, I'm up for it; otherwise, I'm likely to get upset so I don't bother.

The conclusion of this wandering post is that I don't feel isolated because of my politics, though I sometimes have a nasty habit of isolating others from theirs.

[TMA_1]

THe problem is that usually the most vocal political groups in which I sometimes associate with are very liberal, and tend to argue passionately rather than listening. It seems to me that it is rude to attack a person for their beliefs if you ask them what they believe. Of course I am not attacking all vocal liberals, because being vocal about politics is an awesome thing, but I think it can go too far, into becoming just plain pretentious and silly.

I am not talking about those types of people who will shove their views down other people's throats, those kinds of people deserve a verbal beating.lol I had to deal with Debate friends and still do, and sometimes this is a problem.

I think it is pretty apparent that a large group of people in america, usually verging towards moderation in political matters, feel like they are out of the loop, or that their opinions do not have as much merit. It seems that those who are vocally extreme about their politics can alienate others who are either not as focused in this stuff, or to those that follow the middle of the road. I have heard the old argument that if you stay in the middle of the road, that you should just get off and choose a side, but to me and many others it isnt that simple. I just wish that those who are extreme in their politics would stop being so venomous when it comes to these matters. I think that if the various opposing political agendas would be more inclusive, and not as divisive, that a lot more people would get involved in political matters.

I guess this is the biggest problem I have with these issues. The problem is, most of the posters in PRP (and I as well) pretty much have our ideologies set in stone, so it is no longer just about enlightening debate, but heated arguments. Of course many just post about this stuff for the fun of it, and indeed it is intellectually stimulating and at times it can help you discover more clearly your own views in these matters. Still though at times it seems that nobody is really learning anything, and it is more of an affirmation of the beliefs we already have. Even some (a small few) use it as a stepping stone for their own ego.

Because of all these things, they can tend to muddy up the issues and cloud up a clear and unbiased understanding of political matters. This all leads back to the idea that it can create alienation from those who are not as extreme. I hope this makes some sense.lol :)

And I can understand Dan about the issue of homosexual marriage and things like that. It is extremely touchy, and if ya like we dont even need to bring that up really.lol :)

[danielsh]

Speaking as a debater, I'm highly suspicious of any claim that political discussion needs to move closer to the center.  The point of argumentation isn't necessarily to fight for victory.  It's to search for truth.  What's exciting about a debate isn't that someone wins and someone loses, but that both sides do their level best to present their ideas attractively and reasonably; as a result, the debaters and listeners can begin to see what works and doesn't on each side and cobble together a new opinion.  Personally, I argue so that I can develop opinions.  I choose a side based on my preliminary thoughts, feelings, and impressions and defend it to the best of my ability.  I end up on the opposite side just as often as I stay with my initial reaction.  Really, the best thing that I've learned from debating is the ability to argue convincingly for nearly any position.

So it always shocks me when I hear people claim that political dialogue---especially in the U.S.---is too radical.  For one thing, I've met very few radical liberals in my life, and I've only ever seen one radical career politician in the mainstream (Representative Bernie Sanders, I-VT).  The Democratic Party kowtows to the fundamentalist Right more often than not, so I hardly think that they're marginalizing too many people.  I agree that there's a large group of voters who feel excluded from the political process, but I suspect that's because they've become disenchanted with both parties, not because they're simply too moderate to choose.*  Again, I can only speak from personal experience, but I imagine that a lot of people would get back into politics if the Democrats dropped a pair and started speaking confidently of a better world.  Like the Republicans do now, except without the lies.  (Insert giant wink here; it wouldn't be a post of mine without some partisan hackery ;).)

I'm afraid that there is no "clear and unbiased understanding of political matters," however.  No one is truly unbiased; each of us brings to a discussion a rich and complex background, one that shapes how each of us sees everything in the world.  There's no way to step completely away from that.  The best that we can all do is understand our own biases---where they came from, what they are, and where we stand as a result of them---and those held by others.

* My favorite anecdote about this phenomenon deals with one of my driving instructors.  Being the debate and political philosophy nut that I am, our conversations during those long two-hour lessons tended to be about current events.  He had claimed early on that he didn't identify as either a Democrat or a Republican, so I decided to exercise a great deal of care in how I phrased my opinions.  Everything I said was still from a Marxist viewpoint, fundamentally, but I didn't use classical Marxist language: I temporarily abandoned my old friends "bourgeoisie," "proletariat," "People's Revolution," "workers of the world," "capitalist oppressors," and so on.  To my great delight, he usually agreed with me.  And when he presented his own opinions, independent of my input, he tended to speak from a radical socialist position.  Needless to say, I was shocked and pleased.  Here was a member of that ever-growing group that's tired of "politics as usual," that group usually assumed to be idiologically between the Democrats and the Republicans, talking like a reform-minded Marxist.

[Edric O]

Be careful not to confuse an imaginary rift with a real one. If two people disagree strongly on one or two issues (like, say, abortion and gay marriage) but pretty much agree on everything else, then there is no big rift between them. Also, people might sometimes seem utterly opposed to each other when talking about theoretical concepts, while being quite close when it comes to the practical measures they wish to implement (this is usually the case with liberals and conservatives).

Having said that, I think you're in the usual position of someone with unconventional political views, TMA. Both the liberals and the conservatives in the USA don't seem capable of imagining that someone could be anything other than a liberal or conservative (or a "moderate").

The fact is that not all people who are neither liberal nor conservative can fit into a "moderate" or "centrist" category. (speaking of which, what kind of reactions do you get when/if you call yourself a Christian socialist or something similar?)

My favorite anecdote about this phenomenon deals with one of my driving instructors.  Being the debate and political philosophy nut that I am, our conversations during those long two-hour lessons tended to be about current events.  He had claimed early on that he didn't identify as either a Democrat or a Republican, so I decided to exercise a great deal of care in how I phrased my opinions.  Everything I said was still from a Marxist viewpoint, fundamentally, but I didn't use classical Marxist language: I temporarily abandoned my old friends "bourgeoisie," "proletariat," "People's Revolution," "workers of the world," "capitalist oppressors," and so on.  To my great delight, he usually agreed with me.  And when he presented his own opinions, independent of my input, he tended to speak from a radical socialist position.  Needless to say, I was shocked and pleased.  Here was a member of that ever-growing group that's tired of "politics as usual," that group usually assumed to be idiologically between the Democrats and the Republicans, talking like a reform-minded Marxist.

Heh, nobody can fit between the Democrats and the Republicans - in practice, they're so close that there's no room between them!

As for marxism, I've often noticed that, as long as you avoid certain "scary" words (like "communism"), many moderate people will agree with the marxist viewpoint on a large number of issues. It seems that marxism is quite close to that thing called "common sense".

[Lord J]

  Although I comprehend what you are saying, TMA, I must say that it hasn't been my experience.  Here in college, I'm part of a philosophy group which comprises of an anarchist, a Baptist fundementalist, a Pentecostal conservative, an...atheistic conservative (I think he's atheist, anyway), a liberal, a Darwinist, another guy I don't know too much about, yet, two PhDs and myself, a liberal socialist/communist.

  What I've found is that although we all think very differently, we rarely get angry and never get personal.  We all have an abiding respect for each other, whether we like one another or one another's ideas.

[GUNWOUNDS]

[Caid Ivik]

[Egeides]

If a given answered is not to be given, the question was not to be asked. This is to be agreed to start with, often even if someone probably has the same opinion.

Also, I guess that if one says you are nazi if anti-abortionist, one can ask him how come then he has a case that does not fit his theory right in front of him. Pragmatism :P

Finally, I got to the conclusion that discussions must be on common field. If someone does not agree to discuss on a given field, then what is left is to discuss what is around that; basically, to discuss why one should discuss by accepting the other ideas first of all. Discussions where one discusses while looking North and the other by looking South wont lead to coherent descriptions of the scenary; it'd be better to start discussing about this North-South issues. If even this is not okay, then it's a bit hard to get anywhere.

My 2 cents :)

[TMA_1]

heh, most of the people I talk to are undergrads and have not yet recieved their bachelor degrees yet. I see what you guys are saying, and it seems right to me in many ways. See, I live in Mount Vernon. The only thing the small small city prides itself in is it's Tulip Festival. We are the tulip capital of the united states! Go Tulips! lol

and by the way, I dispise tulips. I prefer other thicker stemmed flowers like Daffodils and some kinds of Orchids. anyways that has nothing to do with this conversation.lol

In fact Edric one of the people I am actually talking about (his name is Nathan) was shocked when I mentioned some things to him of a socialist nature. He was shocked that I am a christian, and yet was somewhat educated and like various kinds of liturature. He even commented that (I am paraphrasing) "I have never met a christian that appriciates Kafka." lol

Anyways he thought that it made no sense to be socially conservative and yet be fiscally liberal, in the sense of continuing government handouts to the needy, and the growth of social programs to help the handicapped in important endevors (whehter it be to find work, or to give financial support if needed). Not only this but also the idea of going back to the welfare model of LBJ, when his "New Society" project was actually doing real good for America.

I guess I just know too many architypal liberals and conservatives. THat might be the problem.