Political Persuasion- how did you get there? [Archive]

Alex

10-17-2006, 09:39 AM

I grew up in a politically intert house. My paternal grandparents were faithful voters but they were the only members of my family who did so, so far as I know. And this was true even before we became Jehovah's Witnesses, who prohibit participation in the political process.

I've always been simultaneously fascinated and repulsed by politics. It is probably the most important realm of human behavior since it is the process by which we decide how we'll live together. I also adore debate and discussion and argument. And this is what repulses me. I find that 99% of people hold political views simply because someone else told them to and have made no attempt to understand why those views are valid or how they are supportable (and thus, for most, a political view is essentially received wisdom and otherwise indistinguishable from how most people come into their religious views).

I do not think there is a "right" political point of view, and enjoy honest disagreement. I came to my views through an awful lot of thought. Not about politics but about the universe and metaphysics and biology and not an insignificant amount of personal preference (though I try to constantly explore the whys and origins of my personal preferences). By nature I'm just a libertarian sort of person. As much as possible I want to be left alone and want to leave everybody else alone. This is tempered by the recognition that modern society is too large and too complicated for pure libertarianism and there are reasonable points of compromise.

What I hate about the effect of democracy on politics is that with everybody invested in it, it becomes personal. And most people think that when a person disagrees with them, it is either because that other person is stupid or immoral or because that other person is thinking such of you. Thus political debate becomes the lashing out of hurt feelings. Very few people can accept that honest disagreement is possible. That two reasonable people can, given identical inputs, come to different rational outputs. With such people, discussion is futile and repetitive.

I engage in political (or other) debate not to change anybody's mind (though it is good if everybody is open to such a possibility) but to simply prod, poke, and explore the whys and implications of various ideas.

I do it anyway, though. I have no idea where it came from, though. Nobody in my family cares and none of my friends in college did either. Probably the biggest influence was probably reading Robert Heinlein's brand of libertarianism and Isaac Asimov's skepticism (politically very different people) when I was kid.

sleepyjeff

10-17-2006, 09:42 AM

I come from a pretty conservative family(my parents are actually libertatians now but were once pretty big supporters of the Republican party). All of my Grandparents were Republicans too. My sister and brother are both Republicans and, in my opinion, far more conservative than me((that's right, in my family, I am the liberal:))

Now I am not just a conservative/republican due to my family. I operate a small business, own a heavily taxed home, and my best friend is a refugee from communist Cuba. I graduated from a very liberal college(Portland State) and saw all the crazy predictions my liberal proffesors made in the late 80s never come true. Right after college I listened to a lot of talk radio because I was driving a truck for a living.....no, not Rush or any right wingers. The station I listened to the most was KGO(San Francisco) because of its great signal for long distances........yes, Bernie Ward has a lot more to do with who I am now than Rush or Sean.

Than there was 1992. When Clinton won the White House things were really weird for me. I was so use to being a defender of the President(be it Bush or Reagan) that it was difficult for me to switch and become a critic.....it didn't take long though for me to figure out that defending was actually harder than being a critic. The Clinton years were actually kinda easy, debate wise that is:)

Ghoulish Delight

10-17-2006, 10:04 AM

I suppose I would call myself a moderate Democrat with Libretarian leanings. In general, I believe in a society as large as the US, no "pure" ideology can possibly work and that compromise is a must. Thus, while I generally believe in a "leave me the hell alone" philosophy, I also see important roles where a government needs to step in.

I also happen to believe that since money and the economy are entirely artificial constructs, existing only as an agreement within a society and between other societies, I have no problem with a government, being representative of said society, involving itself in the economy and distribution of money. I do not see money as an inalienable right, it's simply a tool.

Okay, so how did I get to this point? There was certainly no single defining moment, I'm definitely a product of my upbringing. Two liberal educators as parents, both politically aware, though not always active. Combined with exposure to a very diverse population in my schools. Being in magnet programs since elementary school, I was always with people from all walks of life, all races, all areas of the city, all economic classes. And that taught me that no one had any real truth, and that any real answer lies somewhere in the middle.

My economic views I suppose come from the fact that I grew up in a very fiscally responsible household. 2 LAUSD employees that, despite sub-par pay for most of my upbringing, despite being just as heavily taxed as anyone else, made it through 30+ years and 2 kids going through college with no debt beyond their home loan. It taught me that, in the end, it doesn't matter what the government does, it all comes down to personal responsibility and understanding the concept of living within your means. Doesn't mean I'm in favor of an entirely socialistic system, or that I supoprt the current state of social spending, but it does mean I'm not afraid of social programs as a concept.

Like Alex, I rarely debate as a means to change someone's mind. I simply enjoy the exchange of perspective and find that a good "opponent" helps me see my own position more clearly.

blueerica

10-17-2006, 10:23 AM

Since everyone else had such complete thought on this I'll have to wait until I have a little more time (and a little less anxiety) to flesh it out for you. The cliff notes version is that I have been all over the map politically, trying to find something that's in tune with my core beliefs. Like GD - I've come to the conclusion that nothing is perfect, and that compromise is necessary. It's why I am not affiliated with any party. While there are things that aren't up for question - the aforementioned core beliefs - there are a lot of things that are up for question. The best politics can give us is a guess, and estimation, an idea. The execution and factors uncontrollable in our real life environments make everything subject to change.

Maybe that's my political leaning: subject to change.

Prudence

10-17-2006, 11:19 AM

My family is mostly conservative, but conservative in ways that aren't reflected by the current "conservative" party. Some perceive Republicans as fiscally irresponsible and too concerned with monitoring what people do (my dad). My grandparents refused to vote for Reagan because he was divorced and they considered that immoral. While my assessments of morality and fiscal soundness might differ from theirs, those concepts play a big role in how I evaluate current political issues.

My mom is another major influence. It might seem obvious to some, but I still remember realizing that one didn't have to hold a party line - that you didn't have to be "a Republican" or "a Democrat" come hell or high water. My mom had been fairly conservative, but she has this well-concealed bra-burning liberal streak when it comes to issues that might appeal to the bra-burning liberals.

So, a generous portion of Protestant work ethic, as filtered through the family farm perspective, a good amount of "people who don't know what it's like to be me shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't do about things that are none of their business", equal portions compassion and skepticism, a dash of "consider the long-term ramifications",and all topped off with a dash of tinfoil hat paranoia.

Strangler Lewis

10-17-2006, 11:36 AM

Oh, he!!, I had hoped to get some work done this morning.

First, the easy question: the only time I recall voting against my "norm" was when I voted for Pete Wilson over Kathleen Brown for governor. That was mostly a family loyalty thing since he had appointed my basically independent father-in-law to the superior court bench. I was able to rationalize this because I saw a news clip of Kathleen Brown being welcomed by a cheering crowd and she put up her right arm and went "Whooo!" like she was in a Bud Light ad or on one of those annoying cable car tour buses that used to pass under my apartment window full of people going "Whooo!" I hate people who go "Whooo!"

Now, let's see. Boiled down, I support the Democrats because, at least in this point in American history, they are the party that does not encourage, exploit and validate cruelty, meanness and hate. George Allen could be the Republicans' presidential candidate. 'Nuf said, really, but . . .

My father was a Holocaust survivor who came to America by himself at 12 as one of the One Thousand Children, the American equivalent of the British program that was the subject of the Oscar winning documentary some years back. His family lost everything in Germany, his father was murdered as were many of his relatives. He lived with secularly Jewish foster families in the midwest until he was reunited with his mother in a poor neighborhood in Manhattan.

My mother was a child of the Depression, although she never went without food on the table. She was basically raised by her grandmother because her mother, and two sisters joined the Father Divine cult, where they were told to renounce their families.

My father served in World War II, which he did not particularly enjoy. One of his principal missions involved Okinawa mop-up, caves, flamethrowers and anything that moved.

My father did quite well in New York. At first, I went to a fairly diverse public school where I got along with everyone. However, the principal told my parents that if they wanted me to be challenged in school, they needed to move. So they moved to the Jewish side of Forest Hills where nearly all the black kids at school came on the bus (except for the ones from the orphanage down the block) and were not in the gifted classes. That we were different from them was made abundantly clear, but it never seemed right. Thinking back, my father often would drive me through the Bowery, where the men down on their luck on the streets were white, to emphasize how lucky I was. He never drove me through Harlem. My parents were basically Nixon silent majority Republicans. Fear of black crime was a major issue for them. Fear is not an attractive emotion.

I did not view religion as a terribly positive force growing up. It divided my otherwise non-traditional family eight ways to Sunday. Everybody had opinions; everybody was critical and mean. People in my building would tell me I was going to the wrong temple. My aunt who left the Father Divine cult after marrying a black man she met there probably got it the worst.

We moved to California when my father was 52 so he could open his own business and not have to travel so much. The business failed, and my parents went bankrupt a few years later. At that age, my father was not able to rebuild a career path as an employee. Suffice it to say that the various safety nets came in handy.

Doing criminal law, I have mostly encountered human beings with horrible backgrounds and/or mental illness. Some of my clients it's hard not to dismiss as total sh**s, but I try.

What else? Lots of friends of different races and religious backgrounds. Lots of gay friends. As I see it, the Republican tent is big enough to embrace racists, sexists, homophobes and people who would rather give millions to the prison industrial complex because it feels good to punish the poor and the black rather than give that money to schools or programs that might prevent crime. As far as personal responsibility goes, the party is also home to speeding pick-up drivers who can't be bothered to wear seat belts and who kill themselves and others. (Admittedly, the surveys do not show the political affilitation of Sonoma County's unseatbelted, pickup driving fatalities, but it's a fair guess.)

I disagree with the above viewpoints that people come to their political positions calmly and rationally. I think people are driven by emotion, and those emotions are not always pretty. I like to harken back to Jonathan Swift's essay, "A Modest Proposal." Humor aside, the point of that was that politics serves our baser emotions and you can get away with almost anything cruel and outlandish if you couch it in reasonable terms. The Republicans have mastered this rhetorical device. I don't care for it.

Not Afraid

10-17-2006, 12:51 PM

I never know what to label myself and end up doing it based on choosing the best of two evils. I hate the constant blame game of politics and have very few politicians who I would want as a friend - let alone representing me in office. The older I get, the less interested I am in the political BS.

I care more about social issues than I do about financial issues - although they tend to be inter-related, so there are always exceptions.

I came from ultra conservative, Republican, fundamentalist Christian environment and I embrace very little of the ideals in which I was raised. I find both the Republican Party and the Christian Church to be far too intolerant and limiting for my own brand of thinking. I honestly cannot allign myself with any political party wholeheartedly but I end up doing it as a counter move. I may not love the democrat up for election but I certainly like him more than the republican - but that is not always the case.

Basicily, politics bores the crap out of me because it seems like it's a lot of talk and blame and no actual action - at least not a whole lot of action that makes a positive difference.

€uroMeinke

10-17-2006, 10:33 PM

I am an anarchist.

I believe the entire political system to be a sham by which people are deluded into thinking they are getting what they want. Despite the myth of "public service" politics tends to attract politicians, that is self serving individuals more converned about "winning" than actually making the world a better place. The chief advantage of the political system is it makes people's behavior both more predictable and controlable, ultimately making it easier for them to be taken advantage of, or at least manipulated in a way the serves my own interests.

My parents were immigrants from Nazi Germany and with that brought numerous stories of governemnts and economies vanishing overnight. They came to the US following the promise of the American Dream and ultimately became both patriotic and democratic which was possible at the time (c. 1962).

In persuing his dream, my father became ill, had a brain tumor, surgery, and became dissabled. His insurance covered the first three months of hospital bills, his pension marginally supplemented the meager social security benefit, which became our sole source of income after the mid seventies when my father's old workplace went bankrupt. The chief benefit from going from Middle Class to poverty is it made it much easier for me to secure financial aid through college. Riding the tale end of the baby boom, most of the programs I was able to take advantage of, no longer exist.

So Health Care is an issue for me, but in my life time I've seen that promise fade enough times to no longer care. Free Speech issues have also been big with me, possibly inherited from my father's foolishness of speaking out against the Nazi's while living in Germany - But in setting up a PAC in response to the NEA 4 controversy, I found myself face to face with the ugly political machine of the democratic party which was more about winning the given election (or rather making sure the Republican would loose) than doing anything more than taking our ideals as window dressing.

I still vote in the elections, but I tend to favor porn stars or punk rockers than politicians. I was happy to see Gray Davis go, since from being within my industry, I watched him avoid doing anything proactive to avoid the whole CA energy crisis, even though he knew it was coming but wasn't politically expediant for him to do anything. I'm sad to see the CA Governor's race is once again D vs. R. I will likely vote Green, or Libertarian, or write in Jerry Brown's name.

innerSpaceman

10-18-2006, 08:33 AM

Believe it or not, I was a staunch conservative in college.

It was a phase.

Before and since, I've been a liberal progressive, which politically puts me in the voting camp for the Democrats, unless a particularly interesting green or libertarian or independent candidate comes along.

For the same reasons given much more eloquently by Strangler Lewis, I have never been able to support the Republican Party or the Conservative movement or the Christian ideologists. My family was democratic, but hardly politically active. Yet the way I was raised and the very nature of my intrinsic soul have determined my political leanings. I tend to be very absolutist about certain things, so I'll just come right out and say it ...

Good vs. Evil.

Which political direction is compassionate, which is hateful? Which is based on greed, which on generosity?

I know many good people who claim to be conservatives, but I believe they are rationalizing things and/or deluding themselves. While I'm all for pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps, I draw the line at the every-man-for-himself philosophy that is perhaps the best thing that can be said about the conservative impulse.

I think the widespread economic prosperity that took hold in the latter half of 20th-Century America has been the pinnacle of human civilization, and thus the height of goodness for eons and time and hundreds of light years around. I am certainly not interested in supporting the forces that want to turn back that achievement. I cannot support poverty or discrimination or hatred or violence or war or greed.

Good vs. Evil. It's a choice. One you can make at any time, and have to make often regardless of how you've chosen before.

Heheh, it's not too late, you conservatives and republicans and christian ideologists. Look it up in the dictionary. "Good." Check out what Jesus the Christ had to say about it, if that suits you. Ask your mother, if she's still around. Or consult with Jiminy Cricket. And, without lying to yourself, look inside to find out if what you're doing is Good or not, whether it's based on fear or based in love.

sorry to get all preachy. but unlike Alex, I think good people coming to differently reasonable points of view works only to a certain point ... after which, I simply can't abide people who want to hurt other people.

Alex

10-18-2006, 01:44 PM

And that is where the honest disagreement is. Generally people don't see themselves as wanting to hurt people. You see it as such, but they honestly don't. And much of what is seen as "good" to progressives is seen as an active harm to "conservatives."

And it is that inability to honestly disagree that causes hatred and extreme divides. When a liberal says that "Republicans want poor people to starve" do they really believe that? When a conservative says "liberals want a welfare state that creates a permanent underclass that will provide them with politcal power" do they really believe that?

Both sides honestly believe that their views would result in a net positive result. And only the most ideological don't recognize that "net positive" includes a fair amount of "gross negative."

That is the honest debate that most people apparently can't have. There is a huge difference between "I think you are wrong about the outcome of your policies and evil ends will result" and "you are intentionally persuing evil ends." Yes, there are evil people, but not nearly so many as we like to pretend.

I think exempting the poor completely from income tax is a net negative, most progressives think it is a net positive. That can be honestly debated. But what happens in modern political debate is that we conflate outcomes with motivations which puts everything within an immediately false framework. Also, it allows us to dismiss out of hand and ad hominem ideas we don't like. "I believe that Politician Y's plan will result in a bad thing. Therefore Politician Y must be aware of that and want it to happen. Therefore Politician Y is a bad person. Therefore everything Politician Y says and does is bad."

This is why blanket hatred confuses me. Clinton did a lot of good things and he did a lot of bad things, but I recognize that regardless of outcome he was likely always trying to do what he thought were good things. Same with Bush, and Polk, and Tyler, and most every other president.

DreadPirateRoberts

10-18-2006, 01:51 PM

This is why blanket hatred confuses me. Clinton did a lot of good things and he did a lot of bad things, but I recognize that regardless of outcome he was likely always trying to do what he thought were good things. Same with Bush, and Polk, and Tyler, and most every other president.

Excellent point. Regardless of whether we agree with them or not, I truly believe they are doing what they think is best.

Prudence

10-18-2006, 03:13 PM

I don't think most regular people consider any net result - whether positive or negative. I think most people consider only how certain actions will immediately affect them. Those at the top may, in fact, make decisions based on what they think is best for the whole, but they're put into place by the "what's in it for me?" contingent, and I don't think that provides the best leaders. How can anyone make the toughest of decisions knowing that any immediate drawbacks will mean hell to pay with the constituency, regardless of the net benefit?

That makes political debate even more personal, because if I support something that has any sort of negative impact on you it must be a personal attack. I mean, what kind of person am I that would want to do that to you? If I want to raise or add a tax for some vital service, why, I'm taking medicine from the sick, candy from babies, homes from the elderly. Doesn't matter if the end result would benefit everyone - I'm clearly out to get you.

(Generic you, of course. I assume that folks here are capable of considering consequences further out than the next 5 minutes.)

That's certainly how it looks up here with local issues. Easier/cheaper to fix/replace crumbling infrastructure now, rather than in 10 years? So what? Let the taxpayers 10 years hence pay for that. I want my $30 car tabs!

But altruism is apparently un-American.

LSPoorEeyorick

10-18-2006, 04:12 PM

I am the youngest child, and the first liberal, of a family of conservative Catholics. And truthfully, I don't know exactly why I ended up the way I am. Genes? A slightly more free-form childhood? The fact that I'm saddled with extreme empathy? I don't know.

My brother was an Alex P. Keaton in high school, and even supported his then-governor when he ran for president six years ago. He and I had many conversations about why I was choosing to vote Green (my reason, primarily, was that I thought the two-party system was complete bunk.) But soonafter, as we invaded Iraq, I tried to razz him about his boy from Texas, and he'd lost his sense of humor. I know he voted for Kerry in the last election, as did most of my family. As did I. It was Bush's actions that lead me to declare myself a democrat, and to work for the campaign in 2004.

For my parents, and I think my sister as well, it's often a one-issue election. And that issue is abortion. While I understand their sadness and myself believe that abortion is murder (and no, I don't want to debate it with you; we probably have different opinions of when "life" starts and I don't want to talk about it) I spent a long time trying to impress upon my family that the 2004 election was NOT a one-issue election, and in fact, no amount of voting weighted by pro-life intentions was going to make any difference. But voting for Kerry might have affected the lives since lost in Iraq, on both sides of the conflict.

Why am I a liberal? Because I believe that all people deserve as good a life as possible. Because I believe that not everyone is capable of doing that themselves. Because I believe that all people should have equal rights, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference. Because I am currently blessed with enough money to live comfortably, a direct result of my parents' ability to provide my food, shelter and education. Because I know that other parents cannot easily provide that for their children. Because I would rather have higher taxes and better education for ALL children in ALL cities of this country. Because I support the arts. Because I think war should be the very last resort. Because I think it's every bit as important to be free to burn a flag as it is to be free to raise it. Because I think it's every bit as patriotic to question the president as to praise him.

scaeagles

10-18-2006, 05:50 PM

innerSpaceman

10-18-2006, 07:23 PM

Just to be clear, I speak for no one in the Democratic Party when I personally take the moral high ground.

And I don't buy Alex's theory that people who do things with evil outcomes rarely have evil intent. Bah on that. Prudence was right about almost all political motivation (and likely most human motivation) ... summed up nicely by "what's in it for me?"

Whether one is too ignorant to look past what's in it for me is no excuse for not immediately recognizing that such a philosophy is likely to cause harm to everyone who isn't you.

Sure, there's a big enough gray zone where many paths leading to evil outcomes did not have evil motives. But I think that zone is relatively slim when compared with the vast realm of political and human motivation.

scaeagles

10-18-2006, 07:55 PM

Whether one is too ignorant to look past what's in it for me is no excuse for not immediately recognizing that such a philosophy is likely to cause harm to everyone who isn't you.

I would say the same thing for supposedly compassionate ideas that are not thought out to their conclusion. As in -

"Whether one is too ignorant to see the unintended consequences of what sounds like a compassionate idea is no excuse to not immediately recognize that such a philosophy is likely to cause harm to those the idea was intended to assist, and most likely to others as well."

For example, right now there is a ballot proposition in AZ to increase the minimum wage. "Evil Republicans!", the cry echoes through the liberal households. "Don't they know that one cannot raise a family on $5.15 an hour?".

It sounds compassionate to raise the minimum wage. However, it is the exact opposite.

I will be quoting an economist named Walter Williams from this (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/04/26/minimum_wage,_maximum_folly) article.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15."

Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about two percent of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: ..... only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.

So....only 18% of of 520,000 minimum wage earners have dependents, or less than 100,000 workers.

However, what are the negative effects of raising the minimum wage?

Two important surveys of academic economists were reported in two issues of the American Economic Review, May 1979 and May 1992. In one survey, 90 percent, and in the other 80 percent, of economists agreed that increasing the minimum wage causes unemployment among youth and low-skilled workers.

So raising the minimum wage has an affect of increasing unemployment among lower skilled workers, when in fact not many people at all have are trying to raise a family on minimum wage. I would also argue, though not from this article, that a raise in the minimum wage delays raises to established workers. The article itself has much more info than I have quoted.

Nice sounding, compassionate idea to raise the minimum wage. Bad idea to raise the minimum wage, as the unintended consequences are not good at all.

So....what is my point in all of this? That compassion that is not thought through, no matter how good it sounds, is the opposite. I will not subscribe to an idea simply because it sounds compassionate. And I will not be called evil because I investigate and dislike some compassionate sounding ideas.

Alex

10-18-2006, 08:40 PM

Never mind, this isn't intended as a debate thread so I won't continue it.

Not Afraid

10-18-2006, 08:50 PM

But, you're all making it clear why I don't like current politics. ;)

€uroMeinke

10-18-2006, 08:54 PM

Yeah - I'm ever more firmly an anarchist

wendybeth

10-18-2006, 10:04 PM

It was fairly easy to predict the path this thread would take, which is why I refrained from posting.

I did bring popcorn, though.:D

€uroMeinke

10-18-2006, 10:05 PM

Well if we do decend down that path, I hope I'll get the chance to toss a few Molotov One Liners

wendybeth

10-18-2006, 10:13 PM

I'm counting on that, €uro. Just don't scorch the popcorn.:cheers:

€uroMeinke

10-18-2006, 10:24 PM

Ah, but I love the burnt pieces

Strangler Lewis

10-18-2006, 11:09 PM

I was going to quote ISM but found there was too much to quote. I think JWBear, who somewhere else posted that Republicans act as if they have the moral high ground, needs to read that post by ISM and make a determination as to who believes they have moral high ground. Perhaps I will copy it to a word document and paste it whenever someone claims that Republicans act as if they are good and dems are evil. Apparently there are (gasp!) dems that have that attitude as well.

I don't really know what else to say about it. It would be pointless when I have been defined as supporting evil.

I can't really say why I am conservative. I have conservative leanings, but I consider myself to be a strict constructionist. I suppose Madison was evil when he said, when a small charitable appropriations bill came before him -

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Does this mean I don't support charity? Not in the least. I support charity from charitable organizations of which the government should not be one.

I have read the Federalist Papers. I love the Constitution for what it was intended to be. Before anyone jumps on me and talks about slavery and women voting and the like, the Constitution was only intended to be a "living, breathing document" in terms of the amendment process. It is what it is and to change it requires not the whim of a legislator or President or judge, but a process, and it has rightly been changed in the past. It is not my goal to open a debate on Constitutional philosophy, but more to describe why I am the way I am.

Like LSPoor above me, I also believe that "all people deserve as good a life as possible". I just think that is done differently than liberals do.
This all begs the question.

Whether it is good, right or moral to outlaw abortion, criminalize gay sex or ban gay marriage does not hinge on whether the effort would surpass constitutional scrutiny.

Whether it is good, right or moral for businesses to refuse to serve people based on race does not hinge on whether the Civil Rights Act really was a valid exercise of power under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whether it would be good, right or moral for each state to enshrine one religion (which one might it be?) and ban all others does not hinge on whether Justice Scalia is right and the Establishment Clause only prevents Congress from establishing a national church.

By the way, why shouldn't the state or federal government be in the business of providing "charity?" By government charity, I assume you don't want to pay to help poor people. What else don't you want to pay for, directly or indirectly? Social security? Farm subsidies? Tax credits to industries? Public schools your kids don't attend? Maintenance on roads you don't drive? Government is just one form of organization and human action. If Jesus comes back and says, how're you doing with Matthew 25:31-46, I don't think he would be offended to see compassionate and charitable efforts being conducted through civil governments as opposed to megachurches.

tracilicious

10-18-2006, 11:16 PM

This is an interesting thread to me, as I'm trying to figure the whole politics thing out. As Alex pointed out, the religion of my birth prohibits political opinions/discussion and participation. However, I believe that to be a load of crap, as people are obviously going to have opinions regardless of whether they qualify their statements with, "even though I'm politically neutral."

So, I'll say my dad is conservative, and my mom is liberal. I'm sure I'm far more to the liberal side, but I really don't have a clue as to what that means, except that I usually agree with dems when opinions are stated.

I really couldn't care less about politics mostly, but it's come to my attention that there are certain local propositions that I actually care about. THings that could potentially make a difference in the community. I.e, pigs that can't stand up, or tax reductions that mean no more free museum days, etc. However, I'm not even sure when voting is, or where one goes for that sort of thing. So we'll see what happens.

Alex

10-18-2006, 11:24 PM

Whether it is good, right or moral to outlaw abortion, criminalize gay sex or ban gay marriage does not hinge on whether the effort would surpass constitutional scrutiny.

What does it hinge on, in your opinion? I'm guessing it will be something about equally subjective and arbitrary.

Motorboat Cruiser

10-19-2006, 01:35 AM

I've never considered myself a democrat or a republican. Kerry was the first democrat I ever voted for and I wasn't pleased about it. I wan't pleased that I had to choose between him and Bush. I wasn't pleased that he was the best the dems could come up with. As Lewis Black says, "It was like choosing between two bowls of sh*t. The only difference was the smell."

My problem isn't with republicans, per se. It is with those that cannot see how horrible this current administration is. I truly believe that this administration are going to leave the world in much worse shape than how they found it and that we have to put a stop to it. If all we have to look forward to from the republicans is eight more years of the crap we have seen, then they will not get my vote. If I hear one that has some decent ideas on how to fix this mess we are in, I will listen to what they have to say. I will hold the democratic candidate to the same standard.

I want to hear solutions, not lies and distortions and spin. I want someone more interested in education than gay marriage. I want someone who understands fiscal management and foreign policy. I want someone who will project an image of the United States to the world that I can be proud of, not someone who comes off like an ignorant bully gunslinger. I want someone who can speak, who can motivate, who can exude confidence and strength without making idle threats.

Whichever candidate comes closer to matching this profile, democrat or repulican or other, will get my vote.

Scrooge McSam

10-19-2006, 04:07 AM

It was fairly easy to predict the path this thread would take, which is why I refrained from posting.

I did bring popcorn, though.:D

*munch munch*

scaeagles

10-19-2006, 05:44 AM

This all begs the question.

Whether it is good, right or moral .....

Whether it is good, right or moral.....

Whether it would be good, right or moral.....

By the way, why shouldn't the state or federal government be in the business of providing "charity?"

So....another democrat whom I assume dislikes that the Republicans stand on their pedestals and make morality judgements does the same? I'm shocked. So you are saying that you vote democrat because it is....well.....more moral. You make the judgement over and over that you dislike when Republicans make it.

Why shouldn't the government be in the business of providing charity? Well, the father of the Constitution that I quoted earlier, being Madison, seemed to think it was UnConstitutional. Apparently from your posting you think that constitutional scrutiny is a good thing. However, it is also apparent that it is only a good thing if you agree with the item that is put under such scrutiny.

As far as charitable work, I won't bother to list what I contribute to, and they are not primarily "megachurches", as you put it. As with my minimum wage example, the (so-called) charitable work of the government often does more harm than good.

Nephythys

10-19-2006, 07:31 AM

I wanted to say thanks for making this thread interesting-

Seeing as I am the OP- I will say that I do not oppose civil discussion or debate if you will- in regards to certain views or how and why people hold them.

If we can't challenge each other with civility- it's just not as much fun.

SzczerbiakManiac

10-19-2006, 10:38 AM

By the way, why shouldn't the state or federal government be in the business of providing "charity?" By government charity, I assume you don't want to pay to help poor people.If someone doesn't want the government to help poor people, it does not automatically mean that person doesn't want to pay to help poor people. There are far better ways to assist the poor.
What else don't you want to pay for, directly or indirectly? Social security? Farm subsidies? Tax credits to industries? Public schools your kids don't attend? Maintenance on roads you don't drive?It should not be the government's job to provide charity (including the ones you mentioned) Charity works best when run by private organisations who actually have to answer to those who donate to them. And besides, is it really "charity" when you're forced to donate? If Mr. Lewis comes to my door and threatens to kidnap me and throw me in his dungeon until I donate to Jerry's Kids, am I really making a charitable donation? I don't think so.
Government is just one form of organization and human action.True, the worst example of it. It's bloated full of waste because it doesn't have to answer to anyone and is too big to manage effectively.

Strangler Lewis

10-19-2006, 11:21 AM

If someone doesn't want the government to help poor people, it does not automatically mean that person doesn't want to pay to help poor people. There are far better ways to assist the poor.
It should not be the government's job to provide charity (including the ones you mentioned) Charity works best when run by private organisations who actually have to answer to those who donate to them. And besides, is it really "charity" when you're forced to donate? If Mr. Lewis comes to my door and threatens to kidnap me and throw me in his dungeon until I donate to Jerry's Kids, am I really making a charitable donation? I don't think so.
True, the worst example of it. It's bloated full of waste because it doesn't have to answer to anyone and is too big to manage effectively.

Private charitable organizations are big business, and they vary greatly in how much actually goes to the object of charity as opposed to the well paid administrators. The executive directors of these groups do not answer to the man on the street; they answer to 1) their board members, who usually are not averse to seeing people make a nice living and throw nice parties and 2) the IRS, who eventually will yank a charity's tax-exempt status and then, bye-bye charity.

You can't deny that tax policy shapes people's willingness to donate to charities (or buy homes). Repeal of the estate tax has greatly affected charitable giving. The increasing reach of the alternative minimum tax in states like California beyond the truly rich will do so as well.

I don't think all the charities in the countries put together could manage the welfare and food stamp programs as effectively as the government does, or feed and shelter the millions that they would have to if these programs were eliminated.

I assume you don't mean the part about not wanting to pay for public schools or road upkeep.

Ghoulish Delight

10-19-2006, 11:29 AM

Despite the OP's blessing, I'd rather that this thread NOT turn into a forum to butt heads the way the religious thread did. We have plenty of other active discussions that challenge each other's beliefs and perspectives, it'd be nice to have one where people can just express them without expecting a debate.

sleepyjeff

10-19-2006, 11:40 AM

Nephythys

10-19-2006, 11:43 AM

Strangler Lewis

10-19-2006, 11:43 AM

There's a bright golden haze on the meadow . . .

CoasterMatt

10-19-2006, 11:43 AM

Poit!!!

Ghoulish Delight

10-19-2006, 11:55 AM

Though I think one would have to be blindly naive to think that telling people they support or are '"evil" for their politics doesn't demand a response.
Don't worry, I'm sure iSm will happily oblige go call you evil at a future date in another thread. ;)

I'm not proposing to ban all response and debate, and this wasn't an aministrative warning. Just a request to keep it to a minimum so as not to discourage people from sharing their own political histories, which is what I open this thread to find.

sleepyjeff

10-19-2006, 11:58 AM

Ok-

Though I think one would have to be blindly naive to think that telling people they support or are '"evil" for their politics doesn't demand a response.

Maybe there should be less moral judgements- and more sticking to the topic of what you believe politically and why- without pointing fingers.

Right?

True that. But I really liked the idea of this thread as a place to see and tell personal paths towards present beliefs....if someone chooses to take that oportunity to just trash the beliefs of others instead of sharing their personal path I think that says more about them than the target of their attack.

Nephythys

10-19-2006, 12:13 PM

Don't worry, I'm sure iSm will happily oblige go call you evil at a future date in another thread. ;)

I'm not proposing to ban all response and debate, and this wasn't an aministrative warning. Just a request to keep it to a minimum so as not to discourage people from sharing their own political histories, which is what I open this thread to find.

heh- ;) no doubt.

Works for me- thanks!

Nephythys

10-19-2006, 12:14 PM

True that. But I really liked the idea of this thread as a place to see and tell personal paths towards present beliefs....if someone chooses to take that oportunity to just trash the beliefs of others instead of sharing their personal path I think that says more about them than the target of their attack.

Excellent point- I've enjoyed reading all of these. I want to add my own but likely won't until I get back from Cali next week.

SzczerbiakManiac

10-19-2006, 02:05 PM

I assume you don't mean the part about not wanting to pay for public schools or road upkeep.You assume incorrectly.

LSPoorEeyorick

10-19-2006, 03:12 PM

I don't mean to start a debate here, I just want to hear what you have to say. Whom would you prefer to pay for road upkeep? (Or, schools, too, though I have a better idea of your perspective on that.)

innerSpaceman

10-19-2006, 06:59 PM

Don't worry, I'm sure iSm will happily oblige go call you evil at a future date in another thread.
And I'm sorry, but in order to simply express how I came to my political views, I had no choice but to truthfully say it was simply a choice between Good and Evil, as "good" is usually defined by Websters, Jesus, Ghandi, ML King and most American Moms.

I did not name names, but -yes- in stating that my beliefs were "good," I most certainly had to imply that opposite beliefs were "evil." And I stand by that.

If anyone feels mortally compelled to respond to the simple reasons I truly have for my political persuasion, there's little I can do to stop them.

€uroMeinke

10-19-2006, 07:11 PM

Life's easier as a moral relativist

scaeagles

10-19-2006, 08:12 PM

I did not name names, but -yes- in stating that my beliefs were "good," I most certainly had to imply that opposite beliefs were "evil." And I stand by that.

Interesting. Aren't you one who gets angry at generalizations when made? Such as "all liberals are nuts" or some such thing? In fact, if I recall, in the past you have gotten rather upset about it. It could be I'm not remembering correctly.

Not Afraid

10-19-2006, 08:24 PM

No, that's me, but apparently I'm not a liberal.

€uroMeinke

10-21-2006, 10:41 PM

Looks like I may have a candidate to vote for after all:

Porn star demands equal time from Leno (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061021/tv_nm/carey_dc_2)

Porn star and California gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey, following the lead of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Democratic opponent, demanded on Friday that Jay Leno give her equal time on his TV show...

She attracted wide attention during her first bid for California governor in 2003. In preparation for this year's race she lost weight, replaced her teeth and got new breast implants.

"I just don't think it's fair of Jay to have his friend Arnie on, and not me," Carey said in a statement. "I think Jay would really like me once he got a chance to meet me. And I'd be a better interview since I'm much cuter and speak better English."

Strangler Lewis

10-22-2006, 07:19 AM

Typical whiny Republican.

katiesue

10-22-2006, 10:33 AM

Pat Paulson for President

€uroMeinke

10-22-2006, 08:12 PM

Pat Paulson for President

Ah man, now I feel old - I remember the bumper stickers and his campaign kick-off on the Smothers Brothers including his failed attempt to walk on water. Alas the other six year-olds in the neighborhood were squarely behind Nixon, and I myself chanted for his election

katiesue

10-23-2006, 09:58 AM

My Dad had the album - hmm wonder where that is now?

Alex

10-23-2006, 11:34 AM

Only six more days of me answering questions that were mostly rhetorical, so enjoy it while it lasts.

Pat Paulsen died, on April 24, 1997, of pneumonia while in a Mexico altnernative treatment center for colon and brain cancer.

That was the easy part, but doesn't answer where he is. Find-a-Grave lists him as dead but doesn't know where he was buried or what happened to him. I can't find anything specific, though earlier in his life he joked that when he died he wanted to be cast in lucite and used as a coffee table. I'm guessing that didn't actually happen.

Not Afraid

10-23-2006, 11:49 AM

I can't find anything specific, though earlier in his life he joked that when he died he wanted to be cast in lucite and used as a coffee table. I'm guessing that didn't actually happen.

I did that to a pet frog when I was a kid. Although, it was more of a coaster than a coffee table.

CoasterMatt

10-23-2006, 01:00 PM

My political persuasion?

Just a jump to the left, with a step to the right... :evil:

katiesue

10-23-2006, 01:03 PM

Only six more days of me answering questions that were mostly rhetorical, so enjoy it while it lasts.

Why only 6 more days? What happens then?

Alex

10-23-2006, 01:12 PM

I re-enter the traditional workplace (I've been working form home for the last two years which is why I have so much time to post here) from where I probably won't do much posting, and my evening time will be much more precious to me so I expect my message board activity will plummet to near-zero.

I don't know how it will all shake out (maybe I'll end up with nothing to do all day) but at least for some period I don't expect to be around much. So you'll all have to get used to not having someone around to remind you that religion is stupid, it is possible to hold both liberal and conservative positions, that homeopathy is quackery, support NA in rejecting Monty Python, and that some questions can be rhetorical.

On the other hand, someone else will get to have the final word every once in a while.

And I just noticed that I misread your post as asking where Paulsen is now, not the album. I think I will go to sleep now.

tracilicious

10-23-2006, 04:40 PM

Dang, we lose more posters to the workplace. Quit your jobs people!

Ghoulish Delight

10-23-2006, 04:42 PM

Dang, we lose more posters to the workplace. Quit your jobs people!
Better yet, keep your jobs and just stop actually working while there!

CoasterMatt

10-23-2006, 05:03 PM

What are you talking about, the only time I really get to post is when I'm doing my job :D

Alex

10-23-2006, 07:14 PM

I did quit my job. For two years almost.

€uroMeinke

10-23-2006, 08:21 PM

Perhaps we can bump up the value of this site to fund our early retirements so that we can post endlessly without workplace interuptions.

Nephythys

11-09-2006, 07:51 AM

Well- now that the election is behind us-and as ISM said-

I know we're not going to solve any of the world's issues here on the board, so I hope in future we can do more illumination of our various personal politics and persuasions ... and less fighting about the issues as if we were the ones charged with solutions.

Shall we bring this thread back into active status given our recent discussion of liberal vs conservative?

innerSpaceman

11-09-2006, 08:44 AM

ok, lets.

I've been wondering why I feel a bit more comfortable with Democrats in charge of Congress. As has been rightly pointed out by Nephy and others, they are barely discernable from the Republicans, beholden to their own set of special monied interests, and just as crooked as the day is long.

Perhaps my comfort level with the slightly more liberal side of the political equation we seem stuck with in this country is that, for the most part, liberals seem less to want to control other people than conservatives do.

I think the only control-folks item on the liberal agenda is to make very rich people pay the taxes they paid a few years ago.

One of my personal values, raised with and born with, and one I consider a supremely American value as well ... is mind my own frelling business. Don't tell other people what they can and cannot do.

So, as a woman, I wouldn't want other people trying to stop my human right to control my reproductive choices. As a gay man, I don't want other people trying to stop my human right to marry among the only people I can fall in love with. There are many other examples.

In my book, that's just not right.

Do conservatives see it differently?

If the God of the New Hampshirites told Her people to pass a law that only women could hold jobs in the U.S., how would some of you conservatives feel about New Hampshirites?

MouseWife

11-09-2006, 09:58 AM

iSm~:snap: :snap:

Not Afraid

11-09-2006, 10:12 AM

The ONLY reason I am registered currently as a Dem is so I can vote against Republicans. I have no love for the Dems either, but they are better than the current state of the Republicas.

When I became of voting age, I voted Republican. The Dems were just way too liberal for me. That was 26 years ago. In that time, the Republican party has moved so far to the right (thanks to religion) that I want nothing to do with them. Meanwhile, the Dems have become a centrist party. That's why I have to laugh when the work "liberal" gets tossed around here. Dems aren't liberral in 2006.

Strangler Lewis

11-09-2006, 10:37 AM

The Dems were just way too liberal for me.

In what respect?

€uroMeinke

11-09-2006, 08:04 PM

I find the liberal tendancy to paint all Corporations as inherently evil as one of it's most annoying attributes, but the religious convictions (and dogmatic righteousness) downright scares me. If the republicans didn't embrace that side so warmly, I'd probably vote that way more often becasue I value my more "liberal" lifestyle too much.

innerSpaceman

11-12-2006, 11:14 AM

Perhaps not all corporations are inherently evil ... but the unbridled profit motive is.

Corporations are not citizens. And I am sick of corporations having the rights and benefits of citizenship.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people should encourage the econmic benefits of corporations, but should have a far more robust system of checks and balances to corporate power and greed. The profit motive will, almost inevitably, accept harm to the people and the planet in exchange for money. And government derived from the will of the people should offer protections to the citizenry from the dangers of the cold pursuit of gold.

Alex

11-12-2006, 12:33 PM

Except the profit motive pretty much drives all people as well and it, more than anything else, is what is probably the inevitable death of individual democracies.

But the biggest legal change I've always advocated is that while for certain legal reasons it is necessary to treat a corporation as a person there are obvious places where this analogy breaks down and we need to come up with better rules. Unlike people, corporations are potentially immortal and this causes difficulties in Intellectual Property law and estate management, for example.

In the political realm they also create a situation of representation without population. I'm against campaign finance reform because I do believe that how I spend my money is a speech issue. If I have $1 billion and I want to spend it promoting the election of Joe Blow to the senate then I think that is my right. I do not think freedom of speech should extend to non-human entities. I have no problem with completely removing corporations from the political realm and requiring that any and all financial or other support must be traced back to a real human. If Bob Iger wants to give $1 million to Nancy Pelosi and encourage her to extend copyright to 1,000 years from creation, that's fine with me. If the Walt Disney Company wants to give $1 to Nancy Pelosi for the same, I have problems. Of course, this applies to unions and many many other indirect lobbying groups as well.

innerSpaceman

11-12-2006, 01:37 PM

Ah, but that's where the whole issue of the collective then comes into question ... which is why and how our system of government purportedly exists in the first place. Unless it's to be every man for himself, humans endeavor to create various collectives for their mutual benefit. Government itself for defense, common infrastructure, more recently for so-called "entitlement" programs of heath and welfare and retirement security. Many other entities, private and public, are set up to achieve for mankind what man alone could not.

Why should political speech be an area prohibited to this kind of beneficial collective endeavor? Otherwise, I am in agreement with most of what Alex wrote. Perhaps if campaign contributions could be traced back to a set of humans ... So that Mr. Iger's wealth speech can be matched by the Concerned Citizens of Hollywood.

I have no particular problems with unions needing written authorization from their members to back politicians. Nor would I have a problem with written authorization from shareholders for corporations to do the same.

The devil would be in the details. I agree that humans should retain all the rights, and entities none ... as long as humans remain free to organize in order to pool the benefits of those human rights.