I made a thread about this a while back, and it went pretty much nowhere. The responses consisted mostly of "Good question--I don't know" and "I don't understand the question."


Ever thought about how a person's view on one or two issues is generally a pretty good indicator of how they feel about other things?

I'm not talking about someone who is staunchly against embyonic stem cell research being against abortion. I'm not talking about how most people who want greater funding for, say, the National Endowment For the Arts are in favor of increased taxes on the "rich".

I'm talking about issues that aren't related in any logical, pragmatic, or ideological way whatsoever. For example, how many Greenpeace members do you think are against gay marriage?

2/10/2007 5:12:14 PM

i don't wanna kill this thread but this is why the terms Liberal and Conservative exist.

2/10/2007 5:20:53 PM

or how about this exists BECAUSE the terms "liberal" and "conservative" exist?

2/10/2007 6:22:30 PM

They may be somewhat unrelated, but I don't see how they're inconsistent.

2/10/2007 6:36:43 PM

i see what you're saying, Duke, and agree with you. It's an unfortunate side-effect of our 2 party system.

People can generally be type cast into one party or another based on a single issue. for example:

- a gay man, in favor of gay marriage. From that fact alone, you would assume he was liberal, and therefore supported most of the Democratic platform. But the simple fact that he's pro gay marriage says nothing about if he's a stong fiscal conservative, very pro-defense, and anti-abortion, which he very well could be, and would not interfere with "his gayness" or support for gay rights.

- an evangelical christian would be assumed to be conservative/Republican. But he could easily be for higher taxes and more government spending, anti-free trade, pro-gun control, and pro-affirmative action. It could even be argued that an evangelical christian should be for more social spending and welfare support, which are tenants of the christian faith.

the associations go so far as to make people feel uncomfortable or guilty if they don't agree with all the stances of the main party they support. For example, a gay person could/would be ridiculed in the gay community for supporting right-wing polititians, when he really might support 90% of the conservative platform. Same with an evangelical who votes Democratic because they are willing to overlook some of the so-called "anti-christian" stances (or realize that they might not really anti-christian stances to begin with), in order to support the rest of the platform.

Other countries can avoid this by having multiple parties. Like in Germany, you have 5 major parties to choose from, or in France where there are more than a dozen, so it's more likely you can find one that fits your own personal preferences more closely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_France

[Edited on February 10, 2007 at 7:07 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2007 7:06:55 PM

fuck it

[Edited on February 10, 2007 at 7:50 PM. Reason : n/m]

2/10/2007 7:48:56 PM

liberal people are more likely to have a mac than a pc

2/10/2007 7:49:30 PM

oh yeah, social things like that are a whole different issue (but also kind of intriguing)

2/10/2007 7:57:19 PM

^^^^ I've posted a similar position on numerous occasions here. The two-party system offers a clear logical fallacy of choice. I'm not one to tout European methodologies, but I can't help but think that more people would get what they want with a coalition government. In addition, such a government would undoubtedly help ameliorate so-called political polarization.

[Edited on February 10, 2007 at 7:59 PM. Reason : ^]

2/10/2007 7:58:46 PM

Doesn't the British Pariliament have it set up so that the party that receives a certain percentage of the votes obtains that percentage of representatives in the House?

Someone told me that once.

2/10/2007 8:32:29 PM

Quote :

"- an evangelical christian would be assumed to be conservative/Republican. But he could easily be for higher taxes and more government spending, anti-free trade, pro-gun control, and pro-affirmative action. It could even be argued that an evangelical christian should be for more social spending and welfare support, which are tenants of the christian faith. "

This basically describes my mom.

2/10/2007 10:22:28 PM

im pro-death

2/11/2007 3:53:25 PM

I don't think that you can predict how an individual will feel about one issue based on how they feel about a separate, unrelated issue.

Some people have political views that are very integrated and all stem from the same, basic principles and ideas. Other people have fractured, unintegrated political views that stem from differing, convoluted ideologies. Therefore, I don't think you can neccessarily predict how someone will view a certain issue unless you know how well-integrated their political ideas are in the first place.

2/11/2007 10:39:59 PM

Being a conservative in north carolina yet being against smoking

2/11/2007 10:49:12 PM

being a member of PETA and teh NRA

2/11/2007 10:52:12 PM

^^ I disagree. That is more an issue of who should make such a decision: individuals or government.

2/12/2007 12:18:18 AM

I've become interested in the Consistent Life Ethic recently. I've been going back on my views on abortion and assisted-suicide/euthanasia while holding steadfastly to my opposition to the death penalty. I feel it's brought my values in-line a little better, and I'm better off for it.

2/12/2007 12:35:01 AM

I see weird stuff like this alot

a friend of mine is a lesbian and a conservative... likes country music, guns, even church... but she hasn't touched a dick in years


I am friends with a gay guy who likes trucks, guns, all of that shit... I was like, "how the hell do you get a date", he said it wasn't easy

2/12/2007 10:09:35 AM

you think a lesbian liking country music and guns is weird?

2/12/2007 10:13:02 AM

When I think of our two largest national parties, I think the better comparison is not to individual parties overseas but to the coalition governments and opposition fronts that you see forming in parliamentary systems. Like those coalitions, you have large numbers of different factions who only care about a small handful of issues coming together as a united front to help push each other's agendas forward.

I think of the rise and decline of the modern "conservative" movement here in the United States as a good example: the coalition of free market, fiscal conservatives, religious social conservatives, and pro-military groups that formed in the rise of the Nixon administration and as backlash to the 1960s and 70s which only now is beginning to fray, decline, and potentially splinter. These groups really have nothing much in common except a percieved common enemy: the allegedly morally bankrupt, atheistic, socialist progressives who supposedly spat at soldiers and were rattling the supposedly traditional foundations of the American civilization (before you start firing off hate mail, note I say ALLEGED... this is simply an extreme combination of stereotypes that conservatives feel are "out to get them").

Yet I think that our parties are more fluid in their alliances than some would give them credit for, with groups shifting from party to party, albeit at a slower pace (current attempts to reconcile religious conservatives with Democrats after disillusionment with the Republicans, growing military discontent with Republicans, etc.)

To think that some how the narrow-issue parties will prevent parties from moving completely unrelated issues that may divide these smaller parties is a bit simplistic. When you look at the coalitions formed in various parliamentary systems, you'd see looser but similar versions of what happens in our two party system. Vary rarely do you have a single party come to dominate parliament, requiring the support of groups that have very little to do with their ideology just so that they can get that one final vote required for a majority. While they may be a bit more flexible in their coalitions, in the end, you typically see the usual groups coming together when numbers are short (British Labor is more likely to align with the Greens rather than the Conservatives or more fringe-right groups, the Japanese LDP leaning on the more conservative Komeito regularly to build a majority rather than their traditional opposition in the Democratic Party).

In some ways, I would say that the shifts in coalition mirror how different factions within the Democratic and Republican parties wax and wane in strength. You can view the shift of the Social Progressive Democrats in Germany from a coalition with the Green Party to a coalition with the Christian Democrats as similar to a shift from the Democratic liberals who dominated the party to the more moderate Clinton faction within the Party.

Honestly, I think that even if you had a parliamentary system within the United States, you'd still see the usual groups clinging together in coalition governments. Greens and Labor versus pro-Business Parties. Socialists fighting Libertarian groups. Religious conservatives battling social progressives. Federalists and States Rights groups at each others throats. Religious conservatives, pro-business, states rights, and libertarian groups united in an uneasy coalition of convenience to counteract a united, ruling progressive front of Greens, Labor, Social Progressives, Federalists, and Socialists. Wait, that sounds awfully familiar.

Quote :

"I'm talking about issues that aren't related in any logical, pragmatic, or ideological way whatsoever. For example, how many Greenpeace members do you think are against gay marriage?"

Oh... and as a response to the original prompt of this thread, I think that after a while, these coalitions have been together so long that they start to pick up the ideals of their partners. Greenpeace members may not give a flip about gay marriage activists, but if it gives them an opportunity to stick it to the religious groups that prop-up the pro-business factions, then it makes a lot of sense.

Or, perhaps one could say that both Greenpeace and the Gay Marriage proponents are both calling for change in society, a step away from tradition, and its that spirit of rebellion against the "establishment" aka "da Man TM" that draws them together.

2/12/2007 10:26:05 AM

Quote :

"you think a lesbian liking country music and guns is weird?"

nah, not that part, but she is conservative too

2/12/2007 10:36:00 AM

message_topic.aspx?topic=432353

haha, i was pretty wasted that night...

[Edited on February 12, 2007 at 10:50 AM. Reason : ]

2/12/2007 10:36:18 AM

Quote :

"you think a lesbian liking country music and guns is weird?"

hhahaha i just about pissed myself.

that guy must not know any lesbians. Either that or hes been hanging out with all the weird hot ones that like unshitty music and give out hand jobs.

[Edited on February 12, 2007 at 10:37 AM. Reason : beat]

2/12/2007 10:36:56 AM

yeah, i guess only the cool guys hang out with lots of lesbians

lol

2/12/2007 10:50:27 AM

Good question--I don't know

2/13/2007 4:21:51 PM

social conservatives and fiscal conservatives

social liberals and fiscal liberals

\thread

2/13/2007 4:26:23 PM

bttt

^ and no, that's not at all the point.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

4/8/2008 1:28:54 PM

wat

4/8/2008 1:38:12 PM

I the whole, I think this occurs because of the way people reach their political conclusions. Almost everyone who holds a particular belief outside what you would normally think they would hold (say, your greenspeace guy going home to join in the petitioning for an amendment against gay marrige) arrives at their oddball belief in a different manner than those who normally have that belief.

4/8/2008 2:22:40 PM

Quote :

"a friend of mine is a lesbian and a conservative... likes country music, guns, even church... but she hasn't touched a dick in years"

I need to hang out with this chick.


And what RedGuard said.

4/8/2008 2:32:52 PM

I haven't looked through the repsonses yet, but here's the answer, i think.


Because America has a Two-Party system of government


it's unfortunate ... but good luck getting that to change. it's embedded in the US Code, if not the very Constitution.

you may kill one party and replace it with another (Whigs -> GOP), you may have a fundamental switcharoo between the two parties (late-19th century GOP civil rights vs. late-20th century Democrat civil rights), and you may have a complete 180 degree shift on fundamental philosophy (1980's republican fiscal responsibility vs. 2000's republican cut-and-spend fiscal irresponsibility)

... but we'll never add have a viable third party.

ever.

4/8/2008 2:52:29 PM

Pepsi or Coke.

4/8/2008 4:08:24 PM

herd mentality happens even with third parties

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2008 4:10:31 PM

if we had a system that could support a third party (proportional representation instead of plurality voting) we would have a system that could support many parties, not just three.

then parties would develop strategic alignments, dissolve, and re-align in mutual self interest based on the issue at hand.

rather than the system where we have to accept the whole package -- as distasteful as one or more elements might be, as a lesser-of-two-evils -- or else risk becoming politically disenfranchised and irrelevant, like the US Libertarians or US Greens.

but it's pie in the sky. Plurality Voting, the so-called "First Past the Post" system is too ingrained in our political structure.

http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law




[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2008 4:21:07 PM

Somebody Google that 2005 Baylor study on how an individuals perception of God correlated more strongly than any other factor when it came to beliefs like theDuke866 mentioned. I'd do it, but I'm a lazy flubat today.

4/8/2008 4:24:23 PM

i think what i'm getting at ALLOWS our 2-party system--it is not simply a result of it.

4/8/2008 6:54:20 PM

Most people I know, while they think they believe one thing or another, when you dig deeper, I find they don't actually know what they believe, or believe differently that they thought. A common one is people who don't actually know what pro-choice is. They think people should be able to get abortion in some situations, but still think they're pro-life because that's the Republican thing to do/religious thing/whatever.

I'd be more inclined to think that it's a RESULT of the 2 party than a cause.

4/8/2008 7:08:32 PM

^
perhaps the 2-party system is both caused by and a cause of the phenomenon -- humans are that illogical

either way, single issue voters, highly principled voters, and "a la carte" voters don't all get the same thing from it



I'm noticing that lots of folks, and not just extreme or fringe ones, are becoming more upset with the 2-party system

admittedly, I cringe a little bit when I hear "both candidates..." or "bi-partisan...." in the media

they should instead be saying "all candidates..." or "non-partisan...."




btw, what would happen with 145 each of democrats, republicans, and libertarians in the house of representatives?

there wouldn't be a majority or minority party, nor any voting ties "along party lines" (it'd be either unanimous, or 2 to 1)

that could happen right? does congress need a majority and minority party?

4/8/2008 9:38:19 PM

because not thinking is easier than firing up the old neurons

4/8/2008 9:41:23 PM

^^ No. It doesn't. In fact, I'd prefer it with about 400 different parties.

4/8/2008 11:06:35 PM

I think it's because of the two-party system and following what your party says based on your most important issue.

Everyone has a single most important issue that they choose their party based on. Some people have other primary issues that they think are important, but most people are going to drift toward one party based on a single issue. This forms the bases of each party. Evangelicals/fiscal conservatives for the Republicans and a myriad of issues for the Democrats. The Democrats definitely have a more diverse makeup in their base. Anyone whose main issue isn't a so-called "party value" is an independent. These are people who vote based on whichever way the political wind is blowing at the time. Think anti-Iraq War people who are flocking to the Democrats because that's what the hip thing to do is. If a party is able to nail down a voter based on their primary issue, there is little to no chance that they will go to the other party even if the minor issues line up more closely. As a side effect, they half-assedly adopt the other party values that are less important to them and claim them as their own simply because the party leaders tell them to. They do not delve into the issue because they don't care and would rather just accept it based on the party's stance.

The electoral college, however, prevents multiple parties from forming because it is impossible to support more than 2 candidates to run for president, the highest office in the country. If the electoral college were abolished, popular vote would come into play and parties that are centered around different main issues could form. But this won't ever happen probably.

4/9/2008 1:05:07 AM

abortion- i'd rather them have it, but could care less
social security- i'd rather set up my own them
cloning- wish we did more of it
environment- maybe more green shit but status quo is fine by me
ethanol- dont like it
taxes- i think i like the fair tax
immigration- whatever the governmetn feels like doing i could care less honestly...i dont support illegals having driving licenses, i dont support kicking out 12 million or how many ever people...i do think a lot of them take jobs that americans dont really want
i like nuclear power
i like us always having like 10-20k troops in iraq
i like us taking iraqs oil at some point(i can only hope)
i dont like us going to war with iran
north korea probably is gonna not cooperate with the us anymore
i think john mccain will win in november
i'm pretty sure i'm agnostic
i dont really mind what reverend white said other than the HIV thing
i dont oppose raising the taxes payed by people making over 250k a year
i wouldnt mind something like what eisenhower did with the roads...like fixing them up and shit instead of building them

thats all i can think of, pretty sure that makes me a "liberal"

4/9/2008 1:11:05 AM

There are many forces at work beyond human comprehension. Don't discount the following in those evidently unrelated associations you referred to:

Synchronicity:

Quote :

"A non-causal connection between two or more various phenomena (psychic and/or physical)."

http://www.carl-jung.net/glossary.html

4/9/2008 1:17:39 AM

^^ you sound an awful lot like me, actually, and i'm far from being a liberal

^^^

Quote :

"Everyone has a single most important issue that they choose their party based on. Some people have other primary issues that they think are important, but most people are going to drift toward one party based on a single issue. This forms the bases of each party. Evangelicals/fiscal conservatives for the Republicans and a myriad of issues for the Democrats. The Democrats definitely have a more diverse makeup in their base."

[NO]

[NO]

[NO]

[NO]

[NO]



and

[NO]

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:18 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

4/9/2008 1:18:09 AM

I fail to see your reasoning.

Also, dnl doesn't really seem totally liberal or totally conservative.

4/9/2008 1:20:42 AM

yeah, he's kind of a political mess who defies definition (based on lots of things i've seen him post, not just that one)
_____________________

-the idea that everyone chooses a party on a single most important issue is retarded.

-the GOP is made up of more than evangelicals and fiscal conservatives (for example, the current crop of neo-cons)

-i think the GOP is a much bigger tent that the Democratic party...not the other way around.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:25 AM. Reason : asfd]

4/9/2008 1:22:41 AM

Haha. Yeah. Plus it seems like he's constantly changing his stances on things. Not a bad thing, but it's hard to label him.

4/9/2008 1:25:56 AM

I don't think it's that retarded of an idea. I mean, what is the single most important issue for you? Does it line up with the party you currently affiliate yourself with? What about other minor issues that you do care about but aren't your main one? Do they line up? If they don't, at what point do you care so much about your main issue that it's not as important as the other minor ones? I think it would be hard to find someone who is affiliated with a certain party if their main issue isn't supported.

I know the GOP is made up of more than evangelicals and whatnot. But they do represent a huge portion of it. What do the numbers put them at now? Like, 60 million? How many people vote? Maybe 60%? Maybe...? 60% of let's say 240 million voters is 144 million. Let's say it's about 40% Republican, 40% Democrat, 20% Independent. That's roughly 60 million Republican voters. I'd say about 30 million evangelicals vote after excluding kids and those who don't vote. That makes up about half of the Republican Party whose main issues are abortion/anti-gay marriage/anti-evolution in schools. There isn't 1 segment of the Democratic Party that makes up half of the entire thing. It's a much more pluralistic group.

4/9/2008 1:34:56 AM

^, ^^^ You both sound like the white kid who says that all black people look the same.

It's easy to group those you disagree with into 1 or 2 ideological groups, but that doesn't make it true.

4/9/2008 1:49:50 AM

At least in recent history, I don't see the Democratic party to be nearly as factioned as the Republican party. To make a long story very short, Dems seem to a greater extent to generally agree with each other on the vast majority of big picture issues. How they each prioritize those issues varies, and there are certainly some peripheral issues that they may disagree on, but not like the GOP where there are major, fundamental ideological disparities between comparatively sharply defined factions who tolerate each other basically, well, because...they have to in order to defend against a comparatively homogeneous, unified Democratic party.

I think the Republicans are, as a result, more defined by "pet issues", although the idea of everyone being defined by one main cause is still silly.

4/9/2008 2:08:42 AM