Is there anything really, that would change your politics?

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:34:41

So there are ongoing political discussions -- debate even at times -- and many claim to be rational - logical - open sound arguments that are well supported with facts.

Is there anyone that could conceive of ever changing their political stripes?

I'm NOT talking about one issue. I see a lot of selective editing from both sides around here from time to time. A Dem gets angry at something his or her party asserts, or one individual perhaps prominent does/says, a conservative decides something has gone too far.

But my anecdotal observation of most people, in political conversation - are affiliated just like they are with their sports teams. And its virtually impossible to conceive of JerseyHoya ever going, "wow, you know what, the logic here and these facts you presented and your persuasiveness is so compelling, that I actually realize I've been mistaken all along and I'm ready to join the DNC" - never gonna happen. You could present arguments, data whatever for 20 years. It's like asking him to quit the Phils and become a Mets fan.

No?

And this is part of what I find troubling about our system and the way it works. Things don't operate on an issue to issue basis. People occasionally vote for one person on the other side in a rare case of "make an exception I really like this person as an individual" (or the alternative is too horrendous) (though often if someone doesn't liek their own parties candidate they will just leave it blank)

But really, once people decide whowhat they are, they aren't going to change and dig their heels in deeper and deeper.

Of course, the definition of Democrat, Republican and even Independent changes over time and means slightly different things to different people -- but i think emotionally its like affiliating with a sports team.

It is inconceivable that I could ever root for the Dallass Cowboys. Where their brand. Cheer as they were lighting up the Eagles. Not possible. And I think for many/most people it's not conceivable that they could leave their party affiliation for the other or another.

And so really, no amount of facts, or logic, persuasiveness will ever make a bit of difference. I think it operates in many of the same ways that happen when we see over n over again, people vote against their own class interest, or even self-interest because of brand loyalty.

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:41:13

I have been changing, getting more libertarian as I get older

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:53:33

People's political views tend to evolve. For instance, I'm increasingly of the view that while an established church isn't a good idea, freedom of religion has a lot of serious drawbacks.

by **smitty** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:56:17

I'm an independent. I don't see that changing any time soon.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 13:04:47

Philly the Kid wrote: I think for many/most people it's not conceivable that they could leave their party affiliation for the other or another.

And so really, no amount of facts, or logic, persuasiveness will ever make a bit of difference. I think it operates in many of the same ways that happen when we see over n over again, people vote against their own class interest, or even self-interest because of brand loyalty.

early in my career I worked, enthusiastically and for several years, for a body of Republican elected officials.

Most people don't have any real abiding political affiliation - and do NOT tell me "but polls say"; most people who tell you they're Catholic (to take an example of a somewhat more binding class of affiliation) aren't particularly zealous about it.

So, "difference", as most know, takes place in the vast undifferentiated majority. And facts, logic & persuasion often make all the difference there.

So we have to revisit your little assertion & decide what you really mean by it. And, until you chime in to clear things up, there's probably not much value in anyone else attempting to help you do so.

by **cshort** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 13:44:24

Yes, if the Republicans spend like they did earlier this decade, and they keep dwelling on the social stuff. I'll just switch to independent.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 13:55:19

I was a Republican, born and raised. "Worked" to get George H.W. Bush "elected" in my class election in 1992. He won by a single vote, and I watched a guy in whose group I sat, who had been a Clinton guy the whole way, and who I had tried and tried and tried and tried to persuade, sit and deliberate very carefully over his vote before finally voting for Bush.

Looking back on that experience, I guess I should have become a Republican organizer.

But, ironically, as I lost religion, the actual, you know, principles of my Catholic upbringing started to take hold, and make me realize that, outside of abortion, there wasn't a single thing the Republicans were for that a social-justice minded religion ought to be for. I do think we need a social safety net, I do think that part of a society is every citizen paying his taxes and accepting his responsibility, in that form, for the least fortunate among us, etc. I voted Republican in 1996 when I was still in high school and still a Republican, and again in 2000, because by that point, though I was mostly anti-Republican, a little part of me wanted to be able to vote for and see a "George Bush" win (I loved his pappy, I really did).

Within months of my vote in 2000, I regretted my decision. I voted for the Green Party candidate for PA gubernatorial election in 2002, because I knew Rendell didn't need my vote and I felt like showing how clever I was, but since then, straight Dem voter.

I voted Theoretically, But Unlikely. Some of my politics have changed in the last five years, but only in the direction of making me more left than I was. So, I might become more radicalized (though I also want to try to avoid being radicalized, because I don't think it accomplishes anything), but I certainly will NEVER go back to the right. I think there are some things that could make the Republican Party a lot more attractive an alternative, to be sure, because I understand about things like money and the need to bring fiscal sanity to the equation sometimes, but the ideological Republican economic philosophy - everyone fends for himself - I honestly find to be morally bankrupt. That's not what every Republiucan actually believes, of course, and so I don't hate Republicans or anything and try to judge them on their individual merits, but the "pure" version of that philosophy is morally and ethically wrong and also socially unconstructive.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 14:42:18

I'm not a fan of equating Democrats with liberalism and Republicans with conservatism. Both sides, in America right now, are right of the theoretical center. It's just that with the fringe right that's the most vocal, you'd never notice.

Could I see myself being less liberal than I am now? I don't think so. I don't think there exists a logical argument that would convince me that allowing businesses to run amok is a good thing, for example.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 16:28:25

drsmooth wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote: I think for many/most people it's not conceivable that they could leave their party affiliation for the other or another.

And so really, no amount of facts, or logic, persuasiveness will ever make a bit of difference. I think it operates in many of the same ways that happen when we see over n over again, people vote against their own class interest, or even self-interest because of brand loyalty.

early in my career I worked, enthusiastically and for several years, for a body of Republican elected officials.

Most people don't have any real abiding political affiliation - and do NOT tell me "but polls say"; most people who tell you they're Catholic (to take an example of a somewhat more binding class of affiliation) aren't particularly zealous about it.

So, "difference", as most know, takes place in the vast undifferentiated majority. And facts, logic & persuasion often make all the difference there.

So we have to revisit your little assertion & decide what you really mean by it. And, until you chime in to clear things up, there's probably not much value in anyone else attempting to help you do so.

I don't think its that obtuse Smooth.

A lot of the dialog and discussion that goes on in political and social issues threads here on BSG and across the net -- have people that are passionate and spending great efforts to make their cases and on occasion someone may conceded a point or an issue, but people self-identify, if "liberal and conservative" or "democrat and republican" are too vague then fine. But it doesn't take long to monitor a thread and know who's who and what side they are on. I don't believe there is a single argument or set of facts that could fundamentally change a guy like Dajafi, or Vox in their general point of views about the world. They are thoughtful people that on occasion could be persuaded on an issue or maybe one single candidate but they aren't changing their colors, and there are others maybe most who are even more entrenched and less open minded.

I'm asserting that in many ways, people create self-identification in life in a variety of spheres (religion, politics) and it operates with the same rationality as choosing a team to root for early on in life, and never letting go.

I could NEVER drop the Phils and pick up another team.

I believe many people vote and support people and policies that go against their self interests or contradict some of their values or other things they stand for as a person, and they can live with these contradictions because its not a rational situation. It's emotional.

by **TheDude24** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 20:55:44

No matter how many election issues I research, the deal-breaker for me is always the environment as well as its energy policy implications. If the Republicans ever wise up, use some common sense, and stop making it a partisan issue (that they are on the wrong side of), I would probably vote for many more of them. It being a partisan issue started with one man (Ronald Reagan), so maybe it would only take one or a few leaders to change it back.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 21:04:48

TheDude24 wrote:No matter how many election issues I research, the deal-breaker for me is always the environment as well as its energy policy implications. If the Republicans ever wise up, use some common sense, and stop making it a partisan issue (that they are on the wrong side of), I would probably vote for many more of them. It being a partisan issue started with one man (Ronald Reagan), so maybe it would only take one or a few leaders to change it back.

When it comes to big money, both parties are corrupt. However, publicly, the Republicans won't ever be associated with ANYTHING that would be seen as restraining big business. And pro-environment is at odds with Big Business and the republicans will never align themselves with anything that brings about regulations or restraint of any kind on activities like Drilling, Mountain Top Removal, companies like Cargill, Monsanto, BP (pulled a neat trick by not making the whole company on the hook - Obama let them isolate the sub-corp in the Gulf)

Both parties are whores to their corporate masters and the inter-change of personnel and philosophy is so fluid you can't really tell if someone is a Senator, Supreme Court Justice or a executive VP for the corps.

But this isn't the politics thread. This is about anyone, admitting that no matter how strong an argument, how solid the data or facts, that most will still stick with the party or political identity they have already formed.

by **Werthless** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 21:16:27

mozartpc27 wrote:But, ironically, as I lost religion, the actual, you know, principles of my Catholic upbringing started to take hold, and make me realize that, outside of abortion, there wasn't a single thing the Republicans were for that a social-justice minded religion ought to be for. I do think we need a social safety net, I do think that part of a society is every citizen paying his taxes and accepting his responsibility, in that form, for the least fortunate among us, etc. I voted Republican in 1996 when I was still in high school and still a Republican, and again in 2000, because by that point, though I was mostly anti-Republican, a little part of me wanted to be able to vote for and see a "George Bush" win (I loved his pappy, I really did).

Within months of my vote in 2000, I regretted my decision. I voted for the Green Party candidate for PA gubernatorial election in 2002, because I knew Rendell didn't need my vote and I felt like showing how clever I was, but since then, straight Dem voter.

I voted Theoretically, But Unlikely. Some of my politics have changed in the last five years, but only in the direction of making me more left than I was. So, I might become more radicalized (though I also want to try to avoid being radicalized, because I don't think it accomplishes anything), but I certainly will NEVER go back to the right. I think there are some things that could make the Republican Party a lot more attractive an alternative, to be sure, because I understand about things like money and the need to bring fiscal sanity to the equation sometimes, but the ideological Republican economic philosophy - everyone fends for himself - I honestly find to be morally bankrupt. That's not what every Republiucan actually believes, of course, and so I don't hate Republicans or anything and try to judge them on their individual merits, but the "pure" version of that philosophy is morally and ethically wrong and also socially unconstructive.

Do you think the economic philosophy you described is objectively wrong? In other words, i'm sort of curious if you leave open the possibility of someone arriving at such an economic philosophy through an ethical lens that you would respect/understand.

I find that I tend to seek explanations couched in moral language to support the types of positions I am instinctively drawn to. Some views of mine have changed over the years, even drastically so, but the discarded positions are usually the "default" position that I took before careful evaluation. I can't recall if I've ever changed positions once I've decided "why" I have that position. For example, neo-conservatism appealed to me in high school and early college, but i slowly moved away from those foreign policy positions when I started thinking about Just War theory/preemption, the total cost of war, etc.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 21:56:19

Philly the Kid wrote:I don't think its that obtuse Smooth.

you really really really really really really really really hurt the chances you'll persuade anyone concerning anything you have to say when you open up by using a word with whose definition you are clearly unacquainted.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 22:05:07

nope

by **kopphanatic** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 22:10:10

If the Republicans actually were presenting solid alternatives this election season, then maybe. The Democrats haven't been solid, especially regarding the economy. But the GOP has gone off the deep end, totally bats*^% insane. As long as the lunatics are running that party, I'm not voting Republican for dogcatcher, let alone national office.

by **TheDude24** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 22:52:31

Philly the Kid wrote:
TheDude24 wrote:No matter how many election issues I research, the deal-breaker for me is always the environment as well as its energy policy implications. If the Republicans ever wise up, use some common sense, and stop making it a partisan issue (that they are on the wrong side of), I would probably vote for many more of them. It being a partisan issue started with one man (Ronald Reagan), so maybe it would only take one or a few leaders to change it back.

When it comes to big money, both parties are corrupt. However, publicly, the Republicans won't ever be associated with ANYTHING that would be seen as restraining big business. And pro-environment is at odds with Big Business and the republicans will never align themselves with anything that brings about regulations or restraint of any kind on activities like Drilling, Mountain Top Removal, companies like Cargill, Monsanto, BP (pulled a neat trick by not making the whole company on the hook - Obama let them isolate the sub-corp in the Gulf)

Both parties are whores to their corporate masters and the inter-change of personnel and philosophy is so fluid you can't really tell if someone is a Senator, Supreme Court Justice or a executive VP for the corps.

But this isn't the politics thread. This is about anyone, admitting that no matter how strong an argument, how solid the data or facts, that most will still stick with the party or political identity they have already formed.

Except when a politician makes his district or state the best example of environmental policy change and implementation. Too bad when this happens he or she is merely labeled a RINO by most of his or her colleagues.

(I know he's not so hot on other issues, but he's even better than most Democrats when it comes to the environment and energy.)

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 22:56:02

Most you aren't talking about changing your politics. You're talking about voting for a different party if that party embraced political positions you currently hold.

by **cshort** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:07:33

kopphanatic wrote:If the Republicans actually were presenting solid alternatives this election season, then maybe. The Democrats haven't been solid, especially regarding the economy. But the GOP has gone off the deep end, totally bats*^% insane. As long as the lunatics are running that party, I'm not voting Republican for dogcatcher, let alone national office.

There's too many things in the Democratic party I disagree with to switch to Democrat, and at this point the Republicans are almost the lesser of two evils to me.

One thing that really annoys me with the Republican party is the Hannity/Limbaugh reference to Reagan's conservatism, and how everyone needs to adhere to a strict conservative line (Delaware is a great example). If they bothered to read their history, they'd see that Reagan was pragmatic at times. As governor of California he actually signed off on loosening the abortion statute, and increased taxes to bring down the state's deficit. He would take a hard line on some things, but he was nowhere as inflexible as this crew. Actually, I'm sure they know the history, they just don't give a damn.

by **dajafi** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 12:05:13

I agree with the many people who argue that Reagan couldn't get nominated by the Republicans today. Between the tax increases, abortion rules, nice things said about the New Deal and general pragmatism that comes with being a governor, he'd not be nearly pure enough.

The Democrats meanwhile get less and less "pure." I happen to think this is by and large a good thing, but it does limit what's politically possible.

As for "my" politics, I like to think they're informed by what actually happens when policy theory is put into practice. My opinion is that the last thirty years have shown that the Democrats' basic playbook works better in reality than the Republicans', and further that the Ds are far, far more likely to accede to reality and modify their programs in response to circumstances than are the Republicans, who think tax cuts and use of force are pretty much always The Answers.

Maybe more to the point, what's most important to me doesn't change: equality of opportunity and policy choices that reflect our stated values.

by **swishnicholson** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 18:27:58

smitty wrote:I'm an independent. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Archived

Is there anything really, that would change your politics?

Could you be swayed to change affiliation politically?

Is there anything really, that would change your politics?

Re: Is there anything really, that would change your politic

Re: Is there anything really, that would change your politic

Re: Is there anything really, that would change your politic