Defining People By Their Political Views

[patrick jane]

I didn't write this -


"I dislike ideologies in all forms: liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever. Right at the moment, I think that the liberal/conservative divide is the single most harmful thing about American politics. Politicians don't seem to care about solving problems, they only want to know whether a particular idea is liberal or conservative, and then, presto, they are for/against it.
Ideologies are an excuse for people to avoid thinking. Once people adopt a political philosophy that has all of the answers, they stop thinking and start rationalizing. I find it difficult to take anybody's opinions seriously when it is clear that they started with the answers, and then worked backward to select facts that would support their views, and ignore facts that don't. Most people declaiming their opinions succeed primarily in convincing me that they are too stupid to understand any viewpoint other than their own.
In short, if you want me to take your opinions seriously, you will have to convince me that you in fact understand both sides of an issue.
Overall, I don't like people assuming that one opinion locates me at some point on a liberal/conservative scale-- I've never seen a logical reason why my opinion about, say, gun control ought to have some ideological correlation with my opinion about birth control. I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. Mark me down as "other."
That's the major part of my political philosophy: thinking good; ideology bad."


http://www.geoffreylandis.com/politics.html

 

[patrick jane]

I didn't write this -


"I dislike ideologies in all forms: liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever. Right at the moment, I think that the liberal/conservative divide is the single most harmful thing about American politics. Politicians don't seem to care about solving problems, they only want to know whether a particular idea is liberal or conservative, and then, presto, they are for/against it.
Ideologies are an excuse for people to avoid thinking. Once people adopt a political philosophy that has all of the answers, they stop thinking and start rationalizing. I find it difficult to take anybody's opinions seriously when it is clear that they started with the answers, and then worked backward to select facts that would support their views, and ignore facts that don't. Most people declaiming their opinions succeed primarily in convincing me that they are too stupid to understand any viewpoint other than their own.
In short, if you want me to take your opinions seriously, you will have to convince me that you in fact understand both sides of an issue.
Overall, I don't like people assuming that one opinion locates me at some point on a liberal/conservative scale-- I've never seen a logical reason why my opinion about, say, gun control ought to have some ideological correlation with my opinion about birth control. I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. Mark me down as "other."
That's the major part of my political philosophy: thinking good; ideology bad."


http://www.geoffreylandis.com/politics.html

I agree with a few points of this article and I'm guilty of partially defining people along political lines in the last 18 months. I see it in other people as well.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/stop-allowing-political-beliefs-to-determine-someones-character

 

[Gary K]

Patrick,

I understand the article you quoted to a certain extent, and the point you made. However, here comes the but, there has to be a fairly easy way to refer to ways of thinking, i.e. philosphies of life, politics, etc.... It facilitates communication up to a certain point, but then when people become completely set in their thinking, and the majority of people do not have a clearly thought out set of positions on issues, having those easy ways of referring to issues does generate more heat than light.

The issues become even more muddled when people use fallacious reasoning to make points. A lot of the time it isn't deliberately fallacious on their part, but they have heard someone else state something that sounds good to them, but isn't actually true and they haven't closely examined what was said. An example is that the left often says the Bible teaches socialism. But, Marxism was created by someone who hated God, and anything to do with God. And, if we look at ancient Israel's pre-king economy, the only economy ever actually created by God, we find out there was no government control over the marketplace. In fact, God warned the people that there would be a lot of things they wouldn't like about a centralized government(a monarchy) but He allowed them their wish.

The original Isrealite economy was a lassez faire economy all the way around. As socialism is an economic theory we can't apply socialism to the rest of it, other than that Marx was against everything God stands for. It's true socialism has been represented as being taught in the Bible, but it isn't. I find nowhere in the Bible that charity is forcing your neighbor to give according to what you think he should, or having the government take what you think it should out of his pockets at the point of the government's gun. Jesus taught us what real charity is when He told the story of the Good Samaritan. That story contains all the principles of what charity is from God's point of view.

So, how do you think we should deal with all of this? There are political and religious philosophies that people hold to. How do we refer to general positions without labels?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Being Christian ultimately conforms us into His likeness and nothing else. No one ever achieves this 100% of course but the changes that do happen, happen faster in some, than in others.

He is our focus.

 

[This Charming Manc]

id go along with the flavour of that, as someone who usually gets shot by all sides

 

[patrick jane]

Patrick,

I understand the article you quoted to a certain extent, and the point you made. However, here comes the but, there has to be a fairly easy way to refer to ways of thinking, i.e. philosphies of life, politics, etc.... It facilitates communication up to a certain point, but then when people become completely set in their thinking, and the majority of people do not have a clearly thought out set of positions on issues, having those easy ways of referring to issues does generate more heat than light.

The issues become even more muddled when people use fallacious reasoning to make points. A lot of the time it isn't deliberately fallacious on their part, but they have heard someone else state something that sounds good to them, but isn't actually true and they haven't closely examined what was said. An example is that the left often says the Bible teaches socialism. But, Marxism was created by someone who hated God, and anything to do with God. And, if we look at ancient Israel's pre-king economy, the only economy ever actually created by God, we find out there was no government control over the marketplace. In fact, God warned the people that there would be a lot of things they wouldn't like about a centralized government(a monarchy) but He allowed them their wish.

The original Isrealite economy was a lassez faire economy all the way around. As socialism is an economic theory we can't apply socialism to the rest of it, other than that Marx was against everything God stands for. It's true socialism has been represented as being taught in the Bible, but it isn't. I find nowhere in the Bible that charity is forcing your neighbor to give according to what you think he should, or having the government take what you think it should out of his pockets at the point of the government's gun. Jesus taught us what real charity is when He told the story of the Good Samaritan. That story contains all the principles of what charity is from God's point of view.

So, how do you think we should deal with all of this? There are political and religious philosophies that people hold to. How do we refer to general positions without labels?

I find myself judging others for religious beliefs as well as politics. I think it's unavoidable for me and many others. We all have biases and different world views. I guess my point was to bring attention to it because it seems to be getting worse in America these days.I support Republicans today but 2 years ago I would have said Independent or Libertarian. Those votes go nowhere and I want my vote to count. For me it was Trump or Hillary and I know for certain that Trump is doing a better job than she would be doing.

Basically, I'm not going let the Trump haters' opinions and biases affect my mood anymore and I am going to try not to define people by their politics. Politics and faith are distinct and obviously different and I don't think we will ever get away from labels. Labels are embedded in society in all of humanity.

 

[Nihilo]

I didn't write this -


"I dislike ideologies in all forms: liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever. Right at the moment, I think that the liberal/conservative divide is the single most harmful thing about American politics. Politicians don't seem to care about solving problems, they only want to know whether a particular idea is liberal or conservative, and then, presto, they are for/against it.
Ideologies are an excuse for people to avoid thinking. Once people adopt a political philosophy that has all of the answers, they stop thinking and start rationalizing. I find it difficult to take anybody's opinions seriously when it is clear that they started with the answers, and then worked backward to select facts that would support their views, and ignore facts that don't. Most people declaiming their opinions succeed primarily in convincing me that they are too stupid to understand any viewpoint other than their own.
In short, if you want me to take your opinions seriously, you will have to convince me that you in fact understand both sides of an issue.
Overall, I don't like people assuming that one opinion locates me at some point on a liberal/conservative scale-- I've never seen a logical reason why my opinion about, say, gun control ought to have some ideological correlation with my opinion about birth control. I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. Mark me down as "other."
That's the major part of my political philosophy: thinking good; ideology bad."


http://www.geoffreylandis.com/politics.html

Political parties. I don't know much else to say right now, but it's not a coincidence that Democrats and Republicans don't agree on anything. The parties have platforms and planks and .. like I said I'm not sure what else to say at this point, but we aren't conservative and leftist in a vacuum here. The parties are enormous organizations, and they don't just attract candidates who happen to think the way they do, those candidates were inculcated by the parties somehow first---by the parties' ideologies sure, but by the parties. Then they .. there's a thing called group polarization, when people who all already think the same thing get together, they radicalize and become more extreme, and more distant from others. Political parties form their party views, positions, values. Political parties and ideologies are not just coincidence. :idunno:

 

[Gary K]

I find myself judging others for religious beliefs as well as politics. I think it's unavoidable for me and many others. We all have biases and different world views. I guess my point was to bring attention to it because it seems to be getting worse in America these days.I support Republicans today but 2 years ago I would have said Independent or Libertarian. Those votes go nowhere and I want my vote to count. For me it was Trump or Hillary and I know for certain that Trump is doing a better job than she would be doing.

Basically, I'm not going let the Trump haters' opinions and biases affect my mood anymore and I am going to try not to define people by their politics. Politics and faith are distinct and obviously different and I don't think we will ever get away from labels. Labels are embedded in society in all of humanity.

I too find myself judging people sometimes rather than just the issues. I don't like it in myself, but I guess it is human nature. I try to limit its expression, but fail miserably at it sometimes.

I'm a registered Independent. I would never join a political party because I could not vote a strictly party line. My conscience wouldn't let.

If we look at a vote for a losing candidate as a wasted vote I think we are taking what is a much too short-term look at things. Do you know one of the real reasons Trump was elected? Because of the ground work done by Perot back in the 90s. He got to where he did because he challenged people to do the ground work if they wanted him to run for President. Millions of people voted for him, and many of those who worked in his campaign were involved in Trumps campaign in form or another. The Perot movement never really died. Those people were still looking for a non-politician to run for the Presidency. They found that candidate in Trump.

There is a book out on the Perot movement and why people got so involved in it. It's titled "A Title in the Making". It's a very interesting read written by someone deeply involved in the Perot campaign. And, the author shows how Perot actually was the forerunner for Trump and why the reasons all those people got involved in his campaign still exist in the general public today. I recommend the book and I think you would enjoy the book. It's pretty much right down your alley.

 

[patrick jane]

I too find myself judging people sometimes rather than just the issues. I don't like it in myself, but I guess it is human nature. I try to limit its expression, but fail miserably at it sometimes.

I'm a registered Independent. I would never join a political party because I could not vote a strictly party line. My conscience wouldn't let.

If we look at a vote for a losing candidate as a wasted vote I think we are taking what is a much too short-term look at things. Do you know one of the real reasons Trump was elected? Because of the ground work done by Perot back in the 90s. He got to where he did because he challenged people to do the ground work if they wanted him to run for President. Millions of people voted for him, and many of those who worked in his campaign were involved in Trumps campaign in form or another. The Perot movement never really died. Those people were still looking for a non-politician to run for the Presidency. They found that candidate in Trump.

There is a book out on the Perot movement and why people got so involved in it. It's titled "A Title in the Making". It's a very interesting read written by someone deeply involved in the Perot campaign. And, the author shows how Perot actually was the forerunner for Trump and why the reasons all those people got involved in his campaign still exist in the general public today. I recommend the book and I think you would enjoy the book. It's pretty much right down your alley.

I actually voted for Perot, it might have been the first election I could vote in. I liked Ron Paul a lot and Rand is smart and honest IMO. I might look for that book because I just renewed my library card.

 

[Gary K]

Political parties. I don't know much else to say right now, but it's not a coincidence that Democrats and Republicans don't agree on anything. The parties have platforms and planks and .. like I said I'm not sure what else to say at this point, but we aren't conservative and leftist in a vacuum here. The parties are enormous organizations, and they don't just attract candidates who happen to think the way they do, those candidates were inculcated by the parties somehow first---by the parties' ideologies sure, but by the parties. Then they .. there's a thing called group polarization, when people who all already think the same thing get together, they radicalize and become more extreme, and more distant from others. Political parties form their party views, positions, values. Political parties and ideologies are not just coincidence. :idunno:

I guess I must be very unusual, for political rhetoric and political parties have very little to do with what I think politically. My political stances are derived from Biblical principles, for I believe if my religion does not inform the rest of my life my religion really doesn't mean a whole lot.

I've thought through things for myself, for the most part, ever since I was a kid. I can remember analyzing things my parents would say and pointing out the flaws in what they said by the time I was 7 years old. Needless to say it didn't make me very popular with them....

Right now I see very little difference between Democrats and the establishment--career politician--Republicans. In my eyes they have been lying to their constituents for a long time by making promises that if they were re-elected they would do such and so. But what happened when they got control of the legislature and the presidency? They have fought making changes to Democrat policies tooth and nail. They support just as many globalist policies/agendas as the Democrats do. Republicans like McCain, Flake, McConnel, Corker, and a whole lot more of them are simply not conservative in any of their views. McConnel's PAC has fought conservative candidates tooth and nail. They poured $30 million into trying to defeat Roy Moore during the primaries in Alabama, and then walked away from the Republican candidate completely in the general election for senator there.

 

[Gary K]

I actually voted for Perot, it might have been the first election I could vote in. I liked Ron Paul a lot and Rand is smart and honest IMO. I might look for that book because I just renewed my library card.

I would also say about Rand that he is, by far, the most knowledgable politician on economic issues in both houses of Congress. He really gets it.

 

[patrick jane]

I guess I must be very unusual, for political rhetoric and political parties have very little to do with what I think politically. My political stances are derived from Biblical principles, for I believe if my religion does not inform the rest of my life my religion really doesn't mean a whole lot.

I've thought through things for myself, for the most part, ever since I was a kid. I can remember analyzing things my parents would say and pointing out the flaws in what they said by the time I was 7 years old. Needless to say it didn't make me very popular with them....

Right now I see very little difference between Democrats and the establishment--career politician--Republicans. In my eyes they have been lying to their constituents for a long time by making promises that if they were re-elected they would do such and so. But what happened when they got control of the legislature and the presidency? They have fought making changes to Democrat policies tooth and nail. They support just as many globalist policies/agendas as the Democrats do. Republicans like McCain, Flake, McConnel, Corker, and a whole lot more of them are simply not conservative in any of their views. McConnel's PAC has fought conservative candidates tooth and nail. They poured $30 million into trying to defeat Roy Moore during the primaries in Alabama, and then walked away from the Republican candidate completely in the general election for senator there.

That's why Bannon is fighting back with Trump against the RINOs you mentioned.

 

[Gary K]

That's why Bannon is fighting back with Trump against the RINOs you mentioned.

Yeah. I tend to like Bannon, a lot. He puts into practice what he preaches. And he scares the political left to death because he has a lot of influence with the conservative bases because of his percieved honesty.

 

[Gary K]

Patrick,

I just remembered something you might really enjoy. It's an interview with Patricia Muth, the author of the book on the Perot campaign, on USAWatchdog.com. The guy doing the interview is an experienced independent investigative journalist by the name of Greg Hunter. If you scroll down the page you will see the embedded interview of which the first part of the page gives a short synopsis.

Greg Hunter does a lot of very interesting interviews.

https://usawatchdog.com/we-the-people-vs-the-swamp-patricia-muth/

 

[kmoney]

[FONT=&]Overall, I don't like people assuming that one opinion locates me at some point on a liberal/conservative scale-- I've never seen a logical reason why my opinion about, say, gun control ought to have some ideological correlation with my opinion about birth control. I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. Mark me down as "other."[/FONT]
[FONT=&]That's the major part of my political philosophy: thinking good; ideology bad."


http://www.geoffreylandis.com/politics.html[/FONT]

Thanks, I liked that. I also don't think you should assume someone's position on an issue based on others, but the thing is it would normally work.