Why is there such a war between ideologies in the US?

Post Reply New Topic

It seems that lately, especially of last year, there is this huge battle between democrats and republicans but I don't understand why, or why so many Americans choose only two set of beliefs.  Why don't a lot of people decide what they believe in on their own, rather than subscribing to only two systems?

For example, a lot of Americans seem to believe that if you are pro-choice, well then you have to be for defunding the police as well, and seem to think that those two things are related, and therefore you must believe in both, you cannot be for one, and against the other.

Or a lof of other Americans believe that if you in favor of socialized health care as well then you absolutely must be all for gun control too.  Because as we all know, those two things are related.  I'm being sarcastic of course.

Or if you are transgender, that must mean that you have to be a democrat, and are therefore, in favor of censorship, because as well all know, transgender issues and censorship are totally related...  Can't a transgender person be against censorship though if they want to be, or no, it goes against American politics to do so?

But why are so many seeming to only subscribe two very specific belief systems, especially when those two systems comes with needing to have all sorts of beliefs that are not related, and thefore do not have to be all compounded into one, which a think they need to be.  Why?  I just don't understand it, buy maybe I am missing something?

you can bet there's all sorts of combinations of opinions, but the winner-take-all election system veers towards a two party system, so your nuanced opinions don't matter as much as the cumulative choice of either of the two parties.
But the parties don't differ that much on economic policies, so all the election campaigning and propaganda is focusing on the few social issues, and there's a lot of money on both sides to create constant outrage via their associated media outlets - everything is portrayed as a life and death issue, and maybe, for some people it actually is- but overall, it's a lot of noise to detract from how similar both parties are in some very important aspects-

that is why they call it voting for the lesser of two evils. for the righties, guns as well as sticking it to POC/LGBT/liberals and not having to pay their fair share of taxes ["taxes are just for the little people"] is all that matters. for other people, social justice matters much more.

Because that's how politics works in every country.

You have to keep in mind that The Democratic Party or The Republican Party in the U.S. are not political parties as we understand them here in Europe, where we have multiple political parties.

In Europe, we have 9-10 or even more political parties, but they all range from the very far left to the very far right.

Who gets to form a government is decided by the majority of elected politicians. Often this means we get a "Red Block" or a "Blue Block" - Where Red Block is what roughly corresponds to the U.S. Democratic Party and Blue Block is mostly conservative/libertarian (classical (bourgeoisie) liberalism).

There are communists in the Democratic Party as well as nazis in the Republican Party.
The Democrats don't want the communists to ruin their chances of re-election, so they ignore them.

The same thing is what happens in Europe: Far left or communist parties in Europe are by and large excluded from coorporation and political negotiations. If a "Red Block" doesn't win enough seats to form a government without far-left parties, they concede defeat and the conservative "Blue Block" gets the chance. Only thing that matters is that any government is not allowed to have a majority -against- it. Also, what happens in Europe is coorporation between the blocks by the large political parties - mainly Social-Democrats on one side and Centris-Conservatives on the other.

Most politics in Europe works this way, as it does in the U.S.

You see, an ideology is nothing more than a certain piece of a grey-nuances from left to right. If it is slightly to the left it means it has more in common with whatever lies further to the left, than further to the right - and vice versa. That's how all politics works.

To give you an example of what I mean:

Far-left parties usually want more welfare, whereas far-right parties want to abolish welfare.
The far-left has no chance of talking to the right or even centre-right on that matter. Their only chances are parties aligning closely to themselves. The same is true for both far-right and centrist parties.

In some European countries mainly in Scandinavian countries, some far-right parties do have more in common with the far-left on welfare issues. But they are not *real* far-right parties then. They just happen to be more authoritarian, so to speak, and often finds themselves in opposition to their own right/centre-right government/alliance they have to support, ie. to be anti-immigration and tough on crime.

I wish I knew.

As I said in my topic, it seems that both sides are painting the other side as all radical based in the loud voices of the most radical people...

But yeah, the truth is in the middle...

Like Welfare, too little welfare and many people are left homeless, hungry, and the disabled that can't work are screwed... Too much welfare and not enough will want to work, at least the lazy... But the system in place now, the disabled that want to work have a really hard time getting off welfare once on it because if they go to work they lose benefits they desperately need, and of course some people need more welfare, but they are not getting it, the very disabled, while people that don't want to work or who plain are scammers screw the system by claiming disabilities they don't have, then work "under the table" or make more money dishonest ways, like the Left claims food stamps are extremely important because families would starve without them, while at the same time the Right points out the fraud.... BOTH are true... Some people depend on food stamps to survive, while others sell them or use them to scam... I've seen both these things too...

Actually I read an article that it's hardest to be Middle Class!! ! The poor and disabled are eligible for so many benefits that many of them survive well... While the rich can just simply pay for everything, however, the middle class are expected to have enough money to pay for things, but they really don't...

Basically, these issues are so very complex... It hurts my head sometimes!

^^^NO, it is the WORKING CLASS who get screwed in this country. they go to the ER to get care [due to unaffordable docs and medical insurance any other way] and get bankrupted FOR LIFE. they are by and large not able to get college degrees and work middle-class clean cushy jobs, so all the dirty tough dangerous tiring work is reserved just for them. i never knew any working joes who managed to keep a mouthful of their own natural choppers, as affordable dental care is a middle and upper class thing here. the middle class here have the life of riley but it is much harder to attain middle class status and to retain it in the face of the creative destruction/accelerating efficiency of amuuurican capitalism in paring the number of jobs down to an essential minimum, leaving greater and greater numbers without paying gigs.

Actually... I think we have different definitions going on... The poor tend to think of anyone that is working and making above minimum wage as "middle class" yes, I meant to say the population you mentioned...

Someone on SSI making $800 a month would see someone making $1600 a month and think "Boy, that person must be living easy!" But the truth is they don't have all those nice welfare programs...

So people's definition of things scews things... And where they were born in life...

Another example is how my comment triggered people to call me a Racist... The thing is, I am white, and the majority here are white right learners... People around here very commonly refer to people of color by their race, like the person of color mail lady here is refered to as "that black mail lady" anyway being around this all my life, it's accepted here, but it's not acceptable to people living in other communities...

The problem is that since I said something a racist would say, the community labeled me racist, even though I was unthinkably talking how people talk around here... But on the flip side, calling me a racist incited a strong Emotional reaction in me... And I have very strong Emotional reactions so I naturally became defensive...

So ummm yeah, the poor might think someone who makes twice as much must be living a cushy lifestyle, when it's not true...

It is the process of escalation which makes it harder to step back and tends to make the conflict personal.

How much room for dialogue can exist with people who are explicitly hostile towards pluralism (and the rest of the enlightenment ideas our political system is dependent upon) and who's primary political goal is to pwn those who disagree with them when they can't touch them and physically assault them when they can?

This is undoubtedly true, but the democratic alternatives to this are not much better, if not worse. In a winner take all system the compromise is hammered out before the election and put to the people. In a proportional representation system or whatever clown show they are trying on the continent, the compromise is hammered out after the election, after the people have voted and can't do anything until the next election. If democracy it must be I think it is better to vote on the compromise itself rather than an ideal.

the working class is being played like a violin by the men behind the curtain. "divide and conquer" is what is happening. there are enough of us to put richie rich in his place but they are systematically distracting us by making white folk hate POC when the reality is that we're all in the same boat.

And why is it that people presume that just because you're pro-life and you support the troops that you're Alt-Right?

Well this why I don't understand why so many people choose to pick a side in politics, because both the right and left side, have so many specific beliefs that it feels very arbitruary. For example, why does being pro-choice and defunding the police have to do with one another and why they are related? Just because the left says so?

I'm not sure the left says those causes are related even if they're both causes that are more likely to be supported by left-leaning individuals. Who said it and by what authority do they speak for the left?

It might be nothing more than that people who support women's rights typically also are sympathetic the concerns of other groups of people as well.

the war is between those who exalt selfishness as a virtue, against anybody who pushes back.