Dox47 wrote:
Or, how did the two dominant parties in US politics get the odd sets of beliefs that often contradict? Why are Republicans for smaller, less intrusive government unless drugs or homosexuals are involved?
On the same token, why are Democrats for civil liberties unless guns or certain types of speech are the liberties in question?
I'm aware that I'm grossly simplifying the issues, but one of the reasons I've so stubbornly refused to identify with either party or political movements in general is the way that no one groups perfectly encapsulates my beliefs and embracing any of these labels seems to involve internalizing some of these contradictions. I've heard that aspies as a whole resist political labeling for the same reason, we pick and choose our issues rather than swallow a playbook from some group, though even that is clearly not universal as we have our very own partisans here.
Anyone self-identify as a partisan? I could name a few on either side of the political spectrum here, but I'd be really curious to see if anyone will step up and admit to it, and explain the thinking that led to adopting that position. No judgment, I'm genuinely interested as the thought process is completely alien to me.
these contradictions are interesting to note. i think, however that they are likely more prevalent in the us of a than perhaps anywhere else (particularly along such lines as the guns and homophobia issue. it might just be a faulty line of thinking on my part but you americans appear to have more of a tendency to align to stereotypes). here in the uk, it would appear people might have a slightly (but not much) more pragmatic approach. there are still many who willingly subscribe to doctrinaire belief but i suspect we may have a larger demographic who would be amenable to switching allegiances.
i don't really understand myself how a person would dogmatically follow a set of ideas that don't seem to have any rational or logical connection simply on the basis of some apparently (to me at least) unfounded partisanship, rather than drawing ones own conclusions and entertaining a range of beliefs or ideas based upon ones own reasoning, however right or wrong this may be to anyone else.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
Last edited by peebo on 21 Dec 2011, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
20 Dec 2011, 3:37 am
