Latest Poll
Loading ...
Jun
27
I’m a conservative. I’m a liberal. I’m an independent. In our pre-packaged 30 second soundbite culture, these exceedingly nondescript labels and definitions have become the extent of our political identifications.
Nobody wants to spend any time at all thinking about, or describing what people truly believe. If you can’t blurt out what somebody believes in under ten seconds, America at large isn’t interested in knowing any more.
Today, Americans separate themselves in political “teams” - but they don’t understand the teams they are members of. Left or right. Republican or democrat. Conservative or liberal. To the general public, they all mean the same, and you are one or the other - or you are the noble independent who is neither. All most citizens know is that its good to be on the team you are on, and its bad to be on the other team. Simplistic 1 vs. 1, us vs. them mentality. And the media, even if they know better, feed into it.
To make matters worse, people have long seemed to believe that all is as it is now - that is the parties have been dueling with each other with the same principles for as long as time, and very little has changed. Never mind the fact that it used to be democrats who were interested in an aggressive confrontational foreign policy, and republicans were the “party of blacks in America”.
You’ve been fed lies. Parties change constantly - but that doesn’t matter. All that does is that each one opposes the other, so they will mold themselves around whatever policies the other party isn’t. That is largely driven by who is in power at the time and what their policies are.
Politics isn’t, and never has been as simple as a left-right slide scale. We don’t simply fit somewhere between -50 and +50 on an x axis, and we never did. Anyone who attempts to tell you that you fit into a neat little box either here or there is either naive, or trying to pull a veil over your eyes to get you to support somebody (or oppose somebody) that doesn’t particularly fit your beliefs.
Which is the genesis of American’s growing dis-satisfaction with voting for “the lesser of two evils”.
But what is your political identification really about? Libertarians have made a noble attempt at widening the understanding of our beliefs by coming up with the political compass. As opposed to the one dimensional “left right” scale most Americans believe politics to be, graphing your beliefs on this scale shows you a lot more. It correctly identifies that ones own political persuasion is a lot deeper than left/right, because there are certain core beliefs (in government control of society, and government control of the economy, specifically) that cause wide divergence among people.
It helps identify why there are major divisions in both the republican party, and the democratic party, and why its never been as simple as left and right.
It also helps expose why when people talk about a particular candidate not being a “true conservative” or a “true republican” (or their counterparts in the democratic party), it is a nonsensical argument. There is no such thing as a “true” republican or democrat, because each party is made up of a dozen or so different coalitions of political thought.
As an example, look at one of the more drastic differences we have seen in the 2008 presidential primary season - those between say Governor Mike Huckabee and Congressman Ron Paul.
One of the favorite mantras of the republican establishment is that Dr. Paul is not a “true conservative”. At the same time, for the most part Mike Huckabee is a more traditional modern republican. But if we were transplanted back to the 1960s era, it would be reversed. Dr. Paul would be considered the essence of the republican party, and Governor Huckabee would be the outsider, the oddity. Why? Because in the 1960s, Barry Goldwater was the republican party - and Barry Goldwater was a very libertarian minded republican. The moralists, the religious right, the “family values” republicans - they didn’t come into prominance and take over the party until the early 1990s. Until then, it was they who were the minority, they who were the oddity, they who were the outsiders, derided as being not “true conservatives”.
You see, being a “true” member of the party is little more than subscribing to the particular brand of that political party that is in control at any one time. Whoever leads the party will inevitably shape the membership of that party to reflect their own personal beliefs. Thus, what a “true conservative” is today is drastically different than it was when Ronald Reagan was president. What was a “true conservative” then is very different than what it was when Nixon was in power. What a “true conservative” was then is very different than when Barry Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson.
We can keep up that description going all the way back to Lincoln. Each time a faction within a party takes over control, what is considered the “true” brand of that party is nothing more than a reflection of those that control the party
But as I stated earlier, there are quite literally dozens of different types of each party - and they are ALWAYS there no matter who controls the party. Some are 75% aligned with those who control the party, so they tend to think they are “pretty much the same”. Some are 50%. Some are 25%. Political parties are in reality umbrellas for a large number of specialized political philosophies, so there is no such thing as a “true” loyalist to a party. Those that say they are simply follow the top dog because they are on the same “team” (and are in reality what I describe below as a moderate), or are aligned with the controlling interest.
Labeling ones self as a “true conservative” or a “true progressive” really doesn’t work, because it is not a matter of a one dimensional line that we all fall on, its a lot more than that.
And that’s what the political compass, and similar measures attempt to resolve.
Unfortunately, while it is a step in the right direction, political identification is a lot deeper than even that. Let me detail for you what really goes into your political identity. It is my hope that after reading this, you are able to break the mold of subscribing to “teams” and realize your political beliefs are a lot more than simply following the marching orders and regurgitating the soundbites of your “team”. Those you have been taught to hate are not as different from you as you would like to believe, and those who you have been taught to exalt are not as politically in line with you as you might think.
Political Polarization and Centrism
The first gauge of what you believe is how malleable you are to political opinions. In other words, are you decisive, firm in your beliefs, and comfortable taking an extreme position? Or are you a so called “moderate”, interested in collecting political opinions a la carte like a giant public policy buffet?
If you are the former, please keep reading the article. If you are the latter, you have no political philosophy - you are either too lazy, or too ill informed to formulate strong opinions on anything. So called “centrists” or “moderates” are at their very nature inconsistent and contradictory (many/most partisans are contradictory as well, but we’ll deal with that later), because they do not have an overall belief system that shapes their ideas and opinions. Instead, they are subject to snake oil salesmen and populism convincing them one idea is better than another based on a good pitch, or self interest. In other words, they don’t formulate opinions based on their own world view - somebody else’s world view formulates their opinions.
The good news? Many people who call themselves moderates and centrists are in fact partisan (note: I use the word partisan to describe being firm in ones opinions, not being a member of one party or the other), but simply have never felt there was a way to describe what they are other than being in one of two political parties, neither of which describes what they are.
If that is you, stop calling yourself a moderate/centrist - you are about to learn what you really are.
Conservatism and Liberalism
The very first way to truly understand your political philosophy is to decide if you are a conservative or a liberal.
But alas, put away your modern conceptions of what those words mean, because what we constantly call “liberals” and “conservatives” happens to be remarkably incorrect. They don’t mean what you have been taught they mean, they have simply been co-opted by politicians trying to get you to play on their team. I think a lot of you conservatives are going to be shocked to find that you are in fact rabid liberals, and a lot of you liberals are going to be horrified to learn you are really conservatives.
So what do these words mean? What is the real difference between liberals and conservatives, in the true sense?
At its most basic level, a conservative believes that it is fundamentally impossible to remake and reshape the world (or on a smaller level, the country, the state, the county, the city, or your neighborhood) via radical, rapid change. A real conservative earnestly believes that the best way to achieve a better society is through incremental change. They would argue that it is damaging to a community to drastically change its way of of life in a very short period of time - it creates instability, confusion, chaos and fear. When change happens in that fashion - a conservative would argue - those conducting the change risk failing altogether, and in fact creating backlash which is counterproductive to their goals. Instead, for the long term health and growth of society, as well as the greater likelihood of success, change must come in small doses over a longer period of time.
On the other hand, a true liberal believes that there is a fundamental truth to their beliefs, and to deny that truth by attempting to do anything but push for wholesale, rapid change would be a betrayal of their beliefs. A liberal would argue that when society endorses injustice or incorrect public policy by not acting to change, that tolerating that in the name of stability is unacceptable. Damage to society or risk of failure is irrelevant to them - what matters is the righteousness of their cause. And before you start to think that I am attempting to paint this as a poor way to approach politics, keep in mind that those who pushed for the abolition of slavery in the middle 1800s were liberals, while the founding fathers were conservative about that same subject. It was liberals who incited the civil war by electing Abraham Lincoln (a liberal if I’ve ever seen one), and it was in fact they who forced the issue to such a degree that it guaranteed fundamental change to American society that would not have otherwise been possible.
Being a liberal has nothing to do with smoking pot, being a part of the peace movement and loving the homosexual lobby. Being a conservative has nothing to do with wanting low taxes and being concerned with national security.
Its about incremental change vs. radical change. That’s all. The ideas you want to impliment via liberalism or conservatism mean nothing to what you are at your core. Your ideology and views on issues are irrelevant to this subject. The number of liberals who call themselves conservatives, and the number of conservatives who call themselves liberals is truly staggering, and kind of sad.
Economic Freedom and Regulated Economies
Once you realize if you are a true conservative or liberal you have to begin figuring out exactly what you believe. Being a partisan, and believing in radical change (or incremental change) has told us nothing about your actual philosophy, other than how strongly you believe it, and how you want to see your political beliefs implemented.
So lets start with macro-economics.
Do you believe in free markets, managed economies or some kind of mix?
An individualist at his or her most basic level, believes in economies that are as little managed by the government as possible. They advocate a laissez-faire (French for “let do” - essentially, just leave it alone) style of macro-economics, where markets are driven by individual decisions and not governmental tinkering in price or business practices.
Essentially, such a person believes that when government interferes in the economy (such as say a large scale bail out of the mortgage industry) it actually hurts consumers and creates more problems than it solves. For example, an individualist would argue that if the government saved home buyers who made poor financial decisions when purchasing a home and are now unable to pay their mortgage, it would keep people in homes, but at the same time it would remove a large supply of homes from the market (where they naturally should be based on the poor decisions of consumers), which would in turn keep the price of homes much higher than it should be. That would result in the middle class being harmed and the problem being perpetuated, because most normal home buyers will be unable to purchase a new home, stales will stagnate and level off, and worst of all poor decision making by consumers will not be corrected.
At its core, this is a philosophy that says that for all its good intentions, government interference in the market hurts us all, and should be discouraged in most cases. There should be no protections against the heartache of failure, because economic failure is a symptom of poor decision making, and when people fail they learn valuable lessons about what not to do again. Similarly, success is a measure of good decision making and should not be condemned by society or politicians, and should most certainly not be punished by draconian governmental taxes and regulation.
But not everyone believes in a purely anti-government role for our economy. A Keynesian (named for the economist John Maynard Keynes who developed this economic philosophy) believes that the state is a vital actor in the economy, helping maintain economic growth and stability in what is known as a mixed economy (that is, a mix of a pure market economy and a planned economy), in which both the public and private sectors play important roles.
Keynesians believe that laissez-faire economies are flawed and imperfect, and have a great number of failings which can only be corrected by the involvement of a government. In essence, they advocate some elements of socialism - such as welfare, social security, minimum wages, labor laws, environmental restrictions, business subsidies and other social protections - being brought into a free market economy, to protect against the harsher edges of pure capitalism.
And then you have the far end of economics - collectivism (ideologies such as socialism). A collectivist believes in a socio-economic system where the concept of property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community at large. By “community” we could be referring to any number of groups, but most often we would be talking about a government. The practice of this type of political belief is most often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production.
So, to break down the difference most simply, an individualist believes that each person should have full control of their own economic destiny free from the influence of a government or community organization, a collectivist believes that individuals are responsible to the greater community and private property and economic freedom are damaging to the community and must be regulated aggressively. A Keynesian believes that a mixed economy is able to incorporate the best of both worlds and maintain a certain level of freedom, while building in a fair amount of protections and regulation.
Do a little reading and think about what you are. Honestly - don’t fall into what is the best sales pitch or what sounds the best. You will find that each of these systems has drastic downsides, and you have to decide which downsides you are comfortable with, and what system you believe will provide for the greatest good.
Social Liberty and Social Control
Much like economic thought, beliefs about how to manage the social structure of a nation range widely from the concepts of absolute freedom, to centralized control. It is also the main reason that both parties are completely confused and in a lot of ways hypocritical.
What do I mean? Well, a republican will tell you that he or she believes in “freedom”. I’ve heard countless republicans opine about how they believe in the individual, in their freedom to be left alone. I’ve heard about their distaste for “big government” and the desire to see it torn down.
And they are true to those ideals (note: I’m talking about the grass roots here, not the leaders of the party who are in Washington - they long ago abandoned any true principle) - to a point. You see, republicans hate government interference when it comes in the form of economic control, but they love to use the strong arm of the government to manipulate social identity.
We are talking about the party that hates what they consider “social rot” - in other words the evolution of society into decadence and self-indulgence. They seek a return to “family values”, and an arresting of the advance of so called social progressives, who are trying to legalize homosexual marriage, distribute contraceptives in schools, and other things that are considered unacceptable to them.
They seek to do this through - you guessed it - state control. The feelings about the evils of government interference in our lives melt away like butter when the party seeks to combat social rot. This is entirely opposed to the concept of “freedom” - because using (and growing) the government to combat social issues at its very nature takes power for individual choice out of the hands of individuals and puts it in the hands of the government. It is a disturbing trend, and one that has only really existed within the party in the last 20-30 years. Never mind the fact that it is likely to backfire when somebody who doesn’t share your vision of society gains control of government and begins using that same social activism to remake the country.
Justified or not, selling out your main principle that individuals should have the freedom to decide for themselves what is best for their lives, and instead allowing the government to decide “what’s best” means at your core you accept and believe in the power of a centralized government. And please, spare me the “protection” mantra. Republicans mock democrats constantly for whining the words “but what about the children??” constantly - but you use the same nonsense for your arguments. You say you believe in individual responsibility - it is the republicans who are the quickest to deride Hillary Clinton’s “it takes a village” philosophy and ask “where are the parents” when something goes wrong with a child. Why is it then that you are so insistent that the government regulate individual choices? And don’t tell me you don’t want that to happen - I swear to god I will run a companion piece to this one that details each and every instance you do in fact beg the government to get involved in personal choice. Trust me, there are quite literally hundreds of examples I could use, and frankly I don’t want to embarrass you.
Now let me be clear - I don’t have any particular problem with a person believing in economic liberty, and believing in social control at the same time - this is not a value judgment on that philosophy. I may find it inconsistent and lacking any common sense, but I understand it. What I have a particular distaste for, however, is claiming the mantle of the “freedom” guys when only half of your philosophy is predicated on freedom from government tyranny. When you will protect your brother’s private property, but wish to stomp on his right to live his life un-harassed by the government, you are not the freedom party.
Ah, but don’t think you have escaped my eye, democrats. You are the exact same, only in the reverse. You hail yourselves as champions of personal freedom, and for the most part you do a great job combating the interference of government into our personal lives (often times you take it a little too far, ACLU I’m looking at you) - however you advocate tight government control of the national economy.
You promote yourselves by becoming populist. You may paint yourselves as guardians of the budget and economic sanity, but you still propose new programs and government services like a dancer coming up with some new moves. You campaigned against wasteful spending in Washington to get elected in 2006, and yet the budget it in no better shape now than it was two years ago. Don’t blame Bush, congress controls the purse strings. You are just as bad at curtailing spending than the republicans were when they were in office.
On top of that, the grassroots democrats advocate a more aggressive strain of neo-socialism than their elected cousins do, viewing economic polarization as revolting and unfair. The mantra about “the top 1%” is a constant refrain when democrats engage in class warfare, demonizing the success of the very rich and demanding the government have a greater role in acquiring their wealth and redistributing it.
So, while you hold up your triumphs “defending liberty” from those nasty republican fascists, you behave exactly the same way when it comes to the economy. Personal freedom is okay for you, but economic freedom is not.
If you ask me, neither political philosophy is consistent, or makes sense. In my book, and in a completely neutral perspective, you either believe in personal liberty, or you believe in state control. If you believe in personal liberty, than for god’s sake defend it. If you believe in state control, than for god’s sake pursue it.
Which brings us to what you believe. Personal liberty, or social directives by the government to maintain the health of society? Be careful to not be hoodwinked into putting yourself in one camp or the other because of your affiliation with a party. I happen to be a member of one of the big two, but I have drastic disagreements with the one I belong to on certain issues.
Personal liberty does not mean no government, no laws and abortion on demand (important note - abortion isn’t an issue of “freedom” or “choice” - its a matter of perspective. If you believe a child is part of a woman’s body, then the freedom of choice is hers. If you view a fetus as its own entity, then no one has a right to choose life or death for something without a voice. That’s it - very simple. That issue has been warped beyond all reason).
Instead, it means that in situations where your decisions do not impact others, you believe the government should leave you alone and not tell you what to do. You can believe in personal liberty and still oppose profanity being displayed in public, for example, because it doesn’t just effect individuals. In addition, your support for personal liberty does not mean that you like the choices that people given liberty make, simply that you support people’s right to make those decisions on their own.
Similarly, believing in an activist government does not mean you are trying to turn over all decision making to a centralized “big brother”. It means that you believe the greater good of society is served if the government protects the citizens of a nation from themselves by allowing it to regulate behavior. With freedom comes undesirable actions, bad decision making from individuals and cultural chaos.
So decide where you fall on the scale. Compare it to your beliefs about the economic structure of a nation. Look for inconsistencies. If you find them, either search for and explain why you are being inconsistant, or fundamentally alter your philosophy. If you want to favor freedom in the economy and control of society, examine why you believe freedom is good in the economy, then compare it to why you think that same freedom is unacceptable to a nation’s social fabric. If you believe, for example, that freedom is a right and society is best managed when we run our own lives - then you must explain why when it comes to personal choice freedom is all of a sudden not a right, and societal decisions need to be managed by a central authority.
If you can logically explain it (or the reverse - believing that a managed economy is necessary, but believing that personal freedom is as well), then so be it, I’d sure be interested in how you justify it. Regardless, the important thing is thinking about it, and coming up with a consistent, logical and coherent philosophy.
Internationalism and Nativism
This has always been a difficult one to truly pin down, because there are so many different types. When it comes to foreign policy, the waters get very muddy.
But at the heart of it foreign policy comes down to one major difference - are you an internationalist, or are you a nativist?
An internationalist believes in global engagement - that is, the participation of the United States in the world stage, both as a leader and as a spectator. A true internationalist is in favor of globalization, free trade, the concept of the United Nations (if perhaps, not its practice) and in short, with the aim of bringing the world together in common cause to expand human rights, economic prosperity, and global connectivity to all parts of the world. If that means that some of your own people are hurt (such as American mill workers, car manufacturers, etc) that is a small price to pay for the greater goal of internationalizing the world.
A nativist is a person who believes that the actions of a government are first and foremost specifically for the people who it serves. In other words, such a person would believe that American jobs and products need to be protected, and that if international engagement would lead to the loss of an American industry, or pink slips being delivered to American workers, they should not be pursued. Additionally, nativists believe the government should place tariffs (import taxes) on goods from other nations, and take proactive steps in the foreign arena to protect the American worker.
Is protecting jobs in factories and other manufacturing industries important if new and more white collar jobs are created in the process? Is internationalizing the world and increasing the trade of goods and services throughout the globe worth having to talk to customer support from India? These are the questions you have to ask yourself - its never as simple as “protecting Americans is good” or “globalization is good”. Its deeper than that, and you have to ask yourself what kind of country, and world you want to live in, and what kind of world you want your children to live in.
Intervention and Non-Intervention
The west, specifically the United States, has a bit of a national security challenge. The question is do we combat this by going on offense, regardless of the cost, and spread democracy around the globe at the point of a gun if necessary, or do we work in a more restrained framework of non-intervention and pacifism.
You know what is pretty entertaining? Listening to democratic politicians assault neo-conservatives. Not because they are wrong about their opinions, but because they speak about them as though they are the essence of the republican party, inexorably tied to them as if representing everything there is about the party.
It is amusing when you actually learn what a neo-conservative is. Ever wonder how it got the name? Its because they are quite literally “new conservatives”. Wait, what?
Yeah, neo-conservatives were originally a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Humphrey. In other words, liberal thinkers who felt that in order to combat the Soviet Union the nation must aggressively confront communism on a global scale, and spread democracy via military power. Turns out, when the democratic party began to turn rabidly anti-war and anti-interventionist, these hawkish thinkers moved into the conservative camp, and became known as neo-conservatives.
But politics doesn’t matter to these people. They were unsupportive of the first George Bush, as well as Bill Clinton. They are not a party, and they are most certainly not an identity of any party. Yes - neo-conservatives have had great influence in the republican party as of late, but that is just because the man in office at the time liked their ideas. Think of it this way, if its hot out and you want to go to the beach, and the one 10 minutes away from you is closed for maintenance, its really not a big deal for you to go to the one that is 20 minutes away. You just want to go lay in some sand and get a tan. Similarly, political believers want to see their ideas implimented, and if one party “closes down” to them, they’ll go to another which isn’t, even if its a little contrary to their beliefs.
This is, by the way, why so many staunch republicans are angry with the republican party that has been in power the last 10 years or so. They aren’t really staunch conservatives, they are security hawks who don’t stand on much else that has been traditionally the republican platform. But I digress.
This brings me to the point of this section, and really the entire article itself. Political ideas are their own, and do not belong to any party. When a party supports something you support, you end up supporting them. If who supports your idea changes (a la neo-conservatives), you simply throw your weight behind somebody who does. That is true about your own beliefs just as much as people who work in think-tanks.
So really, what is the difference here? Put simply, the interventionist believes it is necessary to confront and pursue a nations security challenges head on, by using military force if necessary. Coupled with an internationalist point of view, such a person often will believe that it is appropriate for the United States to help spread democracy to foreign countries, and to work on “nation building” as it is called. They feel that for the long term stability of the nation, and the security of her borders (as well as the health and vitatility of the world at large), western values should be brought to other nations. If those nations pose a major security risk for the United States, then military force is an option.
The non-interventionist (to which, ironically, George W. Bush was originally a subscriber to) believes that engaging in aggressive foreign conflicts without broad global support is folly, and likely to backfire. They believe in the sovereignty of nations, even “bad” nations, and that pushing our culture on other lands will not work. Similarly, they oppose nation building, decrying it as a black hole of funding that could be directed at the American people in the form of tax relief, infrastructure development, or any number of things. Attempting to push democracy and western values on non-western countries is not a just goal (see the following section on relativism), and should not be pursued.
With the nation’s recent exploits, it would be easy to condemn intervention. But don’t listen to polls, or news reports about everyone else’s feeling on the matter. Think about it for yourself. Seriously - don’t react to this question in under five seconds, really sit there and think about your own feelings on the matter.
Similarly, if something were to happen tomorrow - say a major terrorist attack on Los Angeles - it would be easy to decry non-intervention as being a cowards unwilling to confront the danger we face in a post-September 11th world. But don’t listen to demagogues, make up your own mind. Take this question and chew on it for a while, then think about your own feelings on the matter.
Do you personally believe there can be a just war without international approval or a smoking gun for a threat? Do you believe the United States can sit back and not act when there are unstable despots in the world who would love to see our country in ashes, and slaughter their own people?
First, make peace with the fact that there is no perfect answer. Neither option will truly solve the problem alone, but its likely you favor one approach over the other. Take off your “I’m a member of this party” hat and make up your own mind.
Republicans, keep in mind that before September 11th, George W. Bush and the republican party as a whole had just spent about 10 years being the non-interventionalist party. Remember that you opposed pretty much any military activity Bill Clinton took part in, and decried his saber rattling about Iraq and opposed his efforts in nation building. Remember that those that took us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq were liberals since the end of the second world war, and only recently came into your party and changed its international policy.
Democrats, keep in mind that during the 1990s you felt that ethnic cleansing and dictators killing their own people was a crime against humanity, and that it needed to be challenged with American military force. At the same time your party believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States, the region, and the world at large, and you supported Bill Clinton when he called for regime change.
Now, strip away where your party happens to be right now and do your best to make up your own mind about what you think. There is nothing wrong with being a republican and believing in a non-interventionist philosophy - afterall, its what the historical basis of the party has been. There is also nothing wrong with being an interventionist democrat, its the historical basis of your party as well.
At some point in the future, a democrat will take power and support an aggressive inteventionalist position, or a republican will take power and support a strong non-interventionalist platform. The parties have each done this more than once.
So stop being so concerned with what your “team” is doing. Make up your own mind on the subject, and when your party changes its position, stick to your guns.
The Problem Of Groupthink In Politics
Which takes us finally to how you express your political mind.
In America, we have a pathological need to be a part of a team. We have to set ourselves up into camps of “us” and “them”, because we believe the “them” is of such monumental force that there has to be an “us” to combat them. Because of this, the teams we set up are never pure. People who have drastically differing political philosophies for all the above descriptions end up becoming political allies for no other reason than common distaste for the other guy.
Which has lead to each of our two parties being infested with a large number of competing interest groups. The republican party has both libertarians and social conservatives in it - explain that. Democrats have hard core free traders as well as die hard protectionists. Contradiction is inherent in any political party, but because of the changing nature of “gee, how can I get elected” politics has made strange bedfellows, and the respective big-tents have brought in some incredibly different people under one roof. That causes some problems when it comes to identity.
And when a party gains power, groupthink prevails. People who have joined their respective “team” fall in love with that team, and buy into the leaders of their team, and support nearly everything that person does or says, because, well frankly, “the other guy” doesn’t like it. But the interesting thing is that in a neutral environment if a person was honest with their own political thoughts and not lead around like political sheep, they might disagree with their leader, and agree with that “other guy”.
For evidence of that you just have to look at how the parties have changed over the years. Take my earlier comments on neo-conservatives. That philosophy was detested by almost every rank and file republican alive - that is until they had their own man in the White House who began to subscribe to that philosophy, at which time suddenly they changed their mind and were “all about” that idea the whole time.
Whoever is in charge at any point and time defines to the public what a “republican” or a “democrat” is - but all they are truly defining is what the most powerful faction of that party at the time. If you want to play follow the leader and fall in line like a good little soldier and support every policy of that faction in power, so be it.
Just keep in mind, that’s why the republicans are nearly extinct in this country, when only 4 years ago they dominated every aspect of government. The party became identified with one faction of itself, and as a result the entire party became the personification of that faction. They abandoned their traditional ideals (fiscal management, lean and small government, etc) in favor of being sounding boards, and didn’t stand up to the faction in control of their party. The Republican Revolution of 1994 died, and they now stand on the brink of irrelevance.
Betray yourself at your own risk. Democrats, its now on you to learn this lesson as you are poised to take control of all levels of government.
My advice is to take this article, think about your own philosophy, and stay true to it. If you want to subscribe to a party, great - but stay true to your own beliefs. Don’t just fall into the “us” and “them” trap.
It is truly appalling to read democratic underground, or the free republic, because it is exactly the symptom I have been talking about. If you are a member, you are suddenly in a giant echo chamber, and people do little more than post up material about “them” (ie the republicans for DU, the democrats for FR) and then incite giant rant-fests about those nasty opponants. The most amusing is that a great deal of what they say is predicated on nothing more than the fact that it was “the other guy” saying something or doing something. Had “your guy” done something, they very likely would be reacting positively.
A political pet peeve of mine is when members of parties talk about their opponent with such ridiculously exaggerated claims, like “he’ll absolutely destroy America”. Its insane, because “your guy” probably only agrees with your true political heart 60% of the time. And that “other guy” and you might have a great deal in common. But you’re so obsessed with the “us vs. them” garbage that you don’t even look for it. But even if you are so stubborn that you can’t at least accept the possibility that “they” aren’t that bad or that different from you, please cut the crap. I can already hear some of you - “but… but… but… you don’t understand - that other guy is horrible for this reason or that - he’s going to ruin this country”.
Shut up. Please. Enough of your nonsense. Every party since the founding of this country has said “He is going to ruin America - how can this person possibly be our president?” about men that have become president. Each time, America keeps right on going and we’re fine.
Look, we’re either good people or we aren’t. America is either a strong country, or such a weak bannana republic that it can’t stand a bad leader every once and a while. Stop, for the love of Jesus stop treating politics like a team sport. Stop treating it like life and death. This is a great country, and I think we are strong enough to withstand somebody you believe to be politically unacceptable - just like we are strong enough to withstand somebody they believed to be politically unacceptable.
We owe it to ourselves to raise the level of debate in this country and discuss the merit of ideas, not the merit of somebody’s team.
If you’ve said to yourself while reading this article, “Yes! Stupid republicans, its so true - they are such frauds!!” or “Yes! Stupid democrats, its so true - they are such frauds!!” then you have completely missed the point of this article.
I used examples from the real world to show the foolishness of political teams, and how all of them are not what they seem. If you see something to use as a “told you so” against the party you do not belong to, then please start over, read again, and realize there are similar “told you so”s for your party. Please try to understand what this article is about.
This is an academic exercise to help you strip away the b.s. and identify what you truly believe politically. Parties are irrelevant. For all their uses, they are largely all corrupt and so obsessed with winning that they devalue the inherent nobility of discussing political thought.
Their only principle is beating the other guy - in something reminiscent of the Hatfields and the McCoys - and because of that their true principles are clouded by convenience.
If you are unable to break out of that mold long enough to honestly think about your own independent philosophy, I can not help you.
I hope this has been useful. Sit. Think. Analyze. Learn.
Politics is not even as simple as I have tried to make it here - but this is a start. Make use of it.
Copyright 2008 © Political Capital
Related Articles: Essays > Political Identity
Comments
2 Responses to “Political Identification - The Confusion Must End”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] four parties (first position is economic beliefs, second is social beliefs - and please remember this article I wrote detailing political identification - in short, liberal means freedom from state control, [...]
[...] descriptions, as I’ve noted before, are completely divorced from reality or critical thought. There are at lest four main [...]