How much of political leaning is social/cultural rather than issue based?

[Moiraine]

Just kinda thinking out loud here and wondering what others' opinions are.

 

I was just thinking, it seems to me that poor people in low populated areas have a lot more in common with poor people in urban areas than each has with the wealthy. At least as far as which policies would benefit them. Yet these 2 demographics tend to vote the opposite way.

 

I think for many people they have an idea in their head of what the two major parties stand for rather than knowledge on actual policies and actions taken by politicians of those parties.

[NUance]

Yeah, I've wondered about that too. I've always thought that Democrats were supposed to be socially responsible, and watch out for the poor and various minorities. And Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible, keeping an eye on the nation's pocketbook. (Not that this actually happens.) Given the supposed emphasis of each party, you'd think that poor rural folks would vote Dem. But they don't, mostly. From the rural people I know, I think they are opposed to all the (perceived) social program money that's poured into urban areas. :

[Enhance]

Social/cultural circles are probably the single greatest contributing factor to political lean and a lot of it comes down to experiences and exposure. That's why urban areas tend to be more liberal and rural areas tend to be more conservative. Education also plays a critical role. Research shows the more educated a person is the more liberal they often become.

 

I know this is 100% true for me. I leaned Republican in high school, but since graduating college (and spending several years in the media being exposed to a number of ideas and experiences) I'm now more liberal and often closely align with civil libertarians.

 

In Nebraska, I tend to believe the less exposed you are to different cultures and ideas the more you tend to lean right.

[Oade]

Yeah, I've wondered about that too. I've always thought that Democrats were supposed to be socially responsible, and watch out for the poor and various minorities. And Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible, keeping an eye on the nation's pocketbook. (Not that this actually happens.) Given the supposed emphasis of each party, you'd think that poor rural folks would vote Dem. But they don't, mostly. From the rural people I know, I think they are opposed to all the (perceived) social program money that's poured into urban areas. :

I don't think about it as an economic or social-initiative thing, at least in person-by-person terms. I think individual dems and reps both want social justice and a healthy currency as much as the other group. Its just a different set of thought processes... I think social initiatives are great, and well intended, but I also I think that until the economy is fixed, that those social initiatives are no more than temporary fixes.

 

I see democratic policies like Obamacare as temporary fixes. Health insurance doesn't address the issue of unfair health-costs and pharmaceuticals, it actually perpetuates it imo. Sort of like how raising the minimum wage lends itself to (eventually) increased prices across the board..... With a healthy economy, health care costs would be affordable without insurance companies. There is no reason insurance companies should exist at all imo, they are part of the problem of overpriced health care - and autos, and homes, and so on.... Making sure everyone has health insurance is like a doctor giving you tylenol for a headache, and then a week later, giving you more tylenol for the same headache, and again a week later. At some point you have to realize that the headache isn't the issue. Its that you've had headphones in too much. Address the issue. The issue, imo, is the value and health of the dollar, and until that is fixed, then nothing the government does is more than a temporary solution.

 

Personally, generally, I think of conservatives as not wanting a high level of federal bureaucracy/regulations, but rather more state and locally driven law and regulation.

 

Pot being legalized in several states, but not at a federal level is a good example imo. Each state should have the right to legalize without federal/dea policing. That is a "conservative" philosophy imo, regardless of how individual dem/rep politicians currently align themselves.

 

 

Generally, I think of liberals as seeing the country more as one entity that should subscribe to the same laws and rules across the board.... But in my experience a rule that works well for rural America doesn't necessarily translate to urban America and vice versa, and normally I feel like new rules come at the expense of at least one group of the upper/middle/lower classes, regardless of rural or urban demographics (Obamacare for example).

 

I do think the more you travel the more global your views become, which has been a really great experience for me, but personally, I think the long-term success of America must be driven by individual city and state desires, not by national or global interests. That's not to say national interests or global equality should be ignored.

[teachercd]

I think most people get their politics from their parents...they either share them or they go the opposite way because they hate them! ha

[Oade]

Lol, thats probably true.

[Oade]

Another reason I lean more to the republican side, although actually never voting in line with the republican nominee's (I've always written in a name or not voted at all), is simply because of the dictionary definition of the terms. Philosophically and personally I just associate with the term "Republic" more-so than "Democracy".

 

 

 

republic |rəˈpəblik|
noun
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

• archaic; a group with a certain equality between its members.

 

 

 

democracy |dəˈmäkrəsē|
noun (plural democracies)
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives: capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world.
• a state governed by a democracy: a multiparty democracy.
• control of an organization or group by the majority of its members: the intended extension of industrial democracy.
• the practice or principles of social equality: demands for greater democracy.

 

Republic(an): Government with equality between its members.

Democracy: Government by the majority vote.

 

Ruling by way of majority vote, although it sounds nice, would imply that there is also a minority vote (its funny how they leave that part out of the dictionary)... Yet having a majority/minority vote implies a certain amount of inequality that I don't believe is Constitutional.

 

Gay/lesbian rights, legalized pot, foreign policy/wars, and so on, should not be subject to a personal/emotional/special-interest's "majority/minority" vote it should be subject to the terms "Justice & Equality".

[knapplc]

You could just be an Independent and do whatever you want without labels.

[NUance]

You could just be an Independent and do whatever you want without labels.

 

Yeah, whatever you want—except voting in a primary.

[knapplc]

 

You could just be an Independent and do whatever you want without labels.

 

Yeah, whatever you want—except voting in a primary.

 

 

Depends on your state. Only 18 states have closed primaries. The other 32 offer a wide range of options for Independents. In Nebraska, I have more choices as an Independent than I would if I registered with a specific party.

 

Of course, if we abolish the parties by refusing to be affiliated, we could eliminate that stupid restriction and allow everyone to vote in every primary. But politicians aren't interested in that.

[Oade]

 

 

You could just be an Independent and do whatever you want without labels.

 

Yeah, whatever you want—except voting in a primary.

 

 

Depends on your state. Only 18 states have closed primaries. The other 32 offer a wide range of options for Independents. In Nebraska, I have more choices as an Independent than I would if I registered with a specific party.

 

Of course, if we abolish the parties by refusing to be affiliated, we could eliminate that stupid restriction and allow everyone to vote in every primary. But politicians aren't interested in that.

 

 

I don't have faith in Trump to do the right thing or use sound judgment, but I would not put something as crazy as that (from a true-politicians perspective) like that past him. -- Of course it would probably come as a coat-tail to a bigger, and possibly worse, policy change if Trump were ever to do that.

[knapplc]

That's not something a politician would do, that's something we the people would do.

 

Stop registering as a Democrat or Republican. Register Independent and send a message to these parties that they do not represent us.

[TGHusker]

Social/cultural circles are probably the single greatest contributing factor to political lean and a lot of it comes down to experiences and exposure. That's why urban areas tend to be more liberal and rural areas tend to be more conservative. Education also plays a critical role. Research shows the more educated a person is the more liberal they often become.

 

I know this is 100% true for me. I leaned Republican in high school, but since graduating college (and spending several years in the media being exposed to a number of ideas and experiences) I'm now more liberal and often closely align with civil libertarians.

 

In Nebraska, I tend to believe the less exposed you are to different cultures and ideas the more you tend to lean right.

Enhance, please don't take this personally but that is a big broad brush overstatement if I ever saw one - the implication is - uneducated or unexposed = right leaning. Get real. Liberal arrogance at its best ( I know that wasn't your intent). I grew up democrat in S.D - can't get much more rural than that. I voted for George McGovern - can't get much more liberal than that. I went to college, completed my Masters, live in an urban area and have travel all around and been active in anti poverty/missions issues -& as a result I'm very conservative. Liberal ideas, while appearing on the outside to be well meaning, some (to avoid my own broad brush - not all liberal programs) become anything but and end up enslaving / trapping the needy in their need. I believe in a good safety net for the poor and the govt can/does help with that along wt non-profits but at the very basis of conservatism is the idea of individual choice, responsibility, and opportunity to get ahead. The war on poverty as shown in the liberal great society programs of LBJ ended up entrapping more in poverty,& fostering one parent families (irresponsible dad's off the hook as govt will pay for the kids needs). Don't dare say I don't care or that conservatives don't care about poverty issues and the poor - studies have shown that conservatives personally give more of their personal money on average to charities that help the poor. I believe conservatives care every bit as much as liberals - they just have a different path of trying to address those needs - regardless of how the media in general wants to paint it the other way around.

 

However, I won't throw the baby out wt the bath water. We need both liberal and conservative ideas in moderation. Govt should provide a role in helping the needy and creating safety nets but broader conservative economics should propel the society towards creating more opportunities so that the poor can find meaningful work (opportunity), have meaningful choices so they they can be responsible for their own needs.

 

Let me add: This is the problem wt our modern politics in general and Washington DC specifically. I think God places us all on this earth with a gift to give and if we don't take advantage of the gifts of others, we all lose out. One of those gifts is our political thought processes - which are morally neutral. Liberalism isn't evil nor is conservatism. But modern political argument makes it out that way. Just think what society would look like if we were open to taking the best ideas from both camps and work them in our society. Some of those ideas might seem to be opposed to each other like spending on social programs vs a balanced budget. However, if as the conservative claims more money comes into the treasury via conservative growth programs, then the money will exist to pay on all of the social safety nets that we need as a society. DC's problem is that it is a either/or and not a combined comprehensive look at the best ideas. So we go through the big swings - conservative president, liberal, conservative, liberal, etc Look at the last # of elections. 12 years of Reagan (including GHWB), 2 years of Clinton, 8 years of GWB, 8 years of Obama, and who knows 8 years of Trump(gulp - we'll see if he matures into 8 years). We are a country looking for an identity and I say it is in the middle of these 8 year swings.

 

PS this also shows up on Huskerboard and thus applies to Knapps thead on why conservatives aren't flocking to the political forum as much in resent days. Our son got 4th in the state in debate his Jr year. In watching him, he had to learn the 'facts' on both sides of the argument. While facts are stubborn things and John Adams used the facts of the situation correctly to win his court case a few years back, facts also come in sets of 2. Political discussion in DC or on HB should understand that we all have our set of facts, the trick is deciding which facts work the best for the situation. To do so, we have to be honest, unbiased and unfiltered and willing to learn from each other and try to understand the opposite perspective. That is how we grow. Enhance can grow from being more conservative to more liberal and I can grow the opposite way - that is OK. I respect his opinion. At different times we both my grow back the other direction and meet in the middle along the way. I think I've grown listening to some of my more left leaning friends on HB and I hope they have learned a thing from me.

Edited February 3, 2017 by TGHusker

[NUance]

That's not something a politician would do, that's something we the people would do.

 

Stop registering as a Democrat or Republican. Register Independent and send a message to these parties that they do not represent us.

 

^^This! It would be a good start.

 

[TGHusker]

 

Yeah, I've wondered about that too. I've always thought that Democrats were supposed to be socially responsible, and watch out for the poor and various minorities. And Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible, keeping an eye on the nation's pocketbook. (Not that this actually happens.) Given the supposed emphasis of each party, you'd think that poor rural folks would vote Dem. But they don't, mostly. From the rural people I know, I think they are opposed to all the (perceived) social program money that's poured into urban areas. :

I don't think about it as economic or social-initiative thing, at least in person-to-person terms. I think individual dems and reps both want social justice and a healthy currency as much as the other group. Its just a different set of thought processes... I think social initiatives are great, and well intended, but I also I think that until the economy is fixed, that those social initiatives are no more than temporary fixes.

 

I see democratic policies like Obamacare as temporary fixes. Health insurance doesn't address the issue of unfair health-costs and pharmaceuticals, it actually perpetuates it imo. Sort of like how raising the minimum wage lends itself to (eventually) increased prices across the board..... With a healthy economy, health care costs would be affordable without insurance companies. There is no reason insurance companies should exist at all imo, they are part of the problem of overpriced health care - and autos, and homes, and so on.... Making sure everyone has health insurance is like a doctor giving you tylenol for a headache, and then a week later, giving you more tylenol for the same headache, and again a week later. At some point you have to realize that the headache isn't the issue. Its that you've had headphones in too much. Address the issue. The issue, imo, is the value and health of the dollar, and until that is fixed, then nothing the government does is more than a temporary solution.

 

Personally, generally, I think of conservatives as not wanting a high level of federal bureaucracy/regulations, but rather more state and locally driven law and regulation.

 

Pot being legalized in several states, but not at a federal level is a good example imo. Each state should have the right to legalize without federal/dea policing. That is a "conservative" philosophy imo, regardless of how individual dem/rep politicians currently align themselves.

 

 

Generally, I think of liberals as seeing the country more as one entity that should subscribe to the same laws and rules across the board.... But in my experience a rule that works well for rural America doesn't necessarily translate to urban America and vice versa, and normally I feel like new rules come at the expense of at least one group of the upper/middle/lower classes, regardless of rural or urban demographics (Obamacare for example).

 

I do think the more you travel the more global your views become, which has been a really great experience for me, but personally, I think the long-term success of America must be driven by individual city and state desires, not by national or global interests. That's not to say national interests or global equality should be ignored.

 

Good thoughts. I agree