When did you convert to your political ideology????

Post Reply New Topic

Also known as Soviet Satellites (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, sometimes also Albania, and Yugoslavia) of the Eastern or Soviet Bloc.

Getting back to the original question of when did you convert to your political ideology i can say i didnt convert to it, I just realised i was rather more of a lefty than most people a few years ago. I blame my mother, as i couldnt have 'caught' it from my father. However i may change ideologies as i age. supposedly people grow steadily more right-wing as they age

my parent are quite left, i grew up in the Kohl era in which the rich becamer richer and poor became poorer.
and even before the unification of germany i was a supporter of the green party.
at the last vote i made my cross at the socialists, and now we get a social-democrat and conservative government. imagine that in the US!!

im still struggling to imagine any form of social-democrat from the US, let alone a Social-Democrat party in government (or at least sharing power)

They were called communist becos the Soviet Union was originally set up by Lenin's Bolsheviks with the intent of CREATING communism. However, Lenin died before that goal was achieved, and when Stalin took over, he had his own agenda... He kept the communist label becos otherwise there wood have been another revolt.

I think you'll find that Lenin didnt have the slightest intention of setting up genuine communism. It is remarkable that this myth that Lenin was some good guy has survived from the Soviet Union's propaganda. Lenin was not by any stretch of the imagination a good guy. In all likelihood had he lived longer, this myth would not exist and we would in fact be trying to establish whether he or Stalin was the worst of all the 'communist' leaders.

I became intrested in politics at a early age. My family is very conservitive over all, so discussing politics can get heated if you disagree with anyone. I am very conservitive on somethings, and liberal on others. I vote republican because I am more conservitive in economic issues, but the religious issues I find my self to be more liberal. I dont vote with religion in mind for the most part. I feel that the "freedom of religion" means that's ANY religion as well as NO religion if thats what suits you. And I also think that the seperation of church and state is important, but it shoulnt mean that we forcefully exclude any one group from public displays at perscribed holidays. I guess im saying, I dont want to be judged in a court of law on religious background, but I also dont want someone to tell me that my christmas tree, or menoria, or yule deocrations or what ever are offfensive.
perhaps the best policy there is tollerance of all religions so long the display is in the relm of what is desent. But too often the nature of religion is no tollerance of the others. And that underlines the seperation of church and state debate for me.
(I hope that wasnt too off topic or too hard to follow)

2 things - it shoud be obvius that separation of the church and state, is the best policy, and toleration of all religions is a given. The second point is that this thred isnt actaully about religion

True, but in the south where I live, the two often are thought to be one in the same! I must admit, I often forget other parts of the world make the destinction easier than the Bible belt!

the distinction... between church and state?

*sigh* yes. Depending on what religious group you belong to down here, depends on if there is supposed to be a difference. My father feels that there should be no seperation, that all government matters should reflect christian values first and formost. He is not the only one that feels that way, most have a stronger opinion than that.
There is even a group called the Christian Exodas (spelled wrong I know) that on their website they call followers to MOVE to South Carolina in an effort to create a Christian state. They wish to alter the vote with their people moving here and if needed, to , and I kid you not, leave the union. From what I understand these folks are real, and their number is growing.
So you see, the distinction IS blured here. If roaming off topic was a problem, I apologize.

Yeah the Old South is like that isn't I lived in Florida as a child but still can remember alot of what You are saying.

Until six months ago i was a staunch left wing. But the modern day substitutes for left wing 'progressive' politics have disaffetced me.

It is probably closest to the truth to me to say that I am a left wing by nature...I believe people can only live meaningful lives with a proper state in place, and that the inequality arising from capitalism destroys social justice and leads people to the conclusion that they are important.

ASnd that last line might give you an implicit clue to this disclosure: I do have some right wing tendencies. I think people in themselves are unimportant, to the extent that everyone has a role to play in creating a strong, healthy state where there is one definite ruling power. This state should be the raison d'etre; I want to ensure it is the most important thing in people's lives, as opposed to meaningless self-money powered advancement.

Getting rich, entirely self obsessed and on your own stupid lifestyle is the downward spiral.

I used to be a socialist.
I was initially well, pretty much clueless about politics.
I became a socialist after a couple factors that I won't get into.
I'd been a market socialist though, and did not like the idea of immense state control.
I went to a "socialist conference" at Columbia University in a van with a couple of Marxists.
The people there were completely insane.

I suppose that I should note that at 14-15 I began considering my positions, seeing politics as more than a line and no longer inclined to call myself "leftist." I'd begun thinking about affirmative action, gun control, and abortion, and taking rather different positions than the people on websites I hung out with, if still more authoritarian than not.

I began reconsidering my position economically. By about a year and a half later I was baiscally a libertarian, though the shift had happened gradually as I re-examined one issue at a time.
Another half year after that, I was finally willing to actually call myself a libertarian, and was looking at things from a perspective not of "greatest good" or "most fair" but "what business does the government have with their nose in this.

I suppose that I'd always been libertarian really. Never liked group work and a lot of things traditionally supported by "liberals" as I'd used to call myself, such as community, government power, and the draft, inherently grated against my natural inclinations. I'd always admired libertarianism, but didn't think that I could make myself be so selfish.

Then I realized that A. I'm selfish anywhen and B. a lot of "selfish" inclinations, such as refusing to give one's life for the state or refusal accept something that the majority believes in, aren't selfish, however some might say so.

I'd also refused to call myself libertarian for a while as I dislike political labels. They's be useful, except that they're almost univerally abused. However libertarian has a a real meaning, and it works, so I use it, and if somebody wants to think that that means "Ayn Rand worshipper," "libertine," "reactionary," "radical," "nutcase,"(though these two do work), "moderate," or some other such, well, that's their problem, not mine.

I'm not sure how long I'll be willing to call myself such though.
Libertarianism is on the rise, spawing the ascendence of "libertarian" think tanks and political vessels, and increasing numbers of dogmists who don't think.

Since as far as I'm concerned libertarianism about individualism and free thought and action, and libertarian dogmas are inherently antithetical to this, I may have to come up with a term to distance myself.

Not necessarily.

There are a number of people I've seen refer to themselves as "onservative."

First there are those like George Will, "fiscal conservatives" who tend to be moderate on social issues.
These people are not doing well, nor have they done so since Calvin Coolidge.

Similar to this group are those like William Buckley and Antonin Scalia, fairly free-thinking, and economically libertarian, more moralistic but of the belief that government should nevetheless be small and unobtrusive. They themselves are doing well, but getting little of their agenda passed.

Then you have the so called "neocons" whose really sole platform is an agressive foreign policy. Hawks. Were doing well, still seem to have the ear of Bush but have lost the support of Congress.

Then there are religious zanies in the south like Pats Robertson and Buchannan. Bush is throwing them some bones on a few issues, with homophobia and some welfare programs, but generally they're disgusted with him.

Then there are those who I know I used to think of when I heard "conservative" the "dittoheads" who listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Ann Coulter. If they ever have an independent thought I'd be surprised. Since they think whatever these pundits tell them to think, I suppose that you could say they're happy.

Then there are the "Reagan Democrats" higlynationalistic, and very moralistic but don't even make much pretext of religion, industrial workers, the "NASCAR dads." As long as the "enemies of America," such as Democrats (though they are often Democrats themselves) are unhappy, they're happy.

Back a bit to the New Englanders, so called "moderates" such as Olympia Snowe. I don't really know what to say about them aside from that they're all different.

Obviously, labels don't work and my divisions are arbitrary, and exclude a lot who use the lable (some libertarians I've met used it at first, unaware that there was a better term) but this should I hope give some idea of how meaningless the lable "conservative" is.

Without asking what somebody means when they call themselves "liberal" or "conservative", you really have no idea what they mean. Then I've observed countless meanings for "socialist" and likewise for "moderate" at least two for "progressive" and several for "anarchist" and "libertarian," though in the latter two cases qualifiers are generally used ("individualist anarchist," "libertarian Marxist").

I much prefer it when people describe their views to trying to lable themselves.

Some things would be better if they were "gone with the wind"