How did you get your political views

Post Reply New Topic

I am an extreme bleeding heart liberal and I feel there are a few people who I got my views from. One my history teacher. He is a very liberal man and before him I never knew much about politics. Don't get me wrong I also had a very amazing republican Economics teacher in high school. Also my dad and Grand Ma. My dad is more liberal than her though in the view that gay marriage should be legal. She is for civil unions just not marriages. I am just wondering where your views came from. This is not about issues, just about how you ended up where ever on the political spectrum you are at.

I grew up in a very secular but conservative household. I was pretty lucky. After my parents divorced; I experienced some pretty solid lean times and suddenly realized all those social services I thought were pointless, were now, for me vital. While I remain socially conservative, I am certainly in favor of welfare and healthcare.

My parents both vote Democrat and so, be default, I supported the Democratic Party growing up. I always supported gay rights, even before I realized that I was gay, because I thought that it was a matter of simple fairness. When I first learned about abortion at about age fourteen or fifteen, my initial knee-jerk reaction was, "How horrible! That should be illegal!" Then I read some pro-choice arguments online and decided that, from an individual liberty standpoint, their arguments made more sense, and thus switched from pro-life to pro-choice. My decision to cut religion out of my life around age sixteen heavily influenced me to adopt socially liberal views.

My entire political worldview revolves heavily around my strong belief in individual liberty and autonomy (although I don't have a problem with surveillance cameras and airport check-ups for security reasons). My views to this day are still evolving in certain areas.

Last edited by Descartes on 11 Jul 2011, 9:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

A Fundamentals of American Government course,
and a beau who loved to debate.

I already had leftist tendencies beforehand though,
and have become far more "radical" over the years.

I credit my ideas largely to a mixture of my education and my upbringing. The books that were made available to me while I was growing up tended to have a lot of awards attached to them. Either that, or they were deeply rooted in American culture. Otherwise, my moral education was the product of an institution that had a vested interest in maintaining social harmony and preventing divisive behavior, so naturally I was hit with the usual egalitarian gobbledygook that characterizes childhood education. My parents' role in my upbringing tended to lend toward a belief that attempts to create social equality are based on good thoughts and extremely positive values, but attempts by our government to do so are often misguided, tending to dumb down the upper-crust a lot more efficiently than it uplifts the downtrodden; I still agree with this, and I tend to approving of egalitarian motives while also being cautious in evaluating how they are directed.

Hugo and Nebula Award-winning novels were abundant on the book shelves, and I probably read most of them at some point. The type of science fiction that tends to accrue such acclaim tends to express an optimistic but severely critical perspective on the human race. Therefore, I have always felt that one of the first duties of our generation is to fashion the stones that people wiser than ourselves might use to build into the kind of civilization we should truly feel proud of. Because of these books, I came to believe that our foremost obligation as a species is to educate the young and try to contribute to their wealth of knowledge. Knowledge is the only true wealth there is. It's the only thing worth having a greed for.

Of course, I wasn't limited that early on to one genre. I am sorry to go on so much about my books, actually, but they have had more effect on my life than almost anything in my experience. The fact of the matter is that the first novel I ever completed was The Little House on the Prairie, and I went on to read the entire series after that. I'm not sure how this impacted my politics, but it developed in me a taste for outdoor adventure. Stories like Hatchet and My Side of the Mountain lent in me a strong belief that a person who is young and mentally and physically healthy should have no difficulty surviving on very little. I believe that a young bachelor in his twenties would benefit greatly from living under relatively spartan conditions. It builds character.

Now, you would expect these parts of my background to lend toward a moderate conservative libertarian outlook, and this was actually quite true of me during the latter part of my adolescence. In fact, I was optimistic about President George W. Bush's administration, and I would have voted for him if I had had the right to do so in the year 2000.

However, in early 2001, an American spy plane crash-landed in China, and the Chinese government insisted on examining the wreck before returning it to the US government. The Bush government seem to believe that the Chinese were behaving criminally in doing this, and there was a good deal of sabre-rattling over the incident. I tried envisioning the reverse scenario of the Chinese demanding the return of a spyplane that crash-landed in the US, and I was forced to come to grips with how arrogant and stupid American exceptionalism actually is. I began to lose faith in the conservative concept of the world in a big way.

The GOP's party line was pretty much getting to be damaged goods to me by this time. However, this doesn't explain why I didn't simply become a libertarian, and I will admit that it was a strong temptation. The libertarian ideal seemed for a while like throwing the doors open to opportunity and growth. It positively reeked of everything that I valued. To explain why I wasn't so tempted, I will have to backtrack a bit.

In the world of computing, Microsoft was the Evil Overlord during the 1990s. Linux was becoming fashionable, and Apple was suddenly emerging as "the better OS that doesn't break down all the time, is fast and has really good graphics." Because of these rivalries, a lot of criticisms were heaved against Microsoft, including the use of anti-competitive business practices. I felt that Microsoft put out reasonably good products, but it certainly provoked my ire when I kept hearing stories about them shutting down would-be competitors. The idea that deregulation would throw open the doors of opportunity wasn't looking so good. However, I did like the idea of "ordoliberalism" for a while. In any case, I learned that Microsoft should not be blamed for our government's failure to establish and maintain law and order in the marketplace. Done properly, regulation should help keep the doors of opportunity from being snapped shut by monopolists and snake-oil salesmen, and anarchy is no true freedom.

Furthermore, I was also forced to come to grips with some important facts of life. For one thing, the whole world cannot be like me. I have a strong constitution and tend to be extremely resourceful in times of adversity. That is fine. However, I took the time to get to know several different kinds of people. They ranged from people who had severe mental disorders to black women who were trying to provide a future for a handful of unruly offspring. Part of this happened while I was traveling extensively by train: under such circumstances, people from diverse and sundry backgrounds are thrown together, and you get a chance to hear the individual stories of your fellow travelers. If you spend enough time getting around and getting to know people from different walks of life, you eventually learn to understand that real life is not as simple as a fairy-tale.

Finally, I have polished my views through simple, straightforward scholarship over the years. I have developed a grasp on economic theory that most lay people don't, and I have a relatively deep background in history. Libertarianism is a temptation for even the most educated of people (perhaps even especially so), but I fear that it is a false idol. Although it is superficially attractive, those who fall into this trap are actually being very naive.

They should be advised to pull their noses out of their books for a while and get out into the day-to-day world. Take a trip somewhere. Sit on a park bench and talk for a while to whoever happens to be around. Also, consider engaging in some down-to-the-bones in-depth scholarship, and by that I mean looking through periodicals. Go around in your library with a notebook, running back and forth like a frothing, pyridoxine-crazed maniac tracking down references and resources. Spend long, cold nights reading texts on advanced socio-economic theory by the light of a tiny, incandescent bulb. Be bold.

But that's just my perspective.

A combination of logic, reason, common sense and current events.

Plus a genuine belief that the only thing I owe to strangers is good manners and self control.

I do not exist to feed the incompetent and lazy people of the world.

ruveyn

Self-serving and vague. It insinuates the false and unproven claim that logic inherently dictates that you assume the views that you do, and for you to make this sort of unvalidated assertion is arrogant and uncouth. I know of nothing that is so gouache.

Seriously, why should I believe your claims here? You seem to make the assumption that I should, so bring it. I am calling you out because I don't think you really know what you are talking about. You owe us either a more thorough explanation of your reasoning or some substantial evidence of your authority here.

Otherwise, perhaps we should all conclude that you were just being arrogant, in which case I await your apology and humble retraction. I have too little confidence in your good manners to ever expect this, but it bears mentioning.

If you can't bring either one or the other, pity on you. Nobody wants to talk to a poltroon.

I do not really have political views.

I have a view of politics which arises from my watching political shenanigans as little as possible over the years and being disgusted by noise and insincerity and sheep parades.

I have a view of the world which is in progress based on ongoing observation and analysis.

I have a set of values most of which is probably inborn, some of which is derived from my reaction to human activity.

How else could anyone get political views but by conscience-informed observation?

Mr. Delaney! Curb it. ruveyn's answer is neither selfserving nor vague - unless you expect him to document which precise premises and data led by what exact logical path to each individual viewpoint. Which would be asurd and I do not see you doing it.

Having observed ruveyn now for some time, I do not doubt that he works precisely that way - very close to my operation, by the bye. You cannot - unless you have telepathic abilities - refute hias claim to use logic, and you cannot judge his conclusions unless you know precisely what data and underlying assumptions went into the logical process. You MAY disagree with his political views if you can discover what they are, but I fail to see how you can fault his logic swhen you do not have access to it.

What is the big deal with ruveyn's claims? All he said is "this is what I do". And you turn that into "You owe us either a more thorough explanation of your reasoning or some substantial evidence of your authority here". Pah! There is no higher authority available to us ON RUVEYN"S PROCESSES that ruveyn himself.

Your "pity" and the epithet "poltroon" are uncalled for, and tend to mark you as fool and / or jerk.

Excuse me, after putting in a post where I described with as much accuracy and humility as I could how and why I came to hold the views that I do, it put me right on tilt to see someone say essentially, "I hold the views I do because I'm smart." That doesn't fly with me, and I found it to be very bothersome. By my lights, I'm justified in calling him out. If his views are so logical, he ought to bring forth this "logic" he speaks of.

My god, everyone else here has made at least some effort to investigate how their background and literature they have been exposed to may have affected their outlook. Everyone else here had something to say about the household they were raised in or their education or literature they have had a chance to read. They actually tell us something.

To say, "I have the views I do because I think logically," strikes me as self-serving, ego-stroking, phony-sounding bull hockey. I find it offensive and arrogant, so I think that I am perfectly justified in calling Ruveyn out here. I think he owes us an explanation. You know, just because we don't have rules against it doesn't mean it's respectful.

It's not offensive because it's arrogant. It's offensive because it's both arrogant AND blatently UNreasoned. He sounds just like any other Randroid who makes hollow proclaimations that their foundational moral axioms are somehow more grounded in logic than those of others.

Last edited by marshall on 11 Jul 2011, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Excuse ME, but that is NOT what ruveyn said nor what I say. He says - and I say - that we came to what views we hold by applying logic to the basic premises and the data observed as we watch the world. If someone else acquires ideas by finding a guru, sitting at his feet and taking notes [do NOT assume I say that is what you do, but that it is what some do is clear], that is fine for him.

But why should you rear up if someone claims to have though things out for himself? People do, you know. SOMEBODY has to think originally, or where ulymately did that same guru come from?

I have 60+ years of gathering data, checking my facts, formulating and testing hypotheses, and reexamining the data stacks and earlier formulations. In less than a year I could hardly give you a thorough accounbt of so simple a proposition as my conclusion that Chomsky is a jerk.

I consider myself a libertarian and nearly all of my old army buddies consider themselves libertarian too. So I think my views were largely shaped by my military experience. I was a high tech guy in the military, and the tech-oriented people I work with are largely libertarian too, many of them also with military experience. Most of my family is die-hard JFK Democrat.

My grandmother on my mother's side grew up in Montana and my grandmother on my father's side grew up in South Boston. Let's say today they both had a tree fall down and block the road in front of their houses. My maternal grandmother would grab a saw and an axe from her shed and start clearing the tree away completely expecting (and probably getting) neighbors to help. My paternal grandmother would call the DPW and start screaming at them to get the tree out of there. I like my maternal grandmother's approach better.

Interesting. US Military must have a different mindset to Aussie Mil. Most of the Digs I serve with are social and economic conservatives. Though I suppose there is some overlap.

The real issue with Ruveyn is that he doesn't back himself up. He simply proclaimes that logic is on his side. For that he earns a response.

Eh, I think it's just a difference in military traditions, to own the truth. In the American military, there is very little tolerance for people who don't even try to pull their crap together, so they wouldn't be naturally sympathetic toward a program that seems to cosset people who are really just lazy and unwilling to help themselves. They did just fine sleeping in a crowded barracks with a hundred other guys snoring and talking in their sleep, and then they did even better sleeping in a hole in the ground, living on field rations. To hear some idiot complaining as if the world is coming to an end because he doesn't live in a three-bedroom apartment and eat six meals of fresh produce a day and sip every morning on fresh brewed Starbucks is outright annoying.

But, at the same time, I think the American military does a pretty good job of emphasizing ideas like social harmony, secular values and inclusiveness. I'm not sure I'm right on all that, but I just can't see someone who worked for the US Army being especially prone to bigotry. After you've shared a foxhole and been shot at next to a closeted gay black guy who speaks in three different languages and observes some weird religion you never even heard of and been forced to realize that he'd die for you in a heartbeat, it probably takes more effort to continue being a bigot than it does to learn to be more open-minded.

I mean, I'm on the outside looking in, but that's the impression I get of the US military.