Self-Imposed Political Identities

[Sayonara]

Why are people so eager to stick themselves in boxes such as "republic", "democrat" and so on? Personally I think that approach opens the door to people who would rather oppose issues with labels.

 

Thread split off from here

[Phi for All]

This is a little off-topic, but why are people so eager to stick themselves in boxes such as "republic", "democrat" and so on? Personally I think that approach opens the door to people who would rather oppose issues with labels.

As someone who likes to "sample" everything, I've often wondered this myself. When it comes to philosophies, whether it's religion, politics, raising children or whatever, I would feel like a sheep if I took someone else's packaged beliefs as my own. There are principles of many political parties that I firmly believe in, but not all of them. I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal and believe that the needs of the people should be put ahead of the needs of big business, so I have NO representation in the politics of my country. My religious beliefs are even harder to categorize.

 

I think the reason people put these lables on themselves is to seek allies in their beliefs, perhaps because they still are unsure if they've made the right choice.

[blike]

This is a little off-topic, but why are people so eager to stick themselves in boxes such as "republic", "democrat" and so on?

 

The point of my catagorizing myself on the political spectrum was to give my viewpoint some context. For example, no one would be suprised if a homosexual were to post the same thing I did. However, if a right-wing republican posted it, then it tends to raise more eyebrows. It is only natural to be sympathetic and even apologetic towards people who think much in the same we do. If anyone denies this, they are either lying or are unaware of their own behavior. I felt it necessary to distinguish that I am a republican, and yet I still abhor this idea. It is correct to assert that personal values should over-ride any party affiliation, and that my opinion shouldn't need to be contextualized; but that's not how it is. Many people look to the party to determine their morals, instead of aligning themselves with a party that shares the same morals they do. It is an unfortunate situation, but it's very true. I don't want people to think that every republican is a right-wing apolgist and homosexual hater. There are many republicans, like myself, who think that George W. Bush clearly wrong on this issue.

 

I think the reason people put these lables on themselves is to seek allies in their beliefs, perhaps because they still are unsure if they've made the right choice.

 

Not necessarily. People put labels on themselves for the same reason that the ingredients are listed on food products; so people know what's in them. If you say "I'm a republican", chances are that you are anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-gun ownership, pro-personal responsibility, anti-big government, anti-social programs, etc. Of course, we all come in different flavors, but the basic ingredients are the same. It's like the abstract of a journal. You can read it and get a basic idea of what the paper is about.

 

You are correct in that people affiliate themselves with like-minded people in order to "seek allies". That is human nature. That is why you have friends.

[Sayonara]

Let me rephrase: what is that makes you a Republican?

[blike]

Individual moral and economical responsibility, not big government.

[Sayonara]

I should have underlined the "you".

 

If you say "I am a Republican" I have to assume there's a reason why you identify yourself with that group.

[YT2095]

I would imagine that of all the groups available to choose from, that the largest percentage of the Rebublican veiws match the best generaly to his way of thinking.

I`m for B.N.P but I don`t agree with everything they stand for, only that I agree more with them than I do with any other party available to vote for

[bloodhound]

hope uve watched the undercover documentary about BNP tonight YT. i found it really appaling

[blike]

I should have underlined the "you".

 

If you say "I am a Republican" I have to assume there's a reason why you identify yourself with that group.

Because on the whole, my views line up pretty well with the GOP. As I said before, I do hold a different opinion on some issues, but I identify myself as a republican because I agree with and support the majority of the republican stance on platform issues.

[aeroguy]

I've always had a hard time understanding how people are able to simply adopt an entire belief system (and I'm not talking about religion here) without question.

Personally, I don't fit in at all well in any of our political parties in Sweden.

 

Although I'm generally left wing, I share many views with right-wing parties where those aren't held by the left.

 

Our leftist parties tend to be extremely anti-globalisation, anti-internationalism and quite isolationistic. There's a very clear "we're better than everyone else, so we'll stick to ours" sentiment amongst that lot. I'm very much for the EU project and the Euro currency project within it, but those are other major issues that the leftist parties fight and oppose loudly.

 

The environmental issues are extremely important to me, but only one party here seems to understand the whole deal, and that's our green party. Except for the fact that they don't see that, for now, our best option is to KEEP our nuclear power plants, until we have decent alternatives. They're bent on shutting them all down as soon as possible. With nuclear power supplying around half of our nation's electricity, we simply can't be without it. Yet, one reactor (out of twelve) has been permanently shut down, and as a consequence, we're forced to import electricity during peak loads (winter), and that imported electricity is mostly being generated in dirty coal or oil power plants in Central Europe. So, we've shut down a working, safe (by international standards) and fairly economical power supply, only to import from a polluting, and more radioactive (during normal operation), source...

Well done, greens...

 

Here, again, two right-wing parties see the advantage of nuclear power (in our case - it's not applicable everywhere).

 

Many right-wing parties also see the need for individualism on a personal level where the left see the need for more of a form of misguided equality.

People with special needs (especially children) tend to be stuck in a system that's supposed to treat everyone equal. However, the problem is that very little flexibility is allowed for to cater for those who don't fit the mould. Bright and gifted children are often left languishing when the order of the day is to assume that every child has the same potential, and should be treated accordingly. The result? Only a middle-of-the-road minority get an education that's just right. Everyone else is stuck in a system where they don't quite fit.

Ideals can sometimes get in the way of reality. The dogma is more important than accepting that it can't always be right...

 

That's enough for now, I think...

[blike]

I've always had a hard time understanding how people are able to simply adopt an entire belief system (and I'm not talking about religion here) without question.

 

Are you referring to me or people in general?

[aeroguy]

People in general. You yourself stated that you haven't bought the package straight off.

 

But some people do. The accept an entire dogma, hook, line and sinker!

They're then right, in their own minds, and everything that differs from the main line is wrong. I suppose they feel comfort in numbers, in that the views they've adopted are shared (however falsely) by a large number of people. At the same time, they feel they don't have to accept personal responsibility for what they believe or how they act following their beliefs, since the views aren't really their own...

 

My own principle is that you should learn as much as is reasonably possible about something before you form a firm opinion. And even then should you be open-minded and prepared to reject your previous stand on an issue if you're presented with new information and evidence.

 

When I was younger, someone said to me that "you're NOT entitled to your opinion, you're only entitled to your INFORMED opinion". I was so sure of everything back then, so that statement had me fuming. Today, I know it's true. Too many people are too certain of too many things, when they really don't have a clue.

Now, I don't mean that people don't have the right to say what they want, but when they claim that they're right, when they really don't know anything, that's something I can't stand.

[JaKiri]

Why are people so eager to stick themselves in boxes such as "republic", "democrat" and so on?

 

Because it's much easier to say 'I'm a tory' (say), than to actually explain your views of political philosophy, which most people haven't developed anyway.

[Sayonara]

I think there's a danger inherent in assuming the listener will understand what you mean by the term "republican" (or democrat, liberal, evil monk, whatever).

 

(Also, you didn't answer my question. I already know why they do it in the first place.)

[Aardvark]

Just as limiting as describing yourself as a member of a group is labeling someone else.

 

It's all too easy to blithy dismiss someone with an airy 'he's just a pink' or ' typical neo con'. It's a lot easier to name call than it is to seriously engage with someones ideas.

[Phi for All]

It's all too easy to blithy dismiss someone with an airy 'he's just a pink' or ' typical neo con'. It's a lot easier to name call than it is to seriously engage with someones ideas.

This is my favorite psychological theory, the Fundamental Attribution Error. We tend to package people up as a set of attributes to explain their behavior, then cry foul when people do it to us. We hope people view us in context to each situation, but we don't do the same for them, either.

[NavajoEverclear]

umm i don't feel i have anything relevant to add. I don't know whats going on with the governent, i don't know if i do or don't care. I'm so dichotomous too, so my beliefs, politically and otherwise are highly variable. I don't know where to put myself or what to do. With the media being the medium of information flow how are we supposed to know the truth about anything, so how are we supposed to responsibly decide who to place our trust in. I don't trust Bush or Kerry, and i really don't know which one i'd rather see in office. (used to think Kerry was the lesser of two evils, but like i said the line is thin and fuzzy. Not to mention the media will lie about the line so we don't even know what it looks like).

 

I think it's incredibly lame that the candidates are already narrowed down to two. I read some stuff on Ralph Nader, I think he'd be an excellent president. Then i wonder, even if he was elected, would America be ready for a good president? Or would it be such a shock that somehow it would throw us all in chaos. So what we need is a progressive gradualization of presidents, evolving to be less and less sucky, until we actually get a good one.

 

I think all that crap should be thrown out right now. Really there's no reason not to. I know NOTHING about either of the candidates. Ralph should be able to still win. It doesn't even make sense how the bigshots are allowed to do as they do when we all hate them. It doesnt make any sense at all . . . . . .

i'm trying to figure a way to conclude this post. and i don't know, so i wont. Are we doomed or not? Will there be a miracle one day that will change it all? Closure is overated. But one things for sure, theres a hella lota work to be done

[Phi for All]

So what we need is a progressive gradualization of presidents, evolving to be less and less sucky, until we actually get a good one.

I think a big part of the problems we have with our politicians is that everyone knows all the loopholes in the system. I think "a progressive gradualization of presidents, evolving to be less and less sucky" would just end up being the same thing we've got now. I think we need something to yank us off the tracks for a change (like Nader or Kucinich getting elected). If the pols were unsure of whose pocket they were in, they might actually revert to default, representing the people who voted them in, not the corporations who paid for their elections.

 

To bring this back on topic, I heard some things last year about Dennis Kucinich keeping the big energy companies from buying out Cleveland's utilities (giving them some of the lowest energy bills in the country) and I immediately believed he would make a great president. I'm still not sure that wouldn't be true but I took one attribute of his and assumed the rest.