Politics -- do you have a favored side?

[Bullgrit]

I posted this to my blog back in January:

*****
I don’t consider myself a Republican. I don’t consider myself a Democrat. I don’t consider myself a conservative or a liberal. Nor do I claim to be a Libertarian. I am registered unaffiliated. This opening paragraph may be a big surprise for some of you, even those of you who know me very well, including family and friends.

I like some Republican/conservative ideas, and I like some Democrat/liberal ideas. And I am appalled by some Republican/conservative ideas, and I am appalled by some Democrat/liberal ideas. I also like and dislike some Libertarian ideas. This does not make me “moderate” or “undecided” or “wishy-washy” at all. On some issues I am solidly decided, unchanged for decades, and very far from moderate. But my opinions on political issues do not fall perfectly in line with either party. A sad thing about political sides is that too many people think you have to be all in or all out, that you can’t agree and disagree with things from both camps.

I’ve never directly told anyone my political leanings. With close family and friends I may have discussed certain political issues, and they may have assumed my overall party leanings based on those conversations. In the company of people who are not close family and friends, I tend to not reveal my opinions on political issues at all. Often I find that people will assume I’m in agreement with them because I don’t argue against them. I find this amusing and convenient. Sadly, I also sometimes find that people will assume I completely disagree with them on all things just because I question some propaganda BS they’re spouting. I find this exhausting.

When I vote, I vote for the person, not the party. I also don’t vote for just one issue. I find most political debate to be more about finding fault and disagreement, and scoring little “gotchas” than about actually finding common ground or solutions. Both parties do this. Both parties nitpick each other to the point of absurdity.

Way back in 1992, I signed the petition to allow Ross Perot on the ballot. (A real, paper petition. This was before clicking Like on Facebook was the fad for supporting something.) I signed that because I thought he deserved to be allowed to run, not because I wanted to vote for him.

That election was the first one that I voted in. I was 25 years old. Since then I have voted in every presidential election, but only a few mid-term elections. I usually learn a lot about the presidential candidates, a little about Senators and Congressmen, but I rarely know anything about state level politicians. I don’t really research any candidate, but I do pay attention to the news and such. I hate political campaign ads. Hate, hate, hate. All campaigns ads I ever see are negative — they tell me that their opponent is of the devil, but not what they, themselves, stand for and will do. Negative political ads do not move me to vote for anyone, although they have moved me to not vote at all.

I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea of a non-white non-male holding any office, including president. There have been non-male and non-white candidates running for their party’s nomination that I would have voted for had they made the ticket. There are non-white and non-male people right now that I’d consider voting for if they decided to run. Again, I vote for the person, not the party, race, or gender.

It does annoy me when someone makes an issue out of a candidate’s race or gender. Ironically, though, most of the time, (if not every time), that I’ve seen/heard/read someone make an issue of some candidate’s/politician’s race or gender, it’s been an accusation of racism or misogyny directed at someone else rather than actual race or gender bias against the candidate/politician. That is, it is someone claiming someone else dislikes or disagrees with the candidate or politician because of the politician’s race or gender. Someone can disagree and/or dislike Barack Obama without being racist, and someone can disagree and/or dislike Sarah Palin without being misogynist.

In most cases, the same people who disagree/dislike Obama, felt the same about Bill Clinton. But Democrat supporters claim it’s racism against Obama, where before it was just regular old political differences. And the same people who disagreed/disliked Palin, felt the same about Bush. But Republican supporters claimed it was misogyny against Palin, where before it was just regular old political differences. This claim of racism/misogyny is just political hacks trying to score intellectually underhanded points against the other side. It’s a low road taken when the hack can’t defend their side with a legitimate point. “My candidate’s position is so obviously superior that for you to disagree can only be because you hate their race or gender!”

If I don’t vote for a non-white and/or non-male candidate, it’s not because I don’t want someone of that race or gender in that office. And if I do vote for someone of a particular race or gender, it’s not because I think we need someone of that race or gender in that office. Whether I vote for someone depends strictly on their ideas, their character, their plans, and their ability to perform the duties of that office. Don’t tell me that I should vote for them just to help that race or gender to break some barrier, and don’t tell me that not voting for them means I’m racist or misogynist. That is insulting both to my intelligence and my character. If you can’t sell your candidate based on their ideas, character, plans, and ability, then you have a crappy candidate. If your candidate has great ideas, good character, wise plans, and demonstrated ability, then you have a suitable candidate, completely regardless of their race or gender.

*****

How about you? Do you have a favored political party? Do you consider yourself a Republican/Democrat/Conservative/Liberal? You don't even have to identify which party you prefer -- this question is just do you have a fave, not what is your fave. Do you vote according to your party? Straight ticket? Do you defend your party? Do you proselytize for your party?

Again, you don't have to announce your party to answer these questions (if you don't want to).

Bullgrit

 

[Morrus]

I've voted for all three major parties over the last few general elections (Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems), so I think it's safe to say that I don't align particularly with one or the other on a permanent basis. For me, it's a case of doing what research I can approaching an election and deciding based on what the current situation is. I do get very turned off by negative campaigning, and anyone doing that is likely to damage their appeal to me, rather than the appeal of their intended target.

I'm not attracted to either extreme - I'd never vote for UKIP (too right wing; often racist) or the Green Party (too left; too lacking in actual policies), for example.

I would probably vote for a party based on a promise of electoral reform or proportional representation, which maybe a bit too "meta" for the question.

 

[billd91]

I definitely have a disfavored side. No matter how much you might like a particular politician and how they behave, at the end of the day, they are going to caucus with a group who will then control the legislative agenda. There are political parties I will pretty much always vote against, at certain levels of government, as a result.

 

[Meliath1742]

I am astonished at your comments! They reflect very closely how I feel on the topic. I vote for the person I feel will make the best president. It may be an oxymoron but I lean toward the person I "feel" is being honest and acting with integrity. I suspect all candidates have to bend their own beliefs to get anything done in politics and all have a few skeletons in their closest. Every time I've taken a survey to determine my affiliation I've come out as a centrist...likes and dislikes for both of the major parties. I generally do not discuss politics with anyone...I find it to be useless and polarizing often creating bad feelings with those involved. I have too many things on my plate to get dragged into a discussion that resolves nothing.

 

[GMMichael]

I lean toward the person I "feel" is being honest and acting with integrity.

Quoted to help this echo across the interwebs.

I'd just like to add that voting is part of the system - the same system that slaps BP on the wrist, and allows prisons to be profit-earning enterprises.

 

[Rune]

I prefer to vote for the least sleazy candidate whose political ideals don't dramatically conflict with my own. But I will always refrain from voting at all, if doing so would mean voting for the "lesser of two evils."

 

[Morrus]

I prefer to vote for the least sleazy candidate whose political ideals don't dramatically conflict with my own. But I will always refrain from voting at all, if doing so would mean voting for the "lesser of two evils."

I'm different there. I would rather vote for the lesser of two evils, lest everyone else vote for the greater of two evils.

 

[Kramodlog]

Policies are what are important to me. A party and its platform need to be close to what I think is best for society and its individuals. Feelings aren't very important to me and the personalities of the people elected matter less than their ideas and programs.Politicians usually try to follow up on their promises, counter intuitive I know, but it is what it is, so what politicians say and promise are what I'm looking at when making my electoral choices°. Politics matter and letting feelings guvern what should be rational choices is puzzling.

What policies are appealing to me? Well, it varies depending on the subject, but broad principales can be drawn. I'm not afraid of using some labels. I can stay a special snow flake even when using them.

On so called "social values" and individual rights, I'm a liberal in the classic sense of the term, not what is considered liberal in the US. Same sex unions, freedom of speech, abortion rights, etc, are generally important to me, but I am not afraid to say they need some retraints (e.g. hate speech).

When it comes to economics, I lean toward socialism, that is intervention of state and reform of capitalism by political means rather than a revolution and seizing all private property. Keynes' ideas are very appealing and so are policies close to them. Maybe I'm a liberal-socialist?

When it comes to environmental issues, I'm a conservative. That is I do not believe in the endless progess of science and that it will bring a solution to every problem we have. Returning to some traditional ways of producing food (e.g. rotation of crops grown instead of using lots of fertilizer that can pollute water) might be better solutions to achieve an equilibrium between our needs and what the "planet" can produce. That doesn't mean I think GMOs are bad for our health, but they do come with ethical problems though.

When it comes to nationality, I'm also a conservative. When it comes to my nation, Québec, independence from Canada is rather appealing. It is mostly a question being in control of our policies, of having them reflect our culture and values. We are also a dwindling francophone culture in the ever expending anglophone sea of North America. My culture needs some nurturing that Canada cannot give. It isn't that I believe that my culture is superior, just that I'm attached to it and I do not want to see it assimilated. Does it mean less immigration? Nah. That is rather a radical conservative view and often linked to racist ideas. It does mean sending kids of immigrants to schools that teach in French and that does violate some basic freedom.

When it comes to authority, hierarchy, the justice system, militarism, I must say I have anarchist* leanings. Even if I do believe in the state, its interventions in society and limiting some liberties, I'm also very wary of cops, soldiers and judges. Having a uniform doesn't make you better then anyone else and the purpose of these functions is less about protecting individuals and more about maintain the status quo. Making sure the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful.

I guess this is a simple description of what politics mean to me.

°Since I can vote, I always voted in every federal, provicial and municipale elections.

*Anarchism is order without hierarchy and authority**. When people think narchism they often think chaos and unrest, but that is just anomie. It is interesting to think that in the past democracy was seen as anarchy and democracy was seen as bad. When it was later used by politicians as a positive thing while campaigning, it is anarchy that became negative.

**Whether that is attainable or not is another debate, but it doesn't mean that it is not what anarchism stands for.

 

[Rune]

I'm different there. I would rather vote for the lesser of two evils, lest everyone else vote for the greater of two evils.

I guess I take the long view, there. If you find yourself in a position of having to vote for evil, the thing to do is work toward changing that dynamic in the future.

Claims that low voter-turnout equates to political apathy have always struck me as unrepresentative of reality. I've even heard it said, on multiple occasions, that "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain." However, I think a large chunk of non-voting populace are voting--for none of the above (and possibly for a change of system). It could better be said, "if complaining is the only meaningful voice that you have, you have a right not to vote."

(And, for those who would counter by saying, "you can always write someone in," I respond: How would that affect anything at all? Who would even know? At least voter-turnout is a statistic that gets talked about every time.)

 

[Morrus]

I must admit, I put very low value on individual traits when voting. I don't care how charismatic or how good a speaker a politician is, although I intellectually recognise that that is an important factor in how people tend to vote. I'm more interested in how well they can do a job, not how good they look when doing it.