When I came to the United States, I was 21 years old and had never had an interest in politics before (which I attribute to my wonderful parents never discussing it at all). This changed when I arrived in the US and my sheltered mind was exposed to the 2008 elections. The intensity of this election season was like nothing I had never witnessed before in New Zealand. Due to the conservative Christian evangelicalism I adhered to at that time, I naturally gravitated towards the Republican Party and even wondered how Christians who voted Democrat reconciled their faith to their political stance. Needless to say, I had a pretty naive view of the world, politics, and religion.
Over the past four years, however, as I’ve read up on political theory, economic theory, theology, philosophy, and other things, I gradually shifted from the right-side of the spectrum to the left-side. But then seeing that the Democrat Party was just as useless and partisan as the Republican Party, I have come to settle on an independent status, with proclivities towards the left, though ultimately I enjoy a smorgasbord approach to the two parties. Though it is a challenge to have to navigate through all the trite sophistry and sophomoric apologetic tripe you hear from the political pundits and party cheerleaders. Thankfully, though, there are some good non-partisan resources out there (e.g. the CBO) and some relatively unbiased news sources (e.g. The Hill, Al Jazeera English, The Economist, and the Christian Science Monitor – don’t let the wacky name fool you, it’s actually quite good). Though most people I have talked to concerning politics, whether they be Democrat or Republican, seem to have an all-or-nothing attitude towards a party, toeing the party line on every single issue.
Here are three obvious, yet disheartening, truths I have learned about politics over the past few years:
- Politicians just stick to the zeitgeist of their party so as to get (re)elected.
- Cognitive inertia and confirmation bias are a potent combination in voters.
- The cross of Christ is often confused with the cross of Constantine (“in this sign you will conquer/win”).
The first point is why I have a general dislike for all politicians. They all seem like duplicitous hacks who will say absolutely anything to court a bloc of voters. The second point touches upon a fundamental fallacy in human thinking – we have an innate desire for self-corroboration. We would rather discuss our own views with other like-minded people and have a good circle-jerk about it, than have an open-minded, and maybe even intellectual, discussion with those holding different opinions. The third point touches upon my main beef with the Republican Party, which is that the (anti-intellectual, authoritarian, nationalistic, and militaristic) Religious Right has too much influence over the platform of the GOP. Apparently, the white, middle-class, and thoroughly capitalistic, American Jesus has come to save his Chosen Nation from the gays, socialized medicine, and Islam!
But, ultimately, the most important thing I learned about political discourse in this country comes from everyone’s favorite political talking head, Papa Bear Bill O’Reilly, who during his recent debate with Jon Stewart said the following (which, ironically, describes his own career):
The problem with the discourse situation in America is Capitalism. You can make a lot of money by being an assassin. A lot of money… It doesn’t matter if you are left wing or right wing. You go in and you’re a hater – radio, cable, in-print, whatever, you get paid. And there is a people who do that… and they go in and they don’t believe half the stuff they say and they just rip it up and they get paid a lot of money. … And capitalism drives that. There are people, Americans, who wanna hear hate, and they hear it. And, that has just blown it all up.
I too got interested in politics during the 2008 election but have settled on one party, the Democrats and I’ve been here my whole life in a liberal city in a conservative state.
I’m curious how one can become an “Independent” rather than choosing a party to side with (even acknowledging its short comings). Being that the parties are often very far apart in their views and what they fight for, in what situations could you see your self voting for a Republican even though you consider yourself more liberal based on the issues. If being effective at passing legislation or bringing needed change is one of your desires and what led you away from one party to no party how do you come down as being an independent since in government/politics strength comes in numbers and that’s what brings about change (for better or worse).
BTW what change would you have liked to see your former party bring about?
I would definitely consider voting for the Republican ticket this November due to the stagnant economy and deficit spending which needs to be brought under control. I don’t think Pres. Obama and the Democrats have necessarily done a bad job on these issues considering what they inherited from the last administration, but it could have been a lot better (esp. in regards to deficit reduction). I like Romney’s plan regarding these issues, though am not a fan of all of the finer details (and I am just skeptical he will be able to effect any significant change). I’m personally not worried about a Romney Presidency per se (as I think he really is a diehard centrist/moderate who won’t do anything crazy) but I don’t like the influence that the Religious Right has on the GOP platform, and so I have qualms about a possible Republican majority in both houses of congress; I can just imagine Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell yanking Romney over to the right as far as they possibly can.
Even though I have more of an agreement with the Democrat Party in regards to general kind of ideas (e.g. the role of government in society) and certain policies, there nevertheless are Republican policies I support, and issues on which I can see both ways on. For example, in the state I live in, Minnesota, there are two constitutional amendments being voted on this election. One is for voter ID’s and the other is a to specify in the State constitution that marriage is between a man and woman only. I would be voting ‘yes’ to the voter ID amendment and ‘no’ to the marriage amendment; the former being the ‘Republican’ choice, and the latter a ‘Democrat’ choice.
Unfortunately, though, I am only a Permanent Resident of the US right now and will not be a citizen before the election (though I can apply for citizenship anytime I please), so I can’t even vote!
I’m confused that deficits is an issue for you considering it seems focusing on the deficit during a recession means austerity and that hurts an economy even more. Isn’t this one of the things that’s hurting Europe since they focused on austerity during a recession? Seems like you wait till an economy has fully recovered before focusing on deficits.
I think Romney might be more centrist than he’s letting on (actually I just think he has no core but whatever) but I wonder what motivation Democrats in the Senate have for working with him to pass anything since Republicans have blocked and filibustered practically everything Obama and the Democrats have tried to do the last 3 1/2 years. Seems like payback would be coming. No matter what, unless a party controls both Congress and the White House and has a filibuster proof majority in the Senate I’m not sure anything of value is going to get done for a while.
Btw voter ID just seems like a way to suppress voters. What do you like about it in your state?
Diglot,
I come from a Democratic political family and have thought about politics all my life, and my advice is to spend as little time as possible thinking about politics. Contrary to what you’ll hear from more politically engaged folks, there’s no long-term benefit in it for anyone. The political forces that have dominated Western society since WWII will continue to do so until they run their course, which will almost certainly happen before the middle of this century due to the ensuing global water crisis alone but it’s difficult to be anymore precise than that (the ongoing debt crisis among Western governments, however, has the potential to make things interesting sooner rather than later). In any case, real change won’t be possible until the proverbial shit hits the fan.
“The third point touches upon my main beef with the Republican Party, which is that the (anti-intellectual, authoritarian, nationalistic, and militaristic) Religious Right has too much influence over the platform of the GOP.”
I guess that’s why the Republican Party nominated a Mormon presidential candidate. Right?
This is absurd, neither the Republican Party nor the Religious Right have a nationalist bone in their body, just compare their politics with that of the many nationalist European governments that existed before WWII if you don’t believe me. This is the sort of tendentious allegation that leftists make when they want to assert their moral superiority over their political adversaries by calling them “nationalists” and other names that no one of significance would want to identify with anymore (e.g. racists, Nazis, etc.). It’s one thing to call a Republican President like Bush a Nazi, as so many on the left did in the last decade (remember Bushitler?), and then it’s another thing to go back in time and meet a real Nazi. Mutatis mutandis for your nationalist allegation.
The truth is that the Religious Right has almost no influence over the Republican Party aside from meaningless political rhetoric and the occasional legislative gesture that won’t mean anything in the long-term (e.g. DOMA). To take a recent example, George W . Bush (a self-identified evangelical to boot!) devoted his presidency to politically transforming the Middle East, which was about the last thing the Religious Right wanted him to do. In the end, his relationship to the Religious Right was no different than that of Nixon, who promised to focus on domestic issues and roll back parts of the cultural revolution that the Religious Right hated but ended up focusing on foreign issues instead (something similar could also be said about Reagan, but I’ll let that pass).
Finally, it’s the Democrats and the left that are the true authoritarians in this country. If they had free reign, no one who disagreed with them would be allowed to function in society (e.g. consider the extreme overreaction on the part of a handful of leftist mayors to the Chik-fil-A president’s very mild comments in support of traditional marriage). No one stomps their boot on the face of humanity like the left, just read up on the revolution they created in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Central Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia. Hundreds of millions murdered by state-enforced execution and/or starvation, and more than a billion lives kept in torment and fear. All in the name of the brotherhood of man and bringing about a more just world, free of exploitation, oppression, bigotry, etc. If you were to truly comprehend this history the hypocrisy of it all would leave you breathless.
“I come from a Democratic political family and have thought about politics all my life, and my advice is to spend as little time as possible thinking about politics. Contrary to what you’ll hear from more politically engaged folks, there’s no long-term benefit in it for anyone.”
True. I have come to realize this only very recently.
“I guess that’s why the Republican Party nominated a Mormon presidential candidate. Right?”
I don’t think the Religious Right is synonymous with the Republican Party. The majority of Republicans wouldn’t fall under the umbrella of the Religious Right. Bachmann and Santorum did have their moments in the sun though, particularly Santorum, which I would attribute to the Religious Right’s attempt to get one of their own in the Oval Office. Thankfully, the saner heads prevailed and moderate Romney was chosen.
“This is absurd, neither the Republican Party nor the Religious Right have a nationalist bone in their body, just compare their politics with that of the many nationalist European governments that existed before WWII if you don’t believe me.”
Compared to the pre-WWII nationalist European governments, no there isn’t that type of nationalism present. But I do see type of nationalism in the Religious Right that I don’t see elsewhere in the Republican Party nor Democrat Party. Maybe it’s just me though.
“The truth is that the Religious Right has almost no influence over the Republican Party aside from meaningless political rhetoric and the occasional legislative gesture that won’t mean anything in the long-term (e.g. DOMA).”
Strongly disagree with that. DOMA is meaningless, yes, but similar anti-gay marriage legislation can much more easily be passed by some State legislatures. There are other areas where I think the Religious Right does have significant impact. For instance, some State Republican legislatures push for anti-evolution, pro-creationism educational policies.
“Finally, it’s the Democrats and the left that are the true authoritarians in this country.”
I would say the Democrat Party is as authoritarian as the Republican Party, but the Religious Right takes it a lot further IMO.
Diglot,
“True. I have come to realize this only very recently.”
I am very happy to see that.
“Maybe it’s just me though.”
My guess is that you’re confusing the fact that many on the right typically have some pride in their national identity, which is a perfectly health thing, with a way of doing politics that is built around a particular national identity, which is why the old European nationalist governments were constantly fighting each other (hence, why no one wants to go back to that system). On the other hand, the left, motivated by a peculiar vision of the global salvation of mankind, finds the very idea of positively identifying oneself with a nation as repugnant given that a nation by definition cannot include everyone.
In truth, the American Right is populated by classic liberals, which was the political persuasion of this country’s founders. Of course, classic liberalism will never be good enough for the left, which wants to make heaven on earth.
“Strongly disagree with that. DOMA is meaningless, yes, but similar anti-gay marriage legislation can much more easily be passed by some State legislatures…For instance, some State Republican legislatures also push for anti-evolution, pro-creationism educational policies.”
All the things you’re worried about will be repealed within short order if they ever happen, like so many other futile efforts that the Right has engaged in to stem the cultural revolution in the post-war era. In the long-term, such efforts can be nothing more than symbolic gestures.
In any case, your worries are ill-founded, even if such things were passed I highly doubt they’d be rigidly enforced (just like our immigration laws!). And even if they were rigidly enforced, it’s not the end of the world. Anti-gay marriage and/or anti-evolution legislation is about as small potatoes as it gets.
“I would say the Democrat Party is as authoritarian as the Republican Party, but the Religious Right takes it a lot further IMO.”
A lot of political “stuff” happened in the 20th century outside the West. I advise that you bone up on it before you try to equate the meager and pathetic efforts of the Religious Right with the left. Better still, of course, is to forget about politics entirely and enjoy your own life.
Last comment on this thread.
The left hates the religious right not because the latter is capable of actually doing anything of long-lasting significance, but because the latter still has enough numbers to frustrate the former come election time. That’s really all there is to it. In the minds of leftists, we would already have a much better country by now if not for the religious right electing people like Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, etc. (of course, they are completely delusional in thinking this). The religious right doesn’t post a real threat to the left’s long-term political goals, they’re just a pain in the ass soon to be drowned out by an interminable wave of non-Western immigrants. Tow it, the white middle class can’t keep turning down Democratic presidents if it no longer exists.
ResidentofTartarus,
“even if such things were passed I highly doubt they’d be rigidly enforced (just like our immigration laws!). And even if they were rigidly enforced, it’s not the end of the world. Anti-gay marriage and/or anti-evolution legislation is about as small potatoes as it gets.”
Hopefully they wouldn’t be enforced, but I wouldn’t put it past the Bible Belt to do so. I don’t think that anti-gay or anti-evolution legislation is small potatoes. To me, education as liberation is a very important idea that holds a lot of potential for effective political reform.
“Better still, of course, is to forget about politics entirely and enjoy your own life.
That is why I deleted my Facebook account a few months ago (too much political discussion that I couldn’t ignore). Apart from this uncharacteristic post on politics, I have largely been ignoring politics and not thinking about it lately, though I have been watching the debates and occasionally reading political news articles. The partisianship and hypocrisy from both sides just makes it pointless. Much better things to spend my time on, but sometimes the allure of politics manages to drag me back in.
“I don’t think that anti-gay or anti-evolution legislation is small potatoes.”
Your perspective would change if you read enough political history, it’s one big chain of war, mass murder, mass starvation, and many other forms of unnecessary hellish turmoil. All of sudden, anti-evolution legislation will start looking pretty tame.
Bryan,
“I’m confused that deficits is an issue for you considering it seems focusing on the deficit during a recession means austerity and that hurts an economy even more. Isn’t this one of the things that’s hurting Europe since they focused on austerity during a recession? Seems like you wait till an economy has fully recovered before focusing on deficits.”
That is very true and I wish more people on the right were aware of this. But the growing debt is nevertheless a problem and I think (in my amateur opinion) that it is entirely possible to make significant cuts to the deficit spending without necessarily jeopardizing the economic recovery. Regardless, if Romney gets in, and even if the Republicans take control of the Senate, I am skeptical that they will reduce the deficit any faster than Obama has.
“I think Romney might be more centrist than he’s letting on (actually I just think he has no core but whatever.”
I get that feeling sometimes too.
“No matter what, unless a party controls both Congress and the White House and has a filibuster proof majority in the Senate I’m not sure anything of value is going to get done for a while.”
A sad truth. However, I still have a hope that both parties could get past their agendas, compromise, and pass significant changes. I know I’m probably just being naive though.
“Btw voter ID just seems like a way to suppress voters. What do you like about it in your state?”
Well the main reason is that I think it’s a common sense piece of legislation, and that voter fraud does indeed happen (to what degree I couldn’t say though). But regardless, the legitimacy of a law should not be predicated on whether or not the behavior it seeks to prevent is actually a large systemic problem. Voter ID’s just seem like an obvious step in the right direction to maintaining the integrity of elections.
I think the voter disenfranchisement angle, while legitimate to a degree, is overhyped by the left and could easily be mitigated by the State implementing the Voter ID law in an appropriate manner. It’s been a while since I read up on the specifics of how the Minnesota Voter ID would be implemented, so I can’t offer specifics, but I didn’t find it unreasonable.
In the end, I don’t think having an appropriate form of ID is too onerous on people; that excuse just doesn’t fly for me when it’s applied to voting. Citizens have a civic right to participate in government through voting, but they also have a responsibility to take any appropriate measures to maintain the integrity of the elections.
I think if voter ID is not rushed but instead implemented over time in various stages so that people aren’t disenfranchised then it’s ok. I just don’t like it being rushed through before major elections and then cutting funding for resources that would help people be able to vote.
Still, you don’t wonder why so many state legislatures have been so adamant about passing voter ID laws all the sudden? If voter fraud is very small and is not affecting the integrity of elections why spend so much energy on them? Seems fishy to me especially when you considering how state legislatures do other things to try to affect the outcome of elections (like gerrymandering districts).
Oh yea, I agree that the motivations behind the current push by Republican State legislatures for voter IDs is clearly partisan. Because of that, I wouldn’t support any of these proposed Voter ID bills if they seemed designed to disenfranchise voters. However, I think it’s definitely possible to implement reasonable approaches to make sure only eligible people can vote.
The intentions behind the gerrymandering of districts is so brazenly transparent, I’m surprised politicians can so easily get away with it.