Jaymeister said:
I'm sure I'll get FRIED for this, but I'd like to give you guys an outsiders opinion.
Since I'm european, I'd probably be considered as a liberal to most Americans. But I respect every opinion posted in this thread (especially the controversial ones... You people really have stones/or what ever girls have to equal that... ????) Anyways, enough about anatomy (is that the right word?).
It seems to me that American politics are/is (sorry, but English isn't my first language) full of hate... Democrats and Republicans are almost at war with each other. Instead of trying to find disagreements, we should as MAists, be able to find a common ground and focusing on the things they/we can agree about. Especially now that America (and all of the world) needs to stand together, You guys are parted like never before. Again... This is just an outside opinion, and I expect to get dinged severiously (spelling?) for this.
"Btw. I never learned English, I just memorized a series of words and have no idea of what I'm saying" - Carsten Bang... Danish Standup comedian
Unity is important, but it might bear keeping in mind that the history of US politics, almost from the beginning, is rife with division. It might be the very nature of the individualistic ideology of America itself, but throughout our history, political feuds and infighting, and national division, have been part of our birthright. Heck, our nation wasn't founded as a nation at all, but a confederation of 13 seperate nations, united under one banner. One of the first vicious divisions was about whether or not the US should have a strong or very very weak centralized government.
In fact, if you think politics are bad today, try looking up Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.
Many issues have divided this nation in the past. What divides us today is nothing compared to the issues that Abraham Lincoln faced, the issue that literally divided this nation in to warring factions.
The divisions in politics today are not new, and they are not insurmountable. We have endured this long, with a little luck we can endure a couple more hundred years.
upnorthkyosa said:
Neither option requires a more complicated opinion, so Occum's Razor doesn't really apply. There is no easy explaination for the evolution of politics in America since it's not a simple subject to begin with.
upnorthkyosa said:
I had to edit this, because I had an interesting thought/question.
Is it possible to be an independent without EVER voting for one of the two major parties?
I would say, yes, if one believed in voting for third parties.
I guess if voted for 3rd parties.
upnorthkyosa said:
Idependent doesn't have to mean middle of the road. IMHO, a good definition of the word is someone who is not committed to any political parties and is willing to keep an open mind.
Yes, but a dead give away to non-independent thinking is referring to all ideas based on where they fall in the left/right duality spectrum. Truly independent thinking would not fall easily in to party lines.
An independent thinker would probably hold opinions that come in conflict with each of the parties at sometime or another. I actually think there is a great deal of independent thought in here. I've seen some ideas on your part, upnorthkyosa, as well as on the part of DngRuss, that show a trend toward independent thinking. However, it's clear that the majority of your ideas as well as Russ's fall within what would be considered leftwing.
I just believe it's important to point out that the whole talking about independent thought, and then reverting back to the left/right duality, is a bit contradictory and in some ways a bit disingenuous.
I also believe there is no person who is ever truly independent (unless they just simply take a stand).
I believe that what we refer to as Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Republican/Democrat, etc., is nothing but terms given to an age old duality of thinking inherent in human beings. We can see these ideals exemplified throughout history. They no doubt reflect on a seperation of Thinking/Feeling duality present in human different human personalities.
Those who's primary way of making decisions are based on thinking, tend to make those decisions with far less empathy, and tend to be pragmatic and goal oriented. Feelers, on the other hands, tend to make their decisions with a great deal of empathy, and therefore take in to considerations the feelings of others. This isn't to say that Thinkers are smarter than Feelers, as the two are not a measure of intelligence but merely the level of empathy or pragmatism in the decision making process.
Feelers take the classic leftist stance that uses empathy as the primary decision making faculty. Thinkers tend to make decisions based on pragmatics, they tend to be rather cold and much more judgemental and unyielding in their decision making process. This isn't to say that all Feelers are leftists, but merely that the ideology is driven by the empathy modality. A large number of proponents of conservatism are empathetic people (this consists mostly of the religious right.)
This also isn't to say that all thinkers are conservatives. Merely that the ideology is driven by that mindset. A large number leftist leadership is driven by the thinking modality, however, and are merely using the empathetic ticket as a means to power.
Again, this long winded dissertation on my theory of the root of political ideologies isn't meant as a thesis, but merely to explain the fact that I believe conflict on these type of political issues is inevitable, as they are rooted in HOW we think, not merely ideology.
For example, Northkyosa strikes me as a highly empathetic person. Someone who is driven to understand others and take in to account their feelings and needs in their decision making process. I, however, am highly driven by pragmatics. Means and ends are my primary avenue of decision making. I'm driven to find the most efficient way to accomplish a given task. That would put us at odds when there is a conflict between means and ends. That conflict is nearly unreconcilable as our decisions in a given situation aren't usually driven by errors in knowledge (as many of us assume) but a difference in how we assimilate and utilize information through decision making(thinking/feeling).
This becomes a more interesting topic when we consider the fact that the majority of women (but not all) use the empathetic/feeling/people oriented decision making pattern, while the majority men (but not all) utilize the thinking/pragmatic/goal oriented decision.
This explains why the majority of women (but not all) lean to the left on politics (they view the left as more empathetic) while the majority of men (but not all) lean toward the right (they view the right as, typically, more goal oriented and pragmatic).
Again, which one is right? That's like asking which way is up, it depends on where you're standing.
