How We Choose Political Philosophy

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

How People Choose Political Philosophy

Since my mid-twenties I have been interested in national politics. I have often wondered what motivated a person to become a partisan member of either the Republican or Democrat party.

For some time I looked for a distinction between "world views" to explain why someone chooses Party A versus Party B. At one time I thought I had discovered these contrasting views which led to the choice. Some people tended to be "absolutist" while others tended to be "relativist".

To give you an idea what I mean by the two views I will use a description in educational philosophy. Some advocate the educational policy that a child should be indoctrinated with a set of values. The other side takes the view that a child should be taught how to reason properly (how to analyze facts and to draw logical conclusions based upon those facts) and fortified with this ability the individual will make the proper value decisions throughout life.

A Catholic school education goes the indoctrination route, the absolutist rout, while the "liberal" education school takes the rational, relativist view. The view that there are absolute truths versus the view that there are not absolutes but that one can only approximate truth. Obtaining absolute truth is an illusion. I think that this absolutist versus relativist theory has some degree of validity as a state of mind that leads one to a political party but have decided that it was insufficient to explain the matter completely.

I have finally decided (reserving the right to change my mind later of course) that the answer is more mundane than this world view idea. I suspect that the conclusion I am about to describe is one people in the know have always known and that my conclusion is new only to me. Nevertheless I will give you my conclusions.

There are several issues that I will call polarizing issues; polarizing because they are issues which a significant number of individuals find to be important enough to them that they cannot support a political party which does not agree with their position on that particular matter. I suspect that these polarizing issues are; abortion, guns, taxes, and race.

In the case of abortion I think that the anti-abortion person is the side most motivated. The anti-abortion individual chooses a party based upon this one issue. The pro-choice voter can tolerate belonging to either party but the anti-abortion cannot. In the case of guns the person who cannot condone any gun regulation is the single-issue voter. On taxes the single-issue side is the person who feels that a tax cut is an end in itself. A tax cut is a good in any situation. As regarding race I suspect that both poles of that position are equally adamant.

Antiabortion is a particularly potent polarizing position because it is a position taken primarily for religious conviction. The religious person often has strong feelings regarding many other issues such as, school prayer, education theory, separation of church and state issues, matters of law and order, and others. Thus the community of religious persons creates a force for taking positions on other issues which in turn attract others to the party.

After becoming attached to Party A one begins to treat that attachment much like a sports fan might. Party A can do no wrong and I become very emotionally involved in the success of the party. Every issue supported by Party A is now my issue.

I think there is one other strong influence for choosing a Party and that is what I call milieu. One often chooses Party A because most of the people in the surrounding area are members of Party A.

In my opinion each person must recognize that schooling has not prepared any of us for becoming intellectually mature adults capable of navigating his or her own independent course through life. When we finally recognize that our schooling has not prepared us for life we must then ask the question. How do I prepare myself to become an intellectually mature adult? The answer I have discovered is that each individual must become a Critical Thinker. The details for accomplishing that are completely in the hands of the individual. Intellectual maturity does not come automatically with age but must be discovered.

I think that a good place to begin learning CT is: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 464 • Replies: 4

No top replies

Re: How We Choose Political Philosophy

coberst wrote:

I think there is one other strong influence for choosing a Party and that is what I call milieu. One often chooses Party A because most of the people in the surrounding area are members of Party A.

IMO, this (what I would refer to as "social conditioning") aspect has the strongest influence on a person's affilliation with any specific political party.

Generally people adopt the political philosophy of someone close to them that they respect (a parent, relative, mentor, etc..) in their teens. Most don't become single issue voters until later on in life after they've delved into an area and find out more detailed information about the specific laws/regulations covering the issue or they become involved with a group/organization that has a single issue focus (the NRA, NARAL, a labor union, a Religious group, etc..). I doubt there are many people that vote the 1st time (or first few times) based on single issue items.

When I lived in OK I ran into a lot of people that voted Republican even though they personally disagreed with the majority of the Republican Party platform and with what the indivdual candidates stated objectives were. I've seen many here in MA do the same thing as Democrats. Many of the people I shoot with at the range are very anti-gun control but vote for Democrats that have individually advocated for stricter gun control legislation (in some cases out-right bans).

0 Replies

I came across this response at;

http://impolitecompany.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_impolitecompany_archive.html

Quote:

But Why Are Conservatives Conservative?

In his essay, Agre goes over how conservatives have made language their tool and seeks to fire his own salvo by identifying conservatives with "aristocracy" and "destruction" while identifying liberals with "reason" and "democracy."

Agre is correct in identifying an aristocratic bent to conservatism, and his advice to assess the '60s shows an awareness of what modern American conservatives abhor. (Still, we should not fail to recognize that the '60s included some negative aspects like free love and drug use, just as Agre notes we should acknowledge that there is both good and bad rap.)

But I feel that in a rush to (perhaps rightly) demonize conservatism as anti-reason and anti-democracy, Agre has glossed over the existence of traumatic current events as a trigger for waves of conservatism. In a desire to paint conservatives as self-interested aristocrats, he fails to show how some conservatives come by their views honestly before going about their business by any means necessary.

The modern conservatism founded by Burke was essential a reaction against the French Revolution and while it is proper to be horrified by some of the excesses of the Revolution that does not mean one should re-establish the old monarchy.

Modern American conservatism practiced today is fundamentally a reaction against the 1960s and while it is proper to be horrified by some of the exceses of the '60s that does not mean one should re-establish the 1950s.

In general, conservatism is a reaction against the excesses of the masses. This reaffirms the Hobbesian instinct that the masses cannot and do not deserve to rule. (For a similar example of this, look at the hand-wringing of some on the left who decry what they see as the stupidity of a nation for re-electing George W. Bush.) What is missing in Agre's list of solutions is how to grapple with the most recent traumatic event affecting conservatives, September 11.

I think what your asking is not going to have a simple answer. There are many factors involved in what makes someone decide on a political philosophy. For every rule you make up there will be exceptions.

Even when a choice is made there is no guarantee that it will be maintained. Arianne Huffington is a good example. She was once a conservative but now gives credit to Al Franken for turning her to the progressive side of the fence. What rules would you apply to people like her?

0 Replies

X..

"Even when a choice is made there is no guarantee that it will be maintained. Arianne Huffington is a good example. She was once a conservative but now gives credit to Al Franken for turning her to the progressive side of the fence. What rules would you apply to people like her?"

I suspect many changes that are made later in life are a matter of opportunism. An example is when the South went from 100 years of Democratic rule to Republican rule. I suspect that change that comes in time is somewhat a natural move from liberal to conservative.

0 Replies

With regards to the South it was always conservative. The Democratic party was split between the southern conservatives and non-southern liberals. As the conservatives took over the Republican party they used their conservative message to woo the southern voters.

0 Replies

How We Choose Political Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know