Why do we line up like so many political sheep?

[joeclarke]

I've been following a few interesting OT threads here and have participated in the odd fracas myself. Inevitably many of these threads polarize into conservative camps vs. liberal camps. Many of us (and I'm not long in the tooth around these parts) have made our politics pretty well known on this board. It seems like anyone roughly following these threads could take a pretty accurate stab at how many of the more outspoken amongst us would or will vote.

What interests me on this subject though, is the seemingly blatant, unflinching partisanship demonstrated here. The apparently republican amongst us inevitably defend the track record and actions of the present administration, whereas the apparently democratic amongst us appraise the administration harshly on the same topics. How do we end up so far apart and why do we need to align ourselves so rigidly? I’m convinced that the latter is the cause and the former is the effect.

As a group, we probably share several consistent demographic slices – we likely fall within fairly tight residency (urban), economic (upper middle class), age (trailing edge baby boomers) and intelligence range (above average, on average) groupings. You’d think that we’d come out of the starting gate with pretty similar interpretations as to whether the president is doing a good job or not.

The president and all of the other politicians are working for the voters guys – why do we seem to feel a need to defend their actions? Why do we seem reluctant to be critical of the party or the leaders of the party that we “traditionally support”? I’m really concerned that the USA could be a much, much better place to live if we could toss partisanship out the window and hold our elected representatives critically responsible rather than looking for ways to rationalize supporting them.

I know this is not a new concept but hell, maybe we can understand our behavior better within this small group.

I’d be happy to start the ball rolling. I’m a card-carrying right winger and have been for years (since those idealistic teen years, anyway). But simplistically, I cannot support the premise of the Iraq invasion nor the logic of spending ourselves into oblivion. Hence I could not support the re-election of GWB.

Come on guys, there really isn’t that much difference between the democrats and the republicans on any kind of international scale (they're both pretty right of center). Logic would dictate that as individuals our preference between candidates should fluctuate on the basis of platforms and actions rather than by who carries which membership card.

Sorry for the long tirade...

[island911]

I will suggest that the "sheep" are the one with no political polarity.

"they're both pretty right of center" . . .WTF?
From where I stand, they are both LEFT of center . . . bigger govt, more taxes (Bush wanting more generated taxes, thru a less regressive tax structure)

[john70t]

Well you would be the last person I would think would claim to be right wing, given the amount of flak you've gotten, but I think there are a lot of factors as to why and how political decisions get done these days.

The first and foremost is that as a nation, we have become lazy, both in voting and thinking about the reasons to vote. That could be a good thing, as some wait anxiously all year to help their own thoroughly digested agenda and some close their eyes and point at a name.

Second, the process is very drawn out by design, and to make an individual difference(i.e the Brokovich crusade) requires so many steps of searching for prerequisites, signatures and bartering favors one has to either dedicate ones life to it or be able to pay those to do it for them(Lawyers start out at $100/hr or so). Bills are so packed full of hidden pork nowadays that there's no point in voting on an issue, only people you think is most like you.

Third, the designations of the parties have become blurred. The republicans no longer seem to support the rural farming elderly and who know if the Dem stand for anything besides their wallet poking their as#.

Last, many people have differing agendas and have to cross party lines for individual causes. For example, I want isolationism, fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget (traditionally Republican standards), but don't care if a terminal cancer patient smokes a plant or what bobby and billy do in their own house.

Besides, political thought is so boring compared to seeing niples at the grammys.

[Moneyguy1]

I respectfully disagree. "Sheep" are those who blindly follow a narrow code of beliefs, arguing that anyone with different opinions is (a) demented, (b) unpatriotic, (c) a liar; the list goes on. Sort of sheep in wolve's clothing......


I will not and cannot accept the word of any political party as doctrine handed down from on high. If I am to sleep at night, I have to at least listen-really listen- to other points of view, or wind up showing my bias and prejudice.

A good politician is one who observes what direction the crowd is moving, and then runs up to the front, pretending he is leading the parade

I worked with elected officials for years; most of them very adept at picking and choosing those kernels from the pot that proved their point, while blissfully ignoring the rest and ridiculing any and all who oppose. Party is not a factor; both major players are equally adept at "spin".

[Purrybonker]

For example, I want isolationism, fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget (traditionally Republican standards), but don't care if a terminal cancer patient smokes a plant or what bobby and billy do in their own house.

Bang on my man! But tradition is going down the toilet.

That's the right ticket - social liberality combined with fiscal conservatism. That's the way of the world and the way of the future. It's also exactly NOT the way of GWB - his postures are almost unflinchingly the opposite - social conservatism mixed with a generous dollop of fiscal irresponsiblity err, liberality.

[RallyJon]

But simplistically, I cannot support the premise of the Iraq invasion nor the logic of spending ourselves into oblivion. Hence I could not support the re-election of GWB.

As soon as you use some sort of litmus test to make decisions, you have become one of the sheep.

Both Bush and Kerry have a lot more bad than good. I would love to be able to vote for a true visionary, intellectually brilliant, politically savvy and understanding of the intricacies of global interactions. Instead we've got two guys who never got more than three pages into a macroeconomics textbook (one started from the back, the other the front).

I try to keep an open mind, across party lines. When the time comes to choose one, I will try to distill down everything that I have learned about them and pick the one that I believe will be the best leader for our country going forward.

It's easy to make a decision for all the wrong reasons, then pick some convenient sound bite like one above to rationalize away the need for deeper consideration.

[joeclarke]

right wing, given the amount of flak you've gotten

...aw shucks, I can take it. Actually, you caught a very good point there - like someone else has said - it's fiscal conservatism rather than social conservatism that is an important distinction. I suppose that to be capital "R" "right wing" you should lean that way on both counts. So I fail that test.

I think you've also hit on an excellent point regarding voter apathy (for lack of a better word). Voting on the basis of the party alignments makes huge sense from that perspective. Your arguments also align well as a case for the embarrasingly low voter turn-outs seen in the US vs. the rest of the world.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

I'm very right-wing about some things and very left wing about others. My political compass scores bear this out. (i.e., my extreme views end up cancelling each other out and put me pretty much in the middle)

(http://www.politicalcompass.org).

Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

[singpilot]

I intend to vote for Ralph Nader and let the voters in Palm Beach County sort it out.

It worked last time.

[CamB]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
(http://www.politicalcompass.org).

Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

I've done it before - I sit by Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, from memory - think of the children

Island - based on what little I know of other countries in the world, your parties are about centre and centre-right (Dem and Rep). Your Democrat is definitely right of our Labour government, which is centre-left.

Or to put it another way, Chirac is, I was shocked to read in today's paper, considered centre right...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3557721&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by singpilot
I intend to vote for Ralph Nader and let the voters in Palm Beach County sort it out.

It worked last time.

LMAO!

[Moneyguy1]

Rally:

Love your comment.

Too bad we can't get McCain/Lieberman to run as a ticket.....

(of COURSE I am from AZ...I WOULD think that way...)

[BlueSkyJaunte]

McCain/Leibo would be a winning, though boring, combination.

[fintstone]

I’d be happy to start the ball rolling. I’m a card-carrying right winger and have been for years (since those idealistic teen years, anyway). But simplistically, I cannot support the premise of the Iraq invasion nor the logic of spending ourselves into oblivion. Hence I could not support the re-election of GWB.

Seems to me that there are really only two choices.....
One that wants to spend too much, is strong on terrorism/military and wants to cut taxes

and another one that wants to spend way, way too much, is really weak on terrorism/military and wants to raise taxes

Easy choice for me.

[CamB]

and another one that wants to spend way, way too much, is really weak on terrorism/military and wants to raise taxes

I won't even pretend to know the details, but I am under the impression that all this terrorism, military and tax cuts is quite expensive, and that Bush is spending plenty. I'd be worried about your (fictitiously low, IIRC, because Iraq isn't in there) enormous deficit.

(edit - can't spell good)

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by CamB
[i]I'd be worried about your (fictitiously low, IIRC, because Iraq isn't in there) enormous deficit.

As soon as we drain Iraq of all of it's oil, everything'll be copacetic.

[fintstone]

The terrorism/military is far cheaper than the socialist programs that the other candidate has promised if elected. The deficit will fall if the tax cuts are left in place due to increased revenue.

[CamB]

The deficit will fall if the tax cuts are left in place due to increased revenue.

I don't know that I believe that theory (lets call it "spend money to make money"). I prefer a slightly more balanced approach. Put it this way, if I was on a Board of Directors of a company and the equivalent business plan to the budget was put in front of me, I would deem it too risky and look for a lower risk, lower "return" option.

Besides, I used google's news search in the last 5 mins, and according this an article from that paragon of journalistic integrity, the Sacramento Bee (I am assuming it has the facts right), the deficit is going to rocket up, by Republican's own figures:

..."Republicans have no plan to bring the budget back to balance and their budget refuses even to show how large deficits will be after 2009," the South Carolina Democrat said....

...With Hastert setting the tone, Republicans defended a budget that projects a $521 billion deficit in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

If the tax and spending programs in the budget projected to later years are enacted, the GOP plan would add $5.1 trillion to the national debt over the next seven years, bringing the debt to $12 trillion.

Hastert argued that the country had no choice because it has to pay for homeland security and the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, while achieving an additional $138 billion in tax cuts over the next five years to stimulate the economy and create jobs...

[nostatic]

Originally posted by RallyJon
I would love to be able to vote for a true visionary, intellectually brilliant, politically savvy and understanding of the intricacies of global interactions.

well....ummm....naw, I don't feel like running this year.

[fintstone]

Well cam..in this country, it has worked every time it has been tried. And I agree with Hastert..we have no choice but to pay for homeland security....If a murder was waiting to kill your family, would you consider a gun too expensive and buy a stick?
And the alternative budget??If Kerry only keeps campaign promises he has made so far… There is over a $1 Trillion Deficit over ten years in known costs alone....

John Kerry's Tax Plan

Tax Plan: $658 Billion Over 10 Years!
• Raising taxes on the top income bracket: $477 billion over 10 years.
• Returning the Death tax: $135 billion over 10 years.
• Closing corporate loopholes: $46 billion over 10 years.

Cost of Campaign Promises

Campaign Proposals: Estimate, $1,699,282,000,000
• Near-Universal Health Care Coverage, $895 Billion
• Real Deal For Education, $200 Billion
• Mandatory Funding For Veterans Health Care, $164.66 Billion
• Fully Fund Head Start, $57.46 Billion
• Aid To States, $50 Billion
• College Opportunity Tax Credits, $50 Billion
• Temporarily Increase Number Of Active-Duty Troops By 40,000, $48 Billion
• Tax Breaks For Small Businesses, Manufacturing Companies And Workers, And Technology Firms, $40 Billion
• National Service Plan, $35 Billion
• Allow Full Concurrent Receipt To Disabled Veterans, $24.844 Billion
• Increase Spending For Homeland Security, $20 Billion
• Create An Energy Trust, $20 Billion
• Extend Unemployment Benefits, $17.538 Billion
• Build High-Speed Rail, $16.86 Billion
• Increase Federal Pell Grant Funding, $16 Billion
• Increase Funding For Child Development Block Grant, $11 Billion
• Give Funding To Auto Industry For Energy-Efficient Vehicles, $10 Billion
• Double Funding For GEAR UP, $2.98 Billion
• Extend Amount Of Time Military Families Can Stay In Housing After Family Member Killed-In-Action, Make Family Separation Allowance Permanent, Increase Death Gratuity, $1.5 Billion
• Increase Funding For Superfund, $1.38 Billion
• Ensure Conservation Reserve Program Has Adequate Funding, $774 Million
• Pass The American Dream Act, $726 Million
• Expand Family And Medical Leave Act, $400 Million
• Extend Hate Crimes Legislation, $110 Million
• Enact Employment Non-Discrimination Act, $22 Million
• Increase Minimum Wage, $16 Million
• Ensure Equal Pay For Women, $12 Million
Spending Promised but Costs Unknown:
• Reverse Department Of Labor Inclusion Of Military Training In Criteria For Employees Who May Be Exempted From Overtime Pay: COST UNKNOWN.
• Allow Military Families Penalty-Free Withdrawals From IRAs For Expenses Associated With Deployment: COST UNKNOWN.
• Reimburse Families Forced To Pay For Body Armor: COST UNKNOWN.
• Protect Funding For Impact Aid, Funding For Department Of Defense Schools: COST UNKNOWN.
• Make Permanent Extension Of TRICARE To Unemployed Or Uninsured Reservists: COST UNKNOWN.
• Accelerate Construction Of New Military Housing By Offering Incentives To Developers: COST UNKNOWN.
• Implement Standards Found In Military’s Child Care System To Improve Workforce Quality: COST UNKNOWN.
• Expand Youthbuild And Other Job Training Programs: COST UNKNOWN.
• Train Health Professionals, School Administrators And Parents About Preventing Obesity: COST UNKNOWN.
• Allow For Medicaid To Pay For Alternatives To Nursing Homes: COST UNKNOWN.
• Support Caregivers Who Pay For Bulk Of Long-Term Care: COST UNKNOWN.
• Expand TRIO Funding: COST UNKNOWN.
• Give "I Have A Dream" Scholarships: COST UNKNOWN.
• Restore Benefits To Legal Immigrants: COST UNKNOWN.
• Expedite Naturalization Process For Legal Permanent Residents Serving In Armed Forces: COST UNKNOWN.
• Offer Low- And No- Interest Loans To Facilitate Bus Companies’ Purchase New Handicapped- Accessible Busses: COST UNKNOWN.
• Encourage DOT-Funded Startup Grantees To Exceed ADA Obligations: COST UNKNOWN.
• Increase Funding For Project ACTION: COST UNKNOWN.
• Create White House Director Of Family Economic Security Office: COST UNKNOWN.
• Increase NASA Research Funding: COST UNKNOWN.
• Increase National Science Foundation Research Funding: COST UNKNOWN.
• Increase Department Of Energy Research Funding: COST UNKNOWN.
• Restore And Double Funding For Manufacturing Extension Partnership: COST UNKNOWN.
• Provide Dislocated Workers With Up To $4,000 In Job Training: COST UNKNOWN.
• Eliminate Capital Gains Tax On Investments In Technology Companies: COST UNKNOWN.
• Expand Earned Income Tax Credit: COST UNKNOWN.
• Allow Small Businesses To Defer Up To $250,000 In Taxes: COST UNKNOWN.
• Expand Loans For Small Businesses: COST UNKNOWN.
• Increase Venture Capital Investments: COST UNKNOWN.
• Create A SBA Office Of Manufacturing: COST UNKNOWN.
• Fully Fund Land And Water Conservation Fund: COST UNKNOWN.
• Adequately Fund Urban Park And Recreation Recovery Program: COST UNKNOWN.
• Provide Adequate Funding For Endangered Species Act: COST UNKNOWN.
• Create A Toxics Task Force At EPA: COST UNKNOWN.
• Insist The EPA And USDA Work Together With States To Enforce Environmental Protection Laws: COST UNKNOWN.
• Remove Cap On Section 8 Vouchers Entirely And Expand Cap In Interim: COST UNKNOWN.
• Establish An Affordable Housing Trust Fund: COST UNKNOWN.
• New Funding Faith-Based Charities: COST UNKNOWN.
• Increase Funding For Drug Treatment Programs: COST UNKNOWN.
• Ban Corporate Packer Ownership Of Livestock: COST UNKNOWN.
• Restructuring The Environmental Quality Incentive Program To Ensure It Benefits Family Farmers: COST UNKNOWN.
• Protect Independent Farmers From Discriminatory Pricing: COST UNKNOWN.
• Create A Greater Federal Role In Equitably Financing Long-Term Services: COST UNKNOWN.
• Enhance Coverage For Employed Medicare Beneficiaries With Disabilities: COST UNKNOWN.
• Modernize Medicare Benefits To Include Inpatient And Community Rehabilitation Services, Community Transition Services, Mental Health Parity, Durable Medical Equipment, And Skilled Home Health Service: COST UNKNOWN.