How We Choose Political Philosophy

[coberst]

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.

[Accountable]

I agree.



When I teach leadership I have a favorite game. I print four signs on separate pieces of paper: "Agree" "Disagree" "Agree with Reservations" "Disagree with Reservations". I post the signs one on each side of the room, then write a statement on the board designed to be be both controversial and open to interpretation. My favorite in the late 90's with enlisted military was "Our society should grant homosexual couples the same rights and responsibilities it bestows on heterosexual couples". The key was to make the statement something likely to evenly distribute the students by opinion.



Upon revealing the statement, the students were to literally stand for what they believe in, by walking to the sign that best summarizes their opinion of the statement. Then I would have loads of fun challenging them, shaking their "platforms" to examine how strong they were.



It was always interesting to watch from the very first second of the exercise. Some would make a statement from the outset, by trying to be the first one to their sign, striding boldly and purposely. This was for all four signs! Most of course were a bit more tentative, but knew where they were going. I was always amused at the ones who would stand up and check where their friend was going; I watched many a face drop in shock as they suddenly learned something about their friend they had never expected.



I had a ball with the exercise, asking one why he is standing under that particular sign, then turning to another under an opposing sign for a rebuttal. I considered it a major success if a student shifted positions as a result of the debate, regardless of where the shift occurred.



I kept the conversation relatively light, considering the subject matter, but always made sure each student spoke on (1) why he went to that particular sign and (2) how he came about that stand. I was frankly amazed at how seldom someone said "Well, that's just how I was raised." The few occassions that happened, I would point out that it is the parents' job to raise kids with a set of values, reasons for choosing right over wrong. But we're not kids anymore. The parents gave us a foundation to start from, but it's their foundation. It is incumbant on us to examine that foundation, each part, to see if we truly agree. We may find some values just don't make sense for us, like sexism or racism, and reject them. However, we likely will agree with most of the values we were raised with. And once we make that decision, they become our values for our unique reasons, and no longer "just because that's how I was raised." That's how we honor our Fathers and Mothers.

[coberst]

Accountable

Whoo! That is good stuff! Well said. Did you find any evidence in your teaching effort to support my contention:?

"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."

[Accountable]

coberst wrote: Accountable

Whoo! That is good stuff! Well said. Did you find any evidence in your teaching effort to support my contention:?

"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."
Yes, especially for those who think supporting other than our two dominant parties is a futile waste of effort. I would guess almost everyone has a 'must have' issue, sometimes two.



In my admittedly anecdotal experience, I would guess those four are pretty much stratefied the way you list them. Racial/ethnic issues seem to be taking a back seat to illegal immigration, at least down here on the southern border.



I think the key may lie in digging deeper into a particular value. After hundreds of exercises, I've had alot of time to examine my own motivations. For me, the core value is integrity. Being true and consistent. That explains why I fight so equally hard for freedom and the personal responsibility that comes with it. All my values come from that single root value of integrity, I think.

[Benjamin]

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.
That’s a good analogy. It becomes a game to some people where the only thing that matters is winning. If it means sacrificing honesty or fair play, that’s part of the game.

What does it say about a person who is willing to lie or twist the truth to defend his or her stance? Can someone be an honest person but lie about political issues? I don’t think so. A lot of people don’t like what they see in the news these days. It doesn’t agree with their ideology, so they simply stop reading valid news sources and instead go to Web sites or news channels that only report the news that agrees with their beliefs. In the past, we’ve had revisionist historians. Now what we have is revisionist news reporting.

[Accountable]

Benjamin wrote: That’s a good analogy. It becomes a game to some people where the only thing that matters is winning. If it means sacrificing honesty or fair play, that’s part of the game.



What does it say about a person who is willing to lie or twist the truth to defend his or her stance? Can someone be an honest person but lie about political issues? I don’t think so. A lot of people don’t like what they see in the news these days. It doesn’t agree with their ideology, so they simply stop reading valid news sources and instead go to Web sites or news channels that only report the news that agrees with their beliefs. In the past, we’ve had revisionist historians. Now what we have is revisionist news reporting.
Very nice! You need to copyright that, quick. :yh_clap

[chonsigirl]

Benjamin wrote: . In the past, we’ve had revisionist historians.
We still have them, Benjamin.............................

[coberst]

Benjamin

You bring up an interesting topic: character as we normally think of it and intellectual character. Can one be dishonest intellectually and perfectly honest person in the normal sense? Likewise with all the character traits; I see people all the time that would not think of being dishonest in the normal mode but does not think for a minute about being intellectually dishonest.

I think that just as we work at developing good character traits it is just as important to create good intellectual character traits.

[Benjamin]

I’d say a person’s intellectual disposition shows that person’s true colors. After all, it provides more opportunities than anything else to demonstrate honesty (or lack thereof).