How much of political leaning is social/cultural rather than issue based?
- Thread starter Mierin
- Start date
JJ Husker
Donor
Sorry but I'm laughing out loud right now.
Kinda figured that might be a deal breaker for you.
But seriously, I have a bit of that going on in my house right now. My wife also voted for Trump and I'm learning to just avoid the discussion when it comes to some of these immigration/wall issues. Sure she thinks he's an arrogant self important blowhard but she's become convinced that his my way or the highway approach on some of these issues is just what we need. When I try to inject a little moderation into it, the discussion can turn a little contentious.
About the people we seek out due to our lean, really the people we hang with the most are all over the board. Our best friends are pretty hard left but, when politics comes up (and we don't really try to avoid it) we usually just end up giving each other sh#t on the lines of the typical stereotypes. I think we all realize that there are zanies on both sides and we're all pretty reasonable. On the other hand, some neighbors are also good friends of ours and they are definitely right leaning and very religious. Lately I find myself sort of avoiding them as they mistakenly think Trump has been chosen by God to save the US and set things right. Still extremely nice people but the few times we've discussed politics and Trump there just is no moderation to their position. Frankly it's a bit unnerving.
Landlord
Banned
I think maybe some in here are talking about different things while using the same words.
An easy example, just from my own life experience, is the rural/urban and uneducated/educated dividing lines. This dynamic represents me well. The more I've learned (in academic circles and also in life experiences), and the more urban areas I've found myself in (moved from Wayne to Lincoln to Atlanta to Chicago), I've become a lot more liberal in my thinking. This thinking is almost entirely centered around social/cultural philosophies, and almost completely void of policy preferences insofar as they are informed by issues surrounding people.
Why is that? It's because my value system has changed. Value systems naturally change with age, because young people don't really worry about their insurance premiums, the mortgages on their houses, etc., but it's also more than that. Until I left Nebraska, I didn't know any Muslims. The majority of black people I knew were either affluent or athletes or both. Gay, lesbian, and trans people were weird/scary/dirty in my head. All the Latin-Americans I knew were low or middle class factory workers who kept to themselves. As I started to rub shoulders with people surrounding me, I started to realize that my life experience was not a default one ("why are black people so loud all the time?"), but one of many different ones, and one that benefitted from a lot of structures and luxuries that others had never been afforded.
Conservatism as a philosophy is equally valuable and worthwhile as liberalism, because diversity of thought and approach and roles to play is highly needed. Social structures need people to hold onto the integrity and values that might be in danger of being abandoned through progress, just as they need people to pioneer and push the boundaries going ahead, just as they need people to be calm mediators and interpreters, just as they need people to be angry and loud and passionate. Conservatism as the American political system is also valuable for plenty of reasons, but still has a lot of overlap with the uglier sides of our country's history. To conserve is to hold onto, to protect. In politics that plays out a lot of different ways, but one thing it often wants to conserve is a way of life that some would call a white supremacy, that was very prosperous for the founding people group of our country, at the cost of treading on minorities.
Not sure if that makes any sense as I started going off on some random tangent, but generally urban liberalism is found in people being exposed to the plights of others that are different than them, and wanting culture to push on their behalf, imo.
Edit: I want to add that conservatism is pretty natural. Liberalism, when it just becomes a matter of my team winning and the other team losing, is the same way. Because tribalism is natural. It's not bad, it's the entire history of evolution informing the way our highly irrational brains are meant to operate. America isn't natural, and social progressivism isn't natural, and they were founded with highly unnatural ideas but implemented quite imperfectly. Liberalism/progressivism at it's heart, on it's best day, is to take those ideals and to try to flesh them out they have the potential to be.
An easy example, just from my own life experience, is the rural/urban and uneducated/educated dividing lines. This dynamic represents me well. The more I've learned (in academic circles and also in life experiences), and the more urban areas I've found myself in (moved from Wayne to Lincoln to Atlanta to Chicago), I've become a lot more liberal in my thinking. This thinking is almost entirely centered around social/cultural philosophies, and almost completely void of policy preferences insofar as they are informed by issues surrounding people.
Why is that? It's because my value system has changed. Value systems naturally change with age, because young people don't really worry about their insurance premiums, the mortgages on their houses, etc., but it's also more than that. Until I left Nebraska, I didn't know any Muslims. The majority of black people I knew were either affluent or athletes or both. Gay, lesbian, and trans people were weird/scary/dirty in my head. All the Latin-Americans I knew were low or middle class factory workers who kept to themselves. As I started to rub shoulders with people surrounding me, I started to realize that my life experience was not a default one ("why are black people so loud all the time?"), but one of many different ones, and one that benefitted from a lot of structures and luxuries that others had never been afforded.
Conservatism as a philosophy is equally valuable and worthwhile as liberalism, because diversity of thought and approach and roles to play is highly needed. Social structures need people to hold onto the integrity and values that might be in danger of being abandoned through progress, just as they need people to pioneer and push the boundaries going ahead, just as they need people to be calm mediators and interpreters, just as they need people to be angry and loud and passionate. Conservatism as the American political system is also valuable for plenty of reasons, but still has a lot of overlap with the uglier sides of our country's history. To conserve is to hold onto, to protect. In politics that plays out a lot of different ways, but one thing it often wants to conserve is a way of life that some would call a white supremacy, that was very prosperous for the founding people group of our country, at the cost of treading on minorities.
Not sure if that makes any sense as I started going off on some random tangent, but generally urban liberalism is found in people being exposed to the plights of others that are different than them, and wanting culture to push on their behalf, imo.
Edit: I want to add that conservatism is pretty natural. Liberalism, when it just becomes a matter of my team winning and the other team losing, is the same way. Because tribalism is natural. It's not bad, it's the entire history of evolution informing the way our highly irrational brains are meant to operate. America isn't natural, and social progressivism isn't natural, and they were founded with highly unnatural ideas but implemented quite imperfectly. Liberalism/progressivism at it's heart, on it's best day, is to take those ideals and to try to flesh them out they have the potential to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
NM11046
Donor
Thank you LOMS. Totally makes sense, and I'd put myself in the same boat as you.
Living outside the midwest, traveling around the world and meeting and becoming friends with all sorts of nationalities, gender identities, religious affiliations (or lack of) and colors etc. has def put me in a situation that thinks more broadly than what just impacts me and aligns to my belief system.
My ultimate gauge - if it doesn't impact me, I have ZERO right to tell others what they can and can't do. Nobody is better than another, and nobody deserves more or less.
Living outside the midwest, traveling around the world and meeting and becoming friends with all sorts of nationalities, gender identities, religious affiliations (or lack of) and colors etc. has def put me in a situation that thinks more broadly than what just impacts me and aligns to my belief system.
My ultimate gauge - if it doesn't impact me, I have ZERO right to tell others what they can and can't do. Nobody is better than another, and nobody deserves more or less.
knapplc
Active member
Oh, 100% agree.
Conservativism and Liberalism go hand in hand, and date back to our caveman days. Each are crucial to what we are today, and without either, we wouldn't be here.
Conservatives got us out of the trees & into caves and shelters. Liberals taught us to plant seeds and hope for the future. Conservatives gave us the ideas to store food and plan for days of famine.
Liberals dared to approach fire - Conservatives taught us to respect it.
Liberals sent us off to explore the world and expand everywhere. Conservatives taught us to take a spear with us in case the saber-toothed tigers attacked.
Conservatives got us through the Great Depression. Liberals got us to the moon.
None of us are just Conservative, or just Liberal. We all had to dare to get out of the Great Depression. We all had to gather our resources to get to the moon.
We're all descended from the same stock and have both traits in us.
Enhance
Administrator
I never said that wasn't the case, TG. You're arguing a point I never made. This is about tendencies.
Institutions do tend to be more liberal and that's because, in my opinion, you're exposed to more ideas and experiences.
Enhance
Administrator
I believe both can be possible but that we tend to rely upon those values/beliefs pushed on us by the culture we grow up in, but that's certainly not always the case.
One of my best friends is a born and raised Nebraskan and hated Husker football growing up. He felt constantly inundated by them and it pushed him to seek out fandom elsewhere. However, I think many if not most of us Husker fans are fans because of our family, friends and the culture we grew up in.
Making Chimichangas
Banned
I have no data or studies at this time to back up what I am saying, but I tend to think that what/how you think about issues is 75% cultural and how you're raised.
Most people's political beliefs, much like religion, are inherited from your parents.
Most people's political beliefs, much like religion, are inherited from your parents.
Landlord
Banned
I would not agree with the word inherited. I would say influenced, for sure, but there are studies that disprove that at least to an extent. For example, the children of atheists in America are more likely to become fundamentalist Christians.
DrunkOffPunch
New member
Even when I was just a lurker here I've always respected you knapp. You have such a way with words. OT but I thought I'd throw it out there.
ZRod
Active member
Where is that study?
Landlord
Banned
I'm having a hard time finding the one I originally remember seeing referenced, but here's one from the pew research center a while back:
"According to a Georgetown University (Catholic) research blog, “Of those raised as Atheists, 30% are now affiliated with a Protestant denomination, 10% are Catholic, 2% are Jewish, 1% are Mormon, and 1% are Pagan.” Also, 20% became Agnostics or “Unaffiliated.”"
"According to a Georgetown University (Catholic) research blog, “Of those raised as Atheists, 30% are now affiliated with a Protestant denomination, 10% are Catholic, 2% are Jewish, 1% are Mormon, and 1% are Pagan.” Also, 20% became Agnostics or “Unaffiliated.”"