After 5 years, I decided to change my political affiliation

[cAPSLOCK]

Oh, how wonderful to have found this particular topic.

First, I will simply just say that I understand your choice. At least I think I do, because it seems similar to my own. I think this is the beginning of all great breakups, though.

I think I understand how I may be perceived politically, but it's not that simple.

And "it's not that simple" is exactly the place I would like to spend my time discussing things with others.

It feels good to agree, and I think it's good to find someone who is like you in the world. I do that even when I'm trying not to do it. Lol.

But I don't learn as much from a discussion with a like-minded person as I do from a reasonable person with whom I disagree vigorously.

The polarized choice, the binary thought, is a siren calling to us. We have so many things to do on a given day. I have to clean up that wood pile in the back. I've got to keep my dog going around and around the block. Why is there nothing left in this entirely full fridge that I want to eat?

So let me just pick one of the two jerseys that fits my paradigm the most or maybe a combination of jerseys or maybe I see myself as a referee? Oh, how fancy is that?

I don't know how much time I have left on the earth. I want to spend it doing things that are important

Or at least things I like.

Here is to your otherness!

 

[ASHES]

I'm not sure I follow. Ambivalence? When I have clarity, it gives me certitude and I get more passionate and conscientious about my principles.

I mean holding mutually exclusive conflicting principles. Where tough judgement calls are needed.

 

[NWRatCon]

the education "system" is determined by the local people of each community-----they elect the board.

I wish that were really true. Again, the problem is a lack of education. In this case, lack of education about the candidates. I've recently gotten very involved in local politics, and the first campaign was for a school board. Our candidate won handily, ousting an incompetent extremist.

 

[NWRatCon]

I mean holding mutually exclusive conflicting principles. Where tough judgement calls are needed.

I know what that means, now. I have that conundrum about the death penalty. I firmly believe in death as an appropriate punishment in particularly depraved circumstances, but have now evolved to a firm position against it because 1) it is unequally applied, 2) the justice system is error-prone, and I can't think of a worse result than executing an innocent person, 3) I'm a firm believer in second chances when warranted.

 

[ASHES]

Oh, how wonderful to have found this particular topic.

First, I will simply just say that I understand your choice. At least I think I do, because it seems similar to my own. I think this is the beginning of all great breakups, though.

I think I understand how I may be perceived politically, but it's not that simple.

And "it's not that simple" is exactly the place I would like to spend my time discussing things with others.

It feels good to agree, and I think it's good to find someone who is like you in the world. I do that even when I'm trying not to do it. Lol.

But I don't learn as much from a discussion with a like-minded person as I do from a reasonable person with whom I disagree vigorously.

The polarized choice, the binary thought, is a siren calling to us. We have so many things to do on a given day. I have to clean up that wood pile in the back. I've got to keep my dog going around and around the block. Why is there nothing left in this entirely full fridge that I want to eat?

So let me just pick one of the two jerseys that fits my paradigm the most or maybe a combination of jerseys or maybe I see myself as a referee? Oh, how fancy is that?

I don't know how much time I have left on the earth. I want to spend it doing things that are important

Or at least things I like.

Here is to your otherness!

None of us know the time. But if we treat ourselves as we want others to treat us, and then treat others that way, what else can we do? That will only improve our lives and those of everyone we reach. In politics and outside of it. I will die happier than if all I did is help contribute to the negativity, conflict, and neverending cycle of social servitude. Be this or that. Hate them. No thanks.

 

[ASHES]

I know what that means, now. I have that conundrum about the death penalty. I firmly believe in death as an appropriate punishment in particularly depraved circumstances, but have now evolved to a firm position against it because 1) it is unequally applied, 2) the justice system is error-prone, and I can't think of a worse result than executing an innocent person, 3) I'm a firm believer in second chances when warranted.

That is a good example. I was always against it because of 2. Then later I learned of 1, but also some absolutely guilty and truly awful people needed it and I wouldn't speak against it for them and they got it and I didn't cry for them. That makes me a hypocrite but I try to stay consistent on it.


Also war.

 

[gdgyva]

I have been "other" since I joined DP. The problem, of course, is that none of the "labels" is universal. On some subjects I'm conservative (but what that "means" seems to vary constantly), on others would be deemed quite liberal. What I try to be is consistent.

I've been a member of both political parties, but cannot associate with my former party, even obliquely. I don't even recognize it anymore. It's defunct. But, that doesn't mean I fit naturally in the other.

I believe most strongly in following my principles, even at risk to myself. My guidestars are in my name, which most people have never figured out, but I'll divulge here: RATional CONstitutionalist. I revere the Constitution, not for all its content (some of which, especially originally, was/is weak - it definitely needs tweaking), but for the world it envisions: of We, the People, striving to perfect our union and "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Those are some damned fine aspirations.

And in everything, every day, we must be rational. Blindly following scripts can lead to some very dark corners (as our Supreme Court regularly demonstrates). Our founders were rational people who tried to create a rational document, and we owe it to them, and ourselves, to apply its principles rationally. They did a good job - for 250 years ago - but the world has changed a little bit over the years. Rational is not always convenient or neat, but generally leads to the best results.

Those positions, however, put me in nearly constant tension with the way things are going, especially politically, nowadays. We are being led by the feckless and unprincipled, headlong into insanity. The subjects are legion, and the risks incalculable, and it seems the choices taken are the worst imaginable. So, I'm trying, as best as I can, to get back to my guidestars, making me exactly "other".

Great post

Reminded me of movie i saw a LONG time ago with Joe Pesci playing a Harvard bum, in a law class where the professor had asked a question....and his response was great....i know i wont get it right, but basically it was about the men that created the constitution knew it wasnt perfect, and knew they would make mistakes in its creation, but they left ways to repair or fix them. And the power was left to the citizens of the country....

That should be the case today....but is it? Or have we fallen into the same trap as so many before us, where the ruling elite make all the rules...."he who has the gold...."

We are a nation of 330m + people.....and when you look at the politicians that control congress, and the white house, and the choices we as the people have had in say the last 4-5 major elections....something has gone off the rails....I know there are great people, smart people, who can help lead us out of this quagmire of stench....but they seem to shy away from wanting to lead....

Colin Powell....
Condalezza Rice....
just two right off top of my head who i think could have been great leaders....

 

[tshade]

I wish that were really true. Again, the problem is a lack of education. In this case, lack of education about the candidates. I've recently gotten very involved in local politics, and the first campaign was for a school board. Our candidate won handily, ousting an incompetent extremist.

local citizens get exactly the gov. they deserve. No excuse to not know the candidates

 

[NWRatCon]

local citizens get exactly the gov. they deserve. No excuse to not know the candidates

Again, you are glibly presenting this as an absolute, which it absolutely isn't. It is very difficult to "know" the candidates (particularly those that are adept at lying about their positions). That is what I am involved in, specifically. I am in an organization that, like the League of Women Voters, is about researching the candidates, educating the public, and, in our case, making endorsements according to published criteria. We have a 5-tier approach: endorse, recommend, non-committed, not recommend, and strongly oppose, based not only upon their responses to candidate surveys, but research about their backgrounds and public positions in other contexts. It's amazing what is left online, but it takes considerable effort to suss it out. Most people simply don't have the time.

Moreover, in most instances, the local citizens can't get the government they deserve. Most of the decisions are out of their hands, and sometimes a majority of such local citizens actually voted against the candidate who prevailed.

 

[ASHES]

local citizens get exactly the gov. they deserve. No excuse to not know the candidates

Except the ones that didn't vote for the winner. They didn't deserve it they just have to live with it.

 

[anatta]

For example, Independent, libertarian and center leaning are too "liberal/conservative" dyadically thinking for my ambivalence.

In the final outcome does an affiliation change your perspective? It can. But ambivalence is a great freedom from such slavish thought
Ride the Tiger -see where it goes

 

[Fearandloathing]

None of us know the time. But if we treat ourselves as we want others to treat us, and then treat others that way, what else can we do? That will only improve our lives and those of everyone we reach. In politics and outside of it. I will die happier than if all I did is help contribute to the negativity, conflict, and neverending cycle of social servitude. Be this or that. Hate them. No thanks.

Nearly 40 years ago I walked into an AA meeting.....and never looked back.

In that time I have learned ONE basic principle that is 100% perfect in every way, ensuring you will have a good day.

Have one aim: To make at least one person smile or say "thank you". Every day. Even if its the ambulance attendants taking you to hospital, there's no reason you can't crack wise and get a laugh. That tends to kill worries and shit.

I've not had a 'bad day" ever since. Not even with the diagnoses that, if true, I would be dead now. I now, for the first time believe I will see 80 years.

 

[ASHES]

Nearly 40 years ago I walked into an AA meeting.....and never looked back.

In that time I have learned ONE basic principle that is 100% perfect in every way, ensuring you will have a good day.

Have one aim: To make at least one person smile or say "thank you". Every day. Even if its the ambulance attendants taking you to hospital, there's no reason you can't crack wise and get a laugh. That tends to kill worries and shit.

I've not had a 'bad day" ever since. Not even with the diagnoses that, if true, I would be dead now. I now, for the first time believe I will see 80 years.

I have only been to a single AA meeting, and it was only in support. All I learned was that they were not for me. But what I later learned is that we are responsible for making our own meaning, and if you look deep inside yourself you will find what you really are, and that is almost universally a kind, compassionate person wanting to be known. So I try to know that inside self, and introduce other people to it, because other people likewise want to know and be understood at that level. However people get there on their own I am OK with.

 

[Luce]

On my DebatePolitics profile. This is no insult to liberals, it just doesn't feel like me any more. Too much unaffiliated baggage (and this is not the thread to discuss the baggage). I looked through all the options, pondered and thought, and came to the conclusion "other" was the best fit, because "ambivalent" was not an option and no available option seemed to match that as strongly as I needed to. Anyone else, from either party, recently done the same or are considering it?

For example, Independent, libertarian and center leaning are too "liberal/conservative" dyadically thinking for my ambivalence.

For any that might be confused, I mean "liberal" in the American political sense of the word, not in a Canadian or British or any other type of way, because that's what I had been since my political awaking almost 30 years ago. A viable, non-corporatist, non-populist (Among many other things) 3rd party is desperately needed, but alas I fear our house is already too divided.

This also doesn't mean I no longer support any liberal stances or am now a conservative, independent, libertarian, or some flavor of centrist, because that isn't accurate either. Don't go to the list and say "you're actually that" because no I am not. I studied it long and hard.

The problem is, terms have gotten too muddied up.

There is a difference between conservatives and populists (MAGA, tea party, etc).

There is a difference between liberals and progressives and socialists and communists.

These days, if you're on the right, everyone to the left of you is a Marxists, and if you're on the left, everyone to the right of you is a Nazi. Me, I'm a liberal. I am in favor of the constitution as it exists today, because that system is the best chance people have of living their lives the way they want to, without shitting all over everybody else in the process.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The problem is, terms have gotten too muddied up.

There is a difference between conservatives and populists (MAGA, tea party, etc).

There is a difference between liberals and progressives and socialists and communists.

These days, if you're on the right, everyone to the left of you is a Marxists, and if you're on the left, everyone to the right of you is a Nazi. Me, I'm a liberal. I am in favor of the constitution as it exists today, because that system is the best chance people have of living their lives the way they want to, without shitting all over everybody else in the process.

Because of the internet the terms have all become meaningless.

When I first started becoming politically aware "liberal" wasn't even a word in the US, but a leading political party in Canada.

I had to research what the term meant, and that meant a history lesson in the Magna Carta and how kings have consistently tried to silence liberal voices.

Back then, 'liberal' meant a moral philosophy based on individual rights and equality under the law. It has come to mean everything from "old fashioned", "fat", "rotund", large portioned, ignorant and in the US an insult.

To Americans in 1770's it was a call to arms.

In everyday US parlance it means someone who is left of middle, oriented to individual rights and freedoms. It also means you support public education.

To me it is an excuse not get involved or vote

 

[ASHES]

In the final outcome does an affiliation change your perspective? It can. But ambivalence is a great freedom from such slavish thought
Ride the Tiger -see where it goes

Thank you for your thoughts. I intend to. I will invite many people to ride with me and we will smother the tiger in freedom.

 

[anatta]

The problem is, terms have gotten too muddied up.

There is a difference between conservatives and populists (MAGA, tea party, etc).

There is a difference between liberals and progressives and socialists and communists.

These days, if you're on the right, everyone to the left of you is a Marxists, and if you're on the left, everyone to the right of you is a Nazi. Me, I'm a liberal. I am in favor of the constitution as it exists today, because that system is the best chance people have of living their lives the way they want to, without shitting all over everybody else in the process.

I am in favor of the constitution as it exists today, because that system is the best chance people have of living their lives the way they want to, without shitting all over everybody else in the process.

you had me up to the Living Document reference

 

[Luce]

you had me up to the Living Document reference

I didn't say living document. Which changes did you not like? Amendment XIII? Amendment XIV?

The only bad amendment was the one that was itself amended back out.

 

[Luce]

In everyday US parlance it means someone who is left of middle, oriented to individual rights and freedoms. It also means you support public education.

To me it means that I should get some level of services for my tax dollars. I don't mind paying taxes if those taxes are lifting all boats.

I DO mind if the only boats getting lifted are battleship-sized yachts.

 

[reinaert]

Has anyone pissed in the punch yet?

No?

[raises hand]

Guess it'll be me.

This may be a product of what I'm currently reading (Cioran, Debord and some high level sword and sorcery), but I think we* are at the nexus of long-developing crises, three or four of them**, and that material forces and path dependence being something like inexorable, politics and snout-counting are now mostly a kind of theater.

Everything determinative, in these times, emerges from the boardroom, and politics is a best a reaction to what power is doing where power lies, elsewhere. This isn't a declaration that governments have no power; they clearly do. Only that the concentration of wealth being what it is, and where it is, government that acts for it is captured, and against it, too far behind.

What this means in practical terms is mostly unknown, because of those crises converging everywhere and therefore nowhere actionable, all in a kind of immediacy that stuns and petrifies. That these crises are all at the same time hyperobjects renders them largely invisible, even though the general sense of them inculcates a growing dread.

We* are not at a crossroads. We are at the convergence of storms. Most people are mostly lost. Mostly atomized. Mostly adrift. Relying on economic buffers (primarily, the artificial nuclear family) that are no defense, and in fact work to cripple their agility and resilience. Looking for shores and harbors but finding only floodtides.

Everything is breaking apart, and has been since Reagan and Thatcher. They sank the lifeboat, and dismantled the coastal warnings and lighthouses, and fired many of the crews, to belabor the metaphor. Just in time for their choices to be catastrophic. Convinced against all evidence that that the human world was robust, they smashed what was keeping it from chaos.

This is the chaos, and there is no undoing it. We're in it now, and personal politics not only do not matter, they anesthesize bodies that need most of all to be alert and agile.

* - there is no we; there are just billions of thems, probably for a long while

** - the collapse of the Westphalian order, global warming and pollution, the revolt of the rich, the return of fascism

 

[ASHES]

Has anyone pissed in the punch yet?

No?

[raises hand]

Guess it'll be me.

This may be a product of what I'm currently reading (Cioran, Debord and some high level sword and sorcery), but I think we* are at the nexus of long-developing crises, three or four of them**, and that material forces and path dependence being something like inexorable, politics and snout-counting are now mostly a kind of theater.

Everything determinative, in these times, emerges from the boardroom, and politics is a best a reaction to what power is doing where power lies, elsewhere. This isn't a declaration that governments have no power; they clearly do. Only that the concentration of wealth being what it is, and where it is, government that acts for it is captured, and against it, too far behind.

What this means in practical terms is mostly unknown, because of those crises converging everywhere and therefore nowhere actionable, all in a kind of immediacy that stuns and petrifies. That these crises are all at the same time hyperobjects renders them largely invisible, even though the general sense of them inculcates a growing dread.

We* are not at a crossroads. We are at the convergence of storms. Most people are mostly lost. Mostly atomized. Mostly adrift. Relying on economic buffers (primarily, the artificial nuclear family) that are no defense, and in fact work to cripple their agility and resilience. Looking for shores and harbors but finding only floodtides.

Everything is breaking apart, and has been since Reagan and Thatcher. They sank the lifeboat, and dismantled the coastal warnings and lighthouses, and fired many of the crews, to belabor the metaphor. Just in time for their choices to be catastrophic. Convinced against all evidence that that the human world was robust, they smashed what was keeping it from chaos.

This is the chaos, and there is no undoing it. We're in it now, and personal politics not only do not matter, they anesthesize bodies that need most of all to be alert and agile.

* - there is no we; there are just billions of thems, probably for a long while

** - the collapse of the Westphalian order, global warming and pollution, the revolt of the rich, the return of fascism

That's the worst pessimist in me, but I can't go on like that, so I go on as the optimist. I commend you if you can manage it.

 

[reinaert]

That's the worst pessimist in me, but I can't go on like that, so I go on as the optimist. I commend you if you can manage it.

An optimist will hold a torch in a storm. It cannot change the force of wind, but it can save those who see it.

 

[tshade]

Again, you are glibly presenting this as an absolute, which it absolutely isn't. It is very difficult to "know" the candidates (particularly those that are adept at lying about their positions).

Yes, agree................no one said it was going to be easy fulfilling your civic responsibility to be informed. As I said, "we get what deserve"

That is what I am involved in, specifically. I am in an organization that, like the League of Women Voters, is about researching the candidates, educating the public, and, in our case, making endorsements according to published criteria. We have a 5-tier approach: endorse, recommend, non-committed, not recommend, and strongly oppose, based not only upon their responses to candidate surveys, but research about their backgrounds and public positions in other contexts. It's amazing what is left online, but it takes considerable effort to suss it out. Most people simply don't have the time.

Bull. They don't MAKE the time because it is not a priority, thus = we get what we deserve.....

Moreover, in most instances, the local citizens can't get the government they deserve. Most of the decisions are out of their hands,

Not true.......excuses don't cut it................we, ultimately control who is on the ballot

and sometimes a majority of such local citizens actually voted against the candidate who prevailed.

rarely, but in national elections, it can happen...........................but it is still up to us. Simply "voting" is the LEAST a responsible citizen can do......

 

[tshade]

Except the ones that didn't vote for the winner. They didn't deserve it they just have to live with it.

No-----'voting' is the very least a citizen can do to get the right candidate in office.....

 

[ASHES]

No-----'voting' is the very least a citizen can do to get the right candidate in office.....

Right. And they voted their principles. And lost, and suffer the consequences of the majority, deservedly so according to you. Too 'original sinny' for my liking thank you.