Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Politics definitely says a lot about your values. Just look at all the cultural issues that forms the political divide (abortion, stem cell research, the teaching of creationism in schools, gay marriage, etc.). If someone tells me they're a Republican, that doesn't tell me a lot about their character or values. But if someone says they're Republican because they think abortion is murder, that torture is justified if it saves lives, and that government shouldn't bother aiding people who can't afford health insurance, that tells something about their values. Likewise, if someone's a Democrat because they think people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, that no crime, no matter how bad, ever warrants being put to death, and that gays should be allowed to marry, that too tells me something about their values. As for your point about how "your politics are based on what you think delivers the greatest amount of good to the largest number of people," not everyone believes that. In fact, too many people in both parties vote based only on what's in their best interests, not that of their fellow Americans.
Well, my example was pretty much along the lines of political parties, which I've come to realize is a loyalty only held by nitwits or extremely cynical people wanting to manipulate the system to serve very narrow interests.
Now on to the question of individual issues. If somebody believes abortion to be wrong (Which I do, by the way), what if their views are more nuanced than yours? What if they don't believe in abortion, but simultaneously worry about how it plays out in public policy, particularly how outlawing it will affect individual civil liberties? What if they are concerned about issues such as search without probable cause? After all, if abortion is outlawed and government becomes serious about enforcing it, then we could easily see a situation where every pregnancy would have to be duly reported by physicians, which means every miscarriage could result a search for curettage scars on the lining of the uterus, etc. etc. etc. Heck, even abortion opponents cannot agree to the extent of which abortion laws should be enforced.
So, if the person in question does not pass that litmus test 100%, if that person does not align perfectly with your point of view, is it a deal breaker? And what about the other ten thousand issues where conservatives and liberals divide? Gun control? Charter schools? Mandatory seat belts? All of these subjects have shades of gray to them, and do not easily yield to a simple YES/NO answer. Heck, the most vigorous discussion my wife and I ever had was on the subject of mandatory seat belt laws. She feels those are a good and important thing, while I believe that government does not have a right to keep people from doing stupid things.
All that being said, and given how many possible variables there are to take on any given issue, it's going to be very hard to find someone whose political views align precisely with your own. You'd be really, really hard pressed to do so.
Well, my example was pretty much along the lines of political parties, which I've come to realize is a loyalty only held by nitwits or extremely cynical people wanting to manipulate the system to serve very narrow interests.
Now on to the question of individual issues. If somebody believes abortion to be wrong (Which I do, by the way), what if their views are more nuanced than yours? What if they don't believe in abortion, but simultaneously worry about how it plays out in public policy, particularly how outlawing it will affect individual civil liberties? What if they are concerned about issues such as search without probable cause? After all, if abortion is outlawed and government becomes serious about enforcing it, then we could easily see a situation where every pregnancy would have to be duly reported by physicians, which means every miscarriage could result a search for curettage scars on the lining of the uterus, etc. etc. etc. Heck, even abortion opponents cannot agree to the extent of which abortion laws should be enforced.
So, if the person in question does not pass that litmus test 100%, if that person does not align perfectly with your point of view, is it a deal breaker? And what about the other ten thousand issues where conservatives and liberals divide? Gun control? Charter schools? Mandatory seat belts? All of these subjects have shades of gray to them, and do not easily yield to a simple YES/NO answer. Heck, the most vigorous discussion my wife and I ever had was on the subject of mandatory seat belt laws. She feels those are a good and important thing, while I believe that government does not have a right to keep people from doing stupid things.
All that being said, and given how many possible variables there are to take on any given issue, it's going to be very hard to find someone whose political views align precisely with your own. You'd be really, really hard pressed to do so.
Obviously there are shades of gray. Few political issues are so cut-and-dry. I would never expect to line up perfectly on everything. But I'd want to feel like I agree on more things than I disagree.
My politics are immaterial, because one of my tenets is that our votes do not count for anything. So I do not vote. As long as she is not some sort of activist, we will get along fine regardless of her beliefs. It is only if she tried to force me to conform to her beliefs that we would have a problem.
My politics are immaterial, because one of my tenets is that our votes do not count for anything.So I do not vote. As long as she is not some sort of activist, we will get along fine regardless of her beliefs. It is only if she tried to force me to conform to her beliefs that we would have a problem.
I agree with your tenets, but I disagree with your actions. Not voting means acceptance of the status quo. I vote against it. I've been told I'm wasting my vote, but I believe I'm preserving my right to criticize and say I told you so.
As to the original question, I think you can build a good relationship on opposites. For instance, my wife is somewhere left of center (further left than she thinks), and I'm not. We get along fine.
I do think you have to have some things you agree on, so you can't be complete opposites.
I believe that in order for a relationship to work both people need to be working toward similar goals and have similar moral beliefs.
Personalities can be pretty different though and it makes things work well because one can fill in where the other lacks.
My hubby and I are quite different and I have to remember sometimes to not get annoyed because he doesn't do things the way I do but to appreciate that he brings things to the relationship that I do not, because of those differences.
It doesn't really matter your personality, or what you think or believe. It matters if you are willing to meet someone in the middle (or in my case, on her side of the middle), regardless of the distance.
I agree with your tenets, but I disagree with your actions. Not voting means acceptance of the status quo. I vote against it. I've been told I'm wasting my vote, but I believe I'm preserving my right to criticize and say I told you so.
As to the original question, I think you can build a good relationship on opposites. For instance, my wife is somewhere left of center (further left than she thinks), and I'm not. We get along fine.
I do think you have to have some things you agree on, so you can't be complete opposites.
Voting, for me, would imply that I accept the system in place. I really do not think it matters who is in office, the same things will happen regardless. Those with power and influence will retain it, and those without money will be victimized by those who have it.
Voting, for me, would imply that I accept the system in place. I really do not think it matters who is in office, the same things will happen regardless. Those with power and influence will retain it, and those without money will be victimized by those who have it.
Well I definitely agree with you. For many, not voting means that you have no right to complain, but I see your point. I will admit that I have gone in and not voted on a position, but I think that qualifies as a no confidence vote. I would really like to see a "None of the Above" box. Usually I vote for third party candidates that have no chance in hell of winning, so they will not add to the problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
