Questions on establishing one's personal political framework

[BeyondTheNow]

I've been grappling with these questions for some time, and was hesitant to bring it to the open forum due to admittedly being a little intimidated by those whom are very knowledgeable in the area of not only Canadian politics, but the political stage worldwide. That being said, because of the knowledge-base here, I believe the feedback/advice would be very helpful. So here goes...

Having grown up in a home that NEVER spoke of politics, or encouraged discussion surrounding daily events (newsworthy or otherwise), my knowledge of politics and its spectrum is still underdeveloped a lot of the time.

My interest began to flourish in my early 20s and my exposure outside of my own investigating and interest was usually due to friends at the time and a few relatable post-secondary courses.

If I had to describe my 'placement' within the spectrum of politics, I'd probably describe myself as a little right of centre; but not extreme one way or the other. There are ideals that appeal to me from both ends.

Having said that, how does one essentially establish their political beliefs?  I read a lot--from many sources. I watch a lot. I pay attention. But we all know that different sources are skewed differently to left, right or independent (or sometimes even otherwise). So how do we find the truth--the happy medium, per se, and which angle of the issues we're going to be influenced by the most?

I often feel overloaded when exploring an issue, because for each point there is (usually) an equally informative and/or reasonable counter-point brought forth by whichever source. And depending on the topic at hand, my base-knowledge of the issue(s) varies anyway.

I understand that all parties are, well, 'flawed' in areas (being kind by using that word) and that each party will bring its fair share of public disappointment to the stage. So is there any advice or a direction/venue I could explore in terms of establishing my personal political groundwork more firmly?  I definitely have opinions/viewpoints about many topics, but they are largely uneducated. In other words, I can't specifically back up why I feel the way I do about certain issues outside of the fact that they are simply my personal opinion.

 

[BorisK]

I heard someone once say : 'a young conservative has no heart, but an old liberal has no brains.'

Moderation is the answer in my experience.  The world would be a horrible place if there was not compassionate conservatives and liberals who lived in reality not some nirvana. 

I personally struggled with the fact I am a 'conservative' as the truth is I want freedom, rights, happiness, equality... Basically all the good things for all members of society... But the 'facts' being presented to me by the 'left' that I grew up listening to and trying to make sense of I eventually came to realize was mostly rhetoric driven by fear - allow me to elaborate :

Life is scary in the fact that it is finite, and not everyone gets the same enjoyment during its course.  This fundamental inequality terrify's people because they don't want to admit that at someone point you have to make a very tough choice - the 'at what cost' argument if you will.  Take the confused look on my hippie friends face when he is tabled with the question 'if killing one bomb maker saves 400 lives, is it worth it?' as an example of the fear in making a tough judgment I am describing. 

I eventually understood that one of the main reasons 'Conservatives' get a bad name is because they weigh in on the tough questions and break up the party.  Example : everyone hates the Tories for all the 'spending cuts' and social programs they hurt : but few bother to investigate wether or not the Ontario liberals are spending $120bjllion over budget annually - buying groceries on the credit card. I buy no means am saying one is right and one is wrong, I am just pointing out that usually, the one to kill the fun is going to get the bad name. 

The truth is a lonely place, Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Sowell, Sam Harris, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Daniel Dennet, and many others... Heck even Stephen Harper (who I'm not massive fan of but respect certain  qualities of) have taught me that. 

Be moderate, but don't be clueless. And trust me I know not all liberals are clueless but man do I hear some bonehead things coming from the university students who are fresh from the pages of Karl Marx's nonsense teachings and living in a magic fairly land. The main thing that got me confused was 'left' leaning types who always called conservatives racists, but all the evidence I came across - including myself being completely non racist and despising people who behave that way - was to the contrary : Lincon freed the spaces and was a republican, the KKK & Black panthers were, and still are affiliated with the Democratic Party... As soon as a black person disagrees with a liberal or she is a 'puppet of the white man' - some of the most racist or vile things I've ever heard came from the crowd that pats themselves on the back for being 'an open minded liberal'.

My dad once said, don't be so open minded your brains fall out. 

I leave you with this clip that helped me a bit make a little sense of things (also check out what Thomas Sowell has to say about many topics - pretty genuine guy) :

http://youtu.be/btvSE6tVHzQ

Good luck with your sure to be colourful journey through the political sphere... Discussing social sciences brings out the best and worst in most. 

When in doubt - remember we are made of stardust and most of us primates have a fragile ego. 

Cheers

 

[Brad Sallows]

Go to the sources.  By that, I mean read the keystone documents and books (most of which have been around for decades if not centuries).  If you want to understand what the philosophers and politicians - and yes, the tyrants - thought, you need to read their own words.  If you take someone else's summary or synthesis at face value, you will essentially be adopting their opinion in the way they hope you might.  Most of what passes for conventional / common wisdom today is confused revisionism.

 

[a_majoor]

Another place to get some interesting ideas is "Politics with more dimensions" right here in Army.ca.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744/post-128824#msg128824

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Thank you for the responses. They are indeed helpful.

 

[pbi]

Thank you for the responses. They are indeed helpful.

"These are my principles...
If you don't like them, I have others..."
Groucho Marx​

OK...just kidding.. ;D

My own approach is to try not to automatically align myself with any particular leaning, Left or Right. I think we lose something if we say "I am a conservative, and therefore I am automatically against the following list of things..."; or "I am a liberal so I unquestioningly believe that these things are true..." Or, for that matter, indulge in characterizing other people into neat little political boxes that way. (But I confess that this is very tempting and often quite satisfying, so, yes...I do it...)

That is substituting group identity and conformity for actual thought.

I have points of view that are well to the left of lots of people on this site. At the same time, I am well over the right on other issues. I see no dissonance: I believe in what makes sense to me, rather than swallowing a package or political platform whole. As noted above, moderation and critical thought are good guides. To which I might add a very healthy dose of skepticism about ALL political parties, regardless of stripe.

I also find that over the years my political views have evolved. As I have gotten older and seen more of life, my "liberal" views on some things have become much more pronounced, for example. I think you have to keep evaluating and asking what seems right, and what makes sense. When we stop doing that we become dogmatic.

 

[DBA]

Two things I try to use to guide me in regards to politics, the first is something I heard in the military: "A good plan well executed beats the best plan poorly executed." Some of the biggest disasters and screw ups are from people pushing what they believe is the perfect plan from an ideological point of view and utterly botching the execution. The second is from Jainism (Anekantavada) to avoid absolutes and always consider you may be wrong. It is far too easy to become more and more convinced your own position is the only reasonable one and anybody who holds any other as unreasonable and worse.

 

[Crispy Bacon]

I heard someone once say : 'a young conservative has no heart, but an old liberal has no brains.'

The quote is: "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.  If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brains!"

 

[Crispy Bacon]

Having said that, how does one essentially establish their political beliefs?  I read a lot--from many sources. I watch a lot. I pay attention. But we all know that different sources are skewed differently to left, right or independent (or sometimes even otherwise). So how do we find the truth--the happy medium, per se, and which angle of the issues we're going to be influenced by the most?

IMO, the key starting point is whether you believe humans are inherently good, trusting, and honest, or whether they are inherently deceiving, selfish, and evil.

If you believe the former, then a liberal world view is going to suit you: the government is a good thing; the state should actively intervene in the market; poor people should be supported with generous welfare payments; corporations are greedy and should have their power limited and pay taxes to the government; the government should control every aspect possible; and so on.

If you believe the latter, then a conservative world view is going to suit you: the government should be questioned and limited; the state should crack down on criminals and enforce criminal sanctions; the state should stay out of personal business and affairs; the market should be lightly regulated but fair for all parties (consumers, businesses, and government); and so on.

 

[jpjohnsn]

My advice?  Don't develop a comfort zone and, in the words of the Russian proverb "доверяй но проверяй" (trust but verify).

The internet has made conformation bias, populism and absolutism highly honed artforms.  Hyperlinks make it all too easy to fall into a cycle of "data" that is self-referential and cross-pollenated to the point that it ends up being like the serpent Jörmungandr eating its own tail.

Read newspapers from across the political spectrum and from other countries.  I would have a care getting news primarily from news aggregation sites (like the HuffPost or the Drudge Report) as they usually have a specific political agenda and have no interest in presenting either the overall picture or the nuances of the story.  Even if you don't agree with the conclusion or spin on a story, read it anyway as the parallax view might give you something to think about.

If a story or Facebook post or whatever posts a link to some kind of incontravertable proof of something, dig deeper.  That official-looking institute or group might be a political think-tank in disguise, lobbyists or some kind of astroturf group - or just some nutbar.  The relative anonymity of the internet and the fact that some tinfoil-hat wearer down in their basement spewing inanities and insanities can have the same reach as a "legitimate" source means that some people actually take things like Chemtrails and 9/11 conspiracy theories seriously.

And if you find that you are automatically gainsaying something from someone, not because it's a bad idea, but just because they aren't on your "team"; stop, give your head a good shake and think about it before coming to a conclusion.  Agreeing with someone from the "other side" or compromising does not make you weak or undermine your own political philosophy.

Finally: conservatives aren't all one thing and neither are liberals.  Broad statements about lefties or conbots are rarely, if ever, true and are a sign of a lazy and generally uniformed speaker (regardless of how erudite their speech appears) and schadenfraude is not a virtue.

Conservative can be pro-gun control and a liberal can be anti-union.  A normal person's views usually fall across the spectrum and not just on one side of the line or the other. 

 

[pbi]

My advice?  Don't develop a comfort zone and, in the words of the Russian proverb "доверяй но проверяй" (trust but verify)....

The internet has made conformation bias, populism and absolutism highly honed artforms.  Hyperlinks make it all too easy to fall into a cycle of "data" that is self-referential and cross-pollenated to the point that it ends up being like the serpent Jörmungandr eating its own tail.

Read newspapers from across the political spectrum and from other countries.  I would have a care getting news primarily from news aggregation sites (like the HuffPost or the Drudge Report) as they usually have a specific political agenda and have no interest in presenting either the overall picture or the nuances of the story.  Even if you don't agree with the conclusion or spin on a story, read it anyway as the parallax view might give you something to think about.

If a story or Facebook post or whatever posts a link to some kind of incontravertable proof of something, dig deeper.  That official-looking institute or group might be a political think-tank in disguise, lobbyists or some kind of astroturf group - or just some nutbar.  The relative anonymity of the internet and the fact that some tinfoil-hat wearer down in their basement spewing inanities and insanities can have the same reach as a "legitimate" source means that some people actually take things like Chemtrails and 9/11 conspiracy theories seriously.

And if you find that you are automatically gainsaying something from someone, not because it's a bad idea, but just because they aren't on your "team"; stop, give your head a good shake and think about it before coming to a conclusion.  Agreeing with someone from the "other side" or compromising does not make you weak or undermine your own political philosophy.

Finally: conservatives aren't all one thing and neither are liberals.  Broad statements about lefties or conbots are rarely, if ever, true and are a sign of a lazy and generally uniformed speaker (regardless of how erudite their speech appears) and schadenfraude is not a virtue.

Conservative can be pro-gun control and a liberal can be anti-union.  A normal person's views usually fall across the spectrum and not just on one side of the line or the other.

:goodpost:

That's pretty well how I try to approach things. And, I certainly agree that the internet has made it much easier for the worst sorts of intellectually dysfunctional people to band together and reinforce each other's idiocies, left or right. And all without having to put on pants or leave the basement to go post a letter to the editor...

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why would you put on pants to post a letter?

 

[pbi]

Why would you put on pants to post a letter?

Depends.



Ba-dump-bump. Try the meatloaf folks: I'm here all week. There's a lime green Pacer in the lot with its lights on.... :dude:

 

[BeyondTheNow]

"These are my principles...
If you don't like them, I have others..."
Groucho Marx​

OK...just kidding.. ;D

My own approach is to try not to automatically align myself with any particular leaning, Left or Right. I think we lose something if we say "I am a conservative, and therefore I am automatically against the following list of things..."; or "I am a liberal so I unquestioningly believe that these things are true..." Or, for that matter, indulge in characterizing other people into neat little political boxes that way. (But I confess that this is very tempting and often quite satisfying, so, yes...I do it...)

That is substituting group identity and conformity for actual thought.

I have points of view that are well to the left of lots of people on this site. At the same time, I am well over the right on other issues. I see no dissonance: I believe in what makes sense to me, rather than swallowing a package or political platform whole. As noted above, moderation and critical thought are good guides. To which I might add a very healthy dose of skepticism about ALL political parties, regardless of stripe.

I also find that over the years my political views have evolved. As I have gotten older and seen more of life, my "liberal" views on some things have become much more pronounced, for example. I think you have to keep evaluating and asking what seems right, and what makes sense. When we stop doing that we become dogmatic.

Thanks pbi.

I am similar in that there are opinions of mine about various topics which fall or lean towards different areas. Not all of my ideals fall into a nice, little box, which can be placed and identified 'here, here or here' and thus, I identify as <fill in the blank>. This is both intriguing yet disconcerting for me to a certain degree. Perhaps because I'd like to give myself a particular label within the political spectrum?--I'm not exactly sure. What, precisely, bothers me about not being able to personally identify my stance? Many things. Too many points to type. But overall, I feel it would give me a clearer direction in terms of researching topics and/or when engaged in political conversation. It would also aid in personal growth/development--at least for me.

I've often thought about the odd looks and dismissive actions I could occasionally encounter in the military, particularly because of the simple fact that the experiences many personnel have encountered during their careers have had profound impact on their political beliefs and they are very passionate about their views. At this stage, I am not able to relate to their passion(s) or reasons for it.

I have some extremely Liberal opinions/beliefs, and some extremely Conservative ones. Because of this, I feel.....finicky. While I listen intently to conversation, read, watch, absorb, learn, I fully expect my beliefs to evolve as I get older, much as they have over the past decade.

 

[pbi]

I wouldn't be too worried that your beliefs and perspectives are not all neatly parked in one spot. I find that the more you look into any particular issue, the more chance there is that your views on it may change.

What is more important to me is that you can link your particular beliefs or views on a given issue to some basic guiding principles. These may be different for everybody to some degree, but probably there are some shared in common amongst most of us. Having some principles gives you an anchor point, so that your open-mindedness, or pragmatism, or whatever you call it, doesn't just  become aimless bouncing from one "flavour of the month" belief to another.

While giving yourself a "label" and solidifying your thoughts on something would certainly make it "easier" to do research or engage in a conversation, I'm not sure it would be easier for the right reasons. Simply saying "I'm a liberal so I'm not going to read that book" or "I'm a conservative so I'm not going to see that movie"  (both of which I've done at one time or another...) will just start to harden your point of view by making sure that it never gets challenged. Dogmatic people hate having their views challenged, so they don't permit it, so they get more dogmatic.

I've often thought about the odd looks and dismissive actions I could occasionally encounter in the military, particularly because of the simple fact that the experiences many personnel have encountered during their careers have had profound impact on their political beliefs and they are very passionate about their views. At this stage, I am not able to relate to their passion(s) or reasons for it.

I don't share this concern, although I understand it. I served for over 30 years, both Reg and Res, and one of the great things about our military is that, for the most part the people in it represent and express all kinds of political and social viewpoints.  Now, I'm  not talking about the politically correct "party line" boilerplate that we see and read: that is what it is, and probably always will be. I'm talking about the actual serving people.

By way of contrast, I've spent a fair bit of time around other militaries: one thing that struck me (and other Canadians I know that have served alongside other forces) is that their officer culture can be far more conformist, both politically and socially, than ours.  The differences have shocked me on more than one occasion. In some of those forces, I suggest, one might probably want to be careful about expressing too divergent of an opinion on something like, let's say, religion.

So, unless you are preaching sedition, or urging something like racism or homophobia, you really wouldn't have much to worry about. Will you get arguments and challenges? Will people be passionate? Of course, as it should be. Some of the best arguments I've ever had, or witnessed, have been in the CAF social environment.

I have some extremely Liberal opinions/beliefs, and some extremely Conservative ones. Because of this, I feel.....finicky. While I listen intently to conversation, read, watch, absorb, learn, I fully expect my beliefs to evolve as I get older, much as they have over the past decade.

I don't think it's "finicky" unless there's no principle or logic or critical thought underpinning a particular position. And as far as your last sentence goes, I would hope it describes a process that any thinking person would go through.

 

[Edward Campbell]

You might want to take a look at John McKay's comments in this article, which is about Justin Trudeau's statement that all Liberal MPs will be expected to be pro-choice.

Mr McKay, a resolutely pro-life MP, will be "grandfathered" M. Trudeau said. Mr Mckay, a committed Liberal, said, "“I think a pluralism of views is better than a mono-view, but the party made that decision ...” he likened the issue to the party’s position on marijuana legalization. Asked if he was disappointed, he replied: “Disappointment is not the right word. [Mr. Trudeau] does reflect what the views of the party are. If you take the marijuana issue, those are the views of the party. You know, it’s a shocking thing, but it is a democracy, and democracy throws up some strange things at time ...” Mr. McKay nonetheless said the Liberal Party continues to best line up with his views on other matters. “If you’re a pro-life MP in the Conservative party, you’re a pretty unhappy camper these days,” he said."

I doubt that there are any Conservative MPs, including Stephen Harper himself, who agree, line by line, with the Conservative Party's platform. The Liberals are infamous for their internal dissent, civil wars might be a better term. The NDP is, equally, riven with differences, especially on economic policy and Quebec nationalism. But each MP and party member stays committed because, as Mr Mckay said,  their party "continues to best line up with his views on other matters."

I, for example, self-describe as a classical, 19th century, English liberal and as a utilitarian (also in the 19th century English model) and I seek the greatest good for the greatest number - but I do so in a liberal manner, which is to say, one which respects the positon of the sovereign individual and holds that all the really important, fundamental rights belong to the individual and the state has a duty defend those individual rights against the actions of all collectives, including the state itself.

I am a member and financial supprter of the Conservative party of Canada, even though I disagree with, even despise, some of its polices and some of its members. The fact is that, despite my distaste for the Conservative Party's social conservative positions and members, it "continues to best line up with his views on other matters." On social issues I am much more aligned with the Liberals and NDP, but social issues are just one aspect of public policy and I think the Liberals are wrong and the NDP downright dangerously wrong on all the other, equally important, issues. (I trust the Supreme Court of Canada to knock the stupid edges (and there are a lot of 'em) off Conservative policies.)

Although I am a pretty firmly committed Conservative I always, and publicly, wish the Liberal Party of Canada well because I know, with absolute certainty that no political party, including the CPC can be trusted to govern for too long. The CPC will get fat, lazy, corrupt and stupid (some people, including some Conservatives, think it has already) and we will need a smart, ready Liberal Party to be the government in waiting. I have scant regard for M Trudeau, I think he's a lightweight, nothing much except fluff and charisma, but I am confident that there are some first rate people on his team, and when, not if, the Conservatives need replacing I want the Liberals to be ready.

 

[pbi]

...Although I am a pretty firmly committed Conservative I always, and publicly, wish the Liberal Party of Canada well because I know, with absolute certainty that no political party, including the CPC can be trusted to govern for too long. The CPC will get fat, lazy, corrupt and stupid (some people, including some Conservatives, think it has already) and we will need a smart, ready Liberal Party to be the government in waiting. I have scant regard for M Trudeau, I think he's a lightweight, nothing much except fluff and charisma, but I am confident that there are some first rate people on his team, and when, not if, the Conservatives need replacing I want the Liberals to be ready.

This is much how I see it. Just as competition between businesses should guarantee better customer service, so the threat of being bounced out should keep Govts in line. And, much like ERC, I think they need some keeping in line. Particularly in Canada, where it seems that our system almost guarantees that a party will start to go bad in its second term, and will be an arrogant, self-serving mess if it stays longer than that.

If you don't like democracy, try single party rule.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Personally, I make a list. What is it I want to see and which way do I think each party is going to take me.

Then I extrapolate to where I expect these parties will have taken me in four years vice where we are.

Platforms to me are near meaningless drivel. You have to cut through the bafflegab of campaign promises and rhetoric to that which is financially feasible and physically possible.

Lot's of morons will vote for a party that's promising to dredge a route and provide a port for Princess Cruises in Sarnia. They'll never get it, and if elected on that promise, the particular party will backtrack with obfuscating dialogue that never gives a reason why they reneged.

Discerning voters will note that it's so highly an improbable a task that it will never happen and will vote accordingly.

You have to read, research and decide if you can trust what they are saying, but most of all, are their promises possible, financially, physically and within the taxes you are willing to pay to make it possible given the first two.

Hudak has promised to scrap the Green Energy Act and end the subsidy to Samsung that's driving our electrical bills to the highest in North America.

Wynne has said she'll end the Debt Retirement Charge on hydro bills, sounds good right? What she doesn't talk a lot about is she's also going to end the Energy Rebate the same day. This is going to hit taxpayers with significantly higher hydro bills, something else she doesn't explain or talk about.

So far the NDP, Bob Rae 2.0, have not announced a plan for Ontario home owners and business owners burgeoning, astronomical hydro prices.

Hydro prices happen to be one of the top contentious issues in this election.

This is a simplistic overview of what I look at and how I approach the issues.

Is Hudaks policy valid, what will it cost in penalties, how much to take down the windmills or stop taking their power, will my take home be affected by cost overruns for cancelling?

Wynne's plan is a no brainer. Her party is going to hit taxpayers with higher costs while maintaining the status quo and driving more business from Ontario. Also the money that she's pulling in is promised to Toronto for transportation infrastructure while the rest of the province get's bubkiss.

The NDP? Who knows. They will try to walk the fine line between typical Ontarians and the Unions. The same Unions she ignored when they told her to accept Wynne's budget. Bob Rae's antics are still too fresh in voters minds to give them serious consideration. However, everyone, including Rae, were surprised when he won. So, strange things can happen.

So, for all of that, if you wish to spend nights reading about politics, so be it. If you wish to decide which way to go, those are my suggestions. It's up to you how you do it.

One thing I do take highly into consideration is feel good social programs.

I believe I shouldn't have to work hard to earn a good wage, just so the government can come along, take a big chunk of it, and give it to those that refuse to work.

edit-spelling

 

[Journeyman]

I think many problems in politics, religion, economics, et al result from the application of labels -- particularly with those who do not (or cannot) think beyond the label.

As such, more often than not, I'm usually content to think, ponder, believe what I'm comfortable with on those various subjects and try to avoid putting a sticker on wherever I happen to be on the 'belief spectrum'

Usually  >


Mileage varies....

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Thank you very much for the responses. You have given me a lot to think about.

Although I already knew it, my mind is eased to read that I'm not the only one who holds opinions/beliefs which don't necessarily fall into one arena. I definitely don't rebuke any viewpoints that come from any particular side, simply because they are Liberal or Conservative or whatnot.  I read/take in many opinions from many sources, then try to sort out what I feel is most accurate/relevant, etc. for me.  Sometimes it can become overwhelming, however. But I think that's mainly because I'm still trying to become stronger in the area of politics altogether.

I took a few quizzes (including what was mentioned in this thread) and was not overly surprised by the results. But I know I'm definitely still evolving.