CDZ Do people's political leanings change over time?

[320 Years of History]

I'm waiting for some struggling worker to run who hasn't gotten ahead and sees how the system is set up for him to fail. That's my guy.

Well, we'll just have to agree to support different candidates. There's no way in hell I would vote for someone having the image that came to mind when I read your post. I may even agree with his policies, but if he's not been successful to the extent that he's not struggling, he's still not getting my vote.

I feel sympathy for the guy for he's enjoyed no success in our system, but that he hasn't also implies to me that he's not the brightest light in the candleabra. That and holding elected or high appointed office just doesn't work for me. How can I expect that he can identify with most people -- most of whom aren't struggling at all and most of whom manage to find some modicum of success -- when all he can do is say the system is rigged against him? He must surely be naive to the point that he genuinely believes his condition is unique enough that nobody who started out like him has found a way to "make it." That extent of hubris, lifelong failure, and zeal is, IMO, a disastrous combination to have in an elected official. Hell, I think it's disastrous in voters as well.

 

[Votto]

If I actually grew and learned stuff since I was a kid, then yeah, I would hope that my political views would evolve as I learn more.

Obama evolves about every minute of the day.

First he is against gay marriage and then he is for it. First he wants to close club Gitmo then he wants to keep it open. FIrst he says he will withdraw troops from Afghanistan and then says he will keep them there. First he says we can keep our health care policies if we like them and then he takes them away. First he says our premiums will go down but then they go up and for less coverage. First he passes Obamacare and then decides to personally repeal certain aspects of his own law that he later thinks sucks, etc.

Yea, politics is all about "evolving", much like they let the Constitution evolve into pretty much anything they want it to say.

As for my political leanings, I've always leaned right, but now I hate the GOP.

It is both liberating and frightening at the same time. It is liberating finally seeing the political establishment for what it is, and it is frightening knowing that you have no voice or power in it. All the BS regarding democracy that I believed in at one time gave way to the understanding that it has become nothing more than a devolved centralized system that is controlled by elitists and on the verge of despotism.

 

[jwoodie]

One who holds the same unwavering beliefs is prone to rigid and inflexible thought patterns

Tell me do you want to be intellectually rigid and inflexible?

It depends on what type of beliefs you are referring to. Belief in facts should always be subject to new information. Belief in principles and the application of logic is a sign of superior intellect.

 

[Votto]

One who holds the same unwavering beliefs is prone to rigid and inflexible thought patterns

Tell me do you want to be intellectually rigid and inflexible?

It depends on what type of beliefs you are referring to. Belief in facts should always be subject to new information. Belief in principles and the application of logic is a sign of superior intellect.

One does not simply abandon a belief system because of the facts. It is more complicated than that.

For example, we have all been confronted with facts that seem to be in contradiction to our belief system, but in the end, were not after all, and vice versa.

Also, the more we depend on a belief system the more apt we are to defend it to the death. For example, if I devoted my entire life to theology or being a devout atheist then I would have more to lose by changing my belief system. The more you build or invest in a said belief system the more apt your are to defend it. There is also the fact that abandoning certain belief systems may cause you to surrender things you don't wish to give up. For example, if you enjoy being promiscuous and know that becoming a Christian would require you to give that up, more than likely you have a vested interest in defeating the said belief system that threatens your way of life that you love.

So no, it's not just about the facts.

 

[jwoodie]

One who holds the same unwavering beliefs is prone to rigid and inflexible thought patterns

Tell me do you want to be intellectually rigid and inflexible?

It depends on what type of beliefs you are referring to. Belief in facts should always be subject to new information. Belief in principles and the application of logic is a sign of superior intellect.

One does not simply abandon a belief system because of the facts. It is more complicated than that.

For example, we have all been confronted with facts that seem to be in contradiction to our belief system, but in the end, were not after all, and vice versa.

Also, the more we depend on a belief system the more apt we are to defend it to the death. For example, if I devoted my entire life to theology or being a devout atheist then I would have more to lose by changing my belief system. The more you build or invest in a said belief system the more apt your are to defend it. There is also the fact that abandoning certain belief systems may cause you to surrender things you don't wish to give up. For example, if you enjoy being promiscuous and know that becoming a Christian would require you to give that up, more than likely you have a vested interest in defeating the said belief system that threatens your way of life that you love.

So no, it's not just about the facts.

Well, everyone must speak for themselves. While I do have some predilections based on personal experience, I have very few factual beliefs that are not subject to change based on new information. As a general rule my conclusions follow the facts I believe to be true, not vice versa.

 

[Votto]

One who holds the same unwavering beliefs is prone to rigid and inflexible thought patterns

Tell me do you want to be intellectually rigid and inflexible?

It depends on what type of beliefs you are referring to. Belief in facts should always be subject to new information. Belief in principles and the application of logic is a sign of superior intellect.

One does not simply abandon a belief system because of the facts. It is more complicated than that.

For example, we have all been confronted with facts that seem to be in contradiction to our belief system, but in the end, were not after all, and vice versa.

Also, the more we depend on a belief system the more apt we are to defend it to the death. For example, if I devoted my entire life to theology or being a devout atheist then I would have more to lose by changing my belief system. The more you build or invest in a said belief system the more apt your are to defend it. There is also the fact that abandoning certain belief systems may cause you to surrender things you don't wish to give up. For example, if you enjoy being promiscuous and know that becoming a Christian would require you to give that up, more than likely you have a vested interest in defeating the said belief system that threatens your way of life that you love.

So no, it's not just about the facts.

Well, everyone must speak for themselves. While I do have some predilections based on personal experience, I have very few factual beliefs that are not subject to change based on new information. As a general rule my conclusions follow the facts I believe to be true, not vice versa.

As I said, it depends on how much you have invested in any one particular belief.

The belief in God is an example. This can lead to a whole range of other beliefs by default. Things like abortion and euthenasia take on a whole other dynamic when one believes that a God is above to answer to. Life is no longer ours, rather, it is God's and on loan.

But if you are discussing a belief in your favorite color, that is a trivial matter without any hubris attached. That would be an easy belief to change. Granted, some people may say they think there is a God and just leave it at that. They have no real beliefs attached to this belief in God so losing that belief is not traumatic in any way. Those are the type of people that might change their beliefs as easily as talking about their new favorite color.

I am reminded of the parable Jesus once told. Two men build a house, one on firm rock and another on sand. When they were all done building, the house on sand fell. These houses represent a belief system. The belief system that represents the foundation is the most important. If that goes, the whole house collapses. However, if one were to change out a window, which also represents a belief of some kind, then that would be a trivial thing.

What really impresses me though, are people who have built their house on a foundation of sand. They realize what they have done, and decide to forsake the entire house and start anew. They would rather take their entire life as a lose than not being able to salvage something by clinging to the truth instead.

 

[Skull Pilot]

One who holds the same unwavering beliefs is prone to rigid and inflexible thought patterns

Tell me do you want to be intellectually rigid and inflexible?

It depends on what type of beliefs you are referring to. Belief in facts should always be subject to new information. Belief in principles and the application of logic is a sign of superior intellect.

One does not simply abandon a belief system because of the facts. It is more complicated than that.

For example, we have all been confronted with facts that seem to be in contradiction to our belief system, but in the end, were not after all, and vice versa.

Also, the more we depend on a belief system the more apt we are to defend it to the death. For example, if I devoted my entire life to theology or being a devout atheist then I would have more to lose by changing my belief system. The more you build or invest in a said belief system the more apt your are to defend it. There is also the fact that abandoning certain belief systems may cause you to surrender things you don't wish to give up. For example, if you enjoy being promiscuous and know that becoming a Christian would require you to give that up, more than likely you have a vested interest in defeating the said belief system that threatens your way of life that you love.

So no, it's not just about the facts.

If the facts contradict what you believe to be true then changing your beliefs is not only warranted it is prudent
Unless you're just always going to say 2 plus 2 equals 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 9

 

[Votto]

One who holds the same unwavering beliefs is prone to rigid and inflexible thought patterns

Tell me do you want to be intellectually rigid and inflexible?

It depends on what type of beliefs you are referring to. Belief in facts should always be subject to new information. Belief in principles and the application of logic is a sign of superior intellect.

One does not simply abandon a belief system because of the facts. It is more complicated than that.

For example, we have all been confronted with facts that seem to be in contradiction to our belief system, but in the end, were not after all, and vice versa.

Also, the more we depend on a belief system the more apt we are to defend it to the death. For example, if I devoted my entire life to theology or being a devout atheist then I would have more to lose by changing my belief system. The more you build or invest in a said belief system the more apt your are to defend it. There is also the fact that abandoning certain belief systems may cause you to surrender things you don't wish to give up. For example, if you enjoy being promiscuous and know that becoming a Christian would require you to give that up, more than likely you have a vested interest in defeating the said belief system that threatens your way of life that you love.

So no, it's not just about the facts.

If the facts contradict what you believe to be true then changing your beliefs is not only warranted it is prudent
Unless you're just always going to say 2 plus 2 equals 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 9

It's not that easy.

Take global warming, for example.

If we show that the climate is warming, and we show that producing CO2 helps warm the planet, does that mean that the planet will continue to warm until we destroy ourselves?

From Obama's views on the matter, the case is settled. There is no need to look further into this issue.

What say you?

 

[candycorn]

The smarter I become, the more liberal I find my political leanings. If this is "evolution" or not, I am not sure. What I would term it is simply being more aware of why X happens. For example, We put a guy in jail for 10 years for selling pot. For 10 years, his kids do not have a father, we don't have that tax income, and whatever contriubtion he was making to the society is lost as well. I can hear it immediately--"He was a drug dealer...he wasn't contributing anything". Bunk. Nobody lives in a vaccum and no man is an island. There was some contribution being made.

All of that is gone. So what happens is that his kid grows up fatherless and will likely get into some trouble too. What we would have collected in taxes we spend keeping him behind bars. And whatever support he offered to others now must come from somewhere else.

Seeing this play out is not a political thing; it's common sense. Liberals understand the damage and wish to interdict. Conservatives seem happy to repeat it over and over again.

Seems strange to me.

 

[320 Years of History]

The smarter I become, the more liberal I find my political leanings. If this is "evolution" or not, I am not sure. What I would term it is simply being more aware of why X happens. For example, We put a guy in jail for 10 years for selling pot. For 10 years, his kids do not have a father, we don't have that tax income, and whatever contribution he was making to the society is lost as well. I can hear it immediately--"He was a drug dealer...he wasn't contributing anything". Bunk. Nobody lives in a vaccum and no man is an island. There was some contribution being made.

All of that is gone. So what happens is that his kid grows up fatherless and will likely get into some trouble too. What we would have collected in taxes we spend keeping him behind bars. And whatever support he offered to others now must come from somewhere else.

Seeing this play out is not a political thing; it's common sense. Liberals understand the damage and wish to interdict. Conservatives seem happy to repeat it over and over again.

Seems strange to me.

In fairness, I have come by some very bright conservative folks. Bill Buckley was one. Robert Nisbet and Claes Ryn others. In fact, were there a candidate like any of them running, I'd might support them. Support them or not, I'd at least pay attention to their ideas. I can hardly say any of the current GOP candidates so capture my interest. The intellectual conservatives are out there, but they are aren't from whom we often hear.



The thing about Buckley that I find wanting in so much political discourse these days is that the man had integrity. He had enough of it that he knew when he was wrong and he freely admitted it. "In 2004, asked whether he’d ever taken a position he now regretted, he said, 'Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.' "

Brilliant people like him know that though they may often be right about a topic, they aren't always so and that the lose more by standing on a wrong position than they gain by recognizing their mistake and learning from it. I don't see that character trait, the refusal to ascend to hubris' apex, in any of the current GOP candidates. With one, Mr. Trump, I see the hubris that is exactly the opposite.

I'm hardly alone in thinking that American conservative intellectualism has gone the way of the dodo. Mr. Ryn asserts, and I agree, that , "the conservative intellectual movement as a whole was influenced by the ubiquitous pseudo-pragmatism and showed no strong inclination to get to the bottom of difficult philosophical issues. More concerned about seizing opportunities for anti-statist political coalition-building than about achieving intellectual coherence, the movement left some of its basic assumptions regarding human nature and society in provisional, poorly integrated form and got by with a partly jerry-built intellectual structure." Some, however, such as Peter Lawler, don't agree that intellectual conservatives are a waning species. "It's just not true that...traditionalist conservatism is in retreat. It lives a fresh and vital existence in the moral imagination of many of our conservative intellectuals. It is an understandable response to the tendency toward moral emptiness of a high-tech, capitalist civilization."

So while I see no paucity of conservatives who are hell bent on driving us to make the same mistakes we did hundreds of years ago, it's only the only who seem today to hold the reigns of the Republican party. Unfortunately, it's not the intellectual conservatives who hold them. As I wrote at the outset of this thread, I began my adult life as a Republican. What I didn't write, but given your remarks feel I must do now, is that it was only when the conservative lost its ability to "distinguish between profundity and superficiality, truth and ideology" that I no longer could count myself among them.

Does that make it I who has changed? Perhaps not...

 

[baileyn45]

Personally I'd attribute changes in political leanings more to the changing stances of political groups more than changes in my own outlook. What passes for both "liberal" and "conservative" today aren't what they used to be.

Today it seems that to be a "liberal" means that the only answer to any problem is a massive govt program and anyone who disagrees is racist. And to be a "conservative" means all answers are in the bible and rape doesn't cause pregnancy.

All told I'm a man without a party.

 

[Pop23]

Wonder if this says more about the presidents or how voters view the role of government?

I was a democrats until Carter

I was a Republican until Bush Sr.

I was an independent until Obama.

Registering as a Republican again.

 

[Mac1958]

So how have your political views changed over time? Have they? I know you don't think they will change from what they are now, but if they have before, they can and might again.

Great freakin' question.

I think people's minds can change, or at least change somewhat, but it can only if that person's ego doesn't get in the way. When a person becomes attached to an ideology, a certain narcissism creeps in, almost a paranoia, and they'll refuse to give an inch because they somehow think it's capitulation.

So yeah, but it's up to the individual, and it takes a certain measure of healthy self-esteem.
.

 

[Asclepias]

Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.
-- François Guizot

According to Pew Research, "on an individual level, ... many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life. As one famous longitudinal study of Bennington College women put it, “through late childhood and early adolescence, attitudes are relatively malleable…with the potential for dramatic change possible in late adolescence or early adulthood."

The Center further cites Pew Research Center surveys over the past two decades also have found compelling evidence that generations carry with them the imprint of early political experiences.

I became 18 at the end of the Boomer generation. I began my young adulthood as a Republican. By the the early 1990s, I had become an independent, and that is how I self-identify today. I don't know how that fits me into Pew's research, but it is what it is, and frankly, the qualities I want most to see in elected officials (candidates too) are overall intellect, leadership skill, integrity, and commitment to the principle of noblesse oblige. Accordingly, I was keen on Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton.

Interestingly, perhaps even surprisingly, I am not keen on Mr. Trump, but were he not so, without cause or need, insulting toward others, I could be. I'd have liked him even more had he stuck to his word and not agreed to forgo running as an independent if he didn't get the Republican nomination; making that agreement convinced me that he just isn't a man of high enough integrity for my taste. I could also be somewhat keen on Dr. Carson too but for his being a scientifically well educated person who denies the verity of evolution.

When I was younger, I was "all about" what a candidate thought on the issues. Now, I only care insofar as what they say is at least plausible and supportable. Far more important to me is whether I think they can effect their policies, and that matters more to me because I know darn well that upon taking office, every president discovers the folly of trying to implement a host of their campaign claims and intents exactly as they were presented before running for office.

So how have your political views changed over time? Have they? I know you don't think they will change from what they are now, but if they have before, they can and might again.

I was raised a democrat but moved to independent after realizing the opposite end of the spectrum wasnt necessarily in the best interests of my people. I forced myself to listen to the GOP talks shows for about 2 months until I couldnt take it anymore.

 

[Elvis Obama]

What you fail to realize is that most people have no political beliefs. They conform, they do not think. They are herd animals. Sheeple is the popular term. The process you refer to is called aging. Change is ever less comfortable as you age. Thoughtful people do not change their entire philosophical outlook as they age. It happens, of course, but it's very rare. Our political system has become nothing but Sheeple herding. We just use commercials instead of sheep dogs.,

 

[jwoodie]

The smarter I become, the more liberal I find my political leanings. If this is "evolution" or not, I am not sure. What I would term it is simply being more aware of why X happens. For example, We put a guy in jail for 10 years for selling pot. For 10 years, his kids do not have a father, we don't have that tax income, and whatever contribution he was making to the society is lost as well. I can hear it immediately--"He was a drug dealer...he wasn't contributing anything". Bunk. Nobody lives in a vaccum and no man is an island. There was some contribution being made.

All of that is gone. So what happens is that his kid grows up fatherless and will likely get into some trouble too. What we would have collected in taxes we spend keeping him behind bars. And whatever support he offered to others now must come from somewhere else.

Seeing this play out is not a political thing; it's common sense. Liberals understand the damage and wish to interdict. Conservatives seem happy to repeat it over and over again.

Seems strange to me.

In fairness, I have come by some very bright conservative folks. Bill Buckley was one. Robert Nisbet and Claes Ryn others. In fact, were there a candidate like any of them running, I'd might support them. Support them or not, I'd at least pay attention to their ideas. I can hardly say any of the current GOP candidates so capture my interest. The intellectual conservatives are out there, but they are aren't from whom we often hear.



The thing about Buckley that I find wanting in so much political discourse these days is that the man had integrity. He had enough of it that he knew when he was wrong and he freely admitted it. "In 2004, asked whether he’d ever taken a position he now regretted, he said, 'Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.' "

Brilliant people like him know that though they may often be right about a topic, they aren't always so and that the lose more by standing on a wrong position than they gain by recognizing their mistake and learning from it. I don't see that character trait, the refusal to ascend to hubris' apex, in any of the current GOP candidates. With one, Mr. Trump, I see the hubris that is exactly the opposite.

I'm hardly alone in thinking that American conservative intellectualism has gone the way of the dodo. Mr. Ryn asserts, and I agree, that , "the conservative intellectual movement as a whole was influenced by the ubiquitous pseudo-pragmatism and showed no strong inclination to get to the bottom of difficult philosophical issues. More concerned about seizing opportunities for anti-statist political coalition-building than about achieving intellectual coherence, the movement left some of its basic assumptions regarding human nature and society in provisional, poorly integrated form and got by with a partly jerry-built intellectual structure." Some, however, such as Peter Lawler, don't agree that intellectual conservatives are a waning species. "It's just not true that...traditionalist conservatism is in retreat. It lives a fresh and vital existence in the moral imagination of many of our conservative intellectuals. It is an understandable response to the tendency toward moral emptiness of a high-tech, capitalist civilization."

So while I see no paucity of conservatives who are hell bent on driving us to make the same mistakes we did hundreds of years ago, it's only the only who seem today to hold the reigns of the Republican party. Unfortunately, it's not the intellectual conservatives who hold them. As I wrote at the outset of this thread, I began my adult life as a Republican. What I didn't write, but given your remarks feel I must do now, is that it was only when the conservative lost its ability to "distinguish between profundity and superficiality, truth and ideology" that I no longer could count myself among them.

Does that make it I who has changed? Perhaps not...

When did you become so infatuated with yourself? Like Obama, you seem to value words more than facts, and theory more than experience. Just what mistakes did we make "hundreds of years ago" that conservatives are "hell bent" on repeating?

 

[Asclepias]

The smarter I become, the more liberal I find my political leanings. If this is "evolution" or not, I am not sure. What I would term it is simply being more aware of why X happens. For example, We put a guy in jail for 10 years for selling pot. For 10 years, his kids do not have a father, we don't have that tax income, and whatever contribution he was making to the society is lost as well. I can hear it immediately--"He was a drug dealer...he wasn't contributing anything". Bunk. Nobody lives in a vaccum and no man is an island. There was some contribution being made.

All of that is gone. So what happens is that his kid grows up fatherless and will likely get into some trouble too. What we would have collected in taxes we spend keeping him behind bars. And whatever support he offered to others now must come from somewhere else.

Seeing this play out is not a political thing; it's common sense. Liberals understand the damage and wish to interdict. Conservatives seem happy to repeat it over and over again.

Seems strange to me.

In fairness, I have come by some very bright conservative folks. Bill Buckley was one. Robert Nisbet and Claes Ryn others. In fact, were there a candidate like any of them running, I'd might support them. Support them or not, I'd at least pay attention to their ideas. I can hardly say any of the current GOP candidates so capture my interest. The intellectual conservatives are out there, but they are aren't from whom we often hear.



The thing about Buckley that I find wanting in so much political discourse these days is that the man had integrity. He had enough of it that he knew when he was wrong and he freely admitted it. "In 2004, asked whether he’d ever taken a position he now regretted, he said, 'Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.' "

Brilliant people like him know that though they may often be right about a topic, they aren't always so and that the lose more by standing on a wrong position than they gain by recognizing their mistake and learning from it. I don't see that character trait, the refusal to ascend to hubris' apex, in any of the current GOP candidates. With one, Mr. Trump, I see the hubris that is exactly the opposite.

I'm hardly alone in thinking that American conservative intellectualism has gone the way of the dodo. Mr. Ryn asserts, and I agree, that , "the conservative intellectual movement as a whole was influenced by the ubiquitous pseudo-pragmatism and showed no strong inclination to get to the bottom of difficult philosophical issues. More concerned about seizing opportunities for anti-statist political coalition-building than about achieving intellectual coherence, the movement left some of its basic assumptions regarding human nature and society in provisional, poorly integrated form and got by with a partly jerry-built intellectual structure." Some, however, such as Peter Lawler, don't agree that intellectual conservatives are a waning species. "It's just not true that...traditionalist conservatism is in retreat. It lives a fresh and vital existence in the moral imagination of many of our conservative intellectuals. It is an understandable response to the tendency toward moral emptiness of a high-tech, capitalist civilization."

So while I see no paucity of conservatives who are hell bent on driving us to make the same mistakes we did hundreds of years ago, it's only the only who seem today to hold the reigns of the Republican party. Unfortunately, it's not the intellectual conservatives who hold them. As I wrote at the outset of this thread, I began my adult life as a Republican. What I didn't write, but given your remarks feel I must do now, is that it was only when the conservative lost its ability to "distinguish between profundity and superficiality, truth and ideology" that I no longer could count myself among them.

Does that make it I who has changed? Perhaps not...

When did you become so infatuated with yourself? Like Obama, you seem to value words more than facts, and theory more than experience. Just what mistakes did we make "hundreds of years ago" that conservatives are "hell bent" on repeating?

Dont worry. If you dont get it you wont ever get.

 

[Compost]

At age 18, when I voted for the first time, I voted republican because I wanted to keep more of the money I earned. Some forty years later that is no longer a valid reason to vote republican.

l think that our views do change over time but only if we are paying attention.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... younger people tend to be onna lib'ral side...

... s'pecially since dey got minds full o' mush...

... from lissenin' to lefty, lib'ral propaganda...

... but as dey get older dey develop some sense...

... an' become a bit more conservative."

 

[Picaro]

I separate idealism from existential reality as much as I can, or at least try to. My 'Ideal' political economic philosophy is Henry George's, but I also realize that particular philosophy has zero chance of ever taking off, as most people have never heard of him, for one, and far fewer than that have ever read him, for two, and for three, his philosophy requires a high standard of morality, something which most Americans actually abhor and detest,, so I go with paleo-liberalism in the vein of LBJ/Humphrey, incremental ism, tempered and balanced by a strong bias towards Patrick Moynihan's brand of political realism. Our current 'system' no longer produces such people, and it shows in the results over the last 30-40 years.

Americans are obviously happy with the new status quo and runaway elitist corruption, because they keep voting for it in droves and in both 'Parties', so I don't see why so many are complaining; our government and politicians actually do represent American culture and most Americans and their values. It's a perfect mirror for looking at what's hot and what's not.