(after looking up Dante's vestibule)
Yes. Most key (what exactly btw.?) issues in politics boil down to a dichotomy (yes or no) and labeling is important to make "the world (society, knowledge, etc.)" understandable. That is why we have parties in the end. Because they accelerate the process as it would be impossible to know everything. This is good.
Key issues? Principles regarding the structure of society. Like the distribution of ressources, how and why. Like who should and eventually who should not have political influence, and why.Such as socialism vs capitalism.Dictatorship vs democracy. Strong democracy vs weak democracy. Cooperation vs competiotion. And of course how you either should preserve the current societal structure or change it.
Social and cultural issues are of less importance in this respect.
One example. I regard myself as a socialist and an atheist. In politics, I think the first is more important. I feel that I politically have more in common with a socialist Christian than a non-socialist atheist, even if I might work together wiht the last mentioned in some ad-hoc action.
And yes, there is a need for groups like political parties to represent our interests.
But just two options is too simple. You can have completely different reasons to oppose something. Because the bill goes to far or because it doesn't go far enough. Or you want something different, because of morality, ecology, education, etc. ...
See above. Your political affiliation should be determined by your position on basic issues. Of course the political spectre is wider than two rather similar position. But in principle you will belong somewhere, whatever unexiciting that may sound.
Simplification is good, Oversimplification not.
Besides, as I pointed out, there is the danger of labeling yourself as B because it suits you and your environment. (but you don't really care about politics or you just need to make a career).[/QUOTE]
I don't think it is oversimplification.
Your last sentence I have difficulties in understanding properly.
My apologies for that.
Since you appear to have some interest, if not skill, in coining such phrases, what would you call the tendency to accuse people whom one disagrees with if having psychological disorders of dubious validity?
Since you appear to have some interest, if not skill to use uppity terms in Latin even, what will you call that tendency to accuse people whom you disagree with of using logical fallacies of dubious validity ?
And since you have that interest, feel free to avail yourself of it here as well instead of trying to make me a accomplice in derailing the thread.
What should socialists, nationalists, theocrats, royalists and ecologists vote for?
