How did your political beliefs form?

More to come ... but let me start by saying I was a Red State Republican from an old money southern family and now I am a Red.

Betcha can't wait to hear that one!

Sent via mobile.
 
Until you realized 80% of 14-16 year olds were also unique in adopting political positions that most people didn't agree with :)
I knew like 3 people at that age irl that were even remotely interested in politics. And they were all Obama fanboys. I was more interested in impressing people on the internet haha.

To date I still only know one person that knows anything about anarchist theory beyond "legalize drugs, the police suck!" which admittedly sums up the views of a lot of my friends :lol:
 
More to come ... but let me start by saying I was a Red State Republican from an old money southern family and now I am a Red.

Betcha can't wait to hear that one!

Sent via mobile.

I already know it. It's my story. Except that I came from a conservative (rural) part of an otherwise liberal state.
 
My family wasn't very political at all growing up, and more or less avoided it. As my dad says, two conversational topics to always avoid at the dinner table are politics and religion, since neither ever lead to anything good.

So I honestly didn't have any sort of political beliefs before CFC, then I just kind of formed them surfing the fourms, and that was that. No real major shifting, or enlightening deep thought, more just "that sounds good/right" and bam, my beliefs formed.

Pretty boring, eh? Though I still try and abide by what my dad says, avoid politics and religion at the dinner table, because it does lead to much better/less heated/more interesting conversation.
 
Come from a social democratic, Old Labour sort of family, and gradually moved left from 2008ish onwards. Partly in reaction to the obvious bankruptcy of the prevailing order, partly because every successive leftish position seemed to be absolutely riddled with holes which could only be resolved by moving even further left. Eventually I was deposited in the murky lands of ultra-left anti-political nihilism, which at least has the benefit of being too dark and distant for its holes to matter.
 
I was always interested in history and geography, ever since I played the Carmen Sandiego games when I was 4. I did a fair amount of reading, although at that stage of my life it was just historical timeline books & encyclopedias.

When I was in 4th grade, I heard about the criticisms of the Iraq War and saw some political parody animations online. One of those animations was a communist propaganda video and I got involved in a small left-wing forum that had a fair amount of Leninists and anarchists. I stayed there for a bit, but found the rhetoric about classes not to my liking. In addition, I learned about the abuses of the Chinese communist party, both in the broader context of history and from what my middle-class family underwent under their rule before emigrating to the United States.

After reading some books about economics, I moved towards right-libertarianism; my economics/history teacher in 10th and 11th grade also contributed to that, being one of the few conservative teachers in my high school. I veered into fascism for a little bit, considering how the majority sometimes goes awry and needs to be led down a better path, but I emerged disgusted by the lack of empathy. Libertarianism also seemed to be a movement lacking in empathy, so I moved away from that.

Currently, I'm basically a Third-Way moderate, who is interested in politics, but dislikes the American political system.
 
Libertarianism to fascism?

...Yeah, I guess I can see how that would work.
 
9/11 & talk radio -> Sarah Palin -> fiftychat & cfc -> started actually reading books

so that plays out as

obnoxious teen conservative -> obnoxious teen liberal -> obnoxious college generic lefty -> obnoxious socialist
 
Libertarianism to fascism?

...Yeah, I guess I can see how that would work.

Well, not exactly fascism. The closest ideology I was briefly entranced with was Integralism, which combined trade unionism, corporatism, and a type of political representation system. It also differs from fascism and National Socialism in that it doesn't preach racism or anti-Semitism, though some integralists did in fact do so.

The most appealing ideas in libertarianism for me are advocacy of the free market and the protection of civil rights & liberties. However, many libertarians seem to ignore the fact that free markets do in fact suffer from market failures, which are generally correctable by government.
 
9/11 & talk radio -> Sarah Palin -> fiftychat & cfc -> started actually reading books

so that plays out as

obnoxious teen conservative -> obnoxious teen liberal -> obnoxious college generic lefty -> obnoxious socialist
don't forget that you're an obnoxious girls fan and an obnoxious sterns fan :)
 
obnoxious teen conservative -> obnoxious teen liberal -> obnoxious college generic lefty -> obnoxious socialist

All the leftist paradigm in university has done to me is make me more stern and cynical. :p

That said "the right" in the US is effectively libertarianism, the bastard ideological offspring of liberalism, which every right thinking man should rightly ditch out of hand IMO (at least in its doctrinally pure form). Observing American libertarianism from afar, its understandable to me why certain sorts might go running off to the left (which of course has its own problems to my point of view)
 
All the leftist paradigm in university has done to me is make me more stern and cynical. :p

That said "the right" in the US is effectively libertarianism, the bastard ideological offspring of liberalism, which every right thinking man should rightly ditch out of hand IMO (at least in its doctrinally pure form). Observing American libertarianism from afar, its understandable to me why certain sorts might go running off to the left (which of course has its own problems to my point of view)


There is nothing "libertarian" about the right in America. It might not be the same as classical conservatism. But it also has far more in common with that than either liberalism, which it is not an outgrowth of, or libertarianism, which it also is not an outgrowth of.
 
All the leftist paradigm in university has done to me is make me more stern and cynical. :p

That said "the right" in the US is effectively libertarianism, the bastard ideological offspring of liberalism, which every right thinking man should rightly ditch out of hand IMO (at least in its doctrinally pure form). Observing American libertarianism from afar, its understandable to me why certain sorts might go running off to the left (which of course has its own problems to my point of view)
There is nothing "libertarian" about the right in America. It might not be the same as classical conservatism. But it also has far more in common with that than either liberalism, which it is not an outgrowth of, or libertarianism, which it also is not an outgrowth of.
How are we actually defining "conservative" and "liberal", here?
 
How are we actually defining "conservative" and "liberal", here?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservative

con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
n.
1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
3. Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Archaic A preservative agent or principle.
con·serva·tive·ly adv.
con·serva·tive·ness n.
conservative [kənˈsɜːvətɪv]
adj
1. favouring the preservation of established customs, values, etc., and opposing innovation
2. of, characteristic of, or relating to conservatism
3. tending to be moderate or cautious a conservative estimate
4. conventional in style or type a conservative suit
5. (Medicine) Med (of treatment) designed to alleviate symptoms Compare radical [4]
6. (Physics / General Physics) Physics a field of force, system, etc., in which the work done moving a body from one point to another is independent of the path taken between them electrostatic fields of force are conservative
n
1. a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas; conformist
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a supporter or advocate of conservatism
adj & n
(Cookery) a less common word for preservative
conservatively adv
conservativeness n
Conservative [kənˈsɜːvətɪv]
adj (in Britain, Canada, and elsewhere)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) of, supporting, or relating to a Conservative Party
2. (Non-Christian Religions / Judaism) of, relating to, or characterizing Conservative Judaism
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a supporter or member of a Conservative Party
con•serv•a•tive (kənˈsɜr və tɪv)

adj.
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: a conservative suit.
4. (cap.) of or pertaining to a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain.
5. of or pertaining to political conservatism.
6. (cap.) conforming to or characteristic of Conservative Judaism.
7. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
n.
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (cap.) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain.
11. a preservative.
[1350–1400; Middle English < Middle French < Late Latin]
con•serv&#8242;a•tive•ly, adv.
con•serv&#8242;a•tive•ness, n.

While what passes for "conservatism" in the US at the dawn of the 21st century certainly isn't everything some more "traditional conservatives" may wish it to be, it certainly doesn't have any foundations in either "liberalism" or "libertarianism". It does not derive from those things, in that nothing about them is in the fundamentals of what "conservatism" is now. Conservatism is about the prioritizing of traditional values, traditional authority, and traditional social norms, over all other considerations. Now modern conservatives may have bastardized what the traditional values, authority, and social norms are. But it is still a conforming to authority as the primary virtue.

lib·er·al·ism (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
liber·al·ist n.
liber·al·istic (-lstk) adj.
liberalism [&#712;l&#618;b&#601;r&#601;&#716;l&#618;z&#601;m &#712;l&#618;br&#601;-]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) liberal opinions, practices, or politics
2. (Christianity / Protestantism) a movement in modern Protestantism that rejects biblical authority
liberalist n & adj
liberalistic adj
lib•er•al•ism (&#712;l&#618;b &#601;r &#601;&#716;l&#618;z &#601;m, &#712;l&#618;b r&#601;-)

n.
1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political and social philosophy advocating individual freedom, representational forms of government, progress and reform, and protection of civil liberties.
3. (sometimes cap.) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
[1810–20]
lib&#8242;er•al•ist, n., adj.
lib`er•al•is&#8242;tic, adj.
liberalism
1. a political or social philosophy advocating the f reedom of the individual, parliamentary legislatures, governmental assurances of civil liberties and individual rights, and nonviolent modification of institutions to permit continued individual and social progress.
2. the principles and practice of a liberal political party. — liberalist, n., adj. — liberalistic, adj.
See also: Politics
a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity. — liberalist, n., adj. — liberalistic, adj.
See also: Protestantism
Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. liberalism - a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution
ideology, political orientation, political theory - an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation
neoliberalism - a political orientation originating in the 1960s; blends liberal political views with an emphasis on economic growth
2. liberalism - an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market
economic theory - (economics) a theory of commercial activities (such as the production and consumption of goods)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberalism

Liberalism is based on the freedom of the individual, and that traditional authority is not valid in the face of reason which says that the traditions are wrong. Authority has to pass the test of being based on reason, not emotion, and not appeal to tradition. The fact that things were done a certain way in the past is not a valid argument for doing things that way in the present or the future. Either the traditions pass the test of reason, or they are out.

Modern conservatism has no foundation in this, because none of what they do or propose to do is based on reason or rationality. Likewise they have no foundation in libertarianism, because nothing they do or propose to do has a basis in liberty. It is explicitly the opposite of that.
 
I've always had a leftist leaning due to my parents, which has settled down into a Social Democrat/Welfare State mesh with a bit of a technocratic vibe.
 
Uhh, generic lefty through childhood. I grew up in an atheist and distinctly liberal household, in a liberal voting district (although the town I grew up in in retrospect was rather conservative).

In high school I became more political. My friends were heavily involved in the LGBT community and that's when I became really political about LBGTQQIAAP rights. I started drifting further leftward. By college I was beginning to flirt with socialism. Then 2010 happened. The gridlock of Congress and apparent ineffectiveness of Obama made me jaded, and the merry-go-round samey political battles on cfc made me tired. Combined with moving into a #nes dominated by Dachs and Kraz, I started becoming more apolitical. Recently I'd say a growing sense of American nationalism has made me more political from a civic duty perspective, and the recent advances in marriage equality has made me more hopeful for the state of this nation.

tl;dr

Unthinking liberal->liberal with a homosexual rights bent -> socialist/borderline socialist -> jaded asshat socialist -> liberal with conservative elements who cares deeply about LBGTQQIAAP rights and Women's rights.
 
I don&#8217;t think the traditional left-right dichotomy describes me very well, but if I had to use it I would call myself centre-left. I would also describe myself as a cosmopolitan, a utilitarian, a skeptic, a social democrat, and a transhumanist.

My political beliefs come from three basic underlying motivations: The first is a general &#8220;question everything&#8221; ethos that I&#8217;ve had since mid high school. The second is a general optimism about the progress that human civilization has undergone over the past few centuries. I expect this progress to continue. The third is a passionate desire to see the world become a better place for all humanity.

In the interest of avoiding TLDRs, I&#8217;ve put the rest of my post in a spoiler.

Spoiler :
I first developed a question-everything-ethos when I realized as a teenager that adults aren&#8217;t always right, and in fact, they disagree with each other constantly. I think everyone goes through that realization but it happened to me slightly late so it hit me especially hard. The question everything ethos also was nurtured when I started investigating the criticism or religion around age 17 or 18 (I&#8217;m 20 now). This eventually led me to give up Christianity and belief in God altogether. The question-everything-ethos also was nurtured by Carl Sagan&#8217;s cosmos, which I watched at 18. Finally, I should mention that studying social psychology in my first year of university really opened my eyes to how dogmatic humans naturally are.

I&#8217;ve spent a year at university in Honours Arts and a year and a half in the International Development program, but finally I switched into Biotechnology/Economics which I will be starting this September. I left these previous two programs because of problems regarding how they are taught and how well they were preparing me for a career. Both Honours Arts and International Development have influenced my politics.

The International Development program, along with Carl Sagan, nurtured my cosmopolitanism. Once I truly questioned nationalism and examined it for what it really is (the belief that people living far away from you are less important than the people living close to you) it really wasn&#8217;t defensible to go on supporting it.

The general optimism that I referred to earlier was shaped largely through the use of statistics in essays that I&#8217;ve written, comparing &#8220;now&#8221; with &#8220;back then.&#8221; It has also been influenced by The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker (the best non-fiction book I&#8217;ve ever read) Abundance by Peter Diamandis as well as the TedTalks by Hans Rosling.

My International Development education taught me that developed countries are doing dramatically less to help developing (African and South Asian) countries than most people assume. The only ones pledging more than 0.7% of their GDP to fighting the problem are The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Luxembourg. 0.7% is the internationally agreed upon standard that all countries agreed to meet in the 1970s. My disapproval of our lack of commitment to addressing development issues is largely shaped by Peter Singer&#8217;s moral arguments. Peter Singer is a famous utilitarian moral philosopher. I also think our ambivalence is caused by &#8220;scope insensitivity,&#8221; a horrible bias I learned about in psychology class.
Finally I should mention that my transhumanism was influenced by the books and TedTalks of Ray Kurzweil and Aubrey Du Grey. Looking back, I don&#8217;t think I would have become a transhumanist if I hadn&#8217;t given up on Christianity. When you&#8217;re promised Heaven in the sky, there really is no motivation to build Heaven on Earth.

From economics class I learned about the importance of markets.
 
Top Bottom