Nothing Personal

[irked_indeed]

Reading this tweet finally crystallized an essay I've been meaning to write after a couple of recent conversations.

Namely: why, to so many liberal Americans, is politics such an intensely personal matter?

Comments

[arcticwolf489]

Might this be, in part, dependent on who you talk to? I personally know a few people who dismiss the President and anything he does offhand because he's a foreigner/Muslim/probable-Antichrist/liberal. I've been through Sunday school lessons detailing liberal and gay agendas (evidently one gets a card and a five-year plan in the mail as soon as he decides his political stance or sexuality). I've heard talk-show hosts mocking CNN and NBC as hard as I've ever heard against FOX News. I know people who cannot talk about gun control or abortion from a level other than personal. It's always the Liberals and the Other People who ruin everything.

Or: it doesn't really seem fair to compare reasonable conservatives with terrible liberals when there are plenty of each in both parties.

I'm all about not trusting the government to fix everything, though. ^_^

[irked_indeed]

Oh, certainly. Hence the disclaimers - it's not a universal descriptor. There are conservatives for whom it applies and liberals for whom it doesn't.

But I think there's evidence for a trend. Three of the top six articles on Reddit Politics at this moment are essentially Romney insults; nothing on the front page takes a swing at Obama. Anecdotally, I definitely hear a lot more Conservatives-are-personally-evil Democrats than Liberals-are-personally-evil Republicans. I know of several professors of varying political stances who have observed something similar

[arcticwolf489]

I think part of that is that the louder demographic-celebrities (and writers or other sorts of mini-celebrities that you or I might follow), young computer professionals (who can Googlebomb and develop infographics and informative websites), the majority of news networks, &c-tend to fall under the liberal demographics. More conservative venues (including churches) will probably be more likely to tell you that the liberals are destroying America (or whatever

[irked_indeed]

That's a valid point.

I think the related issue that we maybe hitting at is that a lot of Christians aren't really conservative - like you note, for many the underlying philosophy is still, "Daddy Government will save us, if we just pass the right laws/elect the right people/whatever," with all the accompanying disappointment and suspicion. They're, philosophically, liberals who happen to not like abortion, homosexuality, etc., but who are absolutely fine with government interference on behalf of whatever their pet cause is.

[arcticwolf489]

Oh, absolutely. I think we're observing fractures within the party where social conservatives willing to let the state take control of their pet causes come in conflict with fiscal conservatives who are willing to let ideologically different people into office if they'll reduce government spending. I know a lot more "I must vote for the Christianest" voters than "I must vote for the ones actually willing to balance the budget."

I think the younger generation is leaning toward the latter-at least, most of my GCC friends are closer to that. Though some of my college acquaintances are closer to the former, and most of my GCC friends are either Presbyterian or disaffected versions of whatever they were in high school, and I feel as though mainstream Christianity is a lot closer to evangelicalism/fundamentalism and its silly politics than something closer to involving actual thought. Evidence: the Republican party tends to be much more interested in restoring family values than in balancing budgets (because that's how they get elected).

[ladyarkham]

I confess, my first reaction to that was, "No, that's not mainstream Christianity, *my* experiences are mainstream Christianity" and then realized that was stupid. I don't really have a gauge on what's mainstream and what's not.

I was solidly non-denom when I got to Grove City, and came to realize there that the Baptists have what seem to me to be the key points: literal, perfect, divine Bible and few-to-no extrabilblical practices or assumptions.

I had a problem with voting for a Mormon originally. I may end up doing it anyway - I'm still conflicted, but I am moving past the "vote for the Christianest" impulse.

[jd3000]

I don't think I'd have a problem voting for a Mormon, even though I think they have some rather wacky religious beliefs. It's got to be the person more than the religion.

-JD

[ladyarkham]

Yeah, but saying that he is a Mormon *is* saying something about the person. Unless you mean "the policies he will set in office."

[jd3000]

I think the policies matter, but I also think the attitudes should be looked at an individual basis. There have been recent news articles on the broad array of major social position shifts among Catholics, with the observation "There is no 'Catholic vote'.

-JD

[ladyarkham]

I think we're talking about two different things here - voting on the basis of "Is this a good person?" and voting on the basis of "Will he set good policies?"

I recognize it's better to look at the latter, to which the candidate's religion doesn't matter. The former isn't entirely unimportant to me, which is why his religion would matter.

[jd3000]

So we're kind of getting back to the "No ethics without God" argument, or the "no secular saints" principle, I guess. Could you ever bring yourself to vote for an atheist if you were personally convinced they were a fundamentally good person?

-JD

[ladyarkham]

Maybe? Their being a "good person" wouldn't have anything to do with it if I did. "Good person" is a terrible label to try to apply to *anyone* whatever they claim their religion is. Nobody is truly good, and everybody has a different idea of what a good person is. It's a stupid label, regardless of religion. I could vote for an atheist with no more difficulty than any other religion.

I might hesitate at voting for a Scientologist - wouldn't you?

[jd3000]

Yes, only because I know Scientology, from the words of its own founder, was created as a pure money-making enterprise in the false guise of a religion. I have no idea what Joseph Smith saw or thought he saw. :)

-JD

[ladyarkham]

So it's okay to not vote for an otherwise acceptable candidate based on their religion if you *know* that their religion is a hokey, self-serving, harmful mess.

[jd3000]

It wouldn't be an automatic disqualification but a strong warning flag. They're either complicit or unusually naive.

-JD

[ladyarkham]

So, it could affect how they set policy?