I find it humorous to engage people in discussions of why they believe things to be a certain way. Oftentimes there is no real logic or rationale, just an arbitrary decision to support or not support something.
I am guilty of it sometimes too.
But the problem stems from the laziness of some people. They are unwilling to put in the time to figure out why they believe things to be a certain way. It is a good intellectual exercise to do the opposite of the slackers and spend a few minutes with yourself.
Why are you a Democrat? Why are you a Republican? What values are important to you and why?
6 comments:
How about this ... I'm a Democrat because I believe that we have a responsibility to more than just ourselves. We have a responsibility to the greater good. I see the principles of Democrats to more aligned with that concept than Republicans. Now, I don't expect government to take care of everybody and make sure that everybody has everything they need. But, I do believe in social responsibility.
I think, for the most part, Republicans look out for themselves, while Democrats, for the most part, believe that we should look out for others also.
So, why are you what you are?
I am a registered Democrat but I no longer believe in the party any more than I believe in the Republicans. I think that the party lines are not as far apart as some would like to say.
At this point I suppose you could say that I am an Independent and will vote based upon issues. If I agree with your stance I don't care if you are pledged to a jackass or an elephant.
I've never really believed in the parties either. I've always been a registered Democrat, have consistently voted for Democrats, but have never been a "rah, rah. Let's go Dems" type of person. I don't vote for Democrats just because I'm a Democrat. I try to vote for the person who I believe can best do the job. Frequently, I won't vote for anybody if I don't know enough about the candidates (many local elections) or know enough to know that I don't like either (2000 presidential election and 2002 CA gubernatorial election).
If a Republican came along who provided a more persuasive argument than the Democratic opponent than I would vote for the Republican. Back in the '80's I voted for Deukmejian instead of Tom Bradley. But, it doesn't happen very often.
One more thought to chew on. One of the lessons I learned from the 2000 election is this...
When we elect Presidents and Governors we are not only selecting the person we wish to fill the position, but also all of the people he or she will appoint to fill a range of positions, department heads, advisors, and judges. A guy I used to work with hammered away at this idea over the course of a number of conversations and indicated that it was one reason that he would always vote Democrat.
I'm not willing to go that far, but it provides a persuasive argument for doing so. George Bush's legacy will live on for years in the impact of the judges he appoints.
Judicial appointments always have an impact, but sometimes you do not know what direction it will go in.
Just look at Earl Warren.
The government fatties won't do shit, no matter what party they are affiliated with. The government bureaucracies have their own dynamic and interests, totally dislodged from the society they should serve. The poor can drown in their misery while the rich get their pockets filled.
Some recent books i've read are interesting. 'Running the world' by David Rothkopf and 'The price of inequality' by someone else.
In the latter book the author writes that infancy fatalities are due to high values of cortison in the mothers. Apparently the frustration of being socially disadvantaged brings such stress that it inflict more damage than lack of vitamines.
The author also demonstrated this in research with monkeys. When placed at lower ranks the monkeys had high levels of stress hormones, but when the barriers were lifted the excess hormone dissolve. What works in primate also works in humans, considering were almost ginetically identical.
The other book is also interesting. Introducing Dick Cheney and bureaucratic maneuverer D. Rumsfeld in '74. The rise of the NSA in the aftermath of WW2 and the collapse of it when the world needed the agency most.
Post a Comment