Differing political views in a relationship

#31
Aslan said:
Shimma, I think you are confusing party affiliation with a real political philosophy, such as paleo-conservatism, for example. For many party affiliation has to do with family, region etc., (and to boot, the two major parties do not differ very significantly) but one's own political philosophy betrays how they fundamentally view the world. This is exemplified in the relationship between neo- liberalism and conflict theory and libertarianism and functionalist theory. It affects too much.
Click to expand...

I think our difference is semantic. What you are calling "political philosophy," I am calling "values and principles," and I totally agree about family, region, etc with regard to "politics," which is in many places, essentially a business, and has nothing whatsoever to do with values, principles, or as you call it , "political philosophy."

In terms of relationships, I think it is that view of the world, our ideas about what is right and what is wrong, that are important topics to talk about with someone you think you might be serious about, and I make a distinction between that philosophy, those values, etc, and one's relationship, if any, to the various aspects of the business of politics.

At the same time, I think that we have to acknowledge that not everyone makes that distinction, as I alluded in my previous post. For some people, their philosophy is interwoven with the business of politics, and in some cases, that interweaving may even include some faith-based threads, so to form any sort of opinion in terms of whether a relationship could be impacted, I think both people need to be honest with themselves and with each other on how THEY feel, whether THEY make that distinction, whether THEIR faith traditions and beliefs are linked in their own hearts and minds to one or more aspects of politics the business, which could include a strong belief that politics is not a business! :smile:

Once we get into that area of personal beliefs, one thing you can count on - there is someone somewhere who believes absolutely anything you can imagine - and several things that you can't and wouldn't want to!
 
#32
ShimmaPuff said:
I think our difference is semantic. What you are calling "political philosophy," I am calling "values and principles," and I totally agree about family, region, etc with regard to "politics," which is in many places, essentially a business, and has nothing whatsoever to do with values, principles, or as you call it , "political philosophy."
Click to expand...
How can those principles have "nothing to do" with one's political philosophy? That doesn't make any sense. In a way, these principles can be said to supersede one's political philosophy (if that's what you are pointing at), but they certainly have something to do with them. If you happen to be a neo- liberal and believe that society exists as a result of the oppression of different social groups, f.e., your actions and the way you live is guided with that consideration.

EDIT: Whoops, I think I'm misunderstanding you. Disregard portions of the first paragraph. But to take my latter example, if you are neo- liberal and therefore a conflict theorist, you will vote Dem because they support AA, a correction of the way you believe society exploits certain social groups. So the business of politics is certainly related to one's political philosophy.
 
#34
ShimmaPuff said:
So if you are trying to decide about a young man, I would suggest just taking the politics out of it completely, and focus on learning what his truest and most deeply held values and beliefs are, because those are what he will live by, and your own are what you live by! :smile:
Click to expand...

^ ITA. we can have differing views on specific political actions, and that is what can be discussed safely and probably be discarded bec these actions tend to change, be forgotten etc.

but underlying values and beliefs, ideas about how life should be are a different matter - which expresses how one views the world. I agree with Aslan and Shimmapuff that underlying beliefs matter greatly in any relationship, even though I believe that the ultimate truth may be expressed differently for everyone. although our opinions about something may differ sometimes hubby and I pursue the same goals essentially.
 
#37
Aslan said:
How can those principles have "nothing to do" with one's political philosophy? That doesn't make any sense. In a way, these principles can be said to supersede one's political philosophy (if that's what you are pointing at), but they certainly have something to do with them. If you happen to be a neo- liberal and believe that society exists as a result of the oppression of different social groups, f.e., your actions and the way you live is guided with that consideration.

EDIT: Whoops, I think I'm misunderstanding you. Disregard portions of the first paragraph. But to take my latter example, if you are neo- liberal and therefore a conflict theorist, you will vote Dem because they support AA, a correction of the way you believe society exploits certain social groups. So the business of politics is certainly related to one's political philosophy.
Click to expand...

LOL Yes you did misunderstand me a bit. I said that the values and principles have nothing to do with the actual business of politics - but I also said that to some people, the two are going to be entertwined, and may even be entertwined with the individual's religious beliefs!

And you are actually making my point better than I could.

For some people, that political philosophy may indeed be related to the business of politics. They may have a belief that the Clownpenis party is going to make or change policies with which they personally do not agree, while someone else might point out that those policies make just as much money for wealthy Clownpenistas as they make for wealthy WideFootFirsters, and that the policies themselves have not changed, even though the Clownpenis boysingers may present them in terms that are more palatable to some.

But for someone else, that presentation, those cosmetic changes, may have real meaning, and provide them such a psychological benefit that the fact that the policy itself remains intact does not matter so much. They may even believe that the policy WILL change, and that belief is enough to sustain them, and help them get out that checkbook come campaign time!

What I think can be a challenge in terms of relationships is that when we are in that early stage of talking about our philosophies, our values and beliefs about all these things, it can be tempting to not really pay attention if the other person's beliefs are different than your own, some people, especially very young ones, may even go so far as to pretend to agree with the new boyfriend when they really don't!

So what I would suggest is that people be open and honest with themselves and with each other about their opinions and their beliefs, from the very beginning, before either has become so deeply "emotionally invested" in the relationship itself!
 
#38
ShimmaPuff said:
But for someone else, that presentation, those cosmetic changes, may have real meaning, and provide them such a psychological benefit that the fact that the policy itself remains intact does not matter so much. They may even believe that the policy WILL change, and that belief is enough to sustain them, and help them get out that checkbook come campaign time!
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but it seems to me that you are claiming that some believe these policies (or "cosmetic changes" as you call them) bring their philosophy to fruition while others may hold the same philosophy and don't believe these policies make a difference in realizing their philosophy, therefore neglecting party affiliation. I assume you are with the latter camp, due to the level of scarcasm in your post. :P So, in effect party affiliation is meaningless and is substantially unrelated to one's political philosophy.

I can only say that I disagree with this belief. Social policies supported by either party have had enormous influence and impact on our society. These changes are not cosmetic at all. A political philosophy often embodies an ideal, which is the goal, and you may be pointing at the fact that these policies may never fully "realize" the end goal. While that is true, the work these policies do cannot be marginalized. With many ideals, it is always nearly fully possible to realize them, but enacted policies take us close enough (that is, as close as we can be).
 
#39
OK, let me put it this way. You have gone out with two cute boys.

Both of them are making potato salad for an event having to do with Mr Chang's campaign to become Town Crier. He is running on the Clownpenis ticket.

Boy A is making the potato salad because his parents are good friends with the Changs, and they live in a country with only two political parties and the only WideFootFirsters in town never take baths and spend all day on street corners holding up signs that say "Death to Presbyterians" even though the National WideFootFirster Council has issued several nationally televised statements saying that they like Presbyterians and in fact believe that they make better potato salad than anybody else in the world**, even Jews from the Ukraine who make theirs pink with beet juice and accent it with occasional peas. So Boy A is making the potato salad, and will vote for Mr Chang, and probably a whole mess of Clownpenistas although he has no illusions whatsoever that either the ClownPenis party or the WideFootFirst party is going to do anything that will change the realities of anybody except a few brother-in-laws that might get jobs or contracts.

Boy B is making the potato salad because he believes that Mr Chang's election to town crier will be just a baby step that might make things better because he truly believes that the Clownpenistas work very hard and do a great job of making some policies that make him a little uncomfortable sound better, because it also makes him uncomfortable to actually think of himself as opposing the policies, because that might be unpatriotic and if anyone suspected, he might be considered a subversive, and face some social ostracism and even some career impact. So he thinks its better to just go along to get along, and look on the positive side because the ClownPenistas can't really oppose the policies either because if they did they would be enemies of the state and their political careers would be over, and they wouldn't be able to word the policies in that way that makes him feel just a little bit less uncomfortable that he is paying to have them implemented.

So both boys are participating in much the same way in the business of politics, but the way they view that business, and their own participation, is very different.

So I am saying that the thing to discuss with them is not that they made the potato salad, but their values, their beliefs, about politics, about having children, about religion, and everything else under the sun.

And it is from discussion of those things that you will get a better idea about which boy might have husband potential. Well, that and which one makes better potato salad... ;)

**That happens to be a True Fact
 
#40
^Shimmapuff your example is very good.

Aslan said:
I strongly disagree. I find it amazing how some people believe that one's politics are compartmentalized from the rest of who they are. That's not the case. One's political philosophy is fundamental to who he is. It affects how that person views the relationship between himself and society, how he believes social institutions should be arranged, how he views the relationships among families.

I've had relationships with men of varied political leanings. But I could never date a man that was politically apathetic. The failure to engage himself in a meaningful way with the workings of society shows him to be an empty human being.
Click to expand...
I know the argument went on, but I just want to add that it's not really about political apathy, it may be about pragmatizism. You don't have to have certain principles or dogmas to be interested in politics, one may simply think "whenever there's a problem, we'll have to find the most efficient solution regardless of believes". Of course, your believes will affect the way to get a solution, but the initial problem will still be the same. The first step in any discussion is to find out what is being discussed, to find the problem or core subject in question, THEN you can discuss the means. I think it's ridiculous when people, due to dogmatic belief, close their eyes to obious solutions, or stick to solutions that have not proven to work in the past.

Secondly, I don't think politics ALWAYS reflect who we are. People change all the time and so will our political opinions. It's a shame if old believes would get us stuck into a political stereotype ("I'm liberal" or "i'm conservative") when we change.

Also I think it's important to always question our own believes and try to view things from a different angle. If you enter a problem with an as clear a possible mind, laying all your beliefs behind you (if possible) and looking at the facts presented, you may change you r opinion, if it seems necessary. After all, politics are means to make society the best place for over all for everyone (well at least IMO that's what it should be). It's a tool for making society work as good as possible for everyone participating.

A large number of people also would maybe not vote for the party that person now is voting for if he or she started to get an interest for the subjects and problems the party dealt with. I think a lot of people have rather shallow reasons ("Igrew up in a [insert party] family so I vote [insert same party]") when they vote, usually because they dont' have time to dig into all of the political issues or they simply don't care as long as the country's run smoothly. Most of us only see the big headlines. This is also why it's interesting to do the surveys that appear before elections (at least here) where you're to give your opinion in real, concrete cases and based on that you get a result and advice on what to vote. I realize that these may be a little bit more interesting here where there a more than two really big parties.
 
#41
Thanks, Liberté! I think you bring up a very important point that opens a whole new box of Pandora worms.

Peoples' views, even their deeply held beliefs can, and do change over time, especially if we are talking about very young people, and/or people whose experiences/environment have been scant, limited, or both.

And not just their political views, or their political philosophy, but everything!

This is why, in my opinion, it is a good idea to take one's time before making a lifelong commitment to another person.

When we are young, we don't know enough about who we are, much less who we will be in 20, 30, 40 years - therefore we are hardly in a position to say definitively who we will want to spend our lives with!

The world is a large and diverse place, and "life" can refer to such a wide variety of experiences and surroundings can change, in fact, some would argue, form, all those opinions and core beliefs.

It is a popular movie cliche, the older and more experienced person telling the dewy ingenue that she should go out and learn about the world and taste the experiences it offers, but it is not without some truth.

It reminds me of the Samuel Clemens quote about getting one's schooling over with so that one can begin getting an education! ;)

And Asian, I understand what you are telling me about your point of view, and I'm not avoiding your question about mine, but the question asked here is not really about what my view or yours is - the original poster is not considering a relationship with either of us!

But in giving your own view, you also give us a good example of how people should go about having those frank discussions in the early dating stages - no matter what one's view is, the important thing is to first of all, do what you have done and think about and crystallize just what one's philosophy, values, etc are, and then communicate that to the potential relationee, and listen carefully and with honest ears to what they say about their own. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but you will be able to make an informed decision on the subject of whether your views and his are compatible!
 
#42
DH and I are registered to different parties. When we talk politics, we talk pragmatically about the specific issues. You can go back and forth all day about why you're in the party you're in, but if you want to actually talk about the issues it's better to do it one issue at a time.

I like to question why an issue is even an issue. Sometimes when you discuss that, you realize there are other solutions than what you had been thinking. My mind has been changed about an issue this way multiple times.

It helps of course that we're not terribly involved in politics. Other than voting and listening to NPR/reading news sites, we're not really political people.
 
#43
Between myself and SO, we agree on most of the big issues.

However, my grandfather is a Senator and getting into talks with him can be a bit overwhelming! LOL
 
#45
ShimmaPuff said:
So I am saying that the thing to discuss with them is not that they made the potato salad, but their values, their beliefs, about politics, about having children, about religion, and everything else under the sun.

And it is from discussion of those things that you will get a better idea about which boy might have husband potential. Well, that and which one makes better potato salad... ;)

**That happens to be a True Fact
Click to expand...
Look, you are missing my point. I'm not overemphasizing the importance of party affiliation. I think that someone cannot be affiliated with a party and still meaningfully engage in political/philosophical thought and action. My point is that I want a man that would engage himself in such a way. I would not decide to or not to date someone only based on party affiliation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back