political package deals

[The Wrath]

This is something that has been troubling me for a while. Why is it that people tend to accept political "packages," instead of choosing stances

independently. I like to choose my political positions in an a la carte fashion, but most people tend to fall more or less into line with where

each of their individual stances suggest they would.

For example: Atheists who believe in free markets are rare. It isn't just that atheists vote Democrat to avoid the evils of Republican religiosity.

They generally are left-wing, when it comes to economics. Another example is that people with left-wing economic views are almost always

opposed to foreign intervention, while those with right-wing economic views almost always support it.

Thoughts?

[D'kian]

This is something that has been troubling me for a while. Why is it that people tend to accept political "packages," instead of choosing stances independently.

The short version is they don't know any better. After all, a vote not for either of the two major parties is often wasted, or at the least it's seen that way.

The long version is that with only two political parties there have to be compromises. Those for limited goernment have to support those advocating religion, and those for a large welfare state have to support the viros and multiculturalists. This is by means of example, as there are many more polical stances on each party.

For example: Atheists who believe in free markets are rare. It isn't just that atheists vote Democrat to avoid the evils of Republican religiosity. They generally are left-wing, when it comes to economics.

True. In America this is largely the result of the takeover of the GOP by the religious right. Free markets became inextricably linked with God in the public at large. Another reason is that for many years the only atheistic political system was Communism. It wasn't just officially atheistic, it was actively hostile against all religions (Lennin did say religion's is the oppiate of the masses). For those whom a non-value, atheism, is supreme, it must have been irresistible.

Another example is that people with left-wing economic views are almost always opposed to foreign intervention, while those with right-wing economic views almost always support it.

I could cite a great many exceptions, but you're right. Again I think the USSR has a lot to do with it. This time it's more obvious but also more subtle. The left-wing economists favor socialism. For many the ideal, at the time, was the Soviet Union (which excelled at propaganda, BTW). The Soviets, and their satellite-allies, were the main opponent of America, and from 1945 til 1991 all wars the US fought were against communist regimes. So one way for the left-wing to preserve the USSR was to oppose all American attempts at defending herself. That's why they favored not merely ending Vietnam, or were against Grenada, but also pressed for unilateral disarmament, particularly as regards nuclear weapons.

That in turn led to a general form of anti-Americanism, which explains today's anti-war protesters. You'll notice they very rarely protest wars America has nothing to do with.

Of course that's not all there is to it. One can also add the overall failures of socialism. It's insane, seeong what happened in the USSR, North Korea, Cuba and Eatern Europe, to keep touting Communism as the cure for all problems, especially economic ones. therefore the left turned to other things, ones more clearly anti-Man than Communism (which after all offered an earthly paradise of sorts). Things like environmentalism, which upholds the primacy of animals, plants and rocks above human life. Multiculturalism, whioch deems all cultures, all customs, all religions as equally valuable and valid, except Western culture and religions which are imperialistic, evil, patriatchal, etc etc.

Both state that the West has no right to exist, much less to defend itself.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I think what you are seeing is a situation where 95% of the populace believes the perfect human being is an altruist.

Now given that fact, look at Thomas Sowell's "conflict of visions" series, which explains a LOT. He started looking at the fact why the same groups of people seem to end up on the same sides of such totally different issues as gun rights and abortion. (We are exceptions to this.) Some people believe man is "perfectible"--institutions can be designed to shape man--and others think man is not "perfectible"--institutions need to be designed around the "fact' that man is imperfect.

The altruist "perfectibles" tend to be Liberals, wanting to use the state to shape man into perfect little altruists--they want to social engineer us into good little collectivists using the school system. Socialism is encouraged because it will train us into being altruists and if we resist too damned bad. As for defending against bad guys, *what* bad guys? Those are just people who need a little therapy.

The altruist "non-perfectibles" tend to be conservatives. They will pragmatically endorse capitalism (with tweaks), because it is the system that best harnesses that bad human greed towards the end of making the most people better off. They want to crack down on crime. They want people to be able to defend themselves against bad guys. They think there are countries out there who are bad guys. And OBTW how about laws to prevent us from doing immoral things, even when no one else is hurt?

*Given* altruism as a standard of what a "good" or "perfect" person is, this dichotomy between left and right makes a great degree of sense.

It is only when someone steps forward and not only isn't an altruist, but isn't ashamed of it because he believes that it is *good* not to be an altruist, that the pattern is broken. To these people *full bore* pure capitalism makes sense. As does legalized abortion. As does legalized pot. As does unrestricted gun ownership. But these position, combined together and espoused by one person, make no damned sense to most people.

In other words, the package deal you are complaining about actually makes sense--within the context of altruism as a moral ideal.