Your personal political evolution

[doodle]

I'm curious....how did people here arrive to hold the political persuasions that they have? Was it a gradual evolution, or a pivotal moment? I have to imagine there are a lot of personal experiences that lead one to hold the beliefs that they do have. I remember my parents telling me how poor they were during college and being able to barely afford peanut butter and jelly sandwiches....one day they were standing behind a woman at the grocery store trying to buy dog food with her food stamps. The cashier told her that wasn't allowed....so she walked back to the butcher and got the dog a steak instead. That moment converted them to Republicans for almost 40 years....Trump, however has changed them into rabid democrats...when I have a discussion with them now I feel like an old man trying to talk reason into my kid who just got back from a semester studying social justice politics at Berkely. Their shift to the left these last four years has been radical!

[SomeDude]

Good story. Reminds me how i went in the Army, came out and got an apartment with 2 Army buddies, got a job and took 18 credits a semester until i got a finance degree, then started at 42k a year working like a slave at a big company. I was still buying ramen noodles when i took my irresponsible single mom non working sister to get groceries. She bought crab legs and a $14 jar of fancy olives with her food stamp card.

Pissed me off.

My parents voted Perot and despised both political parties. I'm sure that had a profound impact on me as a young teen.

[vnatale]

When I was in third grade I read an adult book on the presidents. From that book I decided that my three favorites were Jefferson, Lincoln, and Grant. Since they were all Republicans I decided that I was now a Republican. (Many years later I found out that there was some shift in parties so that Jefferson would really have been a Democrat. But I did not know that then).

The 1960 election occurred at the beginning of fourth grade. Nancy Johnson (who all the other kids called a Holy Roller) and I were the only Republicans / for Nixon in our class of about 30. Everyone else was for Kennedy. The rest of the class was almost all full Italians like me with just about everyone except for Nancy and a Jewish girl being Roman Catholics (including me). I assumed that all the other kids were for Kennedy because that was who their parents were for.

I never had any idea who my parents were for. Politics was never a topic of discussion in our house. Once I asked my mother who she voted for and she informed that she did not have to tell anyone who she voted for.

I was still a Republican as an eight grader in 1964. I even was paid to distribute Goldwater campaign literature.

By the 1968 (Nixon / Humphrey) election as a senior I'd become apathetic and was nothing. Election night found me seeing Cream do one of their last concerts ever.

But just a year later I was now a college freshman. I'd started reading the underground newspapers. I participated in the October 1969 national March Against the Viet Nam war.

Kent State happened the following spring (May 1970). The following Sunday night I went to a meeting led by one of our college's few radicals. He said, "We've closed the draft board down all last week but this week they are going to start arresting people."

I went back to my dorm room thinking. Told myself, "You always say you are against the draft. But words do not mean anything unless you are wiling to accept consequences for those beliefs."

The next morning I did go to the draft board. Along with a lot of other people. That day we set the record for the largest mass arrest ever in U.S. history (about 250). That record was soon later eclipsed. And, then many times.

It turned out that I was only one of seven from my conservative college's student body of about 2,000 that had been arrested that day. Seems like back then future scientists, engineers, and mathematicians were all highly conservative even at the ages of 18-22.

From all my life's experiences and what I have read the conservative philosophy as represented by the Republican party of the United States has never appealed to me. I do have a lot of conservative values but the way the Republican party puts them into practice has always been extremely off putting to me.

Note that in all the above there was never any parent, adult, friend, or peer who influenced my beliefs. It was always based on either my direct personal experiences, what I observed, or, most importantly, what I read.

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

Never have cared much about politics but I believe I have voted in every local, state, federal election since I was eligible, mostly for Rs or Ds but an occasional L; pretty much always voted for the candidate, not the party, and who I thought would be better for the city, county, state, or country. I always thought my vote was a throwaway if I did not vote for one of the major party candidates. I care more about effectiveness of the candidate than his/her character but I do think character is important too; there are really only two Presidents that have turned my stomach; there have been several wannabes that did. I still don't care much about politics whether in government, business, or the church, I just know it is necessary; I think most government politicians are, in general, self-serving shysters in disguise, and the higher the position the more corruption one is tempted to engage in. I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if political positions were filled by lottery, one term only, no elaborate pensions, etc. FWIW, I agree with most of what Tom wrote. I'm big on personal responsibility, very small on welfare provided by the state except in true emergencies; I believe hand-ups are far better than hand-outs and those hand-ups should come from family, friends, and church where ever possible. I'm big on knowing our history (family, state, country, world), flaws and all. I'm not big on tearing things down or rewriting history.

[doodle]

I find reading your experiences helpful and humanizing. I would be curious to know more about peoples lives here. Where they've been, what they've seen, what they've done.

My political/economic perspectives have evolved over the years. I moved a lot growing up...6 different countries (some first world/some third world) and 6 different states by the time I got to college. My family was generally upper middle class but I grew up in a very privileged environment, private schools, most of my friends parents were usually ambassadors, high ranking diplomats, wealthy international business men. I remember attending Christmas parties and my parents mentioning CIA directors, former secretaries of state, international agency heads etc.. as a kid I mostly remember there were always lots of big dogs and security guards with machine guns. Politics wasn't something I thought about much until college. Being overseas constantly I was pretty disconnected from what was happening in America and as an expat overseas one generally lived in a privileged bubble. I saw enormous poverty in many countries but was always removed from it. My parents both non religious Republicans at the time would sometimes discuss politics and I'm sure their beliefs wore off on me to some degree.

In college I became interested in libertarianism mostly because I liked challenging my college professors who were quite left leaning. I read a lot of CATO institute papers and dabbled in names like Hayek, Rothbard, Rand...I spent a few years in ROTC thinking military life might be for me but grew disillusioned with taking orders and chains of command.

Life after college was a rude awakening and a few years of drifting around...I graduated into economic downturn around 2000. I worked briefly for a right wing media company but didn't fit in at all with the people there. Their perspectives on life I felt were very shallow. Most hadn't traveled or experienced much of the world...they were pasty boring stiffs for the most part....I was starting to grow disillusioned and bored with the traditional libertarian/conservative mindset. I was tired of listening to rich conservatives talk while surrounded by a lot of opulence that none of them seemed to be working very hard for. A lot of the time discussions usually involved criticizing lazy dumb people or the government...I didn't find it very inspiring. My political philosophies really hadn't entirely gelled by that age. I was drifting around in a soup of ideas. Took GMAT and LSAT tests and did very well on both. Considered business school and law school....eventually did a year at law school but couldn't stand it. Again, surrounded by many priviledged upper class kids who I didn't fit in with.

At about that point I discovered Early Retirement Extreme and Jacob Lund Fisker....his philosophy inspired me...same with Mr. Money Mustache. I discovered minimalism and began delving into stoicism as well. A man is wealthy in proportion to the number of things he can do without and all that. I started working odd blue collar jobs and construction and as a social worker/educator for gang intervention and inner city high school dropout and high school equivalency test prep as well as immigrant education. I set a goal to retire early so I lived as cheaply as possible, oftentimes in gutted houses in the ghetto that I would buy for cheap and flip as gentrification spread in my city. Other times I would live for free on the properties of other people's houses while I rehabbed them or rent a room. I had a small business through which I did a little bit of everything mostly building stuff/construction...I worked somewhere between 60-80 hours a week for about 10 years straight. Rode a bike everywhere...dumpster dived for furniture and clothing. There were years where I didn't leave a five mile radius...eat, sleep, work, repeat.

Those years taught me a lot. I learned that with hard work, a little bit of luck, and some intelligence one can become quite wealthy in this country. An individual or better two individuals in a healthy relationship with a plan can easily become millionaires or multi millionaires by the age of forty if they apply themselves...even working middle class jobs making less than 50k a year. The path to get there didn't look very glamorous though. It was a lot of work and sacrifice...but strangely I never felt like that. It wasn't hard...my goals were so clear and I felt so motivated to achieve them I would say it was almost easy. So I understand the conservative mindset in some respects and I believe in the importance of personal responsibility.

On the other hand I worked with, taught and shared neighborhoods with a lot of individuals who really had been dealt a bad hand. Extreme abuse as children, mental illness, mental incapacity, toxic environments, shattered homes, violence, lack of nutrition and security. Many people were born into challenges that made getting ahead almost impossible. I saw a lot of poverty and extremely bad situations. Many kids who were facing issues that were not their fault. They were born into horrible situations beyond their control.

My life has been split in half between enormous wealth and abject poverty. I'm still not entirely sure how to make sense of all of it and because of that I find it very difficult to formulate a strong political identity.

I understand where the political right is coming from, yet I also feel that as a civilized society it is unacceptable that we have a system that leaves so many behind. I see the importance of the individual, but am astonished at how we have ignored the health of so many within our collective society. It's really hard for me to come to terms with the disparity. The fact that we have billionaires fixated on excessive luxuries while we have kids who literally live on the streets and go hungry. I believe in capitalism and freedom, but think something must be tweaked in order to avoid the extreme disparity. This economic system creates a lot of wealth and hope and opportunity, but it also seems to leave a lot of people behind. It creates both a lot of hope....and hopelessness.

Oh, and this election is the first time I have voted in my life or even cared to.

[doodle]

Never have cared much about politics but I believe I have voted in every local, state, federal election since I was eligible, mostly for Rs or Ds but an occasional L; pretty much always voted for the candidate, not the party, and who I thought would be better for the city, county, state, or country. I always thought my vote was a throwaway if I did not vote for one of the major party candidates. I care more about effectiveness of the candidate than his/her character but I do think character is important too; there are really only two Presidents that have turned my stomach; there have been several wannabes that did. I still don't care much about politics whether in government, business, or the church, I just know it is necessary; I think most government politicians are, in general, self-serving shysters in disguise, and the higher the position the more corruption one is tempted to engage in. I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if political positions were filled by lottery, one term only, no elaborate pensions, etc. FWIW, I agree with most of what Tom wrote. I'm big on personal responsibility, very small on welfare provided by the state except in true emergencies; I believe hand-ups are far better than hand-outs and those hand-ups should come from family, friends, and church where ever possible. I'm big on knowing our history (family, state, country, world), flaws and all. I'm not big on tearing things down or rewriting history.

I've been proposing that for decades. If it's good enough for juries that can have the power of freedom or incarceration, not to mention life or death, it should be good enough for any other role.

I thought maybe we should do it like astronauts. First there should be rigorous intelligence tests, psychological evaluations etc....then out of the field of eligible candidates we could select by lottery.

The present popularity pageant we have going sucks.

[glennds]

Never have cared much about politics but I believe I have voted in every local, state, federal election since I was eligible, mostly for Rs or Ds but an occasional L; pretty much always voted for the candidate, not the party, and who I thought would be better for the city, county, state, or country. I always thought my vote was a throwaway if I did not vote for one of the major party candidates. I care more about effectiveness of the candidate than his/her character but I do think character is important too; there are really only two Presidents that have turned my stomach; there have been several wannabes that did. I still don't care much about politics whether in government, business, or the church, I just know it is necessary; I think most government politicians are, in general, self-serving shysters in disguise, and the higher the position the more corruption one is tempted to engage in. I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if political positions were filled by lottery, one term only, no elaborate pensions, etc. FWIW, I agree with most of what Tom wrote. I'm big on personal responsibility, very small on welfare provided by the state except in true emergencies; I believe hand-ups are far better than hand-outs and those hand-ups should come from family, friends, and church where ever possible. I'm big on knowing our history (family, state, country, world), flaws and all. I'm not big on tearing things down or rewriting history.

I've been proposing that for decades. If it's good enough for juries that can have the power of freedom or incarceration, not to mention life or death, it should be good enough for any other role.

A juror is tasked with making a single binary decision. And even then the decision is only consequential if it is unanimous or supermajority among the panel of jury peers.
A political office is infinitely more complicated in terms of the decisions that will be confronted, so I'm not sure the comparison of the two is even close to equitable.

Plus, as a practical matter, a juror's duty is what, a few days, maybe a week, maybe two? Who on earth would respond to a lottery that puts their professional life on hold while they perform the temporary role of an ad hoc politician for a single term that would be ( x years?)?

Please educate me if I am missing the logic in this idea.

[doodle]

While you're here tech...I'd really be curious about your evolution!

[doodle]

While you're here tech...I'd really be curious about your evolution!

My first Presidential vote in 1972 was for McGovern, because Nixon was an obvious crook.
I've been a libertarian for almost 50 years.
Most of the time I've voted for Libertarian candidates, but last time I voted for Trump on the basis that at least he wasn't Hillary.
He has more than fulfilled my expectations in that regard.

As for my current views, I'm still an anarcho-capitalist but I much prefer a semi-free country to a socialist or communist country.
Accordingly, I feel I should recognize the Democrat party for their one remarkable achievement: turning me into a straight-ticket Republican voter.

So you believe in a meritocracy? That each individual should be allowed to rise to the limits of their capabilities?

Have you spent anytime around kids that due to bad luck don't have any type of stable platform from which to launch? Do you think that cycle of poverty has the propensity to repeat itself generation after generation?

I'd be more ok with libertarian ideas for the upside if it set a floor on the bottom end. If kids had access to good nutrition, education, extracurricular activities, mentorship, healthcare...I'm ok with everything on the upside. I feel that we have the societal wealth to set a basic floor....and from there I'm alright with as much upside as anyone wants or is capable of achieving.

It's the disparity that I have an issue with. I think it has the potential to upend our society..like it has done many times throughout history.

[Mountaineer]

Who on earth would respond to a lottery that puts their professional life on hold while they perform the temporary role of an ad hoc politician for a single term that would be ( x years?)?

Please educate me if I am missing the logic in this idea.

A not optional lottery with few legit reasons to not participate. Remember the draft?

[glennds]

Who on earth would respond to a lottery that puts their professional life on hold while they perform the temporary role of an ad hoc politician for a single term that would be ( x years?)?

Please educate me if I am missing the logic in this idea.

A not optional lottery with few legit reasons to not participate. Remember the draft?

Yes I do. I also remember that the draft was applicable to young men, pre-career age, no dependents, no bone spurs. And even then it was unpopular enough that it eventually went away.

But a not optional (read compulsory) lottery imposed on a society that throws a tantrum because their rights are being trampled when being asked to wear a mask during a pandemic? Right.

We don't like the government telling us what to do, unless it is the government forcing us to become the government.
Does. Not. Parse.

[glennds]

While you're here tech...I'd really be curious about your evolution!

My first Presidential vote in 1972 was for McGovern, because Nixon was an obvious crook.

This reminds me of a story that happened to me a couple of months ago in a local grocery store. The checkout cashier was an older man, probably a veteran employee of grocery stores, the type that looks like a human Basset hound, sort of like the old timers you'll see in the butcher department. You get the picture.

Well the person in front of me in line was carrying on and complaining about politics. So when I came up to bat, I decided to lighten the mood a little and make a sarcastic joke that things have gotten so bad, it almost makes me miss the good old days of Richard Nixon.
The old Basset hound stops ringing up for a moment, looks side to side as though he's about to tell me a secret, and moves in a little closer, and says "I'm with you, now THAT was a great president. Damn shame how they railroaded that man".
And he proceeded to give me double coupons on a Thursday.

In the strange world of politics, you never know when and how you might meet an accidental bedfellow. Second lesson learned is how dangerous it is to assume everyone will share the point of view that you think is so obvious.

[Mountaineer]

Who on earth would respond to a lottery that puts their professional life on hold while they perform the temporary role of an ad hoc politician for a single term that would be ( x years?)?

Please educate me if I am missing the logic in this idea.

A not optional lottery with few legit reasons to not participate. Remember the draft?

Yes I do. I also remember that the draft was applicable to young men, pre-career age, no dependents, no bone spurs. And even then it was unpopular enough that it eventually went away.

But a not optional (read compulsory) lottery imposed on a society that throws a tantrum because their rights are being trampled when being asked to wear a mask during a pandemic? Right.

We don't like the government telling us what to do, unless it is the government forcing us to become the government.
Does. Not. Parse.

You are probably right, we have not gotten a severe enough bad taste in our mouth for a lottery at this time. I just hope you don't have to switch to a view of a lottery being a preferred system after a few years of Biden/Harris/Pelosi/AOC/revolution/banana republic/etc. Lord have mercy!

[doodle]

Speaking of does.not.parse..

Nixon is an obvious crook...but Trump's not? Anyways, I don't want to divert attention. I'm curious how people evolved to hold the positions that they have.

[glennds]

You are probably right, we have not gotten a severe enough bad taste in our mouth for a lottery at this time. I just hope you don't have to switch to a view of a lottery being a preferred system after a few years of Biden/Harris/Pelosi/AOC/revolution/banana republic/etc. Lord have mercy!

Let's hope not. Yikes!
But yes, I admit there have been times in my life when a choice that I thought to be absolutely repugnant later started looking pretty good.
In fact the opposite has even happened in a relationship or two.

[SomeDude]

I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if political positions were filled by lottery, one term only, no elaborate pensions, etc.

While a good idea in theory, a sizable chunk of the population does not have enough intelligence to vote, let alone run the country. So if you eliminated the unfit, you would get cries of racism, sexism, etc. If you didn't eliminate the unfit, well, you 'd have one helluva mess.

Who is actually smart enough to run a country?

[glennds]

I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if political positions were filled by lottery, one term only, no elaborate pensions, etc.

While a good idea in theory, a sizable chunk of the population does not have enough intelligence to vote, let alone run the country. So if you eliminated the unfit, you would get cries of racism, sexism, etc. If you didn't eliminate the unfit, well, you 'd have one helluva mess.

Who is actually smart enough to run a country?

The free market is.

Exactly. In other words, the heads of the private insurance companies, pharma companies, food industry, Wall Street banks, energy companies, the Koch brothers, the tech giants, the media conglomerates and private organizations like the NRA.

They've got your back.

[vnatale]

Never have cared much about politics but I believe I have voted in every local, state, federal election since I was eligible, mostly for Rs or Ds but an occasional L; pretty much always voted for the candidate, not the party, and who I thought would be better for the city, county, state, or country. I always thought my vote was a throwaway if I did not vote for one of the major party candidates. I care more about effectiveness of the candidate than his/her character but I do think character is important too; there are really only two Presidents that have turned my stomach; there have been several wannabes that did. I still don't care much about politics whether in government, business, or the church, I just know it is necessary; I think most government politicians are, in general, self-serving shysters in disguise, and the higher the position the more corruption one is tempted to engage in. I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if political positions were filled by lottery, one term only, no elaborate pensions, etc. FWIW, I agree with most of what Tom wrote. I'm big on personal responsibility, very small on welfare provided by the state except in true emergencies; I believe hand-ups are far better than hand-outs and those hand-ups should come from family, friends, and church where ever possible. I'm big on knowing our history (family, state, country, world), flaws and all. I'm not big on tearing things down or rewriting history.

As I just read the last two paragraphs on this extremely long book on the 2000 election....what I'd shorty prior read that you wrote above (highlighted)....came to mind. I suspect that you will find much to agree with in these two paragraphs?

Vinny

We have set up a world where great men do not get nominated for the presidency—only ruthless, power-mad pols with hollow centers, surrounded by political mercenaries. We have set up a world where the candidate with the more effective liars and more cutthroat scoundrels wins. Perhaps our displeasure with the products of this machinery is the reason we got into this mess in the first place.

Dirty politics and hollow rhetoric are not new to America, but in recent decades, as money and television and mass marketing have saturated the political process, the office of the presidency has been terribly tarnished. Nixon and Clinton certainly did their damage, but they weren’t the only ones. We’re a coarser society, an angrier place, made all the more so by the billions of dollars to be made in exploiting the worst in us. In 2000 we had two men running for the highest office in the land, and many of us thought neither of them truly up to the task. So perhaps there really wasn’t a presidency left to steal. You can look at dimpled ballots, questionable judicial decrees, lazy reporters, family ties, and too much money. You can scour the Florida swamps in search of submerged Votomatics. You can file Freedom of Information Act requests to track down mash notes between people who were supposed to be neutral and folks who were rabid partisans. You can look at Florida—or Iowa, or New Mexico, or just about any state—and wonder how its residents feel, knowing so many votes are routinely misread and discarded. You can look at sleazy political operatives and cutthroat lawyers and politicized judges. But if you really want to know who’s responsible for what went down in the Sunshine State, you might want to take a look in the mirror.

[Libertarian666]

I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if political positions were filled by lottery, one term only, no elaborate pensions, etc.

While a good idea in theory, a sizable chunk of the population does not have enough intelligence to vote, let alone run the country. So if you eliminated the unfit, you would get cries of racism, sexism, etc. If you didn't eliminate the unfit, well, you 'd have one helluva mess.

It's pretty obvious that a significant proportion of Congress isn't intelligent enough to run the country, and are extremely corrupt to boot.
I'd rather take my chances with a random drawing from the population.