Help! We dont fit the stereotype!

Dear Liberals, Dear Conservatives...

who are we supposed to vote for if we fit neither of the political stereotypes?

Denying apathy means to vote, but the choice of two ice-cream flavours in a parlor of hundreds of flavours doesnt seem like much of a choice to many of us.

Ive been called a liberal on these boards, Ive been called a conservatives on these boards...and this to me proves there is something deeply limiting, pre-defining, stifling within the politcal psyche of our nation.

Why are positions of candidates so damn predictable?

Why are the positions of those who call themselves left-wing/right-wing so damn predictable?


"This one candidate will go to war. This other candidate will cause poverty in our nation." What lousy "freedom of choice" is that supposed to be?

And how is it possible that some of the most unmoving people stick to the same ideology all their life and to any situation?

Isnt it natural to change ones opinion depending on the context?

And wouldnt it be nice if we had a list of 20 parties/candidates instead of two?

Who are people like us supposed to vote for?

And most importantly:

When I say opinion X, why is it automatically assumed that I also believe in Y and Z?



That just pisses me off. "Oh, you believe in X? Then you are a Y and therefore also believe in Z".

Why do so many conversations here follow these predictable patterns?

Help, so that we may find our place within the political spectrum.

Don't vote.

Engage yourself in Resistance.

In the words of A. Badiou, one politician necessarily must lay the bed for the next as was done for him.

I believe that the way our political system is set up was designed to create exactly the problem you mention.

Although you might find yourself at odds with different people in different debates, the party you vote for should be the one that is closest to your views concerning the party's basic manifesto. Personally I think our politics need a good dose of left-wing thinking (more than mainstream offers) to rock the boat a little and refresh the situation.

Originally posted by Rigel

Engage yourself in Resistance.

Anarchy? No Government at all? Hm.

Im OK with Government. I just want it to be more diverse.

reply to post by Kupios


...and...on the entire spectrum, have you ever moved here and there...?

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Rigel

Engage yourself in Resistance.

Anarchy? No Government at all?

Yeah.

reply to post by Rigel


I´ll agree with 20% less government.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Why not 19.5 ?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Kupios

 

...and...on the entire spectrum, have you ever moved here in there...?

Here in there? If by that you mean do I feel that my views are represented in different systems of thought, then yes, of course. I find good ideas in many places but the area where I find most contention with political parties today is at a more fundamental level.

Political party manifestos today, speaking mainly from a UK perspective, will not even mention a subject in case it takes away potential voters for the exact reason you mention of "split beliefs"(if Iunderstand you correctly). Again, I think a good dose of left-wing policy would help a great deal.

Originally posted by Rigel
Why not 19.5 ?

Because this is the Political Forum, not the secrets-exposed forum.

Originally posted by Kupios
Again, I think a good dose of left-wing policy would help a great deal.

I edited my post, meant to say "here and there".

I think a good dose of "taking the best from left and right" would hep a great deal.

I cannot possibly vote Bush or McCain because they´re actually stupid enough to think that going to war will not cause a reaction of more war.

But I cannot possibly vote for left-wingers because of the economic squalor they leave behind everywhere they reign.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Don't feel ashamed... Louise Michel used to be a mason, you know... At least for few days...

Originally posted by Rigel


Don't feel ashamed... Louise Michel used to be a mason, you know... At least for few days...

I have no idea what you´re talking about.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Skyfloating, while I may have different political views I do understand your problem. Taking the best from both would be ideal but who is to decide what that is? As for the economic effects of socially oriented politics I must say that having lived in Denmark before 9/11 (everyone voted right in the wake of the attack and Danish politics went crazy), what is called a mixed economy is a proven strategy in my opinion. Denmark had a very high minimum wage, excellent government facilities (schools, hospitals etc) and paid of its national debt.

In any case, I don't know too much about US politics but what about Ron Paul?

Ron Paul at least helped in building awareness of a force beyond the 2-party-system.

However...even the whole idea of a "3rd alternative" is laughable. I was under the assumption that any sane person will enjoy 20 alternatives.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Kupios
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

In any case, I don't know too much about US politics but what about Ron Paul?

Or the ATS-Despised Lyndon LaRouche ?




[edit on 13-5-2008 by Rigel]

reply to post by Skyfloating

Well said Skyfloating. You are not alone in your feelings of trepidation concerning our two party system.

For the past several presidential elections I've felt I had no choice but to vote for the lessor of two evils.

I have always considered myself an independent. I refuse to label myself democratic or republican. In doing so, I am like a fish out of water with no where to go.

Short of a revolution IMO our only hope of change is to present a candidate that can lure big business and also woo the general public in a way we have not seen. Unfortunately this is not likely.

So, what is the answer?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Any sane person may very well enjoy 20 alternatives but is this not a case of finding the best of a bad bunch? I'll admit that it is intensely sad that we get to this point in politics but surely there must be someone you agree with more than the others. If Ron Paul is at the very least against the 2-party stranglehold then is that not the way to go?

Im fine with Ron Paul and what he stood for.

Lyndon LaRouche? No, not really. Too narrow.

I hope to get some real liberals and conservatives here to explain to me how the hell one can be fully one or the other.

Originally posted by dizziedame
So, what is the answer?

Maybe one of the smaller, short-term answers is to lessen the extreme stereo-typing of one group toward the other.

Just because someone is pro-X doesnt mean he´s generally a democrat or republican.

I am mainly posting this thread because I see the stereotypes run rampant HERE all the time.

Its like: Have this one liberal stance: Loose 50% of your friends. Have this one conservative stance: Loose the other 50%.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Skyfloating]