Have your political views changed over time?

[sunnyside]

With posts recently about birthdays and kids, it occurs to me that those of us on this forum have been around the sun a few times since I first joined here.

I'm curious if in that time your views on things have changed as you lived and learned.

I believe it was the Brit's own Winston Churchill who said:

"If you are 20 and not a liberal you have no heart, if you are 30 and not a conservative you have no brain. "

In addition, these days in the US people and politicians are infamous for quickly "evolving" on specific social issues, most famously with gay marriage.

[McAvoy]

Off hand the only one I can think of is abortion. I was nearly 100% pro choice. Now I am not so much. I don't believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control but used in the cases of rapists and extreme health issues.

But I also understand both sides. I am not one of those who consider a 8 week old fetus, murder.

I was always for gay marriage. I have heard some ridiculous arguments against it as it opens up for polygamy and even incest.

[Mikey]

My political views have absolutely changed over time. I don't feel like it's been fatherhood or age itself that has changed me, but rather experience. My core tenets are still the same, but having a wider perspective on the mechanisms of society there are ways of inducing change of which I am now a proponent, when in my younger days I would have espoused a more radical (and less likely to succeed) attitude.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

With posts recently about birthdays and kids, it occurs to me that those of us on this forum have been around the sun a few times since I first joined here.

I'm curious if in that time your views on things have changed as you lived and learned.

I believe it was the Brit's own Winston Churchill who said:

"If you are 20 and not a liberal you have no heart, if you are 30 and not a conservative you have no brain. "

In addition, these days in the US people and politicians are infamous for quickly "evolving" on specific social issues, most famously with gay marriage.

It's hard for me to answer since I haven't been very politically aware (I couldn't say 'involved' since I'm a loner) over much of my life and my memory of my past self can be hazy. By now I'm more politically aware than I was for the preceding years of my life; maybe I'll notice gradual shift in the future.

However, may I lodge a protest with the implication from the first quote that a liberal attitude isn't well thought out or rational? In my view, conservative attitudes are as much about internal motives and feelings as liberal ones - just a different set of internal motives and feelings. As to which is more objectively correct (if such a statement can be made at all), let me say that there's a healthy amount of evidence supporting liberal views (as there is for conservative views in some areas).

[Jim]

As political views are opinion, and opinions are affected by experiences... political views should change over time.

[Nutso]

Bitter, angry, more cynical.

[Teaos]

I used to be very very liberatarian, but as I get older I see like many politicl ideas it would only work in a perfect world, and we need goverment intervention in many areas, not all of them, and not extreme, but there are some things that cant be done privatly.

[Captain Seafort]

I used to be very very liberatarian

I think you're missing a few "very"s there. I remember you producing your political compass, with the dot wrapped round the endstop.

[Teaos]

I still am in most social ways, I think the goverment as no business in what you do with your own body or on your own property.

But economically, while I would still ideally like people to be as self sufficient as possible, I've come to see that in many times and places that just isnt practical. Or the result of even minor government intervention can be massively beneficial.

[sunnyside]

However, may I lodge a protest with the implication from the first quote that a liberal attitude isn't well thought out or rational? In my view, conservative attitudes are as much about internal motives and feelings as liberal ones - just a different set of internal motives and feelings. As to which is more objectively correct (if such a statement can be made at all), let me say that there's a healthy amount of evidence supporting liberal views (as there is for conservative views in some areas).

On the spectrum of Reagan vs Marx I think Capitalism has had a decisive victory over Socialism, and the idea that a Socialist government will just relinquish all its power to create a communist country, well, frankly I'm surprised anybody ever believed that one.

Now, once you get down to the details of wheter the tax rate should be 10% higher or lower it's a bit harder to say, in part because such relatively modest differences tend to get drowned out in light of other things going on in the world.

I still am in most social ways, I think the goverment as no business in what you do with your own body or on your own property.

But economically, while I would still ideally like people to be as self sufficient as possible, I've come to see that in many times and places that just isnt practical. Or the result of even minor government intervention can be massively beneficial.

I think the idea of a truely libertarian nation is nuts (exception: a small island country far from any conflict zones with an economy based on being a shady tax haven and purveyor of things illegal elsewhere).

However I've come to like the idea of having them being a minority in the House and Senate, such that if any significant plurality of Republican and Democrats are working together on something they'll be able to get it through. However if those two are divided purely along partisan lines than the Libertarians get to make the call with their 10% or whatever.

[Mikey]

On the spectrum of Reagan vs Marx I think Capitalism has had a decisive victory over Socialism, and the idea that a Socialist government will just relinquish all its power to create a communist country, well, frankly I'm surprised anybody ever believed that one.

This really speaks to CPH's point in the amount of not at all. There's far more to the division in intra-national politics between left and right than the simple economic philosophy, or even than the political ideologies that tag along with those economies. BTW, it's fallacious to describe capitalism and socialism as governmental or political philosophies or systems - they are economic ones, that tend to coincide with republicanism/representative demopcracy on one hand, and with communism on the other.

[sunnyside]

There's far more to the division in intra-national politics between left and right than the simple economic philosophy,

True, but their comment was on being objectively correct. I don't know that you can really apply that term to social issues.

I mean I suppose one could make a claim that, in retrospect, someone's slippery slope argument or some other prediction turned out to be correct or not. And I'm pretty confident that the picture of our society painted by music videos and the like would shock and horrify people from hundreds (or even sixty) years ago. However I don't think that's the measuring stick for right, wrong, or objectively correct.

BTW, it's fallacious to describe capitalism and socialism as governmental or political philosophies or systems - they are economic ones

I didn't say otherwise. Though having a centrally planned economy in state socialism does create some requirements a system must meet.

and with communism on the other.

Actually communism is supposed to be stateless. The socialist governments that arose were supposed to be temporary and lay the groundwork for giving up their power to create communism, hence why they had that term in their name.

Hmmm that makes it sound like I'm just ragging on liberalism. I'm a swing voter, and over time I think I've become more open to higher taxes of some sorts. And my support for the Iraq war went from "what the heck" to "maybe a good thing" to "nah, bad idea" as various pieces of info came out.

[Mikey]

I don't think your commentary makes you sound particularly anti-left, I was just pointing out that CPH was correct in saying that one can't call leftist ideals subjective while calling rightist ones objective.

While true Marxism was supposed to transcend and obviate the political entity, that's obviously impractical in real-world application, hence the difference between pragmatic Leninist communism and idealistic Marxist communism. As far as a true socialist government - as opposed to a government that employs a socialist economy/agenda - the Kerensky government lasted for, what? Half a year?

[sunnyside]

As far as a true socialist government - as opposed to a government that employs a socialist economy/agenda - the Kerensky government lasted for, what? Half a year?

Well no, I suppose he didn't have a proper "government" while in the inner sphere, but he was in charge during the exodus and the Star League in Exile periods.

*sigh* I suppose you don't mean Battletech. Guess I'll have to wiki that when I get the chance.

[Mikey]

As far as a true socialist government - as opposed to a government that employs a socialist economy/agenda - the Kerensky government lasted for, what? Half a year?

Well no, I suppose he didn't have a proper "government" while in the inner sphere, but he was in charge during the exodus and the Star League in Exile periods.

*sigh* I suppose you don't mean Battletech. Guess I'll have to wiki that when I get the chance.

lol

No, I wasn't referring to BattleTech. He was a prime mover, then leader, of the revolutionary government that was wedged in between Tsarist Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution. Alexander Kerensky