How Political / Apolitical Are You?

[Florestan]

I started out in 1990 as Political but gradually evolved toward Pragmatic, a position I've been holding for two decades now.

How about you?

[arpeggio]

Other.

I tend to be pragmatic.

Sometimes a conservative solution is the best, sometimes a liberal solution is best.

[vandermolen]

Wishy-washy Liberal in my political views.

[Jo498]

I checked 2 but "other" might be closer. I am usually contrarian and vote for some opposition because I am so utterly disgusted by the parties in power.

I honestly don't really remember how I voted in detail in the 1990s but this was when it felt like Kohl had been chancellor forever (although I remembered his predecessor from by primary school days, unlike people born in the late 1970s) and this only because he lucked out with the fall of the iron curtain and German unification (which they messed up but not as badly as others might have...) as otherwise he would almost certainly have lost in 1990, so I probably voted halfheartedly for some opposition to Kohl in my first few votings.

Then a center-left government followed and threw both workers under the bus (by "welfare reforms" that hurt them, basically making one equal to lumpenproletariat when becoming unemployed) and followed the Orwellian "War is Peace" in former Yugoslavia (and later Afghanistan).
So I think in the 2000s I voted "far left"(despite justified misgivings about their personnel that was partly former GDR socialists) because they were the only real opposition to the "TINA" pseudocentrists of the large parties (actually globalist lickspittles).

The old West German system then got broken since 2005. This was not obvious at the beginning but the old "blocs" of center-left (reds and greens) and center-right (blacks and yellows) of which one was usually in power, the other one in opposition, so one could vote for a change were dissolved in favor of the so-called "grand coalition" of the two largest parties ("christian democrats" = "blacks" and "social democrats" = "reds") who governed 2005-09 and 2013-21, thus it was de facto impossible to vote for a change, unless lots of people had switched to smaller/newer parties but some of them were excluded for coalition, first the "far left" then the "far right" (that is not far right at all, in most regards it's like center right was until around 2000).

Since the complete desasters of the last 3 governments who ruined one of the safest and economically strongest countries in the world within a decade, mostly by 2 idiotic and fatal policy decisions (both extreme "green"/leftist" in content but enacted by "centrist" Merkel since 2011), namely "green energy" (which might work in Norway with their hydropower but not here where it kills the industry and the middle class) and letting in 3-5 millions of at best useless, but very costly in welfare and often highly dangerous (mentally unstable, gang rapists, islamist leanings, up to open antisemitism and terrorism) oriental (+ african and balkan) immigrants, the only real opposition is the "far right" Alternative for Germany (but see above, they have a few dubious characters but most of their program would have been center right in 2000 and barely right in 1988).

I have become more socially conservative but not more than what would have been centrist common sense in my youth in the late 1980s (traditional families, differentiated schools, some "tough love" for lumpenproletariat or criminals are good, and so is a generally positive stance towards one's own history, culture and traditions, i.e. what is still lauded for all of nonwestern extraction but "rightwing" for e.g. ethnic Germans or French), and I am still somewhat "social democrat" in economics but I have been forced to vote between "far left" & "far right" in the last 20 years because the "centre does not hold" but has become completely mad.

[71 dB]

I chose I support no specific political ideology and vote for whichever party comes closer to my views / is the least bad in my opinion. (Pragmatic) as it is closest to what I do. In Finland we have about 10 parties to choose from and even more if parties too small to have representation are added. For me there are three parties that agree with me politically to the extent I can consider voting them: The Green Party, The Social Democratic Party and The Left Party.

Most of the time I vote for The Green Party. In countries where there are only a few parties to choose from and a lot of corruption, voting for the least bad option is an important strategy, but fortunately in Finland I don't need to do that. I have always had good options to vote for. The parties I mentioned have been close to my own views consistently. I haven't had much reason to change my support in favour of other parties.

The Social Democratic Party is the least compatible option of the three for me (they are a bit more conservative and old-fashioned living in the past), but they have the largest national support of the three and offer the strongest opposition to the right wing parties I loathe of which The True Finns are the worst, the polar opposite of The Green Party.

I vote in every election. Voting is very important in my opinion. Thousands and thousands of people died in the past to make/keep Finland a free democratic country, one of the most democratic in the World in fact. Voting in elections is the least I can do to show my respect and  appreciation for their sacrifice. It typically takes me only a couple of minutes to vote, because elections are arranged well in Finland. No voter suppressing BS such as waiting for hours in line or voting on a workday when it is the least convenient.

I have stopped arguing about politics online. I did it for about 20 years and all I got from it was anger and frustration. Nobody changed their opinion because of me and nobody has changed my mind. Nowadays I concentrate on things that make me feel better. That's why I am less active online. I also follow politics much much less. The only reason I follow US politics at all anymore is because the lunatic clown show has unfortunately SERIOUS consequences to the whole World.

[DavidW]

Political. A vote for the party is not a party-line vote on every issue. Nor does it mean that I wouldn't try to understand and empathize at times with the ideals of the other party. But I will not vote for a party that refuses to hold my core ideals and might even make a mockery of them.

[pjme]

Blatant lies, extreme cruelty, unscrupulousness and a stunning lack of historical insight dictate a lot of the political chaos. It is for me deeply disheartening and suffocating that populist parties (Afd, PVV, Vlaams Belang, Rassemblement National.... Orban, Fico, Georgescu...) manage to convince large groups of followers.
Even more shocking, for me,  is the lack of understanding and accepting of climate change and the speed of its impact.
So, I'm very pessimistic and find it hard to remain "pragmatic".

[Jo498]

Blatant lies, extreme cruelty, unscrupulousness and a stunning lack of historical insight dictate a lot of the political chaos. It is for me deeply disheartening and suffocating that populist parties (Afd, PVV, Vlaams Belang, Rassemblement National.... Orban, Fico, Georgescu...) manage to convince large groups of followers.

The established parties are most to be blamed for that.
By decades of corruption and double dealing, by fattening the most disgusting corruptocracy Europe has ever seen (the EU) and blatantly ignoring the wants and needs of ordinary people (who experienced overall decline in income, wealth and well being for over 30 years now) in favor of ever more bizarre client classes from illegal migrants to the mentally ill, and of course their buddies in quasi-governmental organisations ("NGOs" with a silent N) they brought the rise of "populist" parties.

If in Germany the 2 largest parties had recognized the sheer madness of oriental mass immigration after the first horrible islamist attack (truck on christmas market in december 2016) and had changed course only in this regard by closing borders and deporting oriental illegals, the AfD would hover around 5% and be irrelevant.
The disgusting mainstream corruptocrats could have continued most of their corruption and nonsense if they had only changed course on immigration. But they didn't.

Instead they doubled down, and of course, there was also this little thing where they gave billions to pharma and other shysters and acted totalitarian in a way making a mockery of all human rights and legal practice not seen since 1945 because of an f*ing flu!

If people over 60 were not mostly voting for established parties because they voted that way for 40 years and if the media were not mostly playing along with the corrupt mainstream, the "populists" would already have clear majorities. And they will get them, unless the mainstream reform their ways.
 

[Florestan]

I would be classed as far-left, anti-establishment.

For instance, if I lived in Romania, I would be fighting for the rights of the Romani.

You'd be fighting a fictitious battle. The Roma citizens enjoy full rights and are represented at every level, politically, economically, culturally and socially. You might want to help raising the educational and economic status of some of their communities --- and good luck with that, as your first enemies will be the conservatives among them, bent on preserving and enforcing traditions and customs utterly incompatible with modernity. 

[T. D.]

My answer is "pragmatic" but none of the labels fit.
American, voted when I turned 18 but then didn't vote for over 2 decades.
Just after the turn of the millennium, I decided that one of the (in effect) 2 meaningful alternatives in the US (guess which?) was an overwhelmingly worse evil. So now I vote to oppose that alternative wherever possible.

[Florestan]

Looks like the Pragmatic option is far more available to, and made use of by, Europeans than Americans. The US system seems to generate Political almost by default.

[Florestan]

Given your prior postings, I think I'd be ill-advised to take your assessment as one reflective of the concrete, material conditions of reality - the news, in general, also seems to disagree with you, and journalists are about as pragmatic as they come.

With all due respect, you remind me of JD Vance's remark that he knows exactly what's going in Ukraine because he watches the news.

If the issue really interests you, I suggest you come to Romania and see/hear/study the reality with your own eyes/ears/reason. AFAIC, you're more than welcome.

[Florestan]

I kindly ask all participants* to refrain (1) from making remarks which can be interpreted by other people as inflammatory or provocative, and (2) from starting, or joining, debates which are ultimately useless and can easily degenerate. Please note that the way I formulated the questions do not imply you have to disclose your concrete political options, although of course you may do it if so inclined. Thank you.

*including myself   

[ChamberNut]

I'm absolutely shocked that this thread would turn political.

[drogulus]

     Very

[Florestan]

Georgescu

You'll probably be relieved to learn that the Constitutional Court of Romania definitively and irrevocably prohibited him from running for Presidency, to the ire of such liberal-democracy luminaries as Peskov, Medvedev and Elon Musk.

I have two comments.

1. We will not take lessons in democracy from a regime where the last free elections have taken place 20 years ago and where all the opposition leaders/candidates have been assassinated, imprisoned or run abroad for their life, nor from an administration whose boss is a markedly authoritarian person who did not accept the result of the last but one elections and tried to instigate a coup against them.

2. To prohibit a person from running for Presidency who made no secret about his anti-democratic, authoritarian plans* is not to trample democracy under foot, as Peskov, Medvedev and Musk falsely claim, but on the contrary to vigorously defend it. The Constitutional Court proclaimed and applied a sound and healthy principle: no person can be President who does not uphold the very values and principles on which the Republic was founded and its very Constitution. The Republic was founded precisely for the institution, promotion and advancement of liberal democracy, rule of law and social market economy, and it's her right and duty to defend them against any attempt at overthrowing them.

* he plainly and publicly stated his intention to abolish the political parties, nationalize banks and industrial enterprises, take Romania out of EU and NATO and realign her with Russia, eliminate ideologically undesirable persons from media and academia --- and a host of other such things which, besides being unconstitutional, if ever applied would send us back to dictatorship, poverty and Russian hegemony. He also stated that, should Ukraine be partitioned in the future, Romania would claim parts of it.

[KevinP]

I wish I were apolitical, but I can't afford to be.

[Holden]

I chose pragmatic.

The major political parties espouse policies that support their left wing or right wing tendencies. As I'm a centrist (and deeply distrustful of ALL politicians) finding someone that I can vote for becomes a nightmare. Currently in Australia we have a ruling party that seems hell bent on bankrupting the country and all I can do about it is to vote for their major opponents despite my dislike of much of what they stand for. I'd rather vote for someone whose views I agree with but the current government has to go. It's also worth noting that voting at all levels of government in Australia is compulsory and you can be fined if you don't vote.

[Holden]

Wishy-washy Liberal in my political views.

Is Trump driving you nuts?

[vandermolen]

Is Trump driving you nuts?

I thought that this was a taboo topic here 
I don't want another 'Sorry vandermolen you are banned' message.
In short the answer is yes to your question. However, my anger is more towards Putin.
I think that Starmer - the British PM - has done as well as he can.