How Political / Apolitical Are You?

[Madiel]

I had to go "other" because all of the other options have things in them that I take issue with for one reason or another. There is a big problem with assuming that a political ideology and a party are going to correlate consistently. In some countries parties have radically shifted their policies over time. Which is one reason I find it problematic that some people essentially treat allegiance to a political party like allegiance to a sporting team.

In addition, living in Canberra and being a public servant makes taking a certain level of interest in politics more or less inevitable. The thing is, "politics" is, or should be, something rather more than party politics. And indeed, most of my preferred politicians are the ones that seem to me to spend more of their time actually talking about policies.

I revel in the fact that 2 of the 3 kinds of elections I get to participate in (the Australian Senate, and the local legislative assembly) are multi-member systems where I get to wander across party lines and pick the best people from each party. Undoubtedly I have some political leanings that tend to mean more of my vote goes to certain parties, but I'm equally thinking about which are my preferred candidates within a party. My electorate for the legislative assembly gets 5 members, and I think that in last year's election my top 5 picks came from 4 different sources.

"Never voting" isn't an option here. Voting in Australia has been compulsory for a century - although technically what's compulsory is turning up, because if you are so minded you can scribble nonsense on your ballot or put nothing at all (hmm, electronic systems might put a stop to that!)

[Madiel]

I'd rather vote for someone whose views I agree with but the current government has to go.

It's well established that a lot of people treat an election as if it's a referendum on the current government. And I'm sorry, but it drives me completely nuts. The question on the ballot paper is never actually about how you think the last government went and therefore whether to retain it or change it, it's about who's going to be the NEXT government. Out of the available options.

Past performance is certainly something to consider in that question, but people will actively vote a government out without having regard to whether the government they're voting in will be better. And this is stupid. You should be voting for your best option - whether you think it's a fantastic option or a mediocre option. Picking something even less satisfying than what you currently have, just because you're dissatisfied and want change, makes no sense.

I don't know anyone who would dispose of a meal that isn't very tasty and decide that they'll eat something rotting on the floor instead just because it's different. But when it comes to politics people seem to espouse that idea all the time.

[Madiel]

I am usually contrarian and vote for some opposition because I am so utterly disgusted by the parties in power.

And here's another example of the problem I'm talking about. The ballot paper isn't asking you whether you like the parties in power, with "Yes" and "No" boxes. It's asking you which parties you like best.

[Florestan]

The ballot paper isn't asking you whether you like the parties in power, with "Yes" and "No" boxes. It's asking you which parties you like best.

Agreed and here's where the Pragmatic approach comes in. Which party I like best is not invariant but dependent on many factors which always change from one election to another. If I voted for party X in the last elections it does not automatically follow that in the next elections I will vote for them again. One thing I will never do, though: vote for the far right (the far left is virtually nonexistent in Romania) because I am disappointed by the center (and actually I am) and want to teach them a lesson. This is a very risky thing to do and can put the country on a very dangerous slope.

[Brian]

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.

It's the two party vs multiparty systems. In the United States, I would like to think of myself as pragmatic, but really, for almost my entire voting lifetime, one of the two options has always moved against my interests to advance the interests of others. The other party only sometimes works for my interests, but I am basically required by pragmatism to vote for them every single time.

The other reason I had a hard time answering this question, besides pragmatism leaving me only one option, is that I am rapidly developing into an ideological person, but like hopefullytrusting, it is an ideology that does not really exist in the USA, so there is no way to express it except wistfully reading David Graeber books.

[Florestan]

I am rapidly developing into an ideological person

My development has been the reverse: I started out as an ideological person and gradually turned into a non-ideological one, to the point where now I have a deep mistrust of all ideologies. And when it comes to their incarnation in real political parties my skepticism and distrust is even greater. I accept that parties are indispensable in a liberal democracy, but then again an evil does not become good by being necessary. 

[T. D.]

It's the two party vs multiparty systems. In the United States, I would like to think of myself as pragmatic, but really, for almost my entire voting lifetime, one of the two options has always moved against my interests to advance the interests of others. The other party only sometimes works for my interests, but I am basically required by pragmatism to vote for them every single time.

Pretty much +1 here.

I would welcome viable 3d, 4th, ... parties in the USA, but until one gains sufficient following, pragmatism forces my voting to follow the quoted pattern.

[Henk]

I vote for a party in the name of fairness and balance of powers, although I might tend towards (progressive) socialism (could be a response to neoliberalism, I don't know exactly). But when this party annoys me I might vote differently. Anyways I will not subscribe to a membership (did that in the past), I like to be independent to some degree.

[Brian]

My development has been the reverse: I started out as an ideological person and gradually turned into a non-ideological one, to the point where now I have a deep mistrust of all ideologies. And when it comes to their incarnation in real political parties my skepticism and distrust is even greater. I accept that parties are indispensable in a liberal democracy, but then again an evil does not become good by being necessary. 

Well, I think there is a definitional difference here, where you are using the word "ideology" to mean a set of beliefs that a pre-existing group hands down on tablets for its followers to become warriors for the cause, and when I used it, what I meant was more like, "an individual belief that there is definitely a right way to build a society," little more than that. (Since, as mentioned, in the USA there is no major organization that aligns with the ideas I have.)

I remember from the past that you certainly do have beliefs about how society should work! They may just, like mine but with pretty close to exact opposite actual views, not align with a certain ideological "camp."

[Madiel]

It's the two party vs multiparty systems. In the United States, I would like to think of myself as pragmatic, but really, for almost my entire voting lifetime, one of the two options has always moved against my interests to advance the interests of others. The other party only sometimes works for my interests, but I am basically required by pragmatism to vote for them every single time.

The other reason I had a hard time answering this question, besides pragmatism leaving me only one option, is that I am rapidly developing into an ideological person, but like hopefullytrusting, it is an ideology that does not really exist in the USA, so there is no way to express it except wistfully reading David Graeber books.

It's also worth being aware of the factors that help entrench the 2-party system, like voting methods. As a person very used to preferential voting, it seems obvious to me that first-past-the-post systems (where the highest vote wins even if they have a lot less than 50% of votes) actively discourage the creation of additional options lest the vote on either the left or the right get splintered.

People in the USA seem to complain about the electoral college, but while the college is admittedly quirky it seems to me that there are SEVERAL things far more problematic. And first past the post voting is well behind the top two in my mind: gerrymandering and voter suppression.

[DavidW]

I vote for a party in the name of fairness and balance of powers, although I might tend towards (progressive) socialism (could be a response to neoliberalism, I don't know exactly). But when this party annoys me I might vote differently. Anyways I will not subscribe to a membership (did that in the past), I like to be independent to some degree.

Good to see you back!

[Henk]

Good to see you back!

Thank you, David. 

[Florestan]

Well, I think there is a definitional difference here, where you are using the word "ideology" to mean a set of beliefs that a pre-existing group hands down on tablets for its followers to become warriors for the cause, and when I used it, what I meant was more like, "an individual belief that there is definitely a right way to build a society," little more than that.

Indeed, when thinking about political ideology I have in mind party doctrines rather than individual beliefs.

I remember from the past that you certainly do have beliefs about how society should work! They may just, like mine but with pretty close to exact opposite actual views, not align with a certain ideological "camp."

Well, I am a centrist who believes in negotiation and compromise, utterly opposed to the extremism and fanaticism of both the far left and the far right; I also believe that politics is not the be-all-and-end-all of life and that some problems may be better solved by mutual agreement and voluntary cooperation within society than by the State's legislative fiat. Are our views really such exact opposites?

[Henk]

One might also vote for a person instead of a party. That's certainly a trigger for me.
Politics today has no ideas that inspire. It's all business as usual. It's all going forth in a numb way. That's not to say I don't appreciate politicians, politics is hard work which requires persistence, but ethically and aesthetically it's more like a disgrace.
But we have books, like Brian wrote.
And indeed I agree with Florestan, solutions can come from society itself. And fortunately this is happening.
Humanity is all moving forward towards a wise humanity. That's what I believe. It takes a long time, but we'll get there.

[DavidW]

utterly opposed to the extremism and fanaticism of both the far left and the far right

What does that have to do with following a particular political party? Do you honestly think that political parties are only for fanatics?

[Florestan]

What does that have to do with following a particular political party? Do you honestly think that political parties are only for fanatics?

You might have missed the "far left and far right" part.

In my country, all far right politicians save insignificant exceptions are extremist in ideas, language and not infrequently, behavior. As for their followers and sympathizers, many if not most of them are zealots, completely impervious to reason, logic and fact-checking. If those parties ever get into power --- God forbid! --- and have their way --- perish the thought! --- the result would be authoritarianism, poverty and Russian hegemony. The far left is nonexistent politically but the few far left individuals I've met displayed the same level of dogmatism.

[Valentino]

I'm a pragmatic social democrat.

[Holden]

It's well established that a lot of people treat an election as if it's a referendum on the current government. And I'm sorry, but it drives me completely nuts. The question on the ballot paper is never actually about how you think the last government went and therefore whether to retain it or change it, it's about who's going to be the NEXT government. Out of the available options.

Past performance is certainly something to consider in that question, but people will actively vote a government out without having regard to whether the government they're voting in will be better. And this is stupid. You should be voting for your best option - whether you think it's a fantastic option or a mediocre option. Picking something even less satisfying than what you currently have, just because you're dissatisfied and want change, makes no sense.

I don't know anyone who would dispose of a meal that isn't very tasty and decide that they'll eat something rotting on the floor instead just because it's different. But when it comes to politics people seem to espouse that idea all the time.

In this particular case I see Australia going to the dogs because of the current government's "throw the baby out with the bath water' emphasis on energy. While I've never been a fan of voting against a ruling party, this time around I feel that I have no choice and that only way to stop what I see as being a calamity that will seriously impact my lifestyle. It also means that I will be voting for the 'right' for the first time in a long time. Not a good situation for me or my conscience.

[Madiel]

In this particular case I see Australia going to the dogs because of the current government's "throw the baby out with the bath water' emphasis on energy. While I've never been a fan of voting against a ruling party, this time around I feel that I have no choice and that only way to stop what I see as being a calamity that will seriously impact my lifestyle. It also means that I will be voting for the 'right' for the first time in a long time. Not a good situation for me or my conscience.

Well, here isn't the place to discuss Australian energy policy with you (not least because I can't quite figure out what you have in mind here, in part because a large amount of what's going on with energy is either due to State governments or to private operators so it's all very complex). But as long as you're voting on actual policies.

[Holden]

Well, here isn't the place to discuss Australian energy policy with you (not least because I can't quite figure out what you have in mind here, in part because a large amount of what's going on with energy is either due to State governments or to private operators so it's all very complex). But as long as you're voting on actual policies.

Yes, I will be voting on energy policies.