• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

consistency among political groups

One thing is for sure the OP is not talking about me.
 
imagep said:
I think they are lazy. It's easy to let a political pundant give you your opinions. Many Rush listeners do nothing but parrot whatever they heard Rush say.
Click to expand...

Michael Savage is better.
 
imagep said:
I think they are lazy. It's easy to let a political pundant give you your opinions. Many Rush listeners do nothing but parrot whatever they heard Rush say.
Click to expand...

I agree. People choose a style of media and get their "beliefs" from that. The more extreme the style of media, the further right or left the audience.
 
fmw said:
I agree. People choose a style of media and get their "beliefs" from that. The more extreme the style of media, the further right or left the audience.
Click to expand...

I think that you might have the tail wagging the dog a bit there. It has been my experience that the opposite is true, people seek conformation bias in their "news"/opinon. The media plays to the audience more than the other way around. Glen Beck, for example, has many very ardent followers, yet there were simply not enough of them for a major network to carry him.
 
samsmart said:
It's not that people are intellectually lazy.

It's that we need to implement reforms to allow multiple parties so people with more nuanced and internally coherent political philosophies can have political leaders that have them as well.

Until then, our political leaders will lead people using these mish-mash ideologies, and so people will follow them.
Click to expand...

Yep. You are offered a choice between big gov't/business puppet A and big gov't/business puppet B - pick one. ;)
 
tacomancer said:
This is one thing that has bothered me for a while and I cannot come up with a good explanation (or really any explanation at all).

The question is why do members of political ideologies tend to display a high amount of consistency in unrelated opinions.

For example, someone who believes in global warming is more than likely to be socially liberal and is more than likely to be more accepting of government involvement in societal pursuits?

Alternatively, someone who does not believe in evolution is more than likely to be a strong believer in free markets.

There seems to be a high correlation, but what is the root cause of these consistencies? Why are people not more varied in their opinions in unrelated subjects? For example evolution and free markets have nothing to do with each other, but again, correlation tends to be high.
Click to expand...

There are philosophical threads that tie these positions together. For example as a liberal, I believe in empiricism and rationality, among many other principals. That is why I am inclined to believe the warnings of scientists, and oppose laws restricting personal behavior that are based primarily on religious and traditional beliefs. Similarly, I believe a rational analyses shows that most government programs are relatively effective. My opinion is that a strong belief in the ability of an unregulated business environment to meet all people's needs in a fair manner is based on an unsubstantiated or exagerated fear of government and excessive faith in the goodwill of people with economic power.
 
Another way to look at it is-who do you believe?

Liberals tend to believe scientists, academics, the experiences of other nations, people who work with the disadvantaged (social workers etc), and the disadvantaged people themselves, both within and outside of our country.

Conservatives tend to believe in the Bible, religious leaders, traditions, the military, and business interests and distrust anyone the liberals believe.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
I think that you might have the tail wagging the dog a bit there. It has been my experience that the opposite is true, people seek conformation bias in their "news"/opinon. The media plays to the audience more than the other way around. Glen Beck, for example, has many very ardent followers, yet there were simply not enough of them for a major network to carry him.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then people wouldn't be so badly informed. Many people just spit out garbage they read in highly partisan media. They have no idea what either the truth or the other side of the argument even look like.
 
fmw said:
If that were true, then people wouldn't be so badly informed. Many people just spit out garbage they read in highly partisan media. They have no idea what either the truth or the other side of the argument even look like.
Click to expand...

But that same symptom, can come from only "beleiving" what they already wanted to hear confirmed. Consider looking for your lost car keys - do you not always stop looking just as soon as you have found them? This is eaxctly what many do for "news" or political comentary - as soon as they find what sounds "right" to them (confirms their own bias) then they stay with that source -they then think that they have found "truth".

Some on this forum say exactly what someone on MSNBC said, just as others say exactly what someone on Fox News said - I only know this because I listen to a little of both of those "biased" news stations, but mainly I read stories by searching the internet. The best part about this political debate forum is that topics and ideas from all sorts of perspectives are offered for us to further investigate on our own. ;)
 
fmw said:
If that were true, then people wouldn't be so badly informed. Many people just spit out garbage they read in highly partisan media. They have no idea what either the truth or the other side of the argument even look like.
Click to expand...

I think its slightly different then just lazyness or political partisan garbage in/out. It's that people don't care about all things equally. If you care alot about history, you learn more about it and have more detailed/informed argument about it. If you don't care, you don't have as good an argument and if someone asks you just anwer with something that sounds right. Like if you don't watch or follow hockey in any way and are asked what your favorate team is. You might just anwer the Mighty Ducks becuse there were couple movies made about them... they are a real hockey team right?
But if some one asks you about a political question 'everyone' is suppose to know something about and you don't follow the current debate/arguements you might end up looking uninformed so you just parrot what others you 'trust' say on a topic you don't care about or follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom