Does Social Issues matter when deciding your political affiliation?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It's a matter of priorities.

I was first old enough to vote in 1980. I voted for Ronald Reagan twice and once for the elder George Bush. My priority then was strength in confronting the Soviet Union. I felt that Democrats of the time were weak in confronting the Soviet threat. Other issues were secondary. I also thought of the Republican party at that time as the party of common sense.

Things had changed by 1992. The Soviet Union no longer existed. Climate change was beginning to be recognized as a major threat. Bill Clinton was a very different Democratic candidate for President. He wasn't weak on national defense. He struck me as a sensible and capable leader. At the same time George Bush rejected the idea of dealing with climate changed. So I voted for Bill Clinton.

By 2000, my personal priorities had shifted somewhat. I had become a "militant atheist" at that point so the fact that the Republicans were firmly in bed with the religious right made me seriously oppose them. The rise of right-wing talk radio spearheaded by Rush Limbaugh began to make me look at them as irrational. The machinations of Newt Gingrich reinforced that thinking.

I was unhappy that Barrack Obama won the 2008 Democratic primary against Hilary Clinton as I perceived him as weak. I am still at the center or maybe a bit to the right when it comes to matters of national defense. Still, I embraced the Presidency of Barrack Obama - a very good and decent man IMHO.

Then came the collapse of the Republicans. I didn't see this coming. I (I am white) naively thought we had put racism behind us in the 1980s. But the election of Obama was like turning off the kitchen light and embolding the cockroaches of white supremacists to scurry out from under the refrigerator. Suddenly, it became fashionable to be a racist. again. And then it got much worse. Republicans not only embraced racism but ignorance. Science itself is rejected.

Then it got MUCH worse. Incredibly, Donald Fucking Trump was actually elected President of the United States. Five years later, I'm still flabbergasted. Now, we have a political party that not only is in bed with the religious right and white supremacists, embraces scientific ignorance like a badge of honor but also is actively engaged in an effort to overthrow democracy itself!

Social issues! Are you kidding me? Here in the US, we have a political party that is nothing less than an enemy of all that is good and decent. That is the ONLY issue as far as I'm concerned.

I'm presuming you refer the bunch called "The Grand Old Party" . I guess working from the principle that if you're going to tell a big lie, do it in the title.

Although my view as an outsider is perhaps not as extreme, I more or less agree. 

I've always thought of the US Republicans as being for the silver tails. IE run by people who have money and are gonna keep it come hell or high water (that includes not paying taxes if possible) Also the party of the middle class and those who have been conned into believing they either are already middle class or will be if Republicans are in power.  I don't consider those people especially immoral. 

IMO most people (including me) vote in their own perceived best interests. From time to time, I come across people claiming to vote for the common good.  I will need some substantial evidence  to believe such a claim. In my experience, altruists are pretty thin on the ground

Perhaps part of the problem has to do with what constitutes American Democracy: This Republican democracy emphasises individual rights. To the extend that The Libertarian view of "I'm OK, fuck you Jack" is common.

Australia has a Parliamentary Democracy with an emphasis on the common good. It also helps that we the people do not elect our head of government***. A Donald Trump is constitutionally impossible here.

***Our Head of State is Elizabeth 2 of England. She has the power to prorogue government. She did so in 1975 . Another reason many Aussies want to get rid of her.


))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


If you haven't done so, I recommend  the 2013 documentary with Gore Vidal ; The United States Of Amnesia"

[Foxaèr]

There's no such thing as picking candidate over party. When you vote for a candidate who holds Republican ideals, that's a win for the corrupt Republican party and thus continues to ensure nothing changes for the better.

In a country that values the two party system, it is one or the other until the people decide to reform the entire political voting system.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There's no such thing as picking candidate over party. When you vote for a candidate who holds Republican ideals, that's a win for the corrupt Republican party and thus continues to ensure nothing changes for the better.

In a country that values the two party system, it is one or the other until the people decide to reform the entire political voting system.

Turn it around. If a moderate Republican, utterly fed up and disgusted with what Trump turned the party into, votes for a moderate (or even a progressive) Democrat - even just as a protest vote - isn't that 'picking candidate over party'?

I do agree, though, that the US should dump two-party for MMPR or something similar.

Boru

[HappySkeptic]

Social issues matter to me, but I don't think I'd vote for someone just because they had a particular progressive idea (unless that was my own crusade).

However, I would NOT vote for someone who espoused some regressive idea (like banning abortion, or stopping gay marriage).

[Rev. Rye]

As an American, I only have two real choices:

• One party whose ideals can basically be summed up as: 1) Power for its own sake at all costs, 2) Fuck anyone who isn't a straight white Christian male, and 3) Sucking off Donald J. Trump.
  
• Another party that isn't that.

Literally everything else is window dressing at this point.

[ToTheMoon]

I think it's a balance. I've been a libertarian, which you could describe as liberal on social issues and conservative (pre-Trump) on economic matters, but I've noticed that libertarians tend to vote Republican unless they're members of the Libertarian Party. I became a Democrat when the GQP lost their collective minds, but I had been drifting that way for a while as I let go of some of the more unrealistic libertarian economic ideas.

If you're all one way on social issues and all the other way on economic issues, it comes down to which is more important to you, or it could be like a Chinese menu, whether you have more items in the Democrat column or the Republican one.

When you get down to it, it's like both parties got together and decided to throw darts to decide which individual rights they're going to violate.

Democrats don't respect property rights enough.
Republicans don't respect your right to choose a non-traditional non-monogamous lifestyle. I don't have a problem promoting traditional family values, I have a problem with forcing people to live by them.

Sometimes this overlaps, like you can have a Democrat that's also extremely socially conservative or a radfem (socially liberal for women, socially conservative for men). And Republicans aren't that pro-property rights either, I'll believe they are consistent when they start to formulate a step-by-step plan of how they are going to abolish / phase out social security.


I think Republican is the lesser evil overall, especially now with the Democratic losing its mind embracing the woke into their ranks, but if you want to stand on principle boycott both. Vote third party or stay home.

My country is even worse, there's no libertarian choice so I just troll the elections by voting for the least popular party in the polls. All mainstream parties are garbage, just a choice between different types of socialist parties (with extra corruption to boot).

[The Grand Nudger]

OPQ reminds me of a joke that speaks directly to the question.

Irving Kristol described neocons as liberals mugged by reality.

[Belacqua]

So, a little backstory on this. Many years ago I had a friend who was a proud member of the Republican Party, but she leaned left on most social issues. Being pro gay marriage, pro choice, etc. She told me that social issues didn't matter when deciding which political party you belong to. Meaning that a Republican can be for gay marriage, pro choice, pro gun control, and lean left on other issues. While Dems can lean right and be opposed to gay marriage, pro life, and anti gun control. Even though the majority of party members would lean to the default position.

I was wondering if anyone else agreed with this idea? That when deciding which party to go with you don't have to consider social issues at all?

Discuss.

I think all issues are social issues.

Things that seem political and not social, like maybe tax rates on corporations or regulations on industry, absolutely affect how we all live and work. 

Gay marriage and women's lib, which seem entirely social and not political, are woven into corporate media control, and which powerful people figure out how to profit from them. 

Nothing is not political; nothing is not social.

[ToTheMoon]

So, a little backstory on this. Many years ago I had a friend who was a proud member of the Republican Party, but she leaned left on most social issues. Being pro gay marriage, pro choice, etc. She told me that social issues didn't matter when deciding which political party you belong to. Meaning that a Republican can be for gay marriage, pro choice, pro gun control, and lean left on other issues. While Dems can lean right and be opposed to gay marriage, pro life, and anti gun control. Even though the majority of party members would lean to the default position.

I was wondering if anyone else agreed with this idea? That when deciding which party to go with you don't have to consider social issues at all?

Discuss.

I think all issues are social issues.

Things that seem political and not social, like maybe tax rates on corporations or regulations on industry, absolutely affect how we all live and work. 

Gay marriage and women's lib, which seem entirely social and not political, are woven into corporate media control, and which powerful people figure out how to profit from them. 

Nothing is not political; nothing is not social.

People are going to have different priorities.

A gay man might not even be interested in marriage. But if you wanna tax him and take his guns, that's going to hit closer to home for someone who values liberty. And gay marriage is already a thing, removing it once it's a thing has so many issues even the conservatives won't try it.

[The Grand Nudger]

They did try it....? It was one of the mad kings things......They're certainly not done, either.

That was probably the final nail in the coffin for alot of us that you might call the native constituency of the republican party. I have a disagreement with democrats about government expenditures and taxes..not human rights.