Does Social Issues matter when deciding your political affiliation?

[Divinity]

Yes.

If you don't support same sex marriage, you can fuck right off with a rusty machete. You won't get my support under any circumstances. Same with abortion rights.

If anything, in the US Social issues are the only ones that matter, because neither party is really all that different when it comes to fiscal issues. For the right, it's their actions. For the left, it's their inaction.

[The Grand Nudger]

It can seem like that on the national level, or if you're not keenly aware of everything that the government is doing or funding. It's certainly a huge difference between the parties...but....let me give you an example of two ways to increase strawberry production in a local area. One stereotypically liberal, the other stereotypically conservative.

In the first - a local council identifies the need, and then establishes a project management group to secure public funding. That funding secured (either by hitching to an existing grant or writing a new one) the project management group acquires the land, has the infrastructure built, finds a farm manager, and hires farm labor. From here on out, the management group is a marketing and procurement team. Seeing as how every dime in this venture is a public dime, it's a non profit - the goal of the operation is to produce just enough revenue to offset the operating cost. The operation continues for as long as the public funding holds.

In the second - state and federal agencies aggressively pursue relationships with existing producers, offering them technical and financial assistance in the form of extension agents, contracted specialists, targeted cost sharing, and loans of first convenience. Seeing as how this is private industry the goal is to increase profit. They'll continue for as long as anyone owns and operates them.

I'm leaving alot out, I just wanted to give you the basic summary. Boiled down, if the government decides that there aren't enough berries..the liberal model is the government owns and operates a berry farm, the conservative model sees the government working to increase the yields of private berry farmers.

[no one]

I do not have any affiliation. Politicians are fucking scumbags. I hate them all.

The only good politician is a dead one!

[The Grand Nudger]

Politicians may all be scumbags, but we all still have our own politics all the same.

[Ahriman]

It can seem like that on the national level, or if you're not keenly aware of everything that the government is doing or funding.  It's certainly a huge difference between the parties...but....let me give you an example of two ways to increase strawberry production in a local area.  One stereotypically liberal, the other stereotypically conservative.

In the first - a local council identifies the need, and then establishes a project management group to secure public funding.  That funding secured (either by hitching to an existing grant or writing a new one) the project management group acquires the land, has the infrastructure built, finds a farm manager, and hires farm labor.  From here on out, the management group is a marketing and procurement team.  Seeing as how every dime in this venture is a public dime, it's a non profit - the goal of the operation is to produce just enough revenue to offset the operating cost.  The operation continues for as long as the public funding holds.  

In the second - state and federal agencies aggressively pursue relationships with existing producers, offering them technical and financial assistance in the form of extension agents, contracted specialists, targeted cost sharing, and loans of first convenience.  Seeing as how this is private industry the goal is to increase profit.  They'll continue for as long as anyone owns and operates them.  

I'm leaving alot out, I just wanted to give you the basic summary.  Boiled down, if the government decides that there aren't enough berries..the liberal model is the government owns and operates a berry farm, the conservative model sees the government working to increase the yields of private berry farmers.

Out of those two models, I definitely prefer the conservative approach.

[HappySkeptic]

It can seem like that on the national level, or if you're not keenly aware of everything that the government is doing or funding.  It's certainly a huge difference between the parties...but....let me give you an example of two ways to increase strawberry production in a local area.  One stereotypically liberal, the other stereotypically conservative.

In the first - a local council identifies the need, and then establishes a project management group to secure public funding.  That funding secured (either by hitching to an existing grant or writing a new one) the project management group acquires the land, has the infrastructure built, finds a farm manager, and hires farm labor.  From here on out, the management group is a marketing and procurement team.  Seeing as how every dime in this venture is a public dime, it's a non profit - the goal of the operation is to produce just enough revenue to offset the operating cost.  The operation continues for as long as the public funding holds.  

In the second - state and federal agencies aggressively pursue relationships with existing producers, offering them technical and financial assistance in the form of extension agents, contracted specialists, targeted cost sharing, and loans of first convenience.  Seeing as how this is private industry the goal is to increase profit.  They'll continue for as long as anyone owns and operates them.  

I'm leaving alot out, I just wanted to give you the basic summary.  Boiled down, if the government decides that there aren't enough berries..the liberal model is the government owns and operates a berry farm, the conservative model sees the government working to increase the yields of private berry farmers.

Out of those two models, I definitely prefer the conservative approach.

I don't like either approach, but I would prefer the conservative one. 

The problem with government incentives to private business, is that it fosters corruption.  The problem with government running a business is corruption, inefficiency, and the wrong incentives.  Take your poison.

[The Grand Nudger]

They're both insufficient, I've been a part of both, but I also prefer the second model - and not even for primarily ideological reasons..though it's nice to see my private ideology bear real world fruit. I've just noticed that both the grower and myself make more money, and there are more berries, in the second model. I assume there are situations in which the more liberal model is a better fit, this just doesn't seem like one of them.

Thus, I'd prefer to send conservative candidates to government...if any suitable conservatives can be found.

Generally thin on the ground of late, and that's a shame. Anymore, it's the party of treason and succession...and all I want to do is grow more berries.....

(I feel like I have to point out that both examples are full of the best people that you'd want be associated with looking out for every person in their chains. I can't get angry at an english major who works as a grant writer that stays on the team his grant created, for example. What's 50-70k between fellow citizens?)

FWIW, private incentive fosters less corruption because whatever private business the government might emulate is far less corrupt than any attempt by the government to do so. Anecdotally, there are twice as many people in the office as on the farm in a government run farm. Those people make their salary by ensuring that funding is always there, not by being good at growing berries, or more berries. In fact, they'd really rather prefer you didn't grow any more berries than would be needed to offset their salary. They can't show a profit, you see, legally.....but they also cant be seen giving product away. That's uncompetitive. A government actor tanking the earnings of private businesses competing with it. You get shut down for that, fast, and then no one gets any of the berries.

[Divinity]

They're both insufficient,  I've been a part of both, but I also prefer the second model - and not even for primarily ideological reasons..though it's nice to see my private ideology bear real world fruit.  I've just noticed that both the grower and myself make more money, and there are more berries, in the second model.  I assume there are situations in which the more liberal model is a better fit, this just doesn't seem like one of them.

Thus, I'd prefer to send conservative candidates to government...if any suitable conservatives can be found.

Generally thin on the ground of late, and that's a shame.  Anymore, it's the party of treason and succession...and all I want to do is grow more berries.....

(I feel like I have to point out that both examples are full of the best people that you'd want be associated with looking out for every person in their chains.  I can't get angry at an english major who works as a  grant writer that stays on the team his grant created, for example.  What's 50-70k between fellow citizens?)

FWIW, private incentive fosters less corruption because whatever private business the government might emulate is far less corrupt than any attempt by the government to do so.  Anecdotally, there are twice as many people in the office as on the farm in a government run farm.  Those people make their salary by ensuring that funding is always there, not by being good at growing berries, or more berries.  In fact, they'd really rather prefer you didn't grow any more berries than would be needed to offset their salary.  They can't show a profit, you see, legally.....but they also cant be seen giving product away.  That's uncompetitive.  A government actor tanking the earnings of private businesses competing with it.  You get shut down for that, fast, and then no one gets any of the berries.

FWIW you're looking only at farms, and not other things. Take local broadband for example. Many areas are underrepresented. Now, the conservative solution is to give more money to the big name broadband companies to expand. Which they will do only at their convenience (if ever). On the other hand, the town of Sandy Oregon created their own locally run broadband service. They offer lower prices, expanded in areas where private refused to reach. In that, the private incentive for corruption is much higher. After all, why expand into areas where you won't be making much profit, when you can just get more money from making more promises you have no intent on actually fulfilling. I also feel like you're ignoring that politicians can and do own stock in many of these companies, which allows even more corruption on the private side of things. After all, you're not going to pass policy that hurts your bottom line.

[The Grand Nudger]

Public utilities are a good example of where I'd want to see a more liberal approach, for sure. There are, as you note, underserved communities that are not and could never be profitable. That's really the crux of it, if we kept it super simple. If there's money to be made in doing a thing - I think that our government should help private citizens make that money. If there's money to be lost in a thing - then that's a job for public investment.

Politicians legislating in their own specific economic interests is a good example of the corruption endemic to central planning. When you realize just how easy it is to keep on the good side of the law you realize that it's utter contempt at play. You can vote for the good of the coal industry, should you happen to own a coal mine. That's kosher. You just can't vote explicitly for your own coal mine.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Profit isn't everything and to all profit, there is a cost and expanding the power of the private sector or corporate sector is a net negative overall