Does Social Issues matter when deciding your political affiliation?

[T.J.]

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.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[Anomalocaris]

I think social issues is not the most important in determining my party affiliation.  it is the only thing that can be used to determine party affiliation.   

 This is because the entire history of republican party since 1992 shows literally everything else is nothing but smoke and mirrors designed to gather the necessary ad hoc voting coalition to advance a mostly unspeakable social agenda whose outline can nonetheless be described in detail through observation.   considering party affiliation on literally anything else is to rely on tissues of known lies and extemporized and disposable deceits.

[Angrboda]

I didn't choose a political party. It's more a form of pattern recognition. I see myself in certain groups and not others. As a practical matter, political parties are somewhat artificial groupings that ignores how heterogeneous the political landscape is, and that parties drift and change constantly. A Trump Republican probably would have a lot of disagreement with a Reaganite, or a Goldwater conservative. Heck, despite being largely middle Democrat to progressive, there are progressive positions that strike me as unreasonably extreme.

Like religious belief or denomination, I didn't choose my party, it is simply what aligns best with what I believe.

[Alan V]

Over the last 20 years, I have increasingly seen Republicans as liars. There's not much to choose from that being the case.

However, I am (mostly) a single-issue voter, and that issue is climate change. Is that a social issue or an existential one?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Much like Angrboda, I don’t pick a party that aligns with my beliefs. I pick candidates who do.

That said, a social agenda is probably my post important yardstick in pick a candidate.

Boru

[brewer]

I agree with the idea in the OP. I'm a republican but a centrist. I primarily remain a republican because that's the party in control in my state. At the federal level I tend to vote more independent.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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.

Issues of social justice have always been crucial to me. Although I admit I was far more dogmatically left wing as a young man.

I belonged to the Australian Labor Party for over 25 years. The Labor party in Australia was founded as the political arm of The Trade Union Movement.  I was a unionist all of my working life.  I left the ALP when I realised that it simply did not have all the answers.

Today I'm a pluralist. Today I have a healthy contempt for politicians as a species. In elections I vote for the least offensive bunch of venal incompetents on offer. So far that's been the Labor Party. But It's been a close call in recent years as the party drifts slowly to the  right.  Today the party is centre left. It has left and right factions. 

There's a lot of infighting in Australian politics. As a result there have been six leadership changes*** in the last decade or so . (three on each side)  

***Unlike the US, we the people do not directly elect the Prime Minister. He must be elected  as a member of parliament in his own right. Then he must be the leader of the elected government. He is chosen by his party. That means he can be removed as leader and therefore Prime Minister, at any time.  This happens with a frequency which really annoys the electorate. 

 The majority of Australians seem to want to chuck out Queen Elizabeth as our head of state to form  a Republic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Issues of social justice have always ben crucial to me. Although I admit I was far more dogmatically left wing as a young man.

I belonged to the Australian Labor Party for over 25 years. The Labor party in Australia was founded as the political arm of The Trade Union Movement.  I was a unionist all of my working life.  I left the ALP when I realised that it simply did not have all the answers.

Today I'm a pluralist. In elections I vote for the least offensive bunch of venal incompetents on offer. So far that's been the Labor Party. But It's been a close call in recent years as the drifts slowly to the  right.  Today the party is centre left. It has left and right factions. 

There's a lot of infighting in Australian politics. As a result there have been six leadership changes*** in the last decade or so . (three of each side)  

***Unlike the US, we the people do not directly elect the Prime Minister. He must be elected  as a member of parliament in his own right. Then he must be the leader of the elected government. He is chosen by his party. That means he can be removed as leader and therefore Prime Minister, at any time.  This happens with a frequency which really annoys the electorate. 

 The majority of Australians seem to want to chuck out Queen Elizabeth as our head of state to form  a Republic.

(Bold mine)

Might as well. HRM is about as useful as tits on a tortoise.

Boru

[AFTT47]

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.