What Made You Change Politically?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ayn Rand *gasp*.

For a second I though this was MattVT. I felt very, very sad.

[© tweed]

realizing that everybody is a ing liar, mean well though some might, which led to the conclusion that the whole social edifice is a lie.

[Person Man]

What you describe would literally require a perfect storm: 1) a Republican President, 2) a Republican Congress that would be able to overcome any potential filibuster especially since this would require a dramatic shift in the balance of the Court, 3) Supreme Court Justices willing actually willing to overturn or at least significantly modify Roe v. Wade (consider even John Roberts has said the decision to be "settled law"), 4)Pro-choice justices being willing to retire considering the circumstances, and 5) actual enforcement of any pro-life legislation (and such legislation would have to be ones that could and would significantly reduce the number of abortions not just invasive mandatory ultra-sound laws).

I daresay it is more realistic and plausible that the number of abortions would be reduced through the various socioeconomic policies of Democratic administrations (ie heavy social spending, increased guarantees to parental leave, expanded access to daycare, wider access to birth control) then hoping for such a Republican perfect storm. Considering it did not happen during the Reagan-Bush Sr. years or the administration of Bush Jr. when the Religious Right was far more robust than it is to-day the chances of it happening in any future Republican administrations are virtually nonexistant.

I agree that such a circumstance is unlikely, but as a staunchly pro-life person, I do consider abortion to be a form of murder.  Even if I considered unborn children as 1/2 a life, that would still be approximately 500,000 murders per year.  Even at 1/10 of a life, that's 50,000 per year.  Simply the calculations alone make the issue extremely important.  As such, even a small expected value of say 10% would accrue 50,000 lives saved per year.   So while a "perfect storm" is unlikely, it's absolutely essential in order to save countless lives.  

I see where you are coming from, because I was and remain a staunchly pro-life person (if you see any of comments on threads relating to abortion)-indeed this was what kept me a Republican as long as it did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most likely the Republican Party, in such a situation, would prefer to focus on the economic aspects of their agenda as has been the case in previous administrations. If the Republicans were so concerned about abortion, why was not a Right to Life Amendment actively pushed by the Bush administration around 2005-06? We saw instead they preferred to push a nationwide gay marriage ban and Social Security 'reform", since the former was more popular than an abortion ban at the time thus being able to attract both core evangelical voters and more moderate voters with some conservative tendencies. And the field of probable 2016 GOP nominees-Christie, Walker, Paul-suggest a field far less concerned with social issues than Bush was. Were a conservative Justice to retire from the SC, I can see him being replaced with someone equally conservative but if a liberal justice (or Anthony Kennedy) were to retire than only a comparatively centrist justice (such as John Roberts) would be politically possible. As I indicated above, on the federal courts Republican judges have been just as prone to strike down these state laws on abortion-consider Eric Leroy Yeakel who struck down Texas's abortion restrictions for example. Additionally, the fact is while I do not wish to sound like an abortion apologist, the overwhelming majority of abortions (88-92%) happen in the first trimaster and most that happen in latter stages are due to health complications.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OTOH, several European countries such as Germany have lower abortion rates than the United States does overall despite there being far less of a strong pro-life movement. I suspect that in the United States, abortion rates are skewed by many people going to states with greater abortion availability for abortions and also possibly by underreporting of illegal abortions/use of abortion pills.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many people here in past elections would have had no problem voting for say Henry Clay or Winfield Scott over the more explicitly anti-slavery candidates of the Liberty and Free Soil parties, even those candidates "condoned" slavery in the same sense pro-choice politicians condone abortion to-day.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Several Republican senators (ie Lamar Alexander and Kit Bond) voted for the confirmation of one or both of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. The margin is even more overwhelming if we look at Justice Ginsburg's confirmation.

Those are good points, MB. I think it takes away the credibility of the personhood movement to not be part of a consistent life ethic (I would consider UHC and supporting non-fossil fuels as part of "protecting life", but not welfare or education). It makes it seem that their opposition to abortion isn't really about violence against fetal life but about something else (a legitimate other interest is prosecution of abortion to prevent  adultery (whether actual cheating on your spouse or the very broad definition of simply having sex with someone you are not married to), not so much of a legitimate interest would be encouraging social immobility to preempt economic competition). Outside of politics, this is probably why I have a favorable opinion of the Catholic Church and not so much for independent Fundamentalist, whether or not Evangelical, ones.

[Bojack Horseman]

When I first became politically aware, I was more of an Eisenhower-era Republican that called himself an independent. I supported Barack Obama in 2008, and the rise of the Tea Party made me a Democrat for life. It was then that I realized that while I'm not as liberal as, say, Alan Grayson, the Democrats are the adults in the room, while the Republicans are just batsh!t insane.

I realized that no matter how much my political views change, I'll never identify as a Republican. I refuse to identify with the party that had no better argument against Barack Obama's Presidency than "He's a n*****." I can't support or identify with a party that thinks that Allen West and Ted Nugent are "patriots" but Max Cleland, who had 2/3 of his body blown to smithereens in the Vietnam War, is a terrorist sympathizer who supports Al Qaeda. I can't support a party that thinks that hate, fear, and prejudice are "family values."

Most of all, I can't support a party whose platform disrespects the majority of Americans and defies basic common sense. I can't support a party that wants to govern a country that millions have fled to in search of religious freedom as a theocracy.

[Rockefeller GOP]

When I first became politically aware, I was more of an Eisenhower-era Republican that called himself an independent. I supported Barack Obama in 2008, and the rise of the Tea Party made me a Democrat for life. It was then that I realized that while I'm not as liberal as, say, Alan Grayson, the Democrats are the adults in the room, while the Republicans are just batsh!t insane.

I realized that no matter how much my political views change, I'll never identify as a Republican. I refuse to identify with the party that had no better argument against Barack Obama's Presidency than "He's a n*****." I can't support or identify with a party that thinks that Allen West and Ted Nugent are "patriots" but Max Cleland, who had 2/3 of his body blown to smithereens in the Vietnam War, is a terrorist sympathizer who supports Al Qaeda. I can't support a party that thinks that hate, fear, and prejudice are "family values."

Most of all, I can't support a party whose platform disrespects the majority of Americans and defies basic common sense. I can't support a party that wants to govern a country that millions have fled to in search of religious freedom as a theocracy.

Talk about hyperbole that you've largely constructed...

[justfollowingtheelections]

Moving out of my parents house.

[King]

Vile behavior by Congressional Republicans in 2009 pushed me to the left out of empathy for our President.

[7,052,770]

Until 2009 or so, I tried to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt. But thanks to the unbelievably, outrageously childish way the entire party has acted since then, I just can't anymore.

I don't want to be a Democratic hack -- there's just no other way to be in the current environment.

[politicus]

I come from a conservative background with all four grand parents active on the right wing of the resistance movement, so my family was rooted in patriotism and respect for "God, King and country" - not the low tax, small government part of conservatism. Originally I had fairly  standard centre-right views on economics (but those are fairly moderate in Denmark).

The financial crisis and its effects on the life of people around me and friends in Ireland and Greece made me move to the left on socioeconomic issues. A journey that I am still on. I dislike both big government and big business and this place me in an odd spot, but clearly to the left of my family.
Getting more personally religious in my early 20s has also influenced me in being more engaged in social problems and people in poor countries.

Feminism was mainly the result of negative personal  experiences with sexism and working with street prostitutes in an NGO. Plus a general dislike of the sexist bad boy attitude "humor"  that Danish TV was full of in the late 90s and early-mid 00s.

I have always been a nature lover and reading more about enviromenmtal problems has made me ever more green. Basically knowledge of the issues tends to move me progressively further in the environmentalist direction. Seeing the effects of climate change while working in Greenland clearly reinforced this and seeing the results of deforestation in Laos and other places on travels has done that as well. But generally personal experience just seem to reinforce my views on this, not shape them.

I am still basically conservative on a lot of issues, such as defense, foreign policy, law and order, immigration, education and the belief in the need for a shared national culture. Also being anti-abortion and having a negative view of porn and prostitution (all though Danish conservatives are on the liberal side of that issue nowadays).

[Paul Kemp]

The 2008 crash and the reaction of the American right wing to electing a black man as President of the United States.

[anvi]

Vile behavior by Congressional Republicans in 2009 pushed me to the left out of empathy for our President.

It seems to me that Pubs get around to accusing every Dem president of being treasonous.  But Obama's case does strike me as disturbingly different.  I was originally an Obama supporter, of course, but don't like a number of things that have happened under his watch or some of the policies he has intentionally pursued or not pursued.  But it's still hard for me not to personally empathize with him a lot.  The forms of political and popular resistance to him have often been quite ugly.  If Obama had been a center-right GOP member, or even, I can't help but think, a center-left president as white as Clinton, I think the general estimation of his presidency in the country right now would be quite different.  Had only these three things, the Dow rising several thousand points, unemployment dropping as much as it has, and the country's #1 enemy being eliminated, happened in the first five years of any center-right or center-left white president, almost everything else would be explained away with a shrug, his job approval would be in the mid 60's and his party members would be carving granite memorials to him already.  As it is, Dems are running away from him in the midterms and Pubs vilify him.  For me, it's not pleasant to watch.

[Redalgo]

When I read something new and compelling it gets incorporated into how I look at the world. If someone makes it obvious an idea of mine is terrible I shift positions, provided there is an alternative to what seemed good before that does not clash with my moral sensibilities. Sometimes it demands a change in ideology but more often affects a single issue.

Poli sci and IR courses in university - especially with the input of intelligent, conservative peers - made statist approaches to democratic socialism seem pretty foolish and measured, pragmatic forms of social democracy more attractive. Ever since I have used forums and further readings of academic journals to continue adjusting my positions. Those influences reveal what more can be done, causing leftward drift.

As for party affiliations, the gap between campaign promises and action once in office for President Obama convinced me that there is no significant faction within the Democratic Party willing to make fundamental changes to U.S. policy on a large range of subjects. It is not worthwhile to jump through hoops and make compromises with them when it's going to involve so much more give than take. Better just to go it alone and collaborate in goodwill with others on a case-by-case basis.

[New_Conservative]

The Obama Administration

[Mordecai]

Nothing really. Have always been a (partisan) moderate and will probably continue to be so going into the future. Everything I've seen and read indicates to me that taking any ideology (whether it be socialism or libertarianism) too far in one direction is bound to lead to bad times.

[Slander and/or Libel]

2) The other problem is more personal.  Even if there may be fewer abortions voting for a Democrat, I still have to, in my conscience, justify voting for someone who thinks that the practice is legally acceptable.  I am supporting someone who is pro-baby killer (in my view).  Even if that makes logical sense, I just couldn't do it on a moral level. 

If you think abortion is murder, and you are willing to concede that it's entirely possible that Democrats will enact policies that lower the rate of abortions, then you're not helping anybody by insisting on a rigid purity lens.

Besides which, I have a very difficult time believing that almost any anti-choice people truly equate abortion with murder. Some do, but those who do are either behind bars for murdering abortion doctors or lauding those who are. Because killing a mass murderer is totally justifiable, right?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Mainly, reading about wealth inequality after I watched some videos and documentaries, as well as reading The Communist Manifesto. I felt such incredible sympathy for those who live below the poverty line whilst making minimum wage that it just set a domino effect into action, and here I am.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Nothing really. Have always been a (partisan) moderate and will probably continue to be so going into the future. Everything I've seen and read indicates to me that taking any ideology (whether it be socialism or libertarianism) too far in one direction is bound to lead to bad times.

It is impossible to not be "ideological". That liberalism is the dominant ideology in the world does not make it invisible or nonexistent.

[DC Al Fine]

Besides which, I have a very difficult time believing that almost any anti-choice people truly equate abortion with murder. Some do, but those who do are either behind bars for murdering abortion doctors or lauding those who are. Because killing a mass murderer is totally justifiable, right?

That logic doesn't hold up at all. Not everyone who thought Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al, were murderers was blowing up bridges or assassinating officials. Do you think Solzhenitsyn, or the Scholls didn't think their respective dictators were murderers?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Besides which, I have a very difficult time believing that almost any anti-choice people truly equate abortion with murder. Some do, but those who do are either behind bars for murdering abortion doctors or lauding those who are. Because killing a mass murderer is totally justifiable, right?

That logic doesn't hold up at all. Not everyone who thought Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al, were murderers was blowing up bridges or assassinating officials. Do you think Solzhenitsyn, or the Scholls didn't think their respective dictators were murderers?

Many abortion opponents don't even support imprisonment for mothers who have abortions. How in the world does that fit into the murder equation?

[Sopranos Republican]

Ayn Rand *gasp*.

For a second I though this was MattVT. I felt very, very sad.

Lol. I can assure you that reading Ayn Rand could change my views....

By making me more left wing.

[Mordecai]

Nothing really. Have always been a (partisan) moderate and will probably continue to be so going into the future. Everything I've seen and read indicates to me that taking any ideology (whether it be socialism or libertarianism) too far in one direction is bound to lead to bad times.

It is impossible to not be "ideological". That liberalism is the dominant ideology in the world does not make it invisible or nonexistent.

I never said that I wasn't ideological or lacking in ideology, just that I don't take it to such extremes as socialism or libertarianism.

[Marnetmar]

I began to realize how batsh**t insane the words coming out of my mouth actually were.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A compelling argument will do the trick.

[The Dowager Mod]

When Newt declared the contract on America.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

When Newt declared the contract on America.

So right after you rid yourself of the big hair days, the brain started working, eh?