How have your political views changed over time?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Probably easier to list what I haven't changed my mind on. I always strongly opposed amnesty, multiculturalism, relativism, affirmative action, gun bans, and sexual prudery (or at least, thought that people should have a choice to have sex or look at porn or whatever even when I was religious). Of course, I've trended hard to "the right" (alert the SPLC!) since the bail outs and the current joke President assumed office.

Quasi-fascism is pretty fun, huh?

Ah so you're calling Mr. Dees then?

What is objectionable about "multiculturalism"

Several reasons:

1. High levels of diversity - religious, racial, whatever - tend to erode social trust (see Robert Putnam's work on this). Although even before I read that it was pretty self evident to me just looking at the real world: look how Scandinavian nations or Japan function. Then look at the attitudes of more diverse areas. People unfortunately tend to only trust "their own kind," particularly in anglo-saxon societies. It's not an insurmountable problem, there are some societies like Singapore for example that are highly diverse yet have high levels of trust in institutions and efficiency. But those tend to not be liberal democracies and they seem to be the minority. I just don't have a very rosy view of human nature in general. Again, one of the reasons I've never really identifies as a liberal or "progressive" or whatever.

2. Not every (sub)culture is compatible with one another or wants to co-exist. I don't mean that in a veiled anti-muslim way either, or at least I'm not singling out muslims when there are plenty of Christians that want to criminalize who I am or worse for example... Having a functioning society means that there has to be some degree of assimilation, conformity, what have you. I think we've failed at that.

3. Let me put it this way: Today people are generally horrified by the IMMENSE pressure we put on southern and eastern Europeans to basically become as much as possible like the WASP majority. We made them drop their names, customs, food, religion, etc. But how successfully do you think Italians, Greeks, Poles, Russians, etc. would have assimilated into society if we had more modern policies in place? Like bilingual education, ballots, housing forms, mandated recognition of their customs/holidays, government recognition of them as separate ethnicities, etc..? They wouldn't have assimilated as fast if ever. Doubtful they'd be perceived as white eventually either. And obviously a lot of people in those groups are as dark if not darker looking than "hispanics."

1. The Japan comparison is apt (multiculturalism will never work there for obvious reasons but Japan is a basket case in general anyway) but Muslims in Europe are actually integrating at a fairly rapid clip and the public is as generally supportive of immigration as we are:


2. Muslims and Christians can co-exist, the problem is an economic one. Many Muslims are essentially trapped in ghettos where they can't find economic opportunities which leads to unnecessarily high amounts of tension. The riots in France didn't occur because of Islamist extremism, they occurred because the banileue had excessive unemployment and police profiling. French Muslims are actually as secular as American Christians.


Islam is a very unifying religion that has a stronger identity for obvious reasons but there are clear examples that assimilation is happening and at a rapid rate. It's only been a few decades since Islamic immigration started and already it's becoming secular/progressive and opportunities are opening up.

In my view, multiculturalism isn't about preventing assimilation. It's about promoting a shared assimilation of sorts; instead of one group just adopting new customs and ideals as quickly as possible there is a sharing process that benefits both nations. I don't see how bilingualism, new architecture and different prevalent religious identities are harmful as long as they are properly integrated into society. I guess you could say that I support multiculturalism because I view it as a way of harmonizing society as opposed to assimilating through blatant racist societal pressures. Assimilation should come slower, be a two-way street and should accommodate minority groups to an extent. Minority groups retaining some of their identity is a strength, not a weakness.

[traininthedistance]

I've generally been moderately left-of-center with a huge green streak for most of my life.  In general, there haven't been that many big-ticket issues where I've done a 180.  Probably the only two exceptions are free trade (was against it when younger, now in favor) and abortion (again, against when younger but now pro-choice).  In general I've drifted in a less and less populist direction over time, to a view that could best be summed up as "pro-science" and/or "pro-knowledge" but it's gone back and forth.  I was arguably at my most conservative when I was in (an incredibly liberal) college, where the lack of any surrounding conservative viewpoints plus a contrarian streak led me to start reading lots of David Brooks and talk about moderation all the time.  But since then being in the real world has made me see what folly that was, and I've probably drifted leftward on both axes since then.  Still a pragmatist at heart though.

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

To best examine how my views have changed, you should look at candidates I've supported in the past:

2008 Democratic primaries: Hillary Clinton
2008 general election: John McCain/Sarah Palin
2012 Republican primaries (before people actually started campaigning) Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels
2012 Republican primaries (after people actually started campaigning) Herman Cain, Buddy Roemer, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and currently Buddy Roemer again
2012 Libertarian primaries: Gary Johnson

So, basically, coming off from this...I started out as a moderate liberal who got angry when Obama won the Dem nomination in '08. Then McCain picked Palin as his veep and I "saw the light", becoming pretty much a generic conservative. Somewhere down the line, I adopted a mild libertarian bent that has slowly become more and more pronounced. As of right now, I've had another "seeing the light" kind of experience and have left the outright conservative crowd for good. Libertarian.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The only significant change I've really had in my view was from a more hawkish view of foreign policy to a pragmatic dove (dove with claws). I dutifully voted for McShame only because of Palin but really wanted to vote for Baldwin. My economic views average always been in favor of Austrian Free Market Economics (as touted by Ron Paul). Socially I've consistently been pro-life, pro-traditional marriage/family, anti-gambling. Lately after further reading of both the Bible and the Constituition I've adopted a more states rights approach to social matters while advocating social conservatism. As for drugs, I've also adopted a states rights position while still promote conservative views on drugs.

[TNF]

I started out as a socially conservative Democrat. Dabbled around with socialism for awhile, then moved onto libertarianism, and finally settled on American Liberalism. I've become more moderate (at least in outward appearance) on social issues, as well as a lot more pragmatic in the general sense of the word. Four years ago I'd never have voted for Hillary Clinton because she voted to go to war with Iraq...admittedly that doesn't even begin to register on my criteria for voting in favor of someone these days.

I've moved right on gun control and affirmative action, as well as on immigration and multiculturalism while I've moved left on every single economic question.

[Хahar 🤔]

The only significant change I've really had in my view was from a more hawkish view of foreign policy to a pragmatic dove (dove with claws). I dutifully voted for McShame only because of Palin but really wanted to vote for Baldwin. My economic views average always been in favor of Austrian Free Market Economics (as touted by Ron Paul). Socially I've consistently been pro-life, pro-traditional marriage/family, anti-gambling. Lately after further reading of both the Bible and the Constituition I've adopted a more states rights approach to social matters while advocating social conservatism. As for drugs, I've also adopted a states rights position while still promote conservative views on drugs.

You can't claim to be "pro-family" if you support anti-family economic policy.

[Oakvale]

The only significant change I've really had in my view was from a more hawkish view of foreign policy to a pragmatic dove (dove with claws). I dutifully voted for McShame only because of Palin but really wanted to vote for Baldwin. My economic views average always been in favor of Austrian Free Market Economics (as touted by Ron Paul). Socially I've consistently been pro-life, pro-traditional marriage/family, anti-gambling. Lately after further reading of both the Bible and the Constituition I've adopted a more states rights approach to social matters while advocating social conservatism. As for drugs, I've also adopted a states rights position while still promote conservative views on drugs.

Are you the Maine GOP platform?