Does your upbringing explain your political beliefs?

Let's see.

• Raised in a community of morals over ethics
• Believe that the world can always be improved
• Family relationship built on respect and trust, fostered by said morals
• Taught self-reliance, and that while cooperation is important I had no excuse to be a burden to others
• Recognize that homelessness and unemployment are often caused by a mix of socioeconomic disadvantages, poor personal choices, and just plain bad luck, and that more flexibility in assistance could be provided — though avenues to recover from said are quite often available yet ignored
• Recognize that criminals are influenced by poverty, desperation, and cycles of violence, and that to just ignore these and toss people in jail without any further action is to trim a single petal from a weed — but maintain that some lines have little excuse to be crossed, and people tend to go overboard with sympathy
• Deeply religious and deeply invested in science
• Believe that equality is opportunity and freedom is the chance to achieve or fail — definitely prefer freedom, because it's much harder to get back if you lose it
• Society: Closer to "one for all and all for one", but should come from personal altruism rather than government interference
• Value protecting minorities over immigration control
• Votes for helping those who help themselves — most of the rest look like they could be interpreted too many different ways (I get the feeling my idea of fairness etc. is not quite what they have in mind, and that diplomacy really does need a strong arm at times)
• Regulated economy — while unregulated would be nice in principle, history shows us money tends to concentrate in the hands of very few people, and not much else has the power to keep them in check — but cut spending

edited 26th Jan '11 3:12:55 PM by Pykrete

There's an old saying that if you aren't a liberal at 20 you have no heart, and if you aren't a conservative at 40 you have no sense. I'm certainly in the idealistic stage, and I take on a much more liberal view than my parents do.

I like our two party system because it means someone is always in the majority (see Germany), but in practice it also means that it's difficult to get anything done. That's a good thing. A slow-moving government is a stable government. If you want a highly dynamic and adaptive government, there are plenty to be found in central Africa.

Yet we allow for change under guided rules. It works very well. It's like a boiler that lets off enough steam to keep from bursting, but not so much that it ceases to function as a boiler. The biggest weakness in the system is the fact that it's far easier to change things by adding than it is by subtracting. When conservatives say big government, I think they mean bigger government. As time goes on, the system will be complex enough to make Byzantium blush before the end. Stability is essential, but too much stability leads to stagnation.

I believe that people are the wealth of nations, and we should let people in as quickly and efficiently as we can safely admit them. I believe that the world is the best it's ever been and that it's going to get better before it gets worse. I believe that everyone is doing the best they can and that we are obliged to bring relief to the destitute. I believe that government is, by its own design, uniquely unqualified to do the work of charity. Society's needs change too swiftly for government's pace. The best they can do is agree on what destitution is, supply a pension, and adjust for inflation. Anything more will become obsolete before it is implemented.

I believe that social laws are a symptom of a society's values. I don't believe that you can legislate morality. Prohibition came and went with the temperance movement, family planning with women's rights, marriage rights with gay pride.

Most of the issues I take with the political world happened in history and I have no idea how to solve them now. I think it's a crime how the allies balkanized the middle east after WWI, a crime whose consequences we still suffer from, but I don't have a solution.

Where the heck are the libertarians on this map? ~rage~ The whole right/left divide pisses me off.

I'm not big on the left-right distinction either (when I use the terms, I'm usually talking about what people self-identify as). It seems to me the many positions on different issues on the same side of the "spectrum" are unrelated to each other.

edited 26th Jan '11 3:24:40 PM by silver2195

Why not◊. I'm all over the place. Probably doesn't make sense that I want to help the helpless and help those who help themselves at the same time.

It seems to me the many positions on different issues on the same side of the "spectrum" are unrelated to each other.

Yeah, I'm honest not really sure why being against tax increases correlates with a belief in monogamy, or stuff like that. It's weird.

I would not call my upbringing based in fear, nor would I say I was in any way taught "the world is fine as it is."

This. I don't think their upbringing model fits the actual behavior of pious parents.

Certainly I'd never rear children the way they show as conservative. I believe it's a duty, programmed in us by God using mechanisms we can now know rationally through the science of biology, to have children and rear them the best you can with self-sacrificing love. To this end, couples or extended families accumulate resources as private property and instill good habits in developing children, producing cultural capital that aids their offspring in securing material resources to repeat the cycle.

I couldn't say how much my family have affected my ideas about politics. Those in my family who are older than me are largely conservative unionists. My parents seldom talk about politics.

As for my own attitude, I have a pretty strong aversion to codifying ideas into a particular ideology. No parties or ideological factions have a monopoly on good ideas and if the other side has an approach that could be more appropriate for a given challenge they should be prepared to give it serious consideration. Committing to a single ideology is a very limiting course of action. I like to think that I arrived at this position on my own; I'm not sure how my parents might have influenced it.

(Of course, in Northern Irish political discourse whether or not one is conservative or liberal seldom matters so much as whether one is a unionist or a nationalist).

My parents taught me to think for myself. I'm not sure where that fits on this chart, but I'm grateful every damn day for that particular bit of wisdom.

Looking at it a second time, I support almost everything that is on that list. All of it, with only a couple exceptions.

The ones that "conflict" are either combined or situational.

This one's result

This one rarely discussed politics with her family. Actually, it only started to happen once this one already acquired some political beliefs on her own. Which turned to be more liberal than her family's, but her family is quite liberal compared to most people around.

AS for upbringing...this one's situation is definitely weird. This one grew up in a loving and well-off family in a big city, and parents supported her curiosity, ability to think for herself and ask questions. At the same time, reliance on community is certainly not something this one was taught. This one's experience with community never been good, and she drew up with a deep impression that society, authority, organisations, groups of people and generally most other people are not to be trusted, are out to hurt one and screw one over, and want nothing but erase one's personality, grind one's mind into dust and turn one into a little obedient cog. That state is abusive by definition. That's why it should be constantly held in check, and that's why personal freedom and well-being is to be held sacred. Because if society is allowed the slightest opportunity to destroy individual, it will.

As for religion, this one's family never been especially religious, but isn't atheistic either. This one used to have faith as a child but it faded over time. This one officially disassociated herself from any religion - and became quite hostile to it, in fact - at about 12, for the reasons which are somewhat too personal and complicated - and maybe silly - to post here. Ironically, it was right after she was formally christened, which was pretty much the trigger. At about 16-18 this one's attitude to religion mellowed somewhat, with strong disassociation still being here, but much less hostility. But again, it was not something often spoken about both within family and with other people.

edited 26th Jan '11 8:42:19 PM by Beholderess

My family was more conservative than most of my friends'. However, my upbringing more resembled the left side of the chart.

My career is closer to the left but my politics are ~2:1 right - side.

I suspect that my natural tendancy to emulate my parents as the eldest child was more a factor in my beliefs than the style of my upbringing.

Hmm, to think of it, this one is not sure exactly where she got her current political beliefs from. This one did not spoke with parents about politics, already held opinion different from her teachers' in school and her current beliefs are not popular, to say the least, in the local media and in surrounding populace. But there has to be a source somewhere, assuming otherwise would be way too arrogant...

Eh, I think the above is accurate "ish" but is open to interpretation. In my own case I would say that some criminals are bastards and some of them are just stupid people who don't know better or can't get out of a "job" that pays a fair amount and isn't taxed.

Of course this chart changes with age as well.

I don't see why criminals being social and economic victims - although I consider that an oversimplification, as not all of them are - and criminals having made a conscious decision to break the law should be mutually exclusive.

Because not all social and economic victims choose to become criminals?

No, they don't. And not all people who choose to become criminals are social or economic victims. Nevertheless, many are, I think.

For that matter, people may become criminals unintentionally, especially if they themselves are mentally unstable, so it's also probably true to say that there are criminals who did not choose to be criminals.

That's what I think.

The obvious answer, "it depends on the criminal", is lost upon the right/left dichotomy. One of the many reasons I don't like it.

The obvious answer, "it depends on the criminal", is lost upon the right/left dichotomy. One of the many reasons I don't like it.

This.

You don't happen to have a lovely graphic that could apply to the UK do you?
As class still kinda does play a part, plus we have 3 main parties not to mention different definitions of political words.