Switching Ideology

[Curiouscanuck]

For those of you who have changed ideologies over your life which did you start with and where are you now? This is not a typical liberal/conservative or the likes of political parties but more of a socialist/free market or liberty/statist view from the political compass. If you want to put in why as well may help bring up discussion.

Ill start. I went from socialist-statist to a leaning libertarian (liberty-free markets) .

My main reason is empirical evidence that has been now interpretated from previous data collection, especially since the internet came to sight (that I believe supports my shift) as well as the loads of academics that have vanished (and opposites that have increased) backing socialist-statist ideoligy since the demise of the Solviet Union.

[theloniusfleabag]

I believe that there is already a thread on this general topic, "Do leftists eventually turn right?".

since the demise of the Solviet Union

Do you mean 'Insolviet Union?

[Ricki Bobbi]

People tend to move to the right politically as they age out of experience.

As we are younger the allure of the left is undeniable. Everybody has the right to have their beliefs respected and as a high a quality of life as possible given the riches of our society.

Then we slowly encounter increasing numbers of people who take more than they contribute to society. Yet they continue to argue that the hard-working contributing members of society should contribute more while having their traditions and values mocked and belittled.

The harder we work as we age we just just want to be left alone. Free to pursue financial security for ourselves and only asking to be left alone. At that point Libertarianism becomes incresingly appealing.

[Charles Anthony]

People tend to move to the right politically as they age out of experience.

You have NOT encountered many leftists.

I started out as an extreme right-wing statist and swung away to become an extreme right-wing non-statist.

[geoffrey]

My shift to the right began around grade 11. I was strongly Eastern Liberal as I was then a recent migrant from Ontario. I thought all Albertans were hicks and that Republicans ran the show here.

Boy was I wrong.

After seeing the different attitudes and more responsibility that existed in a less interventionist economy (people here don't expect the government to create jobs), I began to see the values of small-government conservativism. I became a reformer.

Then I went to bigger school and had my first adventures in business. I began to realise that the establishment and circle of power wasn't something to hate, but to embrace and take advantage of. It's more open then one would think and those people are generally smarter than your average person. I moved away from populism to a more elitist view on the democratic side of things. I moved away from believing in plebicites and the such and even away from equal votes in elections. I became a socially conservative as I found more in my religion personally instead of culturally.

Then... through the power of Maple Leaf Web, people like Charles Anthony (among many) convinced me of the immorality of forcing my beliefs upon others.

So that leaves me comfortable with the CPC or the Liberals (with the right leader... being Kennedy), really just extremly pro-business, anti-slacker. Possibly nearing fascist at times in regards to forced labour for the unemployed (think of how clean our streets would be)... stuff like that... without the nationalism or social control.

One thing I've always been was pragmatic. I'm results oriented. I really don't care how politicans do things as long as the outcomes are favourable. I think this is left me open to be convinced on certain issues away from what traditionalists on my side of the argument may support. You'd see that in my much less strict stance on the Israel-Palestine issue (though I do generally take Israel's side).

[Saturn]

People tend to move to the right politically as they age out of experience.

As we are younger the allure of the left is undeniable.

People start out with a desire for a better world because it will be their home for many decades to come. As they grow older and acquire more wealth, their horizons shorten, most become more self-absorbed, become myopic literally and figuratively and their vision narrows until it converts to tunnel vision leading through a facility for the terminally ill to the cemetery. It's a perfectly natural progression caused by the instinct for self-preservation, yet it's a remnant from the dawn of humanity which is detrimental and unhelpful in a completely different world.

[geoffrey]

People tend to move to the right politically as they age out of experience.

As we are younger the allure of the left is undeniable.

People start out with a desire for a better world because it will be their home for many decades to come. As they grow older and acquire more wealth, their horizons shorten, most become more self-absorbed, become myopic literally and figuratively and their vision narrows until it converts to tunnel vision leading through a facility for the terminally ill to the cemetery. It's a perfectly natural progression caused by the instinct for self-preservation, yet it's a remnant from the dawn of humanity which is detrimental and unhelpful in a completely different world.

That's funny. The right generally goes for long-term solutions where the left is more short sighted. Handouts will certainly stop someone from starving to death, but it doesn't affect poverty long-term. Tax cuts do.

Charity is generally immune from political interference and that's where right-wing people are more likely to focus on. Special interest targetted handouts are constantly changed... hmm...

Maybe the wisedom of the older people is that we need to look beyond fixing the current situation and instead build a framework for the future.

[Canadian Blue]

People start out with a desire for a better world because it will be their home for many decades to come. As they grow older and acquire more wealth, their horizons shorten, most become more self-absorbed, become myopic literally and figuratively and their vision narrows until it converts to tunnel vision leading through a facility for the terminally ill to the cemetery. It's a perfectly natural progression caused by the instinct for self-preservation, yet it's a remnant from the dawn of humanity which is detrimental and unhelpful in a completely different world.

If you want to create a better world, start a charity or volunteer instead of asking constantly what the government can do. As for creating a better world, it's possible to do that in a libertarian environment with small government, its just up to individual's to do it.

[Riverwind]

Charity is generally immune from political interference and that's where right-wing people are more likely to focus on. Special interest targetted handouts are constantly changed... hmm...

I heard a report about how so much money was donated to tsunami relief that the agencies are having problem depensing it. Meanwhile, displaced people in other countries have much greater needs that are going unmet. The fact is charity giving is an irrational process and subject to many forms of manipulation (think cute cuddlely animals). Charity has its place but it is not a replacement for government sponsered social programs.

[Saturn]

That's funny. The right generally goes for long-term solutions where the left is more short sighted. Handouts will certainly stop someone from starving to death, but it doesn't affect poverty long-term. Tax cuts do.

Charity is generally immune from political interference and that's where right-wing people are more likely to focus on. Special interest targetted handouts are constantly changed... hmm...

Maybe the wisedom of the older people is that we need to look beyond fixing the current situation and instead build a framework for the future.

The right claims to go for long-term solutions, while it goes for short-term vote-buying handouts, wasteful spending, and record deficits and debt. From Reagan and Bush, to Mulroney and Harris (and now Harper), the right-wing approach to fiscal policy is After Us, the Deluge. Tax cuts don't reduce poverty long-term. Tax cuts are simply deferred taxes and an inter-generational wealth transfer from the younger to the older voting generation. Conservative fiscal policy and Conservative claims about said fiscal policy are so diametrically opposed, it's mind-boggling that anyone would fall for it. In fact, this new brand of fiscal "conservatism" is quite different from the traditional meaning of "fiscal conservatism" and would more appropriately termed "fiscal destructivism" but using false labels to mislead is a central theme in the new right-wing movement.

[Canadian Blue]

The right claims to go for long-term solutions, while it goes for short-term vote-buying handouts, wasteful spending, and record deficits and debt. From Reagan and Bush, to Mulroney and Harris (and now Harper), the right-wing approach to fiscal policy is After Us, the Deluge. Tax cuts don't reduce poverty long-term. Tax cuts are simply deferred taxes and an inter-generational wealth transfer from the younger to the older voting generation. Conservative fiscal policy and Conservative claims about said fiscal policy are so diametrically opposed, it's mind-boggling that anyone would fall for it. In fact, this new brand of fiscal "conservatism" is quite different from the traditional meaning of "fiscal conservatism" and would more appropriately termed "fiscal destructivism" but using false labels to mislead is a central theme in the new right-wing movement.

Are you talking about being fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible? As for your argument, I don't really see what your getting at, and I don't see how the current government policies are "destructive". Reagan was also voted the top American as well, so apparently it went allright for him.

So in this "fiscal destructivism", what is the main goal. Simply to destroy the economy? If the government cuts my taxes, I find that I save some money. What about the fiscal policies of Pierre Trudeau, or Bob Rae?

[RB]

For politics

In order to survive politics, I think that politicians must know:

1) How to get elected

2) How to govern

3) How to play politics and stay in power

In how to get elected it is better to be selectively leading left - there are far too many poor people who outnumbered the rest of the clan and can only relate to social goodies. It is easier to collect the masses of people and organise than try for what you believe. Look at the liberals they can have optimal support in what they say until folks really realize what they say. I mean being stubborn in believes - it never works, and will simply rebel on your own ideology

In how to govern, well being conservative can only drive a boost into the economy - so it is better to be right on how to manage money so that there is enough wealth accumulation to grow yourself

How to play politics, well as it goes, declaring you are in the centre of everything can really cause you no headaches, heartaches, break-ups or switching ideology.

For myself I still prattle left on social issues but extreme right on economic matters.

I think my social issue derangement comes from my still being in university and under some drunken influenced of those elitist academics

On the issue of which leaning men - women preference should always remain with the liberals, they never seem to run out of fun or social skills

[madmax]

That's funny. The right generally goes for long-term solutions where the left is more short sighted. Handouts will certainly stop someone from starving to death, but it doesn't affect poverty long-term. Tax cuts do.

That is a very interesting statement. I do wonder why countries with far less taxes than the US and Canada have never managed to get out of the cycle of poverty.

I also believe that there are some that would argue that it is the right that looks for simple short term solutions, and the left that proposes the complicated long term solutions that the right believe too difficult to put into practice so choose the kiss method whether or not it is a better long term solution.

I don't believe that the left of the right, is any more far sighted or short sighted then the other.

[madmax]

So in this "fiscal destructivism", what is the main goal. Simply to destroy the economy? If the government cuts my taxes, I find that I save some money. What about the fiscal policies of Pierre Trudeau, or Bob Rae?

And Mulroney, and Grant Devin.

[madmax]

In how to get elected it is better to be selectively leading left - there are far too many poor people who outnumbered the rest of the clan and can only relate to social goodies.

Poor People don't vote. So while there are poor in Canada (What you call poor I don't know) the percentage of lower income households often don't vote. If you look at strong polling stations, you will see that these are generally middle class homes and up voting for one of the two major parties.

[geoffrey]

That's funny. The right generally goes for long-term solutions where the left is more short sighted. Handouts will certainly stop someone from starving to death, but it doesn't affect poverty long-term. Tax cuts do.

That is a very interesting statement. I do wonder why countries with far less taxes than the US and Canada have never managed to get out of the cycle of poverty.

I also believe that there are some that would argue that it is the right that looks for simple short term solutions, and the left that proposes the complicated long term solutions that the right believe too difficult to put into practice so choose the kiss method whether or not it is a better long term solution.

I don't believe that the left of the right, is any more far sighted or short sighted then the other.

Well sir, in the long run we are all dead. That's why I personally propose a balanced solution of long-term economic interest and short term prevent the peasents from rioting welfare (or workfare).

[mikedavid00]

For those of you who have changed ideologies over your life which did you start with and where are you now? This is not a typical liberal/conservative or the likes of political parties but more of a socialist/free market or liberty/statist view from the political compass. If you want to put in why as well may help bring up discussion.

School and media told me to go left when I was younger. That's what I was.

I graduated to the School of life. That school revealed certain truth's in life and taught me to go far right right.

I would say Left = non-functioning idealism based off emotion. Right = tried and true realism.

I'm very right wing, but also extremely caring for my fellow citizens. I am nationalistic to the core. I believe gov't is really the people and I no longer believe politicians have the power or intelligence to govern on behalf of the people.

I like the idea of Canadians being able to vote on propositions and laws. I do not trust 1 persons idealisms to run our country from a top down dictatorship style.

This style of gov't has proven not to work post ww2 in Canada thus we should be realisitic, admit we are a work based north american society (not a culture based society like India), and move to a democratic, American style of gov't so things like 2-tier healtchare, lower taxes, and fixing immigration can be achieved.

[madmax]

Well sir, in the long run we are all dead. That's why I personally propose a balanced solution of long-term economic interest and short term prevent the peasents from rioting welfare (or workfare).

Well, that's good, we haven't had peasant rioting since the times of RB Bennet

It was 1932 and Canada was in the relentless grip of the Great Depression. The country's lifeblood - exports of natural resources like wheat, lumber, fish and minerals - had all but dried up, plummeting in value from $1.12 billion in 1929 to $576 million. More than one out of four people seeking work couldn't find any. Prime Minister R.B. BENNETT's Conservative government initially responded to the crisis in 1930 with $20 million for public works projects. A huge sum for the time, but not nearly enough. Fear of communist rabble-rousers stirring up the wandering unemployed prompted Bennett to establish relief camps, later called slave camps by those who lived there. Run by the Department of National Defence, the camps became powerful symbols of Ottawa's lack of concern for the unemployed. In June, 1935, more than 1,000 of these desperate men set out from B.C. to confront Bennett in the nation's capital. Fearing a snowballing rebellion, the government waylaid the ON TO OTTAWA TREK in Saskatchewan and, on the July 1 holiday, crushed it in what became known as the REGINA RIOT, the most violent episode of the Great Depression. One man died and more than 100 were injured.

The Dirty Thirties offered little hope for too many. There was no unemployment insurance, no medical coverage, no old age pension. "There were no jobs and we weren't wanted," says 85-year-old Gene Llewellyn, who as a 16-year-old in 1933 left his Terrace, B.C., home to ease the burden on his parents. "We'd come into a town, and they'd run you out."

The only alternative to riding the rails or eking out an existence in the hobo jungles that sprung up beside most major cities was to seek aid in the relief camps. No one expected the camps - established in October, 1932, to house and provide work for single, unemployed homeless men - to be around for very long. They were considered a temporary solution because most believed the Depression itself would be temporary. But by 1935 there were nearly 150 relief camps dotting the country, 53 of them in British Columbia largely because of its warmer climate. Workers spent 44-hour weeks doing construction or land clearing in exchange for three square meals and a 20-cent per day allowance. For the men, the 20 cents solidified their belief they were working in slave camps. While authorities prohibited any attempt to form unions, the harsh lifestyle ironically gave organizations like the Communist Party of Canada a captive and receptive audience. "These men were just like any of us," says Bill Waiser, author of Park Prisoners, a book about how Canada's national parks were used as work camps. "They wanted jobs, they wanted a home and a family. Putting the men in camps, you focus their discontent. Then on come the communists who say, 'You're being exploited.' "

Workers of the World Unite

That was you right? Just kidding.

[geoffrey]

You can never let the communists out of Saskatchewan... all those co-operatives are up to something. Alberta needs to pay attention. Bennett was right.

[Saturn]

Well sir, in the long run we are all dead. That's why I personally propose a balanced solution of long-term economic interest and short term prevent the peasents from rioting welfare (or workfare).

Funny you'd quote Keynes here.

Currently the peasants are mainly single moms and their kids. Currently, the gap between the rich and the poor (which we well know is growing) is really a gap between the older and the younger (with the younger being falling further and further behind). One simple reason for that is that tax cuts benefit the older working people who are in the prime earning years of their lives, at the expense of younger people who get buried deeper and deeper in debt due to increased tuition fees, housing and childcare costs, and user fees. Further tax cuts will achieve more of the same. In addition, tax cuts are a tax deferral and a transfer of wealth from the younger to the older generation. Furthermore, any tax cuts that the older will benefit from now will be reversed as soon as those older retire and the younger will pay for it through the nose. Seeing that you are one of those in the younger generation, I fail to see why you are so eager to let the boomers off the hook for their expenses and and end up on the hook for them later? Again, those long-term conservative "solutions" lead to more long-term "problems" but After Us, the Diluge. Someone else will deal with them later.

[Figleaf]

The right generally goes for long-term solutions where the left is more short sighted.

I can't believe some of the sh!t you people come up with!

[leonardcohen]

The right generally goes for long-term solutions where the left is more short sighted.

I can't believe some of the sh!t you people come up with!

I believe i might has posted this quote by Winston Churchill once before, if so i apologize,but here it is,

''A man who is not a Liberal when he is young has no heart,one who is not a Conservative when he is older has no brain'' is genereally true in most cases or it should be.

[Topaz]

The old saying is change is good but I think it depends on what you change. I see the parties changing in what they stand for. Just look the Conservatives. Its a combination of Alliance/Conservatives beliefs, which I really don't think is good for the Canadians. I wouldn't give Harper a majority government, because I don't trust his word and that another part of the change. Some voted not for the party Per Se, but for the person if they feel they are a honest, trustworthy etc. person. I'm not sure of the Liberal party as yet but I do get "good vibes" from Dion. I, also, think that Layton is trying to get things done in government, I don't always agree with him on things though. I would like to know their views on "the new world order" if they think there is such a thing and if they do what is their view? I don't feel good about 2007 and all has to do with GW BUSH. I've read, that after Iraqi, he's still wants to go in and bomb the hell out of Iran and Israel will probably be by his side. I'm not sure how the people of the US feel but I'm sure some will be against this but Bush does what Bush wants and no one in the country is brave enough to stop him within the US government!

[Canadian Blue]

I would like to know their views on "the new world order" if they think there is such a thing and if they do what is their view?

Yeah its too bad that Lyndon Larouche party isn't around anymore...

I don't feel good about 2007 and all has to do with GW BUSH. I've read, that after Iraqi, he's still wants to go in and bomb the hell out of Iran and Israel will probably be by his side.

Where did you read that, I doubt it's a credible source. American's are talking about pulling out of Iraq, and their military is stretched to the limit.

I'm not sure how the people of the US feel but I'm sure some will be against this but Bush does what Bush wants and no one in the country is brave enough to stop him within the US government!

He needs approval from both houses, and he only has two years left. I doubt he want's to go into Iran. As well if a country is going to be behind Iran instead of the US then that country is f%$ked. That's like saying your supporting Nazi Germany over Great Britian because Britian is too much of an empire.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I'm not sure how the people of the US feel but I'm sure some will be against this but Bush does what Bush wants and no one in the country is brave enough to stop him within the US government!

He needs approval from both houses, and he only has two years left. I doubt he want's to go into Iran. As well if a country is going to be behind Iran instead of the US then that country is f%$ked. That's like saying your supporting Nazi Germany over Great Britian because Britian is too much of an empire.

CB very good points.

I believe that Bush has done some might crappy things as President. However, the poster you reply to clearly doesn't understand the US system at all.

A Canadian Prime Minister with a majority in the House and Senate has far, far more power than a US President will ever have.

But it is easer to spout rhetoric and attack.

Of course it is only rational to support the US over Iran.