How do people become more liberal?

[redhot1]

I embrace the LGBT community progress, but for other issues, I don't "feel" very liberal about politics.

I just want to be a liberal from now on, but I don't feel 100% compatible with it.

[Dena]

There is nothing wrong with having a mixed view of politics. You never want to blindly follow a party or a leader. Instead, you should understand that we are human and as such, people are sometimes wrong and sometimes right. I will not tell you which party to vote for other than who ever you feel is best for the country. That is what each of us must decide when we cast our vote.

[RobynD]

I changed in two important stages later in life. Prior to about 2005-2006 i was conservative, fox news watching, Rush Limbaugh listening, feminine male. I was against my own best interests. Then I began the turn away from it. First the rhetoric, fear an entertainment.

After about 2012, I identified as liberal and completely moved away from all conservatism. Spiritual, political, social etc. Doing so later in life is somewhat rare perhaps and it took my family by surprise and hurt some relationships, but for me it had become about "what does the most good for the most people". The answer was staring me in the face.

[Deborah]

I used to watch Fox News. Then one time I was first hand involved in an incident that was all over the news for over a month.  Watching what Fox News was reporting on that made me realize, to put it bluntly, they are full of crap.

It's no more than mind candy for conspiracy theorists and other semi-sentient humans.


Sapere Aude

[arice]

My best advice is to educate yourself on all sides of issues... so that you can make up your own mind. There is no need to agree completely with any one party or ideology.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

[redhot1]

Fair, but it seems like all I get out of my parents, particularly dad, is that liberals, MSNBC, LGBT, etc. are all a bunch of lies. What do you think of that?

Another thing that's embarrassing about being a conservate here is that it emphasizes all the negative stereotypes about Americans.

[Dena]

I am a libertarian so I hate both sides. If that fails to appeal to you, there are other political leanings like the green party. Don't ever feel committed to a single political party if you are uncomfortable with it. Don't let anybody tell you what to believe as that is for you to decide.

[BeverlyAnn]

I embrace the LGBT community progress, but for other issues, I don't "feel" very liberal about politics.

I just want to be a liberal from now on, but I don't feel 100% compatible with it.

I am neither conservative nor liberal but middle of the road and have never voted a straight party ticket in my life.  There are issues on the left I believe in such as universal health care (although I think the Affordable Care Act could be much improved).  On the other hand, I am a life member of the NRA and no I don't agree with all their positions.  As arice said, study both sides of an issue and make up your own mind.  A year ago, I thought Bernie Sanders was the most dangerous candidate in the race.  Then I looked at his positions plus all the Republicans went crazy and now I hope Bernie gets elected.

[autumn08]

I'm on the left, but not on the Noam Chomsky wing that is currently en vogue.

On the economy, the right would like to decrease the tax burden of the wealthy and cut spending in order to increase economic growth and wages. This won't increase growth though, because our low interest rates show the economy is suffering from a lack of demand, not supply, and it won't increase wages, because unemployment is already low and inequality is high.

On foreign policy, I agree with the left that the Iraq War was a mistake, because it is very difficult to create a state with such incohesive groups, and that we shouldn't repeat the same mistake in Syria, but I don't agree with callousness and lack of foresight the left has shown recently. The U.S. should give more support to the Kurds, Afghanis, Tunisians and Ukrainians.

I'm on the left on guns, the environment, and social policies, and I wish I could elaborate why, but I need to go. Also, I wish I could have wrote details on the economy and foreign policy, but there is so much to write, so could you ask some specific questions?

[steyraug96]

Why would you want to join the party of Choamsky, Che, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot...? 

That's the first thought. "Liberal" of today isn't exactly a warm-and-fuzzy, worthwhile, humane, or even human, character.
And you can probably guess I fall on the conservative side - but so do "classical liberals."  Please note the capitalization - it's relevant.

Most of us here actually aren't "Right" or "Left." That's Liberal, Progressive, Neo-Con, etc. They're all FAR left groups, actually - they've just changed exactly what, and exactly how, they will oppress you. BOTH sides of American Politics are the enemy. Religious Right wants to oppress you based on their "perfect" faith (Sounds an awful lot like Islam, when you think of it.) Communists and Socialists think the government should own the means of production, and central economic control works. (Central control of almost anything fails beyond a tribal scale, say a few hundred at most. And ultimately, the means of production? IS YOU. So these methods of control involve government owning YOU, in essence.)

Further, you need to ask who owns you? If you believe YOU own you (your body and mind) - the modern American political system is seen as two wings of the same vulture. They swing back and forth, but they both favor more regulations, more control, more laws - and both break those same laws with impunity.
And the simple-minded masses, acting on greed, envy, lust, etc, vote the same parasites into office time and time again. Many of the voters have NO skin in the game - government workers, for example, BENEFIT from more government. Pharmaceuticals benefit from more drug regulations. (Barrier to entry in the industry, affects almost everything, from banks to credit cards to real estate to manufacturing to the local butcher, baker, and candlestick maker. E.G.: Uber vs. Medallion cabs; Butchers; Cabs as an industry, too; power distribution; wireless carriers; internet service providers; fishermen; fish and animal and plant farming; the list is essentially infinite.) 

As the anarchists used to say, (1) if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention, and (2) If voting could change anything, it would be illegal. Remember what Stalin said, "It matters not who votes, it matters who COUNTS the votes."

Other examples of wrong action abound: Toppling the Shah in Iran, for one. Creating ISIS. Creating Saddam Hussein. Being the "police force" of the world. Being PART of the UN (Biggest human rights abusers, especially evident in human trafficking.) CIA's little opium problem, our soldiers guarding the poppy fields - the Taliban was rabidly anti-drug, you see, and now we have a heroin "epidemic" in the US again.

My ultimate point is: DO NOT decide to "BE" a Liberal. NOR a "Conservative." LIEberals and CONservatives are a false duality, a dog-and-pony show to distract from the real issues and solutions, and dogmatic adherence to either pole will be ultimately self-defeating.

Strive to understand the human animal, and remember - you ARE one. If you don't want someone pointing a gun at you, demanding things - don't be willing to point that same gun at someone else. Because Mao was correct: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." Sooner or later, it's used on you...  And if you supported it? No moral high ground, even - you cannot argue conscience when you show you have none.

There's a REASON I'm a cantankerous SOB. Having an IQ of almost 130 (MENSA level starts 133, IIRC) I see a lot. And I learned history before they started revising it, and I learned MORE than most of my classmates. We're somewhere around the fall of Rome, with many aspects of the Weimar Republic conversion to Nazi Germany....  And if Americans don't wake up soon, we'll end up with a criminal in the white house. The only difference will be name and the party affiliation.
Because as Carlin said, "It's a big club - and you ain't in it!"

-Dianna

[Hikari]

To be liberal socially all you need is a bit of empathy, the social politics are usually pretty easy for LGBT people as they deal with the ire of social conservatives a lot. As far as things like economics and foreign policy and whatnot it doesn't even matter for American politics, one side opposes LGBT rights in their platform and if you don't have rights then what good is econimic policy that you agree with?

I am far-left of any of the candidates who are currently running, but I find it doesn't damage my friendships at all talking about politics with my libertarian, Anarchist, and liberal friends, so long as they don't subscribe to the social conservatism arguments that are such the rage on talk radio. You can make an argument that minimum wages increase inflation and while I disagree o could respect the position but. If you try to make the argument that homosexuality or being transgender isn't real then we have no way to have any common ground or reasonable conversation.

So the tldr is you don't have to be liberal, you could be a libertarian or socialist or whatever just have solidarity and empathy for others and you will be fine.

[autumn08]

Why would you want to join the party of Choamsky, Che, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot...? 

That's the first thought. "Liberal" of today isn't exactly a warm-and-fuzzy, worthwhile, humane, or even human, character.
And you can probably guess I fall on the conservative side - but so do "classical liberals."  Please note the capitalization - it's relevant.

Most of us here actually aren't "Right" or "Left." That's Liberal, Progressive, Neo-Con, etc. They're all FAR left groups, actually - they've just changed exactly what, and exactly how, they will oppress you. BOTH sides of American Politics are the enemy. Religious Right wants to oppress you based on their "perfect" faith (Sounds an awful lot like Islam, when you think of it.) Communists and Socialists think the government should own the means of production, and central economic control works. (Central control of almost anything fails beyond a tribal scale, say a few hundred at most. And ultimately, the means of production? IS YOU. So these methods of control involve government owning YOU, in essence.)

Further, you need to ask who owns you? If you believe YOU own you (your body and mind) - the modern American political system is seen as two wings of the same vulture. They swing back and forth, but they both favor more regulations, more control, more laws - and both break those same laws with impunity.
And the simple-minded masses, acting on greed, envy, lust, etc, vote the same parasites into office time and time again. Many of the voters have NO skin in the game - government workers, for example, BENEFIT from more government. Pharmaceuticals benefit from more drug regulations. (Barrier to entry in the industry, affects almost everything, from banks to credit cards to real estate to manufacturing to the local butcher, baker, and candlestick maker. E.G.: Uber vs. Medallion cabs; Butchers; Cabs as an industry, too; power distribution; wireless carriers; internet service providers; fishermen; fish and animal and plant farming; the list is essentially infinite.) 

As the anarchists used to say, (1) if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention, and (2) If voting could change anything, it would be illegal. Remember what Stalin said, "It matters not who votes, it matters who COUNTS the votes."

Other examples of wrong action abound: Toppling the Shah in Iran, for one. Creating ISIS. Creating Saddam Hussein. Being the "police force" of the world. Being PART of the UN (Biggest human rights abusers, especially evident in human trafficking.) CIA's little opium problem, our soldiers guarding the poppy fields - the Taliban was rabidly anti-drug, you see, and now we have a heroin "epidemic" in the US again.

My ultimate point is: DO NOT decide to "BE" a Liberal. NOR a "Conservative." LIEberals and CONservatives are a false duality, a dog-and-pony show to distract from the real issues and solutions, and dogmatic adherence to either pole will be ultimately self-defeating.

Strive to understand the human animal, and remember - you ARE one. If you don't want someone pointing a gun at you, demanding things - don't be willing to point that same gun at someone else. Because Mao was correct: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." Sooner or later, it's used on you...  And if you supported it? No moral high ground, even - you cannot argue conscience when you show you have none.

There's a REASON I'm a cantankerous SOB. Having an IQ of almost 130 (MENSA level starts 133, IIRC) I see a lot. And I learned history before they started revising it, and I learned MORE than most of my classmates. We're somewhere around the fall of Rome, with many aspects of the Weimar Republic conversion to Nazi Germany....  And if Americans don't wake up soon, we'll end up with a criminal in the white house. The only difference will be name and the party affiliation.
Because as Carlin said, "It's a big club - and you ain't in it!"

-Dianna

Anarchy is untenable, so the question is what is the most pragmatic way to use government. Most on the right believe the most pragmatic thing the government can do now is give the wealthy more money, but since interest rates and inflation are low (meaning demand is low), inequality is high and our infrastructure is in disrepair, wouldn't government spending on infrastructure be more pragmatic? It will eventually need to be done, so why not do it when it would be most beneficial and least expensive?

There is a large gap between us on foreign policy that would take a long time to bridge, so I will just say you're giving the U.S. too much and too little regard. The U.S. didn't create ISIS and Saddam Hussein, and its actions are not equivalent to their actions. By all means, critique U.S. intervention, but I don't see why you're exonerating evil. Also, do you really think Afghanistan would be better off controlled by the Taliban and the world would be better off without painkillers?

Hopefully I'm not the one that causes this thread to be locked. While I agree with those that recommend to Redhot that she explore both sides, political questions only have one right answer, so to answer her question I'm trying to show that the left is more frequently correct. With respect to the support group nature of this website, I'm trying to do it is gently as I can.

[HappyMoni]

I used to be very into politics. I found that I was getting way too upset about things I can not change. It was not making me a happy girl. I backed away, and I am much happier. I do keep informed, I vote, and I try to make my little corner of the world better for those around me. I will advocate for LGBTQ issues in my way. I will try to look out for the underdog. One of the things about women generally, I am told, is that they listen to the person they are talking to. I am trying to incorporate this into my personality. I think it is much more important to work on being a good person rather than try to be more liberal or conservative. (My opinion)
     If you do want to educate yourself on issues, that is great. I would suggest you look for honest sources from the different sides of an issue. MSNBC has a liberal view in most cases. They do not claim the mantle of news. Fox has a conservative viewpoint but claims to be "fair and balanced." This is not in any way true. If you want an honest conservative perspective you should look elsewhere. This probably means doing some reading. I would not use any single source for your information. I would question everything. Whatever you do just don't become so entrenched in your views that you drive others away. This has been happening way too much these days. I would rather talk religion anytime than politics. It ends better, lol. Good luck!
Moni

[steyraug96]

Well, Autumn, you were probably more polite than I was , so I doubt anyone would be upset by you. 
I think we would never agree on the issues.
A few quick thoughts, though.
Taliban wasn't wonderful, don't misunderstand, and muddling opiods into the drug trade? Wrong tack. The illegal trade is an issue, and since US intervention, it's back, possibly with CIA backing...  They like power, what happens to people who like power...? Power corrupts, right...?

Foreign policy to me seems pretty simple, as much as possible, MYOB. No interventionism. No nation building, no exporting our worst features elsewhere. Consumerism and corporatism come to mind...  Mob rule (demos cracy, in Greek) leads us to where we are now, as people decay. (where wealth accumulates, men decay.)

And anarchism is what we actually live with in most of our day to day lives, believe it or not. Most people wouldn't immediately start killing others, like something out of The Purge. The fact I don't own a gun doesn't stop me, I have plenty of knives, and I can push people in front of trains and busses, etc. It is ME that stops me, not threat of police. Are you admitting you WOULD kill people "just because"? I kind of think you're not that sort of person.    Voluntaryism, voluntary socializing and cooperation, will work. Forcing people to play nice by (someone's) definition of nice is the definition of tyranny, though.  Who is irrelevant, left right center Satan, the only difference is the name.
The comparison would be the USSR telling us how to feed the country...  Or New Guinea, or Mexico. A bureacrat in DC doesn't know potato farming in Idaho, ya know?

We probably overall agree more than we disagree, actually. The Conservatives think I'm a Liberal, the Liberals think I'm a Conservative, and both sometimes claim I'm an anarchist...  Because I think we should be left alone, to act like adults, and handle our own affairs. Like the French etc. should handle their affairs.

Isn't that what we here want in the microcosm? To be free to develop our minds and bodies as we see fit, with as little interference as possible? To grow breasts, or lop them off; to express masculunity or femininity, sans public interventions declaring us crazy or social lepers?

I think that's a primary issue, and both the "big L" Libs and "big C" Cons leave most of humanity outside the tent. 

But I can't fix them....  And the Beltway changes them instantly, as Obama wrote...  Different world.
Nice talk, though, hope to chat more. 
-Dianna

[steyraug96]

[Very nice writing edited out for brevity]
Moni

Very nicely said, Moni. We need an upvote. 
-Dianna

[Colleen M]

One other thing is that once you settle into a nice place on, say, the American left-right spectrum, the Europeans are just going to fall down laughing because it has no real relationship to their left-right spectrum.  The reverse is also true, but either way really just highlights that attempting to pigeonhole yourself isn't that important.  Be true to yourself, identify your priorities, and hold your nose accordingly. 

On this forum, of all places, you didn't really expect people to tell you to be something that wasn't truly you just for the sake of conforming to labels, did you?   

[diane 2606]

Here's what I would suggest: Rather than make a blanket decision to become more liberal, or conservative, pick a topic that interests you, then read honest, legitimate, intellectual opinions on as many sides of an issue as you can stand. Don't beat it to death, just read enough that you feel you can make an informed decision on that one topic. Then pick another topic that interests you, and do the same thing. There's no hurry, so take your time. Some of what you read will make you rethink your opinion on a specific subject, and some will confirm it.

A healthy dose of self-interest won't hurt either. Example: While in the abstract, lower taxes for the wealthy might improve the economy for those of us closer to the bottom, the fact is that tactic has never, ever, had that result at any point in recorded history. If like most people, you're a wage slave, your economic self-interest would lead you to think more liberally. Taxes aren't the enemy if those who collect them spend on things that benefit the most people and businesses—infrastructure!

[autumn08]

Well, Autumn, you were probably more polite than I was , so I doubt anyone would be upset by you. 
I think we would never agree on the issues.
A few quick thoughts, though.
Taliban wasn't wonderful, don't misunderstand, and muddling opiods into the drug trade? Wrong tack. The illegal trade is an issue, and since US intervention, it's back, possibly with CIA backing...  They like power, what happens to people who like power...? Power corrupts, right...?

Foreign policy to me seems pretty simple, as much as possible, MYOB. No interventionism. No nation building, no exporting our worst features elsewhere. Consumerism and corporatism come to mind...  Mob rule (demos cracy, in Greek) leads us to where we are now, as people decay. (where wealth accumulates, men decay.)

And anarchism is what we actually live with in most of our day to day lives, believe it or not. Most people wouldn't immediately start killing others, like something out of The Purge. The fact I don't own a gun doesn't stop me, I have plenty of knives, and I can push people in front of trains and busses, etc. It is ME that stops me, not threat of police. Are you admitting you WOULD kill people "just because"? I kind of think you're not that sort of person.    Voluntaryism, voluntary socializing and cooperation, will work. Forcing people to play nice by (someone's) definition of nice is the definition of tyranny, though.  Who is irrelevant, left right center Satan, the only difference is the name.
The comparison would be the USSR telling us how to feed the country...  Or New Guinea, or Mexico. A bureacrat in DC doesn't know potato farming in Idaho, ya know?

We probably overall agree more than we disagree, actually. The Conservatives think I'm a Liberal, the Liberals think I'm a Conservative, and both sometimes claim I'm an anarchist...  Because I think we should be left alone, to act like adults, and handle our own affairs. Like the French etc. should handle their affairs.

Isn't that what we here want in the microcosm? To be free to develop our minds and bodies as we see fit, with as little interference as possible? To grow breasts, or lop them off; to express masculunity or femininity, sans public interventions declaring us crazy or social lepers?

I think that's a primary issue, and both the "big L" Libs and "big C" Cons leave most of humanity outside the tent. 

But I can't fix them....  And the Beltway changes them instantly, as Obama wrote...  Different world.
Nice talk, though, hope to chat more. 
-Dianna

Great! I think we can talk politics without locking the thread.

We are both socially liberal, but we disagree what our immediate threat is. I claim inequality, stunted GDP growth, social conservatives, global warming, terrorism, Russia and Iran are greater threats to liberal values than empowering the government to combat these threats, while you seem to claim government intervention is an equal threat.

Threats to liberal values will always exist and they must be resisted, or they will metastasize. Also, when people need help, we shouldn't ignore them, but rather have conviction in our values. Of course, empowering the government can be dangerous, but if you would like to discuss any of the issues I listed and others, I am willing to debate that government intervention is preferable to doing nothing.

[Kylo]

I embrace the LGBT community progress, but for other issues, I don't "feel" very liberal about politics.

I just want to be a liberal from now on, but I don't feel 100% compatible with it.

Don't forget that neither liberals nor conservatives have all the answers. Being 100% conservative on every issue or 100% liberal isn't going to work too well because life requires a balance of both or more of these views applied to it. I never understand people who tend to think their side or camp can solve everything when it only has one general approach to a very changeable world.

But if you want to be more liberal, as someone said you just have to empathize with more people's situations, or have experience with less fortunate situations and people and it's easier to accept as a concept. Many of the non-liberals I know were born into two kinds of situation - either they never had to worry about money or being persecuted, so they don't understand what it's like to be poor or persecuted... or they did know what it's like to be poor, worked their way up, became very successful and then forgot what it was like to be poor and assume that everybody can make it to the top like they can (a logical impossibility). Many of the liberals I know do know what it's like to be poor or in difficulties and obviously are happy about a welfare state, food stamps, LGBT rights and so on. But there's also the influence of a conservative or liberal family drumming it into people's heads that their view is THE view and that can also be hard to shake off.

I for example come from a liberal background, and some of my views do go against that of my family - but I just try to take a common sense rather than a polarized view on the world's problems. I'd rather do that than call myself a liberal or a conservative. Some liberals' views on how the world should be run are as crazy as some of the craziest conservatives mind you. So you can't really rely on one side being more "right" than another, always, or that being as liberal as possible about everything is always the best course of action. The key is not to forget that the "human" in human society is what makes any of what we do worth caring a whit about... and the other key is not to forget the flaws of human nature and not be duped into thinking that it does not need to be guided and controlled sometimes.

[Stevie]

  How to become more liberal?  Care about people more than money or things.