Democrat and Republican

[biglips88]

An interesting point a professor in one of my classes brought up recently is that Americans tend to conform to the ideology of Democrat or Republican. He argues that in doing so, it encourages people to not think.
When one says they are Democrat or Republican, it is implied that they agree with the majority of parties' stances. However, many of these positions rarely correlate.

For instance, we can break down common positions of both parties:

Republican:
-Pro war (Iraq)
-small government (government limits help to people in the hopes that it will allow people to be less dependent on government)
-pro life
-anti gay marriage
-higher priority to defense spending (increase in military)

Democrat:
-Anti-war (Iraq)
-big government (government helps people through programs)
-pro choice
-pro gay marriage
-higher priority to diplomacy (decrease in military)

Say you are pro war; would you label yourself as Republican even if you don't necessarily believe or have yet to form a position on their other major political agenda? The same applies if you were anti-war.

Why is it that being pro war also means being pro life? What about being pro war entails any relation to being pro life? Why is it that being a supporter of big government also means being pro gay marriage?

Depending on the importance of a certain topic, people readily accept and conform to many of the ideas that come along with the titles of Republican and Democrat. Maybe you have yet to form an opinion on gay marriage; but since you are anti-war you identify with Democrats and become pro gay marriage. What is it about being anti-war that would make you inclined to be pro gay marriage?

If such non-correlation exists between the major political agendas of Democrats and Republicans, why do people readily identify themselves as such? How does this promotion of non-thinking affect society?

 

[dycdan]

I side myself on various different positions on certain aspects. I myself have been anti-war from the start, but Democrats tend to raise taxes a lot, so i don't like them. I'm not a big fan of gay marriage, but that's not a really a big deal. I personally can't stand complete Republicans, they seem too arrogant and egotistical. I don't affiliate myself with any party though, as i don't want trivial political stances to stand between my friends and I.

Anyways, i think people side themselves so they have a backing. If you say you're either party, you'll have others of that party to back you up. Instead of contemplating issues, they find the party with the most that they like, and join them.

 

[biglips88]

I agree. I don't affiliate with any party since I'm all over the place.
Ex- Pro war, indifferent on gay marriage, abortion - middleground, small government but reforming social programs so they are more effective (i.e. many people who need help don't get it, while people who don't necessarily need it get it), etc.

The question then is:
Is non-thinking (conforming with ideology) justified by joining a party to have support in particular agendas?

 

[dycdan]

Personally, i don't think it is justified. As i stated before, they just join to have a backing. Noone follows the irresolute man with fickle ideas. It is just an excuse to end your thinking right there, just join a side and watch.

 

[biglips88]

Exactly, a lot of people just reuse the same lines that the media/politicians spoon fed them. By labeling yourself as one party or another you are effectively accepting their premises/conclusions on many topics when you should be formulating these yourself.

A wise man once said:
You are looking, but are you seeing?
You are hearing, but are you listening?