Your Personal Politics (Aside From Lgbt Issues)

[PhoenixGeoff]

So here in the US, there's been a pretty stark contrast between the two major parties on gay issues over the last 20-30 years, which means that most gay guys have been pretty reliable Democrats.

 

However, we're reaching an interesting point in our history where our political agenda with respect to gay men, bisexuals and lesbians has largely been accomplished (ENDA being the only outstanding issue I can think of).  Moreover, social acceptance of LGBT people is increased enormously over my lifetime, and I only see that trend continuing to improve.

 

Even Republicans are coming around to a limited extent.  Several GOP Presidential candidates are behind ENDA (if still opposing marriage), and many conservatives have, if not gotten on board with marriage rights, have made their peace with the idea that same-sex marriage isn't going away.  And many more libertarians (who often end up supporting the GOP based on economic issues) have been with us since the beginning.

 

Which leads us to an interesting situation where a big reason to vote for Democrats has now effectively been taken off the table. 

 

Assuming LGBT issues have been your big motivator, do they still carry the same amount of importance for you?  Are you a "single issue" voter?  Maybe transgendered rights are important to you.  Or maybe you're grateful for the way Democrats have delivered for us.  Or you would like our foreign policy to press other countries to be more tolerant.

 

Or do you have a new big issue?  The economy?  Foreign affairs?  Environmental issues?  Other social issues like abortion or euthanasia?

 

And how would you define your political philosophy overall?  Socialist?  Libertarian (or classically liberal, for non-US folks)?  Conservative?  Some weird mixture of all of the above? 

[Bottomhole]

If I was in the states right now I would say I'd fall into Libertarian. Liberal and Conservative are very similar, Liberals to me seem to be turning into the new conservative, with language policing, thin skinned and easily outraged. Conservatives seem to be(speaking in generals for both) openly bigoted and too closely associated with religion. This is just from the perspective of an outsider looking in. 

[gwmxyz]

Never quite got the US liberal/conservative division.  To me liberalism is the end, conservatism the means - not that every aspect of my life falls under that head.

[nelliess]

Interesting question. Here in the UK it was actually a Conservative (centre-right) government that made same-sex marriage legal and they are making a play for LGBT votes. If I was in the U.S. I would find it hard to vote Republican given the fairly lousy views they tend to hold on social issues, even though the Democrats are almost as unappealing on some of their issues.

 

I've never let my sexuality determine how I vote exclusively in any case and I certainly wouldn't keep voting for a party out of any misplaced sense of gratitude. But I couldn't vote for a party that wasn't actively trying to get the vote of gay men and women.

[Bicycledude]

Bernie Sanders Democrat here. George Aiken was the last sane Republican.

[snaketat]

Just my opinion, but i think the issue is different than just liberal vs conservative positions.  As others have noted, not every decision can be neatly moved to one category or the other.   Rather it is a continuum.

 

What I believe to be the issue is that we treat everything as an extreme (my way or the highway, my belief above all others) rather than recognizing that a consensus or centrist position may server more people to a higher level.  As a queer, my sex life should only concern me and the cock in my mouth or ass---but it has become a polarizing issue.   The US is a rich country, yet we have low levels of healthcare for the poor, mediocre schools, little support for the underemployed----and on and on.  Since the new deal of the Roosevelt era, has an extreme position really helped improve those issues?

 

The issues of the LGBTQ universe are important to me.  But, I would gladly give up some of the work being done in this area IF, we were taking better care of our society overall.  It is not just about me....it is about all of us.  Opening up our views, beyond our own hard held views MAY lets us evolve into a more welcoming supportive nation.

[Guest Gloryholee]

I don't believe in LGBT rights. I think it's a load of old arse, just like womens rights. I believe in EQUAL rights for all. As soon as you swap the word "equal" for another word, it becomes compromised and corrupt. Women going on rallies wanting equal pay to men. Do those same women host another rally the following week saying they want to work another 5-7 years so they can retire at the same age as men do? No they don't.

 

In general, noone gives a damn about your skin colour, religion, sexuality or gender. The few that do care, should be the only "minority group" we care about.

 

Equal rights and equal punishment across the entire spectrum. That's my personal politics. It's simple, though politicians will complicate everything as usual.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Gloryholee

[C10H15N]

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal - that would make me more libertarian, but without the crazy.

[Breedmymancvnt]

Without wanting to confuse the issues for my American friends, I suspect I may do precisely that since I'm an Australian and, although we are incredibly alike Americans (and very fond of you too...if a little exasperated with you too at times), but politics is an area where (for all of our similarities) we have some quite substantive differences in perception, philosophically, and in nuance. One of those nuances, perhaps, is that we use certain terms for the opposite of what Americans use them to describe.

However, as one who is both active in, and highly interested in, politics both of the domestic Australian kind and internationally so find the subject irresistible.

First, you may be pleased to know that, even though I'm very pro-US (even for an Australian), I seem often to frustrate both sides; indeed, sometimes am angrily warned to mind my own business and not presume to express opinion on the issues of import in US politics. This, I must admit, usually (in fact, always I think) happens in relation to only one issue: gun laws. Ironically, that is one issue on which I comment only if one of two circumstances arise: (1) if an American invites me to do so; or (2) if the discussion misrepresents Australia's gun laws.

To address the question in the OP, I am of the right wing. In Australia, the main right-wing party is the Liberal Party (hence my lengthy explanation above) while the main left-wing party is the Labor Party; both fall mainly in the centre (as they used to be in the US too!). While Australians are less religious than Americans generally, the Liberal Party is a 'broad church' of social conservatives, economic 'dries' (monetarists or economic neocons), pro-business advocates, libertarians (in the American sense of the term, not the French) and plain old garden variety conservatives.

The only sense in which I am "conservative" is "fiscal conservative" in precisely the same sense that C10H15N uses it. I do not consider myself a "social liberal" though; first, because the term doesn't really make sense in Australian terms (although, oddly, we use the phrase to describe the same people you would use it to describe...such is the level of American influence on our lexicon...remember, I am considerably both more political and more linguistically precise than the average Australian). Secondly, I advocate Government to be as small in size as possible and intervene only as much as is necessary to do those things citizens cannot do for themselves. I describe myself as a libertarian and, I strongly argue, apply the principle of small Government and interference only when necessary consistently across both economic and social issues. In Australia, we are still engaged in the same-sex marriage debate with a plebiscite in the next term of Parliament to decide the issue.

Without trying to offend or be seen to be cynical, I argue the SSM debate, both in Australia and in the US, is a perfect illustration of how many on the right argue for less Government interference economically yet call for more Government regulation (to retain it at least) on the issue of SSM. Those of the left often argue for greater Government control over aspects of the economy, yet (quite correctly in my view) argue that Government has no role in preventing two consenting adults from defining their relationship as they see fit.

Many SSM advocates, however, then go a step further which, in my view, is a step too far: they argue against the 'right' of people of faith to oppose same-sex unions on principle and suggest that anyone holding such a view must be a bigot. While most accept that churches ought not be forced to sanctify same-sex marriages if they object to doing so, some do not and many more would consider it discrimination if a person of faith declined to service a gay wedding ceremony; I do not provided it is not done with any vilification of the couple.

That, to me, would be an overreach of Government. Even though I am an atheist myself, I respect others' right to hold opinions contrary to mine and to worship in accord with their conscience. To me, just as it would be wrong for them to vilify me as a Godless sodomite (or whatever), it would be equally wrong to vilify them for their beliefs...and even more wrong to hold them to account under law for doing nothing more than quietly exercising their faith.

So...perhaps now you may be beginning to understand why I irritate both sides of American politics. Frankly, the religious wing of the Republicans would make it very uncomfortable for me to 'support' the Republicans yet I tend to favour Republican positions in foreign affairs (especially; collective defence being an example where individuals cannot protect themselves) and economically, although I'd strongly suggest both US parties are either largely fiscally illiterate or irresponsibly cowardly and cynical in regards to the US deficit.

To be honest, i regard President Obama as probably the least qualified man ever to be elected to the Presidency and overall a weak President...were I an American, I would have voted for McCain (yet teared up when watching Obama's victory speech in Chicago; I have studied US history quite intently and one only had to have a vague understanding of it to be moved by the faces in the crowd that night) and have kept the recorded speech on my HDD to refer to occasionally. I must admit I really did not form a view in 2008; I really was unable to warm to Mitt Romney but did think he was treated appallingly by the media in that campaign. Having said that, it was always clear to me that Romney was the Republicans' least worst option for the nomination.

Despite my overall view of President Obama being closer to negative than positive, I side with him strongly on the two issues which, it seems to me, most clearly delineate the Democrats and the Reoublicans in Obama's term

On gun control, not only do I consider the American weakness on gun laws completely misguided, it honestly saddens me a great deal. The influence of the gun lobby on thr American body politic amazes and alarms me but, as much as I loathe to admit it, I surrendered any belief that the US can change on that subject after Sandy Hook.

Obama, to his eternal credit, not only has refused to concede the argument and, even more critically, to concede the principle. I personally find his words and his demeanour after every mass shooting admirable. He maintains his dignity and the sadness he conveys over his impotence on an issue he dearly wishes to address is genuine. But what I admire most is how sparingly direct he is with Americans over who is to blame. Even though he cannot run again, it takes political courage to be as direct and as frank as he is with the electorate.

As an aside, it has been fascinating as an Australian to observe Americans on this issue since Obama drew the (indisputable) success of Australia's gun law reform to the attention of the US public as a precedent worth following.

John Howard, Australia's very conservative Prime Minister at the time of the Port Arthur massacre asked the then Leader of the Opposition Labor Party, Kym Beazley, to join him to campaign for tighter gun control. Against vociferous opposition from a small minority of boys and girls who liked their guns, they succeeded.

Howard publicly acknowledged that Beazley could have ended the Howard Government had he decided to play cynical politics on the issue. He thanked him for that and has called the suite of legislative changes "the Howard-Beazley reforms" ever since. (Don't worry, such bipartisanship is as rare in Australia as it is in Washington DC.)

But John Howard was attacked to his face by members of the NRA (having accepted their invitation to speak to explain his reforms; they presumably expected him to admit it was an error in hindsight because, when Howard instead explained that the reforms had succeeded on every measure they were designed to address and that the NRA was misleading Americans by suggesting otherwise), the audience ended his address early, accusing him of being "a traitor to conservatism".

In the magical land of Conservativia, apparently one must wear a gun proudly even to bed,and one must never, ever admit it if they forget...so little kiddies can never, ever sense that they may be able to breathe if they're not always bearing arms!

I myself have been warned repeatedly against my presumption to interfere in US politics, most recently by an invited guest at a policy forum of which I am a longtime member. In Melbourne, Australia, my home town if you were wondering.

And "interfering", by the way, is defined as seeking to correct incorrect statements of fact; as querying what seemed to be logical non sequiturs in his position; and, finally (when we'd both long since become quite annoyed by the sight and sound of each other), asked how - in view of what he declared his most 'compelling' argument being that "most gun massacres in the US take place in declared 'gun free zones' " - had defined the said zone for his statistical analysis; was it a state? Or a city? Perhaps a defined region such as, say, New England? As I still had no response, I suggested "a kindergarten perhaps?"

Suffice to say, he was not pleased. Nor was the moderator.

Nor did I he ever respond.

The second issue is 'ObamaCare'. Please do not misunderstand me: I do not consider Medicare, Australia's centralised, universal health insurance system even remotely close to perfect. There are many things I'd seek to fix tomorrow if I could; just the first one being the lack of a price point for patients is an incentive to overuse the service. That is one reason the increasing costs of the scheme threaten to swallow our Federal budget (though having our budget deficit and our level of net Government debt is an issue the US cannot even aspire to at present) but, given the choice between needing to trim the cost now and then, or accepting that the poorest 40% of the citizens of the wealthiest nation on Earth struggle for access to even the most rudimentary levels of health care which contributes to the US having a much lower life expectancy than, among others, Australia and Mexico.

In that context, I cannot conceive how ANY American could think that could possibly be acceptable.

[spunksupplier]

Socialist here. I believe in EQUALITY for all. For me, that includes economic (income and wealth) equality, alongside all other forms of equality (from health care to education, from housing to justice). Full redistribution ... getting rid of the "1%" (at both ends of the spectrum). Politics ought not to have anything to do with sexual orientation, as all forms of sexual orientation should be truly equal - and therefore beyond politics.

[simpleguy305]

I work in politics... I love fucking Republicans and talking shit about them while my dick is in their ass... especially the kind married to women...

[Toon]

I'm liberal as hell. I supported Hillary -- even though she didn't inspire me like her husband did. If the republicans weren't so racist and christian,  I might go along with some of their fiscal policies. But no. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay and anti-war. I am an island, politically.

[breedmypiggycunt]

I’m an Australian right-winger with a generally libertarian philosophical worldview.

(Just to confuse Americans, our main right-wing party is called the Liberal Party and is regarded as a ‘broad church’ of liberals and conservatives. It’s important to understand that Australia is a less conspicuously religious country overall than the US and our political parties owe a great deal to the British tradition; at least in their origins. The Liberal Party was formed in 1943 from the ruins of its predecessors to be pro-business (especially small and medium business) and pro-middle class, as opposed to the main left-wing party, the Labor* Party, which was (is) trade union based.

* Note the word, “Labor” is spelled in accord with the American custom, not the British/Australian “labour”; this reflected the unions’ greater resentment of Britain cf the US upon its formation in 1901. Although most of the ALP is reasonably pro-US, it’s probably a source of slight embarrassment nowadays as, if anything, they tend to resent the US far more now than Britain.)

The Liberal Party has always favoured smaller government and fewer encumbrances of personal liberty but has always believed that governments have a role in protecting the weaker and moderating the effects of pure market forces. Certainly, I’d argue that, if you compared the political spectrum in Australia against that of the US by aligning bell curves to reflect the spread across its entirety, the entire Australian polity is slightly more left-wing than its American counterpart. As such, conservatism in terms of social policy is less entrenched here than in the US (although, perhaps counter-intuitively, social change is possibly more difficult in Australia).

My politics tend to be libertarian in both economic and social policies, ie I favour smaller government and less interference and regulation in most economic and social policy areas; certainly , I’m generally a sceptic of government as a ‘cure all’ albeit with notable “exceptions”. The most obvious “exception” to many Americans is my strong pro-gun control stance (although it was introduced by one of the more socially conservative Liberal Prime Ministers, John Howard. (Howard is a social conservative but an economic ‘dry’ or libertarian/neo-con.)

Regarding “gay politics”, I find ‘trendy’ LGBTQ politics frustrating and one-dimensional. 

I’ve had close gay acquaintances demand to know how I can “possibly support” the supposedly anti-gay right wing party as strongly as I do; I’ve literally been abused hysterically by friends of friends for my political stance and had those good friends “defend” me by quietly saying that I’m not as bad as other right-wingers. Just one such example was over my support for exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for conscientious objections to SSM. My support for SSM was primarily on libertarian grounds - that government had no role in telling two consenting adults the nature of their relationship - and it’s on libertarian principles that I favour those of sincere religious belief being able to respectfully decline to service same-sex weddings. 

I abhor the idea that we’ve swapped a religious orthodoxy imposing its view of what’s right and moral onto others for a secular orthodoxy insisting their right to impose onto others their view of what’s right and moral. The idea that anyone opposed to SSM is a bigot is simply absurd and wrong. Very wrong.

A part of my discomfort with LGBTQ politics is my libertarian and individualistic philosophy. Equally (long before I sorted out my (bi)sexuality in my own mind), I’ve never defined myself by where I like to place my penis and have always been uncomfortable with those who seem to regard it as their defining characteristic (be they LGBTQ activists or be they heterosexual pigs).

I don’t have a bisexual view of politics on any issue. I have a bisexual view of my sex life, that’s it.

[analluv27]

When I was younger I was Republican because I believe in smaller government and a strong military. Four years of the military stripped away those delusions. Was a Democrat for a short time then went Independent. Now I vote for who is going to look out for the people and not just there own

[sthrnguy]

Hardline libertarian here, but tend to vote Republican as long as its not a hardline social conservative.