Liberals and Conservatives Unite

:) Smiley · August 30, 2003, 03:39

I've known many people who've had strong political stances both to the left and the right. These people may disagree on just about every major political issue, but there is one place where they both agree.

That one place is that their politics would improve the society of the nation.

You've got Bible-thumpers who want to implement fundamentalist rule. Then there are Islamicists who want to implement their type of fundamentalism. You've got hippies who want to ban cars. You've got those who want to ban guns, and those who want everyone to own an AK47. There are labor unions and there are business associations. All these groups and causes though seek to better the community and perhaps the nation or world as a whole. Whether or not they actually do is questionable, but that is their goal.

Then you have those who don't give a &@#$. They don't care about what goes on as long as they're doing OK. If these Apathetics were a political party in the USA, they would outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. After all, less than half of the eligible voter population votes

Activists on both sides ought to realize that these Apathetics are actually the biggest threat to society and not the opposing ideology, as those who don't care about the politics of a society generally don't care about the society as a whole. On the other hand, a "pincer attack" from the Left and the Right could easily stamp out this apathetic, "me first" attitude.

Nubclear · August 30, 2003, 03:41

OK. And?

MrFun · August 30, 2003, 03:46

I think most of the political apathy comes from disappointments with the way the electoral system operates -- or the fact we have an electoral system.

:) Smiley · August 30, 2003, 03:53

The electoral system is similar in many places yet enthusiasm differs. The real problem is that people are lazy and self-centered.

Nubclear · August 30, 2003, 03:55

Especially Americans.

st_swithin · August 30, 2003, 03:58

Especially rich, white Americans.

Nubclear · August 30, 2003, 04:03

Especially rich, white, republican Americans.

:) Smiley · August 30, 2003, 04:09

As I see politics there are two sides. Those who give a #%# about the rest of their community/nation/world and those who don't.

There are plenty of people who pretend to be in the first category but are really in the second. Such as self-proclaimed commies who patronize corporate restaurants.

The ideological difference between such people is bigger than that between commies and fundies. You hear of people, even major politicians, who change from one side to the other over their life. They have found the old ideas not in line with what they feel would improve the world, and found a new one. Lazy bums on the other hand, tend to remain so.

:) Smiley · August 30, 2003, 04:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Especially rich, white, republican Americans.

Among the worst offenders. Those who support conservatism because it serves their wallet.

The flipside are those who support liberalism so they party down.

Az · August 30, 2003, 05:16

what do you mean by "party down"?

st_swithin · August 30, 2003, 05:41

STOP DRUMMING - WE HEAR YOU ALREADY, AND WE'RE IGNORING YOU.

Solly · August 30, 2003, 06:28

1 vote makes no difference.

Only irrational people would assume it does.

Whaleboy · August 30, 2003, 07:56

Couldn't be more correct!!! Its unfair to say that apathetics always default to conservatism, so I'll keep quiet on this

.

Nonetheless... If only people would think more! :evilliberalgrin: Having said that, I would rather people be apathetic than fly planes into buildings.

There is, imo, a limit to where peoples political, social and philosophical views should take them. By all means, influence, protest, write, debate etc, even the most extreme views, but killing people or actively impeding them? Thats too much, no matter what the view.

red_jon · August 30, 2003, 08:03

I don't believe my politics would improve society. Just for me.

Slaves are fun.

Oerdin · August 30, 2003, 08:06

Especially sex slaves.

GePap · August 30, 2003, 08:08

NEVER!!!,

unless it is the libertarians and objectivists we decide to gang up on!

Whaleboy · August 30, 2003, 08:12

Quote:

unless it is the libertarians and objectivists we decide to gang up on!

Bring it on!!

GePap · August 30, 2003, 08:14

* imagines elijah and bezerker in same team...

Nah, just TOOOOO weird, that.

red_jon · August 30, 2003, 08:17

Oerdin, I like your thinking. I'm appointing you position as the head of the Ministry of Truth.

Whaleboy · August 30, 2003, 08:17

We should do this as a deathmatch on UT!

EDIT: And I second red-jon

Az · August 30, 2003, 08:19

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
NEVER!!!,

unless it is the libertarians and objectivists we decide to gang up on!

Rogan Josh · August 30, 2003, 08:22

Isn't this a contradiction? If you form a party of apathetics, they are no longer apathetic.

Whaleboy · August 30, 2003, 08:25

We'll, you'd need to dose them up on beer, football, and anything else that would inhibit the process of thinking. Unfortunately, that would result in the BNP, but hey you wanted to know!

Oerdin · August 30, 2003, 10:04

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon
Oerdin, I like your thinking. I'm appointing you position as the head of the Ministry of Truth.

What's the salary?

red_jon · August 30, 2003, 10:13

12 sex slaves a day and 3 shiny pennies.

Elijah, you get to not be enslaved

Sarxis · August 30, 2003, 12:21

"Liberals and Conservatives UNITE! Form of... Beurocratic Elitists!"

Spiffor · August 30, 2003, 12:55

Actually, I have read quite a few things about the non-participation issue (it is the core of my studies this year).
There are many reasons as to why people participate or not, and you are SURE to be wrong if you assume one really stands out.

To begin, there are two kind of comparisons in participation rates:
- the internal comparison (who in country X votes ?)
- the external comparison (does country X vote more than country Y ?)

For the internal comparison, there are quite a few things that explain voting variations, but the main one is age. Older people vote more. As simple as that.
Of course, then you have involvement in society at large (which has a big impact on involvement in politics in particular), you have income differences etc.

For the external comparison, the most important reason by far is the stake of the election. For example, in Malta, all the power is kept by a one-chamber Parliament elected every five years IIRC. No Mayors, no president, nobody else is elected, and the Parliament is the only source of power. There is 95% participation in Malta. Of course, the Amreican system with tons of checks and balances, with an election every two years etc. is less attractive. BTW, Switzerland also sees less attendence in elections because every important decision will be taken by referendum anyway.

Besides, elections are not the only way to show you're interested in society. Actually, the US is a country far less apathetic than, say, Austria, because so many people are involved in neighborhood associations, sport associations and the like. While not necessarily being involved in Politics, these people don't only think in terms of "me-me-me", or are lazy. Simply, the political system, the political parties etc don't give any incentive to vote.

Imran Siddiqui · August 30, 2003, 14:30

Quote:

Among the worst offenders. Those who support conservatism because it serves their wallet.

Why is this bad? They support an ideology because it is best for them. I'd imagine there are plenty on the left who do the same (the poor who support leftism because they give them higher welfare checks).

Oerdin · August 30, 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon
12 sex slaves a day and 3 shiny pennies.

Elijah, you get to not be enslaved

Woot! Sign me up.

Whaleboy · August 30, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

12 sex slaves a day and 3 shiny pennies.

Elijah, you get to not be enslaved

Hey!!! I'd make a great sex slave!!