Do you have face-to-face political discussions with people in an attempt to influence

Even though I have strong conservative political opinions, I rarely discuss politics with people. It's just too frustrating, and I can't
imagine my opinion will mean much anyway. People get their
cues from Television and radio.

 

The only way I think I will try to influence anyone is with my vote.

 

I used to work at a thinktank on Capitol Hill for 6 years. Got so sick of politics from that, so I generally avoid talking politics at all with anyone (even my mom, who keeps trying to drag me into political discussions...)

I'm pretty much the same way about religion. I have my beliefs, but I don't feel the need to pressure other people into holding them.

 

I limit the people I will discuss with face to face. I generally avoid talking to people that take party-line positions, in my experience, those people are the ones who are of little value in discussions. Their views are generally a bandwagon platform that cannot be changed unless the whole party does (but nobody here is like that to my knowledge! It's hardly a cold-and-fast rule, just how it is in my life). The good thing about being a libertarian-leaning person is that one has some common ground with both sides of the spectrum in discussion and can ease slowly into the areas of disagreement.

Some of my views concerning the current state of our government/systems are so incendiary to some that I have to keep them to myself for fear of hurting their nationalistic sense of pride and ruining our friendship.

 

Negatory on specific discussions, I usually just say that I believe both parties can do really good things, and both parties can do really horrible things, and it is naive to believe that either party is completely good and correct in everything they do. It is difficult to argue with that, and it causes people to at least pause a second and question themselves.

 

I sometimes tell people how/what I think but it's never with the intent to influence. Sharing political/religious/moral views is a part of a developing personal relationship. I don't think that you can avoid these topics if you are seeking a closer relationship with someone. Keep in mind though, I'm not saying that people need to agree in order to become closer friends. Clearly they do not.

 

I enjoy a good debate, whether about religion or politics - as long as the other people have a point of view and don't let their egos get in the way.

Of course, a cold drink is always a good tool to have on your side during a debate

 

I detest political debates.

 

Since I teach political science, I have to. As the teacher, however, I have to keep my opinions to myself so as to not appear biased. It's a riot to hear my students share their opinions. It's so obvious they just regurgitate the crap their parents have spoon fed them without ever giving it a thought. Ask them why they believe a certain thing, and it's like a deer in the headlights.

-Matt

 

My view is that most debates in politics or religon are not really about truth versus untruth, good versus bad, or right versus wrong. I find them occasionally interesting from the point of view of better understanding the different points of view. People can get so upset though that it is not something that I will typically bring up. I remember having some interesting political discussions with a brother-in-law 30 years ago. We then didn't discuss politics again for 25 years. The last time we had a political discussion was a couple years ago and my brother-in-law got hugely upset, to my surprise. I simpy questioned the old argument he was making that welfare was really such a huge drain on government resources.

 

I know that your comment was made in a somewhat casual manner but there are two points I'd like to make. The first is that in order to really discuss that issue, you'd have to define what you mean by the term "welfare." We know that there really isn't any such thing as welfare but it's a collective term used to describe a variety of social support programs as well as a sort of philosophical premise related to the obligation of society to it's citizens. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, AFDC, unemployment insurance, etc. could all be described as "welfare" programs in that they are run by the government and distribute money or goods to citizens in need. Now the other point I'd want to make is your use (or perhaps your brother-in-law's use) of the term "drain." This term implies that the resources are being used improperly. Technically, this is an inappropriate term to use since all of the above programs (as well as all the others I didn't mention) are being run in accordance with current US laws. In other words, this is not a "drain" on resources, it is the purpose of these resources. Your brother-in-law might want to make the case that taxes are too high and that is a valid political/philosophical position but it seems clear that he is in the minority within our country because taxes seem to continually increase. This then goes to who we elect as our reps in the government and how we hold them accountable for their promises/actions. It also goes to the rights of the minority within a democratic republic. To my way of thinking, this stuff is best approached from a "gee, this is all really complicated and while I have some thoughts/feelings on these topics, I'm not sure that I'm really an authority." Part of the problem is that these issues have become incredibly complicated and it's very hard for the average person to understand all the interconnecting factors. I've found, much like mattbrent said, that once you start asking people why they believe thisorthat they have a very difficult time putting together a cohesive explanation. Sometimes I imagine that they're simply repeating somthing that they think they remember that Keanu Reeves said on a talk show. It sounded good to them at the time but maybe it was because they had just pounded down three wine coolers. Not good.
Thanks for the political discussion opportunity.

 

A couple of my coworkers like to discuss politics, which I find refreshing. It's not so much discussion to convince others - more like a friendly banter.

Do you feel like you as their teacher are sometimes successful getting them excited about politics?

 

Oh definitely! Once I get them thinking, it gets interesting. I usually have to be a mixture of sarcastic, funny, serious, and just plain absurd. Once I can get their attention, it makes all the difference.

-Matt

 

I was in a conversation with a person the other day that said they can not tolerate on millisecond of Fox News, so I can gleam a great deal about their political views from that, but for me it is fun because I'll just wait for the correct moment and then I get to tease them about being closed minded. I'll also get to ask them why they hate fox news so much, and doesn't it bother you that you're being taught to hate? Don't you see an issue there?

 

All excellent points and far deeper thought than what the two minute conversation was that I was referring to. My brother-in-law and his son and I were sitting around drinking our coffee and watching some morning news. I really enjoy my brother-in-law's company but he and his family are utra-conservative politicly and I'm more on the liberal side. They made some comment on the news about taxes. My brother-in-law made some comment that sounded like 1970's Republican talking point about welfare reform being a major requirement. I simply stated that I thought that the Iraq war was a much bigger drain on the economy and asked my nephew if he knew the approximate spending percentages. At which point my nephew said that Ronald Reagan had taken care of welfare reform. He thought much more was spent on the Iraq war. At that point my brother-in-law blew a gasket, not apparently directed at anyone just so upset he had to leave the room. A moment later my dear sister came into the room and accusingly asked my nephew if he had been discussing politics with his Dad. He said it was an accident. I assume that my brother-in-law must sometimes listen to political demogoguery that conservative pundits spew on talk radio. This seemed to have him primed and ready to explode. Anyway, it is an example of why I don't usually discuss politics unless it is with someone that I share a common view.

 

I find that anyone who watches only media from one political spectrum, slowly learns to hate the ideas from the other side of the spectrum, but both sides have lots of good ideas, the noise each side throws at the other is what makes it difficult for anyone to figure out what anyone really stands for. Also, since the name of the bills that get passed in congress and signed by the president often have one name attached to them, say "health reform" but include many items that have no relation to the name of the bill, you end up in situations where you're passing reform of federal college loan programs, but nobody is aware of this because the legislation is discussed as health care, but can be about anything, contain anything - which makes it quite literally impossible for anyone, including the people writing the bills and voting for them, to understand what is being passed into law. As long as they get their particular special interest included, I don't believe anyone in Washington votes for anything, for any other reason than this, the rest is a dog and pony show. Maybe if there was some actual "Reform" from our "Reform" president, congress would have more than an 11% approval rating. Discussion of specific issues is sort of moot when taking this perspective.

 

I wonder what kind of influence the president has over congressional policy? He's also kind of stuck when it comes to the political side of it, if he upsets congress he won't be able to push his agenda. But perhaps he should go ahead and upset them anyway.

What I would like to see is a quota of laws that must be abolished every year by congress. I know that's simplistic, but you get the general idea. Our laws are a glut of unintuitive nonsense. The best thing we could do is find every outmoded, irrelevant, overbearing, unconstitutional, law and toss them out. This is even more important on the state and local level.

That had nothing to do with this thread's title. Sorry

 

mmm.

I have strong feelings in regards to politics and religion and have studied both disciplines to varying degrees. Only thing that doing so has taught me is that discussing either is generally in poor taste in any of my social circles, including the kitchen table.

Strange really.
ITJD

 

I broke the cardinal rule of costumer service and disagreed with a costumer's political position the other day. It was interesting but I left wondering if she felt the same way. Oops.