Do you ignore certain parts of platforms?
 

Having just read nittanyalum's interesting post about worry about Sarah Palin's ability to enact social change based on her very conservative, religion-based policy stances (specifically with regard to things like abortion and gay marriage), I realized something I found pretty interesting:

I don't pay attention to Republican or Democrat social policies on a "sweeping" level, because I assume they will never be enacted.

For instance, my personal feeling after fairly extensive study and analysis is that the Supreme Court would have to undergo significant change to even reconsider Roe v. Wade, not to mention overturn it. For that reason, I just don't pay attention to abortion stances, because I don't find them important (and the fact that I'm staunchly pro-choice may play a role in that, as a biasing agent). Many social policies seem like the hands-off status quo is quite sustainable, and that most politicians seem more interested in getting a sound bite than actually working toward a "fix" or a change. For that reason, I assume most social change promises are blowing smoke up our collective asses - there just hasn't been much traction on anything at a national level, although I do worry somewhat about the anti-gay marriage bans at a state level (even while I concede that is probably the "correct" way for it to be handled under the Constitution).

However, I find economic or foreign policy issues to be far easier for one party to force through. A classic example is the UIGEA legislation, which essentially attempted to choke off internet poker - while insanely stupid, the Republicans were able to attach it to a port security bill with the solid and nearly unanimous support of Democrats. I find that the "dominant" party (and also the President, even with an opposition Congress) can often make significant and strong changes on economic or foreign policy issues - see: the buildup to an awkward war in Iraq, Clinton's awkward balanced budget, or even Reaganomics. For this reason, I focus much more strongly on Obama's spending promises versus McCain's inconsistent history - this has an interesting side-effect of making me something of a limited-issue voter, should I choose to vote for either. This seems strange, since I feel fairly informed as a voter.

Am I alone in doing this?

With the seeming gridlock in Congress in recent years, do we really expect everything that is promised by either side? What do you worry about or focus on when it comes to political platforms?

you are not alone...

although i consider myself a democrat, i have crossed the lines a time or two. i totally agree that some of these issues will NEVER come up again after this election, the abortion example is a very good one... i try to mainly focus on what is said by the individual, compare it to their actions, and watch for any recanting later.

I was a 110% Hillary supporter. her stance on abortion, or prayer in schools, or anything along those lines didnt matter to me. i have my personal opinion and thats that. i went by her actions on what is happening now, and what will be done. nothing more, nothing less.

there just isnt enough time to save the world in 4 years lol! we all appreciate the gesture, but really, it cant all be done, it wont all be done, so stick to the basics. i guess the rule "Keep it simple, stupid" is what we ultimately need our ideal candidate/president to follow...

eta: Violet added another point that should be left alone...i dont give a rats a** about what they feel gay marriage/life partner/relationships should be. i have my opinion, and it shouldnt bother anyone that it doesnt personally impact. i worry about what EVERYONE is affected by: gas prices, taxes, terrorism, the war in Iraq, healthcare...that might be it lol!

I can't imagine not considering a candidate's stance on issues in making a decision.

What you have to decide is what the relative priority is among his/her ability to make policy of his issues and the likelihood of it happening. Whether you can count on Congress to agree and push something through, or to disagree and block it.

I also look, for someone who's been in the Congress, at how many cosponsors s/he has been successful in getting. That says something about a candidate's willingness and ability to get others to work toward a goal--an essential part of leadership (and why Ron Paul's candidacy was doomed).

That's why I'm not supporting anyone this year. I'll vote, but neither is going to be able to do a quarter of what he's espousing.

Some things you have to pay attention to and some you don't because sometime I think that whatever is really important may never get done in 4 to 8 years...abortion however...we need to keep an eye on...if what is happening in Montana (and some other states) is any indication, it could give the Roe vs Wade ruling some legs to run on....

I don't know about ignoring - but certainly, I give some parts of a platform more attention.

One of my pet peeves is voters who will work themselves into a frenzy over the presidential candidate, but have no idea who their senators or congressman are, and put no thought or research into deciding for whom to vote. The bottom of the ticket may not be as glamourous, but it will probably have a greater impact on your life.

I don't pay attention at all to abortion, for the reasons KSigRC outlined. Despite what is going on in the states, I think there's almost no chance that Roe or Casey (i.e. the case everyone forgets about) are overturned, or at least in a substantial enough manner to make abortion illegal everywhere. I just don't think you'll ever have a majority of the court who will be so eager to overturn that precedent. You'd need a very conservative justice who doesn't care about precedent, and I don't think that's happening anytime soon. I think it's a hot button issue that gets people's attention, but I don't think anything is changing.

I do pay attention to the spending programs that are proposed, as well as the promises regarding taxation.

To be honest, I was using "ignore" in the thread title as shorthand for this exact notion - feel free to use this definition going forward.

that is true, too. who knows? they may actually do some of the things we cant possibly imagine they will have time/ability to do. while i do have an opinion on abortion, it wont sway me in the direction of one candidate. there are more pressing issues at hand to me.

While this isn't a push-button issue for me, and while I agree that we are not likely to see Roe or Casey overruled ouright, I think we very well could see their application limited. The Court has shown itself to be quite willing to respect stare decisis by not overruling precedent outright while limiting the effect of that precedent to the point that it might as well be overruled.

So I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Court chipping away at earlier decisions.

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie and I do not see this Court as being so bound by precedent as some of you guys above do. I've seen them make decisions exactly as MysticCat says - without overtly overruling a previous decision, but subverting it so far beyond its original intent as to make the original case virtually obsolete.

Justice Stevens isn't going to live forever, and McCain has expressed admiration for Roberts and Alito. Roe v. Wade isn't the only decision out there, either. The Court has so much more influence than people seem to realize, along a huge scope of issues.

That being said - I choose a party platform based on how well I identify with it as a whole. I have a degree in Economics and spent a good bit of time in college and afterwards studying historical econ. I am not a believer in a pure capitalism system. I realize this sounds preposterous, but I am a bit of a fiscally conservative socialist. It's much harder to explain than I have time to type this morning - but it's based on historical precedent partially here and partially in other countries. Since republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in years, and I am a social liberal, I have no reason not to align myself with the democratic party.

An absolutely fascinating book for anyone who is interested in why some people identify with one party over another is Moral Politics by George Lakoff. It's not without flaws, but it's a great read.

I'm a SCOTUS junkie as well (law school has only increased my SCOTUS nerdness), and I would slightly disagree with some of your post. I don't want to derail the thread, however, so if you have any thoughts, or want to discuss it more, feel free to PM me. I'm always up for discussing SCOTUS issues.

And this is my hope/expectation with the judicial appointments that I'd like to see. And really, it's what I think would be the best resolution to the abortion issue and one that would probably reflect the views of most Americans. There seem to be relatively few people at both ends of the abortion rights spectrum: from all abortions legal at any time to no abortions legal at any time for any reason, and yet, the issue is almost always discussed in these terms.

ETA: Interestingly, this was linked on Instapundit today and seemed topical. It's about abortion not being as much of a political issue: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/09/i...ncreasing.html

So, I suppose I ignore any promises to ban all abortions but I hope for appointments more likely to restrict it in some cases.

Basically, I ignore most of both parties' platforms. Up until W and the Republican congress during his administration, I regarded the Republicans as less likely to assume that domestic government bloat and intervention were the answers to every issue. (Obviously, I had to be willing to ignore drug policy during my whole life and a few other social issues to maintain this delusion.)

Now, I'm looking at judicial appointments and whether I think a candidate recognizes that military strength (and resolve?) is probably the most important aspect of foreign policy. ETA: I'm interested in American economic strength as well but both parties have strengths and weaknesses on that, I think.

When you refer to it as SCOTUS, especially in a non-legal forum, the junkie part may be a tad bit redundant. Just sayin' :p

Haha - I came to terms with my nerdness a while ago, although maybe I shouldn't flaunt it quite so much...

LOL. Welcome to my world.

Just to clarify, I didn't express worry about SP's ability to enact anything (nor have I ever mentioned gay marriage in any posts), I brought back my concerns about her extremist views as a reflection on the top of the ticket and the decision-making that must have gone into bringing her on as the VP nominee.

So what do you law nerds think about this:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...7-faf565ec9105

To me it reads a little like Biden hagiography, but what do you all think? It's linked on Instapundit too.

I'll PM you - Rosen has some interesting things to say, but I don't want to derail this thread.

This should probably go in the "Election 2008" thread. Unless, of course, you just find it that hard to take off your Partisanship hat when you post.

I think social change is much harder to push. It is something we are all more qualified to have an opinion on, and thus there is a lot more convincing to do. With that said, I vote based more so on social issues then economy or foreign affairs. I am HARDLY an economist, and foreign affairs have way too many complex factors for someone other than a staunch analyst to decide. However, I have faith in my freedoms, and that is something I am proud of. It bothers me all to hell to see someone stand behind a gun rack with a billion shotguns and preach about family values, a spin term for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage propaganda. I'm not a girl, nor gay, nor have a gun... but Its MY Body, MY bedroom, and MY gunrack and I should do what I want with it... AND HELL its MY lungs and MY brain, I should smoke pot if I want to!!!!!

So you're voting Libertarian, right?

Well, after Obama's saying he's going to give even more $$ to charter schools, it looks like I'm going to have to. :rolleyes:

More details? Because, here, the charter schools simply get the appropriation for each individual student that the state would be giving to the school that kid went to. There is no more funding than public schools get. Additionally, some of them are really phenomenal. There is an Automotive Academy associated with Ford, an Early College for Health care associated with the health system I work for, University Prep geared for college bound students and even foreign language immersion schools. Then again, some of them are awful and simply hold the kids who get expelled from the other public schools..

Presumably, when he says he'll "give more money" that means either:

a.) Schools will get more money than they do now (so, more than the "normal" school would get), or
b.) He'll push for more charter schools, period, to increase the total amount going to charter schools.

Given that you yourself noted the extreme hit-or-miss nature of charter programs (in addition to the fact that there are disagreements over the scope and nature of what should be a "charter" program), either of these solutions seem like a band-aid rather than an actual solution to many (likely including myself and 33).

I did last election... but I don't like Barr. Secondly, I don't believe in having no civil rights laws for the private sectors. Discrimination should be outlawed. I also believe in freedoms such as free trade... but I think we need limitations and control in order to not kill the economy (BUT, this is not my speciality, and I often have conflicting views that turns me to the extreme Laissez-faire capitalism), ... AND I was a little misleading in my last post... I believe in gun control. I believe a citizen has the right to control the gun, if the government can determine that he is able to use it safely. Our guns should be treated like our cars, esp. since guns are even more so a lethal weapon.

AND, I dont want to TOTALLY waste my vote by voting libertarian. I talk and campaign for it, but really, there is only two parties up for the spot, red or blue...

When asking for details, I kind of wanted to know when he said this and in what context because it's not something outlined in his education plan at all. I'm really on the fence about charter schools and would prefer that they not take money away from public schools but have seen some really great ones too.

I thought money for charter schools and voucher systems were a Republican thing.

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

You send a message, but unless you can put together a historic movement, you can't expect that your vote will contribute to the kind of government you'll see in action in the next few years, really. This didn't keep me from voting Libertarian in 1992, but I can't see myself doing it again because I see foreign policy differently now. (I certainly might vote Libertarian at the state and local level, depending on a couple of issues that vary among candidates in the party and the likelihood that the office I'm voting for would address them.)

Sure, if enough people voted Libertarian, the other parties might recognize they needed to change their own platforms to appeal to these voters, but when you're talking less than 1% of total voters, it's hard to see how it's going to play out that way.

Like your signature says, sometimes you decide you're better off trying to vote for the major party candidate who you think will screw it up a little less.

Idealism is swell and all Ksigkid, but I def. have an opinion of who I want in the McCain vs. Obama battle... I voted for Ron Paul this year, because he is someone I absolutely believe in, (and I knew my state was going towards the candidate I wanted in both parties) and he was garnering more than 1%, so his impact makes a difference, he did say something in the primaries, and still is... Barr, well, the man is totally off the radar.

Of course, if people complain about the candidate I DO vote for, if I vote for Barr, I could just throw my hands in the air and say, "Hey, I didnt vote for him."

Haha...I should probably be clearer and say that I'm voting for who I think is the lesser of ALL evils.

Ooooohhh. I LIKE that. Since I've always felt gun control means hitting your target.

yes, well, my fear is what the target is... you end up on the wrong side of the gun and you will find your view on gun control a little different as well as a warm wet sensation running down your leg...

I am voting for the candidate I feel would make the best president.

Novel, I know. :rolleyes:

Let us know how that works out.

ETA: Although I felt strongly about doing it myself in the primary, it didn't work out as well as I hoped. I can understand though feeling that going with the closest to the ideal is appealing.

I can tell you how it works out now - my candidate may not win, but I will not have contributed to continuing the status quo, which MARK MY WORDS is what you will get with either of the two main party candidates.

Let me know how the whole "voting for the lesser of two evils" or "voting for someone I don't really support but feel I should vote for" or "voting AGAINST a candidate more than voting for one" works out for you!

eta - that is an inclusive "you", directed not just to UGAalum but all those who have stated a variation of the above rationales for voting for Obama or McCain.

Interesting, from swtx's signature, I googled and found the Baldwin site -- for all those arguing that who is elected President could ultimately have no direct effect on the abortion issue, this from the Baldwin issues link:

Not saying this would happen (lots of politics would come into play), but it makes the point that it COULD happen.

I realized much more of a jerk than I intend, sorry.

There's something to be said for voting for who you most believe in, but there's also something to be said for being more pragmatic.

Those of us with lesser of two evils thinking hope that we get a government that is more likely to reflect our beliefs than the other government that could possibly be voted in. And it really will come down to one or the other. And they are both likely to not change much, you are right.

On the other hand you can have the satisfaction of not having participated with a third or minor party vote, but that's about all you'll get.

I think the thing to do is to push for the people you want at the primary level of the big parties, like the Paul folks did this year. Or to push for the establishment of a more parliamentary system, but I don't think that's likely to happen.

It could if more than a fraction of one percent of the population were willing to vote for Baldwin and that if elected he could actually make that change.

It would be a losing proposition for any elected official to vote for it unless we had a really clear and somewhat limited definition of what unborn meant.

As much as I'm anti-abortion, I recognize that it's a really small segment of the population who wants to insist on absolutely no abortions for any reason from the moment of conception on. Even many people who personally believe life begins then recognize that it's not a standard that the public at large would be willing to live with. (For instance, I think the number of people who think that IVF or the storage of embryos for IVF is wrong is TINY, and yet if you grant any conceived embryos legal rights IVF gets weird really fast). So is unborn person any implanted embryo? Any month-old, implanted embryo? And unless they could find the terms on which a consensus could form, they'd likely be voted out and the act repealed with the next congress.

Or so I think.

I'm not throwing this accusation at you Nitty, but doomsday scenarios can be powerful motivators, but it doesn't mean that it's a reasonable or rational motivator. A coat hanger and "we won't go back" doesn't seem reasonable to most people. It's almost the intellectual equivalent of the mangled fetus pictures from Pro-Lifers. Even if Baldwin says he wants to go back, we won't.

Being pragmatic seems to me to mean settling for more of the same. I'm tired of it.

Just here on GC - look how many intelligent, politically concerned GCers have stated they are voting for a candidate they do not feel would be the best president/senator/whatever. Imagine what kind of change could be wrought if everyone STOPPED being pragmatic, and instead became a little idealistic.

You may say that I'm a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us.

Thank you, John Lennon. :)