Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
I just try to be practical when it's time to vote, and ask what the actual real-world impact of X candidate being elected will be. If I'm convinced that in spite of their holding social views I don't agree with, none of those will actually be put into practice, the impact of the candidate's economic policy massively outweighs any antiquated social perspectives.
|
The problem is that we still need more progressive policies to address our still very present systemic and social inequalities. Addressing these issues isn't simply a matter of not enacting regressive and reactionary legislation. There's still a lot of work to be done.
Quote:
|
Maintaining a litmus test on social issues has caused and continues to cause a lot of problems as far as I'm concerned in the political discourse because it allows these things to be used as wedge issues on which elections are decided when they have a much smaller overall impact than other, less emotionally charged issues. In my opinion it's important not to fall into all or nothing thinking.
|
They have lot smaller overall impact for you (and I'm using "you" in a broad sense), because you're a white dude (as am I).
Quote:
|
For example, if I like everything a staunchly pro-life, abortion is murder candidate has to say on other issues, and he's clear that in spite of his views the law is settled and he will not support anti-abortion legislation, I won't let our different perspectives prevent me from voting for him.
|
Right, but it's hardly ever that simple. Usually these views are rooted in patriarchal beliefs that bleed into other policies.