(06-29-2020, 06:23 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote:

(06-29-2020, 11:02 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I'm fine with the idea that you shouldn't build your own identity around most ideologies, but even that is an ideological concept that defines a person. I think you can make exceptions for some ideologies and must make it for religion (just because I think you can't really be religious without that being your identity). I'm not fine with saying that certain ideological positions shouldn't be attacked. All ideologies are not equal, and I showed that in my post above. Socialism is one of them, whether you agree or not. It's caused more death than any ideology in the history of the world.

The reason people didn't have problem mixing politics 50 years ago is because the central question was one of federal or state power, and there was enough individualism for people and candidates to speak their mind on any issue. You didn't have homogeneous political classes. Now you do. Solved another problem for you.

Which political class is homogenous?

Today? Both are, relatively speaking. While there are variations of extremes within parties, almost all of the issues of the day have been adopted by one side or the other. Pro-gun? Which party are you? Pro-abortion? Which party? Pro-environment? Pro-military? 

You can do this, for the most part, with every major issue. When you only need to ask a person one question to know which party they support, it's indicative of group think. It was not nearly this bad in the 70's.

---