Independents, moderates, and non-partisans

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
Post Reply
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Independents, moderates, and non-partisans

Post by Bootstrap »

Dan brought this up in another thread. I'd like to quote it here and comment on it.
Dan Z wrote:Good point Josh. Perhaps I should define terms, at least the way I see them. :)

I think "Independent" is perhaps a better term than "Non-partisan." At any given time an independent may favor one party or another (depending on who is in office, and where the party platform is at the moment)...so I suppose at that moment they could be considered "partisan" in their leanings. But they would not have the same loyalty and commitment to a party's ideology and candidates that a true partisan would have, and they might just as easily lean the other direction down the road. There are certainly independents who support Trump right now - and independents who don't. An independent probably wouldn't say, for example, "the Republican party is the more noble party," but they might say "President Trump is the more noble candidate."

"Moderates," on the other hand, are self-identifying liberals or conservatives who are inclined toward the center of the political spectrum. They will generally vote the party line, but as I mentioned, they tend to be less reactionary by nature, and have a higher confidence in established systems, regular order, and the rule of law. They are also more prone to compromise with the other party, or cross party lines, to get things done or follow their conscience.

A "Non-partisan," in my mind, is different from and "independent" because it is a person who is somewhat engaged in current events, but deliberately works at remaining aloof from political allegiances, ideologies, and candidates - perhaps even from voting. This doesn't preclude them from passing judgement on a particular issue or candidate one way or the other - but they wont pass judgement according to a party template. I think you are right - this represents a quite small group of people - although we do have a number of them on MN.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Independents, moderates, and non-partisans

Post by Bootstrap »

Beyond all of these labels, I think there are ways to approach information to understand what is going on. For instance, comparing multiple sources and lining them up against knowable facts. And when we read a news source, I think we can learn what propaganda feels like - is the news source helping me lay out the basic facts, or is it encouraging me to have grudges against "the other side" and using that partisan warfare narrative as the context for each fact it presents?

Some of that starts by asking what the basic facts are for any given question. Often by turning the statements in a source into questions - this source says X, what evidence do they give for that, and is this something most sources agree on? If not, why not? How can I tell who is telling the truth here? If I can't, shouldn't I avoid making judgements just yet?

I think that's what it means to think for yourself. Often, partisan media tells you that if you agree with their presentation you are really "in the know", not like those other people who are fooled by the other side. Buying into that narrative is not the same thing as thinking for yourself.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23806
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Independents, moderates, and non-partisans

Post by Josh »

Bootstrap wrote:Beyond all of these labels, I think there are ways to approach information to understand what is going on. For instance, comparing multiple sources and lining them up against knowable facts. And when we read a news source, I think we can learn what propaganda feels like - is the news source helping me lay out the basic facts, or is it encouraging me to have grudges against "the other side" and using that partisan warfare narrative as the context for each fact it presents?

Some of that starts by asking what the basic facts are for any given question. Often by turning the statements in a source into questions - this source says X, what evidence do they give for that, and is this something most sources agree on? If not, why not? How can I tell who is telling the truth here? If I can't, shouldn't I avoid making judgements just yet?

I think that's what it means to think for yourself. Often, partisan media tells you that if you agree with their presentation you are really "in the know", not like those other people who are fooled by the other side. Buying into that narrative is not the same thing as thinking for yourself.
This all sounds nice in theory, but that's not how most people work.

I'm more interested in seeing how people behave than discussing how I wished they behaved.
0 x
Post Reply