I hate that political identities can be so polarizing and misleading. There are republicans and democrats who hold views that the other side might be expected to have. For example, there are democrats who oppose same-sex marriage and republicans who favor it, democrats who oppose the legalization of marijuana and republicans who favor it, etc. It seems better to avoid political labels altogether and just discuss issues one at a time, although that wouldn’t be convenient at times when brevity is expected. Here’s a sample: I passionately support gay rights across the board (e.g. same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples), I believe healthcare is a right and that we ought to have a universal healthcare system, I think marijuana should be legalized (not just de-criminalized) and possibly taxed, I strongly oppose the teaching of creationism in public school, I support stem cell research, and I even think prostitution should be legalized and maybe taxed (which doesn’t mean I would ever make use of it!). Taken together, are those positions enough to give me the label of “liberal” or “progressive”? I usually identify as one of those, but for some people those labels imply an excessive disdain for anything /everything resembling the military and soft treatment of dangerous criminals. But despite the stereotype about liberals, I’m also fascinated by guns and the military and I strongly support military action in some circumstances. I think we ought to use violent military force against terrorists who pour acid over the faces of children, who blow up children, who publicly mutilate and beat defenseless women, who behead innocent people (sometimes by slowly sawing through their necks!), etc. We generally can’t reason with people who are so irrationally violent, and I support the use of force against them. Does that sentiment disqualify me from being “liberal”? 

Similarly, for some people, identifying as “republican” conjures up images of irrational religious bigots who do everything they can do oppress gays and support evil corporations. But there are self-identified republicans who support same-sex marriage, or support universal healthcare, or support the legalization of marijuana, etc.

We can’t assume that we have an adequate grasp of somebody’s political views just because they merely identify as “republican”, or “democrat”, or “conservative”, or “liberal”, etc.  And I haven’t yet mentioned or discussed “independents”, “libertarians”, etc.

There are similar problems with identifying as “religious”, “spiritual”, “Christian”, “Jewish”, “mystical”, “atheist”, “agnostic”, etc. To make it more complicated, political and religious identities often overlap with each other and political views often stem from certain religious views. And here there are also cases that we wouldn’t expect if we just went by stereotypes. There are some examples: some republicans are atheists, some democrats are evangelical Christians, some Christians are fiercely against teaching creationism or Intelligent Design (ID) in public school, some atheists favor ID being taught in public school (seriously!), some Christians deny an immediate afterlife (continuation of consciousness after brain death), some atheists believe in an immediate afterlife, etc.

Of course, those examples don’t exhaust the possibilities.  So I guess what I’m saying is that people are more interesting and nuanced than our everyday style of communication would have us believe. Let’s try to learn more and assume less. Rant over. KAPAW!