How strong is Party affiliation?

[kentuck]

George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#22

[kentuck]

1. more...

"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

[Snotcicles]

3. But

Antonio Porchia: "Truth has very few friends and those few are suicides"

[kentuck]

4. Trump's polls are on the rise again...

I have to believe it is more for love of Party than love for the Man.

[Snotcicles]

5. I totally agree.

I also think tribalism is a detriment to reason. Regardless of conviction affiliation or allegiance.

[Igel]

6. Don't think so.

Most pro-Trump people I know don't think of themselves as (R) first and people second.

Many (R) don't like Trump overall. But still support him. It's a fallacy to see somebody do something once and assume that's their essence. We object when others do that to us or those we're in solidarity with; it's no less wrong when we do it to others. (Or we have to admit that partisanship is our morality, in which case we've outsourced it to people for whom politics is their craft in trade. Just look at even Obama, how he shifted his "deeply held" views in the face of political currents and termed it not just "changing my mind" but "evolving," both changing his mind and flattering others and himself at the same time.)

Most (R) I know think of their values before party and are people first and (R) second. In other words, it's not their core identity. Trump, like most politicians for most people, isn't an object of adoration or reverence and their party loyalty is as much loyalty to their goals as much antipathy to the other party and its goals. Sometimes it's just spitefulness, pure tribalism, but more out of negative than positive solidarity.

Note that goals are always ranked. You can vote for a politician that is quite anti your goals 3-5 as long as they help you with your goal 1 and 2. That may not even be the politicians first and second goal; in fact, it might be quite tangential to anything they care about.

Party loyalty determines, for a lot of people, how they vote in the absence of any knowledge about how a candidate stands with respect to their goals. In that, parties signal, and lower-level candidates benefit from the label given them. It's why many (R) vote straight ticket. And it's why many (D) were really upset when some state last year toyed with getting rid of ticket voting.

[Snotcicles]

2. Good post. nt