WW2 history and Political beliefs

How has your understanding of WW2 influenced your political beliefs?

For me, it has made me much more suspicious of politicians in general. I hold the opinion that a nation's foreign policy relies more on economics and practicality rather than ideology. I see relations between countries/groups as allied nations more as a competitive struggle rather than genuine partnership.

 

The history of WW II hasn't influenced my view of political beliefs all that much. I think people tend to perceive their political orientation as a result of their societal and environmental conditions. There also may be some genetic predisposition to certain fundamental political values and views, although the evidence is not clear on this issue.

National alliances are certainly "partnerships", but only insofar as national interests converge. As interests come into a convergent state, states tend to work together to secure those interests, and that is the definition of a partnership. But world conditions change rapidly these days, and interests tend to diverge again just as rapidly, so what starts out as a concerted effort to work together often degenerates into a competition to achieve disparate goals.

Of course, this is as it should be; a state may be defined as a group of people, bound by a common culture, who organize a politically to achieve their own economic and societal interests. So naturally, it is in competition with other states with different goals.

 

I definitely agree the social and environmental conditions.

But what is the genetic predisposition about? I've never heard of it.

 

I have read some articles in political science journals suggesting that individuals may be "hardwired" to view the world in specific ways. For example, an individual may come from a politically very liberal background, but nevertheless develop a conservative world view, or vice-versa. The evidence for this is difficult to separate ot from other influences and is certainly not conclusive.

There seems to be no logical reason for many people to to develop their political outlook, except to possibly inherit a genetic makeup that predestines them to become either conservative or liberal. It's a very speculative theory at this point.

 

Interesting. I classify myself (so far) as a center-right, moderate libertarian. These environmental situations affected my viewpoint:

1. Father interested in military history. He never talked about politics but seemed to be in the center. There was never any enforcement about the importance of unshakable morality, etc. that seems to plague leftists. He was somewhat amoral.

2. Came from a household with strict, brutal discipline that promoted competitiveness. There was little personal or $ investment towards my leisure or personal happiness.

3. Parents encouraged me to acquire economically meaningful skills over other things- I grew up in a joyless environment with absolutely no real appreciation of literature, art, or music. To this day I do not really care much about music, art, or literature. I don't listen to music and I never read fiction- in fact, listening to music and reading fiction books mostly annoy me.

I like good film, but can tolerate only a small part of it. I never watch TV shows and don't like to.

4. Attending business school had predictable results

 

Not at all, in my partuclar case.

 

Life experience is interesting, but I somehow doubt it is the major factor in forming our political values.

My parents were both rather conservative and both served in the US Navy during WW II. Both my mother and father hated Roosevelt and distrusted Truman, but both claimed they would never have have voted for MacArthur had he ever run for elective office. My father came from a long line of Republican Party members going back to supporters of Lincoln. My mother, on the other hand, was the first child in her family who was born in this country; her parents were both liberal, but with the typical old-world twist of being anti-monarchy.

The Goldwater campaign in 1964 was the first political campaign I got involved in, although I was still not old enough to vote. My support of Goldwater focused my interest and confirmed that I was a conservative to the core. I didn't like Nixon and refused to vote for him. In fact, on the eve of Nixon's election, I became embroiled in a heated argument with a Republican friend of mine and ended up predicting that Nixon would turn out to be the worst President of the century. I don't think it was Nixon's platform that turned me off, but an instinctive personal dislike for Nixon's elitist attitude. I actually felt some of Nixon's policies were good, but disagreed with much of what he did.

My BA is in Political Science and, in retrospect, I think that has had a significant influence on my perception of politics, although not in the way many of my liberal (read communistic) professors obviously hoped. It made me realize that politics, at least in the US, has little to do with ideology. Political values are individualistic; we perceive events through the lens of our own individual political/ideological values, but the events themselves are more about perpetrating, or generating, pragmatic power than in exercising ideological agendas. Ideology is not logical; try discussing political issues with a Liberal and that quickly becomes apparent. Political ideology is the product of deeply held values and ways of viewing public events. That is why I suspect there may be some truth to the theory that individuals are conditioned, at a very early stage, by very subtle influences, to hold either liberal or conservative values, and that genetic "hardwiring" may predispose people to one side or the other.

 

Well, I must admit that, for me, WWII and specially the Holocaust were decisive.

German born and raised (though, of French mother), in what I'd describe as an environment of 'shame'. As in every delicate issue, if you don't talk about it, it doesn't exist... the dark side of the war was taboo. On the other hand, up until my late teens, I was very influenced my my grandfather's political views: staunchy anti-communist, though believer on authority and traditional German 'values', not too fond of religion either. As a veteran himself, he tended to pass on me a certain biased and apologetic view on WWII: 'History is written by the victors', 'Hitler was what this country needed' and even 'The Jews make too much fuss about it all...'.

Fortunately, that initial pro-German and, to an extent, pro-Nazi interest in WWII led me into serious research (including finding and joining this forum), which shocked me very deeply. As I like to say, I decided to open up the dirtiest sewer in the history of mankind and sweep in it. Reading about the Holocaust and the Nazi dictatorship, the brutality of the war in the East, the terror State, the massacres of civilians... the intellectual and artistic suicide of Germany (it particularly touched a sensitive chord).

From then on, I stablished as a non-negotiable base for my political views the absolute respect for human rights. I developed a profound distaste for war and violence in general. And an alergy for dictatorships and authoritarianism. Then, religion (Roman Catholicism, that is) only deepened and made the sentiment much stronger, since the Church's doctrine stands for absolute respect to the dignity of the human person, social concern and personal involvement with the poorest.

Ever since, life experiences in Latin America, the USA, Israel, Europe and Africa, as well as philosophy and theology, I think have made me even more 'radical'...

Finally, I'd have to define myself as a 'Liberal' in the original sense of the word, a modern Libertarian (Milton Friedman and Henry David Thoreau come to my mind). Therefore, I do have an unshakable morality, and consider myself not a leftist at all. Perhaps that is what makes my ideology so annoying...

 

What would you say is most important in cementing a political view- economics or social issues?

 

I think social issues come first, since I believe that State institutions must take as little a part as possible in economic affairs. And, as Hannah Arendt's (and Aristotle's) apology of politics as the art of common good proposes, it should be favourably directed at it. This is also the way the Catholic Church points out to politics.

However, I also believe that in most cases, the attempts made by the State to attack social issues are awkward and even harmful. I'm always suspicious of the State, but it depends on the particular issues. I rather tend to favour the market as the solution to many of such problems (which puts me in the right wing of political beliefs).

 

Excuse me... I've just re-read this and have gotten its sense better. Do you mean, what is more important in determining political stands?

 

I ask this question because on political inclination Q &A materials, I often end up Center-Right and less libertarian than I personally anticipate.

It's because I consider economic and foreign policy issues much more important than social issues. But the scaling for some of these exams weighs them more equally. The reason for this is because I believe promoting the right policies (or lack of them) that increase the standard of living and business activity overwhelms (in importance) the small issues that people get greatly excited for.

I also consider active foreign policy to more important- I think that the US should intervene to change the course of history if need be.

Related to my original post, I personally consider the peacetime US military of the depression era to be a failure in a certain regard. I believe that much blood and suffering would have been saved in Europe and in Asia if the US maintained a powerful military consistently rather than building one as a reaction to Axis hostilities.

Thus, I have little interest in many of the social issues discussed- ie. gay rights, capital punishment, etc.

I've noticed that some people seem to focus their political beliefs nearly entirely on social issues and don't seem to even consider economics.

 

Well, I didn't include a 'strong' foreign policy since I'm an international guy, not a citizen of the only remaining super-power... That'd probably change, if I was an American.

Despite my strong leaning towards social issues (mostly international, those concerning social justice, such as HIV/AIDS, war refugees and overall Third World misery), I always get libertarian qualifications in tests and ideology charts.

It is in fact quite irritating, since wherever I go, I seem to be on the extreme... I'm far too conservative for gay, feminist or multicultural activists, too right-winged for most modern socialists, altermondialists, liberation theologians or keynesians, too left-winged for religious and social conservatives and too 'anarchists' for people who favour strong governments in general...