Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

Politics Making Strange Bedfellows 118

Posted by michael from the ms.-right-now-also-desirable dept.
loid_void writes "Leave it to Reuters to report that the run-up to the U.S. presidential election is casting the spotlight on a new crop of Web sites for political-minded singles who are seeking Mr. or Ms. Right... or Left. But as such sites make small gains in the polls, another debate is brewing among singles in this politically divided nation: Is it better to find a like-minded mate or to cross party lines in the search for true love? Reached last week on his cell phone at the Republican National Convention in New York, Brian Barcaro said he does not interparty date and has no plans to start... let the debate begin!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Politics Making Strange Bedfellows More

Politics Making Strange Bedfellows

Comments Filter:

  • What is that word you used ... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "date"?

  • There's our fictional cross-party/cross-cultural couple, and they seemed to do fine. I think if you care so much about a political party or viewpoint that you would consider only dating/marrying exclusively in that pool of people, you have some serious issues that make you unfit for such things.

    • Re:Dharma and Greg made it (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Different politics reflect major differences in worldview. If you both really don't care about politics, or the world in general, then I guess you could make it work even if it meant voting different every four years.

      Even though most Americans only care about how much less tax they could get away with, or how to keep the oil flowing for their gas hungry SUV's, there are deeper aspects to politics.

      • Well yes, I agree with the fact that seriously considered political stances indicate deeper differences in worldview. What I'm saying is that these differences in worldview should not be more important to a person than their interpersonal relationships. I strongly believe in the ideology of libertarianism (althought not neccesarily the Libertarian Party), but at the same time I would ahv eno problem dating and/or marrying someone who strongly believed in the party line of the Democrats or Republicans. I
        • What I'm saying is that these differences in worldview should not be more important to a person than their interpersonal relationships.

          Now that's just silly. Party affiliation or political ideology shouldn't be the "litmus test" for whether or not to date somebody, but to imply that world view and interpersonal relationships are two totally discreet things is stretching it. Your world view touches every decision you make in your life, from where you want to live, what kind of car you drive (including wh

          • Well, perhaps my personal views are different than yours on this matter. But just as you gave the example of being able to be good freinds with someone of opposing worldview, I believe it's possible, and perhaps refreshing an interesting, to do the same in a LTR. I'm not saying one should seek that out, but I am saying that I would let chemistry and whatever else decides who ends up with who be the primary factors, and political alignment would be pretty low priority. I suppose if the worldviews were at
            • political alignment would be pretty low priority

              I agree here. But political alignment and political belief are not necessarily the same thing.

              I suppose if the worldviews were at opposite ends of the spectrum and both individuals were sycophants of their political faith, allowing it to dictate all aspects of their life, then it clearly wouldn't work

              This I think sums up where the disagreement lies. You are arguing that an individual's political faith dictates her life; I am arguing that her political
    • There are plenty of real-life examples of party crossovers among couples. Such as:

      - Democratic adviser
      James Carville [carville.info] and his wife, Republican adviser Mary Matalin [hbo.com].

      - Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver.

      - John Kerry and Theresa Heinz-Kerry. (Zing! Heinz-Kerry was married to a Republican senator before he died, and made public deragatory comments about Democrats back then)

      The most important thing is that you have more important things in your life than politics, that you can discuss politics with your
      • All the Carville / Matalin relationship proves to me is if you make your cash shilling for a major party, you don't have to mean much of what you're saying.

        If they did, the two would be on COPS or Forensic Files - not CNN and MSNBC. It's just proof that when it comes to "professional politicians" you're usually looking at someone that doesn't have as strong a belief as they put on.
    • Does Greg ever say anything particularly socially conservative on that show? I mean, he's a rich lawyer or something, right? Rich lawyers are compatible with everyone. Now if Greg were a tractor trailer driver, a member of the Christian Coalition, listening to patriotic country music songs all the time, and making comments about how we should turn the deserts to glass, I don't think it would work. Well, maybe. But it DEFINITELY will not work if the woman is the fundamentalist and the man is the hippy.

  • Hah (Score:1, Insightful)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 )
    This is such a joke. It's not like the Democrats or Republicans really differ enough on important issues to matter!

    Democrats: For bigger government, to help the chillins, i.e. make more handouts and create useless government charity bureaucracies.
    Republicans: For bigger government, to help "defend out nation", i.e. create subsidized military jobs.

    Democrats: For free trade when it's convienent
    Republicans: Same

    The list goes on. On pretty much every issue, the difference is very minor.

    • Re:Hah (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:10AM (#10212822) Homepage Journal
      This is such a joke. It's not like the Democrats or Republicans really differ enough on important issues to matter!

      Maybe not in the issues that are important to YOU.

      I'm a Republican. I am pro life. I am pro second amendment.

      I couldn't have a relationship with a woman who would abort my child if she got pregnant. I couldn't be with a woman who is troubled by my gun collection.

      These issues may not mean much to you, but they would be a deal breaker when it comes to romance.

      LK

      • Re:Hah (Score:3, Funny)

        by ealar dlanvuli ( 523604 )
        So you really think your personal beliefs about abortion and gun control are determined by your party affiliation?

        Wow.

        Yeah, you wouldn't get along with a liberal at all.
        • So you really think your personal beliefs about abortion and gun control are determined by your party affiliation?

          They ARE parts of the party platforms.

          Look at the congressional record. Votes on those two issues are split according to party lines. There are a few members on both sides that cross over for each issue but over 90% remain loyal to the party.

          If parties don't have principles, the parties become social clubs and lose all meaning.

          LK
          • So what happens to the people who make up their own minds about the individual issues and happen to disagree with the parties on a few points?

            Do they just get to sit on the sidelines while the elites duke it out in their name?
            • So what happens to the people who make up their own minds about the individual issues and happen to disagree with the parties on a few points?

              Political parties exist to advance agendas. If you are not on board with the party agenda you have two choices, keep quiet and stay with the party or start another party with its own agenda.

              LK
              • Oh, and party agendas never change then?

                Did you even pass civics 101?
                • They do. And if the Republican party became pro-abortion and anti-gun, then I wouldn't be a Republican anymore.

                  And there are millions like me, so some say the Republicans are pro-life and pro-gun because if they weren't, they would have no chance of winning anything.

                  And that is the only major policy difference between Democrats and Republicans that I can find anymore.

                  Now in smaller elections, such as local representatives, you have more choices and can find someone who agrees with you on more that a fe
          • You see, that is what us outsiders cannot fathom.

            Im a french Canadian, and except for the few fanatic (Partie Quebecois) people aka Seperatists, we do not view ourselves as such and such party or type of people.

            Im for abortion
            Im undecided on guns (though its not as important an issue here)
            Im for gay marriage
            etc... etc...

            I have my own views, I do not let a party dictate my way of thought. And I dont care what anyone else says, but the fact that Americans have only 2 strong parties and are so fanatic about
            • I think what you are not understanding is that the vast majority of Americans don't know or care much about Politics. Oh, if you ask them, they will usually parrot some sound-bite they heard recently on a commercial, but they have no real knowledge of what is going on. (believe me, I grew up in the midwest. most people here have no fucking clue)
              • Ya I understand that. And though I didint mention it and my comments where generalised I agree. But those who do care, and get involved or just at least pay attention seem to fall into the mold I painted above. In any case, thats the impression outsiders get of it.
          • Would that be like the GOP's support of the rule of law at the same time they are support the defacto amnisty of felons?

            Or the Dem's support of freedom of expression as long as you are not Christian?
      • I am pro-life(sorta), and pro second amendment. And I think you are a fool for calling yourself a Republican.

        Frankly, being a member of either of our major parties, to me, only illustrates extreme ignorance, and possibly stupidity. They're both full of nothing but a bunch of rotten career politicians. Fuck 'em.

      • Re:Hah (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DAldredge ( 2353 )
        The GOP hasn't done jack shit about abortion and you know it. If they where as serious about stoping abortion as they tell their supporters they would do a hell of a lot more. But, they don't, because the country club republicans support abortion (just ask kay hutchsion S TX) and power is more important to the GOP than stoping kids from being murdered. Kind of like they way bush is against trade with cuba, but trade with china (who treats people as bad/or worse) is OK!

        The GOP only uses abortion as an is
        • This is true, but they haven't promoted it either.

          A Republican campain manager once said (don't have the reference) that they can't win the pro-life fight because then they'd lose the pro-life voters. As it is, you basically have to vote Republican if you're pro-life, because they at least don't increase abortion.

          And for everything GWB didn't do, he did cut $50 million in funding to UNFPA. See UNFPA, Condemned by Bush Administration, Loses Additional $50 Million in U.S. International Family Planning Funds [thetruthaboutgeorge.com]
        • Like their unprincipled flip-flopping on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act last June [house.gov], October [senate.gov], and November [whitehouse.gov]?

          (Summary: 5/225 Rep nay in House, 3+1/51 Rep nay+no-vote in Senate, 0/1 Rep veto in Exec)

          The Republicans having reintroduced this bill several times in different forms only to have it vetoed repeatedly by Clinton certainly undermines your position that Republicans could do a hell of a lot more on the kids-being-murdered (your words, not mine!) front.

          But you're right about one thing. We should c

          • No, it doesn't. If it was as important to them as they say it is they would fight for it more. After all abortion has only resulted in the deaths of 20-30 Million kids in the USA in the past 30 years.

            If bush is willing to veto a important spending bill because he doesn't get his way on overtime he should be willing to do a hell of a lot more to stop the murders of thousands of kids per month.

            Religious people are treated by the GOP the same way black people are by the Dems, that is they only exist when t
      • I know a LOT of Republicans. What always baffles me about them is that they have no problem voting for people like GWB who are NOTHING like them. Most Republicans generally appreciate hard work, prudishness, honesty, religion, fiscal responsibility, etc.

        GWB is an old frat boy who's never had to work an honest day's work his entire life. He doesn't know the first thing about fiscal responsibility. He is a flagrant liar. He has increased the size of the federal government. He is not what his constitue

      • I agree with you, although I'm on the other side of the fence.

        I broke up after 3 years with a girl, partially due to disagreements on politics. I disliked her conservative side - she felt being gay is a sin of God and is immoral, and things like that. And she disliked by liberal side - she wanted a religous guy who believed in a religion etc.

      • Re:Hah (Score:2)

        by dago ( 25724 )
        Talking about mod points :

        +0, Pathetic ?
        +1, Funny ?
      • These issues may not mean much to you, but they would be a deal breaker when it comes to romance.

        I have to agree with you here. I think I'd sooner date a crack whore than a right-wing conservative.

  • Republicans are lousy lays. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So for the left it's like-minded, for the right it's cross party (often via bribery [villagevoice.com]).

    • I don't understand how this is informative. How the hell does party affiliation affect sexual prowess?

      I can think of a republican who's been laid many more times than most people on /. combined (Arnold), and democrats that drink so much that they can't get it up (Kennedy.) It's complete bullshit.

      Sexual prowess is good indicator of sexual prowess. Party affiliation is a good indication of... nothing. People choose parties for so many reasons that it's a joke. Most of them choose based on what union t

  • But... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Scoria ( 264473 ) <{slashmail} {at} {initialized.org}> on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:06AM (#10212774) Homepage
    If your opinions regarding every issue are the same, where is the fun?
  • Politics is like religion, people will defend their views to no end because they're so deeply rooted. It would be better to stay same party if anything. But love is still blind and it could affect decision making.

  • Obvious (Score:2, Funny)

    by Phillup ( 317168 )
    You are looking for someone to screw. Don't foul your nest.

    Fsck the other party.

  • Bunch of pansies. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bluesman ( 104513 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:15AM (#10212875) Homepage
    >The poll found that 57 percent were open to >marrying someone who holds political opinions >significantly different from their own.

    And given the success rate of American marriages, I sure as hell trust that 57% to know what a healthy relationship requires.

    All I know is that the wishy-washy political fence sitters that say they can "understand both sides" deserve to be married to each other. And they deserve the divorce and the messed up kids that follow.

    I wish some people would at least get informed and take a stand for once in their pathetic, non-confrontational lives.

  • If Carville and Matalin can do it... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:18AM (#10212920)
    I don't see why anybody else can't cross political lines for love...

    (This is politics?)
    • So do Arnold and Maria Shriver.
      I think it's quite odd that Arnold once professed, as a young man in Austria, that he had 3 goals in life: to become an American, to become famous, and to marry a Kennedy.

      In light of goal #3, how strange that he would be getting all gushy and starry eyed over Nixon during his speech at the RNC convention.

    • I was at a talk given by them this AM. They've got a good solution. Don't talk politics to each other.

      See my blog [blogspot.com] (not to be a blogwhore) for a more detailed write-up of their talk.

      I wouldn't want to be married to someone THAT different, but it really seems to work for them. Plus, they've got good reasons not to go to each other's party events. What a great excuse. I hate going to my girlfriend's company outings. :)
  • It only a matter of time before they are both laying in a shared pool of blood.

    I'm quite honestly stunned thet have lived this long. I figured they would murder each other long ago.
    • If they wanna piss each other off (as married couples are want to do sometimes...) they can do it through their work and get everybody involved in their sniping contest...

      hmmm... wait a second...

  • You will never find someone that agrees with you on every issue you have an opinion on. You need to at least respect each others viewpoints if only in the sense of "well with your background that your opinion on X is logical." Empathy for each other is essential, empathy for people your partner doesn't know can be seen as a character flaw, but need not be fatal one. If one of you tries to help business people and the other homeless people, it can be viewed as each of you persuing a different career, which c
  • ... the bottom line($$$). These aren't the first people to figure out that they can capitalize on the polarized party allegiences that have developed. Just look at Fox News, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, etc etc etc.

    People always have the deepest hatred for those who are similar but slightly different from themselves. I see the difference between Democrats and Republicans as similar to the difference between Catholics and Protestants - while they have many superficial differences

  • Fiscal or social? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stomv ( 80392 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:29AM (#10213043) Homepage
    I expect that it would be hard to find a mate who differed on substantial social issues, such as abortion, firearms, tolerance, and religious-moral grounds.

    However, if the differences are fiscal, than you can simply live life together and lobby your representatives differently.

    Methinks that Christian conservative GOPers and Peacenik Dems might not work out so easily, but fiscally minded folks would hardly notice.
  • As for my own story, I married a lovely woman from another party who had almost the same views as I do on everything except school vouchers. We then spent a brief period together in the libertarian party (in support of a mutual friend and no-chance lt. gubernatorial candidate.) No problems so far. Many suppers are spent discussing politics, but it all comes down to candidates rather than ideas.

    In fact, now that we live in North Dakota where there is no formal voter registration, perhaps we'll both join
  • For example, I couldn't have a long-term relationship with my girlfriend if she is pro death-penalty or very religious.

    But only these fundamental philosophical issues are important for me. Disagreement on other topics is good because you have things to discuss endlessly :)
    Of course, few philosophical premisses already lead to consent on many daily political topics.

    OTOH, if all you want is sex, it probably doesn't really matter.
    • And what is wrong with religious people?
      • I can't reply for the other guy, but "not religous" is also my most important characteristic for a girl.

        I'm a scientist, and believing in something without any proof or reasoning goes against everything I stand for.

        How can you discuss it when there isn't even any logical reasoning behind it?

        Next thing you'll know, they'll be telling you how they believe the earth was made a few thousand years ago, and that dinosaurs fosils were put here by the devil to mislead us. (and that is, as far as I understand, w
        • Whew! At least we won't have to worry about seeing you on this list. [godandscience.org]

          And how can you discuss it if you think anyone religious is a creationalist?

          And not even all creationlists (those who believe God created the world) think it is 5,000 years old.
          • You may also be interested in reading Fides et Ratio [vatican.va] by Pope John Paul II.

            A worthwhile read.
          • Heh, I admit I was being a bit contraire about the relgious=creationalists=young-earth.

            About the science link - scientists are just humans as well. Maybe there were scientists in the egyptian times that still believed that the pharoh was God. It's very hard to shake off your upbringing, no matter how logical it is. We are still all tied down by emotions.
            I know my ex-gf is bad for me, but I still want her back. But I know logically it would be bad, and that it's only a survival trait talking, and so on.
        • You know you sound pretty closed minded for someone who demands that others have a open mind.
          • Closed minded to ideas that the earth was created a few thousand years ago, with no proof?

            I'm not sure that counts as closed minded by many standards. Usually there has to be some scientific basis first.

            Show me some evidence, and I'll consider it.
            • You take your views of what a narrow subset of Christians believe and project them on all Christians. IF that isn't being narrow minded, then what is?
              • Ah okay, I misunderstood you sorry.
                I'm not sure that that counts as being narrow minded, but just wrong or misinformed. Not sure - I'll go with you on this one.

                Anyway, as I said in my other posts, I was being a bit contraire, but my point about religous people believing in things despite science still holds.
      • A lot of religious people aren't happy unless you're religious as well. If you don't believe the same thing as them, in the same way as them, they have no tolerance and try and shove their beliefs down your throat.

        Note that this isn't all religious people. But its at least a very large minority. I could probably date someone who believed in god but allowed others to make their own decisions, but not someone who pressed their beliefs upon others.
      • A failure to think logically in their view of the "big picture" might mean they think illogically in other areas of life, too. I just dumped a chick for believing the Christian fairy-tale. I simply don't want to be with someone who lacks critical faculties. What's to stop her from suddenly becoming convinced of alien visitations, or astrology, or the Illuminati's secret governance of all mortal affairs?

        Also, with religion often comes "morals". Such things are arbitrary and they are no fun at all.

        In short,
  • My guess is that the typical Slashdot reader already has a limited selection of the opposite sex to choose from. Do they really want to limit it even more? :)
  • Do what you will. Date who you will. If you wish to only date/seek relations with people of your own mindset that is your choice. How I personally react is, limiting yourself to one side is cutting off your expereince in life, and essentially stagnating the way you think.
  • When my girlfriend starts argueing her pro gay marriage pro animal rights viewpoints, I get the impression she is a tool for some billionaire running for president. I can't convince her that killing fetuses is evil, our dogs are happy dogs and fish tastes good to eat. She doesn't like fish. I tried to get her to take a bite of my tuna sandwich one time and I almost made her cry. She cries a lot though. Maybe a conservative girl wouldn't cry so much, and she would make me tuna fish sandwiches everyday. I won

  • Changing party affiliations (Score:3, Funny)

    by aminorex ( 141494 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @12:27PM (#10213639) Homepage Journal
    I can tell you this much from hard experience:

    If your hot young liberal wife starts to turn Republican with age, you're not going to get your *ahem* needs met like you did before you got married.

  • I married a very nice woman who just isn't interested in politics much at all. Mostly we're on the same page, but she just doesn't have the interest I do. This is a bit frustrating because I'd like to engage in the issues a bit more, be active in a party, maybe run for office someday. We differ somewhat on a few issues, and it makes conversations tense if they come up in a meaningful discussion. If we were both apolitical these differences wouldn't matter much; we'd just disagree but there wouldn't be f

    • I don't expect anyone to have the same interest I do, but I certainly expect my mate to support me in my political activity. That said, she needs to be pretty right-wing (socially conservative, fiscally right of libertarian) AND has to be LDS, period. I'm pretty flexible on just about everything else: I know which battles to pick.

  • Opinions not what matters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FlyingOrca ( 747207 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @01:06PM (#10213993) Journal
    The key is not opinions, it's values. One key, rather, because there's more to a successful relationship than just shared values. Core values can be interpreted differently, leading to different opinions; values and opinions can also be acted upon (or not) in different ways.

    Shared values are important, though, both in my experience and in the analyses I've read. Other key factors: compatible fighting style, "givers" vs. "takers" (should be matched at the very least, but as a giver myself, I don't tend to think much of takers), activity level, degree of adherence to one's supposed principles, and sexual compatibility. And yes, I'm leaving "similar interests" out deliberately; probably nowhere near as important as those I've mentioned.

    Cheers!
  • Years ago I attended a debate between Gordon Liddy and Timothy Leary. I ended up sitting near an elderly couple, probably in their late 70's. For everything that Liddy said the old man would clap and cheer, and the woman would sit silently. For everything that Leary said the woman would clap and cheer and the man would sit silently.

    A few years after that I happened to be lecturing at a conference that had Timothy Leary as the guest keynote speaker. Prior to the talks I ran into him and told him that stor

  • Is it better to find a like-minded mate or to cross party lines in the search for true love?

    I dunno. I pretty much hate everyone. I'll let you know when/if I find a girl with a brain. People tell me i'll be searching for quite a while.

  • I wonder if anyone else read this as a political website where singles can meet mr or ms right... or left... hand.

    I thought the internet already had a million of these websites. I get emailled new ones each day.

    Good luck with this...

  • Best Quote of the Article (Score:3, Funny)

    by cryptochrome ( 303529 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @05:47PM (#10217011) Journal
    Led by John Hlinko, one of the people behind the liberal group MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org), ActForLove's motto is "Take Action. Get Action."

    Priceless!
    • And I must have missed this one when it happened:

      Last year saw the launch of LiberalHearts.com (http://www.liberalhearts.com), which grabbed headlines for its contest in which a woman won a date with Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites), a bachelor.
  • What about dating sites for "fringe" political views? i.e., for Libertarians, socialists, greens, marxists, paleocons, etc.?

    I would like to see a libertarian dating site, but AFAIK, none exist. I know it doesn't help that as a straight male, like 95% of all libertarians are men, but still...
  • Does it count as crossing party lines if you're a Libritarian and your girlfriend has no party affiliation? If so I'm breaking major ground. What's the point of a girlfriend if you can't argue, anyway?

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close