Just to give you some context: I’m Black, my family is Black, and my uncle was the pastor of a church. It was an evangelical Presbyterian church that was very racially diverse. We had White people, Black people, Asian people, interracial couples, and so on. So, on the surface, it seemed fairly liberal, right?

The church had a lot of Trump supporters, but it also had a lot of Black members, including my uncle, who hated Donald Trump and still do. They didn’t like Trump, didn’t like the Republican Party, and generally voted Democrat.

To be specific, our youth group was small—only eight teenagers, four of whom were brothers. We were all people of color. One of the church members, however, was a hardcore Republican and MAGA supporter. He invited me and some of the other kids to come paint his fence one day, but my aunt told my mom she didn’t want me going over there because of his politics. There was even some friction within the church because some members supported Trump, while the anti-Trump members strongly disliked those who voted for him.

However, here’s what confuses me: almost every single one of the anti-Trump members—outside of me and maybe two other people—was extremely homophobic and transphobic. They were also all strongly pro-life. They hated abortion and viewed it as “murder.” One kid in the church literally said, “Gay people deserve to be hurt.”

So they held very socially conservative views, yet they didn’t support the Republican Party and hated Trump. Why is that? Why would someone hate MAGA while basically agreeing with many of the same social positions? Why would they call themselves liberals or Democrats? My uncle literally said he was a liberal who votes Democrat, yet he’s extremely pro-life. How can that be?

I’ll ask the same question about the other side. Look at Brad Polumbo—he’s gay, supports LGBTQ+ rights, and has spoken out against racism and homophobia, yet he’s still right-wing and supports the Republican Party. The same goes for Arielle Scarcella, who’s a lesbian, and Blair White, who’s a trans woman and probably the most famous example. I don’t think Blair is necessarily transphobic, but she supports Trump and identifies as Republican.

So why does this happen? Why do some people identify with a political party even when they disagree with that party on major issues? And why do some people reject a party despite agreeing with many of its core positions?

  • litchralee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    51·
    8 hours ago

    I’ve copied a portion of an older comment I wrote, answering part of the question:

    One thing which isn’t immediately apparent, even to Americans themselves, is that the large American political parties are less equivalent to individual political parties elsewhere, and are closer to “uneasy coalitions”, like those found in Europe involving multiple parties trying (and maybe failing) to form a government. That makes it harder to draw broad conclusions like “USA Democrats would be right-of-center” because progressives and “DINOs” (Democrats in name only) within the party would be left-wing or right-wing, respectively. Logically, the same applies to the Republican party, although ranging from right-wing RINOs (Republicans in name only) and “moderate Republicans”, to the far-right factions of the party, like neo-Nazis and MAGA.

    That’s what I wrote then, and what I’ll add today is that because of the enormous variety in different parts of the USA, two members of the same national political party from different parts of the country might sit down for dinner and find they have very little common group. What appeals to them about their party might be highly local.

    For example, a registered Democrat in California might be fully onboard with regards to the rule of law, as applied to immigration and unlawful detention, but might be a bit apprehensive about tax reform that would eliminate middle-class subsidies (eg SALT exclusion) because that hits very hard in a HCOL state.

    Meanwhile, a registered Democrat-Farmer-Labor (the state’s Democratic party) in Minnesota may be fully convinced that environmental protection is important to preserve both the planet and the nation’s public lands, but wouldn’t necessarily support the wholesale ban of hunting because of the rich cultural value instilled from an early age.

    With the exception of vanguard political parties, I’m not aware of any political parties that strictly adhere to and enforce the party platform. That is to say, membership that mandates exsct alignment to the values of the party, and failure to do so requires expulsion or resignation. This is a rarity in American politics, because parties generally want the barrier to entry to be low. The downside is that there’s no party discipline whatsoever for members that aren’t in government.