It is part of the human psyche to belong to the group. This can be seen in so many contexts. It is what drives sports. How many times do we hear the term "my team" in casual conversation. Of course this does not mean that you are actually a member of the team (although you may be a club member) but that you identify with that group of people. It also occurs in work places, where people of like mind or values gather around coffee or lunch. Or it may simply be that you are part of a particular work team. This all speaks of the human desire to belong.
The same happens with churches, political parties, hobbies or social divisions. We all congregate, either physically or now online into groups of people with which you somehow identify.
This often then leads to cognitive dissonance. You will then try to justify your membership but creating stories that justify your membership of that group. Take political parties for instance. Most people adhere to a particular political party because. It may be that your parents had that affiliation, it may be that your friends had that affiliation or it may be that at one time they stood for something that you supported then justifies all of the other views in your mind post adherence.
However there are the ideologues who hold a particular position and then proceed to justify it to the point of irrationality.
Now here is the problem. I am a Christian and as such hold to a particular moral position on many matters such as abortion, euthanasia, LGBT, as well as issues of social justice such as immigration, welfare, health care and the like. I also hold particular political views on such things as the economy, foreign affairs for instance. I then have to weigh up all of these views and make a decision based on that parties views on all of those issues. So then, how do I proceed based on my views of particular policies.
Here lies the problem. No party aligns with my views so who do I support on what is the basis of that support. If I am a blind follower then the choice is easy, simply support my team, game over. On the other hand if I want to make an intelligent rational decision I want to make a decision based on my views but this is not an easy decision.
Let us say we are looking at a particular candidates, A and B. Candidate A supports my stance on welfare immigration, the economy and foreign relations and has a proven record of supporting the disadvantaged but has differing views on abortion. Candidate B is a misogynist, racist, and wants to cut welfare, but is anti abortion. How do I choose. Lets say that candidate B will be in a position to influence policy on welfare, foreign affairs but not the policy on abortion. This is the problem facing many people.
Do I follow the heard or do I make a choice based on my conscience. To me the choice is clear.
