On social issues like LGBTQ there’s a generational effect, like a shifting baseline. I’m a millennial and I support gays and trans people as much as the next guy, but because I grew up with it, I’m not as sensitive to the use of gay as a casual epithet as someone younger.

If we didn’t have a political system that drives people into 2 parties, there would probably be a party for blue dog democrats that’s more moderate and socially conservative.

Look up Moral Foundations Theory to get a better understanding of the psychological underpinnings of political ideology.

I’ve met plenty of Republicans who just think that the R means a better economy. Single issue voters. Not socially conservative, live and let live, but terrified that Democrats will crash the economy somehow. Don’t ask me, I don’t understand it either.

And plenty of liberal Christians, which actually makes more sense.

Stupid people, seems you’ve met a few

These are Cipolla’s five fundamental laws of stupidity:

1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

2. The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

Because people have very diverse political beliefs and don’t fit neatly into two groups, but the mechanisms of our elections lead to two parties. As a result, they select one of the two parties, even if it doesn’t perfectly align with their beliefs.

Because political parties are brands that serve politicians. They herd people who aren’t political into buckets of false choice.

Your family is like many, many families in that their politics is not even close to covered by any single party, but a single issue, typically religion (and the typical anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ stance), will be what forces them to one side or another.

Most people are social animals and will travel with any group that accepts them. No ideologies necessary.

It’s fear of the other group. If one group tells you to be afraid of the other group, the one telling you to be afraid is your friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

“I don’t care what he does, as long as the libtards cry!” Their focus is on negative consequences for the people they hate, not positive outcomes for themselves. That only works as long as the group is relatively comfortable, or believes they are.

“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” ~Lyndon B. Johnson

Why trust anyone in the first place? Mom and dad did, and/or everyone around them does. That hooks them in, then they fall for the same BS.

After that they belong to the group, and belonging is a powerful motivator to continue.

Americans are brainwashed fools with no spine for reality. That’s why.

Lack of integrity, inconsistent or non-existent values. They just do whatever works for them at the time. My parents are the same way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Because of overlapping vectors of group socialization often contradict each other. What vector a person is subjected to first usually takes precedent until a more impactful one imposes a new structure. People are often introduced to church before they are old enough to understand politics.

People very rarely reevaluate their stances without some major life event forcing them to. Instead, they take the stances already taught to them by others and look around trying to find confirmations.

deleted by creator

It’s just tribalism. Humans love it. Whether it be sports, race, religion, or politics.

Generations have been brainwashed to see a political party as their tribe, and its easy to overlook issues within your own tribe when you’re focusing on beating the other one. Especially when the leaders of your tribe lie as easily as they breathe.

In my country i follow the polical news, especially during election “races”

A i read a lot of news at my job too (we got some latest news screens etc that auto update)

I my self is a mix of various political stances in both left and right wing, but mostly left

But when i vote i always try to figure out what would be best for the country as a whole, especially in the long run. Voting for individual gains is almost always pointless…

At one point some years ago, the party that won the election had promised tax reductions etc

And when they arrived, we got like 15 dollars more paid out than we used to. Not worth it at all… gotta remember they cut some funding in other areas, to provide such tax cuts. And id rather various programs or handicap help etc is kept at a good quality or even improved than giving me a near pointless tax reduction

You’ve just thought about it more deeply than most of these people combined.

I’m sorry you’re self aware. Drugs will help with the pain, but can make the underlying problem worse. Philosophy may seem tempting, but don’t-it will make the problem worse.

Edit:
If you want a less dismissive but very tired slightly high answer: we like to think we’re conscious higher beings who function on logic and imagination and individual will and all these other strong forces that emerge from within us.

And we can be. All those things are possible. They happen. But generally we’re not, and whether by structural pressures confected by centuries of authoritarianism or some evolutional quirk or the fact the warming climate has been starving all our brains of oxygen for over a century; we tend to avoid thinking when possible.

So there’s identity pressures and social pressures best compared to running parts of your computer’s operating system off the cloud and millennia of innovation in abstraction and groupthink to keep anyone from ever having to think or form opinions for themselves.

They don’t make sense. They’re not trying to. They do not bend towards justice. They don’t even know what that is and trying to tell them would be a kind of attack.

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.