Not necessarily. A person that wants to reform or change human nature, could join two broad mainstream factions. The Christians waiting for Rapture or something of that kind, vs the Leftists who are making a Utopia on Earth.

Beauty and Politics are related, at least in philosophy, but both are determined by epistemology and metaphysics.

Each of us prefer movies which reinforce our metaphysical view of the world.

Yes, I believe that’s true. Which is why knowing what movies someone likes tells you a lot about them.

Your artistic preferences are a touchstone to your soul.

This is similar to the previous quote, and again I agree. Thus, a person’s artistic predilections will give you a good idea which way their politics run.

…those with a certain “personality style” will tend to like certain works of art – specific novels, poems, films, music, painting, dance, photography, TV shows, etc

That’s very true, and there’s a fundamental reason for it. Each of us prefer movies which reinforce our metaphysical view of the world. The right sees the world around us as real and knowable and manageable while the left sees the world as Plato did, where our lives are merely “reflections on a cave wall”, impervious to human understanding.

I was discussing certain movies with a friend, and told him that I thought movies – and all kinds of art – should be uplifting. I detest “modern” art (soup cans are art?), and I don’t care for jazz (too jumbled). I believe art should portray mankind at its finest, not at its worst. As Ayn Rand wrote in The Romantic Manifesto, the function of art is to answer these questions for us:

Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life–or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?

Your artistic preferences are a touchstone to your soul.

I loved Frost long before my political change…

I was almost certain of this, hence my question about whether it foreshadowed your political change.

… and I tend to think I loved him for esthetics, for the poetry. And yet we are all wholes, not parts, and I suppose something about me that made me gravitate to the right politically also made me love Frost…

My theory is that artistic preferences and political inclinations are both outgrowths of some deep aspects of one’s personality (at least for those who consciously choose their politics rather than just follow the promptings of the MSM, popular culture, the “educational” system and others trying to herd everyone to the left).*

Thus, those with a certain “personality style” will tend to like certain works of art — specific novels, poems, films, music, painting, dance, photography, TV shows, etc — and usually prefer the political right. Others with a different personality style will tend to like very different artistic creations, and lean to the political left. By “personality style,” I mean a broad category of personalities with some vague resemblance based on a core of similar foundational traits.

One could probably make a questionnaire listing just 2 or 3 dozen works of art, asking how the person feels about each — eg “Like it,” “Dislike it,” “No Strong Feeling” — and predict much about the person’s politics based on his or her responses.
—————-

* Of the two, I think artistic tastes are more fundamental in the sense of being more closely and reliably bound to basic personality traits.

Kudzu.

Thing about stopping by the woods is that Frost doesn’t say he’s cold, or even apprehensive about the situation. He’s comfortable. Even has bells on the harness. Everything’s really, really neat. The reader gets that. Except in his own heart. So that’s a contrast.
Smelling burning leaves in the autumn, contemplating, say, Hallowe’en or Thanksgiving is different from smelling swamp rot and trying to recall if you took your malaria pill and whether that would help with dengue fever.
My point is that Frost’s nature is attractive. People pay money for moonlit sleigh rides. He has to work to put menace or despair into it. It isn’t trying to kill him, as with London or Service. It isn’t giving him jungle rot in the crotch and armpits. There are no leeches searching him while he’s anxiously trying to do something vital.
So, to conclude, Frost’s poems sell on one level, I submit, because of the cozy, comfy nature he details.
It’s one thing, as a boy, to be a swinger of birches. But that kid may have known another kid who got killed by the bull in the pasture. Frost only talks about the birches.
Then you get into the poetical meanings, which is different.
Take out the nature and you’d have no clue who the poet was.

Sounds like you went to the house in the photo. It’s about 20 minutes from Lincoln.

I didn’t mean to suggest for a moment that nature itself is as tough in New England as in some of those other places—although let me just say that, without that winter coat (or even with it), a night of exposure to a blizzard could easily kill you. I was speaking of the way Frost sometimes uses nature to express something that isn’t the least bit “comfy” and is in fact disquieting and often bordering on “terrifying.” For example, that poem I linked to in my comment to you, “Desert Places,” uses light snow in a field, and stars, to accomplish this. It’s not the landscape itself; it’s what it conjures up for him. That New England calendar looks cozy, but Frost often sees something quite different in it.

Here is another one like that. And I would say that this poem is an embodiment of the “terrifying” aspect of Frost’s contemplation of nature.