Can You Sum Up Your Political Philosophy?

antagon

The Man
Dec 6, 2009
3,572
295
48
For some people I imagine this sort of thing is easy. They might say, "I'm a Democratic Progressive" or something. For most of us, we've been burned by simple partisan adhesion or we've learned along the way that it's just not that accurate to fence your position in a few words. It may take putting out a blend like the popular 'Fiscal Conservative/ Social Liberal', or maybe you've found representation in 3rd parties. Maybe 'Tea Party' is established enough to define a political philosophy.

I have found this hard. I wont likely ever have a party allegiance unless hell freezes over and I go into politics myself. Even then, I am liable to start up my own wayside party. I'm a fan of the U.S. and our way of running the show. I don't think it has pier among nations, at least. Within the American paradigm, I see myself as a 'Social Capitalist (Micro)corporatist'. This is a decent reflection of the aims of what I consider good policy to be and a bit about how I live my life.

But that's me. Anyone care to share where they are coming from with their political, geopolitical, economic and social philosophy?
 
ANY person who votes party line is an idiot in my book. Why do people even associate with one party or the other? I like to think for myself, thank you very much.
 
ANY person who votes party line is an idiot in my book. Why do people even associate with one party or the other? I like to think for myself, thank you very much.

i gotta agree. it makes it hard to package your views succinctly, though. fancy a go?
 
Well, the way I put it to my kids once they got to voting age - vote at every opportunity because it's a very special privilege. Read a newspaper every day, watch current events on TV, and vote your conscience. But remember: generally speaking- Republicans make tangible things, don't brag about what they got, and don't ask for handouts. Democrats make nothing from other people's somethings, gloat about it, and ask for more.
 
Well, the way I put it to my kids once they got to voting age - vote at every opportunity because it's a very special privilege. Read a newspaper every day, watch current events on TV, and vote your conscience. But remember: generally speaking- Republicans make tangible things, don't brag about what they got, and don't ask for handouts. Democrats make nothing from other people's somethings, gloat about it, and ask for more.

With any luck, your kids are old enough now and smart enough to think for themselves, and no longer take Dad seriously.
 
ANY person who votes party line is an idiot in my book. Why do people even associate with one party or the other? I like to think for myself, thank you very much.

i gotta agree. it makes it hard to package your views succinctly, though. fancy a go?

How do you mean?

i've got political views independent from any party i could think of, but i figured i could describe myself as a social capitalist microcorporatist, anyhow.
 
For some people I imagine this sort of thing is easy. They might say, "I'm a Democratic Progressive" or something. For most of us, we've been burned by simple partisan adhesion or we've learned along the way that it's just not that accurate to fence your position in a few words. It may take putting out a blend like the popular 'Fiscal Conservative/ Social Liberal', or maybe you've found representation in 3rd parties. Maybe 'Tea Party' is established enough to define a political philosophy.

I have found this hard. I wont likely ever have a party allegiance unless hell freezes over and I go into politics myself. Even then, I am liable to start up my own wayside party. I'm a fan of the U.S. and our way of running the show. I don't think it has pier among nations, at least. Within the American paradigm, I see myself as a 'Social Capitalist (Micro)corporatist'. This is a decent reflection of the aims of what I consider good policy to be and a bit about how I live my life.

But that's me. Anyone care to share where they are coming from with their political, geopolitical, economic and social philosophy?

I can't thank you enough for asking!!!!

I am a nationalist first and foremost and an anarcho-syndicalist second. I leaned hard toward most of what progressives stood for pre New Deal, but that all went to hell when the democrats and liberals tried to steal their brand.

I loathe partisanship and corruption in government. I also loathe career politicians.

There should be a separation between finance and state.

But in a nutshell the basis of all politics should be nationalism, not self interest, as long as we employ a nation state model of government. Our nation was deeply rooted in that idea at it's founding and it quickly slipped away.

Revolution is a virtue when circumstances demand it.

The Civil war was unconstitutional.

Government IS too large and centralized, and in all the wrong ways.

People should never be allowed to vote. They are too stupid as a rule. But they should be allowed to lynch their leaders if the need is sufficient.

If everybody is not treated equally under the law, the law is null and void.

I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition.

~

Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
~Eugene Victor Debs
...the most high profile Progressive of all time, receiving almost 1 million votes for president of the United States while he was in prison for opposing WWI.

He also anchored the US labor movement almost alone, bringing us all an end to child labor, the weekend, overtime pay, safety regs and laws guaranteeing that labor would in fact be paid for work done.
 
i gotta agree. it makes it hard to package your views succinctly, though. fancy a go?

How do you mean?

i've got political views independent from any party i could think of, but i figured i could describe myself as a social capitalist microcorporatist, anyhow.

I don't like labels and feel they merely paint you into a box at some point or another. I am all over the board when it comes to my political views and honestly, don't think any particular group or party or organization has a large enough tent to hold me.
 
Well, the way I put it to my kids once they got to voting age - vote at every opportunity because it's a very special privilege. Read a newspaper every day, watch current events on TV, and vote your conscience. But remember: generally speaking- Republicans make tangible things, don't brag about what they got, and don't ask for handouts. Democrats make nothing from other people's somethings, gloat about it, and ask for more.

With any luck, your kids are old enough now and smart enough to think for themselves, and no longer take Dad seriously.

They each function successfully in the business world and are aware through their own observations of the negative impacts of Democrat ideals upon commerce. If they felt otherwise, I'd love them just the same.
 
Well, the way I put it to my kids once they got to voting age - vote at every opportunity because it's a very special privilege. Read a newspaper every day, watch current events on TV, and vote your conscience. But remember: generally speaking- Republicans make tangible things, don't brag about what they got, and don't ask for handouts. Democrats make nothing from other people's somethings, gloat about it, and ask for more.

With any luck, your kids are old enough now and smart enough to think for themselves, and no longer take Dad seriously.

They each function successfully in the business world and are aware through their own observations of the negative impacts of Democrat ideals upon commerce. If they felt otherwise, I'd love them just the same.

THAT is fair and good for you and them alike.:clap2:
 
I'm a realist first and foremost. I believe that all utopian fantasies are equally impossible - Socialism or Austrian school capitalism.

I believe that as bad as the status quo is, the alternatives are worse.

In terms of my own personal philosophy, I'm a rational anarchist. (Kudos if you get the reference).
 
I can't thank you enough for asking!!!!

I am a nationalist first and foremost and an anarcho-syndicalist second. I leaned hard toward most of what progressives stood for pre New Deal, but that all went to hell when the democrats and liberals tried to steal their brand.

I loathe partisanship and corruption in government. I also loathe career politicians.

There should be a separation between finance and state.

But in a nutshell the basis of all politics should be nationalism, not self interest, as long as we employ a nation state model of government. Our nation was deeply rooted in that idea at it's founding and it quickly slipped away.

Revolution is a virtue when circumstances demand it.

The Civil war was unconstitutional.

Government IS too large and centralized, and in all the wrong ways.

People should never be allowed to vote. They are too stupid as a rule. But they should be allowed to lynch their leaders if the need is sufficient.

If everybody is not treated equally under the law, the law is null and void.
there isn't a conflict between nationalism and small government? is the political volatility of a democracy by force system a losing hand in a world of stable governments? might the whole system go with a leadership lynching in such a scenario? perhaps that was tongue in cheek. do you mean that the government should not protect itself from sedition when you say the civil war was not constitutional or when you advocate public upheaval on leadership.

an interesting perspective.
 
there isn't a conflict between nationalism and small government?

No nationalism means that your first loyalty is to the nation, not the government, or esp not the government.

is the political volatility of a democracy by force system a losing hand in a world of stable governments?

what stable governments?

might the whole system go with a leadership lynching in such a scenario? perhaps that was tongue in cheek.

what I actually meant is that people are really unqualified to have a voice in policy or administration. But they tend to know when they are getting too screwed, and they should have a final veto power over government that has gone too far.

do you mean that the government should not protect itself from sedition when you say the civil war was not constitutional or when you advocate public upheaval on leadership.

What I mostly mean is that the civil war was two things at once, both unacceptable: One it was an example of when the people exercised what was at the time a perfectly legitimate final veto of government that they had every right to reject according to the terms of the dec of independence and revolution as well as the terms of the consti conv.

It was also the bridge too far into a federal system that took too much power from the states that comprised it.

It was in many ways the death of our nation as a revolutionary form of government and a government of the people.

Lincoln realized as much and explicitly addressed that point in the Gettysburg address. He killed the nation in order to save the nation and he knew it in every stage of the war.

It saddens me to have given up on the ability of people to have a voice in policy and administration. But look around. The people deserve to be governed well and to say so when it isn't happening and to command the actual authority under which government derives it's legitimacy. But they can't govern themselves, which is why we have central government in the first place.
 

Forum List

Back
Top