Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
Limited Constitutional Government
Low Taxes
Fiscal conservatism.
Free market capitalism with reasonable and responsible Regulation and oversight.
Equal rights for all
Provide a reasonable and sustainable Social Safety net.
A government that does not over step its bounds, but does the things it is suppose to do well and efficiently.
Open to any Idea that works well, and fairly.
Wishful thinking to be sure, but that is the basics of my Philosophy
this seems difficult to separate for me. i could only see how individuals in government could be distinguished from what the nation is, but my idea of america, for example, is our land, americans and our system of government.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.
canada and mexico, foremost. if we don't have a way of regularly aligning leadership with our constituents in an organized manner, even mexico could have our ass.what stable governments?
so who makes policy and determines administration? how does you 'final veto power' work, then?people are really unqualified to have a voice in policy or administration.
My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death.
~
Against our traditions we are now entering upon an unjust and trivial war, a war against a helpless people, and for a base object — robbery. At first our citizens spoke out against this thing, by an impulse natural to their training. Today they have turned, and their voice is the other way. What caused the change? Merely a politician's trick — a high-sounding phrase, a blood-stirring phrase which turned their uncritical heads: Our Country, right or wrong! An empty phrase, a silly phrase. It was shouted by every newspaper, it was thundered from the pulpit, the Superintendent of Public Instruction placarded it in every schoolhouse in the land, the War Department inscribed it upon the flag. And every man who failed to shout it or who was silent, was proclaimed a traitor — none but those others were patriots. To be a patriot, one had to say, and keep on saying, "Our Country, right or wrong," and urge on the little war. Have you not perceived that that phrase is an insult to the nation?
For in a republic, who is "the Country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant — merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Who, then, is "the country?" Is it the newspaper? Is it the pulpit? Is it the school-superintendent? Why, these are mere parts of the country, not the whole of it; they have not command, they have only their little share in the command. They are but one in the thousand; it is in the thousand that command is lodged; they must determine what is right and what is wrong; they must decide who is a patriot and who isn’t.
~
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. ~ Mark Twain
And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
I support a limited federal government with a majority of the power in local and state governments.
I have no problems with local governments regulating and imposing taxes, but when you concentrate a major portion of power to a central government where the politicians are not living in their own community that they are representing, then you see the problems that we have today.
this is due to our status quo, i argue, not by virtue of yours or tj's system which puts an onus on violent uprising as a means for political change. the founders lived in a backwards time in that respect. while we were fortunate for the fact back then, countries in our age which are pitted against their constituents' weapons in the way the framers envisaged are the shitholes of the planet, and reflect inane military capability, susceptibility to foreign influence and instability.The US is a newcomer on the world stage but we still have the oldest existing democracy among a world that is more than 2/3 democracies. Meaning we have one of the most stable governments on earth.
What is the average age of even powerful nations on earth? Maybe 50-60 years?
the eternal part of country is land. i think the institution, like the constitution and the system it prescribes is what the nation is. this is the object of nationalism for me. i dont think there's much to country without nation.My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death.
thomas jefferson's idea of a government might not have got us through 1812. it changed with lessons about what it takes to run the machine which his ideals helped to shape. i think this is true of most confederate thinkers. in today's age, they just haven't taken on board the lessons learned or those hazards to which some of these principles expose the nation.Final veto power worked thru the revolution, didn't work in the civil war are hasn't worked since. Thomas Jefferson believed that our nation depended on it working in the future.
i can't define myself within the constraints of democrat or republican, liberal or conservative. what i believe:
-high taxes, proportional to income
-nationalized health care, with a private option
-nationalized infrastructure, with a private option
-defense spending drastically reduced by abandoning any military presence in a foreign country
-abandon israel
-invest in alternative energy sources to reduce dependence on middle eastern oil, and thus any relations with the middle east, and thus a great reduction in the threat of terrorism
-harsher and more expedient death penalty, mandatory for any capital crime, applied within a month of conviction
-elimination of welfare and healthcare/transportation privileges for citizens unwilling to work and pay taxes
-decrease spending on the elderly and the mentally disabled by denying public coverage to either, the former when they reach a certain age
-stricter gun control, as too many mentally ill people have access and commit virginia tech
-absolute separation of church and state
-decriminalization of all controlled substances
-freedom of abortion
-too many to list
this is due to our status quo, i argue, not by virtue of yours or tj's system which puts an onus on violent uprising as a means for political change. the founders lived in a backwards time in that respect. while we were fortunate for the fact back then, countries in our age which are pitted against their constituents' weapons in the way the framers envisaged are the shitholes of the planet, and reflect inane military capability, susceptibility to foreign influence and instability.The US is a newcomer on the world stage but we still have the oldest existing democracy among a world that is more than 2/3 democracies. Meaning we have one of the most stable governments on earth.
What is the average age of even powerful nations on earth? Maybe 50-60 years?
the eternal part of country is land. i think the institution, like the constitution and the system it prescribes is what the nation is. this is the object of nationalism for me. i dont think there's much to country without nation.My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death.
Literally, a sovereign entity dominated by a single nation. A mythical and intellectual construct with a highly persuasive and powerful political force. It is the primary unit in the study of international relations. Yet although it has a specific meaning it is also a highly abused political term, especially when too readily applied to the real world. Its meaning is found in the coincidence of its two parent terms, state and nation. State refers to the political organization that displays sovereignty both within geographic borders and in relation to other sovereign entities. A world of nation-states implies an international system of pure sovereign entities, relating to each other legally as equals. Nation refers rather to the population within, sharing a common culture, language, and ethnicity with a strong historical continuity. This manifests itself in most members in a sentiment of collective, communal identity. When the two concepts, nation and state are combined, this creates an enormously compelling mixture of legitimacy and efficiency for governing elites.
Unfortunately, there does not exist, has never existed, a nation-state in the perfect sense. Nevertheless, it has commanded a strong following, as governments have endeavoured to attain the legitimacy and political stability it brings. It was used most effectively in the nation-building of the nineteenth century, and has been the target more recently of many Third World governments hoping to build nations in support of their states as part of their socio-economic development. A common strategy of elites in building a sense of internal cohesiveness is in creating strong enemy images from outside or within the society. It is often this feature that causes dynamic instability for nation-states in the world system.
The later part of the twentieth century witnessed a decline in the power of the nation-states, as other bodies gained power in international relations, bodies such as large multinational corporations, international organizations, and other collectivities. The rise of supranationalism, most clearly in the European Union, could well make the simple model of single-level sovereignty implied by the nation-state even more irrelevant. So could the problem of extranational minorities (such as Germans outside Germany, and Hungarians outside Hungary). For comparison, see also nationalism.
