Can You Sum Up Your Political Philosophy?

[Cal]

Dang.. That's a toughie. I really don't know. I guess I'm considered Liberal, but I disagree with a host of Liberal positions. Like RWer said, I believe in truth, justice, and the American way. But I will never just vote for anyone with a (D), I'll vote for whoever represents my intrests.

 

[Sallow]

I believe in truth, justice and the American way

Clark?

You missed your deadline..again.

-Perry

 

[uscitizen]

"And regarding stable nations I can't name one beyond Japan and the US."

You understand little of the world then grasshopper.

Wax on wax off.

 

[Sallow]

this hearkens of the 3rd reich from some perspectives. do you think that this is practical for the US to implement, or would this also require a dictatorship, hence the destruction of our constitutional republic?

-harsher and more expedient death penalty, mandatory for any capital crime, applied within a month of conviction

Hyperbole aside..this is the only one that comes even close to the "3rd reich". And here I thought this was a thread meant to discuss political differences..silly.

 

[antagon]

To say you are a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is an oxymoron. It is like trying to have it both ways. You want to have all the social welfare programs, but you do not want to spend much money to pay for them. However, politicians who take this position to get elected end up spending and forget about their fiscal conservativism.

social conservatism/liberalism refers to stance on issues like gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion.

i'd imagine that spending to include social welfare would be in the purview of fiscal policy.

 

[antagon]

this hearkens of the 3rd reich from some perspectives. do you think that this is practical for the US to implement, or would this also require a dictatorship, hence the destruction of our constitutional republic?

-harsher and more expedient death penalty, mandatory for any capital crime, applied within a month of conviction

Hyperbole aside..this is the only one that comes even close to the "3rd reich". And here I thought this was a thread meant to discuss political differences..silly.

yeah. i've been discussing these differences with wyo. that doesn't preclude noting that there's a lot in common with national socialism. for me, more than just the swift justice.

 

[loosecannon]

"And regarding stable nations I can't name one beyond Japan and the US."

You understand little of the world then grasshopper.

Wax on wax off.

name one

 

[antagon]

And regarding stable nations I can't name one beyond Japan and the US.

most developed countries do okay with stability, but i argue that this is because of democratic interaction, even ostensibly -- elections, freedom of press, etc. when i talk about an unstable US, i mean that if you withdraw these mechanisms that there would be instability.

i'd like to better understand how you propose politics would work. is there any means for citizens to sway government other than violent or non-violent upheaval?

I disagree. A nation state is comprised of a state existing within a nation and while a new idea these have so far proven to be extraordinarily unstable. But what stability they possess is a function of social unity and even homogeny.

...

Nationalism, not statism, Antagon. A critical distinction.

i can reconcile the difference of nationalism and statism, but i fail to see how the state is really isolated from the nation other than philosophically or rhetorically.

i am interested in this idea of homogeneity. it ran pretty deep in that quote. how would a nation put that into effect? will that be ugly?

as a point of reference, could you hook me up with an example of such a historical nation-state?

 

[loosecannon]

i can reconcile the difference of nationalism and statism, but i fail to see how the state is really isolated from the nation other than philosophically or rhetorically.

i am interested in this idea of homogeneity. it ran pretty deep in that quote. how would a nation put that into effect? will that be ugly?

I provided a textbook definition that reconciled the precise difference between nationalism and statism. The nation is the people united by social and cultural bonds, language etc. The state is the government exercising authority over a geographical range.

i am interested in this idea of homogeneity. it ran pretty deep in that quote. how would a nation put that into effect? will that be ugly?

sometimes yes, think of Israel, Ireland, the US civil war, segregation in the US, South Africa, Darfur, Ruwanda, the congo, Iraq, even Germany as of the last few months.

 

[loosecannon]

And regarding stable nations I can't name one beyond Japan and the US.

most developed countries do okay with stability, but i argue that this is because of democratic interaction, even ostensibly -- elections, freedom of press, etc.

OK, but from a strict pov I do not consider either Mexico, Canada or any European nation to be stable. The EU is fragile, Mexico is under assault from organized criminal cartels and may have already ceded most of it's power over the state. Canada is two distinct nations within one state and they launched a ballot initiative a few decades ago to decide whether Quebec would secede. The initiative formally failed by 1% but nobody I spoke with in Canada believed the results legitimate.

Is that stable? And what about the erosion of ALL nation states under pressures from globalization?

 

[loosecannon]

is there any means for citizens to sway government other than violent or non-violent upheaval?

not that I am aware of. Take our nation for example: Still polarized roughly down the same boundaries as during the civil war and we have near complete gridlock at the federal legislative level. Not to mention that this polarization makes possible a complete two party monopoly on power.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Fiscal conservative.
Social moderat
Lover of the Constitution
Pro small government
Pro, very pro, states rights
Pro military
supporter of self dependance.

I've taken a number of these online test to see what party fits my ideals. It keeps coming back the "Reform Party".

but I'm tired of parties. the 2 party system has screwed everything up.

 

[Two Thumbs]

is there any means for citizens to sway government other than violent or non-violent upheaval?

not that I am aware of. Take our nation for example: Still polarized roughly down the same boundaries as during the civil war and we have near complete gridlock at the federal legislative level. Not to mention that this polarization makes possible a complete two party monopoly on power.

Bribary and extortion.

congressmen take bribes on a regular basis from each other and lobbiest.

 

[loosecannon]

is there any means for citizens to sway government other than violent or non-violent upheaval?

not that I am aware of. Take our nation for example: Still polarized roughly down the same boundaries as during the civil war and we have near complete gridlock at the federal legislative level. Not to mention that this polarization makes possible a complete two party monopoly on power.

Bribary and extortion.

congressmen take bribes on a regular basis from each other and lobbiest.

but we can't throw them out because we only get to choose between crook (D) and crook (R).

 

[antagon]

i can reconcile the difference of nationalism and statism, but i fail to see how the state is really isolated from the nation other than philosophically or rhetorically.

I provided a textbook definition that reconciled the precise difference between nationalism and statism. The nation is the people united by social and cultural bonds, language etc. The state is the government exercising authority over a geographical range.

i am interested in this idea of homogeneity. it ran pretty deep in that quote. how would a nation put that into effect? will that be ugly?

sometimes yes, think of Israel, Ireland, the US civil war, segregation in the US, South Africa, Darfur, Ruwanda, the congo, Iraq, even Germany as of the last few months.

is this racism, culturalism (or another ism) instead of nationalism?

i think of nationalism in the social capacity to be stuff like pledging allegiance to the flag, national pride, national language, domestic product loyalty and especially a national culture. this can be strengthened in the US, how i see it, but it wont entail racial or religious homogeneity. the US has a history whereby it has benefited from influx of diverse groups, the hosting of varied demography and the support for different, almost polar world views.

is this adaptability what makes the US better at exploiting human resources than some of these nations you've proposed? the core question is do we play perfectionist with our tools or endeavor to excel with whatever we've got at the moment?

 

[antagon]

is there any means for citizens to sway government other than violent or non-violent upheaval?

not that I am aware of. Take our nation for example: Still polarized roughly down the same boundaries as during the civil war and we have near complete gridlock at the federal legislative level. Not to mention that this polarization makes possible a complete two party monopoly on power.

no, i mean in the system which you propose. i am curious about what sounded like no option to elect officials (where do they come from?) and the non-violent final veto power you propose, and how that can be facilitated in a way which retains the stability which the US enjoys now.

it is possible that people feel disenfranchised in US politics, but every year there's an opportunity to vote for some kind of government or referendum. people can openly join the ranks of politicians and officials within the government. i consider this to be the fountain of stability here. i dont understand precicely what you propose as an alternative, but i argue that without this interaction. mexico with its warlords and canada's bi-nation state would be more stable than a US which relies on an informal system of communication between state and constituent.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Limited in what areas?

Low Taxes

What are we going to give up? Social safety net? Defense? Infrastructure development? Research and development in all fields?

Fiscal conservatism.

Good words, the only admin that actually tended that way was Clinton's.

Free market capitalism with reasonable and responsible Regulation and oversight.

Reasonable as defined by whom?

Equal rights for all

No questions about that.

Provide a reasonable and sustainable Social Safety net.

Reasonable and sustainable. Good words, but by whose definition.

A government that does not over step its bounds, but does the things it is suppose to do well and efficiently.

Again who defines the things that it is supposed to do? And, considering just Health Care, where other governments are delivering a product superior for most of their citizens to that we have, at 1/2 to 3/4 the cost that we pay per citizen, do we learn from them or continue as we are?

Open to any Idea that works well, and fairly.

Totally agree there. But very few people will, if it is their ox getting gored by the better idea, no matter how fairly it works for the majority.

Wishful thinking to be sure, but that is the basics of my Philosophy

Not wishful thinking, but the devil is in the details.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I find political labels meaningless, for all intent and purposes. What matters, in my opinion, is an individual's belief in the Constitution, and their viewpoint of its proper adjudication.

 

[loosecannon]

is this racism, culturalism (or another ism) instead of nationalism?

all of that and more, and sometimes none of that, it depends where you look. Sometimes it is all about religion.

The point is that historically nation states, city states etc almost always relied on social bonding which is based on human instincts toward family, tribe, clan etc. Technically anything that helped people living in a unit to identify themselves as a "people" strengthens the cohesion of the nation, or tribe etc.

Racism isn't so much an issue as assimilation is. Some nations like Lebanon seem immune to religious diversity, others definitely NOT. You will have to answer your own question with the perimeters of the definitions.

i think of nationalism in the social capacity to be stuff like pledging allegiance to the flag, national pride, national language, domestic product loyalty and especially a national culture. this can be strengthened in the US, how i see it, but it wont entail racial or religious homogeneity. the US has a history whereby it has benefited from influx of diverse groups, the hosting of varied demography and the support for different, almost polar world views.

America and it's immigrants have both demonstrated remarkable abilities for assimilation. But if you look it is easy to find examples of groups that did not assimilate well, and that retain strict alternate identities, and that are not well accepted after looooong periods within the US.

Frequently groups that do not assimilate well exist peacefully within nations until something sparks tensions and then the fabric can quickly rip apart. Examples abound all over the world.

 

[loosecannon]

is there any means for citizens to sway government other than violent or non-violent upheaval?

not that I am aware of. Take our nation for example: Still polarized roughly down the same boundaries as during the civil war and we have near complete gridlock at the federal legislative level. Not to mention that this polarization makes possible a complete two party monopoly on power.

no, i mean in the system which you propose. i am curious about what sounded like no option to elect officials (where do they come from?) and the non-violent final veto power you propose, and how that can be facilitated in a way which retains the stability which the US enjoys now.

it is possible that people feel disenfranchised in US politics, but every year there's an opportunity to vote for some kind of government or referendum. people can openly join the ranks of politicians and officials within the government. i consider this to be the fountain of stability here. i dont understand precicely what you propose as an alternative, but i argue that without this interaction. mexico with its warlords and canada's bi-nation state would be more stable than a US which relies on an informal system of communication between state and constituent.

First of all I wasn't proposing a system, just expressing my political beliefs.

Second our system is quite similar to what I would propose if it had hard and fast features like a recall election as CA does. FWIW parlimentary systems almost all have a means to scatter ruling coalitions mid term if "things just aren't working out".

And FWIW , imo, our government gives the people virtually no say in policy or administration. We see this when folks like Bush tell us point blank that there was a referendum on his Iraq war policy, it was called the election. So we get a say once every 2,4, or 6 years, and for the remainder of times we get no say whatsoever.

Which is all well and good, but we deeply need a powerful mechanism to veto our present government when it is screwing us too hard.

Recall, revolution, something else, but something powerful.