Where I stand:
Rubrik I: Financial
Liberal economic policies (bottom up) -PRO
Conservative economic policies (trickle-down) - CONTRA
I am pro-Liberal economic policies because statistically, the economy has done better under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents, on the whole, or has recovered from a Democratic administration that inherited an economic mess from a Republican administration.
Healthcare: Obamacare, pure-single-payer, undoing Obamacare, complete private-health care, etc.
I am for pure-single payer, because I have experience with such a system and know first-hand that it works like a top. This puts me to the Left of Obamacare.
Debt reduction. How to reduce, how long it should take. -strongly PRO.
Slight economic diet for over 70 years. We must spend less than we bring in, enough to completely erase the interest on the debt and then some. Do it over 70 years time, and then the debt should be at such a small level that it is insignificant. Our Republic has lived from debt every single year since it's exception, excluding one single year in the 1830s. Notice that I never wrote "Debt elimination".
Budget/Deficit: balanced budget amendment? strongly PRO, enacted in three or four parts, over 16 years, or 4 presidential terms. For instance, in the first 4 years, the deficit is allowed to go only so and so much % over budget, in the next four 4 years, less, in the next four years, less and so on.
Trade agreements, like NAFTA from the past, the pacific pact from today, also the large trade agreement with India, for instance. DEPENDS.
Not all trade agreements are equal. Most on the Right loved NAFTA when it first went through. In fact, Bill Clinton got it passed with Republican votes in the 1990s. Now, practically everyone says they hate it, that it caused Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound". Who knows for sure. I think the trade agreement with India ( Vikrant ) is one of the smartest moves of the Obama administration and obviously, with Asian partners growing in strength, we must protect our interests there. We cannot hide from trade agreements.
Rubrik II: National defense / foreign policy
Military spending: up the spending, maintain the spending, reduce the spending (thoughts about the War on Terror are probably best written here, imo)
Reduce, slowly but surely, over 50 years time.
Isolationistic foreign policy vs. Interventionistic foreign policy? NEITHER NOR
We live in a world where being isolationistic is physically impossible, but constant interventions have cost us TRILLIONS of dollar. It's time for interventionism to stop. I also think it's time to slowly phase out most of our presence in Europe, without leaving NATO.
"Nation Building" - does it work, or not? NO, it does not. It needs to stop.
NATO - PRO, but with a reduced presence.
Israel / Iran - strongly PRO-Israel!
On Iran, conflicted. Not sure that any solution will work, but that 10 years of behind-the-scenes diplomacy on the part of 7 nations has earned the right to be at least tried out.
Rubrik III: Social Issues / Constitutional issues
Net Neutrality - must be maintained. The Internet should stay as free as possible.
Marriage Equality (aka "gay" marriage vs. "traditional" marriage)
For me, it is not a religious issue, it is a legal issue. Traditional marriage, as it has been called, as been altered many times over the last 2,000 years. This is just another step in the evolution of marriage. All it does is to grant same-sex partners the same protections and financial benefits under the law as it already does hetero married couples. And I am speaking as a straight man who has a child.
abortion: pro-life, pro choice?
I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is inherently wrong and that only in the most extreme of cases (incest, rape, miscarriage is highly likely and a direct threat to the life of the mother) should abortions be performed. For me, it is not a religious issue, but it is an ethical one and deals with the life of the unborn life-form within the mother. Whether or not you want to call a fetus a "human being" or not, it is still a life-form, one that was created through human sexual activity, on cannot protect itself, and if we are going to claim to be a fair and benevolent society, then we must protect the lives of unborn life-forms. For me, the life of the more vulnerable has 1st priority in this case. But I am also strongly pro-contraception. There is no reason in the world to not use contraception to avoid having children before one is willing and ready to have one. On this issue, I separate myself strongly from most Liberals.
Legalization of Marijuana - STRONGLY CONTRA
I believe that the marijuana legalization movement is wrong, that this substance is far more dangerous when used as a recreational drug as people want to admit. I am for use of medical marijuana, under the control of a licensed physician. On this issue, I separate myself strongly from most Liberals.
2nd amendment vs. Gun Control - PRO 2nd Amendment, but..
...and this is an important but: I am against semi-automatic weapons of any sort on the streets and do not believe this was the intent of our Founders, that were they to see what is happening today, they would recoil in horror. I also do not believe that there is any justification for any kind of armed insurrection within the USA against the Federal Governement, using the 2nd amendment as a basis. It is just a matter of decades before mini-nuclear weapons will be available, the size of wrist-watches. Are we going to cover them as protected under the 2nd amendment, too? On this issue, I am in the mddle.
Prison system: death penalty - PRO, in the most extreme of cases
But, the standards need to be uniform and this should NOT be a states-rights issue. Calling the death penalty "barbaric" doesn't cut it with me. Tell that to the family of murder victims. And tell that to the family of murder victims where perps deliberately picked a state that does NOT have the death penalty in order to commit mass murder. Mass murder should always be punished with the death penalty, as a strong deterrent to cause the next potential mass murderer to think twice. If putting a mass murderer to death, keeps another group of 10 people somewhere else from being murdered, even just once, then the death penalty has served its purpose, imo. On this issue, I separate myself strongly from most liberals.
Legal system: tort reform - PRO
Cops: body-cams? - strongly PRO
protects the cops against false accusations, helps the cops to remember to always behave themselves properly, provides clarity in establish and exact time-line of event in each and every criminal case and adds neutral evidence in every case. Video cams cannot lie. Body-cams for all cops is a win-win situation for everybody. This should easily be a 100% vote in the US Congress, should a bill to mandate this come up.
Term limits for Congress and/or Judges -
CONTRA for Congress, PRO for Judges who are non-elected. For elected officials, we already have term-limits, they are called "elections".
Drones, droning, privacy issues - this is juristic new-land for all of us, entering an age where drones down to the size of small birds can photogaph and film pretty much every aspect of a person's life, or drop a bomb on/ shoot a missile at people. This is plain old inhuman. But the Pandora's box is now opened, I see no hope of it ever closing. On this one, the Libertarians who have been screaming very loudly about the growing danger of this are right, imo.
Electoral college: pro, contra?
Voting, voting-rights, elections
Don't end the Electoral college: mend it! I made a huge thread on this in the CDZ more than one year ago, covering my own recommendations for electioneering:
Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The OP is so large, it encompasses 5 postings, and the one pertinent to the EC is in posting number 3.
Race-Racism: too much discussion, not enough, or just right?
We have a problem with racism, to be sure. We are talking about it far too much and not doing enough. We are stoking emotions without actually doing tangible things. In doing so, we excacerbate an already bad situation and give racists even more verbal ammunition.
Immigration, Immigration reform - PRO immigration reform.
To use the words of a very Conservative friend of mine:
1.) you are never going to be able to root out all 11 million who are here illegally
2.) it will cost far more to do it than it is worth to do it
3.) it will cause a shadow economy to crash, a shadow economy that should actually be adding to our economy.
So, I say: close the border with a physical fence, an underground "moat" and an electronic fence. Pass Obama's immigration reform and be done with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self assesment: I'm more of a Heinz 57 than most people would think. I am certainly not a pure-Liberal but far enough away from Conservativism that I would never be considered a Conservative.
I consider myself in the middle to the Left of middle on economic issues, in the middle to the Right of middle on national defense issues, but either
strongly to the left or
strongly to the right on social/constitutional issues, and in one case,
strongly Libertarian.
Specifically, on Israel, marijuana legalization, trade agreements, NATO, abortion, death penalty, tort reform, term-limits, it is fair to say that I am strongly on the RIGHT.
But on Immigration Reform, Healthcare, bottom-up economic policy, interventionism, nation-building, marriage equality - there is no doubt I come in strongly on the LEFT.
On droning, I come in squarely on the Libertarian side of the issue.
On the other issues, it's harder to define. Because humans are complex beings.
In sum-total, when I look at my own responses, I am therefore more of a moderate than I realize.
I suppose one would have called me a Blue-Dog Democrat in Bill Clinton's day. Maybe, maybe not.
So, yes, I do think it's possible to be a "Moderate" in today's political climate and that many of us are more moderate more of the time than we realize. I see no reason for a person who have to subscribe in part and parcel to every aspect of any ideology. That's just bunk.
And it is the MIDDLE in the USA that decides elections, and by extension, the direction of the Union for the next four years, each time.
Ok, who is next?
That is why my attitude on all major issues is fairly moderate. I try not to swing to either extreme. But of course, there are some issues where one has to take firm stand.
