What Is Your Political Philosophy?

Objectivity. No, it's not popular. But, The Higher, The Fewer!

At least it's not so damn crowded here.

 

I am a Social Justice Liberal like Jesus and the current Pope, with exception that I am a Secularist relative to all the various religions that exist now. I might have been a Pantheist in a former life, during the Roman Empire, and I have a vague memory of Diogenes

I suffer from delusional narcissistic personality disorder, which is why I use the word "I" too much and why I post at odd hours on PoliticalForum.com

 

So where does your proof come from? The fact is that under democrat control for over 40 years until 1994, the welfare system was governed by the liberal left. Now in 2008, all three phases of our government were under democrat control and the unemployment spiked. Answer, Bush's fault. you find that an acceptable answer from a leader? Is this really what you'd expect? If so, then you are indeed a liberal. The democrats have done absolutely nothing to relieve the welfare system in this country. The lead back in the 90s came from the state of Wisconsin to motivate welfare recipients to go back to school to get jobs above the poverty level. This trickled into Washington and passed under Clinton's watch. Yes! It was the republican lead congress that helped that legislation. Now, you can sit on a message board and state why you are liberal, but perhaps you should really read up on how crooked these folks really are. So the country voted in 2010 to give the house back to the republicans and the first words our of our fair leaders mouth was he would not negotiate with them for any legislation. If they didn't agree with him on his legislation, that they were holding the country hostage. LOfn L on that. And, it remains a mystery to me today how some individuals in this country find this behavior from our leader acceptable.

 

The only way it works is if negotiation and comprimise is used when working out legislation. My way or the highway politics should be unacceptable to the people of our country. I would ask my republican leads to negotiate for what they want and give where it makes sense and then I'd expect the left to do the same. But for the leader of this country to speak publicly that he doesn't negotiate, well, is disengenuous. And should be considered unacceptable.

 

I'd agree with that, but all those things you listed come after protecting our Constitutional rights and liberties.

That's pretty much the only purpose or function of government, to protect our rights and freedoms, so we can go on to seek our happiness and live out our lives.

Sadly, too many people think the purpose of government is to impose their views, ideological beliefs and lifestyle choices onto the rest of the nation, banning opposing views or lifestyles or making them illegal.

 

How do you compromise with something that is fundamentally wrong? For example, how would you compromise with slavery?

 

One can push a favourite dogma and/or some pet ideology but, ultimately, it's a practical matter. What general approach achieves the best results?

There is always room for quibbling about minutia, but the most successful nations on earth are, demonstrably, all capitalist/social welfare balancing acts. The ones that work best for their people by one set of metrics are Norway, Australia, Netherlands, United States, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Germany, and Sweden. In other rating systems, most of the same ones lead the list - with occasional anomalies such as the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar breaking into the top ten, but peculiar circumstances pertain and are successfully accommodated.

Pragmatism trumps pipe dreams every time, no matter how fervent the true believer. Reality is a powerful ally.

 

My philosophy is that greed rules.

This is why capitalism can work and it is why the nanny state works today.

Just so long as everyone is striving for a pot of cash or a free hand out the system will work to some degree. Human beings are petty greedy little thugs.

Case in point are progressives in the US. They preach to us about how we need to help the poor, however, when jobs go overseas to people who are the poorest on the planet they raise holy hell. Why? I thought they wanted to help the poor, but all along they just wanted jobs for themselves.

 

Political Philosophy?
Governed by the people (congress), using compromise to appease all interested parties.

Unfortunately, we have drifted so far from that.
Compromise is gone. There seems to be a majority rule, don't like it, tough is the attitude.

Governed by the people is gone, replaced by quasi-dictatorship. The president issues "executive orders" which overrides the laws passed by the 'people'. Seems unconstitutional. The president appoints his followers to key positions in government agencies. These agencies then issue regulations which are really laws governing the people, and in many cases overriding laws passed by the 'people'. Again, seems unconstitutional.

The IRS and Justice department are becoming the Gestapo and SS of the United States.

We need to get back to:
Governed by people (congress), using compromise to appease all interested parties!

 

I am an Individualist.

I would say my beliefs correspond to those of the Founders of Framers, who established a country and system of law based on the revolutionary principle that sovereignty, rights and responsibilities are derived from the individual, not the state or the collective. Consistent with this, I am a proponent of individual freedom, personal independence and reliance, and limited government.

As a young man growing up during the latter half of the 20th Century, I was somewhat of an idealistic member of the New Left, however, as I grew older I found it increasingly difficult to reconcile my beliefs with the horrors that were occurring beyond the Iron and Bamboo curtains, and it was then that I came to realize that socialism is an authoritarian ideology that is antithetical to and openly hostile towards individual freedom. Ultimately, I found that there is no reconciling socialism with individualism - they are antithetical to one another.

While I have abandoned the New Left, the experience has been extremely helpful in that I truly understand how "progressives" think because I used to be one myself. I understand their thinking, philosophy, agenda and tactics.
.

 

Such as?

 

I'm an Eisenhower Republican.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."----Letter to Edgar Newton Eisenhower, his brother (8 November 1954)

Addendum---

"We shall ever build anew, that our children and their children, without distinction because of race, creed or color, may know the blessings of our free land.

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

To these beliefs we commit ourselves as we present this record and declare our goals for the future.

We firmly believe in the right of peoples everywhere to determine their form of government, their leaders, their destiny, in peace. Where needed, in order to promote peace and freedom throughout the world, we shall within the prudent limits of our resources, assist friendly countries in their determined efforts to strengthen their economies.

We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations.

America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper.

Government must have a heart as well as a head.

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

Protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of our party.

(We) believe that the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the people is as important as their economic health. It will continue to support this conviction with vigorous action.

(We) will renew its efforts to enact a program based on sound principles of need and designed to encourage increased state and local efforts to build more classrooms.

(We're) determined to press all such actions that will help insure that every child has the educational opportunity to advance to his own greatest capacity.

We have fully resolved to continue our steady gains in man's unending struggle against disease and disability.

We have supported the distribution of free vaccine to protect millions of children against dreaded diseases.

(Our) leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy.

We have asked the largest increase in research funds ever sought in one year to intensify attacks on cancer, mental illness, heart disease and other dread diseases.

We demand once again Federal assistance to help build facilities to train more physicians and scientists.

Strengthened the Food and Drug Administration, and increase the vocational rehabilitation program to enable a larger number of the disabled to return to satisfying activity.

We have supported measures that have made more housing available than ever before in history, reduced urban slums in local-federal partnership, stimulated record home ownership, and authorized additional low-rent public housing.

We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system.

We pledge close cooperation with State, local and private agencies to reduce the ghastly toll of fatalities on the Nation's highways.

We recommend to Congress the submission of a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for men and women.

(We) point to an impressive record of accomplishment in the field of civil rights and commits itself anew to advancing the rights of all our people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

(We) support an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.

We believe that such a policy serves our self-interest, reflects our responsibility for world leadership and develops maximum cooperation with other nations in resolving problems in this area.

We re-dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of a just peace and the defense of human liberty and national independence.

We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations.

We shall continue our cooperation with our sister states of the Americas for the strengthening of our security, economic and social ties with them.

Where needed, we shall help friendly countries maintain such local forces and economic strength as provide a first bulwark against aggression or subversion. We shall reinforce that defense by a military capacity which, operating in accordance with the United Nations Charter, could so punish aggression that it ceases to be a profitable pursuit.

We will continue efforts with friends and allies to assist the underdeveloped areas of the free world in their efforts to attain greater freedom, independence and self-determination, and to raise their standards of living.

We recognize the existence of a major threat to international peace in the Near East. We support a policy of impartial friendship for the peoples of the Arab states and Israel to promote a peaceful settlement of the causes of tension in that area, including the human problem of the Palestine-Arab refugees.

Recognizing economic health as an indispensable basis of military strength and world peace, we shall strive to foster abroad and to practice at home, policies to encourage productivity and profitable trade.

Barriers which impede international trade and the flow of capital should be reduced on a gradual, selective and reciprocal basis, with full recognition of the necessity to safeguard domestic enterprises, agriculture and labor against unfair import competition.

We recognize that no single nation can alone defend the liberty of all nations threatened by aggression or subversion. Mutual security means effective mutual cooperation. Poverty and unrest in less developed countries make them the target for international terrorism. We must help them achieve the economic growth and stability necessary to attain and preserve their independence.

We will strive to bring about conditions that will end the injustices of nations divided against their will, of nations held subject to foreign domination, of peoples deprived of the right of self-government.

We will overlook no opportunity that, with prudence, can be taken to bring about a progressive elimination of the barriers that interfere with the free flow of news, information and ideas, and the exchange of persons between the free peoples and the captive peoples of the world.

We approve appropriate action to oppose the imposition by foreign governments of discrimination against United States citizens, based on their religion or race.

We shall continue the bipartisan development of foreign policies. We hold this necessary if those policies are to have continuity, and be regarded by other free nations as dependable.

We favor full recognition of recreation as an important public use of our national forests and public domain lands.

We favor a comprehensive study of the effect upon wildlife of the drainage of our wetlands.

We favor recognition, by the States, of wild-life and recreation management and conservation as a beneficial use of water.

We subscribe to the general objectives of groups seeking to guard the beauty of our land and to promote clean, attractive surroundings throughout America.

We recognize the need for maintaining isolated wilderness areas to provide opportunity for future generations to experience some of the wilderness living through which the traditional American spirit of hardihood was developed. "-----1956 Republican National Convention Party Platform

 

I'm a liberal!

 

Reformed rightists reflect your attitude as well, of course.

One hopes both can transcend ideological dogma, and be pragmatic, learning from and adopting what is shown to actually work best in the governance of nations for the common good.

 

Those are our Constitutional rights and liberties, and they come first. Check the Preamble you apparently missed.

 

I would imagine so.

I imagine that a lot of people who have crossed the ideological divide are like myself and have held on to some of the positions they held in the past, so many of us are less dogmatic than the philosophical purists on the Left or the Right. In my case, I remain a social liberal even though my positions on individualism, economics and government range from conservative to libertarian. For the most part I am a libertarian, but I am not a libertarian absolutist.

As for the "common good", our perception of what that is and how we reach it is largely what defines us and distinguishes us from those whose views are different than our own. It's been said that we all want the "common good" but we just differ on how we think we should get there. However, I'm not sure that is true given people's wildly different conceptions of what constitutes the "common good".

 

Libertarianism is a perfectly respectful theoretical construct, absolutism in its adherence its inevitable pitfall for many. Like other theories, communism amongst them, it never actually works when carried to extremes, because people never conform to the requirements of the theoretical model.

Where has there even been an essentially "libertarian" state that has succeeded as well as the advanced nations that are all capitalist/social welfare accommodations? Pragmatically emulating proven success, however relative, isn't such a bad approach.

The "common good" needs to be informed by values beyond political preferences. If an individual espouses what is often called 'Christian charity" in the US and elsewhere has his moral commitment accurately reflected by sufficient numbers of like-minded individuals, the public imperative to provide for the common good will then reflect that predominant private moral conviction via the democratic process.

Whilst always subject to differing methodologies, the general tenor of the goal reconciles the majority of individuals to the society of which they choose to be members and conform to its mores. In a free and democratic nation, no mechanism for attaining shared goals should ever be proscribed or restricted due to the imposition of political dogma.

As you can see, there is a clear preference if not a consensus with some specificity as to what constitutes "the common good, and how it should be expressed.

Specific issues will still be confronted one at a time.

 

I agree. While there are many practical aspects about libertarianism that are worth advocating and applying on a personal, social and government level, the fact remains that libertarianism in many respects is an aspirational ideology/philosophy that demands a lot from people, and unfortunately, people aren't ready and may never be ready to apply it in its purest form. A lot of people may think libertarianism is an amoral ideology, but it actually requires extremely moral and ethical people to apply it. This is why the laizzez-faire capitalism of the Industrial Age failed people in many respects. I could detail the examples, but I doubt that is necessary.

This is true, but in and of itself the democratic process doesn't necessarily validate and legitimize the views, will and policies of the majority on a moral and legal level (and I suspect that you would agree with this). This is why we are a constitutional democratic republic that is (ideally) governed by the rule of law and not the caprices of the majority at any given moment. However, I would be remiss if I failed to add the caveat that the law has also failed us and itself on a moral and legal level at times (Plessy v. Ferguson is but one infamous example). Unfortunately, imperfect constructs are to be expected from imperfect beings such as ourselves.

Nice post, Natty, and I'm somewhat surprised no one responded to your thread, particularly in light of Pope Francis' remarks. Obviously, his suggestions raise the debate over the proper role of government. Then again, this discussion probably took place in another thread following the Pope's statement.
.

 

BTW, I would respect an HONEST and PRINCIPLED libertarian....


I just find that so many of them sell their souls to ally themselves with the Religious Right and Neo-Cons in the GOP, on the promise of tax cuts and nebulous spending cuts.

 

Given the alternative, a practical alliance against what is considered a greater evil is entirely understandable, Cap'n.

 

I have always respected libertarianism. You entice me into respecting libertarians!

 

It's all part of my nefarious plot.

My compliments on your thoughtful posts.

 

But look what happens....soon as the GOP gets power, their FIRST bills are anti-abortion bills. And their budget plans ALWAYS call for more defense spending....rarely unpopular spending cuts.

So what does the libertarian GET for their "alliance"?

 

I would dispute that this always happens, so I'm not going to pretend that it does.

Certainly, increases in defense spending is a problem for many libertarians, and I would submit that we can reduce defense spending in a wise manner that doesn't gut our military or gouge veterans out of the commitments that the American people have made to them in terms of benefits (something that Republicans and Democrats are doing in the current budget deal). However, there are worse things than increases in defense spending that concern many libertarians and quasi-libertarians, such as ObamaCare.

Besides keeping neo-socialists out of power?

One has to be realistic here, Gorn. Unless libertarians are willing to strike out on their own they are going to have to learn that you don't always get everything you want. This applies to anyone and everyone on both sides of the political spectrum.

Personally, I would prefer to see libertarians continue to work to change the Republican party from within and push it further towards their own policy positions, but I can understand the desire to run independently of the GOP.
.

 

Libertarian. I think government should exist to protect life, liberty, and property. We should respect individual rights and allow free trade/ exchange between people .