My Political Stance
Because there is an online journal that actually publishes a monthly article about my political opinions I try and keep myself informed. I like to examine both sides of an argument before I write an opinion, and while I fully admit I'm no expert, I do make the effort to make comparisons to history whenever possible before wading into the debate.
Lately however I've found it rather difficult to get two sides of the conversation, my more liberal sources are equitable enough, and internationally conservatives are quite willing to have intelligent conversation, but within the USA every Republican I could once have a respectable conversation with has become a screaming four-year-old.
I feel like whenever I start discussing politics with a Republican they suddenly pull out their bible and say:
"Raise your right hand."
"Do you swear to hate every word, deed, associate, and cause of Barack Obama as long as you both shall live so help you God?"
"Do you pledge to uphold the tenants of the Obama haters and spend your every waking deed counteracting the continual advance towards the Obama-Nation of the United States?"
If my answer is not a resounding "I DO!" then I'm blocked out by a wall of juvenile petulance and insults until I end the conversation. I honestly can't count the number of times a conservative has called me "socialist" in the past three weeks. So in an attempt to get past this retarded meeting ritual of determining my political affiliation I will do my best to explain what I'm about here.
I identify with Libertarianism in that I consider personal freedom to be my true-north. Whenever I come across a political conundrum I consider freedom to be the first concern. Freedom for all people to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. To have this I believe people need the resources to survive, but beyond that they need the room to pursue greatness without undue exploitation. I believe the best way to achieve this is through decentralized governance.
Breaking that down I mean that we as a society have an obligation to make sure that the least of us can survive and should they so wish have the opportunity to advance their station in life. That means providing a bit of food and shelter for the homeless, but beyond that the government's obligation ends. Individuals and private organizations need to take over from there.
I believe that information needs to be available as it possibly can and that people should be able to say what they want to say, love who they want to love and hate who they want to hate as long as they do not impede another's ability to do the same. As far as freedom of information goes, people should of course be able to get compensated for information they have if it has significant value.
Exploitation is a core element of life, however when the conditions exist to the point where a human being is being exploited to the point of being unable to pursue greatness - whether capitalist, socialist, religious, or criminal in nature - those conditions need to be remedied.
By decentralized governance I mean this: Power divided among many. Government. Church. Corporation. Citizens. All separate and individual acting as checks and balances to ensure that one does not get undue influence over another while acting in their own self-interest. Overlap is inevitable, and so is conflict, but these are necessary to maintain the most freedom for everyone. Decentralized governance also means governance over smaller geographic areas, and smaller niches within aspects of culture, capitalism, and church. Smaller niches means more choice and more choice is more freedom.
To apply this to more current issues I believe that public schools should not have any policies or curriculum influenced by religion. If parents want religion integrated into their children's education they can pay for private schooling which should be able to teach whatever it likes as long as basic educational standards are met. However if an individual, state, or municipality wants to fund religiously influenced programs on their own then they should be able to; and again private citizens should be allowed to pay for private schooling that does otherwise.
I believe that the "bail-out plans" being instituted by nearly every government across the globe are what the people are demanding. If you're not one of those people then I'm sure you have a reason but the fact is that these governments were responding to pressure from the people pass these budgets. In America, George W. Bush was responding to that pressure when he urged congress to be swift in bringing this money to bear, and when Obama took over he did exactly the same. Beyond that I'm neither for these budgets or against them because I honestly have no idea how effective they will be at what. Instead I look at how these governments use this money with a keen eye on the long-term. These bail outs are effectively giving governments a fairly free reign to spend a lot of money however they want and as long as their spending is justified as "economic stimulus" it will probably not be questioned. I watch out for that.
I believe that America's standing in the international community depends largely on how effectively it can use it's military and I do not believe that giving more power and influence to the UN military is wise (remember the decentralized thing). Having said that, I see that America's military is overextended in it's obligations and unless it lightens those obligations it will not be able to maintain it's station within the global theatre. If America does not have it's military ready to aid it's allies and deploy against it's enemies if needed then countries will not listen to US Diplomats, and if that occurs other nations with their own motives will fill the power vacuum. I'm not one to say whether or not this is good or bad, with George Bush at the helm less US influence was probably better, now that's debatable. However in the United States own self-interest losing it's international influence is not a good thing, so for the time being it would be wise to avoid any new military entanglements. This means being careful not to overly antagonize Russia, North Korea or Iran which all have the military strength to pull the USA into a long battle it can ill-afford.
Finally if Freedom is my north star, than the United States Constitution is my map. In my experience deferring to it rarely steered any government wrong, and when deviated from trouble occurs. Undermining the Constitution has not - in my experience - ever been good, and so I try to consider that first and foremost before I voice an opinion. It was penned by men I consider very wise and in my experience it creates the most ideal conditions for freedom that I know.
I hope that summarizes my political stance. If that makes me a liberal cream-puff, a pinko-socialist, a war-monger, an Obama-lover or even a Libertarian... I'll leave that for you to decide.
My Groups
-
Conservative Politics Updated: Yesterday
-
Barack Obama Updated: Yesterday
-
Social Media Group Updated: Yesterday
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
Some of the uninvited contributions from the Bush fans have been quite startling in their childishness. So much so that I assumed they were coming from folk old enough to type by not old enough to drive a car. Further contributions have made me reconsider that theory so now I put it down to taking time to adjust to reality.
It's very tempting to re-use their brainless catch phrases like "Love it or Leave it" but where is the educational value in that. There is enough mindless stuff out there already.
I thought some folk might try to defend the Bush behavior from a view point I hadn't considered but abuse was the best on offer.
Eventually folk will get over their disappointment but they sure are taking their time.
By the way if they regard you as a pinko then I must be shocking pink and I'm not sure where that leaves the hard line nutters way Left of me.
Here is a more pinkish view for starters.
I'll take UN control over US intervention any day. It's ponderous and slow to kick start but at least they don't think a Hearts and Minds campaign can be delivered from the belly of a bomber. That's not to say I don't think the UN needs a serious rationalization but that is for a future blog of some size. (Well it needs a lot of work). ;-)
There is a much easier argument to mount about it being totally ineffective.
I prefer to see the policing done by the UN Security council but without it being manned by the Countries with the biggest arms industries. It seems too much like a cash cow in its current form.
Leadership of forces should be managed by countries not regarded as the "bad guys" by the locals. So in Iraq, no western power should provide the Generals. And no religiously identified leader should control the troops.
To top it all off I'd move the UN headquarters out of the States to somewhere less identified with US influence. That leaves Australia out of the frame but New Zealand would fit the bill. (If they would allow it). Or perhaps some idyllic island retreat.
This is no reflection on US capacity. No one is stronger. But some folk regard the UN as part of the US system and that is a bad thing. It has appear better than arms length away to weaken the arguments for those standing against world community wishes.
The slowness of a UN reaction is a problem but sometimes it's better to be late on the scene than rushing in bombing the crap out of a place and building up resistance.
I have the full series on DVD plus Yes Prime Minister. It points out how the Westminster system operates. The Us and Them is not the political parties it's pollies versus Bureaucrats.
A classic series that apparently Maggie Thatcher ordered her Ministers to watch. Now although that is going back a few years, I think it is still valid this day. Things move ever so slowly in the system.
There are a couple of classic statements that I must blog about one day. If fact I think there is enough to do a individual blog on different episodes.
On reflection I think we tend to view the UN from the position of how our local politics operates when it's a different from them all.
hey Toe-Knee - excellent post - and i agree with you 100 - unfortunately, my parents have turned into those screaming four-year-olds:( - which is why i'm so pleased to have an ocean and several plane flights between us at all times
I believe there ought to be a Constitutional Amendment barring astroturf and the designated hitter...
Sorry. I just could not help myself with that.
As someone who used to work at the UN, I can assure you that even if they were trying to become a global police force, and they are not, they would never be able to do it. One of the double edged swords of the UN is that each peacekeeping mission is set up from scratch (Romeo Dallaire's book on his experiences in Rwanda gives you a good idea of what the process is like). My problem with your stance is that what would you suggest if the country in question is murdering its own people? My brain went to Rwanda but that isn't the best example as the government claimed they wanted the UN while they were actually terrified that someone would care enough to go in. Maybe the Sudan is a better example.
As for the rest, I am a liberal Dem and always have been, reasonable people should be able to discuss topics about which they do not agree in a reasonable manner. Most of the conservatives I know right now say they feel that way but as soon as they are pressed they tell me how Obama is killing our freedoms (none has been able to explain how, just that HE IS!!!). I think it is sad but I probably won't lose sleep over it.