• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your politics?

What is your politics?

  • social conservative, economic liberal, internationalist foreign policy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I am interested in breaking down the binary liberal-conservative split into more meaningful categories.
 
Last edited:
Poll Options said:
social conservative, economic liberal, aggressive foreign policy

Kind of a mixed bag in all three, really. But those are the directions I lean.
 
Kind of a mixed bag in all three, really. But those are the directions I lean.

Hey, yeah, I saw that vote and found it very curious. I am glad you posted about it. I can dig the socially conservative position, although we disagree on that one, and the aggressive foreign policy position, which we share. However, in what ways are you economically liberal? How do you define that?
 
Socially liberal here, economically liberal as well, but as far as foreign policy is concerned, I would lean a tiny bit towards aggressive, if the term "internationalist" means kowtowing to the opinions of the Eurabian axis.


How anybody could actually consider themself a liberal while acting as apologist for the least liberal people on earth is beyond me, and while I am not a neocon by any means, I can understand the frustration of those liberals at the time who DID become the original neocons when it comes to the far left's hypocrisy.

The morons who call themselves liberal while acting as apologists for Islamism are not liberals at all, but just dogmatic idiots.
 
How anybody could actually consider themself a liberal while acting as apologist for the least liberal people on earth is beyond me, and while I am not a neocon by any means, I can understand the frustration of those liberals at the time who DID become the original neocons when it comes to the far left's hypocrisy.

The morons who call themselves liberal while acting as apologists for Islamism are not liberals at all, but just dogmatic idiots.

I totally agree! I claim that I am a liberal neocon for that exact reason and my hard aggressive foreign policy position.

It you aren't a dogmatic idiot, then you don't belong to their group. They self select for it.

Did you vote?
 
What really defines all these things? Not sure where I fit. I'm probably in the fiscal conservative group. Non-aggressive interventionist on the international policy side. Socially I think I'm more a mix than adhering to any particular one side.
 
What really defines all these things? Not sure where I fit. I'm probably in the fiscal conservative group. Non-aggressive interventionist on the international policy side. Socially I think I'm more a mix than adhering to any particular one side.

That looks like a good pic to me. I mean really, if you aren't completely conservative socially, then you are liberal. But both right and left are fairly dogmatic about it. I hate that that is the defining political aspect (social aspect) for many people. Mine is foreign policy - I figure the rest works itself out between the two parties over time.
 
I am "social conservative, economic conservative," but there is not an option for a non-interventionalist foreign policy.

My arguments against Internationalism:
1. I am a citizen of a country (US), not the world.
2. I do not believe in applying leadership throughout the world, I think we have enough problems on our own turf and need to look within.
3. I think the world would be much better off without the UN.
4. I am not interested in a single world government.
5. Internationalism is as bad as an aggressive foreign policy as I see the same results from both of them.
 
I am "social conservative, economic conservative," but there is not an option for a non-interventionalist foreign policy.

My arguments against Internationalism:
1. I am a citizen of a country (US), not the world.
2. I do not believe in applying leadership throughout the world, I think we have enough problems on our own turf and need to look within.
3. I think the world would be much better off without the UN.
4. I am not interested in a single world government.
5. Internationalism is as bad as an aggressive foreign policy as I see the same results from both of them.

I thought about having an isolationist foreign policy, but that would have been too many options.

As an agressive foreign policy guy, I agree with your #1, #3, and #4. #2 is isolationist.

Regarding #5, what are the similarities you see between internationalism and an aggressive foreign policy?
 
You left out social liberal, economic conservative, "stay-out-of-other-countries'-business" foreign policy.;)
 
I picked the closest match you had listed - social liberal, economic liberal and internationalist foreign policy.

I believe in a strong defense but do not buy into our country's armed imperialism through optional wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
I am "social conservative, economic conservative," but there is not an option for a non-interventionalist foreign policy.

My arguments against Internationalism:
1. I am a citizen of a country (US), not the world.
2. I do not believe in applying leadership throughout the world, I think we have enough problems on our own turf and need to look within.
3. I think the world would be much better off without the UN.
4. I am not interested in a single world government.
5. Internationalism is as bad as an aggressive foreign policy as I see the same results from both of them.
i'm with you on the non-interventionist policy. of course, i am socially liberal and economically centrist.
 
Social Moderate, Economic Conservative, non-interventionalist Foreign Policy.

None of the poll category's fit me.
 
I'm socially moderate, economically conservative and agree with lizzie, "Stay the hell out of other countries' business".
 
Hey, yeah, I saw that vote and found it very curious. I am glad you posted about it. I can dig the socially conservative position, although we disagree on that one, and the aggressive foreign policy position, which we share. However, in what ways are you economically liberal? How do you define that?

I'm using the accepted definition in US politics, economic policies in line with or similar to the Democratic Party or those few parties further Left. I'm not a Leftist in any ideological sense-- I'm not concerned with equality-- but I think progressive tax schemes are a worthwhile end in their own right aside from their value in funding the government and I believe in extensive government programs and services as well as strict regulatory control over the economy.

I just don't want the same kind of programs and services that the more traditional liberals want. For instance, I would want to pour substantial amounts of government funds into the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. I would want to drastically increase school budgets, but I'd want the money going primarily into creating a robust vocational education system and enhanced gifted & talented programs. And better funding for public universities. Military funding would probably stay the same or even increase. (Funnel the money from boondoggle R&D programs into salaries and training budgets, though.) I'd like to have CCTV, at very least in high crime areas, and enough money to put police officers, on foot, in those areas in sufficient numbers to ensure their safety and their efficacy.

For starters.

As far as social conservatism goes... I'm a little off there, too. Fine with gay marriage and abortion, it's divorce and raising children out of wedlock I object to. Want drugs legalized, but I don't want them advertised and I want them kept behind the counter and out of sight in pharmacies, with the pornography and the marital aids. I want laws on obscenity back, if only in public, and for indecent exposure to be a little broader in scope than genitals and womens' nipples. I support gun ownership, and open carry, and for the castle doctrine to apply to your lawn. (The moat doctrine?) Protesters should be polite, out of the way, and quiet; police should be able to arrest, beat, or turn the hoses and dogs on people bothering innocent bystanders, making noise, or carrying indecent picket signs. The press, on the other hand, should be able to print anything that is not libel, obscenity, or that does not fall under the strictest definition of national security.

We probably see eye-to-eye on military matters. I think American blood is precious and every single drop of it spilled-- by foreigners, at least-- requires justification, but that our military exists to do what's good for us first and foremost and what's good for the rest of the world as an afterthought.

So, yeah. Mixed bag. In terms of label, I consider myself simply a moderate authoritarian, with a tolerance for those traditional freedoms that uphold order and civility.
 
Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain your positions. For comparisons purposes, I'll lay mine down.

I'm using the accepted definition in US politics, economic policies in line with or similar to the Democratic Party or those few parties further Left. I'm not a Leftist in any ideological sense-- I'm not concerned with equality-- but I think progressive tax schemes are a worthwhile end in their own right aside from their value in funding the government and I believe in extensive government programs and services as well as strict regulatory control over the economy.

I just don't want the same kind of programs and services that the more traditional liberals want. For instance, I would want to pour substantial amounts of government funds into the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. I would want to drastically increase school budgets, but I'd want the money going primarily into creating a robust vocational education system and enhanced gifted & talented programs. And better funding for public universities. Military funding would probably stay the same or even increase. (Funnel the money from boondoggle R&D programs into salaries and training budgets, though.) I'd like to have CCTV, at very least in high crime areas, and enough money to put police officers, on foot, in those areas in sufficient numbers to ensure their safety and their efficacy.

For starters.

I am pro-business. I do not like the progressive tax system, as it stifles business. People need to be encouraged to take risks and make money. I would actually prefer a consumption tax, drop the income tax and drop the capital gains tax.

I also believe in government programs to a degree. Welfare, national health care - it is an embarassment that we have people here that aren't covered: SHAME! Public education although I am for School Vouchers and I like your idea of "creating a robust vocational education system and enhanced gifted & talented programs.". I like your idea of funding the Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts. I am a big fan of National Parks and Seashores.

As far as social conservatism goes... I'm a little off there, too. Fine with gay marriage and abortion, it's divorce and raising children out of wedlock I object to. Want drugs legalized, but I don't want them advertised and I want them kept behind the counter and out of sight in pharmacies, with the pornography and the marital aids. I want laws on obscenity back, if only in public, and for indecent exposure to be a little broader in scope than genitals and womens' nipples. I support gun ownership, and open carry, and for the castle doctrine to apply to your lawn. (The moat doctrine?) Protesters should be polite, out of the way, and quiet; police should be able to arrest, beat, or turn the hoses and dogs on people bothering innocent bystanders, making noise, or carrying indecent picket signs. The press, on the other hand, should be able to print anything that is not libel, obscenity, or that does not fall under the strictest definition of national security.

I am with you on gay marriage and abortion. What can be done about divorce and raising kids out of wedlock? Agreed that it is really hurting our society. It's a go on legalizing drugs. On indecent exposure, I would actually make it more liberal. It's not a crime to see a penis or a nipple. Lighten up America! Guns are good to go. I like noisy in-your-face protestors and think it is not a nuisance violation in many cases, although there are some boundaries you should cross, like go out of a designated area or start damaging property (Seattle WTO riots). If the protestors do violate then turn the dogs loose and let the cops get the job done. I am with you on the press.

We probably see eye-to-eye on military matters. I think American blood is precious and every single drop of it spilled-- by foreigners, at least-- requires justification, but that our military exists to do what's good for us first and foremost and what's good for the rest of the world as an afterthought.

I am not sure of this. I agree the blood of Americans is precious and requires justification. I also agree that what's good for us is first and foremost than what is good for the rest of the world. Where we may differ is that I think spreading democracy is good for us and ought to be aggresively pursued. It so happens it is good for targeted parts of the world, that have the capacity. By capacity, I mean Iraq is literate and has the capacity (Iraq war and rebuilding was awesome, with some bumps), while Afghanistan may not have the capacity (we should get out).

So, yeah. Mixed bag. In terms of label, I consider myself simply a moderate authoritarian, with a tolerance for those traditional freedoms that uphold order and civility.

I call myself a liberal neoconservative, mainly because of the aggressive democracy-spreading position. Cool beans.
 
Last edited:
I am socially and economically liberal, but neither of your options for foreign policy fit me. I would call myself a pragmatist on foreign policy, with the situation defining the correct response, and always taking into account what is in our best interest.
 
I am pro-business. I do not like the progressive tax system, as it stifles business. People need to be encouraged to take risks and make money.

Not really, because making money is its own encouragement. There is no progressive taxation scheme in which making more money is not rewarded-- it is only a matter of diminishing returns, which is justified in the fact that beyond a certain point, income is not reflective of productive behavior but merely of ownership. The purpose of ownership and capital is to encourage productive behavior; it is the means to an end, not an end of itself.

I would actually prefer a consumption tax, drop the income tax and drop the capital gains tax.

Consumption taxes depress consumption. Where does the capitalist's income derive from, except from consumption? Such a tax hurts everyone, and hurts disproportionately those who can bear it least.

I actually agree with you on capital gains. People should not pay taxes based upon wealth-on-paper and market fluctuations, only upon the exchange of real money. Same goes for corporate taxes; corporations are not real, and thus should not pay taxes (they don't, anyway), but their owners should pay taxes on income derived from their ownership. With no loopholes.

Welfare, national health care - it is an embarassment that we have people here that aren't covered: SHAME!

More importantly, it is an expensive policy failure. Insufficient coverage not only means that the poor go without all but emergency care, but that prices must increase to cover indigent care-- meaning that more people cannot afford routine care. Vicious cycle. And the taxpayer ends up eating a large portion of it.

What can be done about divorce and raising kids out of wedlock? Agreed that it is really hurting our society.

Though I am not of Christian faith, I'm fond of the concept of Covenant marriage. Premarital counseling should be subsidized if not mandatory, divorce should only be granted with legal grounds and only after marital counseling unless the grounds for divorce involve danger for spouse or children. Neither counseling requirement should involve permission from the counselor, merely participation.

There's no way to stop people raising children out of wedlock that I am comfortable with, but I think we can stop encouraging it and there are certainly means by which we can discourage it. Abolish mandatory child support for children born out of wedlock. Make Welfare requirements more stringent in terms of program participation. Subsidize more effective forms of birth control, including abortion. Improve adoption services, including matching pregnant women with childless couples. (Voluntarily, of course.) Prohibit reproduction assistance technology for singles.

On indecent exposure, I would actually make it more liberal. It's not a crime to see a penis or a nipple. Lighten up America!

Of course. Everyone else would.

It isn't a crime to see a penis or a nipple. People should be expected to have seen these things and to be comfortable with dealing with them by the time they're adults-- but they should also have the decency to not be waving them around in public. They are called "private parts" for a reason, and people ought not have to see them in public or see the parts of people they're not interested in. They certainly should not have to see them constantly flashed at them in advertisements, nor should they have blatant sexual imagery used to sell them every product under the sun.

Where we may differ is that I think spreading democracy is good for us and ought to be aggressively pursued.

It's more fundamental than that. I don't think democracy is all that good for us in the first place. Look at what we elect and consistently re-elect to the Legislature, at the State and Federal levels. (Our Governors are generally pretty good I'd say... but I never would have dreamed that I could miss President Clinton so much.) Look at the shambles of our legal system, our tax codes, our regulatory structure... the sorry state of every government agency except those that are least governed democratically.

You talk about whether other countries might or might not have the capacity for rational self-government. I can't honestly say that ours does, and there isn't an example I can think of and use to demonstrate a society that's better suited to democracy than ours.

People are naturally lazy and short-sighted, and only exceptional individuals are capable of rising above this nature. Theoretically, a democratic government is the best means for selecting these people-- but in practice, the people will vote on the basis of their laziness and short-sightedness, voting for whomever promises them the most bread and circuses or whomever they'd most like to have a beer with.

And for those dedicated intellectual partisans who support one party with a deep ideological fervor? The most reliable predictor of their party affiliation is their parents' affiliation. The number of people who make rational political decisions on the basis of their enlightened self-interest or their love of country is vanishingly small, and I'm not certain I can even number myself among them.

The fact of the matter is that the "will of the people" is far too weak and malleable to make a good foundation for public policy. Houses built on a foundation of sand, and all that.
 
I'm a mixture of both classical and modern liberal. My political views are:

  • Against gun control
  • Pro-Choice
  • Believe we should withdraw from the U.N.
  • Against tax cuts to the wealthy
  • Strong supporter of free speech
  • Against the PATRIOT act
  • Against the drug war
  • Against nation building
  • Believe war should only be used as last resort
  • Believe gay marriage should be legalized
  • Against the Federal Reserve
  • Believe we should have a strong separation of church and state.
  • Strongly against torture or "enhanced interrogations"
 
Last edited:
Not really, because making money is its own encouragement. There is no progressive taxation scheme in which making more money is not rewarded-- it is only a matter of diminishing returns, which is justified in the fact that beyond a certain point, income is not reflective of productive behavior but merely of ownership. The purpose of ownership and capital is to encourage productive behavior; it is the means to an end, not an end of itself.

Allowing those means as much flexibility as possible, not restricting it, enables them to reach more productive ends.

Consumption taxes depress consumption. Where does the capitalist's income derive from, except from consumption? Such a tax hurts everyone, and hurts disproportionately those who can bear it least.
There is no evidence that consumption taxes depress total consumption. Some things may depress, while others may grow. Everyone should pay tax and this covers missing taxes from undeclared income. Most importantly it doesn't disproportionately hurt those who can bear it least, it makes is equitable.


More importantly, it is an expensive policy failure. Insufficient coverage not only means that the poor go without all but emergency care, but that prices must increase to cover indigent care-- meaning that more people cannot afford routine care. Vicious cycle. And the taxpayer ends up eating a large portion of it.
Good point.


There's no way to stop people raising children out of wedlock that I am comfortable with, but I think we can stop encouraging it and there are certainly means by which we can discourage it. Abolish mandatory child support for children born out of wedlock. Make Welfare requirements more stringent in terms of program participation. Subsidize more effective forms of birth control, including abortion. Improve adoption services, including matching pregnant women with childless couples. (Voluntarily, of course.) Prohibit reproduction assistance technology for singles.
I've no problem with any of these ideas. Sounds reasonable.



It isn't a crime to see a penis or a nipple. People should be expected to have seen these things and to be comfortable with dealing with them by the time they're adults-- but they should also have the decency to not be waving them around in public. They are called "private parts" for a reason, and people ought not have to see them in public or see the parts of people they're not interested in. They certainly should not have to see them constantly flashed at them in advertisements, nor should they have blatant sexual imagery used to sell them every product under the sun.
Well, I was half-joking and you raise some problems with waving them in public and have the advertising barrage. I just wish we weren't so puritanical. There was a thread here on DP where someone was naked in their home with an open window and a passing lady called the cops who busted the door down to charge him. That's ridiculous.


It's more fundamental than that. I don't think democracy is all that good for us in the first place. Look at what we elect and consistently re-elect to the Legislature, at the State and Federal levels. (Our Governors are generally pretty good I'd say... but I never would have dreamed that I could miss President Clinton so much.) Look at the shambles of our legal system, our tax codes, our regulatory structure... the sorry state of every government agency except those that are least governed democratically.
That is part of the price you pay in a Democracy. Inefficiency and corruption. Still beats out not being able to vote somebody out of office.

You talk about whether other countries might or might not have the capacity for rational self-government. I can't honestly say that ours does, and there isn't an example I can think of and use to demonstrate a society that's better suited to democracy than ours.
Well, now you are calling it rational self-government, like it is out of an Ayn Rand novel. Of course it isn't rational. We don't always make the best individual choices. We vote for people because of their persona as much as their positions which are half lies anyway. But globally, our systemm optimizes itself. It is able to transform itself. I know only a little political history, but the evolution of political thought in this country since the founding is simply remarkable. Civil-rights, Women's rights, child welfare, etc..

People are naturally lazy and short-sighted, and only exceptional individuals are capable of rising above this nature. Theoretically, a democratic government is the best means for selecting these people-- but in practice, the people will vote on the basis of their laziness and short-sightedness, voting for whomever promises them the most bread and circuses or whomever they'd most like to have a beer with.
I think that's a simplification. People have complex behaviors spanning the range. The people who decide to go into politics successfully, don't tend to be the cherries I'll give you. The system works in spite of these pits.

And for those dedicated intellectual partisans who support one party with a deep ideological fervor? The most reliable predictor of their party affiliation is their parents' affiliation. The number of people who make rational political decisions on the basis of their enlightened self-interest or their love of country is vanishingly small, and I'm not certain I can even number myself among them.
I don't see the same correllation regarding parent's affiliation and child affiliation, just from my personal exposure. Perhaps this is true across the country. But there you go with the rational bit again. :) People are not rational, so political decisions, economic decisions and the like are irrational, but sometimes educated.

The fact of the matter is that the "will of the people" is far too weak and malleable to make a good foundation for public policy. Houses built on a foundation of sand, and all that.

I totally disagree with this. I believe this country is a rock, even with all of the bickering and bad decisions and policy shifts we see.
 
Last edited:
Everyone should pay tax and this covers missing taxes from undeclared income. Most importantly it doesn't disproportionately hurt those who can bear it least, it makes is equitable.

First part I'll grant, and it's a fair point.

Second part? Equitable? Necessary expenditures represent a far greater portion of the low income household's budget, even assuming that the high income household will be consuming luxury versions of the same items. The person with the high income can afford to save money, to invest, and many of their consumption expenditures are optional. The poor person ends up paying a far higher portion of his income in taxes than the wealthy person, on simple commodities necessary for his livelihood.

How's that equitable?

I just wish we weren't so puritanical. There was a thread here on DP where someone was naked in their home with an open window and a passing lady called the cops who busted the door down to charge him. That's ridiculous.

Agreed. The woman should have been charged with false reporting and voyeurism-- the latter not because she looked and saw the naked man, but because she didn't have the decency to pretend that she hadn't. On the other hand? If you're going to be naked in your house, close the blinds. It's not too much to ask.

That is part of the price you pay in a Democracy. Inefficiency and corruption. Still beats out not being able to vote somebody out of office.

I'm not so sure of that. Of course, the big problem lies when an undemocratic government becomes inefficient and corrupt. Any functional system needs to have corrective measures in place for this... but our system clearly does not work, because the inefficient and corrupt are returned to office time and time again. Only a conviction slows them down... and then it doesn't always stop them.

I totally disagree with this. I believe this country is a rock, even with all of the bickering and bad decisions and policy shifts we see.

And I believe we'll outlive it. I'd offer to make a wager on it, but if I'm right then the wagered sum would be meaningless and worthless. I suppose we'll simply wait and see.
 
First part I'll grant, and it's a fair point.

Second part? Equitable? Necessary expenditures represent a far greater portion of the low income household's budget, even assuming that the high income household will be consuming luxury versions of the same items. The person with the high income can afford to save money, to invest, and many of their consumption expenditures are optional. The poor person ends up paying a far higher portion of his income in taxes than the wealthy person, on simple commodities necessary for his livelihood.

How's that equitable?

That's the point. You don't want to tax income that will be reinvested as capital. That's what creates jobs and growth. Equitable in that each pays the same percentage for consumption. The higher income person probably buys more stuff: nice car, house, etc, so he will pay a higher portion than the poor person.

Note that corporations would also pay tax on expeditures.


I'm not so sure of that. Of course, the big problem lies when an undemocratic government becomes inefficient and corrupt. Any functional system needs to have corrective measures in place for this... but our system clearly does not work, because the inefficient and corrupt are returned to office time and time again. Only a conviction slows them down... and then it doesn't always stop them.

Some of the inefficient are returned to office, not all. And they do good for the people sending them there with pork and such, so they are not entirely negative.


And I believe we'll outlive it. I'd offer to make a wager on it, but if I'm right then the wagered sum would be meaningless and worthless. I suppose we'll simply wait and see.

The deficit does look imposing.
 
If I had to blatantly generalize my views into meaningless categories against my better judgement:

social moderate, economic conservative, aggressive foreign policy.

But for the purpose of the poll I went with social liberal.
 
Last edited:
To Korimyr and Reefedjib: very intresting discussion between the two of you, kudos to both for bringing forward many intresting points while remaining very civil.

I don't fit the available options very well. In my personal life I am very much a "social conservative". Politically, I am socially conservative on some things, libertarian on some things, and moderate on others. For the most part I don't wish to impose my values on others through the force of law, and wish the same protection for myself. For inconsistency's sake, I have a couple of issues that some might consider legislating morality: I oppose abortion and oppose redefining marriage to suit the homosexual minority. My own views are that rather than legislating morality, one of those issues is about preserving innocent life and the other is about not letting a tiny minority impose their agenda on the majority to change a millennia-old institution.

Economically I'm pretty conservative... except that I've come to the conclusion that progressive taxation, as long as the curve isn't too extreme, is probably sensible and fair. Where I think we go wrong is that everybody should have to pay a little something, but the enormously wealthy whose income is mostly or entirely capital gains should have to pay as much as the middle class... as it is, too often the small-businessman making $250,000 gives up nearly half his income in taxes of different sorts while the Hines heiress worth hundreds of millions pays fifteen percent. We need to flatten the curve a bit.

Also I think government aid ought to be of the "hand up" variety, not the "hand out" variety, and ought to be more limited in several regards, if we're going to do it at all. Strictly speaking it isn't Constitutional for the Fed to do charity; it should be a State issue.

Foreign policy...there's the rub. I'm conflicted on foreign policy. By nature I'm an isolationist. By experience I'm inclined to retaliate viciously for any attacks on us, and to pre-empt if we know someone is gunning for us. Nation-building/democratizing... well it worked with Japan and Germany, but we had little choice about fighting them really. Whether it will work out in Afgan and Iraq I don't know, we'll see.
I tend to oppose internationalism for much the same reasons Vauge listed.
The thing is, in trying to play chess on the board of the world, with nations as our pawns and pieces, we've demonstrated some pretty remarkable incompetence and inconsistency. It's a good thing we have overwhelming force on our side, because subtlety and finesse have clearly not been strong points of our State Department, Presidents and CIA/et al, for oh, say, fifty years or more.

Sometimes I think we'd do better to take Jefferson's advice and make like Switzerland used to be: a neutral who will gladly trade with anyone but who doesn't get involved in other nation's politics or wars.

If we're attacked or threatened I think we should retalitate viciously and inflict great destruction on whoever perpetrated the attack... and anyone who enabled it in any way... and if we drop a few bombs on anyone who cheered our injury as we pass over, that's okay too. Otherwise, we should probably leave "the game of thrones" alone...we aren't really very good at it.
 
I still feel I am much identified with the left on a great many issues in all of those categories. In much the same way, I can feel I identify with the right in those same categories, but there's too many issues to separate for this thread. The only strange thing I really noticed was that in both counts, with foreign policy, I am either aggressive or realist-which for contemporary politics, seems to be something either envisioned classically conservative or neoconservative.
 
Back
Top Bottom