[Shaddim]

I'm going to preface this by saying that I have no agenda in favor of Romney or Obama. IMO, they're both useless tits and I refuse to vote for either of them. Okay, now that that's out of the way...

Yesterday I was trying to figure out where I actually fit, politically. I regularly meditate and take stock of what I've absorbed and experienced, quiet introspection is invaluable and, in my experience, a necessity. I believe I've made progress, but just want to throw this out there.

If an individual is capable of thinking for themselves at all, it's likely they've shifted ideological stances at different points in their life. Perhaps not large, sweeping moves, but at least in small thoughtful steps. I've often thought of myself as a person of extremes, and that holds true with social issues. I'm far Left on matters such as; same-sex/plural civil unions, drug laws, gambling, censorship*, suicide (assisted or otherwise), prostitution laws, world policing, etc.. I'm more moderate towards; abortion, illegal immigration, industrial/environmental policy, and capital punishment. That leaves; states' rights, firearm ownership, government size/spending, tax policy, trade policy, and just about all other fiscal issues, closer to the Right fringes.

So, where am I now? Well, that gets a little complicated. I like the idea of healthcare reform, just not the Individual Mandate and expansion of Medicare (this could be done more effectively if Medicare was scrapped completely and a more modern system was implemented). Also, I'm in favor of the repeal of the tax cut on long-term cap gains for households making in excess of $250k /yr, probably moving to a graduated system: 30% for $750k+, 25% for $450k-$749k, 20% for $250k-$449k, and 15% for everyone else, with an overall, short and long-term, cap gains tax ceiling of 30%. I think that's fair. So, really, with regards to taxation, I'm not on the Right fringes anymore. That's a more moderate stance.

Anyway, what Party? Clearly I'm closer to being a more mainstream Democrat now, but not far enough. Plus, the national DNC are some of the slimiest bastards I've ever come in contact with. I've had experiences with them that would curl your hair. Libertarian? Nope, I'm too moderate on taxation issues, and they're too far into isolationism, even for my taste. Mainstream Republican? Just no. Hell no. The pandering to Evangelicals, and other members of the morality police, makes me sick. I don't care what a person believes, as long as they aren't harming me or mine, just don't try to shove it down our throats. So, right now I'm leaning towards the Modern Whigs, I like their local chapter, cool guys, and their presidential candidate looks okay. I've already sent him the maximum private donation amount he'll accept, $100, because regardless of whether I do follow through and vote for him, he does have his head and heart in the right place.

You shifting, shifted, or evaluating your views? In what direction?







*Supposedly a position of the Left, but they're lying if they say their track record with regards to free speech is anywhere close to 100%. All the stupid PC shit gives me hives.

[andi*pandi]

TJ Ohara sounds like a straightforward person. Good on him for being pro-reform. Too bad his ideals mean that most will have never heard of him.

A long time ago I took the LIbertarian Quiz and know that I really am a Liberal, but I trend a bit more independent in some areas. I'm for common sense.

[lpkmckenna]

I used to call myself a libertarian-conservative - and was under the spell of Ayn Rand, even though I thought she was a bad novelist - until about 7 years ago, and now I think of myself as a blue liberal. I now climb aboard people who call themselves libertarian, given I'm intimately aware of the deliberate blind-spots you need to adopt to espouse such a point of view.

(Speaking of Ayn Rand and libertarians, the Cato Institute is about to lose all credibility since a hysterical Randroid has been appointed to lead it, and phase one for him is to replace "isolationism" with aggressive neo-con warmongering.)

I used to be very hawkish about "the Muslim threat," which I now recognize is just a phoney neo-con bogeyman.

I used to shrug my shoulders at police abuses. Now I'm very alarmed by the things that routinely happen and the lack of consequences for cops who abuse people.

In terms of economics, I don't think Canada needs "more government," since we have pretty much all the necessary social programs for a healthy society. I think we need to invest a lot more in education and mental health, and we like the USA need to end the undertaxed capital gains nonsense, but no one in Canada's main parties seems interested in this issue.

I believe in the free market, but I also believe in necessary regulation. The idea that "deregulation" is considered a blanket policy statement is ludicrous, without specifying exactly what needs to be deregulated or which specific regulations are causing harm to the economy as a whole. Without specifics, "deregulation" and "free markets" are just empty words, or more likely a dangerous carte blanche to businesses to do whatever they want, without consequences. I can't stand the "free market pixie dust" talk. Sometimes regulations are necessary because workers, the environment, consumers, and the economy as a whole simply needs protection and stability.

I also think Canada needs to be more proactive about the environment, but frankly I'm not sure what exactly needs to happen. But as a nation, Canada should be much more energy-efficient, produce much less garbage for dumps, and shepherd our farming and fisheries before we lose them. We lost the Great Lakes to pollution, and I don't want to lose anything else. But I do know I'm not interested in having that shrill harpy who runs the Green party gaining any more influence.

In terms of which party to support, if I were an American I'd be a Democrat, but in Canada I vote Conservative. The fact is, there isn't much difference in how Canada has been governed between Conservative Mulroney, Liberal Chretien, and Conservative Harper. The big difference is Jean Chretien didn't develop any potential replacements, and the Liberal Party is now leaderless and aimless. It's very distressing for me that Canada could become more divided with only the Conservatives and the socialist NDP to choose from, if the Liberals should completely collapse. Canada needs healthy Conservative and Liberal parties, and the two worst things that could happen are the Conservatives becoming more "American," and the Liberals just vanishing.

Gun control and unions are issues of little concern to me. I'm more concerned by the people who claim radical changes are necessary (for or against) to improve whatever problems are alleged to exist. The only union issue that bugs me is teacher and transit strikes: the people who are hit hardest by these strikes are the very poor, who never benefit, but who suffer greatly during the strike. It's just callous.

Like you Shaddim, I'm very liberal on so-called "moral issues." (Except for the "plural civil union" thing, which we've tangled over before.) But it's important to stress: legalize and regulate. The libertarian attitude is to simply decriminalize and forget about it, which is irresponsible when talking about drugs, the sex industry, gambling, and so on.

[subego]

I was steadily becoming more right-wing/libertarian until Bush 43. He did a good job of scaring it out of me.

It's been reasserting itself since about 2006.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was steadily becoming more right-wing/libertarian until Bush 43. He did a good job of scaring it out of me.
It's been reasserting itself since about 2006.

Aside from your commitment to total freedom™ I don't recall any major disagreements, which seems odd as I would neither describe myself as neither right-wing nor libertarian.


I can't say how my stances have evolved (and asking in the midst of a presidential elections seems counter-productive – between the emotion, inundation, spinning, and digging-in its hard to find yourself free of external influence). I think I put more thought into my positions than I did in 10 years ago, but I'm not sure those stances have changed. Perhaps some merely exist where none did before. I think I've grown more appreciative of the 2nd amendment, but I can't say that isn't without some concerted effort – it seems to me that you need to find or understand its worth or existence to be a proper American.

[besson3c]

Shaddim: does the issue du jour affect your self identification? I mean, if we existed in a time of economic prosperity, election issues would probably be more about social issues, right, in which case you'd probably be more inclined to vote Democrat? If we lived in economic prosperity chances are we'd have universal health care already, but that's another story...

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Aside from your commitment to total freedom™ I don't recall any major disagreements, which seems odd as I would neither describe myself as neither right-wing nor libertarian.

How do you define the wings?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

How do you define the wings?

American parlance. That tends to be the default.

[OAW]

As a younger man my political outlook could best be described as "black nationalism" in the mode of Marcus Garvey and/or Malcolm X. These days I've mellowed and matured ... as most do with age and experience .... so my political outlook is best described as center-left. Depending upon the individual issue I may take a more "liberal" or "conservative" position ... but overall I think that's a fairly accurate way to describe my place on the ideological spectrum.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

American parlance. That tends to be the default.

I'm not trying to be snarky or combative here, but isn't the American parlance basically a weaponized tool of the two parties?

They lack consistency and continuity as definitions, how do you get use out of them?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not trying to be snarky or combative here, but isn't the American parlance basically a weaponized tool of the two parties?
They lack consistency and continuity as definitions, how do you get use out of them?

I don't take that as snarky or combative, so don't take it to be the same when I rebut that if you're using something other than the default or accepted scale to measure your ideology (However flawed it may be), you should probably specify either what the alternative scale you're using is, or be more specific.

[subego]

Well, duh. But that seemed dull, and things kinda match up if you squint a bit.

What exactly is the Dakar philosophy of politics? Much less dull sounding.

[Dork.]

I've never heard of the Modern Whig party; although I had to chuckle when the Wikipedia article said "An editorial in one newspaper referred to the Modern Whig Party as the "fastest-growing mainstream political movement in the nation."

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, duh. But that seemed dull, and things kinda match up if you squint a bit.
What exactly is the Dakar philosophy of politics? Much less dull sounding.

I'm so confused. Par for the course. Being clear seemed dull?

[subego]

Not the being clear part, the talking extensively of how I think the spectrum should be redefined part.

I want the Dakar philosophy!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I want the Dakar philosophy!

You give me too much credit. There is none. As a practical matter I use the US system.

[subego]

No, I mean your actual philosophy...

Bigger or smaller military?
Immigration stance?
Should Democrats be allowed to vote?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

No, I mean your actual philosophy...
Bigger or smaller military?
Immigration stance?
Should Democrats be allowed to vote?

Yes, smaller military (fine with reinvesting a portion of cuts into intelligence)
I'm fine with immigration laws being enforced, however if certain industries aren't finding willing workers among our current population I'm also fine with work visas. At the least that way we're not harvesting our crops on unacknowledged slave labor.
Democrats should be allowed to vote, even two or three times if they feel it necessary.

[subego]

Defend your rationale for a small military.

(I disagree with you, but I'm asking not to challenge but out of curiosity. As such, it's totally understandable if you don't feel up to being put on-the-spot like this).

[The Final Dakar]

My rationale being we shouldn't need or be engaging in multiple wars at once or be policeman to the world. There's always places we can step in and say "This is wrong" but our motivations are always suspect. With regards to "regime change" I like what we did in Libya a lot more than what we did in Iraq.

Do you feel the military is the right size as is? What do you regard the importance of the size of the military to be?

[subego]

I'm pretty comfortable with the "world's policemen" position. I think the world's a long way from not needing a self-appointed leader in this regard, and all the other countries who could take the position scare the shit out of me.

You are correct people don't always trust our motivations, but I don't really care. I'd feel differently if the people who complain didn't have a consistent history of butchering themselves.

So, I want a military up to that task. I'm old school, so I like the idea of deterrence. I'm beginning to come around to the idea that isn't quite right anymore.


Libya has definitely worked out better than Iraq so far, there's no question. OTOH, I think the military are probably the last people deserving of blame for how Iraq went pear-shaped.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, I want a military up to that task. I'm old school, so I like the idea of deterrence.

Do you think our pre-WoT size wasn't a deterrence? At what size do you think our theoretical deterrence fails?

Originally Posted by subego 

Libya has definitely worked out better than Iraq so far, there's no question. OTOH, I think the military are probably the last people deserving of blame for how Iraq went pear-shaped.

Who's blaming the military? It's the architects of the two sets of ideas and strategies that I blame.

[subego]

I should also throw in there I would consider supporting a pre-emptive invasion (which I did), and a having a big military, to be left-wing positions. I think the libertarians and the Soviets would agree with me.

As far as the two American parties are concerned, that's a right-wing (some would say extremely right-wing) position.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I should also throw in there I would consider supporting a pre-emptive invasion (which I did)

There's the big disagreement I was looking for. Obama hasn't been doing a good job letting you show the crazy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Do you think our pre-WoT size wasn't a deterrence? At what size do you think our theoretical deterrence fails?

I can flip your first question around. Do you think a Reagan scale military isn't more of a deterrence?

For your second question, I'd say it's already failed with Iran.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Who's blaming the military? It's the architects of the two sets of ideas and strategies that I blame.

Totally not trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry about that.

Where I'm going here is the merits or flaws of size are overshadowed by the mistakes of the architects.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

There's the big disagreement I was looking for. Obama hasn't been doing a good job letting you show the crazy.

I've called Rumsfeld a genius on multiple occasions. Batshit enough?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can flip your first question around. Do you think a Reagan scale military isn't more of a deterrence?

Not really. Is there an appreciable difference in having 500 nukes or 5000? I don't think so. You're looking at utter destruction either way.

Originally Posted by subego 

For your second question, I'd say it's already failed with Iran.

This I don't understand. It's the exact opposite. All these countries know that we could invade them at any time and crush them. They chase nukes because they want us to know that should we decide they need some "preemptive" action that we will know there is a possibility for some high casualties. They're chasing the legacy of the USSRs MAD.

Originally Posted by subego 

Where I'm going here is the merits or flaws of size are overshadowed by the mistakes of the architects.

The entire idea of an invasion of Iraq was flawed - thinking you could force democracy at gun-point, as they say. Ignoring that I strongly suspect a personal aspect to wanting to depose Saddam in the first place.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've called Rumsfeld a genius on multiple occasions. Batshit enough?

Not devoid of context, no – Ex: I think Hitler did some pretty amazing things.

(Did I just invoke Godwin's unintentionally?)

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not really. Is there an appreciable difference in having 500 nukes or 5000? I don't think so. You're looking at utter destruction either way.

I didn't really communicate my idea well, but WRT this point, I would agree if the Soviets didn't feel compelled to match us. Since they did, the difference is 5000 gets the Soviets to collapse under the pressure of trying to keep up.

What I was trying to get at was if a military at size X (say, pre WoT levels) provides amount of deterrence Y, if you increase X aren't you increasing Y?

Where that point reaches diminishing returns is up for debate, but I don't think we're near enough to that point for it to matter.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This I don't understand. It's the exact opposite. All these countries know that we could invade them at any time and crush them. They chase nukes because they want us to know that should we decide they need some "preemptive" action that we will know there is a possibility for some high casualties. They're chasing the legacy of the USSRs MAD.

I think if we weren't stretched as thin as we are, Iran may not make the same calculation about the value of having nukes vs. the potential of pre-emptive retaliation.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The entire idea of an invasion of Iraq was flawed - thinking you could force democracy at gun-point, as they say. Ignoring that I strongly suspect a personal aspect to wanting to depose Saddam in the first place.

I don't think it was our plan to force democracy at gunpoint. I think the idea was as a secular country (relatively speaking), if given the option, democracy was what they'd pick.