Which way do you lean politically and why?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm decidedly left-leaning, but with a strong individualist/libertarian streak.

I'm a socialist. I believe in equality for everyone, and don't think the current capitalist system works. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I think services like education and health care should be provided free to everyone based on need and not how much money you have.

Socialism is great in theory----but, in its "pure" form, it doesn't work in practice.

I agree. But these "socialist" ideas were usually successful within an overall "free-market" atmosphere. Even frank "socialist" regimes like Communist China have implemented some free-market type reforms.

There are hybrid Socialist-Capitalist economic systems which have worked well. An example of such a system where there is a relative preponderance of socialist features is found in the Scandinavian countries. An example of a system where there is relatively more free-market features is the one found in France.

The people in all Scandinavian countries are poorer per capita than Americans.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/

You can get "free stuff" up front, but you lose a life time of earnings through taxation, and end up poorer.

So, I think the trade-off sucks. Better to have freedom and the opportunity for wealth, than be a life slave to your government.

"When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of Communism; we will not take it under the label of Socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much. We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under Liberalism, under Progressivism, under Democracy. But, take it, we will."

~ Alexander Trachtenberg (1885-1966) National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political system. It allows for free market expression of individual will and accomplishment, in which the poorest have the same opportunities as the richest, to use their own ingenuity, abilities and personal ambition, to better themselves and achieve whatever level of material prosperity they are capable of, if they so desire. It does not guarantee success to anyone, nor does it deny any level of success to anyone determined and able to achieve it.

Socialism is an empty political promise by the supposedly "Intellectual Elite," to offer "fairness" and a "level playing field" to the supposed "victims" of "exploitation."

The claim is, that those who have material success are somehow exploiting those who don't in order to get it, therefore they owe the underachievers "their fair share." Using this irrational appeal to envy, the Elite stir up the masses of supposed "victims" to destabilize the existing society and form a new state, using theft by taxes to bring the wealthy down to the same socio-economic level as the peasantry, ensuring "equal poverty for all," by giving the underachievers that which they have not earned.

Meanwhile, the Elite, as arbiters of "the people's treasury" enjoy the luxury of privilege, while their duped followers are given only poverty-level sustenance and stripped of any and all means to better themselves, or to achieve any sort of personal success. Any dissent, or liberty to express dissatisfaction with these results is strictly prohibited.

"Socialism leads to Communism." - Vladimir Lenin

In regard to the OP's question: Let's just say that if a Liberal says the sky is blue, I'd have to see it, for myself----whereas, if a Conservative said the sky was purple, with pink polka-dots, I'd take them, at their word!! Why? Because, IME, too often, too many Liberals are Chicken Littles (and / or "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"), and the Conservatives, IME, just, AREN'T.

Also, anyone who thinks that EVERYONE should get a FREE education (as in, college)----REGARDLESS of income----well, that, just.....

Back in the day I was a Nixionian law and order, pro vietnam war, anti affirmative action person which made you a conservative. Back then I thought the government was too bureaucratic and to willing to impose thier viewes but not inherently evil, that made you a moderate conservative. My views were a lot like my dad so I guess it was genes. They say as you grow older you grow more conservative but I have been the opposite. I am an aspie and got to do things differntly . I think some of it is experence seeing people get in trouble for reasons other than bad decisions and laziness. Also the definitions and emphasis of what is conservatism changed a lot. Consevative means seeing the goverment as inherently evil these days. Also I was never into imposing religous and social conservatism via law or spending prorities that a lot of conservatives got into from the 80's onward.

Note that political orientation can quite accurately be predicted by an individual's neurology.

I am a former right wing libertarian (had left wing sentiments before that but that's before I got into politics) turned far left winger. The alt right has a lot to do with it but I also find centrists from both sides alienating. I became disillusioned with the right as a whole and also got frustrated with centrists who always insist that both sides are equally just as bad and that they're somehow immune to being biased or ideological. I understand that they're trying to combat black and white thinking, but there's more than one shade of grey and it doesn't have to be right between the two.

Representation is everything to me, so I embrace identity politics to the fullest.

I am probably center left. I am very left wing on social issues such as abortion, the death penalty, same sex marriage and the teaching of evolution in schools. On economic issues it is a mixed bag really, slightly to the left on welfare, but on some issues very centrist. In the case of France I approve of right wing policies such as removing employee protections, lowering minimum wage and extending the 35 hour working week to 40 hours.

I used to be allot more left wing, but after looking at the sheer negative impacts government intervention has had on the market I have reevaluated my views. A politician who represents my views is Hillary Clinton.