POLL: Which political party do you identify with the most?

Post Reply New Topic

I have a belief system on an issue-by-issue basis and NONE of them are remotely intelligent enough to come close to me identifying with them.

That being said, Romney was a utter nightmare this election round, even if you were rich, in the big picture, so there was no way in hell I could support that. Also, my ASD makes me hate liars (and repeat liars) to an extreme extent. If most politicians had ASD, the entire world would be living like kings. They make the most atrocious, illogical, self-serving and self-destructive decisions I see people make.

Politicians are a loathsome lot, aren't they?

ruveyn

Neocon.

From T.Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and even Obama, there is major continuity in American foreign policy, and if the Democrats will remain the party of the Left, thus Isolationists, Liberalism will remain on the Right, and the Right will now be bearers of this American tradition. If the Left ever dies down in this country, perhaps our interventionist tradition will again find a home in the Democratic Party.

I voted and been a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada. I once voted Liberal to keep a Conservative out of office, though.

*brain explodes*

Left-leaning liberal....in my country (Canada) I'll either vote Liberal or New Democrat depending on the candidate's stances on various issues. I also rooted for Obama, all the way.

<--- Robinist. Robinism is a religious/political movement that I follow. It believes in the preservation and promotion of all things Robin.

You are aware, I assume that many of the Neocons were Trotsky-ites who finally woke up And Saw The Light.

I would not trust their judgement on a bet. Commentary Magazine is fun to read, but there is a lot of nonsense there. The Neos want us to continue fighting the Forever War.

ruveyn

A conservative is a liberal who just got mugged.

We should have ignored the world, and it would be much smaller now, and mostly carrying spears. War With The Newts explains the end result of the various Mandates in Brown Lands.

The legacey of The White Mans Burden, is India and Pakistan have nukes.

All of the bragging about how big our bombs were, and Stalin wanted some, or everyone in Russia dies.

Why did we even claim we had anything to do with Japan blowing up? It was not like they would tell anyone, the end result would be the same, and no one had to know.

I do not know, the same thing happened in Siberia, Tunguska, in 1911.

I have been looking for the Non-Idiot Party, no luck yet.

Libertarian.

Democrats are too Robin Hood for my taste, and Republicans babble on without making any sense.

I could see the Trotsky-ites who woke up and see the light possibility. I do enjoy Commentary, more so The Weekly Standard, and I do support the Forever War. I am open to everything to be honest. I am on the Right but that is only because I've heard the best case made by conservatives. Where have you read the best case against neoconservatives and/or for a better school of libertarianism? Or even another line of thought worth following up?

Why not more foreign policy realism??? I mean, seriously, read some Henry Kissinger on the importance of the balance of power and how national self-interest preserves peace.

I mean, s**t, this idea of American idealism through needless military conflict costs the US money, it depletes our ability to function diplomatically towards our ends, it isn't long-run sustainable as American power will wane relative to other rising nations, it also involves high risk of unnecessary harm to the nations we're impacting.

I mean, why not look into why Francis Fukuyama distanced himself from the movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fu ... nservatism
"In regard to neoconservatism he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world – ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about.""

I mean, you're fine in some senses to be a foreign policy idealist like a neo-conservative, but avoid the illusions to what American power can do or should do. So, the Forever War is likely a mistake, instead of seeking war, we should seek to economize on our strength, and instead use the threat of it, rather than being embroiled forever, ESPECIALLY since the Forever war isn't going to be politically sustainable, and if it isn't, then this will undermine some of the policy goals in the first place.

But right, I'm fine with you being open to anything. I'm not even that offended that you were drawn to neoconservatism, as there are some things compelling about it. However, it is simply not realistic and grounded in geopolitical realities. Also, Irving Kristol in his other writings on society is really over the top anyway, like on culture, as he's partially a reaction to the 70s. At this point, the "neoconservative vanguard" for our societal values is really probably not needed. Even Obama, the democratic politician, will play up to many of those values even as he's trying to blend American ideology with a few other ones.

So, how's that for a reaction?

Well thank you for your reaction, I'll probably do a followup just on Fukuyama alone as his opinions are very interesting. Just a few reactions, you don't have to respond as I have no clue what other competing theories say about the matter or have an official position myself. And let me know if you know of some further readings, in general, or with regards to any of the things I post below.

Could you explain how it depletes our ability to function diplomatically towards our ends?

They Rise at Our Expense?
I also do not understand how our interests abroad currently will wane relative to rising nations coming up. We owned 50% of the world markets following WWII and its fallen dramatically to a little more then 10%, but the rise of markets all over the world and our relative decline as others have come up have not resulted in our economic, social, or political decline. If anything, our role on the international scene is stronger then ever, boasting the strongest military the history of man has ever known, our culture is the culture of the world, and our consumption powers the world.

Wouldn't leaving them to foot reality and provide their own defense actually cause more regional friction thus leading to increased and inevitable conflicts? We are lucky to be isolated from the world in our little corner, but everyone else lives in a competitive environment, and no one acts out of line because the US will be there to punish them economically and militarily. But everyone else has it much harder. From Colombia & Venezuela, to Russia and its former colonies, to China and Taiwan, unclaimed islands and territories in its orbit, or the south China sea, the middle east, or Africa…


Moral Actors
You may trust the hegemonic powers of these various regions to be moral characters and apply a "fair" framework that respects groups rights to autonomy, freedom of speech, amongst many other things, but history has rarely ever shown that to be the case. The current framework that the United States has set up has continued the promotion of democracy, democracies getting along, human rights progressed, free trade between markets in a stable environment, and upward mobility for billions of people -- all ensured by military might from the greatest power in the world.

What sovereign body or collective bodies can provide a balance of power to China, Russia, and other actors on the world stage who don't accept the current American framework? Who think they should be able to do whatever they want in their respected regions, and think they should be able to dictate the fate of the nations who are within their realm of influence? When another Kosovo arises and the European continent is to busy eating out and petitioning for next year's monthlong, paid vacation, who will be there to defend the innocent and the defenseless?

We could simply leave the world stage. But only if everyone else had our Americanism and willing to defend those principles. The Europeans don't care about anything but themselves. They love economically entangling themselves economically with all sorts of shady characters, guilt free. They think this diplomacy is effective but has not once been able to prevent mass genocide or reverse the removal of basic human rights. You occasionally have a Sarkozy or a Cameron who will over-compensate for that embarrassing fact, but they will be fewer going forward if the secular left win out in Europe. If everyone had our Americanism or some close variant of it via respecting Liberty, E Pluribus Unim, checks and balances in a secular government, and basic human rights, while committing at least 2% of their GDP to military spending, it would be a more moral world.


Forever War
When I say I support the forever war, I simply mean that we should continue to control the world and our destiny -- not be reactionary or absent. We should maintain our commitments to Europe while demanding what I've just posted above, and the same goes for the Asia-Pacific region. It would be far less costly to us Americans if everyone pitched in and played their part. So we should more accountability from members who benefit from our system, but not wait around until it happens.

K. That said, I am only Neoconservative on foreign policy. As far as social policy is concerned, I have very strong views on abortion, gay marriage, other social issues, but it does not, and never will impact my voting. I vote on foreign policy, energy policy, education policy, economic policy, and entitlement policies for House, Senate, and Presidential elections. I'll vote for social issues on local elections but I live in Portland so I never have a dog in the fight.

In the Dutch political spectrum, I'm mildly liberal, but strongly progressive.

Of course this requires further explanation as some terminology is completely opposite between the EU and US. In context of European politics, liberalism is the right-wing socio-economic philosophy with reduced government intervention in the economy and a large amount of personal freedom. In the US, the term liberal is used (primarily by Republicans) to describe the complete opposite of the European interpretation of the term. In terms of economic policy, the political spectrum from left to right would look a bit like this: Communism - socialism - center - liberalism - capitalism. Since the philosophy of liberalism originated in Europe before the formation of the United States, it's safe to use the European definition of the word and call Republicans a bunch of extreme liberals. That should get them properly worked up.

The second axis of the political spectrum deals with matters such as ethics, privacy, etc... The opposites are conservatives and progressives. The conservatives prefer values from previous times and typically oppose things such as gay marriage, abortion, etc... Progressives prefer individuals to have freedom to choose where possible.

In general, in the Netherlands, you will often find combinations that are either liberal/conservative or socialist/progressive. The other "quadrants" (liberal/progressive & socialist/conservative) are not very populated by political parties. Of course, it is worthwhile to know that the entire political spectrum of the Netherlands (and most of Western Europe) is shifted more in the socialist/progressive compared to that of the US. No party here opposes a public healthcare system (though there is much debate on which exact form it should have) or quality public education that is available to kids regardless of their parents income. In addition, other than for fringe Christian parties, gay marriage is universally accepted and while there is some debate about the precise limits for abortion, noone other than aforementioned fringe parties wants to ban it.