Why not post your political lean?

[Mensch]

I don't see why a person has to follow what some other person who is more well known has to believe. We're all individuals, after all.

Following someone is different than being influenced by someone else's opinions. Your foundation is a mixture of other people's foundation. You've mentioned T.R. as an influence, that doesn't mean you FOLLOW him over every political terrain. My foundation is a mixture of Milton & Rose Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Victor Hugo, Murray Rothbard, Barry Goldwater, our founding fathers, Jon Steward Mill, Friedrich Hayek, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Adam Shepard, Nick Gillespie, and many others. I have many influences, and each influential individual in my life has inspired me to live a better life, simply. Though I state my platform as a Libertarian (as you can clearly notice the abundance of austrian school economists and libertarians), I also admire many things about T.R. and others who are far removed from the Libertarian idealism. I'm certainly not a purist, but I wouldn't call myself a "centrist" or "moderate" because that essentially means I stand for nothing. In the end, my general and specific viewpoints form a distinct ideology that may or may not adhere to a strict ideological structure.

In order to initate debate, however, I find it imperative to at least mention a basis or a foundation as a starting point.

 

[justabubba]

Following someone is different than being influenced by someone else's opinions. Your foundation is a mixture of other people's foundation. You've mentioned T.R. as an influence, that doesn't mean you FOLLOW him over every political terrain. My foundation is a mixture of Milton & Rose Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Victor Hugo, Murray Rothbard, Barry Goldwater, our founding fathers, Jon Steward Mill, Friedrich Hayek, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Adam Shepard, Nick Gillespie, and many others. I have many influences, and each influential individual in my life has inspired me to live a better life, simply. Though I state my platform as a Libertarian (as you can clearly notice the abundance of austrian school economists and libertarians), I also admire many things about T.R. and others who are far removed from the Libertarian idealism. I'm certainly not a purist, but I wouldn't call myself a "centrist" or "moderate" because that essentially means I stand for nothing. In the end, my general and specific viewpoints form a distinct ideology that may or may not adhere to a strict ideological structure.

In order to initate debate, however, I find it imperative to at least mention a basis or a foundation as a starting point.

why is it imperative?
why can you not just have a position on any issue based on that issue alone, rather than having to add the baggage of ideology to your opinion?

 

[Compatibilist]

Individuals who collectively agree on an idealogy typically associate with each other. Associating with a political group is more or less a process of self categorization. It usually requires a commitment to the goals/values of the group. Many aren't willing to make a political commitment to a structured set of beliefs even though they agree with most of them. I think loyalty is also a part of the process which isn't popular these days. Banding together and forming an alliance can be an important part of one's social identity.

 

[Winston Smith]

If liberals don't label themselves, it's probably because they don't tend as much to lump unrelated issues together or think in terms of loyalty to an ideology. The stuff about being afraid to call oneself a liberal is just nonsense.

 

[Mensch]

why is it imperative?
why can you not just have a position on any issue based on that issue alone, rather than having to add the baggage of ideology to your opinion?

I suppose you can go about your life arguing a series of issues without self-identifying as a set of distinct ideas. This means you either have no foundation or you are embarrassed to admit your foundation (if it's the latter, that is usually because you have not yet convinced yourself of your own ideas). Stating a platform simply means you've studied your surroundings and have come to terms with your own personal values.

If you don't take a stand, you stand for nothing.

 

[Your Star]

I suppose you can go about your life arguing a series of issues without self-identifying as a set of distinct ideas. This means you either have no foundation or you are embarrassed to admit your foundation (if it's the latter, that is usually because you have not yet convinced yourself of your own ideas). Stating a platform simply means you've studied your surroundings and have come to terms with your own personal values.

If you don't take a stand, you stand for nothing.

Why does that platform have to be some arbitrary word that lumps together a political ideology? Why can't I be me? My foundation is me, not liberalism, not conservatism, my foundation is me.

 

[justabubba]

I suppose you can go about your life arguing a series of issues without self-identifying as a set of distinct ideas. This means you either have no foundation or you are embarrassed to admit your foundation (if it's the latter, that is usually because you have not yet convinced yourself of your own ideas). Stating a platform simply means you've studied your surroundings and have come to terms with your own personal values.

[emphasis added by bubba]
notice the contradiction? you want to come to terms with your own personal values by the wholesale adoption of another's specific ideology
i see this as a common approach, such as where people attend a particular church to be told what they are to believe, or watch faux news to be told what they are to think
there are also those who subscribe to a particular political ideology to know how they are to vote (the proof being the ability to vote for a party ticket in the voting booth)
whatever the individual chooses to believe for himself is fine; however, what is disappointing is that so many of these people are critical of others who choose to think for themselves by refusing to subscribe to any particular ideology, religious or political

If you don't take a stand, you stand for nothing.

well, you have hit upon a point with which we both agree - but probably for different reasons

stand for something, or fall for anything

but how strong is your stand if someone else has concluded it for you?

 

[samsmart]

If liberals don't label themselves, it's probably because they don't tend as much to lump unrelated issues together or think in terms of loyalty to an ideology. The stuff about being afraid to call oneself a liberal is just nonsense.

Considering how we have a two-party system because of our voting system, and considering no matter what the issue is there will always be someone who is for it and someone who is against it, as soon as one party takes an official stance on an issue it is natural for the other party to take the opposing stance on the same issue, and both parties do this purely in an attempt to get more votes for their party.

This is why we have business interests and religious interests represented in the Republican Party despite friction between those two interests, and why we have union interests and environmental interests represented in the Democratic Party despite no real unifying factor between the two.

 

[Winston Smith]

Considering how we have a two-party system because of our voting system, and considering no matter what the issue is there will always be someone who is for it and someone who is against it, as soon as one party takes an official stance on an issue it is natural for the other party to take the opposing stance on the same issue, and both parties do this purely in an attempt to get more votes for their party.

This is why we have business interests and religious interests represented in the Republican Party despite friction between those two interests, and why we have union interests and environmental interests represented in the Democratic Party despite no real unifying factor between the two.

Yeah, but it's also why I usually don't vote Republican or Democratic. If I were going to call myself anything, it would be libertarian. That's my foundation, as Elijah calls it. But I'm sure plenty of people would say I'm not "really" libertarian because of some issue or another. Not to mention that I've known self-labeled libertarians who were everything from hippies to fascists, so I don't see much point in using the labels when no one can agree on their meaning.

 

[StandUpChuck]

I don't like labels, but it political or other. I didn't want my position to be discounted because of my political lean, because the party with whom I most identify does not sway my beliefs. I make decisions based on my own opinions.

In all honesty, I do catch myself sometimes discounting an opinion because of someone's lean or reputation, so it kind of takes "open minded" out of debate. I'd really rather not know someone's party so I can decide openly if what they're saying resonates.

 

[Gardener]

I suppose you can go about your life arguing a series of issues without self-identifying as a set of distinct ideas. This means you either have no foundation or you are embarrassed to admit your foundation (if it's the latter, that is usually because you have not yet convinced yourself of your own ideas). Stating a platform simply means you've studied your surroundings and have come to terms with your own personal values.

If you don't take a stand, you stand for nothing.

So you think buying a ready made ideology off the rack and then conforming your opinions accordingly is a GOOD thing?

Seems to me such traits are only a recipe for strife as those conforming to one rigid set of beliefs encounter those with another rigid set of beliefs and then each goes about the business of acting upon them.

 

[American]

From what I have observed, nearly all the "Undisclosed" people are liberals that are too embarrassed to admit it. If I were of the progressive persuasion, I probably wouldn't admit it either.

This has been my opinion for a long time. This goes for moderate and centrist as well. The majority of these people are liberals, and only a teeny-tiny few actually have beliefs that are equally liberal or conservative. Besides, what the hell is moderate? Moderate what? Moderate is not a political ideology itself, it is a position between extremes without any basis in any ideology.

 

[Mensch]

Why does that platform have to be some arbitrary word that lumps together a political ideology? Why can't I be me? My foundation is me, not liberalism, not conservatism, my foundation is me.

Well, you can have a foundation that is you. Marxism is named after a man who created his own foundation. Jeffersonian Republicans formed from the ideas of pretty much one man. Fascism formed from the ideas of Benito Mussolini. You can create a set of ideology that are purely yours, and we all do. If you grow up with a set of ideas that are so distinct, you can't find an appropriate word to describe them, CONGRATULATIONS! You have just created a new ideology! But, if we actually look at all of your viewpoints on a number of different ideas and find out that your ideas mirror those of Mr. X or Ms. Y almost identically, then you can't have the privilege of naming your own ideology. You can't believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior and then claim to be a Muslim. You can't support a totalitarian regime and then call yourself a democrat.

 

[Mensch]

[emphasis added by bubba]
notice the contradiction? you want to come to terms with your own personal values by the wholesale adoption of another's specific ideology
i see this as a common approach, such as where people attend a particular church to be told what they are to believe, or watch faux news to be told what they are to think
there are also those who subscribe to a particular political ideology to know how they are to vote (the proof being the ability to vote for a party ticket in the voting booth)
whatever the individual chooses to believe for himself is fine; however, what is disappointing is that so many of these people are critical of others who choose to think for themselves by refusing to subscribe to any particular ideology, religious or political

well, you have hit upon a point with which we both agree - but probably for different reasons

but how strong is your stand if someone else has concluded it for you?

Who used the words "wholesale adoption?" That would imply that I'm a purist, which I'm certainly not. I'm a libertarian because I believe in the basic premise that individuals can live better lives without a large, centralized authority figure planning it for them. Yet, I'm not 100% against all regulation and all governmental forces. I still believe the government has a very important function and purpose, which means I'm not an anarchist. I believe the third major function of government is to protect the environment, and this is a point where I disagree with many libertarians. I don't believe in privatizing the police and military forces, which disqualifies me as an Objectivist. I believe a person should take a stand when they've done their homework. I was a confused, young man who always played devil's advocate on the debate team. I loved to argue for the simple act of arguing. But I've later studied ideology after ideology, religion after religion, philosophy after philosophy and this one suits me best. That doesn't mean I will follow Ron Paul to the grave (and libertarians are the farthest from a sheepish ideology). But at least you know exactly where I'm coming from, and you can pinpoint my value system. If you don't have a value system, then it would be harder to identify your value system.

 

[Mensch]

So you think buying a ready made ideology off the rack and then conforming your opinions accordingly is a GOOD thing?

Seems to me such traits are only a recipe for strife as those conforming to one rigid set of beliefs encounter those with another rigid set of beliefs and then each goes about the business of acting upon them.

Well, you can always create your own ideology, and if it is radically different from everything else out there, then congratulations! You've created an original idea. But if your idea regarding issue XY or Z is almost identical to someone else's and if we take a further look and find out that your logic implies Y, then your value system cannot be X or Z. If you believe government's role is <blank>, than that means you have taken a stand. Now, let's look at that <blank> in order to identify that stand. I get the feeling you just want to feel important by being all by yourself. But if your ideas turn out to be no different than a typical liberal democrat or a typical conservative republican, than that is probably what you are.

 

[obvious Child]

Most people have no real grasp of what liberalism or conservatism is. So why bother with labels?

Two nameless users here who cast the majority of users as this or that are particularly good examples of ignorance regarding ideologies.

When they define liberal as "anyone who disagrees with me" there's no use in that word. And more then a few people describe conservative the same way. Actual proper usage of the terms is rare here.

 

[Your Star]

Well, you can have a foundation that is you. Marxism is named after a man who created his own foundation. Jeffersonian Republicans formed from the ideas of pretty much one man. Fascism formed from the ideas of Benito Mussolini. You can create a set of ideology that are purely yours, and we all do. If you grow up with a set of ideas that are so distinct, you can't find an appropriate word to describe them, CONGRATULATIONS! You have just created a new ideology! But, if we actually look at all of your viewpoints on a number of different ideas and find out that your ideas mirror those of Mr. X or Ms. Y almost identically, then you can't have the privilege of naming your own ideology. You can't believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior and then claim to be a Muslim. You can't support a totalitarian regime and then call yourself a democrat.

You kinda missed my point. I look at every issue, and form an opinion based upon what I think is right. I don't go into an issue, and go lets see where my ideology stands on this issue. I think it's rather pointless to call oneself something because it's so limiting. Grouping yourself with someone doesn't give you a foundation, it gives you limitations.

 

[Mensch]

You kinda missed my point. I look at every issue, and form an opinion based upon what I think is right. I don't go into an issue, and go lets see where my ideology stands on this issue. I think it's rather pointless to call oneself something because it's so limiting. Grouping yourself with someone doesn't give you a foundation, it gives you limitations.

That is only because you think membership in a political party requires absolute submission to ALL party principles. This isn't fascist Italy. You can be a "very liberal" democrat and still believe that capital punishment is necessary. No one will shoot you or imprison you from moving away from the party line. My number one goal is not to conform to an already established foundation. But now that I'm comfortable with a particular basis of reasoning, I do research the popular opinions, quotes, and work conducted by thoughtful icons of my particular political platform. I read what the best had to say regarding XYZ, I comprehend the implications of such ideas, and then I either reject, adopt, or adopt with modifications the stance on a particular issue. If you're two years old and have recently learned how to speak, are you able to answer a political question without first asking someone older and smarter who has formulated an understandable response?

Being that you're engaged in a political debate with a stranger half way across the country, I can only assume that you do, in fact, have at least one indivdual from the present or the past (could be a historical figure or your biological father) that you are comfortable admitting your admiration for and have adopted and/or modified an existing idea that they proposed. Did your dad influence the way you view crime and punishment? Did your histoy teacher influence the way you view economic freedom? Did your reading of the Great Depression and the New Deal influence the way you view the world around you? Did it, perhaps, influence you to take a stand in favor of certain governmental (you might call them social) responsibilities?
If we engage in a lifelong debate where I slowly discover you share characteristics of most "very liberal" individuals, why would it be so horrible to use the term (or label) with such accuracy?

 

[Mensch]

Most people have no real grasp of what liberalism or conservatism is. So why bother with labels?

Two nameless users here who cast the majority of users as this or that are particularly good examples of ignorance regarding ideologies.

When they define liberal as "anyone who disagrees with me" there's no use in that word. And more then a few people describe conservative the same way. Actual proper usage of the terms is rare here.

I'm guessing that's a knock on me. How am I "ignorant regarding ideologies?" When did I ever define liberal as "anyone who disagrees with me?"

 

[obvious Child]

I'm guessing that's a knock on me. How am I "ignorant regarding ideologies?" When did I ever define liberal as "anyone who disagrees with me?"

You? No. Well, not yet at least. But given how the percent of people here who use the terms improperly are skewed, it's not a faulty assumption to assume you would fall in with that group. When 95% of the people use the term as they so please, the odds of a new user being in that 5% is pretty low.

 

[samsmart]

This has been my opinion for a long time. This goes for moderate and centrist as well. The majority of these people are liberals, and only a teeny-tiny few actually have beliefs that are equally liberal or conservative. Besides, what the hell is moderate? Moderate what? Moderate is not a political ideology itself, it is a position between extremes without any basis in any ideology.

You know, it's pretty disingenuous to say that most people who are "Undisclosed" are only liberals since most conservatives lump whoever doesn't share their ideology as a liberal.

 

[Cyberhwk]

Don't know if their embarressed or ashamed of the label. But I also see a lot of lib support coming from people who don't id themselves for what they apparently believe.

Similarly, funny how 90% of people who love to identify as "Libertarian" tend to never once disagree with the Republican platform.

I personally don't see the point though. I'll admit I'm liberal, even though I'm probably more conservative on guns than most conservatives.

 

[Hicup]

I dunno, the options were conservative and very conservative? I assumed conservative was "mostly" conservative, and very was always conservative. I don't think I have a liberal bone in my body, so I chose "very" conservative.


Tim-

 

[obvious Child]

You know, it's pretty disingenuous to say that most people who are "Undisclosed" are only liberals since most conservatives lump whoever doesn't share their ideology as a liberal.

Even more amusing since the "conservatives" who make that claim often are anything but conservative.

 

[Mensch]

You? No. Well, not yet at least. But given how the percent of people here who use the terms improperly are skewed, it's not a faulty assumption to assume you would fall in with that group. When 95% of the people use the term as they so please, the odds of a new user being in that 5% is pretty low.

I'm having trouble believing that such grand assumptions could be all that inaccurate. Everyone seems to support a little mix of socialism here and there. You're painted as a conniving, Mr. Potter, Mr. Scrooge, evil, corrupt, greedy, selfish corporatist who wants to do away with social security and medicare in order to throw granny out on the street. If I say let's privatize SS and medicare, what would be your reaction? What would the common reaction be? That I'm a ruthless tyrant who just wants to throw granny out on the street. I don't give change to beggers. I must be a senseless miser. This is the reaction I get from most people. And most people don't think socialism, or "social democrat" is such a bad term.