How do you identify politically?

[Supergirl]

I'd like this thread to be taken seriously and for people to treat each other respectfully. I'm curious to know how people identify themselves politically. I've tried to include as many different labels as I can, and yes, I know labels can be limiting. But they are also very useful.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm a member of the Democratic Party but consider myself a conservative liberal. I'm very conservative on some issues and liberal on others. I don't believe in abortion but I'm pro-choice and I've gone round 'n round on getting people to understand that.

I don't own a gun but am for gun owners rights.

So I don't think I fit into any one category.

[Wild Cobra]

The poll structure here is limiting. You can pretty much put me where government gives liberty to the people rather than being authoritarian and conservative rather than liberal. Too bad Fiscal Conservative includes a liberal concept I am completely against. You limited me to only Libertarian. Conservatives do not believe in raising taxes to cover the deficit like a fiscal conservative does. They believe in reducing government.

You can find ideas and claim it's opposed to what I stated. Government for example does have a place to be authoritarian. These times should normally be strictly limited by the constitution. I will not try to say that as an absolute. Most things do have valid exceptions. You could even call me a Classical Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Liberalism).

In Wiki, the entry American Consevatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism), there is a place it has a nice list:



1. Classical or institutional conservatism — Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes process (slow change) over product (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a government controlled by a particular political party is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation. The classical conservative emphasizes historical continuity, to ensure that a reform does not cause chaos within both the populace and historical institutions of a given society. Classical conservatives also favor tradition over experimentation, and have an inherent distrust in utopian schemes.

2. Ideological conservatism or right-wing conservatism — In contrast to the anti-ideological classical conservatism, right-wing conservatism is, as its name implies, ideological. It favors business and established religion, and opposes socialism and communism.

3. Conservative Christians— are primarily interested in what they describe as family values. They believe that the United States is a Christian nation, and favor teacher-led Christian prayer in the public schools, the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and censorship of the media to remove sexual references. They strongly oppose the normalization of homosexuality.

4. Neoconservatism — a modern form of conservatism that supports a more assertive foreign policy, aimed at supporting American business interests abroad. Neoconservatism was first described by a group of disaffected liberals, and thus Irving Kristol, usually credited as its intellectual progenitor, defined a "neoconservative" as "a liberal who was mugged by reality." Although originally regarded as an approach to domestic policy (the founding instrument of the movement, Kristol's The Public Interest periodical, did not even cover foreign affairs), through the influence of figures like Dick Cheney, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Ken Adelman and (Irving's son) William Kristol, it has become more famous for its association with the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration.

5. Small government conservatism — Small government conservatives look for a decreased role of the federal government. They follow the Founding Fathers in their suspicion of a powerful federal government.

6. Paleoconservatism, which arose in the 1980s in reaction to neoconservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition and the importance to society of the traditional family. They strongly oppose government intervention into people's lives. Some, Samuel P. Huntington for example, argue that multiracial, multiethnic, and egalitarian states are inherently unstable. Paleoconservatives are generally isolationist, and suspicious of foreign ideas.

7. Libertarian conservatism emphasizes a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly with regard to federal power. This mode of thinking tends to espouse laissez-faire economics and a disdain for and distrust of the federal government. Libertarian conservatives' emphasis on personal freedom often leads them to adopt social positions contrary to those of Christian conservatives.


You can place me in #1 and #7 above.

I was going to spend more time on this, but that's enough for now.

[cajunspur]

I'd like this thread to be taken seriously and for people to treat each other respectfully. I'm curious to know how people identify themselves politically. I've tried to include as many different labels as I can, and yes, I know labels can be limiting. But they are also very useful.

I didnt see a label for "Uninformed Crazy Left Wing Kook" for you to pick

[Spuradicator]

Im not a member of any party, because neither of them hold all of my every belief on issues. But I am more conservative than liberal.

[Mr. Peabody]

Liberal/Progressive. Whatever you want to call it, I selected "liberal."

[DarkReign]

Agnostic?





In all seriousness, I cant specify what I am. It always depends on the issue up for debate.

Abortion: I guess Im "liberal" since I believe legislating against people and their personal choices is a big no-no. Same with drugs, suicide, etc. Its their life, ruin away.

Economy: Im definitely "conservative" (i think). To be honest, I dont think Reps are even conservative when it comes to the economy. I know for a fact Dems arent either. But in keeping with the Merriam-Webster definition of "conservative", I'll go with that.

The list could go on. As an aside, I dont wish partisanship on my worst enemy. Blind obedience should be reserved for the military. Other than that, critical thinking skills (no matter how dull/sharp they are) should be implemented in every facet of life.

[xrayzebra]

I agree with WC about no place for a conservative to vote.
So I checked Other. Like him, I believe government should cut spending not raise taxes and should just stay out of peoples business. Politicians are what they are: politicians. They are only good at one thing, getting elected. That is about the extent of their knowledge on how do things. You know like their dictates about the CFL light bulb. It is going to be required. Why because they are going to ban the manufacture of incandescent bulb. What a bunch of dummies.

[jochhejaam]

Tiger Woods combined his 5 ethnic backgrounds and came up with "Cablanasian"

My political leanings come out as "Comolibre" (lib = liberterian).




Comolibre is a registered trademark, and may not be used, for any reason, Public or Private, without the express written consent of the Jochhejaam Corp.

[shelshor]

Independent, closest to being a Libertarian.

[Extra Stout]

I haven't fully defined my personal ideology. Lately I've been working to deconstruct the contemporary American assumptions which have informed it to date.

I have established that both abortion and capital punishment are inimical to my emerging worldview. I'm also interested in how distributism could be applied to the American system.

[Extra Stout]

I've gone so far as to question whether having a strong central government for the United States is any longer in the best interests of the populace.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

I am a Gay Secular-Humanist Trotskyite Environmentalist Bishop

[jochhejaam]

I am a Gay Secular-Humanist Trotskyite Environmentalist Bishop

Given that information, MannyIsGod would classify you as a Moderate Democrat.

[balli]

It depends. I operate under two ideological stances; one based in reality, the other based in idealism.

In my ideal world, I'm off the deep end. I want population control and abortion made madatory, I want cars banned, I want everybody to grow their own food, I want radical re-distribution of wealth or I just want the concept of money to not even exist, I want the stock market and guns to not exist, I want the protection/restoration the environment to be humanities' number one priority (more than protecting humans), I want life expectancy to drop by about 30 years, I want to roll the clock back to the stone age. I want a bunch of crazy stuff. And basically, I want everybody who stands in the way to be dead. You think the Bolshevik's were crazy- they don't even begin to compare to me.

However, I know none of that is possible. So under the modus of reality I'm a liberal in the classical sense of the word. I support John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle. I stand against Ascribed Status. Basically, as a liberal, I'm concerned with freedom to live as one chooses under the Harm theorum and I am very opposed to laws or conditions that block people from making those individual choices. Therefore I support a lot of liberation policy. I don't know what that makes me? Kind of a socio-libertarian I suppose. In any case, I'm a lot closer to Democrats than I am to Republicans, that's for sure.

[101A]

I've gone so far as to question whether having a strong central government for the United States is any longer in the best interests of the populace.

Many have.

Unfortunately that particular question is now academic.

[101A]

It depends. I operate under two ideological stances; one based in reality, the other based in idealism.

In my ideal world, I'm off the deep end. I want population control and abortion made madatory, I want cars banned, I want everybody to grow their own food, I want radical re-distribution of wealth or I just want the concept of money to not even exist, I want the stock market and guns to not exist, I want the protection/restoration the environment to be humanities' number one priority (more than protecting humans), I want life expectancy to drop by about 30 years, I want to roll the clock back to the stone age. I want a bunch of crazy stuff. And basically, I want everybody who stands in the way to be dead. You think the Bolshevik's were crazy- they don't even begin to compare to me.

However, I know none of that is possible. So under the modus of reality I'm a liberal in the classical sense of the word. I support John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle. I stand against Ascribed Status. Basically, as a liberal, I'm concerned with freedom to live as one chooses under the Harm theorum and I am very opposed to laws or conditions that block people from making those individual choices. Therefore I support a lot of liberation policy. I don't know what that makes me? Kind of a socio-libertarian I suppose. In any case, I'm a lot closer to Democrats than I am to Republicans, that's for sure.


If you don't see the absolute unabashed conflict and juxtaposition of your desires and beliefs, you are an idiot.

Property Rights = Freedom to live as one chooses.

Liberals are completely opposed to what you say you want.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

7. Libertarian conservatism emphasizes a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly with regard to federal power. This mode of thinking tends to espouse laissez-faire economics and a disdain for and distrust of the federal government. Libertarian conservatives' emphasis on personal freedom often leads them to adopt social positions contrary to those of Christian conservatives.

I guess I slot in under this one, gonna have to vote other...

Basically I'm about as far from wanting as to become the welfare state we are well on the road to being as you can get.

[balli]

If you don't see the absolute unabashed conflict and juxtaposition of your desires and beliefs, you are an idiot.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I operate under two completely different ideologies. Please read.


Property Rights = Freedom to live as one chooses.

Liberals are completely opposed to what you say you want
You are a moron. The central tenant of Liberalism and it's view on freedom is that the individual should have the right to live as one chooses and that the obstacle is laws, customs and economic conditions that prevent said agent from doing so. Academically, that is the very core of Liberal theory and it's exactly what I described in my second paragraph, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

And I don't know what the hell you're talking about property rights for, but I personally have been arrested and taken against my will to jail from within the confines of my own home, solely because there were certain laws that were limiting my freedom to do as I choose. So you can take that load of shit about property equalling freedom and shove it up your ass.

[101A]

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I operate under two completely different ideologies. Please read.


You are a moron. The central tenant of Liberalism and it's view on freedom is that the individual should have the right to live as one chooses and that the obstacle is laws, customs and economic conditions that prevent said agent from doing so. Academically, that is the very core of Liberal theory and it's exactly what I described in my second paragraph, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

And I don't know what the hell you're talking about property rights for, but I personally have been arrested and taken against my will to jail from within the confines of my own home, solely because there were certain laws that were limiting my freedom to do as I choose. So you can take that load of shit about property equalling freedom and shove it up your ass.

Please explain how a marginal income tax rate of 60% + coincides with this stated desire.

Freedom BEGINS with property rights you cannot have one without the other. If we all lived in governmental housing, I have a feeling what happened to you would be all that more common.

So, you basically favor community property, but the freedom to do whatever you want to do?

You're a hippie?

[balli]

Please explain how a marginal income tax rate of 60% + coincides with this stated desire.

Freedom BEGINS with property rights you cannot have one without the other. If we all lived in governmental housing, I have a feeling what happened to you would be all that more common.

So, you basically favor community property, but the freedom to do whatever you want to do?

You're a hippie?

Again, in the first paragraph I was talking about an impossible ideology that has no purpose in the real world. It is not what I use in terms of reality or to guide my politics. At all. It is my own radical idealism- nothing more.

My second paragraph describes what I actually think and act upon based in reality. Not once under that ideology did I mention abolishing property rights. Not once. So don't put words in my mouth. Clearly, under what I said I actually practice and believe, I don't favor communal property. Clearly.

And again, since it's obvious you're having a very hard time understanding, my first paragraph has nothing to do with my second. Nothing. So quit trying to compare the beliefs I described in one, with the reality that I described in the other. I made that clear from the beginning and I shouldn't have had to tell you this for the third time now.

[101A]

Again, in the first paragraph I was talking about an impossible ideology that has no purpose in the real world. It is not what I use in terms of reality or to guide my politics. At all. It is my own radical idealism- nothing more.

My second paragraph describes what I actually think and act upon based in reality. Not once under that ideology did I mention abolishing property rights. Not once. So don't put words in my mouth. Clearly, under what I said I actually practice and believe, I don't favor communal property. Clearly.

And again, since it's obvious you're having a very hard time understanding, my first paragraph has nothing to do with my second. Nothing. So quit trying to compare the beliefs I described in one, with the reality that I described in the other. I made that clear from the beginning and I shouldn't have had to tell you this for the third time now.

I didn't. I responded to your subsequent post, and quoted it.

Now, getting back to property rights = absolute rights.....if that cop had found you with pot, and you hadn't been in a PRIVATE RESIDENCE...you would be in jail now. Property rights saved your ass, didn't they?