What are your political beliefs?

[Montezuma99]

I'm very interested in demography, and the fun in knowing different political beliefs is in knowing the ways that we all want to try to make the world better, so we can then debate and try to come to consensus and make the world better. So, what political beliefs do you consider yourself to have? I'm going to gear the poll more towards definitions that would determine stances on key issues versus issues of the times. So, you can still be a conservative, that is having core conservative values of small government, but have some views that due to the times are considered libereal or visce versa.

Here's an example. It is considered liberal to be against the Iraq War but ultra-conservatives are also against it due to a belief in self-defense as a priority, which in their opinion is a very conservative ideal, just as some ultra-liberals may be for the Iraq War due to a strong belief in giving freedom from oppression around the world, a very liberal belief.

[M51]

I am Libertarian but ABSOLUTELY NOT Ultra Conservative. I am confused why they are lumped together when they are actually quite different. I didn't answer the poll because I refuse to be counted as "Ultra Conservative".

Conservatives favor less government (under the theory that capitalism will reward the hard workers and stimulate progress) but more control over private choices/morals (they won't tell you what to do with your money but they WILL tell you who you are allowed to love which God you should believe in, what constitutes a family, whether or not you are prepared to have a child, etc.). In other words, conservatives favor fiscal freedom and moral control.

Liberals favor large government (under the theory that they level the playing field so that everyone has an equal chance for success) and less control over private choices/morals (you can marry who you want, practice any religion or no religion, just don't impose your beliefs on others). In other words, liberals favor moral freedom and fiscal control.

Libertarians are very different from both. They believe in less control all around. Not anarchy. They are big on National Defense - but not Holy Wars. They believe you should have the minimum government possible to maintain robust national security and to maximize both personal freedom and opportunity. In other words, libertarians favor both moral and fiscal freedom.

I am further confused by the lumping of libertarianism with conservatism, because as a libertarian, if I absolutely HAD to choose the Repubs or the Dems, I would go with the Dems because I would rather have my money messed with than my freedom of choice. Most people who know me assume I am a liberal because I am passionate about freedom of religion, freedom of marriage, freedom of speech, women's and minority rights, etc., whereas my financial freedom is not an issue to me at this point in time so I am not too vocal about it.

[retrophile]

Between "strong liberal" and "socialist".

[Montezuma99]

I am Libertarian but ABSOLUTELY NOT Ultra Conservative. I am confused why they are lumped together when they are actually quite different. I didn't answer the poll because I refuse to be counted as "Ultra Conservative".

Conservatives favor less government (under the theory that capitalism will reward the hard workers and stimulate progress) but more control over private choices/morals (they won't tell you what to do with your money but they WILL tell you who you are allowed to love which God you should believe in, what constitutes a family, whether or not you are prepared to have a child, etc.). In other words, conservatives favor fiscal freedom and moral control.

Liberals favor large government (under the theory that they level the playing field so that everyone has an equal chance for success) and less control over private choices/morals (you can marry who you want, practice any religion or no religion, just don't impose your beliefs on others). In other words, liberals favor moral freedom and fiscal control.

Libertarians are very different from both. They believe in less control all around. Not anarchy. They are big on National Defense - but not Holy Wars. They believe you should have the minimum government possible to maintain robust national security and to maximize both personal freedom and opportunity. In other words, libertarians favor both moral and fiscal freedom.

I am further confused by the lumping of libertarianism with conservatism, because as a libertarian, if I absolutely HAD to choose the Repubs or the Dems, I would go with the Dems because I would rather have my money messed with than my freedom of choice. Most people who know me assume I am a liberal because I am passionate about freedom of religion, freedom of marriage, freedom of speech, women's and minority rights, etc., whereas my financial freedom is not an issue to me at this point in time so I am not too vocal about it.

I'd disagree with you there. If you look at the key differences between the democrats on the Republicans on issues of freedom of choice, you'd actually see there is extremely little difference in terms of the belief from which it stems.

Abortion= Democrats support freedom of choice of the mother versus the Republicans supporting the freedom to live of the fetus. Or you can see it as Democrats favoring larger government in wanting federal abortion law versus Republicans favoring smaller government by wanting state abortion law.

Gay Marriage= A very large amount of Democrats are against gay marriage but support civil unions, which are gay marriage by another name. A conservative argument against gay marriage from the point of view of rights is that the government has no business to give homosexual couples the same finicial benefits as marriage because marriage's sole legal purpose is for the caring of naturally-born young or at least that's how Mitt Romney defends his position against it. This also allows the play of again the state versus federal arguement.

Otherwise, there is virtually nill issue on freedom of choice that the democrats and republicans greatly disagree on. Otherwise liberal versus conservative has virtually nil to say about individual rights. Nil. It all comes down to what I believe are three core philosophies.

More government versus lack of government as a solution to problems

Equality based on the potential to change one's status versus one's actual status

A belief in strict legal interpretations verus loose legal interpretations

Everything else is up to the times, including individual rights, family and religious issues.

[retrophile]

Marriage is about caring for "naturally born young"? Um... *looks at engagement ring* .....yeah....

Basically, there are no viable secular arguments for banning either abortion or same-sex marriage. These things harm no one and are only controversial because they are contradictory to certain religious beliefs.

[Montezuma99]

Marriage is about caring for "naturally born young"? Um... *looks at engagement ring* .....yeah....

Basically, there are no viable secular arguments for banning either abortion or same-sex marriage. These things harm no one and are only controversial because they are contradictory to certain religious beliefs.

Perhaps the gay marriage argument is kind of a stretch, and most people support civil unions anyway, and the ideal would be to call heterosexual marriages civil unions also and make churches give you official "marriages". However, as libertarians like Ron Paul would say, his belief on marriage is to "get rid of marriage benefits for heterosexuals too".

However, there are many-an-atheist against abortion. It is a belief in life before birth, which is not specifically derived from religion. In fact, there are many religious arguments against abortion. My uncle, an amateur Jewish scholar, told me this. In the bible, there is a story in which a man pushes a pregnant woman off a cliff or at least the idea is bought up. If the woman dies, the punishment is death. If there is a miscarriage, it is a fine. See, that's an argument that God puts the soul into the body upon birth, but then my uncle bought up, "It's better to have more voices alive to praise God," and that's in the bible too.

[LonePiper]

I couldn't vote, because while I'm not entirely indifferent I don't like the idea of reducing my standpoint to a simple dot on the spectrum between "liberal" and "conservative". I don't want to associate with either. I want to be me.

In the last few months to a year I´ve started to realise that I´m too attached to the term "liberal" and the liberal / conservative dichotomy. (It´s a bit like the narrow-minded gay-straight spectrum, don´t you think?)

The problem is, this way of thinking and categorizing one´s political views is too narrow and full of stigma in my opinion. I know there is a spectrum between liberal and conservative, but most people will still only call themselves one or the other. I don´t happen to agree with every "typical" conservative view, nor every "typical" liberal view.

However, I have associated with being liberal a little too long to shake it off so easily. I still automatically associate liberalism with freedom, fairness, equality etc. etc. and conservatism with closed-mindedness, prejudice and inequalit, when the truth of the matter is far far more complicated.

Truth is I just want to be myself. I want to believe in my own things, and not have to accept the policies and ideals of an existing standpoint. I know there are different opinions about these two standpoints, but my point is why does there have to be only two? If I say to a "typical" liberal I´m conservative, they will usually think "evil". If I say to a typical conservative I´m liberal, they will usually think "ignorant". Blegh.

That's from a thread I made a little while ago:

http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewt...hp?t=26423&

[Montezuma99]

I couldn't vote, because while I'm not entirely indifferent I don't like the idea of reducing my standpoint to a simple dot on the spectrum between "liberal" and "conservative". I don't want to associate with either. I want to be me.

In the last few months to a year I´ve started to realise that I´m too attached to the term "liberal" and the liberal / conservative dichotomy. (It´s a bit like the narrow-minded gay-straight spectrum, don´t you think?)

The problem is, this way of thinking and categorizing one´s political views is too narrow and full of stigma in my opinion. I know there is a spectrum between liberal and conservative, but most people will still only call themselves one or the other. I don´t happen to agree with every "typical" conservative view, nor every "typical" liberal view.

However, I have associated with being liberal a little too long to shake it off so easily. I still automatically associate liberalism with freedom, fairness, equality etc. etc. and conservatism with closed-mindedness, prejudice and inequalit, when the truth of the matter is far far more complicated.

Truth is I just want to be myself. I want to believe in my own things, and not have to accept the policies and ideals of an existing standpoint. I know there are different opinions about these two standpoints, but my point is why does there have to be only two? If I say to a "typical" liberal I´m conservative, they will usually think "evil". If I say to a typical conservative I´m liberal, they will usually think "ignorant". Blegh.

That's from a thread I made a little while ago:

http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewt...hp?t=26423&

"I still automatically associate liberalism with freedom, fairness, equality etc. etc. and conservatism with closed-mindedness, prejudice and inequalit, when the truth of the matter is far far more complicated."

You know what the thing is. If you talk to a lot of involved conservatives they'll feel the same way. They'll say conservativism is about freedom, fairness, and equality, and liberalism is about closed-mindedness, prejudice, and inequality. They'll call liberals fascist just as liberals might call conservatives fascists. That's why I think it's important we make clear that your belief on freedom, fairness, and equality has little to do with whether you're a liberal or conservative. Liberal or conservative has to do with what you consider to be freedom, fairness, and equality. Many small issues based around time factor into our prejudices but we have to look at it from the core beliefs of both sides. Keep in Republicans and Democrats aren't strictly one or the other. I think there's a lot of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.

To the one that said Libertarians are not conservatives, I will say that if you look at the value-system that spawned libertariaism it falls into the great scheme of beliefs that would go towards conservatives.

[birdnerd]

I'm dialectically a cynic and an idealist. To complicate matters further, I'm rather conservative theologically and quite liberal politically. Put me down for "liberal" to keep it simple, I guess.

[Puzzle_chick]

I'm guessing I'm a pretty strong liberal, based on my stands on the hot-topic issues and the standard definition for this stuff. (let's face it, everything can be debated endlessly if you want to.) But when it comes to politics I tend to ignore the parties and sides and vote for whoever seems to support my opinions. The trend seems to be though that my opinions fall into the "liberal" catagory, so to make things easy that's what I go with.

[Eddie7]

I'm a libertarian and there's no way I'm ticking a box also associated with ultra conservative.

[Montezuma99]

I'm a libertarian and there's no way I'm ticking a box also associated with ultra conservative.

When you compare the ultra-liberals to the ultra-conservatives, there isn't that much difference. Those are both territories where you get to extremely theoretical small-government arguements. This is within the realm of mainstream politics keep in mind. I'm a libertarian, and I consider myself ultra-conservative because in all practical purpose, that's what a libertarian is and would do. The two biggest things either would do, if elected, would be to drastically reduce the size of government.

[Eddie7]

Yes, I understand the logic, but after identifying as a liberal for so long, I'd have difficulty lining myself up alongside the ultra-conservatives. In recent years I've become more appreciative of some conservative principles, but I still struggle with some of them.

The main reason I identify as libertarian now is my view that personal freedom should be absolute. I'm not particularly for or against a tiny government, although I understand that limited government suits libertarianism far more. Government has it's place though, and I'm certainly not opposed to that, so I'm not libertarian to the point where I'd abolish all government departments and reset currency back to gold and the such like some would seemingly like to.

[bydefault]

I chose "Ultra Conservative or Libertarian" because I want that monkey as far off my back as possible. But I'm the ultimate hypocrite because I still work for the d@mned monster. :twisted:

I also worked as a tax examiner with the I.R.S. for four years and before that I worked for the Census Bureau... :shock:

Yeah. Shoot me now, please! :oops:

[Næt.]

Ultra-Liberal.

To each their own.

[borrowedTime]

Probably socialist. But I wouldn't normally put that in the same box as ultra-liberal.

The terms have too many different meanings, especially in different places in the world.

(In Belgium the 'liberal' parties tend to be on the right of the mainstream parties (& the socialist parties on the left as you'd expect)).

[EyeballKid]

I'm confused. This is very probably a very cultural thing but... how did "socialistic" end up on the far left of the spectrum? :shock: Or is it not a right to left spectrum? Or is socialistic very different from socialist? It may be a semantic thing. Or, I'm just at the end of a looong day

:?

[emmarainbow]

Isn't a socialist very left? :?

[iff]

i like to think of myself as a moderate leftwing liberal (socially l,iberal. economically left wing). some people woulde argue that i am a strong liberal leftist and this could be accurate

however i am a Green above these. I believe we need to protect the environment and we need to stop global warming (this requires a 80-90% cut in co2 emissions). I support the green party . They for me are the oly party i can get behind.

on a political front, of the other parties here who are left wing, labour have very much, like all other labour parties in europe, gone right wing and this is expected. sinn fein are a bunch of murderers and as a pacifist i could vote for them. they hare still trying to justify their years of murder. the workers party, well i did give them my no. 2 preference in the previous election and the socialist art is a party i have time for. they don't stand anyone in my own constituency though

but irregardless of whether they did or not, i would still vote Green party. I see green party as the only real choice and although they are cosying up to a coalition government of 2 right wing parties, they are doing it with the right intentions, they want to stop pollution, waste and global warming.

let's go greens

it should be noted that ireland is a country drawn on civil war lines very much (pro treaty and anti-treaty) and it's very common that people still vote for whichever side their great grandfather fought for. we don't really have idologoical battles here

[Zealous]

I put in "Moderate Liberal" because that's where my sympathies tend to lie in elections, but that has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on my actual political views.

Like M51, I don't have a view that any viable candidates ever push. I suppose it's closest to Libertarianism, but it's hybridized with direct democracy, et cetera, et cetera.

I believe (in as much as this is a political view) that it won't matter what my beliefs are until the American government undergoes some radical restructuring. Starting with the abolition of the electoral college and ending with the dissolution of political parties.

In this post-party, directly democratic government (retaining necessary administrative facilities, such as Congress), I would probably side with libertarians. I don't want the government to muck in my business until I muck in theirs. Either that or until I start causing harm to others.

That said, there's also a bit of a socialist in me: I think that income taxes should become regularly updated federal statutes that take a percentage of income based on income/family members. And I think that those taxes should essentially ensure that being rich makes you pay through the nose.

And then there's a little touch of anarchist: I don't think that laws, federal or state, should do anything more than is necessary. They should protect me from being defrauded, murdered, or abused by my employer, but they shouldn't be in the business of regulating what I can charge for my goods and whether or not I can buy alcohol on a Sunday morning. That stuff is my own choice/problem.

And right now, it's impossible for a candidate who matches my views to even get into a real debate. The only people with a shot at presidency are Democrats and Republicans, and in Senatorial elections it's barely different. We need to dissolve our restrictive party system before we can have a government in which many people's views have any bearing.

[EyeballKid]

Isn't a socialist very left? :?

Well, for me they're closer to the middle ground, but it's obviously relative to whatever the other options are where you are...

[borrowedTime]

Isn't a socialist very left? :?

Well, for me they're closer to the middle ground, but it's obviously relative to whatever the other options are where you are...

I'd say it's to the left, but not *very* left, and certainly not at the end of the spectrum, which would be inhabited by various forms of Communism.

[EyeballKid]

Yep, that'd be my thinking too.

[KAGU143]

I don't want to be part of any recognized political group. I prefer to evaluate each issue and candidate on its/his/her own merits and then choose accordingly.

I am an independent.

-GB

[M51]

When you compare the ultra-liberals to the ultra-conservatives, there isn't that much difference.

**I assume you meant to say compare the ultra-libertarians to the ultra-conservatives? Because ultra-liberals most definitely do not support small government theory!!!

...Then why two separate parties?

Libertarians are NOT ultra conservative. They share some positions with the conservatives, and some with the liberals. And some they have their own take on.

But you don't have to take my word for it. This is from the official website of the Libertarian Party:

Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?

Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles.

Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook.

In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle.

http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

My family is a funny example of this. For a long time my brother considered himself ultra-conservative because he disliked big government. To him, money was everything and the liberals wanted to take his money. But he was also pro-choice, pro-women's rights, pro-homosexual rights, etc. When he found out that the Libertarians represented not just his fiscal views but also his social views, he switched.

My sister considered herself ultra-liberal because she was passionate about women's and minority rights, had many homosexual friends, etc. But the seemingly endless fiscal irresponsibility of the Democrats bothered her. When she found out that the Libertarians represented not just her social views but also her fiscal views, she switched.

My father considered himself a moderate because he agreed with some liberal ideas and some conservative ideas, so he figured he should place himself between the two on the spectrum. When my brother told him about Libertarianism, he switched.

Meanwhile, I myself was always unhappy with the polar choices presented to me by the Republicans and the Democrats, because some of my views are decidedly conservative but others are decidedly liberal. Basically, I wanted a party that was fiscally responsible but which didn't tell me what my morals should be. I registered as Independent until I found the Libertarian party and finally felt that someone's platform represented most of my political beliefs.

So four family members who had previously been tooth and nails on political issues with each other - an ultra-conservative, an ultra-liberal, a moderate, and someone who refused affiliation - suddenly found out that we had all believed in the same ideas all along. Maybe politics does run in the family?

Those are both territories where you get to extremely theoretical small-government arguements.

Small government? They want to mandate God (and in particular, their God), tell you who you can marry, force me to carry and give birth to a child I do not want and cannot care for, yet at the same time prevent me from getting adequate birth control....

They want to force their morals down my throat at every turn. Surely, enforcing such morals requires...MORE GOVERNMENT? Not less?

I consider myself ultra-conservative because in all practical purpose, that's what a libertarian is and would do.

Libertarians would not outlaw abortion.

Libertarians would afford heterosexuals and homosexuals the exact same rights by allowing withdrawing government from the marriage business altogether.

Libertarians would not favor any religion.

Libertarians would allow people equal opportunity regardless of sex or gender.

Libertarians would withdraw from Iraq.

That is what Libertarians would do. That is very different from what ultra conservatives would do.

Further, and I know this from long experience as a libertarian living in a predominantly conservative location, ultra conservatives completely reject anyone who is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights, atheist, pagan, Muslim, any other non-Christian or Judaic religion, or basically anyone who disagrees with them on any single issue. (The ultra-liberals are no more tolerant). The ultra-conservatives would reject most Libertarians for having what they would see as ultra-liberal beliefs.

[Shadow girl]

I'm a Republican.

[BunnyK.]

I'm a pretty mainstream bleeding-heart tax'n'spend organic snob lefty. My biggest hot buttons are environment, food policy, and social programs - I'd rather spend the money and know everyone's taken care of, than leave it up to charities which may or may not do the job well. I guess a lot of people think that as long as you work hard and live responsibly, you don't need social programs - but I've known too many good people who work hard and live as well as they know how, and still can't get ahead. Fiscal conservatism, to me, is a weird mix of vindictive non-helping and misplaced faith in humanity.

Honestly though, I don't know how people can call Republicans the "fiscally responsible" party at this point - since when does it make sense to reduce revenue and yet keep spending? :roll:

[< retired >]

I wonder if adopting a particular political ideology is a convenient substitute for having to recognize and fully comprehend our problems, take responsibility for those problems, and devise wise solutions to those problems. After all, after you adopt a particular ideology, you can return to your greedy, narrow-minded, short-sighted personal comfort optimization confident that the elected representatives who share your ideology will solve the problems. Will they?

[bbctv]

i'm pretty left wing, i favor a welfare state, HIGH progressive taxation and a lot of government regulations on business and commerce, protectionist policies towards keeping good jobs in the states, but i tend to be favorable towards relaxed immigration standards (usually not a position taken by those with protectionist beliefs in my exp.)

[M51]

...but I've known too many good people who work hard and live as well as they know how, and still can't get ahead. Fiscal conservatism, to me, is a weird mix of vindictive non-helping and misplaced faith in humanity.

BunnyK.!!! I luv ya!!!

Actually I think that the idea of fiscal conservatism is great. But I think what is actually in practice favors Big Business, and that is why so many good people work hard and still can't get ahead. It is because the people who claim to support "fiscal conservatism" are actually stacking the deck for the people who are already rich....a fundamental and unavoidable human flaw...of course Big Business wants the government to get out of their business, and of course that means they give the Republicans a lot of money, and of course that means that the Republicans respond with policy that is not actually truly "free trade, hard work=better earnings" but actually "if you are big you will get bigger and if you are small you will get smaller" policies. I truly believe that fiscal conservatism, if practiced without prejudice for the big campaign contributors, would help those hard working people you are talking about.

Conversely, the fundamental human flaw in liberalism is that when the government decides how to redistribute goods, powerful interest groups and greedy entities who know how to talk pretty will get more than their fair share....