Summarize Previous Poster's Political Beliefs

[Frodo]

Summarize in a paragraph (you can write more if you'd like) the political beliefs of the previous poster. 

[Chareth Cutestory]

As a 'Blue Dog' he seems to have a soft spot for a reasonable level of compromise. At the same time it's very clear that his own views are left of center. The driving leftward force appears to come from a genuine concern for the woes of those who tend not to be able to fight their own battles well in the American political forum. Fairness makes a frequently strong appearance in the formation of his opinions.

I don't have much more, but is that what you're thinking of for this?

[ChairmanSanchez]

Don't really know, but he seems very centrist.

[Chareth Cutestory]

Wow, thanks. That was really something. Very insightful and descriptive.

For you; Something conservative-ish

That's fun, right? You're welcome.

[realisticidealist]

Fezzy has always occupied a bit of uncertain space in my mind. He doesn't quite neatly fall into any typical categorization. However, to the extent that I have an impression of him, I feel that his most defining characteristic is a social libertarian streak, a "mind your own business" attitude on things like marijauna, abortion, gay rights, etc., plus an atheist streak that tracks pretty well with the generic internet attitude toward these issues, though certainly with more tact (when he wants, anyway). I feel like he'd fit in with Reddit pretty well. Economically, he seems to be a relatively standard moderate-to-mainline American liberal, but his posts on such matters don't really stand out to me.

[Secretary Polnut]

Interesting character who probably wouldn't have been so interesting 30 or 40 years ago. He's pretty much your old-school catholic populist. He supports social welfare and social justice, but generally approaches subjects his faith has issues with such as divorce and especially abortion from the socially conservative standpoint of today. In many ways he's reflective of many rust-belt and Appalachian democrats who became the Reagan Democrats and are now Republicans, probably despite their views on social justice.

He'd be in a awkward position within both major parties, but it depends which issue he's prepared to hold his nose over for longer.

[Torie]

Well, first, I don't remember ever really disagreeing with a Polnut post that I have seen. He seems like a pragmatic centrist, with as much interest in process as substance (understanding that process can affect the quality of the substantive policy).  Yes, I know, I am not doing the characterization of Polnut's beliefs justice here, and someone else no doubt could do better, but I thought I would hop in, just to share my impression.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Moderate/older-style conservative.

[Vote UKIP!]

Green Australian? I assume he's no fan of the ALP.

[CathKhan]

Standard Conservative, from the South so you know he's legit. Also, as I recall, he figures he'd be identified as one of the farthest right posters if only he posted more.

[Redalgo]

Under my Twelve Colors Model I would describe Cathcon - from what posts of his I was able to turn up in under a half an hour and by making some cautious (but quite possibly off-mark) estimates - as a loyalist, communitarian, capitalist, conservationist, amalgamist, and nationalist. This suggesting to me that he follows a more traditionally-inspired than humanistic path of thought when answering political questions. I would describe him as stressing six political virtues - temperance, discipline, ambition, magnificence, reverence, and assertiveness.

In attitude he's committed to adapting at least some of the Founders' and/or contemporary political theorists' ideas and prescriptions to modern dilemmas, feeling their methods have been tried and true. The same cannot realistically be said for the policy proposals offered and at times in the past implemented by the American left. But if one of their ideas sticks, and turns out to have morally acceptable consequences, there is no sense in later rolling it back. In terms of institutional power, Cathcon appears to desire a small government in regards to how much it meddles in our lives in theory, but in practice - perhaps even without being aware of it – leans more toward a moderately strong, interventionist regime because he feels it is important for future generations to be taught in the ways of wholesome values, or at the very least to discourage the spread of customs that to him seem to be pretty egregious sins. He is neither authoritarian nor libertarian, fully liberal nor corporatist. His approach to communitarianism is less overbearing than it would be from most since the values he seeks to nurture in the community are derived more from the American heritage of liberalism than any temptation to micromanage the behavior of individuals or punish those who deviate from the teachings of his Church.

On economic matters he is clearly in favor of protecting individual property rights and maintaining a highly competitive, yet not entirely "free," market since without a basic set of regulatory rules in place actors could threaten to destroy the system form within and prevent it from delivering its optimal benefits to society. On the other hand, he seems to display some subtle signs of neo-mercantile views as a weaker influence; for he is, on rare occasion, inclined to let the state restrict or distort to pursue national interests. This is done to afford the people of his country extra competitive advantages over, or some protection from, others. In lieu of seeing Cathcon’s posts on the environment, my default assumption would be that he supports managing natural resources primarily for the benefit of humanity with at least a little bit of emphasis being placed on pacing ourselves so some of those resources (e.g. national parks, game animals, clean water, etc.) will be available for the benefit of future generations. However, the needs of our generation are probably given more weight in his considerations than those of generations to come in the distant future, and in at least some situations it seems acceptable to pursue development even if it harms the environment.

On normative issues it is harder for me to decide quite where his views lie. The impression I get is he is OK with our society being diverse and people being outspoken about what makes them different - so long as the relative newcomers and immigrants are willing to eventually conform with mainstream customs and norms to such as extent as they aren’t forcing native Americans to experience marked shifts in their communities’ traditional ways of life. In other words, welcome aboard everyone, but please sit down and do not rock the boat because things are nice as they are and we don't want to get capsized. A similar attitude may apply to foreign affairs - where it is important once again to protect the boat from the uncertain, potentially dangerous intentions of foreigners. Cathcon wants the States to focus on pursuing its interests abroad - namely by maintaining enough military and economic might to ensure we as Americans - not the peoples of other lands - shall have control over shaping the States' destiny both today and in the foreseeable future. Being a moderate neo-con of sorts, there is sometimes a sparkle of idealism in his eyes when it comes to seizing convenient, low-risk opportunities to promote his values abroad for their long-term benefit and ours.

Am I anywhere at all near to close here? It is more difficult for me to do this when I haven’t read hundreds of recent political statements from a person or are not close enough to them as a friend to know where they are coming from. Corrections would be interesting to see since I would like to get much better at doing this.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

A Socialist from Montana.

[Yelnoc]

A Socialist from Montana.

Oh c'mon, he writes 5 paragraphs and you give him a one-liner?

[MilesC56]

He's pretty much a centrist; in a partisan environment like this forum, he's one of the most agreeable people. From our conversations, I think he tends to skew slightly leftward.

[Jayhawker]

Miles is a populist, no doubt about it. In a time when many Americans may be advocating for less government, he supports more. Economically, he doesn't believe in a socialist form of government, but believes the government should play an active role in helping those less fortunate.

Socially, Miles is a conservative, as he favors the government should play a role in promoting strong, moral values in America. Miles is what you'd expect from a Democrat in the South - would certainly be considered a Blue Dog, or conservative, Democrat.

[Governor Scott]

Tmth is a standard, moderate conservative.  Though he leans right on both economic and social issues, it is clear that he tends to examine each issue case by case before drawing a conclusion.  His pragmatic style, though unpopular to many sectors of his Republican Party, puts him in a flexible position ideology-wise, and he does not object to working across the aisle with liberals and centrists.

[Simfan34]

Tmth is a conservative through and through. Although his lack of radicalism on many of the issues earn him the modifier of "moderate", he ultimately shares the same core beliefs- small government, less regulation, and strong moral values- as the party as a whole. The main difference is the lack of vitriol and contrarianism for the sack of political gain. Circumspect and solidified in his views, Tmth is a thoughtful Republican, and proof that those two words are not oxymorons.

[Vote UKIP!]

He's definitely right-of-centre. Although he's pro-life, he prefers to focus on economic issues. Pragmatism is an important part of his worldview, embracing the center and offering reason over passion (thanks, Trudeau ).

The only politician I can think of that comes close to Isaac is home state's current governor, Mitch Daniels. Daniels has been a hero to many who wish to see a more pragmatic, centrist oriented conservatism.

Here's to ya, buddy!

[Reaganfan]

A solid social and fiscal conservative

[Hashemite]

Naso is a unique personality who I guess could be described as a right-wing rah rah rah nationalist, with an ideology mixing his weird myths and folk tales about how great "America" was in "the past" with some traditional run-of-the-mill American conservatism. Which, in practice, means that he's become an increasingly boring and annoying self-parody.

[Simfan34]

Hmmph. I was ignored. Hash is, despite apparent right-of-center economic views, is to me a fairly generic leftist, while not openly moderate in the manner of New Labour, really is best described as a third way follower.

[Jayhawker]

Haha, I got three summaries! Awesome!

*skip*

[Governor Scott]

Simfan, though right-of-center on economic issues, shares a very similar brand of populism to that of MilesC56 and realisticidealist.  Though he considers himself a highly reactionary conservative, he emphasizes on the importance of moderation and triangulation in the Republican Party, which is partly evidenced by his support of Governor Jon Huntsman during the last primary.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Left-of-center, moderate, pragmatic, and generally agreeable. I've never seen him lose his temper, and he hasn't had any memorable flares of passion. If I had to compare him to another poster, I'd pick Polnut; if I had to compare him to a politician, I'd pick Andrew Cuomo. With all of that in mind, I'm surprised to see Grayson and Sanders in his sig.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

A Socialist from Montana.

Oh c'mon, he writes 5 paragraphs and you give him a one-liner?

I had only been awake for about 20 minutes when I wrote that