What do you call your own ideology?

[afleitch]

Liberal Conservative.

[Holmes]

I like social democrat.

[anvi]

It's interesting that this thread question has actually bothered me for a few days.  I keep trying to think about how to answer it and I honestly don't know how.  I support markets and free trade, though I think the tax base should be broad enough to enable federal and local governments to make continuous and intelligent investments in education, health care, infrastructure, public safety and the interior, so as to provide for opportunity and a safety net that benefits everyone, and not just some at the expense of others.  I believe in a strong and healthy legal system and that the military should be well-provisioned and respected by the citizens, but should be called upon quite sparingly.  I believe that individuals should be permitted optimal freedom in pursuing their own happiness, but also that public discourse should pay much attention to the importance of an inclusive national community.  

Those are broad principles I hold, and I'm not that interested in finding a label that they add up to.  It's all too easy to make a list of these principles; it's the detailed work of solving actual specific problems where life gets both more interesting and more tricky.  It's like what Frank McCourt wrote about his first day of grade-school teaching when a kid threw his lunchbox sandwich at another kid and it landed at his own feet at the front of the room--that after four years of English and pedagogy classes at NYU, he suddenly realized that no one had taught him how to handle a flying sandwich situation.          

[I Am Damo Suzuki]

Most of the times I don't know very well where I am ideologically speaking. Somewhere in the left for sure, but we are living in a confusing age. I suppose that I am a sort of green social democrat or socialist in the European sense, of course. Since I have an odd consensual character when I'm not angry and/or devoured by a righteous indignation with the great injustices that daily occur around the world, sometimes I look like a moderate hero and, who knows, maybe I'll become in one of those when I'm 64, more of less the age of Paul McCartney.

[Senator Napoleon]

It's interesting that this thread question has actually bothered me for a few days.  I keep trying to think about how to answer it and I honestly don't know how.  I support markets and free trade, though I think the tax base should be broad enough to enable federal and local governments to make continuous and intelligent investments in education, health care, infrastructure, public safety and the interior, so as to provide for opportunity and a safety net that benefits everyone, and not just some at the expense of others.  I believe in a strong and healthy legal system and that the military should be well-provisioned Thread respected by the citizens, but should be called upon quite sparingly.  I believe that individuals should be permitted optimal freedom in pursuing their own happiness, but also that public discourse should pay much attention to the importance of an inclusive national community.  

Those are broad principles I hold, and I'm not that interested in finding a label that they add up to.  It's all too easy to make a list of these principles; it's the detailed work of solving actual specific problems where life gets both more interesting and more tricky.  It's like what Frank McCourt wrote about his first day of grade-school teaching when a kid threw his lunchbox sandwich at another kid and it landed at his own feet at the front of the room--that after four years of English and pedagogy classes at NYU, he suddenly realized that no one had taught him how to handle a flying sandwich situation.          

You're a Liberal based off this.

[They Played The Wardrum Out Of Time]

Interventionist libertarianism

This is an oxymoron.

Not really. Leftist social policies, right-wing economic policies, and an interventionist foreign policy. In America, when the first two are combined, we call that 'libertarian'. However, this usually comes with isolationism, so it's necessary to point out I am specifically an interventionist libertarian.

Unless you have a better idea?

Libertarianism was an ideology founded on the principles of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, yes, but a core component of libertarianism is non-interventionism, or isolationism. You cannot be a libertarian without support a non-interventionist foreign policy. That's like saying "i'm a pacifist, but i'll still fight someone if need be." No, that makes you a militarist. You cannot be a militarist libertarian, it's a contradiction of the ideology.

The mistake you made is giving shit about the subtleties of this crap. If we're gonna be absolutist, the only true "conservative" is a caveman. So let's stop this and examine what he meant by that: a relatively hands-off domestic policy coupled with a belief in a strong and potentially active (if he views it as necessary) national defense. There we go.

It's different than being a Republican and being a dove or being a Democrat and being a hawk.  I think it was Ghost_white that really pounded it into my head that Libertarianism is an isolationist or non-interventionist ideology. No true Libertarian supports militarism because that defies the principle of liberty for all (regardless of where they live or whom they are) as well as the idea of America being a peace-keeping nation. I've really come to peace with Libertarianism after I went on that whole long rant about it being a totally shit ideology and all that. The one thing I've accepted, above all, about Libertarianism is that it is an ideology centered around non-interventionist foreign policy. That principle cannot be compromised, negotiated or changed. You can be a conservative and support non-interventionism, you can be a liberal and support militarism, but you absolutely cannot be a true Libertarian without supporting non-interventionism. It's a principle that is proverbially glued to the ideology.

[anvi]

I don't know, Napoleon, some of my views on policy now would likely piss liberals off too. 

[They Played The Wardrum Out Of Time]

I don't know, Napoleon, some of my views on policy now would likely piss liberals off too. 

Moderate Hero!

[Senator Napoleon]

I don't know, Napoleon, some of my views on policy now would likely piss liberals off too. 

Your economic ideas tend to compare with mine. The people you are talking about are the people who have little understanding of economics and call themselves social democrats but in practice they aren't even that. whatever you call protectionism and anger mixed together.

[CathKhan]

Interventionist libertarianism

This is an oxymoron.

Not really. Leftist social policies, right-wing economic policies, and an interventionist foreign policy. In America, when the first two are combined, we call that 'libertarian'. However, this usually comes with isolationism, so it's necessary to point out I am specifically an interventionist libertarian.

Unless you have a better idea?

Libertarianism was an ideology founded on the principles of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, yes, but a core component of libertarianism is non-interventionism, or isolationism. You cannot be a libertarian without support a non-interventionist foreign policy. That's like saying "i'm a pacifist, but i'll still fight someone if need be." No, that makes you a militarist. You cannot be a militarist libertarian, it's a contradiction of the ideology.

The mistake you made is giving shit about the subtleties of this crap. If we're gonna be absolutist, the only true "conservative" is a caveman. So let's stop this and examine what he meant by that: a relatively hands-off domestic policy coupled with a belief in a strong and potentially active (if he views it as necessary) national defense. There we go.

It's different than being a Republican and being a dove or being a Democrat and being a hawk.  I think it was Ghost_white that really pounded it into my head that Libertarianism is an isolationist or non-interventionist ideology. No true Libertarian supports militarism because that defies the principle of liberty for all (regardless of where they live or whom they are) as well as the idea of America being a peace-keeping nation. I've really come to peace with Libertarianism after I went on that whole long rant about it being a totally shit ideology and all that. The one thing I've accepted, above all, about Libertarianism is that it is an ideology centered around non-interventionist foreign policy. That principle cannot be compromised, negotiated or changed. You can be a conservative and support non-interventionism, you can be a liberal and support militarism, but you absolutely cannot be a true Libertarian without supporting non-interventionism. It's a principle that is proverbially glued to the ideology.

True Libertarianism from what I hear is impossible. Thus, I believe that the term should be more lenient. As well, let's allow for some interpretation here.

[They Played The Wardrum Out Of Time]

I guess.

[TJ in Wisco]

"True libertarianism" strikes me more as a religion or life philosophy than a political ideology because it allows for basically no pragmatism to deal with whatever situation may arise. That's why libertarians will often argue to no end about how other other one isn't really a libertarian.



As for me, I generally identify as conservative but find that description somewhat lacking. I have some pieces of communitarianism, neoconservatism, paleoconservatism, anthropocentrism, reactionary, classical liberalism, and classical conservatism in me that may surface depending on the issue.

[ChairmanSanchez]

"True libertarianism" strikes me more as a religion or life philosophy than a political ideology because it allows for basically no pragmatism to deal with whatever situation may arise. That's why libertarians will often argue to no end about how other other one isn't really a libertarian.

The reason I no longer identify as a Libertarian is because Libertarians argue each other to death over what a Libertarian actually is.

[Vosem]

See, I've never seen isolationism as a key component of libertarianism. My personal readings have always shown the two key planks of libertarianism are 'smaller government' and 'let people do whatever they want, for the most part'. Foreign affairs aren't really a key part of the ideology, although most libertarians are isolationist. Ergo = interventionist libertarian.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Compassionate conservative?

[ChairmanSanchez]

See, I've never seen isolationism as a key component of libertarianism. My personal readings have always shown the two key planks of libertarianism are 'smaller government' and 'let people do whatever they want, for the most part'. Foreign affairs aren't really a key part of the ideology, although most libertarians are isolationist. Ergo = interventionist libertarian.

But Libertarianism teaches that no man can force his will upon another through the use of force. Libertarianism does not support isolationism, per say, but it certainly does not support actions like the Iraq War.

Then again, this post violates my last one

"True libertarianism" strikes me more as a religion or life philosophy than a political ideology because it allows for basically no pragmatism to deal with whatever situation may arise. That's why libertarians will often argue to no end about how other other one isn't really a libertarian.

The reason I no longer identify as a Libertarian is because Libertarians argue each other to death over what a Libertarian actually is.

[ZuWo]

The truth.

[HockeyDude]

liberal progressive i guess

[They Played The Wardrum Out Of Time]

"True libertarianism" strikes me more as a religion or life philosophy than a political ideology because it allows for basically no pragmatism to deal with whatever situation may arise. That's why libertarians will often argue to no end about how other other one isn't really a libertarian.

The reason I no longer identify as a Libertarian is because Libertarians argue each other to death over what a Libertarian actually is.

^^^ Yes, this.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

"Being right".

Ok, I suppose "trying to be reasonable" might be more realistic.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Paleoconservatarianism

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Interventionist libertarianism

This is an oxymoron.

Not really. Leftist social policies, right-wing economic policies, and an interventionist foreign policy. In America, when the first two are combined, we call that 'libertarian'. However, this usually comes with isolationism, so it's necessary to point out I am specifically an interventionist libertarian.

Unless you have a better idea?

A much better term for you would "postmodern conservative" or "nihilist conservative".

[Vosem]

Interventionist libertarianism

This is an oxymoron.

Not really. Leftist social policies, right-wing economic policies, and an interventionist foreign policy. In America, when the first two are combined, we call that 'libertarian'. However, this usually comes with isolationism, so it's necessary to point out I am specifically an interventionist libertarian.

Unless you have a better idea?

A much better term for you would "postmodern conservative" or "nihilist conservative".

I'm not a nihilist. I like the first term, but I feel like it would sound really stupid in actual conversation, as opposed to writing.

See, I've never seen isolationism as a key component of libertarianism. My personal readings have always shown the two key planks of libertarianism are 'smaller government' and 'let people do whatever they want, for the most part'. Foreign affairs aren't really a key part of the ideology, although most libertarians are isolationist. Ergo = interventionist libertarian.

But Libertarianism teaches that no man can force his will upon another through the use of force. Libertarianism does not support isolationism, per say, but it certainly does not support actions like the Iraq War.

I've always interpreted libertarianism as meaning no government can use force its will on its own citizens using force, not 'no man on another man'.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

At this point, it's probably most accurate to describe mine as a mix of social liberalism and Burkean conservatism.

[Torie]

Boring.

I had a brain fart however about what separates centrists and center right folks versus those farther left when it comes to how to fashion the social safety net. It's subtle, and never talked about, but I think it is there. I will share the fart later. I am not sure where to park it.