What is your Political Ideology?

[Pandora]

Its taken some time because I wanted to report my findings for everyone at once but I needed to consider each one individually and that has taken a couple days.

-----------

ASPCA: Third Way Centrist - Some of the notable names associated with this ideology are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, FDR and (please don't flip out) Benito Mussolini. My own description, based simply on the philosophical and ideological foundations, would be Progressive Pragmatism.



Despite the label "Centrist" Third Way is a Progressive ideology. The left believes they are not progressive enough and should embrace social democracy, while the right believes they are too progressive. Third Way centrists do not necessarily promote compromise between left and right so much as they hold the "Radical Center" while promoting a populist agenda.

-----------

BigRob: Pragmatic Republican Conservative - Oddly enough, the only famous person that I can find who has such a blend of views was a Democrat, Grover Cleveland. Also, the Republican part, is in reference to Republicanism the ideology, not the party. Republicanism and Classical Liberalism are said to be the guiding principles of our founders, so you're certainly in good company there.

-----------

Dogtowner: Pragmatic Conservative Libertarian - Ronald Reagan is probably the best known person to hold this particular blend of ideologies and I think you're already well versed on his life and works.

You stated that you were a Conservative Libertarian before you answered any questions, so I was very curious to see if your answers would lead me to the same conclusion and with the exception of pragmatism, they did.

-----------

Pandora: Libertarian Conservative - Going over your philosophical leanings, one person stood out above all others. If you have never read or heard anything from him, I think you should check out Barry Goldwater:

Ron Paul would certainly qualify as a Libertarian Conservative but his level of Classical Liberalism far exceeds your own, so while you would probably agree with many of his views, you would likely find a few to be unacceptable.

-----------

Pragmatism was a lot more common that I was expecting but I really shouldn't have been surprised given its popularity in modern culture. Most people, left and right, see pragmatism as a "common sense" approach to politics so both sides embrace it to a greater or lesser extent.

Personally, I disagree strongly with Pragmatism because I see it as calling for the abandonment of all other ideological principles to focus on achieving whatever goal has been set. To put it another way, strict pragmatism is the ideology of "the ends justifies the means" and I find that objectionable.

Of course, PLC1 (Pragmatic, Libertarian, Conservative) strongly disagrees with my assessment of the ideology. He believes Pragmatism to be simply whatever is practical, he sees it as a "whatever works" ideology.

Because of such disagreements over the philosophical basis (my view) vs. the application (PLC's view) of Pragmatism, it can be somewhat of a wild card in political philosophies. For example, if there were a PLC2, the two Pragmatic Libertarian Conservatives would disagree on a number of issues due to the pragmatists view of what constitutes "practical" as being entirely subjective.

Wow you put a whole lot of work in that.

I liked my part the best of anyones. I like who I match up with best of all the people on your post too. Barry Goldwater

I like Ron Paul ok but I dont like his ideas on Israel or defending our Nation but he has some good ideas about getting rid of IRS and personal freedoms.

That was great gen, thank you !

 

[Pandora]

Its taken some time because I wanted to report my findings for everyone at once but I needed to consider each one individually and that has taken a couple days.

-----------

ASPCA: Third Way Centrist - Some of the notable names associated with this ideology are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, FDR and (please don't flip out) Benito Mussolini. My own description, based simply on the philosophical and ideological foundations, would be Progressive Pragmatism.



Despite the label "Centrist" Third Way is a Progressive ideology. The left believes they are not progressive enough and should embrace social democracy, while the right believes they are too progressive. Third Way centrists do not necessarily promote compromise between left and right so much as they hold the "Radical Center" while promoting a populist agenda.

-----------

BigRob: Pragmatic Republican Conservative - Oddly enough, the only famous person that I can find who has such a blend of views was a Democrat, Grover Cleveland. Also, the Republican part, is in reference to Republicanism the ideology, not the party. Republicanism and Classical Liberalism are said to be the guiding principles of our founders, so you're certainly in good company there.

-----------

Dogtowner: Pragmatic Conservative Libertarian - Ronald Reagan is probably the best known person to hold this particular blend of ideologies and I think you're already well versed on his life and works.

You stated that you were a Conservative Libertarian before you answered any questions, so I was very curious to see if your answers would lead me to the same conclusion and with the exception of pragmatism, they did.

-----------

Pandora: Libertarian Conservative - Going over your philosophical leanings, one person stood out above all others. If you have never read or heard anything from him, I think you should check out Barry Goldwater:

Ron Paul would certainly qualify as a Libertarian Conservative but his level of Classical Liberalism far exceeds your own, so while you would probably agree with many of his views, you would likely find a few to be unacceptable.

-----------

Pragmatism was a lot more common that I was expecting but I really shouldn't have been surprised given its popularity in modern culture. Most people, left and right, see pragmatism as a "common sense" approach to politics so both sides embrace it to a greater or lesser extent.

Personally, I disagree strongly with Pragmatism because I see it as calling for the abandonment of all other ideological principles to focus on achieving whatever goal has been set. To put it another way, strict pragmatism is the ideology of "the ends justifies the means" and I find that objectionable.

Of course, PLC1 (Pragmatic, Libertarian, Conservative) strongly disagrees with my assessment of the ideology. He believes Pragmatism to be simply whatever is practical, he sees it as a "whatever works" ideology.

Because of such disagreements over the philosophical basis (my view) vs. the application (PLC's view) of Pragmatism, it can be somewhat of a wild card in political philosophies. For example, if there were a PLC2, the two Pragmatic Libertarian Conservatives would disagree on a number of issues due to the pragmatists view of what constitutes "practical" as being entirely subjective.

Gen....Who do you most identify with ?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

ASPCA: Third Way Centrist - Some of the notable names associated with this ideology are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, FDR and (please don't flip out) Benito Mussolini. My own description, based simply on the philosophical and ideological foundations, would be Progressive Pragmatism.

The Third Way rejects both laissez-faire and socialist approaches to economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological development, education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and governmental objectives. One of its central aims is to protect the modern welfare state through reforms that maintain its economic integrity.

Despite the label "Centrist" Third Way is a Progressive ideology. The left believes they are not progressive enough and should embrace social democracy, while the right believes they are too progressive. Third Way centrists do not necessarily promote compromise between left and right so much as they hold the "Radical Center" while promoting a populist agenda.

**************************************
So even though the 'Quickly Quiz' that some of us did was pretty simplistic...there weren't any extreme changes for my ideologies I'm basically right where I figured I was {where I have been} and it's not the LEFTIST LIBERAL LABEL that many seem to need to BOX ME INTO around here.

But thank you for all of the hard work...thank you for making me 'THINK' about my real beliefs, thank you for this very interesting topic.
KUDO's to you...just wish more had taken an interest in it...but then you would still be working away.
Will this topic remain around for some Johnny Come Lately to participate in should they be interested?

 

[dogtowner]

thx for the time and effort

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

what happened to my "is zionism a racist doctrine?" thread?

Moved: is zionism a racist doctrine? groupthink

It's marked that a moderator moved it...but it doesn't say where too...so you might have to send a message to the MOD'S and find out. I've had a couple of mine moved to...just learning where stuff should be classified has been a real learning experience...hang in there it gets easier...Except for the ones at the top of our main page; I still can't post in IMPORTANT NEWS or WORLD NEWS...just keeps telling me I don't have access

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

on the serface you would THINK the thread does not belong in the "us politics" section...

but when you have people like lieberman and the vice president saying "i am a zionist"

i think its safe to say zionists are inbedded to american politics....right? i mean can anyone deny that?

I don't know cause I didn't get to read it...but in order to 'NOT' derail Gen Seneca's topic maybe we need to discuss that on something generic like the dump topic down in the LOUNGE...

 

[PLC1]

I outlined my political philosophy in my very first post on HOP. Since then, I've been labeled everything from an Obabot to a conservative, so to avoid confusion, here it is again.

One thing that came from a discussion with either Genseca or Pandora, I don't remember which, is that pragmatism can be interpreted as a political movement. when I say "pragmatic" I mean practical, and am not referring to any political movement.


Remember, this post dates to April of 2007

For future reference, my political philosophy is outlined here:

A fully formed philosophy must include at least three dimensions, not the usual one dimensional, left to right, or conservative to liberal model with the individual placing him/herself usually somewhere near the center.

The right to left, or let’s call it the X axis of my model, goes from limited government to big government. I think it is safe to say that conservatives are supposed to support a limited government, lower taxes, and less intrusion into individual affairs.

The so called conservative administration currently in the white house could not be called conservative by that definition, not while increasing the power and expense of the federal government.

Nor could a “social conservative” stance against gay marriage and abortion be considered rightist by the definition I’ve just given, as that idea advocates that the government, not the individual, make some basic life decisions.

None of that means that conservatives are being hypocritical, not when you add the Y and Z axes to the model. The issue of gay marriage is on the X axis, authoritarian to libertarian, and has nothing to do with the right to left continuum. The authoritarian would have the government use its authority to dictate who might marry who, while the libertarian would leave that decision to the individual. The issue of abortion is on the same axis.

The Z axis of the model is from pragmatist to ideologue. Take, for example, the issue of universal health coverage. This issue has been labeled as an extreme liberal position, but is it really?

A pragmatist would favor this syllogism:

The US is the only developed country without universal coverage,
We pay more than any other country in the world for health care,
Therefore, we should consider universal coverage.

While an ideologue would be more likely to favor this one:
Universal care is socialistic
Socialism doesn’t work,
Therefore, universal care won’t work.

That explained, my philosophy is at the smaller government side of the X axis, on the extreme libertarian edge of the Y axis, and at the pragmatist extreme of the Z axis.

Conservatives will still call me a liberal, of course, since I think Bush is an idiot, abortion should be an individual’s choice, and the war in Iraq was a mistake.

Liberals might call me a conservative, since I constantly rant about the cost and power of the federal government.

Call me what you like, as I don’t subscribe to a one dimensional philosophy. I’m a pragmatic libertarian conservative.

 

[GenSeneca]

ASPCA, Dogtowner and Pandora... You are all very welcome and I appreciate your participation.

Will this topic remain around for some Johnny Come Lately to participate in should they be interested? - ASPCA
So long as I have the time, and believe they take it seriously, I'll gladly continue to offer my assistance.

Gen....Who do you most identify with ? - Pandora
I hadn't even thought about it till you asked but it didn't take much thought, Thomas Jefferson. While some may see that as cliched or self serving, I think those same people would have a difficult time naming a major political figure who was a greater advocate for individual rights and classical liberalism.

 

[Pandora]

ASPCA, Dogtowner and Pandora... You are all very welcome and I appreciate your participation.

Will this topic remain around for some Johnny Come Lately to participate in should they be interested? - ASPCA
So long as I have the time, and believe they take it seriously, I'll gladly continue to offer my assistance.

Gen....Who do you most identify with ? - Pandora
I hadn't even thought about it till you asked but it didn't take much thought, Thomas Jefferson. While some may see that as cliched or self serving, I think those same people would have a difficult time naming a major political figure who was a greater advocate for individual rights and classical liberalism.

ah man I like jefferson, too bad I didnt match up most to him. But I am very happy with Goldwater.

 

[GenSeneca]

What is your political ideology? Answer a few questions to find out.

The first category deals with your concept of mans relation to society.

1. Are you an Individualist or a Collectivist?

Individualism:The individual is sovereign, rights of the individual should be protected and individuals should be left free to act in any way that does not infringe on the rights of others.

Collectivism: The interests of Individuals should be subordinated to the interests of society, every individual has a duty, or moral obligation, to work for the greater good and the rights of society as a whole take precedent over the rights of individuals.

All ideologies fall within one of those two categories, none can share both.

-----

The next category is Metaphysics and deals with your concept of reality.

2. Which statement most closely parallels your concept of reality?

a. Reality exists independent of my ability to understand, comprehend, or know of its existence. Example, a speck of dust in space exists whether or not I know of its existence and regardless of my ability to understand or comprehend its nature.

b. Nothing exists outside the minds ability to conceptualize its existence. Example, a speck of dust in space only exists once I know its there and I have the capacity to comprehend and understand its nature.

c. Nothing exists. Example, a speck of dust in space is merely an illusion.

d. None of the above (please give an explanation)

-----

This next category is epistemology, your concept of knowledge.

3. Which of the following statements most closely parallels your concept of knowledge formulation?

a. Knowledge can be gained by mystical means. Example, you can learn by osmosis (fall asleep on a book and wake up knowing its contents).

b. Knowledge is subjective, there are no absolutes, and nothing can be known for certain. Example, what you perceive as a blue triangle may actually be a green square to someone else.

c. There are absolutes. Knowledge is gained by applying logic, i.e., through inductive and/or deductive reasoning, by using a premise, or premises, to formulate a conclusion. Example, all men are mortal, I am a man, therefore I am mortal.

d. None of the above (please give an explanation).

-----

This last category deals with ethics, your concept of morality.

4. Which statements most closely parallels your concept of morality?

a. The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and virtue are subjective to the individual. Example, what you consider good may actually be evil to another.

b. The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and virtue are illusions created to control individuals. Example, nothing can be either good or evil.

c. The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and virtue are absolutes and applicable only to living entities. Example, that which allows an entity to perpetuate its existence through self sustaining and self generated actions is good, that which threatens or extinguishes its life is evil.

d. None of the above (please give an explanation).

-----

Lastly,

What is government's role in society?

What is the individuals role in society?

-----

As you can see, with just those few necessary questions, putting together a questionnaire that would cover every possible ideology would fill a book. Those are an excellent starting point that will include, or rule out, many possibilities and allow someone to find their ideology by answering a minimum number of questions.

Again, anyone with a genuine interest is welcome to participate, just start by providing answers to those questions and we will go on from there.

 

[PLC1]

What is your political ideology? Answer a few questions to find out.

The first category deals with your concept of mans relation to society.

1. Are you an Individualist or a Collectivist?

Individualism:The individual is sovereign, rights of the individual should be protected and individuals should be left free to act in any way that does not infringe on the rights of others.

Collectivism: The interests of Individuals should be subordinated to the interests of society, every individual has a duty, or moral obligation, to work for the greater good and the rights of society as a whole take precedent over the rights of individuals.

All ideologies fall within one of those two categories, none can share both.

Generally individualist, but some things benefit everyone, and so should be paid for collectively. For example:

The military, schools, police, parks, fire protection, all are a collective good, and should be supported collectively.

I disagree that no ideology can share both.

Retail stores, gas stations, farms, factories are owned by individuals, and are not a part of the collective.

The next category is Metaphysics and deals with your concept of reality.

2. Which statement most closely parallels your concept of reality?

a. Reality exists independent of my ability to understand, comprehend, or know of its existence. Example, a speck of dust in space exists whether or not I know of its existence and regardless of my ability to understand or comprehend its nature.

b. Nothing exists outside the minds ability to conceptualize its existence. Example, a speck of dust in space only exists once I know its there and I have the capacity to comprehend and understand its nature.

c. Nothing exists. Example, a speck of dust in space is merely an illusion.

d. None of the above (please give an explanation)

-----

I'll go with A.

If a tree falls, and no one is there to hear it, it still makes a noise.

This next category is epistemology, your concept of knowledge.

3. Which of the following statements most closely parallels your concept of knowledge formulation?

a. Knowledge can be gained by mystical means. Example, you can learn by osmosis (fall asleep on a book and wake up knowing its contents).

b. Knowledge is subjective, there are no absolutes, and nothing can be known for certain. Example, what you perceive as a blue triangle may actually be a green square to someone else.

c. There are absolutes. Knowledge is gained by applying logic, i.e., through inductive and/or deductive reasoning, by using a premise, or premises, to formulate a conclusion. Example, all men are mortal, I am a man, therefore I am mortal.

d. None of the above (please give an explanation).

-----
Mixture of B and C. A few things are absolute. The Earth absolutely goes around the sun. Some are not. We don't know how life began on Earth. While we don't know everything for sure, applying logic and sorting fact from fiction will help us understand the world a little better than we do currently. Mysticism is just a desire to believe a thing, which does not affect its reality one way or another. I believe in the scientific method, not in deciding on the answer to the question then going about trying to prove it.

This last category deals with ethics, your concept of morality.

4. Which statements most closely parallels your concept of morality?

a. The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and virtue are subjective to the individual. Example, what you consider good may actually be evil to another.

b. The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and virtue are illusions created to control individuals. Example, nothing can be either good or evil.

c. The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and virtue are absolutes and applicable only to living entities. Example, that which allows an entity to perpetuate its existence through self sustaining and self generated actions is good, that which threatens or extinguishes its life is evil.

d. None of the above (please give an explanation).

-----

None of the above. A suggests that mass murder may be OK to some individuals. B suggests that there is no good or evil, C suggests that what helps an individual to survive is good, everything else is evil, regardless of the effect on other human beings.

Every one of us knows what is good and what is bad. Some of us choose the bad, but we all know. Humans, with the exception of a few sociopaths, are born with a conscience that tells us what is good and what is evil. We are also born with the ability to either follow that conscience or not, but we all know.

Lastly,

What is government's role in society?

What is the individuals role in society?

-----

Government's role in society is outlined in the Declaration of Independence. It's role is to protect our god given rights.


The individual's role in society is to do our best to do what is right not only for ourselves, but for our fellows as well. We are all our brother's keepers.

Excellent set of questions, by the way. I'll be interested in other members' answers.

 

[GenSeneca]

I disagree that no ideology can share both.

Please allow me to rephrase the options;

A. Sacrificing an individuals rights for the greater good of society is always justifiable.

B. Sacrificing an individuals rights for the greater good of society is sometimes justifiable.

C. Sacrificing an individuals rights for the greater good of society is never justifiable.

Mixture of B and C. A few things are absolute... Some are not. We don't know how life began on Earth.

I'm going to ask that you choose one because they are mutually exclusive. I'll try to explain using your example of how life began on earth:

B. At some point life did begin on earth. No matter what answer is given to the question of how, the answer will be subjective - meaning there can be no correct or incorrect (absolute) answers as to how.

C. At some point life did begin on earth. While we may not currently know the correct answer as to how, a correct answer exists and that answer is an absolute.

Every one of us knows what is good and what is bad.

The question pertains to the source of knowledge of good and evil.

Am I to understand correctly that you believe we are born with hereditary knowledge (e.g. instinct in animals) of good and evil?

Government's role in society is...to protect our god given rights.

This seems to contradict what you said earlier. Police, Fire, Military and the Courts are examples of government's role in protecting our rights, such as life, liberty and property. Schools, Roads, Highways and Bridges are examples of government going beyond the role of protecting our rights.

Should government's role go beyond that of protecting our rights?

We are all our brother's keepers.

Does this mean we should be forced against our will to help others (forced charity) or that helping others should be purely volitional (voluntary charity)?

Excellent set of questions, by the way.

Thanks PLC. I do appreciate everyone who takes the time to answer them, it gives me a chance to learn more about how their views of the world are formed and hopefully they learn something valuable as well.

 

[PLC1]

Please allow me to rephrase the options;

A. Sacrificing an individuals rights for the greater good of society is always justifiable.

B. Sacrificing an individuals rights for the greater good of society is sometimes justifiable.

C. Sacrificing an individuals rights for the greater good of society is never justifiable.


I'm going to ask that you choose one because they are mutually exclusive.

If supporting institutions that are a mutual benefit to everyone, or nearly everyone, is "sacrificing individual rights", then the answer is B.

During wartime, the answer has to be B, or there would be no soldiers.

I'll try to explain using your example of how life began on earth:
B. At some point life did begin on earth. No matter what answer is given to the question of how, the answer will be subjective - meaning there can be no correct or incorrect (absolute) answers as to how.

C. At some point life did begin on earth. While we may not currently know the correct answer as to how, a correct answer exists and that answer is an absolute.

C then.

The question pertains to the source of knowledge of good and evil.

Am I to understand correctly that you believe we are born with hereditary knowledge (e.g. instinct in animals) of good and evil?

There is research to suggest that we do, that babies, in fact, have a sense of right and wrong. Every one of us has a moral compass that is referred to as a conscience. That sense can be perverted, and often is, but we all have it.

We know, for example, that taking an innocent life is wrong. Such as gangs and totalitarian governments can convince the young and naive that killing innocent human beings is justified for one reason or anothet, but we still know that it is wrong. We know that other human beings have the same needs as we do, and are people just like ourselves. When we have to try to justify to ourselves treating them as other than human, we make up words to describe classes of people as nonhuman. During slavery, for example, the slave owners didn't call their human chattel human, but made up an ugly word to describe them as animals.

This seems to contradict what you said earlier. Police, Fire, Military and the Courts are examples of government's role in protecting our rights, such as life, liberty and property. Schools, Roads, Highways and Bridges are examples of government going beyond the role of protecting our rights.


Should government's role go beyond that of protecting our rights?

Sometimes there is no practical alternative. The government is the logical entity to build roads and bridges. As long as the governed consent to such a role, it is justified.

Does this mean we should be forced against our will to help others (forced charity) or that helping others should be purely volitional (voluntary charity)?

Purely voluntary. Forced charity is not really charity at all.