[Mempho]

The following post is long but please read the whole thing if you're going to comment.

I don't understand where my values lie on the political spectrum and my own politics have been in a considerable state of flux for some time now. Help me, a voter, decide where to go from here. It is obvious that I could not further vote for Frist, nor can I vote for his self-appointed replacement, Bob Corker, in the upcoming November elections. Allow me to explain my personal views and how they correlate to theoretical conservatism. I have now figured out that I am a theoretical conservative, but I am not a Republican.

I am Fiscally Conservative

I believe in balancing the budget. I don't believe is selling the future (our future) for the present. I believe in controlling spending now rather than facing a crisis later.

I believe in low taxes

I believe that low taxes promote economic growth which will (eventually) create a larger tax base for the government. This should at least help to offset the lower tax rate. I don't completely buy into Bush's tax theory (that lowering taxes actually creates more revenue) but I believe that there is an optimal tax rate that balances economic growth with the fiscal needs of the government (notice I said "needs" not desires or pork barrel projects).

I am mostly a Theoretical Conservative

The kind we learned about in Government and political sciene classes.

A theoretical conservative is for:

-Smaller Government with more choices to be made by the individuals themselves or local populations. (Online gambling, anyone)

-Equality of opportunity for members of a society and not equality of outcome

-In an ideal world, I would believe in no government intervention (this would assume that all people were good and everyone contributed to large capital projects (such as roads, airports, etc.) in a fashion approximate to their income.

-In the real world, I believe in government intervention only to the extent that it is required in order to maintain the successful operation of a society (For the purposes of this text, please just assume we mean a Western society). The successful operation of society is one that is relatively safe (but not absolutely safe), promotes commerce, provides for infrastructure, and maintains enough protection from outside societies to the extent that is necessary. For instance, I don't think any of us would want to live in a society where we felt there was a 15% chance of being defeated by a foreign fascist invader within the next year. At the same time, I don't think any of us would want to put up with the limitations and costs needed to lower that risk from say, 0.1% to 0.0000001%. I would imagine our overall risk is something like 0.002% at this time (which would cause a societal collapse about once out of every 500 years).

I am a Christian

but I am not a "traditional" one. I don't believe in legislating morality beyond the traditional precepts that are necessary for the operation of a sucessful society (don't steal, don't murder, don't rape, etc.). I don't think the government should interfere with such decisions. I believe that many in the religious right have driven people away from the church due to their attempts to legislate morality. If one is a Christian, they should probably follow the precepts of Jesus, right? Keep in mind that Jesus welcomed prostitutes, lepers (the outcasts of society), fed the poor, etc. How many prostitutes, lepers, or street bums would feel comfortable in most of today's American churches? Where some people see morality, I see a complete disconnect with the actual teachings of Jesus. I'm not here to argue my faith, we can leave that for another forum but I am here to tell you where I'm coming from personally.

Note: Noone can find a passage in the Bible about gambling being immoral and that is not because the Bible predates gambling as it had already gone on for thousands of years before the New Testamant was written. Even Pat Robertson has conceded that he is reluctant to call gambling a sin, per se, because of this. His opposition is mostly due to his belief that it is bad for families and society in general.

I Believe in Helping those less fortunate

As stated above, I believe we have an obligation to help those less fortunate...to an extent. I do believe in the fundamental concept behind our social programs, I just believe that these programs have gotten way out of hand. While I don't want people to starve, I also don't want people to use social programs as an end game. Rather, social programs should be a means to an ultimate end of being self-sufficient, if possible. There are certainly some situations in which a person can't become self-sufficient, but those are not the majority of the situations present today. Social programs should be merely safety nets for a market-driven system that is unkind to those who have "lost."

I Believe in Personal Freedom

I don't want govenment intervention in our daily lives (except, as noted before, to the extent that such intervention is necessary for operation of a successful society). Notice that the successful operation of society doesn't mean that I am free from risk. In other words, if they had to tap all my phone conversations, emails, and my computer in order to give 100% assurance that I would not be a victim of terrorism the next time I get on an airplane, I would be against it. Many times a year, I just accept that miniscule risk that something could happen. I accept the risk because it is miniscule and lowering that already miniscule risk be any significant degree could cause significant issues in other areas of my life.

Mainly, I hate government intervention except where it significantly negates large risks to my personal, financial, social, and spirtitual wellbeing. Negating miniscule risks at a respectively large opportunity cost is rather foolhardy because it undermines the free society in which we live.

The War on Drugs is a perfect example of something the government does that does not improve society and has merely amounted to the wasting of resources and unnecessary intervention. I am not, and have never been a drug user but I believe the war is a waste. Even if someone could prove that all illicit drugs were bad (which I'm pretty sure some are better for you than tobacco or alcohol and I am a drinker and have been known to smoke cigarettes) and therefore, their elimination would be good for society as a whole, I would argue that the war on drugs is still a waste because of its ineffectiveness in accomplishing its goals (thus, we could argue that the war on drugs has been a drain on society because of all the resources expended in an ineffective campaign).

I believe the Government should Promote

certain things in society that improve the overall quality of life such as education, quality health care, etc. Notice that I said that the government should do things to the extent that they improve the quality of life for the majority of its people. Anything more would be wasted resources and would, thus, eventually decrease the quality of life.

So, where do I fit on the modern political spectrum? Or, am I just a whacko?
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]