I'm a Conservative with a Political Crisis of Identity..Help Requested

[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]

[Darryl_P]

IMO you are closer to being anarcho-capitalist than anything else.

The number one thing required for your preferences to materialize is for government to shrink to about 10% of its current size. Anarcho-capitalism would require a shrinking to 0%, but there could very conceivably be private mechanisms to provide the services you would want the government to provide. There might be additional ones also, but you could opt out of those.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO you are closer to being anarcho-capitalist than anything else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Based on his views, he is a moderate libertarian. He believes in governmentally sponsored charity, education, and other social programs. On the whole, his beliefs seem to favor limited government, but he is not a full-fledged libertarian, and he is far from an ACist.

[4 High]

Sounds like a Mark Warner fan to me.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO you are closer to being anarcho-capitalist than anything else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Based on his views, he is a moderate libertarian. He believes in governmentally sponsored charity, education, and other social programs. On the whole, his beliefs seem to favor limited government, but he is not a full-fledged libertarian, and he is far from an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have reviewed some libertarian blogs and I would have to conclude that I am most likely libertarian. I just read a bunch of stuff at CATO and Lew Rockwell.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO you are closer to being anarcho-capitalist than anything else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Based on his views, he is a moderate libertarian. He believes in governmentally sponsored charity, education, and other social programs. On the whole, his beliefs seem to favor limited government, but he is not a full-fledged libertarian, and he is far from an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tehox]

I don't know my political beliefs are quite complex as well but I would say overall that your beliefs are quite similar with mine. For me it has come down to more to what is ideal vs. what is feasible. I will write more when I get the chance. FWIW I grew up as supporting Republicans, but have switched to voting Democrat the last 2-3 election b/c I think they are more in line with my views.

[iron81]

I am fiscally conservative.


You'll see on this graph that spending decreased under Clinton and Carter and increased under Ford, Reagan and both Bushes.

I believe in low taxes.

While the Dems do want to raise taxes on the wealthy, they want to cut taxes on the poor and lower-middle class.

I am mostly a theoretical conservative

I can't persuade you that the Dems are conservative, they're not. I'm going to try to persuade you to become a liberal.

I am a Christian

- The primary reason that the establishment clause exists is to protect religion: the Puritans came over because of state sponsorship of religion. The GOP's trampling of this constitutional right is a travesty.

I Believe in Helping those less fortunate

Definately want the Dems here. The GOP has been cutting social service programs all over the place.

I Believe in Personal Freedom

Besides Internet Gambling, the Dems have been leading the fight against the Administrations attacks on civil liberties, from the most extreme parts of the PATRIOT Act to Domestic wiretapping. A Democratic government will go a long way to restoring your civil liberties. When the OKC bomb went off, the only civil liberty you lost was the right to drive on Pennsylvania avenue. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Traditionally, the Dems have been better on preserving social freedoms like Abortion and gay rights than the GOP.

I believe the Government should Promote

certain things in society that improve the overall quality of life such as education, quality health care, etc.

We do too.

So, where do I fit on the modern political spectrum? Or, am I just a whacko?

I'd say you're a liberal. Its ok to admit it, we have a support group and everything.

[Grasshopp3r]

You failed to mention security, which is a divergent issue between the dems and the republicans. While I identify with most of the OP and your comments, I struggle with security. I do not believe that you can bribe or negotiate or appease evil. I know the horror of combat, but it is necessary in order to defeat evil.

Let me also add that I am a Republican precinct leader and I feel that the religious wing of the party has control. The rank and file is in line with the OP as well. I am struggling with whether I should continue to be a foot soldier for the Republican election efforts this year.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
You failed to mention security, which is a divergent issue between the dems and the republicans. While I identify with most of the OP and your comments, I struggle with security. I do not believe that you can bribe or negotiate or appease evil. I know the horror of combat, but it is necessary in order to defeat evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that security is important. However I honestly don't think it divides Repubs and Dems as much as you think. The entire country and the rest of the world lined up behind us as we invaded Afghanastan (for God's sake France sent troops to Afganastan). Admittedly there were some anti-war protesters but these were on the fringe of Democratic Party.

The divisive issue has been Iraq. I personally have been against the war since day 1. President Bush used all of his political capital and good will of the world and Democratic Party to stage this war which has been shown 1) To have been persecuted on false grounds 2) To have been bumbled beyond imagination.

As far as security goes, I do feel safer than right after the 9/11 attacks. But it is because we as a country are taking terrorism seriously and the law enforcement agencies are actually doing their jobs. I don't think Bush has done anything that any other president wouldn't have done in his situation.

And in some ways I think Bush has bumbled Homeland Security. He could have done literally anything he wanted at any expense to make this country safer to prevent antoher attack and prepared if antoher attack occured. Instead we get inefficent Homeland Security spending, the travesty that is the TSA, and from the looks of Katrina, a federal government not prepared to respond to emergenices.

On these last points I do think this has a lot to do with the inefficiency of the federal govt versus any real inherent deficiencies of Bush. But they are the ones that say that Democrats don't appreciate that we are in a "post 9/11" era, as IMO their responses have been decidedly "pre 9/11"