U.S. policy and political philosophy thread I: what are you and what is that?

[Guest Raidne]

As suggested as a solution to the disparity of topics and manner of discussion in the U.S. politics thread. First opening question: in the United States, what is a conservative? What is a liberal? Forget Republican/Democrat - that's for the other thread. As are Obama's polling numbers, the latest slam on Paul Ryan's marathon time. Whether the U.S. should heavily invest in rail, how progressive a tax system should be, what the underlying political philosophy behind a position is - all appropriate here.

The idea is that the thread won't move as fast, will generate more thoughtful discussion, and will allow for more in-depth discussion of nevertheless very general and broad topics in U.S. policy and political philosophy.

So, introductions first? What are you, and what is that? I'm a liberal. I believe that the country cannot be better off unless the situation of the least well off is improving.

[The Progressive]

I'm a liberal. I believe that there are three fundamental threat to American prosperity:

1) Income inequality

2) Systemic risk in the financial sector

3) Rising healthcare cost

There only party that offers workable solutions for the long term that would tackle these problems are the Democrats and so I will continue to vote for them.

[Guest Raidne]

You know, I've never really asked myself what the three fundamental threats to American prosperity are, I really like the framing of that question, and I also 100% agree with your list. Is that rank-ordered, or no?

[The Progressive]

Yup, it's rank-ordered.

[SerMixalot]

To limit the discussion to American prosperity inhibits the discussion. There are serious considerations outside of American prosperity including social issues, foreign policy, civil rights, etc. that are equally and I would say more important than just the prosperity of the nation.

Another way to put it is what are the 3 largest threats to America I would say.

1. Money in the political election process

2. Attacks on civil rights including torture, detention and the imperial presidency

3. The military/industrial/political complex and neverending war.

Fiscal matters would run a close 4th.

[sologdin]

worst threats to "american [sic]" prosperity, ranked:

1 ) the pathology of rank

2 ) the pathology of improper designation of the object of inquiry

3 ) the pathology of threatening pathologies

we have met the enemy, comrades, and it is you.

[Foreverlad]

Liberal.

I think the single biggest threat to prosperity (here, there and everywhere) is Tradition. Don't know if that would be a popular (or necessarily 'informed') opinion, but meh. Shooting down science, social/sexual parity and basic compassion for one another could all be traced back to sticking with tradition, be it through political parties, regional tendencies, or religious belief. Admittedly its often the bastardization of, and not the tradition itself, that might lead to woe, but it seems so much of the shit we fight over is thanks to what Dad, Grandad, or some religious icon supposedly believed.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I'm actually don't know where I fall out. I'm too conservative to be a liberal, I like change too much to be a conservative, I appreciate government to be a libertarian. Though it's not a political designation, bourgeois is probably the best description.

[TerraPrime]

I'm a deviant liberal with a pro-authority streak. For instance, I support the act of invading Iraq, but not the rationale, and I support on-demand ID cards (two of the bigger sins amongst conventional liberals of the U.S.).

3 issues:

1. Imbalance between individualism and collectivism in favor of the former. We need to re-center and put more collective consideration back into our discourse. Individual rights and freedom are important, but not to the exclusion of other considerations. In other words, I am about as opposite to the Libertarian philosophy as you can get.

2. Class division. Or if we don't like Marxist language, inequality in income distribution.

Can't think of a third that is not a subset of the first 2.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The spectrum does not run merely from liberal to conservative, but oh well. I'm a libertarian who waffles on anarchism. As for the 3 threats to "American Prosperity".

1. The Federal Government

2. The State Governments

3. Corporate incest with #1 and #2

[TrackerNeil]

As a liberal, I believe...

Power - economic, political, and social - should be in general widely distributed; concentrations of power in the hands of a few is almost always harmful.

The "free market" is a myth, and that government is and always has been a necessary component of any economy. Accordingly, government has not only the authority but the duty to ensure that the economy serves everyone, and not just the few at the expense of the many.

Science and intellectualism are to be respected and should be an essential part of any discourse on public policy.

Since privilege naturally accrues to those with the most power, public policy should be slanted towards ensuring that the underprivileged are treated fairly and have as much opportunity to succeed as possible.

Authority should be viewed with a healthy skepticism, and those who wield it should always bear the burden of proof in any conflict with individual rights and public disclosure.

[S John]

Anti-authority, isolationist, and a supporter of the rights of an individual state to make its own policies as opposed to the federal government inflicting its shit on everyone - as long as those policies do not violate the constitution. I think that leaves quite a wide variety of self-governing options there amongst the states. I like federal government de-centralization and reduction in spending - including the military. Socially, I think that as long as you aren't hurting anyone else you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want. From gay marriage to heroin to owning an assault rifle, I do not give a shit. I'll mind my own business if you mind yours. I'd pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan, close most US military bases abroad, lift the embargo against Cuba, close Guantanamo, and end the drug war. Oh yea, and the Patriot Act is toast.

Of course, none of that shit will be happening anytime soon. Still, I'll be voting for Gary Johnson... most likely.

[Guest Raidne]

The spectrum does not run merely from liberal to conservative, but oh well. I'm a libertarian who waffles on anarchism.

Indeed, those were easy examples, not an exhaustive list. My sincere apologies. I kinda of like a circle or graph with anarchist/statist on one axis and liberal/conservative on the other. Once you're on the statist side you're saying "this is how it should be and my government will make it so" and on the anarchist side you're saying "this is how it should be and how it will be without government interference," and the liberal/conservative thing is more about how it should be/will be.

I think the single biggest threat to prosperity (here, there and everywhere) is Tradition. Don't know if that would be a popular (or necessarily 'informed') opinion, but meh.

Do you think this is more of a problem now than perhaps it has been because of the expanding life span?

I'm actually don't know where I fall out. I'm too conservative to be a liberal, I like change too much to be a conservative, I appreciate government to be a libertarian. Though it's not a political designation, bourgeois is probably the best description.

I can never figure out what you are either, but I think the majority of Americans agree with you.

2. Class division. Or if we don't like Marxist language, inequality in income distribution.

Yeah, I'd have to rephrase my position on that, I suppose - I think increasing income inequality is the problem. I think a certain amount of income inequality is not only inherent, but desirable. People should be able to freely make work/life balance choices within some kind of sensible framework, i.e. you can expect the CEO to work 70+ hour weeks, but not the janitor, or the nurse. Don't know where that line is drawn though. How about the lawyer, the investment banker, the surgeon? Don't know the answer. Any thoughts from anyone on that? Should there be limitations on how many hours people can work? Should we distinguish between professions, like we do now under the Fair Labor Standards Act? Because this is a large part of where income disparity comes from - some people wanting money more than time, or simply liking to work, and some people wanting time more than money. I would not want to live somewhere where this choice was not, to some extent, available.

[Apoapsis]

"Liberalism" in the US seems to be what is known as "social democracy" in the rest of the world.

[emberling]

If we're just sharing our own political philosophies...

I share the fundamental libertarian principle - essentially, that government's mandate is - or should be - to establish and protect freedom, and does not extend to establishing maximum 'prosperity' in individuals or as a society.

But the conclusions I draw from those principles bear almost no resemblance to anything on the right and actually end up pretty close to the position of the Democrats. Libertarians reject anarchy because it does not actually result in freedom; I fail to understand why this ability to compromise doesn't extend further. Accident of birth, social inequity, poor education - these things also make people, for all practical purposes, unfree.

I'm not qualified to comment on the three greatest threats to America's future, but this is what I perceive them to be off the top of my head:

1. Increasing corporate control of...well, everything, and decreased ability of regular individuals to fight back against it. This is in part due to apathy on the part of other individuals, and encompasses the bulk of the problems I see in 'increasing income inequality'.

2. The greater myth of American exceptionalism, including the legitimacy of world-police behavior, the continued blindness to the fact of greater prosperity* in other Western nations, the pernicious myth of America as a Christian nation, and xenophobia.

3. Ignorance, propagated by poor education, sensationalist media, and inherited traditions of backwards, warped thought.

*I may not believe in governing for prosperity, but most of the government does, and if they're going to do it they should do it properly. Also, when 'prosperity' is reflected in e.g. a vastly superior education system, I'm behind it fully.

[DaveSumm]

I think the single biggest threat to prosperity (here, there and everywhere) is Tradition. Don't know if that would be a popular (or necessarily 'informed') opinion, but meh. Shooting down science, social/sexual parity and basic compassion for one another could all be traced back to sticking with tradition, be it through political parties, regional tendencies, or religious belief. Admittedly its often the bastardization of, and not the tradition itself, that might lead to woe, but it seems so much of the shit we fight over is thanks to what Dad, Grandad, or some religious icon supposedly believed.

Wonderful. I've thought this exact thing for a long time. I can't think of any area of society which wouldn't benefit from asking the simple question "Why are we doing this? Because it's benificial? Or simply because it's what we've always done?".

I think the largest of the unspoken problems in the US and around the world: Nationalism. The belief that the geographical border in which you were born and the government you pay your taxes to is somehow the most crucial piece of information about an individual. In my experience, nationality tells you precisely zero about a person. It's the mother of all 'us and them' problems.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think the largest of the unspoken problems in the US and around the world: Nationalism. The belief that the geographical border in which you were born and the government you pay your taxes to is somehow the most crucial piece of information about an individual. In my experience, nationality tells you precisely zero about a person. It's the mother of all 'us and them' problems.

I have long been a proponent of breaking the US up into at least seven smaller nations, grouped roughly along regional culture borders.

[Foreverlad]

Do you think this is more of a problem now than perhaps it has been because of the expanding life span?

A good question, and one that lends itself to my mention of bastardization. Living longer certainly provides more opportunity to advertise and enforce your ideas, but I think it's the passing of people that adds to the mythos of a tradition. Basically, it's easier to promote the glory days when there's no one around to tell you they weren't so glorious.

[TrackerNeil]

I have long been a proponent of breaking the US up into at least seven smaller nations, grouped roughly along regional culture borders.

As long as my section omits Pennsylvania west of Harrisburg, I'm game.

[TerraPrime]

As long as my section omits Pennsylvania west of Harrisburg, I'm game.

Dude. Someone has to be on the team with the slowest-moving kid. You're close to them, so, take one for the team? :P