Your Political School Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by DarthPhilosopher, May 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DarthPhilosopher Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2011
    star 4
    He guys and girls,

    I am unsure if I?m aloud to post this with a devoted thread, however I don?t know where else to post it.

    Anyway, I?m 16 and I am seeking help on finding my political standing. I have seen certain political schools which I lean towards slightly, like Conservatism and Liberal Nationalism, however none really fit exactly what I am thinking. Hopefully you guys can name were I am on the spectrum (left, right, etc) and what school of thought I belong to.

    Firstly I strongly advocate liberal democracy. I believe in the democratic ideals of personal self-determination and freedoms unhindered by fear or a tyrannical jackboot. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential to modern civilisation and any state which exists with oppression, in my opinion, is backward and degenerate. In the same vain I am a strong advocate for tolerance and acceptance of all peoples with no discrimination as per race or gender. I believe that your value in society is as per your personality, values and moral merit not according to your genetics or background.

    In the same way I guess I am a strong supporter of Patriotism, whilst not necessarily being nationalist. I believe you should be proud of your country, and by extension your allied countries and those countries with whom you share common beliefs, as this forms the backbone of national order and unity. In this way I feel that national unity gatherings like the ?Nuremberg Rally?s? (for lack of a better example) are good, whilst they are centralised towards unifying peoples and preaching peace and tolerance, rather than hate and discontent between peoples (using the unity of the Nuremberg Rally?s as an example, not the intolerance which they preached). The recent ?Royal Wedding? as an example unified the British people... I believe these types of events strengthen a nation and in turn creates an acceptance of your fellow nationals.

    I despise ethnic nationalism such as white supremacy. It is a primitive doctrine of less intelligent peoples and disregards the basic fact we are all the same species just from different parts of the Earth. I say look to the person not the race. In this way when I say ?national unity? essential I say it as unity of the people of a nation no matter their background, all the while they are loyal to the nation they are part of that nation. Whether you are from another part of the globe it need not matter, if you are a loyal part of the nation you should be considered fully part of that nation. Furthermore I would take this sense of national pride and unity to extent to all peoples as a collective global community. I support a strong global community, whilst maintaining individual national sovereignty (i.e. no global super-state, but rather a confederation or EU type model).

    I believe strongly in a national order. This is one of the few things fascism advocated I actually do like (while I understand they did it through an iron-grip). I think that a free, yet ordered, nation is essential and prevents disjointedness within the state. This in turn creates a strong nation, and whilst tolerance is preached, a good nation. So, while I am strongly against Nazism and Fascism, I think the national order which they maintained would be a good feature of any nation.

    I guess ? and this is probably the most controversial of my views ? I am somewhat a supporter of militarism, dependent on the status of your country. Firstly I think semi-compulsorily (highly encouraged but not necessarily enforced) conscription like they have in Germany (changing on July 1) for one year or so is an excellent process. Furthermore I believe compulsorily major physical education for teenagers conjoined to school (not just ?PE class? something more prominent) would be a good system to have in place to combat obesity and keep a strong and healthy nation. Obviously you would be except from this for medical reasons, etc. I also believe that a strong military is essential to keep security.

    I have a strong stance on multiculturalism and immigration po
  2. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    We've all discussed the political compass test before. It's not a terrible place to look to assess where you stand, comparatively with other people (and with Hitler!). I'm more Left/Libertarian than Gandhi, apparently, at Economic Left/Right: -6.50, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36. Unlike some people, the experience of September 11, the Afghan and Iraq war have driven me further to the left over time than I was in my youth.

    An aphorism that I've found to be helpful in understanding American culture and politics goes like this: "Not all conservatives are idiots, but most idiots are conservative."
  3. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    It looks like your political standing is pretty well-defined. Instead, I think what you're looking for is a political label. On the topic of labelling, I say

    [image=http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z232/Merkurian/commodus.gif]

    PS: Welcome to the Senate [face_coffee]
  4. DarthPhilosopher Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2011
    star 4
    Jabbadabbado- Yeah, I have tried the Political Compass, and while it works great, I find it difficult to gets difficult to actually determine what school of thought you are in with specific terms (i.e. Conservatism, Nationalism, etc). Any personal opinions on my outlined standings?

    Jedi Merkurian- What would you define my label as?

    Thanks for the responses guys.
  5. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    I haven't had enough training in political science or philosophy to know what my school of thought is on much of anything. My biggest regret in my undergrad education was not having taken philosophy classes. My reading in it ever since has been kind of an aimless catch-up game. Someday when I have more time I'm going to go back and try to fill in that hole.

    Expressing admiration for any aspect of the Third Reich is considered indiscreet at best, can ravage a person's career and reputation at worst. One of my all time favorite Austrian politicians of the 20th century was the late Jorg Haider, a governor of Austria's Carinthia province. He was damaged for a while politically for having expressed admiration for Hitler's economic policies. Keep in mind he was a total douchebag to begin with - the unabashed neo-fascist leader of Austria's right wing FPO, his statement was considered code for a broader admiration of all things Hitler, which it most certainly was. It was hard being Jorg Haider, I'm sure, with so few Jews left in Austria, he had to aim all his hatred squarely at Muslim immigrants and homosexuals. Ironically in the manner we are much accustomed to from the homophobic American christian right, Haider died in a car accident on his way home from a gay bar, and he had been good friends with one of Ghadaffi's sons, was rumored to have been his lover.
  6. DarthPhilosopher Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2011
    star 4
    Yes, I do understand this, and is something I think most politicians have to be weary of. However I wasn?t really expressing admiration for the Third Reich (if I do use that word, then it was only for lack of a better one) but rather that the aspects many people say ?oh it doesn?t look so bad, look at all the banners, order and cool uniforms? are not really in admiration of the system, but rather the grandeur. In truth it is no more ?Neo-Nazi? than saying that you thought that the Rome looked magnificent during the height of its power, or that you thought the royal wedding was spectacular, or that you thought a national parade of any sort was impressive. In truth what I am trying to say is that there is nothing ?evil? about being ?impressed? by the grandeur of the Nazi ?spectacularism? with the massive banners, ordered military or impressively designed uniforms (I think most people would agree their uniforms looked pretty cool). I was reminded of this when I saw the comments of a YouTube video of LIFE pictures of Nazi Germany to which someone responded they would have preferred Germany won because it looks so much better than modern Germany... and I thought to myself that that person doesn?t understand that they wouldn?t like the system even though they may like the aesthetics of the state. I think what I am trying to say is that being awe-struck and impressed by that particular stuff is nothing bad per se. Or is it, you guys tell me...

    Regarding Nazi economic policy; there was nothing really profound about it when looked on today, nor is there really any ?evilness? is showing admiration for it. Firstly the economist who initially created it was not necessarily a devoted Nazi as far as I?m aware, but was rather just an average political economist. The policy itself was also primarily impractical for any non-militaristic state with it being fed an obscene amount of armaments production and a revolutionary road project... other than that it wasn?t anything profound by today?s standards. The key point about it was that it was revolutionary in redirecting how a country gets out of an economic disaster... it is important to note however it can be solely attributed to the Nazi economist who even noted to Hitler the German economy was overheating... after which Hitler dismissed him.

    I do find it unfortunate that politicians can?t even reference economic policies of Nazi Germany for fear of it wrecking their careers. While I understand the reasons, and while I understand that the Nazi state was tyrannical, totalitarian and brutal beyond human comprehension, by outlawing all reference to it seems to paint the wrong picture of the state itself. Because it paints not only the state evil beyond realism (it is important to note the Nazi state was not incredibly different from any other dictatorship up until 1939) but it also paints Hitler as beyond human in wickedness. Yes, he deserves the title, but to ignore the fact of him being an almost average human (an opinion outli
  7. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    Ummm...human?

    Seriously, I've found that most people have nuances to their outlook that defy easy categorization. That's a good thing. The more that people have open and honest discussion based on actual case-by-case positions ("I believe ____"), rather than on contrived labels ("oh noes teh librulz!1!!1!"), the better.
  8. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    I've seen it close up and personal, as I've discussed before: my wife's mother and aunts grew up in the Third Reich. The oldest was a Hitler Jugend leader, did time in a British military prison under the allied occupation. She remains to this day so swept up in her memories of the morale-boosting trappings of life in the Third Reich after the Anschluss that she describes them to me, and anyone else who will listen as follows: "Sure there were problems," she'll say, "and I know you young people look at me funny when I say this, but those were golden times. You don't know how wonderful it was. You'll never see golden times like that."

    She has so much joy in her heart for prewar Hitler Germany that nostalgia for it has eaten away at her memories of everything that has happened since, namely 65 plus years of peace and relative economic prosperity for her defeated nation. A lot of people are up to their eyeballs in nostalgia for their own childhood, so maybe it's hard to blame her. But it's a viewpoint that lacks any kind of perspective.
  9. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Mmm; my best advice to the OP is just decide what works for you. I started off pretty Republican at 18 and after 12 years of reality, I'm a leftist libertarian according to the Political Compass website.
  10. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I have like 3 political philosophies. :p If I'm feeling super-idealistic, and super-optimistic about technological and humanity and the future in general, I'm extremely libertarian since I think the ideal would be when technology progresses and is responsibly handled to eventually create a time we no longer need government, law, money, or labor that people don't want to do, in a post-scarcity society. That's where my love of science fiction has taken me. :p

    *When I'm just feeling pragmatically optimistic, I'm still very socially liberal, but I think that if we're going to have government then it should create a strong social safety net.
    *By social safefty net, I mean that everyone, even if without a job or any money, should have access to the basics without going into debt: quality healthcare, good schools & childcare, sturdy shelter (with temperature control and piping), decent clothes, nutritious food, clean water, public libraries and public transportation.
    *As for healthcare in particular, I think that should be thought of as part of the widely-recognized "right to life," just as much as having police and military protection is considered part of the "right to life."
    *Aside from the basic government duties of: diplomacy, military defense, homeland security & emergency response, managing the treasury, enforcing justice, keeping basic standards and records, and having a strong social safety net... I also believe that government should focus on scientific research & technological innovation, maintaining infrastructure and other public goods, ensuring there are labor/consumer/environmental protections, encouraging manufacturing at home, and having a hand in making sure vital natural resources (water, energy, food, metals) are sustainably managed.
    *Basically, while the free market is good, there are many things the free market cannot do well while upholding our values (like everyone should have a decent standard of living on the individual level, and the government has the duty to take care of the country's well-being on a national level too that will help everyone, with things like defense, infrastructure, research, justice, sustainability, etc.).

    And when I'm looking at the political reality, I accept it, understand the need for compromises, and I can be very pragmatic, and look at each issue on its own merit, weighing my ideals with the political reality.



    After going over my political philosophy, you may feel that you have a "tiered" political philosophy too, depending on how idealistic you are in the situation. Writing a paper on what's ideal in your political philosophy is very different from how you feel the President and Congress should be governing and legislating. Keep reading books, which I have a feeling you already are, and (when you're college-age) taking a class in Microeconomics, a class in Macroeconomics, and at least one class on Political Philosophy. Then you'll be able to form a more coherent political philosophy. But DO NOT try to wonder "oh, what political school do I belong in, what should I label myself?" DO NOT do that. Everyone has exceptions, everyone is a unique individual with uniquely individual preferences, and you'd find exceptions in any of the philosophical schools, and you'll even find contradictions within your own philosophy. You'll also always be evolving and adapting and tinkering with your personal political philosophy, I'm sure.


    Looking at what you have said, I'd say you're pretty normal, with a few exceptions. And I saw a few contradictions. As well as a few things that need clarification, like what do you mean by we need "national order"? Also, what you call "militarism" I wouldn't call militarism, just national service, like with Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do do you, but what you can do for your country" or Obama's strong emphasis on AmeriCorps and community service. The contradiction I see is between your support for liberal democracy and condemnation of ethnic nationalism yet your support for cultural nationalism, and I also want to point
  11. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    [image=http://banthaskull.com/images/Rebels.gif]

    You're not a fan of Hitler. You're a fan of Speer and Riefenstahl. As any impressionable young fellow with an eye for art is. This has nothing to do with politics.

    Your political ideas are contradictory and sometimes maybe a bit naieve and/or ill-informed. You'll change, you'll wizen up. And in some areas, you'll dumb down. So the label you label yourself with today might not be applicable anymore tomorrow.
  12. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    I like the idea of Catholic Monarchy/Imperialism.

    Sts. Constantine the Great (the first Christian Roman Emperor), Constantine IX, (the last Eastern Roman Emperor) and Blessed Karl of Austria (the last Western Roman Emperor), pray for us!
  13. DarthIktomi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2009
    star 4
    The Nazis were weird for many reasons, but their weirdness obviously mesmerized millions. Great propaganda.

    Labels aren't very useful in serious analysis. They provide wonderful enemies. ("First they came for the communists...") But for politics, not so much. Zimbabwe claims to be a Marxist country, but I know a guy who taught there, found kids who worked selling fruit and had scurvy, and when he gave them vitamin C pills, his fellow teachers accused him of giving them amphetamines.

    And this guy's black; if he'd been white, as per Mugabe's pseudo-anticolonialism, I'm sure the paranoia would've been far worse.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.