For purposes of this discussion (I would create a poll but I don't know how):
- Neo-Con is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counterculture of the 1960s.
- Libertarian is a broad spectrum of political philosophies, each sharing the common overall priority of maximum limitation of government combined with optimum possible individual liberty.
- Neo-Nazi The term refers to post-World War II ideologies, political movements, and social movements seeking to revive Nazism, or some variant that echos its aspects such as racial or ethnic nationalism or VÃ¶lkish integralism
- Ignorant is the condition of being uninformed or uneducated, lacking knowledge or information.
I found an interesting line in the Neo-Con article:
Administration of George W. Bush
The Bush campaign and the early Bush Administration did not exhibit strong support for neoconservative principles. As a candidate Bush argued for a restrained foreign policy, stating his opposition to the idea of nation-building and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was handled without the vociferousness suggested by some neoconservatives.. Also early in the Administration, some neoconservatives criticized Bush's Administration as insufficiently supportive of Israel, and suggested Bush's foreign policies were not substantially different from those of President Clinton.
Bush's policies changed dramatically immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to columnist Gerard Baker,
It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet â€” that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world â€” as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism.
Bush laid out his vision of the future in his State of the Union speech in January 2002, following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The speech, written by neoconservative David Frum, named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil" and "pose a grave and growing danger." Bush suggested the possibility of preemptive war: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
I agreed with going into Iraq not for nation building purposes but because I felt enough lines had been drawn in the sand and that further lines being drawn was just a waste of time and money. It was either put-up or shut-up time. I have been very disappointed with the political side of the Iraq battle since right after the Iraqi army was disbanded. The armed forces have done their job admirably but a lack of decisive leadership at the top has prolonged this for far too long. I would love a clear exit strategy that does not involve the US losing face or the region falling into more turmoil than it was in before we got there.
My views on same-sex marriage have evolved over time and my current thoughts can be read in the California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
thread. My general view is that it is going to have to be marriage because anything less will be a monumental legal hassle and it does not hurt anyone (except bigots and homophobes). My more specific view is that marriage should be removed from the hands of the state and the state should simply license out "personal partnerships" that work 100% the same as a regular marriage license and leave the word marriage to the religious people.
On social Issues I feel that anything that helps without creating dependency is good. I'm of the "teach a man to fish" school of thought.
On economic issues I feel that the laws of supply and demand tend to work very well in most situations. Tampering with the markets only leads to more tampering to offset the ripples you were not expecting to appear when you last stuck your hand in. If something is essential but not profitable then it likely should receive a subsidy. Subsidies should not be given out to force things that do not work onto the public or the market (ethanol). They should also not be provided for companies that are profitable (big agro and big oil fall in here).
Taxes should be the same no matter how much money you make. I do not believe in a "progressive" tax system. Excessive or unfair taxation policies lead to companies moving offshore to hide their profits. I also do not believe in punitive taxes. I do not like the way the tax code is used for social engineering by punishing or rewarding certain behavior.
I do not believe a universal health care system will work. This is mostly because I believe you get what you pay for and you value things more when you earn them. If your health care is free you will not think twice about going in and getting looked at for something that you would normally not even consider paying a $20 co-pay for.
I believe that society should be color-blind. however, I also recognize that some racial groups are not on equal footing with others due to past injustices and problems that are endemic to those racial groups. I feel education and fixing family bonds can fix most of those problems. however, since the hey day of the Civil rights movement there have been fractures in the various minority groups. Where once the goal was integration the rise of multiculturalism has changed that to "preservation of racial identity". You can preserve your ethnic heritage at home while integrating with society as a whole.
Calling oneself a hyphen-American is divisive. As is saying, "it's a [insert racial group here] thing, you wouldn't understand." The Civil rights Movement needs to come together and decide what the goal is. I would prefer we get back to being the melting pot.
I'm trying to be as open and honest as my ignorant background allows me to be. I did not attend college but I am well-read.
I also believe in a limited government and states rights. Some things are obviously necessary for a modern free society to function while others are not. don't ask me for specifics on this one because I am far too ignorant of the vastness of government to give an educated answer on which items should be cut and which should be saved.