Today's Political Moment #4: My Political Orientation.

EVENT

There are "centrist Democrats" and "moderate Republicans," and "independents." Under almost all circumstances I'd vote for whoever seemed best qualified for the job, but in essence I'd drectibe myself as a "centrist socialist."

I don't believe in proletarian militancy as the vehicle for worldwide reform which rules out communism, nor do I take Marx quite literally enough to be an unabashed socialist. At the same time, social democracy seems too much policy compromise... too much dance and not enough music... to really evoke a holistic political perspective.

Essentially, I believe that the individual is an entity that exists and that society is an entity that exists, but that their definitions are so inextricably bound together that mutual consideration is necessary.

On the one hand, a legitimate democracy recognizes its citizens as equal. This necessitates that it must act on behalf of larger numbers, since to do otherwise is to impose an artificial status upon minorities.

But this observation is where socialist governments have run into trouble and where communist governments have become tyrannical... because of problems of relativism and prejudice in determining what actions are in whose mutual benefits, a state acting without its own checks (a libertarian might say, for example, in the form of property rights, or a social conservative would argue for legislating morality), is just as subject to inefficientcy, corruption, and eventually, despotism, as the corporate entities it curtails and suppresses.

On the other hand, a classically conservative argument goes that the best way to define and preserve the rights of a group is to define and preserve the rights of the individual.

And again, there is merit here, but it also runs into issues. Since the people in a democratic system define the rules of governance, and rights protect individual property and autonomy, there is an inevitable (and empirically observed) accumulation of power in the hands of a few: if nothing else to determine that availability and disemination of information which will, again, cycle into peoples decisions and reinforce benefits for the same groups. Were this to not affect the quality of life, it would be a valid question whether this was even an issue, but we need not consider this question since the bias obviously does affect the quality of life. Moreover, democratic autonomy does not guarantee individual good judgment any more than state control precludes beneficience; automomy spreads control among empowered individuals but does not guarantee wisdom. This is observed in any number of democratically elected predatory regimes around the world.

In short, there is no silver bullet.

I am not classically conservative because I believe that, inasmuch as "meddling" and inequity is inevitable, a government is the agent with the most resources and incentive to redress inequities.

I also think that communist governments have a wretched track record with their own ideology, and that while classic capitalist nations to a decent job protecting the middle and upper strata of their societies, they have very little incentive (the cornerstone of competitive self-betterment) to improve, and do so only gradually and under duress.

I think the nations with the best track records for civil liberties, uniform and high standards of living, and reasonable foreign policy have what could be described as "social democracies": Canada, Scandenavia, and the Low countries as examples. However, these nations are all industrial and typically small and homogenous in population. There are substantial physical and cultural obstacles to establishing such criteria throughout larger prosperous industrial nations such as the U.S. and Western Europe, much less in the developing world.

Still, it makes a good goal.

- I support subsidized health care, education, housing, and an expansion of welfare.
- I believe that where these programs have failed in the U.S. it is due to a lack of supported inquiry and sustained, sophisticated development.
- I support civil liberties against civil curtailment with regards to supplication of the burden of proof.
- I also don't buy that civil liberties must be always sacrificed for momentary expediencies; often there is a possible other sacrifice that is viewed by empowered groups as less expendible than civil liberty. Most often, the liberties sacrificed are not essential to such groups.
- I don't believe that ideologically motivated socialist movements have the right short circuit legislative means to arrive at well-intentioned ends. I think they are as responsible for bloody hands as anyone else.
- I don't think that cool heads always prevail; they do more often however. So I'm skeptical of revolution, to say the least.

In short: I'm a Centrist Socialist.

END OF POST.