This is a basic question. What is your political party and what about that party appeals to you?

I really find it hard to understand how someone could be a Democrat based on their "supposed" role in our two teir political system. Who would be for higher taxes, larger government, and less freedoms? I know it doesn't play out that way in the real world but I mean by definition isn't being a liberal being anti-american.

Not trying to flame anyone. Just playing Devil's Advocate.

Yes, sadly it would be unconstitutional to send all them Democrats to the gulags. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment to force people to be real Americans.

Well, i am for advancement of humanity, global cooperation, environmental responsibility.

No really, there is no single party i think that caters to me as an individual perfectly. I support democratic socialism i guess. The u.n is big on my list. I think education should never end or not be an option for someone. I am very pro population control, i see it as a very large problem of just about everything. I am anti religion in the form of government ties. I support chiracs attitude towards Iraq, and have negative feelings towards the u.s on that subject. I am very pro down with pnac. I am Unitarian towards the worlds races, or i support a one world nation, though i see it as impossible as of now. I support the idea of all the fields of social sciences becoming one field, along with other tools of science and brought to the world or my grand idea for the field of quantitative humanity. It would include peace and violence studies, political science, history, just about everything human, just to produce progressive open minded individuals, something the world needs in dire fashion. I hope for the worlds nations to agree on a strategy to effectively deal with the future, not a rat race world. I overall feel that capitalism is a dangerous tool in the hands of humanity at this point, simply because it seems to work off of the various problems in the world and make them worse, the same in America. I support an organized and feasible organization towards reaching other planets and colonizing them, i support a Palestinian state, though i see it as an actual danger to peace right now.

Like i said i dont think any one group is what i am looking for, so for the most part, voting is a case by case base, right now the main thing i care about is the utter destruction of pnac and neo-cons, as i see them a massive threat to overall peace and the existence of the human race.

To answer the question of this topic directly, I have no political party, because I have never found one which appeals to me.

Simple enough. However, I cannot let the quoted statement above go unanswered. I find it to be a breathtaking dismissal of a philosophy which, although you may certainly disagree with it, does not deserve to be regarded so negatively.

Would you think it fair if I were to ask how someone could be a Republican? If I were to ask who would be for male supremacy, special privileges for the wealthy, and a theocratic form of government? Of course not, because these are unfair stereotypes of conservatism. I contend that you have presented us with an unfair stereotype of liberalism.

It often seems to me that there is not so great a difference between the most conservative Republican and the most liberal Democrat that they should consider themselves enemies. Keep the lines of communication open, please.

Being a Democrats doesn't mean you are anti-American.

You simply believe that the Government is the best vehicle for advancing society and curing society's ills. In order for government to do this, you need taxes (the more the better, up to a point).

I personally don't believe this, I am a Republican.

Why am I a Republican? Because I believe in personal accountability, solving your own problems, that Government creates more problems than it solves (in general), and that Big Government limits personal freedom.

My local GOP has a good site:
Why am I a Republican?

I don't see how anyone could be a democrat or a republican. I think both parties have sold out their beliefs for political gain. Democrat is almost the exact opposite of Republican when it comes to platform. This way you have to go one way or the other. They both do the best that they can to keep independents out of the race.

As per the above note I was simply playing Devil Advocate.

Locally, my family comes first and everything and everyone else comes second.

Globally, I will simply vote for and support the man/party who, I feel, puts America First. Right now it's Bush.

it's just how I equate what is important.

I believe that government has a responsibility to allow us all to compete with equal opporunity, while interfering in our private lives as little as possible. Passing laws to prevent exploitation of labor, grant equal freedoms to minorities, and deter money's influence expands freedom for most of the populace and doesn't strike me as threatening. A Libertarian acquaintance of mine once argued that the country was freer before civil rights laws were passed, due to less government intrusion. I don't think it takes a genius to see that the freedom of racists to act on their beliefs (which they remain free to hold) came at a larger expense in freedom to other citizens. This example applies elsewhere: the far right would have us return to the early 1900s: labor completely dependant upon corporations that work them continuously for low pay while dumping toxic waste in their backyard.
Plus, historically we liberals have a much better track record. Look up conservative and note which side of historical American conflicts was "liberal" (change-oriented) or "conservative" (pro-tradition/status quo). Conservatives have the Tories that opposed the Revolution, the Federalists that died out after talking secession in the War of 1812, the Democrats that argued for slavery and seceded in the Civil War, the opposition to trust-busting and labor unions during the Industrial Revolution, the opposition to the New Deal, and the opposition to civil rights.
As far as being anti-American, I think that's an odd claim. Liberals criticize government policy because we want our nation to live up to it's full potential as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Given their general preference for a society where people were governed by consent, how would they feel about Nixon and Watergate? Reagan and Iran/Contra? BushII and "exaggerated" WMD evidence? Considering Sally Hemmings, I don't think TJ would be more worried about Clinton's "initials for oral sex that i'm not allowed to use despite making a good rhyme". He'd be too busy working for the ACLU.
And if you're defining liberal and conservative in terms of big/small gov't (a technical misapplication of the philosophy's name), a West Wing quote comes to mind- "conservatives want government just small enough to fit into your bedroom." This quote is too narrow, because in context of the big/small gov't divide, current conservatives also want more corporate welfare, inefficient military spending, expanded police powers, etc., all while running a deficit. You pay for your tax cut with your freedom.
So, to sum up, despite being an ACLU liberal Democrat, I think me and the 51% of the country that voted for Gore and Nader will sleep just fine. We'll keep on worrying more about 1st amendment free speech than flag burning, voting rights more than flag waving, and government accountability more than playing follow the leader. Someone needs to stand for the ideals the country was founded on rather than making empty accusations about many of my countrymen's patriotism.

Excuse me, slavery was enforced by state laws. Jim Crow was enforced by state and local laws. There has never been a Libertarian government in America. If governments had been limited to a libertarian role slavery and it's terrible consequences would not have occured. Libertarians believe a government should protect individual freedom. This means not allowing a state, or local government, to discriminate.

The early civil rights movement was successful because its focus was on reducing government intervention (discrimination). The fact that the federal government had to intervene to force state and local governments to behave in line with the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment in particular, turned out to be unfortunate. Later the civil rights movement focused on prodding the federal government into setting barriers to an individuals freedom of association.

Hugo- nowhere did I claim the Libertarians have ever been elected to anything much higher than dogcatcher. The guy who said that was an L, although probably not a very good one. I brought it up to respond to the implication that liberals limit freedom more than Conservatives. His party was incidental to what he said, but the statement reflects something of the attitude of people who see enforcement of basic rights as an intrusion and gripe about liberal social policies and intrusive federal gov'ts.

Sorry, it is a common fallacy I often hear (often by poorly educated Libertarians) that we had a more libertarian government pre-civil rights era. We had less federal intervention, but gross violations of the most basic individual rights by state and local governments that no true libertarian could defend.

In the civil rights era those opposing civil rights were usually labeled conservative, those in favor of the 14th Amendment, liberal. Remember, Milton Friedman proudly claimed liberal status in his book "Capitalism and Freedom" written in the early '60's. Since then the meanings of the terms liberal and conservative have changed dramatically.

Currently if I listen to what the two parties say, I find myself favoring Republicans as the lesser evil. However, when I look at the actions. When I look at the budgetary numbers over the last 35 years, I find bigger spending in Republican administrations. Admittedly this is mainly due to increased defense spending and admittedly Democrats are usually the first to propose huge, irreversible government programs. I am beginning to think I am best off with a Republican Congress (the branch that is responsible for OKing spending) and a Democratic President (the branch that practically , though not constitutionally, speaking is responsible for defense spending).

I am a "social libertarian" also known as a libertarian socialist, or an anarchist.

I believe that there should be no heirarchal "government". there should be no RULERS. (leaders are different) the "government" should be fully equal to the people and fully accountable. I realize this is several hundred years in our future though, and at present work to help direct humanity onto the path to anarchy. (anarchy meaning without rulers, not chaos, as it has been distorted to mean)

While I may agree with Republicans on some issues and disagree with Democrats on others, basically I feel my alliance with Democrats is because of their stance one two issues, the latter of which is more important to me than any other issue: abortion and religious freedom. To be honest, I don't like the Republican party because I feel like most of them would have no objection to, and even likely support America becoming a Christian theorocracy. Being an atheist, this disturbs me greatly, and whenever I watch Bush bumble about his faith in god, and blah blah blah, and flaunting his Christianity, I want to hurt someone I don't blame people who mistakenly believe America is a "christian" nation - if I were foreign and even listened to ten seconds of Bush talking, I'd probably believe that too. I feel like Republicans are very oppressive in terms of religious freedom, and would be more than thrilled to hang a copy of the ten commandments in every building in America. I feel Democrats are a lot more understanding and respectful of people's freedom to choose their own religion, or none at all.

Also being female, I strongly dislike republicans because of their support of the war on women. It may sound like Planned Parenthood rhetoric, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Why is Bush, a male, so concerned with women's reproduction rights anyway? What makes him think he can impose his Christian "morals" on America, much less the world (think: gag rule)? His stance on abortion makes me very opposed to anything republican. He said it himself, that he would like to outlaw abortion, but doesn't because most Americans wouldn't support him on it. So if the vast majority of Americans were Christian, they would most likely support the abolition of abortion, and Bush would proceed with trying to outlaw it. This disturbs me. Despite the fact that I think it's unconstitutional to force every single woman who gets pregnant to carry the child to term, much less a man do it, it doesn't make any rational sense. Bush wants a country full of unwanted children? This would create all kinds of drains on the country, financially and otherwise. I don't think anyone has any right whatsoever to force me to carry my child to term if I should get pregnant, regardless of the circumstances, and greatly resent anyone who would try. It doesn't affect them, it's none of their business. Republicans make it their business to force their Christian morals on America and any country America aids, and for this I am most decidedly a Democrat. Granted, I don't know too much about Independent and Libertarian parties. Maybe some Independents or Libertarians who respond to this topic could educate me a little.

I find this discussion TREMENDOUSLY interesting because the roles of LIBERALS and REPUBLICANS have been completely reversed in American politics. I can't help but wonder if this has caused some ideological confusion within the parties themselves. People like Sandel and Arendt, Civil Republicans in the republican tradition argue that the needs of the community necessitate the limitation of individual liberties while true Liberals like Mill (J.S. that is) and de Toqueville argue that individual liberties are the foundation of a free and prosperous society.

Of course the American political spectrum is a bit of whack as well. This is basically what it looks like to anyone who has studied democratic theory.

L |-------------|--------------| R
___________ ^^
___________ DR

D= American Democrats
R= American Republicans.

Thank you, Ultimatejoe! I have been thinking this for a long time, and I'm glad to see someone with an outside perspective confirming my feeling. It seems to me that the two major American political parties must seem nearly identical to the citizens of many other countries. That's why the constant bickering between the two seems both sad and funny to me. It's a little like Swift's Liliputians and Blefuscuans arguing over which end of an egg to open first.

I am a green. Because like unabomber I want to hope that mankind will someday not want to stab one another in the back, or take advantage of someone, and thus no longer need a government of any sort. I believe that preserving the environment, social programs, education are the keys in that effort.

I think the green philosophy fits in that most of the "current" people working with in the greens are not greedy and in fact are regular people trying to make the world a better place. Now, this is not true with all of them, but for the most part it is very true.

My biggest reason for leaving the democratic party is I am tired of voting of the lesser of two evils. And I refuse to vote for someone who is willing to sacrifice his principals to bend to party politics.

Monty

First, I think the reason the left and the right have become so vociferous on certain issues is precisely because so little really separates them. Therefore, they have to make those remaining issues that do differentiate them into bigger things than they otherwise would. I also think this is why both sides spend so much time attacking the other--there isn't that much substantive difference anymore, so they have to resort to name calling.

As to where I stand and why: I am (currently) a Republican, primarily for two reasons. First, I don't like the idea of the government taking my money (or other's) and deciding which special interest groups to give it to. I can do that on my own, thank you very much. Second, I believe there should be as little interference of the government in individual lives as possible (yes, the religious right of the Republican party trounces on this one all the time--hence my label as an Independent).

I'd probably be a Libertarian if they had more political pull...and could give up on legalizing drugs (might make sense, terrible political strategy) and choosing such radical candidates.

My profile at the left says Im green, but thats basically because that was the closest thing in my list.

I would call my self liberal with green tendencies. I support both the Scottish Democrats and the Scottish Green parties, and would ideally like to see our coalition government being made up of those two rather than Democrat and Labour. I support the Greens because I think their stance on the enviroment, pollution levels, agriculture, recycling, energy sources and social justice are the only rational and considerate ways forward. However, although I agree with them that public transport should play a larger role, I do not agree that we should penalise motorists. Owning a car in Scotland is essential for a lot of people, and it is my belief that we should be pushing to replace current vehicles with electric or hydrogen powered equivalents ASAP, and concentrate on finding a renewable replacement for oil in motors.

However the Greens are a minority party in Scotland with just 7 seats (one more than the smallest party, the Socialists). So I also support the SDP, as they stand a greater chance of acquiring the votes to form a coalition. In fact, they are already in government, forming a coaltion with Labour. They are the left of middle party for Scotland, with Labour and Conservatives to the right and Nationalists, Greens and Socialists to the left, which makes them an ideal choice for me.

In the UK, I am a dedicated follower of Charles Kennedys Liberal Democrats. Currently the third party, but quickly coming up to surpass the Tories (although I admit a lot of their popularity is because they were anti-war). They are the most realistic chance for someone with my stance, and since Labour became New Labour in the 90s, pushing more to the right, they really do stand a chance.

Interesting link (sent to me by Unabomber).

Where do you really stand?

Personally, the results that came out probably correctly placed me, although the questions themselves seem to have a leftist bent. But still interesting....

Exactly.
What astonishes me about the partisan vitriol is that Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. The vicious partisan bickering is the only way the two parties can keep voters, by trying to scare us into picking the lesser of two evils.
Actually, I think the left-right spectrum is an extreme over-simplification, and even taking the authoritarian-libertarian scale into acount it is still only a tool to measure philosophical thought, and is vastly overrated by most people.

I'm a registered Libertarian, although I was a Democrat when I first registered. What changed it all for me was DOMA. After being convinced that I had to vote Democrat because the Republican party is viciously anti-gay, the betrayal was palpable when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law citing his "strong religious convictions." With neither major party doing anything to earn my vote, and the one claiming to be the lesser of two evils (from my POV) proving themselves to be just as evil, I was forced to look at what my beliefs are and where they fit in relation to the two major parties.

I am with hobbes on that one, i took the test, and it put me roughly where i thought i'd be. but many of the questions were bent towards one conclusion (usually leftish).

I have a very lenghtly explanation as to why i have chosen my alignment ant party, but it would take several pages of writing, and most of you would probably not find my logic conclusive enough, and most likely too severe and draconian. so i will spare you my monologue.

but i have chosen to be Republican because it is the only party that reflects my dominantly "right" views, and still has the power to implement some changes. I look forward to more conservative libertarian candidates, and i might vote for them in the future.

I pretty much agree with amlords post earlier, and about all the republican creed statement said.

there are no inalienable rights: not happiness, not voting, not even life. luckily in america, we defend three main rights to all man: the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to pursue happiness.
for our citizens we defend the right to have a say in our political workings. but other than that its about personal responsibility. i will never guarantee you anything other than i will defend those previous listed rights with my life.
there are no hand outs in life, get used to it.
The federal government should do little more than defend us, keep severe breaches of human wellbeing under control, and relegate foreign affairs and trade. the rest can be handles by state government.

I will stop rambling now.



Quane

That test put me with ghandi and mandela, should i feel good or bad is the question

geez, left learning questions ahoy!


Im in between Gerhard Schroeder and Tony Blair.

Same as me Nileriver, Mandela and Ghandi my closest! Im at -6.50, -4.62

The "political compass" put me a bit SW of Gandhi. I've spent my life working by the hour, for the most part with union representation. The only side of the issue that labor papers ever publish, it seems, is the Democrat's point of view.

That said, let's consider the current definition of a Republican as a "Compassionate Conservative."

Just today, I was reading in today's Detroit Free Press that John Ashcroft has issued a directive asking prosecutors to not accept plea bargains, and to report to him, any judges who issue sentences below the maximum recommendations. The columnist cited a figure that 90% of all criminal prosecutions today are settled with plea bargains. The column went on to point out the percentage increase that would be needed in prisons, judges, prosecutors, etc.

Elsewhere in the same newspaper,
Last night's Television news reported that Levi's was closing the last of their American manufacturing plants, laying off about 800 employees in the process.

There was a time when businessmen understood that the first rule of business is that every business needs customers. When all of the jobs have been shipped overseas to increase corporate profits, where will the customers come from to purchase their products?

I will continue to purchase the occasional lottery ticket. If I find myself the lucky winner of $50,000,000 someday, I may consider becoming a Republican, but I'm probably pretty well stuck in my rut. I define myself consistently as Independent, and I once voted for a Republican for President; but I usually vote straight Democratic ticket.

What you need to understand is that the questions you call left wing are on the broad political spectrum an iota right of center... The American spectrum is almost laughably small when considered in the context of political theory.

I've taken the Political Compass test several times, and it always gives me the same result: I'm on the Libertarian Right, pretty close to Milton Friedman. Ok, but that tells me nothing I didn't already know. I'll agree with those who criticize the test for questions with leftish premises (and not just on the limited American scale, and incidentally that's a British site), but it doesn't seem to affect the result which are pretty accurate anyway.

So, given that my views are generally Libertarian Right, and similar to Milton Friedman's, what do I do for a party? I go back and forth between Libertarian and Republican, depending on the situation. The Libertarian Party is the one closest to my principles, but so far I can't elect anybody that way, and the GOP has at least some people I agree with on most issues. I watch the polls pretty closely as it nears election day, and I'll vote Libertarian whenever I can do so without electing Democrats, whom I disagree with on most things.

Devil's Advocate! Yep, you're that.

I'm right in there with nileriver and Robin Scotland, between Gandhi and Mandela, in the lower left quadrant but fairly close to the horizontal axis.

Yes, the Republican and Democratic parties are fairly close to each other, close enough, in fact, to make me think of Presidental elections as a Punch and Judy show (puppet show for those of you who don't know the term--Punch always ends up hitting Judy. The Republicans and Democrats take turns being Punch).

I guess the reason I would rather be a Democrat is that I would rather pay taxes knowing that people were really benefitting from the programs the government was sponsoring than pay fewer taxes and have more homeless people roaming the streets and low-income children and infirm adults going without necessary medical care.

As far as the size of government goes, I do not want bigger government, but more effective government.

I am pro-Life, which is against the Democratic party platform, but I am pro-living wage, pro-Union, pro-Protectionism, anti-corporate welfare, pro-environment, pro-public education, pro-funding for art and music, pro-health coverage for everyone.
I am also against the Patriot Act, but for police, firefighters and first responders keeping their jobs and not sustaining pay cuts. I am for the military not having their wages or their pensions cut. I was and am against our involvement in Iraq, and I am against more nukes being developed. Does that sound anti-American?

So choosing the Democratic Party made sense to me. I do love my country, but not the way our leaders have been behaving lately.

I'm very economically conservative and the test has me at 3.5 as an authoritarian. However, I don't think that I am big gov't or little gov't, I just think that every situation needs to be thought over, and that blanket thoughts, such as little gov't is the way to go don't get you anywhere. I think common sense morality should be enforced by the gov't, just ask the liberals here.

CP

What does my skeptisism about astrology have to do with my politcal leaning?

I'm a democrat for several reasons. The Democratic Party, for the most part, is more libertarians like me. I believe in the betterment of our society through government institutions like public education. As an American I believe it is our duty to help our weakest people like children and the elderly not just because it is right but also because it will help our nation in the end. If that means higher taxes its too bad and it can be mitigated by efficient government administration.

me:




I kind of wonder that myself

I think that there should be leaders, and that government is nessecary as we stand right now, but it needs to be highly restructered. even though I'm only about halfway down the vertical scale, I still consider myself an anarchist, and describe myself as a socio-anarchist. I EVENTUALLY want there to be no rulers, which in my opinion are highly different from leaders. humans have a herd instinct (we evolved it in order to survive the first ice age)