I personally look at the totality of the views. Social and economic isn't an even fifty/fifty split.

So which holds a greater chunk? Social?

I really don't look at it exactly like that. Basically I look at what a party's platform for the role of government is and at what levels.

So minimal role in all levels is...what? Right? Or left?

For me, economic issue take A LOT of precedence over social. Reason: Economics can effect everyone within a very short timespan. Most social issues only affect chunk of a society (abortion, gay marriage, etc). And then, when we start favoring a chunk of society, the other chunks start wanting their share too. See: race. Whereas a sudden drop in the economy due to poor market conditions or government mismanagement, can and most often does affect the whole of the nation's populace. But I really can't get all that worked up for/against gay marriage. I mean I can't see a logical reason against it but I won't exactly be marching in pride parades anytime soon...unless Roach does it too.

I'm not sure. How would you classify anarchy?

I used to think the opposite, but I'm coming around.

Economics is everything. Even seemingly totally "social" issues have economic angles to them... The things you'd think of as purely social (abortion, gay marriage, not being spied on, etc.) just seem less important to me these days, although that may be because social issues are a no-brainer to me. I'm a -8 on the social political compass scale, always have been, always will be.

But when you're a commie, economics don't really seem that important I suppose.

That's an interesting question, actually. You typically think of anarchists as the most extreme form of libertarian: no economic restrictions or social restrictions whatsoever. But a lot of anarchists display a lot of left tendencies.. maybe it just seems that way because they stress the purely social issues over the economic.

Actually, I misspoke there. I started to get into the foundation for my philosophy. I should have left it at "I look at what a party's platform for the role of government is."

Teenage punk/goths/emos ranting about how their parents the goverment is TOTALLY ****ING CORRUPT FOR NOT LETTING ME EXPRESS MY SORROW AND STUFF AND SHOULD BE ABOLISHED do not count as anarchists

No. Maybe I misused the word but in response the question of minimal government at all levels it seemed to me that would be close to lawless anarchy.

Ok, as you approach anarchy, where would you lie, left or right?

What about people who feel the role of the government (let me say right here the American Government so everyone else can just ignore this) is simply to maintain what's in the constitution and anything beyond that is a too powerful government and needs to be minimalized? Is that right or left?

I don't exactly understand the question. I can see where anarchists have both right and left views. Their position is essentially lawlessness.



Well the purpose of the constitution is to limit federal power. Generally speaking I would say that the right is in favor of limitting federal power and the left is in favor of expanding it.

Ok, let's just ignore that, "approaching anarchy" is a big philosophical idea, and I don't think we need to go into that, I apologize...


Are you talking about idealistically the right is in favor of limiting federal powers over realistically? Because realistically, the right is very much in favor of expanding federal powers, just in different ways than the left. This is my point. There are some that genuinely disagree with both "left" and "right" and they don't fit into the "moderate" group. So, since you say americans tend to fall in either "left" or "right," where do these people fall?

I don't think the letter was well-written at all.

Theoretically this is correct, but in practice, everyone is for expanding the government.

Not Ron Paul!

Not I honestly.

I meant all of those in power. And by all, I mean most.

I'm not, either.

And by most you mean most of the ones you hear about in the media. (which I concede you could interpret them as being the only ones really "in power")

You certainly have variations on both sides. That's why I said generally speaking. However the truly conservative view is to limit the power of the federal government which was the point of the constitution.

I disagree. The Constitution established a Federal Government that would be more effective in making nationwide decisions and levying national taxes from the several states to replace the ineffective government (Continental Congress, etc.) established under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government, but originally established those powers as greater than those of its predecessor.

Right, but it's predecessor had almost no power whatsoever. They decided that they needed a government that could effectively govern, but they were still wary of it getting too big and powerful (hence the Bill of Rights)

Wow, you're a giant bunch of cynics.

Minoen generally writes things like this because they're flow of thought. While I agree with some sentiments that it's a repetitive liberal gush (the likes of which have been heard a thousand times over) I too liked this letter but not because it will "do anything" but because I hope that eventually Bush will get some of this sentiment through his head and realize that he not only botched his presidency, but has botched his entire life.

It's no secret that I'm dreadfully left wing. But looking at this from an entirely non-political view it's hard to like George Bush Jr. He's uncharismatic, bumbling, snide and seems entirely conniving. So regardless of trust as a politician (which shouldn't exist anyways) there's no trust as a person.

It's hard to look past what his family has been doing as their profession PRIOR to politics and NOT see personal gain in anything we're doing in the Middle East. I applaud the man for making some people (certainly not himself or his constituents) care about alternative fuels. But Oil is king, and it's no secret still that the Bush family has deep pockets tied to wells.

I'm upset mostly at the fact that when he took the office the first time I thought, "Boy I hope he doesn't try to finish Daddy's war" and sure enough, while it's not the same type of war that we had in the Gulf, it might as well be.

At least Bush Sr. was good at tricking me into liking him. Maybe he could pass some of his intellect and charm onto his son. Too bad it's too late for that.

Ron Paul takes conservative idealism to an extreme. He has no apparent understanding of social services, and instead chops the limbs of the government off, leaving a military and an unchecked judiciary branch. The idea of government is to serve the people and enforce the constitution. Period. Ron Paul has the right idea of minimizing government, but a jaded understanding of government to begin with.

The government is there to provide for the common good and well being of the nation but it is not there soley to dish out checks to people. Which is what his deal is. I bet you c-note that we can still have all the social services and cut about 10% of the spending across all government programs if financial accountability were in place.

But that will never happen because accountability takes time and it's damn quicker and more electable to say "let's increase spending for the poor/children!"

A little clarification might be in order.

Thank you all for your commentary, it was a joy to read. My political views are admittedly a little skewed, and much of what I write seems to me upon reading it to be heavy-handed blatant rabble-rousing too inflammatory to be anything but a lark. My dissatisfaction comes from the evolution of the government as imagined by it's founders into the political smoke-screen it is today. The system only seems to work well enough to convince everyone that it's still stable. The national debt is mammoth, and (taking into account that appearances might be deceiving) the actions taken by the last few administrations have basically taken the people out of the loop in the decision making process. From a citizens perspective, all my government wants from me are my taxes and my willingness to let it do what it wishes without censure.

Some mentioned that the letter was poorly written, and since it was a stream of consciousness piece I have to agree with you. I would also point out that all the Mr President bull was merely to take the attention off of the fact that it was written by someone. My intention was to be as vague as possible, mentioning only generalizations requiring no in-depth knowledge of the current events in the country or the world. No newspaper would publish something that could be summarized and answered in bullet points, or discussed on a web-forum. I merely wanted to write something that somebody might publish that would appeal to the gum-chewing corn farmer that elected bush in the first place and reflect the doubts they might have been having about their decision in a way that they could get behind and either endorse or condemn.

It's a raindrop in the ocean, but on that particular night I wanted to do or write something that would make a difference. If I failed in that, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that I made an effort, and I can sleep that much better at night.

Thanks for berating both my intelligence and my intentions though.

I consider myself left of center and I supported the decision to invade Afghanistan. I guess I don't fit into your generalization. But I never "like" war. You'd have to be pretty sick to like war.

However, despite what you claim, my reasons for disagreeing with the Bush administration are just as legitimate as anyone on the right's. I'm very frustrated with how the war in Iraq is being managed.

I think it's funny how all of these conservatives are jumping on the Bush-bashing train now that it's no longer politically advantageous to support him. "He's not a REAL conservative," they claim. Yet they elected him twice, they controlled both houses of Congress, defended the war in Iraq for years, claimed everything was going well and it was the media's fault, defended Rumsfeld, defended the Bush administration's expansion of federal powers, and ignored all the scandals.

But now they act like all of the sudden Bush has changed. The war in Iraq was always been mismanaged, Bush's expansion of executive powers has always been going on, and his administration has always been caught acting in corrupt and/or incompetent ways... for years upon years. But they realize Bush is a sinking ship and that if they stick with him, they're sure to lose big in the next election, so they pretend like they haven't been defending his terrible decisions for the last seven years.

Can you be more specific?



Am I correct to infer your letter satirizes people who approach politics in this fashion?

No, I think his letter was meant to be understood by anyone, regardless of their knowledge.

2000, I never knew we were going to invade Iraq. No one ever did. In 2004, I nearly left the presidential portion of the ballot blank. I'm regretting not going for that.

Agreed on all points.

i don't think he was saying that your disagreements with the bush administration aren't valid, only that most of the left is dissatisfied with EVERYTHING bush has done.



i think you will find that by and large, politicians will rabidly follow the whims of the constituency who elected them to office. most obviously because, hey guess what, they largely only care about being re-elected.(yes i know that is a huge generalization.) this goes for the right as well as the left, so dont try and pass this off as something that is unique to conservatives. if the politicians are unhappy with bush its most likely because the people who elected them are too (or the people who scream the loudest) many conservatives ARE upset with the way the war has been handled and a good number are fed up with bushes immigration policy as well (or lack there of)

OH NOEZ BUSH R TEH SUQ!

Forgive the briefness of my previous post. I guess I could have used the word support, prefer, etc, or something along those lines. Of course "like" doesn't always have the meaning like how the word is used in "I like my friend." I have long abandoned trying to post in a manner that comes across as more eloquent because it is a waste of time. I don't think I've tried to post that way on this forum ever.



Conservatives have been "Bush-bashing" during his entire presidency. They've always hated his spending, support of Kennedy's No Child Left Behind Act, massive foreign aid, etc. About the only things most have supported are his tax cuts, limited though they may be, and the War on Terror.



I guess I missed this until I saw the quote by Kirb. You are mostly right but I wonder if you really believe the government is to provide for the common good and well being of the nation or if another word word be more suitable.

I dunno. Provide was the closest word I could get in my lexicon. The government is there to make sure everyone plays nice yet still allowing the children to roam around the sandbox. However, mommy still needs to come and kiss the boo-boos away and put bandaids on every once in a while. Although nowadays, too many children are screaming for their mommy instead of just going back out to the playground after falling off the monkey bars.

I agree that a different word choice would be more suitable. It is we as individuals that provide for the common good.

And I like your monkey bars analogy, JG. That's one reason I get such a kick out of Ron Paul. He recognizes that the old folks are too dependent on the government but that we can ween the younger generations from it.