Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Okay, maybe the title is a bit misleading (for comic relief). I'm just inviting people to leave the current issues aside for the moment and discuss their particular political philosophy in general terms. Although I said "pigeonhole" I actually invite nuance with open arms. I'll go ahead and go first.
Economically, I'm a particular brand of progressive... but not the type that conservatives like to rant and rave against. Those would be academic liberals that took up the term because the old one was soiled so bad by the weaponization of sliding definitions started by Reagan. For me, progressivism is all about labor rights and social programs. I'd prefer that people leave their identity politics and broken identities out of it, but I'm also definitely not against equal rights and protections of any sort, either. I also see the side effects of laws that aim to do this, though.
...but I also see progressivism as a tool contained in a box labelled "break glass in case of oligarchy" in big red letters. It's a means, not an end. Its purpose is to restore balance when things are starting to go off the rails in a particular direction.
Extreme versions of progressivism would be communism/socialism, but I'm not afraid of those words, either. Where's my line as too far left? I actually think the government could function just fine as the landlord... we'd just have categorized lease agreements instead of titles and (hopefully lower) rent instead of taxes. I'm fairly confident that fair systems could be made with regard to land usage. Our governments actually already do that... just in different ways. I don't, however, think it works as a replacement for a capitalist system with regards to production or material goods other than land.
But here's the real kicker on the communist/socialist angle: The transition is the problem. There's no way to get from here to there which isn't extremely unfair. So... only viable in a completely broken system with a shiny new government. I don't condone that. Not worth it. And it's not so much that I advocate for a government monopoly on land as it is that I think it could possibly work if done right.
In summary, I'm an "Occupy Wall Street" sort of progressive, not a rebranded liberal elite extremist.
Socially (culturally), I'm a typical classical liberal, which leaves me agreeing with the right as much as the left (at least when things were normal, but they aren't nowadays). That means that socially, I value freedom above all else (for those that don't know what the word "liberal" actually means). I try to see the conflict between different people's freedom in different contexts... I know that sometimes BOTH sides of the conflict think that freedom is what they're fighting for. I only choose sides when I think that one is obviously being disingenuous (usually at the top, not the root). Otherwise, I actually can see that both sides have merit.
My angle on any particular issue always depends on nuance. These labels are descriptions, not oaths of fealty.
----------
Regarding the current political context, I'll admit to being against Donald Trump's very existence. Can't help it. He's literally everything I despise. No, it's not a mental illness. It's perfectly natural to be solidly against a known con artist who literally attempted a coup, for starters... especially if you're a veteran (which I am). But this is admittedly getting off my own topic. It's not about policy or philosophy (policy is secondary in his case). It's about the fact that he's a freaking traitor and a thief.
Economically, I'm a particular brand of progressive... but not the type that conservatives like to rant and rave against. Those would be academic liberals that took up the term because the old one was soiled so bad by the weaponization of sliding definitions started by Reagan. For me, progressivism is all about labor rights and social programs. I'd prefer that people leave their identity politics and broken identities out of it, but I'm also definitely not against equal rights and protections of any sort, either. I also see the side effects of laws that aim to do this, though.
...but I also see progressivism as a tool contained in a box labelled "break glass in case of oligarchy" in big red letters. It's a means, not an end. Its purpose is to restore balance when things are starting to go off the rails in a particular direction.
Extreme versions of progressivism would be communism/socialism, but I'm not afraid of those words, either. Where's my line as too far left? I actually think the government could function just fine as the landlord... we'd just have categorized lease agreements instead of titles and (hopefully lower) rent instead of taxes. I'm fairly confident that fair systems could be made with regard to land usage. Our governments actually already do that... just in different ways. I don't, however, think it works as a replacement for a capitalist system with regards to production or material goods other than land.
But here's the real kicker on the communist/socialist angle: The transition is the problem. There's no way to get from here to there which isn't extremely unfair. So... only viable in a completely broken system with a shiny new government. I don't condone that. Not worth it. And it's not so much that I advocate for a government monopoly on land as it is that I think it could possibly work if done right.
In summary, I'm an "Occupy Wall Street" sort of progressive, not a rebranded liberal elite extremist.
Socially (culturally), I'm a typical classical liberal, which leaves me agreeing with the right as much as the left (at least when things were normal, but they aren't nowadays). That means that socially, I value freedom above all else (for those that don't know what the word "liberal" actually means). I try to see the conflict between different people's freedom in different contexts... I know that sometimes BOTH sides of the conflict think that freedom is what they're fighting for. I only choose sides when I think that one is obviously being disingenuous (usually at the top, not the root). Otherwise, I actually can see that both sides have merit.
My angle on any particular issue always depends on nuance. These labels are descriptions, not oaths of fealty.
----------
Regarding the current political context, I'll admit to being against Donald Trump's very existence. Can't help it. He's literally everything I despise. No, it's not a mental illness. It's perfectly natural to be solidly against a known con artist who literally attempted a coup, for starters... especially if you're a veteran (which I am). But this is admittedly getting off my own topic. It's not about policy or philosophy (policy is secondary in his case). It's about the fact that he's a freaking traitor and a thief.
Last edited:
