The left-right paradigm is pervasive. Everything is couched in these terms by the media and politicians, as if this is the only way to think about things. It actually seems to me a very strange way to understand economic and social policies. I don't think anyone even has a very concrete definition of just what "right" and "left", or "conservative" and "liberal", really mean. That may be part of the appeal -- they can redefine what it means on-the-fly and not have to answer for inconsistencies and hypocrisies. After all, these definitions have essentially been flipped on their heads over the past few decades. As a result, you have neocons and paleocons and neoliberals and paleoliberals and religious conservatives and classical liberals, and well if nobody can agree on their definitions, these aren't really very useful terms by which to define a core political philosophy.
A much more understandable and practical way to describe any policy is on the libertarian-authoritarian axis. This can be visualized as perpendicular to the left-right axis as depicted on a Nolan Chart, an example of which you can see in the right column of this page. We can all very easily understand whether a particular policy tends to give freedom to or take it away from an individual. And in this respect, I favor policies which tend toward the libertarian end rather than the authoritarian (or statist) end of the spectrum. That is from where the Libertarian Party gets its name and why I'm a member. To try to couch that back into the left-right paradigm, it generally means that I'm fiscally conservative (prefer economic liberties) and socially liberal (prefer civil liberties). These positions may seem to be contradictory if you think in terms of the left-right paradigm, but in the libertarian-authoritarian paradigm, I hope it makes perfect sense to you. If not, I'll attempt to explain how it influences my thinking on each of the individual issues I'll address on this site.
It's important to point out that both the government of Pennsylvania and the U.S. federal government -- which was largely based on the Pennsylvania model -- start from a position of individual sovereignty. Human beings are "endowed by their Creator" with fundamental, inalienable rights. They are innate in people, not granted by anyone else, and therefore not subject to anyone else's whims. The States derive their authority from the People. And the federal government (that is, the government of the federation of sovereign States) gets its authority from the States. That is the appropriate hierarchy. It is the opposite of an authoritarian hierarchy wherein the central government has ultimate power and delegates authority to its political subdivisions and ultimately *grants* privileges to the people. That was the feudal model. This is what makes the United States of America so unique in the history of nations. Freedom and justice for all isn't just a slogan, but a philosophy of government heretofore unknown to the world. It's a libertarian philosophy.
But those in government inevitably turn toward the authoritarian model, especially the longer they're in office, and particularly when a political class develops and families form dynasties of rulers. As we all know, power corrupts. That's why in the past 200 or so years, our governments have tended slowly and steadily toward a more authoritarian structure. Both major political parties today favor "big government" in nearly every respect. They pay lip service to stopping corruption, protecting individuals, etc., but every one of their solutions without fail tends to grow government and reduce individual liberty. It's time that this trend reverses. It is my solemn pledge that every endeavor I pursue in public office will increase individual liberty and shrink government. It's time to return power to the People.
Please use the right-hand menu to navigate individual issues to see how my core philosophy translates to practical solutions.
|
