That's a fair question, jt. Glad you asked. You may be sorry you did!
<br /><br />I would call myself a Constitutionalist, in the idealistic sense. I think that they should have built a "jubilee" into the Constitution. Jubilee was incorporated into Jewish law, and it effectively nullified all laws passed and real property transfers every fifty years. It was a way of wiping the slate clean. If we had that feature built into the Constitution, I think we would be better off. But I digress...it is my complaint that the Constitution has been sidestepped and perverted over the years by layers and layers of Supreme Court decisions and other precedents.<br /><br />In the "realistic" or pragmatic sense, I choose to side with the republican party simply because I think they are the lesser of two evils. To me, if ever there was something to be avoided, it is collectivism, and I see the democratic party as being adherents to the philosophies of collectivism. There are also many things the republicans have stood for and to which I object, our current "free trade" stance being one of them. To be fair, there are democrats who have supported this thing too, but I think it's a republican project. All in all, I think the republicans are the better choice for the time being, but with the political landscape in such upheaval as it is today, I think there's going to be a political realignment of some kind in the not-too-distant-future.<br /><br />I think that in many of our arguments, we tend to think we know what the other guy stands for, and often we don't get it. Criticism of republicans does not necessarily mean that the writer is a democrat, and criticism of democrats<br />does not make one a republican. We like to simplify things and think in two-dimensional terms, but that really doesn't suffice when speaking of politics. We are all too complex to be accurately pigeon-holed. <br /><br />I guess these things are what make political discussion and argument so interesting.<br /><br />Your turn, jt!
I am an American! I'm conservative by nature so when party affiliation is called for I affiliate with Republicans. I mean, that's my default when I'm unsure of which candidate, I really think it's far preferable to the "eeny meany miny moe" method. But from my perspective, politicians are politicians - I don't see D!ck Cheney as any more ethical than Al Gore. I don't like President Bush's fiscal policies. I don't like his foreign policies. I think Clinton was the better president.<br /><br />Why is it so hard for the two parties to come up with decent candidates for office? They have money, technology, access to the finest minds and best leaders...I mean come on! Where are the Tom Landry's and Vince Lombardi's of the political world?<br /><br />I think the combination of a Republican White House and a Republican Congress should be approached with extreme caution - should be avoided whenever possible - same as with a Dem White house + congress. No science to back that up.<br /><br />I think I'm still right of center, but relatively left compared to a lot of iboaters. I refuse to reject a "liberal" viewpoint merely because it is favored by "liberals" - I prefer to reject it for my own reasons. I refuse to accept a "conservative" viewpoint merely because it is "the conservative position." I'll accept or reject it on my own. Luckily for the iboats conservative faction, I don't mind taking the "other" side. I do eschew labels, though. (How often to you get to use the word "eschew"?)<br /><br />Similarly, I feel compelled to challenge a statement made on either side that appears to be made without depth of thought...I think it helps the person to clarify their own views...whether they change their mind or not...give us a chance to articulate our position. Stir the fertilizer a bit. You know.
