| My Political Philosophy |
| Expansion of the Six Principles with Additional Notes |
| I have grouped my political beliefs into six main categories. The reason I did this was because although I agree with the vast majority of liberal economic policy and most of liberal social policy, I don�t really like the way liberal principles are traditionally summed up. For example, liberals often say they want the economy to be run fairly. I think, however, that not only is the question of what is fair overly subjective, it is also usually irrelevant. I was once debating affirmative action and the other person told me that it was unfair to give certain people advantages over others. I thought about this, and decided it didn�t really matter. I could have replied that African Americans are disadvantaged because of their heritage, and therefore it is fair to give them this other advantage, but such an argument could go on forever. Moreover, such an argument would be useless in my opinion. What I said in reply was that life is not fair, and policy should not be determined by what is fair; instead, I think it should be determined by effects. If affirmative action decreases poverty and this good outweighs any negative effects on other people, it is good. These principles all are statements of what I think tends to happen in the world. Specifically, they are statements of what things help to bring about what are generally accepted as positive ends, for example peace, health, and an end to poverty. These ends are things I have assumed to be positive, with which I form rational decisions about what should be done on a less basic level. I feel that many things help to bring these ends about, but I have grouped them into broader categories. For example, both finding peaceful solutions to problems and rehabilitating criminals work well, and these are grouped together by saying that gentleness works well. The first principle, optimism means that there must be a great amount of evidence that something will just never work before it is conceded that it won�t. The margin of possibility is great, and humankind can accomplish great things working together. There are innumerable examples in history of people assuming that we would have to live with the status quo, and then being proven wrong. For example, it was once widely thought that monarchy, or at least oligarchy, was the only sustainable form of government, and now over half the world�s people live in fully functioning democracies. This principle means optimism in terms of what works, not outlook; in other words, the way the world works is that nothing is static and not many things are impossible. Thus, optimism in terms of outlook is not the essence of this principle, but rather the label given to the outlook people have when they recognize this truth about the world. To state this principle another way, the actions that would be taken by someone who would be labeled an optimist are very effective. One application of this principle is that I feel that the way globalization is going at present is not the only way, and it can be changed to allow for a more balanced spread of economic power so it can be more beneficial towards the poor. The second principle follows optimism, and that is sticking to principles. This means sticking to basic values that we all hold to be the most effective way of achieving the ends that are assumed to be good. This follows optimism because violations of basic principles are almost always done with the defense that doing this is necessary because of the status quo. For example, people often defend the US� backing of groups with poor human rights records because of the presence of an urgent security threat. The principle of optimism says it is possible to stand by human rights and other principles at the same time as working towards other goals. With the addition of the principle of standing by principles, this can be extended to say that if these principles are not stood by, these goals will not even be attained. For example, the US� military support for Iraq in its war against Iran was justified because Iran was seen as a greater threat. If we had stuck to our principles, not only would Iraq not have received these weapons, but action could have been taken to help the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam. Instead, Saddam was given the power to oppress the Kurds and the Shi'ites, invade Kuwait, and threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction. The principle of standing by principles calls for an avoidance of policies that involve such negative side effects. Political democracy is essential, and therefore it must be worked towards in all nations. Human life is sacred, and therefore the death penalty is wrong. Finally, there should be no lessening of workers rights in trying to promote economic development; these must be integrated into the effort of economic development. The third principle, moderation, may seem to be a contradiction of the second principle, which might seem to state that principles are absolute. It simply states, however, that although principles that we stand for should not be abandoned, we should not go too far and fail to listen to reasons about why certain principles just doesn't work in some situation. Certain principles need to be sacrificed for the sake of other principles, including less important ones that I did not list here. Also, while there are some principles we need to stand hard and fast to, others should be taken more loosely. Cooperation is the fourth principle, and it means that people working together is one of the best ways of getting things done, whatever the task. On a simple level, when people work against each other, not only does it create tension and even aversion, it also involves waste because instead of using resources to progress, people also use them to compete. This principle is one of the reasons I feel socialism has a lot of advantages over capitalism, because in socialism the people work together towards a common goal whereas in capitalism people are more prone to compete against each other. Although I feel that most economic sectors should be market systems, and therefore require healthy competition, there are many sectors I feel would run much better through a cooperative government-run system, for example health care. Cooperation also works between nations, and for this reason I feel that in foreign policy nations should work together through institutions like the UN. Democracy, the fifth principle, is closely tied with the principle of cooperation. This means that a high percentage of decisions that affect society should be made collectively, through a free and fair democratic system. Important questions about society should not be determined by one person, nor by a certain group of people, because since these issues affect society as a whole, a decision that has input from the most people possible is the one that is most likely to be beneficial. For this reason, democracy is the most effective path not only on the local and national levels, but on the global level as well. Secondly, since economic questions are so important to society and the individual, a good many of them should be put into the hands of a democracy, whether it be a democracy in the town, in the factory, in the country, or in the world. The sixth and final principle, gentleness, can be summed up by this anonymous quote: �Nothing is so strong as gentleness; nothing so gentle as real strength�. In other words, policies that involve destructiveness and brute force will be ineffective, and those that involve constructiveness and peaceful actions will be effective. This is because, in basic terms, the ends I feel should be worked towards involve progress and construction, and therefore destructive policy will usually work against the realization of positive ends. Secondly, brute force does not deal with the complexities and root causes of problems, and therefore does not really make anything better. As a final note, in many cases, of course, force needs to be used, but only if it furthers one of the other principles, or results in a net application of gentleness. There are many implications of this principle. Most obviously, it means that waging peace, through economic aid, diplomacy, and support for human rights, usually works better than waging war. Harsh punishment for crimes is destructive and ineffective. Things like welfare reform, which attempt to force people to get off welfare and get jobs, do not take into consideration the challenging conditions in which the poor live. While taxing people is often not gentle, but it is required to do other gentle things as well as fulfill other principles. On the other hand, things that help people in a gentle way are generally effective. Rehabilitation is a good method for helping criminals and delinquents. These principles outline my general reasons for believing in liberalism and some of the unique parts of my ideology. There are a couple of other things I would like to add to this outline, first my disagreement with the promotion of class conflict by many fellow members of the far left. I think that conflict between people should never be promoted. The greatest examples of societal progress have been made through cooperation between people, and promoting conflict between classes will never result in social harmony. On a religious level, I believe all people are children of God and therefore brothers and sisters, and no one should be labled as the enemy. Class conflict is also against many of the principles I listed above as essential to liberalism as I understand it. It is against cooperation because it promotes division, it is against gentleness because it promotes a clash between classes, and it is against optimism because it assumes that the world cannot become more harmonious than it is now. Class conflict focuses our attention on blaming the rich instead of what is really important. In a recent sermon, my minister made a good parallel to the Bible. Jesus was walking down the street with his disciples and they saw a blind man. The disciples asked whether the blindness came as a punishment to the blind man for one of his sins, or because his parents sinned. Jesus replied that it was not either of these; it was so the glory of God could be shown through the healing of the man. My minister said that those who would say it was the sins of the man represent those who believe in individualism, that what happens to a person is a result of their own actions. They make their own destiny, and if they have failed to make good choices, they suffer the consequences. Thus, the suffering of the poor is largely their fault. Those who would say it was the sins of the parents symbolize those who say that some people have been oppressed or exploited by others, and that is why they are suffering poverty or a related affliction. Jesus� answer defies both of these perspectives. Basically, he is saying that it doesn�t matter whose fault it is. If we see someone suffering, we should help him; it is as simple as that. I feel that this is one of the important things to remember in politics. If we lose sight of this goal, any progress towards a better society will inevitably fail. If we keep ourselves focused on the alleviation of suffering, however, all else will follow. |