<p>i'm a libertarian.</p>
<p>Uh, the reason why I'm not communist is because a good one is going to pop up anytime soon. It will happen eventually (a loooonnng time from now, im talking thousands of years). Obviously a communist state will not succeed given today's social structure and technology. But if you look historically, the world is constantly getting more left, more libertarian. Eventually it will approach that sort of libertarian communist society. It's kind of like democracy: it wasn't really possible thousands of years ago (Greece and Rome weren't really democracies, very few pple could vote, very few people could run for office, and they were only democracies until they started expanding). I definitely don't propose any sort of communism nowadays, b/c that would suck.</p>
<p>Justice:</p>
<p>I think a greater involvement in poiltics can lower any kid's chances in getting admission in an elite college. But some people have a passion for it and will do inspite of the lowering their chances.</p>
<p>chinaman i think your analysis is incorrect</p>
<p>i know many kids who have gotten involves with politics and have managed to be accepted Early Action into HYP. just because you are involved with politics doesn't automatically "mark" you in the admissions process.</p>
<p>for example last year the student representative on the California State Board of Education was accepted to Yale, the year before the girl went to Harvard.</p>
<p>its actually a big plus for those who are involved in politics. more of the well loopsided than well rounded.</p>
<p>moreover, i think its funny how 80% of those on this thread are republicans under the guise of fiscal conservatism. if anyone bothered to look at what fiscal conservatism really meant and compared both candidates policies and the status quo then their eyes would pop out.</p>
<p>imagine what we could've done with the money 1) now being spent on the War in Iraq, 2) Bush's wealthy tax cut, and 3) Omnibus spending bills full of pork. the point is that if you claim to support fiscal conservatism none of you should've voted for George W. Bush. Problem is that you can't seem to look at the reality behind the pretty face.</p>
<p>when it comes down to it. both Kerry and Bush spend- but their priorities differ. one looks to big business, private interests, and the wealth whereas the other looks to the working class, helps the underpriviledged, ensures basic freedoms and rights, and looks to be a working member of the international body. the real differences for Bush and Kerry lie in economic (jobs, outsourcing, interest rates, and globalization) and social policy NOT fiscal conservatism.</p>
<p>furthermore just because you claim to be a fiscal conservative doesn't equal Bush. Dean was a fiscal conservative, but everyone just seemed to focus on his infamous "I have a scream speech".</p>
<p>i only agree with Bush on one issue, otherwise, i think he's just a toy.</p>
<p>umm that's why we don't like bush that much. we aren't radical conservatives. bush looks to big business, private interests, and wealth. yes this is true. i completely agree with this. i love big business. aren't most people employed by businesses? i love private interests. don't private interests fuel innovation? i do not want government to be obsessed with helping the underprivileged because there are more efficient uses of taxpayer money, namely, returning it. a rising tide lifts all boats. i'm not a big fan of his war and deficit spending. that's because i'm not a supply-sider. that doesn't mean i do not have the right to be a conservative. obviously bush is irresponsible fiscally; obviously i don't like that. </p>
<p>however, kerry promises to be equally irresponsible. furthermore, he is an opportunist and very elitist (if you know him) man, in my opinion. i will leave it there.</p>
<p>yes kerry elitist, but so is Bush. they are all elitist.</p>
<p>now just because I don't support conservatism doesn't mean I am against pro business. where did the Democratic or liberal party ever denigrate big business. theres a reason why the communist party is extinct in America. moreover, if you want to debate what government best serves the people then you are opening up a whole new element to this debate. we could have an infinitely grand debate with no end in sight about what supply sider governments, efficiency of tax payer monies, and pro business governments work. thats more of a historical debate than political.</p>
<p>finally, i too love private interests. problem is that if left unchecked private interests run amuck. just like we did with our constitution. private interests don't need to be controlled but regulated in the spirit of ensuring they act fairly, legally, and justly. if we had a lassiez-faire government then people would become victims of private interests. remember that private interests work only for themselves, whereas a government serves the people.</p>
<p>of course bush is elitist, but at least he knows it and fights for the elite. i don't want an elitist who fights against us. </p>
<p>i don't really see where there is room for argument. you just attacked us for being conservative and i'm explaining to you how and why we are. </p>
<p>of course Democrats aren't bad for business....the stock market fell two hundred pts when polls predicted a Kerry win because businesses LOVE Dems. ok</p>
<p>Am I the first Green?</p>
<p>well Justice you sound very self-centered to be saying that government should work for the elitists. the stock market dipped 200 pts not bc of a Kerry win, but because investors want the biggest bang for their buck and can trust Bush to pillage the world for the benefit of making the pockets of investors happy. and btw about 50% of CEOs openly supported Kerry, ya thats right Kerry. the other half voted for Bush. some CEOs who voted for Kerry include Costco, Goldman Sachs, and Cisco to name a few. those who voted for Bush include WalMart and Exxon Mobil</p>
<p>Phoenix, your argument is missing pretty much every point. Libertarian is COMPLETELY different from communist. libertarians essentially believe in extreme individualism, the individualism of our nation in its infancy, the individualism of thoreau. Communists believe in extreme interdependence, ignoring the self in favor of the whole. the world getting more libertarian (an idea i dont necessarily agree to be true) would be the death knell for communism.</p>
<p>Second, the problem with communism isnt the technological feasibility of it- its Marx's premise itself. Marx's belief that one could end the "constant cycle of oppression" he described was as ignorant as one saying he could end the constant cycle of the sun rising. He admitted that the bourgouisie came to power intending fix society, and that they then ruined it. His main thrust it that the proletariat wont fall victim to this cycle, and his reasoning? simply because theyre the proletariats. its a self defeating argument, and no matter how technologically feasible it is, the cycle will keep going. when one follows marx's own argument throughout the course of the work regarding power, those in power during the "dictatorship of the proletariat" will not ever voluntarily cede that power, as marx illogically posits when he refers to the "withering away of the state."</p>
<p>also, though rome was a republic (not a true democracy) and then an empire, Athens, not Greece, which was fragmented into 400 city-states, was a democracy in the truest sense of the word. though women could not vote, all male citizens could vote on every issue and all were expected to hold office at some point, including the "presidency" of athens. When "Greece," not Athens, expanded, it was actually the empire of a Macedonian ruler, Philip, and then his son Alexander, who ruled, and in fact took over what was still a true democracy in athens.</p>
<p>I love debating about politics. If I do get into Harvard, I hope to very active in the political scene. That being said, I am slightly conservative, with strong liberal leanings. However, this election made me laugh about whatever "conservatism" people profess nowadays. True conservatism was more logical, more thought out than what happened on Nov. 2.</p>
<p>The simple fact is, that if you are a "true" conservative, you should not have voted for George W. Bush. The main idealogue behind his administration, Paul Wolfowitz, would be more aptly named a neo-conservative; their main premise being that all foreign countries would benefit from US interests and overt foreign intervention. I believe that Wolfowitz, while brilliant, designed this administration to be the focal point of his policy, while assuming the guise of classical conservatism, which espouses fiscal conservatism, small government, and states' rights. Any stupid Republican wishing to argue that the administration has even TRIED to adhere to the tenets of classical conservatism is unequovically wrong.</p>
<p>From my personal observations and tracking of politics, I believe that George W. Bush is a giant pawn in a large game. The current foreign policy and economic weight of the United States dictated by current situations, no doubt, will shape much of the current global political climate for 50 years, deeming exactly the limits of any major superpower that might emerge. With the demise of the theory of nuclear deterrence, the new theories can no longer hold in the face of terrorism. The neo-cons, forseeing this, use Bush's personal hubris and blind conviction to establish their agenda; limiting immigration, weakening international organizations, increasing miltary defense, and general approval of American interventionism are amongst their primary goals. Truly, none of the neo-cons have an ounce of care for the social conservatism that was trumpeted by pundits everywhere in the past month, nor do they care much about the underprivledged classes of the country. Logically, I don't fiind a particular major LOGICAL flaw in either policy of classical conservatism or neo-conservatism, but I do wish the majority of the people who vote would be able to distinguish between the two. Morally, I am disgusted by the arrogance of some.</p>
<p>What particurlarly astonishes me about many who believe in the ideal conservatism is the personal hubris involved with many of the decisions. By the same token, I find the same self-serving pride of the most extreme liberals to be obnoxious. However, a major point must be made; while conservatism by its very nature always will seek to silence the opposition, liberalism welcomes that opposition. That's an important point to establish.</p>
<p>Much of the flaw in the current, average Joe, Republican mindset is this: it's all about them, unconsciously or consciously. When I ask many Republicans about certain hot-button issues, the words "personal responsibility" and "moral mandate" always come to the forefront. It's much of the psychological basis behind many Republicans, I think, rather than sound logical thinking that could lead to many of the same conclusions. Basically, their background information is all wrong. Many of my Republican friends love telling me personal anecdotes about the "lazy poor" person they met, or how they themselves rose out of poverty. Most don't stop to think about the inner workings, intracacies of politics, just considering the superificial qualities of programs like welfare and immigration. In other words, it's easier to come to very wrong conclusions essentially Republican in outlook by being bigoted, racist, selfish, or ignorant. I actually had a friend tell me that the poor simply just "need a way to work with the rich to invest in America's future."</p>
<p>Demagoguery was an important part of November 2nd. Agree or disagree with Bush's policies, I think it was ridiculous that groups such as the Swift Boat people actually had a chance to be featured on national TV, that Cheney could get away with his "attack on America" quote, and that Bush's supporters could actually get away with justifying the president's inability to communicate! When I went to church on some Sundays, I personally witnessed the illegal activity of church pastors vetting for Bush as PACs, as well as being party to completely unsound illogical arguments for the equally important problems of economics and foreign policy; as we now know, much of this election was decided on very emotional bases.</p>
<p>That brings me to a final point. If you, my fellow Harvard EA'ers, read the Crimson, you might have read an editioral by Paul Simon; it was a very apt and thought provoking editorial I think that all fair Democrats must read. Simply put, the "moral" issue that defined this election was too narrowly defined; since when was the problem of gays more important in Jesus' eyes than letting the poor grow poorer? Again, the answer lies in personal hubris; it's better for one to believe that they are resisting an evil than being part of the indifferent problem. The solutions in this election were the simple solutions, the ones that were easy to understand, and easy to swallow. There were both good and valid reasons for voting for GWB in this election; however, too few people had those reasons.</p>
<ul>
<li>Feel free to fire ferociously, </li>
</ul>
<p>Xander.</p>
<p>very well said xander. i enjoyed your analysis.</p>
<p>Go Libertarianism!</p>
<p>Libertarianism is the mellow political view: if it does effect my day to day life, I dont really care: ie. legalization of pot/drugs (private- but if they do it in public/injure others- in the slammer!), gay marriage (again, private matter that doesn't affect us), tax cuts, less government spending (hence why I disagree w/Bush on more than a few issues), privatization of Social Security, etc. It basically says: let the people (and Adam Smith) take care of themselves. The world/economy will always balance itself out. </p>
<p>But again, foreign policy is tricky for the libertarian, as basic libertarian doctrine approves of govt. defense spending and involvement, so you could argue the merits of border patrol, war, etc. Again, for me, I prefer a case by case judgement on such issues.</p>
<p>thanks for that xander. i agree with most of what you said. i do not, however, see the flaw in a republican voting for bush as an alternative to kerry.</p>
<p>interesting argument xander, though i cannot see how you can be so upset about the swift boat vets and cheneys quote and not care one iota about things like Farenheit 9/11, Al Gore and Al Sharpton both calling bush a "traitor" and worse, or CBS news rushing a report on a clearly forged document in order to slam Bush. Both sides were dirty, and though i know as a bush supporter (moderate one though i am) im biased, i saw much more dirty tricks on the side of the democrats this year. also, i assure you, plenty of priests in liberal ol' NY were pontificating directly for mr. kerry (i personally witnessed that).</p>
<p>i think you guys need to rise above the popular politics and tactical elements of the bipartisan electoral system and look more at the strategic ends. the election was a choice for the lesser of two evils, and now we work for better. </p>
<p>northrams: correct that phoenixrsi pretty much missed the point about the fundamental divergences between communism and the mainstream libertarian movement, BUT i think he was positioning himself with the libertarian-socialist movement ie noam chomsky's collectivist anarchist style where its extreme individual rights and freedoms WITH collective ownership and equitable redistribution of property ie political AND economic egalitarianism simultaneously. my point was that such a position was contradictory and untenable, AFAIK.</p>
<p>lets keep the debate on the substance of politics as it relates to bush v. kerry and dem v. repub and liberalism v. conservatism. lets save political theory for another time.</p>
<p>and here's the count so far for those who've self-identified:</p>
<p>conservatives
Justice~
mr sanguine
yoshe123456
sunglasses
entropicgirl </p>
<p>libertarians
hunter1985
invictus
staticsoliloquy </p>
<p>libertarian-socialists
PhoenixRSI </p>
<p>indeps
potpurri </p>
<p>liberals
bellared</p>
<p>greens
modestmouse</p>