He was a pretty interesting guy. Only problem was that he cited McCain as a "moderate." Maybe on some issues but overall a pretty conservative guy. http://www.independentnation.org/index.htm Overall he does have a pretty good vision...
You know you can't really be fiscally conservative and socially liberal unless your Switzerland. Social programs cost lots and lots of money. Throw that in with being the world's super power and pretty soon your talking some serious money. It has to come from somewhere and the rich are too small of a population and the poor ain't got it. Or new moderate party is going to have to decriminalize drugs. You have to tax them and run a strong anti-drug education program, just like cigarettes, just like alchohol because if you don't you just create a criminal class that you can't effectivly police and you jepordize the security of the supplying countries where you have no jurisdiction at all. It's the only reasonable way to approach the problem.
Social liberal doesn't not mean endless program on welfare. It means there should be a good social safety net.
I would like a party that kept morals to individuals, believed in free trade, foreign intervention only when the US was under threat but otherwise went along with international structures, supported the separation of powers, encouraged savings and fiscal responsibility and took a pragmatic approach to regulation. At one time that party was known as the Republican Party.
My only problem with Emeror and Empress is that it reeks of conquest and imperialism. If a monarch did gain some foreign territories and wanted to change the title officially to Emperor/Empress, then I guess that would be the way it was. You are right about not having to worry about re-election. That would be a huge help. In times of trouble, a monarch could serve to greatly boost the morale of our nation, much like Elizabeth II did during WWII. She was great visiting all those bombed out areas. Or he could speak with the authority representing the nation in a strong fashion, like King Juan Carlos of Spain did when there was the coup attempt in the parliment building. Juan Carlos just told it like it was, and with his mere words alone brought about an end to the situation.
Honesty and politics don't usually mix in democracies. Voters want the short term cake and piece of the long term as well. We're seeing that with the tax breaks and the pathetic bar that Congress set as a spending cap that are forcing future wage earners to pay for the excess we're living in now. We voted Bush Sr. when he backtracked into raising taxes, yet Clinton never seriously considered decreasing them. Sign me up!
I don't know how you have a government that doesn't concern itself with morality...and it not be either a tyranny or worthless. mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-) adj. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Our laws are so caught up in what is right, wrong, just, unjust...how do you separate the culture's sense of morality, particularly in a republic or democracy? What I find, more often than not, is those that say that mean they don't want OTHERS morals enforced...but are more than willing to enforce their own views of right/wrong.
Max I did not say not concerned with morality. Just not the morality of one particular religion, should we use the morality of muslim religion?
I'm not advocating a society that has no goodness but one that doesn't rely on the government to enforce a particular sense of righteousness. My view of government is that is one that keeps its citizens safe but that respects the free will of citizenry to behave in all sorts of ways as long as they don't physicaly harm others or deny the rights of others.
The "Jeffster Should Be King" Party. But, seriously, probly about the exact opposite of pirc1. If I use the narrow definitions, then I would be "economic liberal" and "social conservative." Or, in other words, a Christian.
Politics is about getting allies to support you against your enemies. The natural result is the coalescence into the lowest common denominator, us and them.. the two party system of government. It's not about thinking for yourself it's about having the votes to win motions and pass laws.
