What Am I? - No Smart Stuff -:)

I consider myself a traditional liberal in the tradition of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy.

They were "tough minded" liberals of whom their detractors could say lots of thing but weak was never one of them.

Here are my views

I am pro choice

pro affirmative action

pro gay rights

for the decriminalization not legalization of prostitution and drugs with an emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation.

I am pro NAFTA, GATT, and WTO as long as there are programs in place to help those Americans who's jobs are lost due to these programs.

I am pro free markets.

I favor strengthening Medicare by adding presecription drug benefits.

I favor the goal of universal health care through real tax incentives to employers and individuals. Those who can't get covered through traditional means would be able to enroll in a government run system but the delivery of medicine for non senior citizens would be delivered through the private sector.

I favor free college tuition is return for a promise of service to one's community.

I oppose the Iraq War but favored the War on Afghanistan.

I believe Israel is our ally but it is in the interest of the Israelis, the Americans, the Arabs and the world to find a solution that recogtnizes the need for the Palestinians to have a state of their own

I believe we should have a foreign policy based on Wilsonian Internationalism

I belive as JFK said we should never fear to negotiate but we should never negotiate out of fear.

I believe that America should maintain it's military supremacy.

And finallY I belive despite this maladministration the United States is still the last best hope for mankind.

Am I

.

Howard Dean?

I'm to the left of Howard on drugs and prostitution.

Hell, I'm prolly to the left of the whole Democratic party on that issue.

and definitely not most drug users.

drugs and sex for money.

I agree with you on nearly all of those issues. The exceptions being the following:

I think the Afghanistan war somewhat justifiable, and I don't have NEARLY the problems with it that I do Iraq. But I still think war could have been avoided (we should havce approached 9-11 as a criminal act, which is what it was). This is a case where reasonable people could have disagreed on our approach. Iraq was not such a case. It was wrong.

I think we need to be much harder on Israel.

I am not so sure we need to maintain our military supremacy (at least not to the point we try to).

Although I lean that way, I am not so sure we are the last best hope for mankind. The way we behave relative to Europe lately puts them ahead of us in many respects.

All in all, though, I think you're a failry moderate to liberal person... the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" type of person that seems to make up the bulk of the country. The problem we have in today's climate is that, even though your opinions are probably the majority, Repubs use various wedge issues (abortion, gays, etc.) to little-by-little scare a lot of reasonable people away from the Dems, and into thinking that "liberal" = "Dem" = "Satan".

ON EDIT:
Where you you stand on gun control? (or were you just omitting thast issue to avoid a flame-fest? If so, I understand)
For the record, I am for reasonable gun controls (registration, background checks, etc.).

and you can prove you're sane.

I share most of the same opinions. I agree about Israel. They need to be pushed HARD to allow a Palestinian state. I think a balanced budget is esssential.

I believe the environment is terribly important - it's our future. However, I realize there will be tradeoffs for a long time until we get to widespread hydrogen, wind and solar power. I still DO NOT agree with drilling in ANWR, nor do I agree with trading pollution credits or rejecting pollution control treaties.

I'm for welfare, but only when you are physically unable to work. Whatever happened to workfare? I think this should be brought back into being. Seems like the best way to get people off welfare is to make them work for the money and learn valuable skills when possible. Job training is essential, as are unemployment benefits.

I'm for free markets with SOME regulation. Deregulation has its place when done right, but I've seen it BADLY botched. Sometimes monopoly, oligopoly or state-run programs are the most sensible thing in a given situation. Profit motive and competition definitely are crucial to this country's economy, but not to everything that goes on because it can sometimes be counter-productive. Healthcare comes to mind. How much money do we waste on paperwork and insurance claims? I think a LOT, especially when you consider how much effort goes into correcting everything that goes wrong with insurance claims. Canada can do it, so can we.

I think we do need military superiority - though we also need to be smart about how we do it, and should concentrate much more on fighting terrorism than taking over oil-rich countries.

I am also OK with sensible gun controls, including heavy background checks, registration of firearms and ballistics fingerprinting. No assault rifles for hunting though.

OK, how bad did I do?

can't really be done. You mean well, but believing in NAFTA, that the US is the "last best hope" etc, & that "America should maintain its military supremacy" -- these positions show that you don't understand the first thing about what these institutions really do.

How could it be justified for one country to have a military so much bigger & better-funded than the rest of the world combined? This military has obviously been used, on many occasions, as a private force sent out to murder innocent foreigners who got in the way of US corporate interests. What kind of crazy ideology would support the right of such a military to continue to be so dominant, when it so often has been used for criminal purposes?

About "best hope for mankind" -- this is just patriotic bunk. What makes you think Americans or their sick, perverted, wasteful, violent society is any better than Europe? Than Canada? Than New Zealand? America is far more likely to doom human life on the planet than any other society, either by blowing it all up, or ruining it ecologically. This is nothing to be tooting little patriots' horns about.

I don't support the use of our military as a constabulary to enforce our will on other peoples. That is a misuse.

I understand the concept of free trade. Nations should produce what they can produce best and tarrifs invariably hurt the little guy. I was reading how the Phillipines signed on to GATT in the hope they could sell the food they farm to America and Europe. Instead the EU and Americans put tarrifs to protect their own farming. That is wrong.

True free trade enrichs all.....


For better or worse America is a superpower with the responsibilities that come with it. If we abdicate that responsibility another country or group of countries will fill that vacuum.

That I oppose.

I agree with nearly all your points, although I might be a bit more pro-regulation than you implied.

it definately needs to be reformed.

so the rich nations don't weasel out of their obligations.


I was reading in the NY Times about how this poor Filipino farmer was so happy to learn that he could sell his bananas on the world market and then learned the EU and the U.S. have tarrifs. He felt he was duped.

That's bullshit.

You are going to have to make a damn good case to me to subsidize your industry.

I've observed that many on the left, and not a few people at DU, are either just (i) leftists who have a bit of an authoritarian streak; or (ii) partisans.

OK, now I'm very biased, since I think agree with you on every point except for your last two points. The world would not be any worse off if America's liberal democratic allies shared military supremacy with America and the entire community of liberal democratic nations worked together--as opposed to America leading and everyone else following--to improve humankind. There is no need to bump chests about who is "greater"--if we all have shared goals, then why compete more than necessary, especially over security issues?

And there are many great and wonderful things about America, but there's also a bunch of things that other countries have done better--for example, in terms of domestic policy, I would hope that America follows Europe and Canada on most issues, rather than the other way around.

but most of Europe is very homogeneous. And now that non-Europeans are emigrating to Europe alot of them are not very happy and not behaving very nicely.


When you see how many diverse groups there are in America and how we try every day to live under a common ethos we ain't doing so bad.

I just think that it's important for everyone to be both proud of their country and to be able to learn from others, instead of assuming that their's is the best, even if in a well-intentioned way.

Also, Canada has a higher percentage of immigrants than the U.S....previously, Europe was relatively homogenous, but that is changing...I think the U.S. does handle diversity better than many European countries, although many of them are much more "multi-national" than you might think--Belgium and Switzerland (although it is very closed), France, and the UK are all multi-national or diverse in different ways.

I'm not a jingoist....

I cringe when some yahoo says America is the only free country in the world.

I realize the U. S. is not the only liberal democracy in the world and some countries have much better developed welfare states.

I am all for helping those in need... I think that is the holy grail that separates left from right. I just think welfare needs to be calibrated so it's a trampolene and not a hammock.

Sloth isn't good for the individual or the system . I want to see every individual maximize their human potential...

most DUers", IMHO.

I'm kind of curious about how this poll would turn out if you didn't mention your trade position.

but I doubt there's very little room between my position on these issues and Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, and Graham.*





*Even if some of them supported Iraq War 2 they don't support it now.

That's why I have a problem with Gep but I would have no problem supporting him in the general election.


Gep is the working man's candidate.


I consider myself pro working man too. I just have alot of faith in free trade if properly implemented.

If I want to buy a Japanese car why should I be penalized with a tarrif and if a Japanese person wants to buy some good old fashioned American beef why should it be subject to a tarrif.

A tarrif is a sales tax in drag and sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation because poor folks spend most of their income.


I also am unabashedly pro union cuz I side with the little guy.

Trade and some aspects of foreign policy are where I am the most conflicted .

if elected president. So, it might be that Gephardt's position on free/fair-trade is more similar to Dean's and Edward's position than I thought before this extra reseach on Gephardt that I just did.

…
Trade: Unlike Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman, Gephardt hails from the "fair trade" wing of the Democratic Party, which views minimally regulated "free trade" as a threat to American jobs, wages, and environmental standards. When Bill Clinton and most Democratic congressional leaders pushed for the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, Gephardt, who was then the second-ranking Democrat in the House, led the opposition. In 1999, he reiterated his disappointment over the adoption of NAFTA. Although he has not pledged to repeal it, Gephardt said in July 2003, "I'm the one who led the fight against NAFTA, and I did it because I believed that that trade treaty was not going to help the United States, was not going to help Mexico, was not going to help anybody in the world, because it is the beginning of a race to the bottom. And that is exactly what has gone on."
…
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086555/

However, it seems that Gephardt goes further than the other major Democratic candidates by supporting an international minimum wage.


Establishing an International Minimum Wage

An International Minimum Wage would keep U.S. workers competitive in the global marketplace

Based on the imperative of protecting both human dignity around the world and American jobs here at home, Dick Gephardt believes we must establish an international minimum wage. The World Trade Organization should establish an international standard for a minimum wage.

The creation of such a wage would guarantee that workers all over the world earn a livable wage. It also would keep U.S. workers competitive in the global marketplace. Countries could offset lower wages with trade concessions, and more developed nations would share in the burden facing less developed nations.

http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/41

…
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
…
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=46131&mesg_id=46131&page=

or that could be... probably my rose colored glasses ;->

peace

NT

edited cuz it's early and I'm confused.

maybe even a Democrat since birth. :-)

...but not because you are wrong. I practically agree with everything you say except the last two. I simply think that on issues of international trade DU is too left-wing.

Although I disagree on NAFTA and the "last, best hope" statement.

The former has been devastating for our ecomomy, and will continue to be until wages and labor laws in our partner countries are equal to ours. (not gonna happen in my lifetime, I'd wager)

The latter is an empty statement at best. I sincerely hope that our nation will play an integral part in the betterment of mankind. I just wish we'd quit letting greed control our every action.

That being said, you're on "our team", despite a few small differences. We can always work out the differences later. We have more pressing work to do first.

And I believe you're probably in line with most DU'ers, including me, although the general tone of the DU posts themselves might be to the left of you.

Here's why: IMHO, I think a lot Clinton-Gore style Dems choose not to challenge the views of those who are further to the left of us. That's because my number one priority right now is defeating the Bush Junta and the Right-Wing Propaganda Machine, and the time and effort spent debating potential allies who disagree with me about, say, free trade or Israel are counterproductive to my ultimate goal.

Those who are further to the left are, I believe, very outspoken about their views, but receive relatively few challenges here from people who disagree with them. That doesn't mean that the people who disagree with them are few in number. For me--and I believe for many others as well--it just ain't worth stirring up a hornet's nest with those to the left of me when there are far-right extremist Republican SOB's to defeat.

FWIW, I also tend not to stir it up with Dems who are to the right of me, as long as they are dedicated to defeating the Bush Junta and the Right-Wing Propaganda Machine.

ADDENDUM: Just to show you where I am, I agree with you on almost all the points, though I do favor a single-payer universal health care plan.

And here in NYC, I believe the rent control/stabilization housing system we have is an abomination that combines the worst of socialism and the worst of capitalism in one big package. Interestingly enough, Paul Krugman tends to agree with me.

Also, I'm not a Democrat Since Birth, like you are. I was originally a moderate Republican and left the party when the right-wing crazies took it over.

Rather than be abusive, i think you are cool to share with us your thoughts and your support in defeating the crimina junta in office today.

Were they not in office, i would oppose you because of your imperialism and your war against free religion and liberty (As surely you have never been in prison for doing drugs you you would not have such cowardly views on the liberty of those your ignorance represses)

Indeed your views could be termed moderate Democrat, those who sell out democracy and support beneath the veneer, a corporatist empire of state subsidized oligopolies that concentrate wealth horrible (but that is ok, if dems get the campaign donations)

Wilson's evil corporate wars in mexico and such were really EVIL shit.. that white racist pig... the whole country was overjoyed to be free of that asshole by the time he was out... yet you like him and his internationalism.... not a good call.

One can always change, and perhaps you just wrote some random points to see a reaction where your real views are far different than your views expressed... and in that, i only oppose your positions, not you personally..

Good fortune to you.... read "lies my teacher taught me"

I am a disciple of John Stuart Mill. On Liberty is still the best book I have ever read. You can say whatever you want, believe whatever you want, take whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on my liberty.

I specifically said I am in favor of decriminalization of drugs. If drugs were decriminalized how could someone go to prison for taking drugs. Under my system first time drug offenders would receive treatment and rehabilitation and that would only be for hard drugs like crack and heroin. I think pot is almost benign. I smoked a ton of dope in my day and I know drugs like any substance including food, that too much of anything is not a good thing. If drugs were decriminalized the worst someone could face was a fine. I am opposed to outright legalization because I have a problem with removing the social stigma from a non productive act. Same for prostitution.

Drugs and prostitution are the one of the few areas where I am willing to compromise my small l liberal principals because the damage can be irreverible.But I am not willing to incarcerate people for it.

I like truly free and transparent markets. I want the government to help those who need it but I don't need it to be my mommy. She stopped taking care of me when I became a man. I have my own small business and live by my wits. I like it that way.

Wooodrow Wilson was a racist. Straight up. He refused to have a black
man in the White House during his presidency but I admire the spirit of Wilsonian Internationalism. You know, the League of Nations, promoting democracies abroad ,things like that.

Your real criticism of me is that my views are not sufficiently left for you. That's cool. I criticize the vast majority of Americans that are too my right.

If I meet your definition of an imperialist then so are the heroes of the Democratic Party. Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy loved this country with a passion.

I am a Democrat in the spirit of Harry Truman, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Robert Francis Kennedy and I defy you to find significant room between my position and theirs.

In my religion, people sometimes use drugs to have insights in to their meditation practice. You're system criminalizes my right to free religion and that is why i said that. I respect Mr. Mill myself having his book right here.... and the drugs war is a war against my freedom of religion.

All the tibetan buddhist lineages have oracles who take drugs to have such insights, and a good dose of hinduism does too, as well as american indian religion... I am all for helping people with addiction through non-criminal means, but i din't hear you pardoning all non-violent drugs offenders, or pardoning those who, like real life people busted for drugs dealing, who bought some extra and shared it with their mates.

The whole war, even decriminalized is a travesty. Your methods would still be dropping chemical weapons on rural areas where growers make cannabis, like hawaii (as they fly around helecopters and dump diesel fuel on peoples back gardens to kill suspected cannabis plots)... it is a gross violation of the protections in that constitution.

Honestly, you're soooo left to say that, i have great respect for you, but i must split hairs just to say why i said what i said.

Regarding imperialism, what democracies does america promote abroad? The "spreading democracy" label has wound america up bombing a nation every year or so in its war against those who oppose american corporation's ability to rob them. The PR of "spreading democracy" includes in it gross ethnocentric presumptions that people need to have their government overthrown by america... now THAT! is democracy ;-)

We have moved past the age of kennedy. Do you back an equal rights amendment to finally enshrine equality for all women and ethnicities?

Do you support intensive campaign finance reform that corporatism does not drive the supposed democracy?

What is your views on the totally antidemocratic senate? Have you any plans to reform this bastion of imperialist thinking in your administration?

You claim to back free trade, but unless you in the same breath disavvow all subsidies to farms, and corporations, you are really proposing a very imperialist and destructive regimen for the rest of the world, as poor farmers in african nations are bankrupted by subsidized cheap imports, and you end up destroying local businesses, so in pushing nations to open up to free trade, you really ask them to open up to american conquoring... and that imperialism is rather distasteful.

What do you propose we do with the white-surpemecist's federal reserve system that only creates credit for white males? http://www.wizardsofmoney.org

What do you propose to do with media regulation as the FCC is wholly inadequate for regulating the broad spectrum of content/switching that has emerged from universal signalling and the internet? How can we ensure that media serves its rightful place in the checkpointing of bad government by exposing the truth? Selling what everyone wants to hear in a pure capitalist sense is not working (faux)... so should they be criminally liable for misleading the public, like being shut down for broadcasting false "news"? Plutocracy has totally destroyed independent media and institutionalized free speach, how do you intend to restore us to "independent, plural media?"

I don't have a problem with that.

As for spraying pot with paraquat I'm against it . As an advocate of decriminalization I would be passive in enforcement of drug laws. As I stated I don't think drugs are particulary good for folks but I wouldn't throw them in the hokey for it.

As far as pushers if you are selling a dime bag to your pals I don't have a big problem but if you're Pablo Escobar I think you are a parasite who profits from other people's misery. To me a pusher is like a pimp. Educate the prostitute. Punish the pimp.

Yes ,RFK is dead but I ask myself what Bobby would do if he was alive today and how he would react to our problems. As a born again Christian I subscribe to the WWJD theory- What Would Jesus Do, and on more temporal things I ask myself WWBD-What Would Bobby Do.

I am in favor of equality, liberty, and fraternity.

I oppose subsidies to large farmers. Farming is big business. I doubt there are many small farmer left.

I am familiar with the argument against the Senate. That it is anti-democratic because big states like CA have no more represntation than small states like VT.

I support the Senate as it currently exists. In our sysytem it is a break on majoritarianism. Majoritarianism run amok is a threat to democracy and liberty since liberty resides in the individual.

The Fed should control the money supply to ensure the highest level of employment consistent with the lowest level of inflation. Nothing more.... Nothing less.... I would even look at basing the Fed rates on computer models.

I think your final suggestion about regulating free speeach is a little scary. As a First Amendment absolutist I would give my life to preserve it. I am against censorial tribunals. Fox sucks but I would give my life to defend Roger Ailes right to transmit his garbage just as I would give my life to defend Al Franken's right to refute it and make lite out of it. This is for idealistic as well as prudential reasons. If the government can shut down FOX then they can shut down the New York Times and The Nation as well.

The answer to bad speech is good speech. Or as Mao said "let a thousand flowers bloom."

I may not be totally left but I'm right.

Don't have a predjudice about moderate Dems, do ya?:eyes: Where the heck did that tirade come from?

When NBC Dateline ran a misleading and destructive prime time show about my buddhist teacher, suing them for liabel was not an option, rather i was no longer able to get business (as the television show named businesses i was involved in as cult-front businesses, etc... and created a paranoia on 40 million television sets) that forced me to leave the country to find work.

The show quoted convicted felons as "cult" experts and generally performed a terrible disservice to free religion in america. The results were that my teacher stopped teaching publically, and with a few hundred students, we met outside the US not to be harassed. Finally, on having his teaching dharma blocked, my teacher took his life... much like those vietnamese buddhist monks that immolated themselves in those unforgettable images.

That all happened under clinton, *-41 and reagan... as the dateline hit was just the last straw after newsweek, current affair, washington post, etc...etc... Strangely, all my teacher ever did with us (no drugs were EVER involved in his teachings... that was part of MY path, not his teaching).. was meditate with his students and espouse the disciplines of meditation and their benefits. link to my lineage: http://www.fredericklenz.com/

The senate even started RICO laws to see if they could connect my teacher with some of his devotees who were not very organized with their taxes... as organized tax evasion... and all of this turned nothing, but the ongoing attempts to censor.. all of these typical attempts to repress free religion when overt methods like crucifiction are illegal.

When the clinton-empire turned against my little religious group, i recognized that the democrats are enemies, especially those neocon democrats that use the party label "Democrat".

Now years in to a dark facist regime, i will vote democrat in the next election at the US embassy in the UK to oust an even darker evil, but the corporatist DLC democrats are no better, and i have a real hot spot about their failure to protect civil rights from corporatist lunacy.

and I understand and appreciate your position. But that's no reason to hold it against DemocratSinceBirth or other moderate Dems, is it? That's a rhetorical question ....

and I oppose using the awesome power of the federal government in a vendetta against any indivudual; especially one who has done no wrong.

Most of your social positions seem mainstream liberal, to the left.

Your positions on America's military position is basically what most people say, whether liberal or conservative. Not even doves Dennis Kucinich say "I want to make America weak and defensless." The devil is always in the details on that issue.

But I say "Rose-Colored Glasses" because you deny the horrific restructuring of economic and political power that has taken place since the late 1970's, through corporate mergermania, deregulation and privitization.

The so-called "Free Trade" we have now is not free trade at all. It is a scam. It is not about helping to facilitate the flow of goods and services. It is about making Big Business supreme over nations.

THe center of power has shifted so far to the right today, that if you want to be moderate today, you have to be radical --- at least to the extent of admitting that democracy and the free-enterprise system is being smothered by Monopoly Elite Corporate Power. The desire to swing the pendulum to a true center is too often branded as "leftist" today.

Unless we take off the rose colored glasses and take on this core problem, mainstream liberalism will be dead as the proverbial dodo.

The concentration of economic and by extension political power into fewer and fewer hands is a problem. I want to address these problems within the democratic capitalistic paradigm. What separates liberals from radicals and I don't use the word "radical" pejoratively because radical comes from the word root and radicals want to make root or fundamental change is that liberals want to make the system work better while radicals want to change it...

I'd only add that the system we have now has gotten so far off-track that it does need serious change and fixin' to get back to some semblance of a true democracy and free-enterprise system.

For every Microsoft there are fifty small companies doing all kinds of innovative things.

I'd be interested to see some statistics on the number of Americans who work for large corporations like Microsoft.

I do know that Wal-Mart has more employees than the U S military.

of my personal spot, on some of your issues. I won't speak for the rest of DU.

Which is fine with me. I've never expected, or required, anyone to be aligned exactly with my view of the universe.

:hi: friend!