Political philosophies
“Truth And Good Are Values Proven To Cause Division.” — Delamain (Cyberpunk 2077)
Truth and doing good matter to me, even when we disagree about what they mean. A shared goal does not settle which means are acceptable, and disagreement about means does not prove that the goal is insincere. I want to examine what political traditions offer and what their proposals would require of people. Agreeing with part of a tradition does not oblige me to defend everything done in its name.
Conservatism
Caution about change can be reasonable. An institution may do something valuable that a proposed reform fails to preserve. But an existing arrangement has consequences too. The costs of changing it have to be considered alongside the costs of keeping it. Its age alone cannot establish that the people living with it are treated well.
My strongest objection to conservative politics in the U.S. is its defense of hierarchies that leave marginalized people with fewer rights. Personal freedom has to include people whose lives you disapprove of. Otherwise, it becomes a privilege reserved for people whose choices already satisfy those in power. Religious belief does not justify using government to control our relationships or identities.
I apply the same scrutiny to arguments about economic freedom. I oppose tax cuts and deregulation that help people with wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. Reducing an obligation on an owner is not sufficient reason to support a policy if its effect is to leave other people less secure or with less control over their lives.
“At its root is a disease that has infected our politics, one that will make some political leaders do anything – including lie and incite violence – to hold on to power. That’s what we’re seeing before our very eyes.” - Rep. Greg Stanton (January 6, 2021)
Loyalty to a leader should never come before honesty and accountability. Supporters who excuse conduct they would condemn in an opponent give their leader reason to expect that loyalty regardless of how they behave. The second Trump administration has made my objections to that use of power more urgent.
Liberalism
I share liberalism’s commitments to individual rights, equal treatment under law, and democratic government. These are protections I want to preserve and extend. My criticism concerns how far formal legal freedom can take someone whose circumstances leave them little practical choice.
A person unable to afford shelter or healthcare may possess rights they have little room to exercise. That is why I share social liberalism’s concern with the material conditions of freedom. My disagreement is with versions of liberal politics that consider the work finished once a right has been recognized in law. Recognition matters; so does whether people can make use of it.
I also value democratic institutions without treating their decisions as beyond challenge. Procedures matter because we need ways to make collective decisions and contest the use of power. Following a procedure does not guarantee a just outcome. Institutions need to remain open to criticism and change when they fail the people they serve.
The left
The left’s concerns about inequality, worker power, housing, healthcare, and corporate influence are my concerns too. They are a large part of why I identify as a social democrat. My disagreements with people further left depend on what they propose and how they would put it into practice.
The aim of reducing domination does not justify giving people unchecked power to pursue it. I oppose authoritarianism and appeals to a collective good that excuse violations of civil liberties. A movement should be answerable for its means as well as its ambitions, including when I share those ambitions.
This does not make every shared obligation an unacceptable restriction on freedom. Taxes and public services can support the security people need to live independently. I accept those obligations while rejecting the claim that a collective purpose grants general authority over people’s lives. I would apply that distinction to my own side too.
Capitalism
I no longer identify as a capitalist. I judge an economic system by what people can count on and how much control they have over their lives. Finding markets useful does not commit me to defending every arrangement that allows private profit.
Profit is a poor defense of an arrangement that leaves people unsafe or without necessities. A system can permit the accumulation of wealth while leaving people without necessities or dependent on a few powerful owners. I want its defenders to address those consequences. The interests of people living under an economic system extend beyond whether someone can profit from it.
Private enterprise can have a place alongside public services, worker protections, and limits on the power of owners. Its place depends on how it works for people. Ownership does not excuse exploitation or remove responsibility for harm, any more than government authority excuses abuses committed by the state.
Socialism and communism
I no longer reject socialism as a whole. Public and collective ownership deserve consideration on their merits. I want to examine how a proposed arrangement would work, including how people would participate in its decisions.
My objection is to concentrating power and expecting those who hold it to act selflessly. Calling a government socialist or communist does not answer how people can challenge its decisions or protect their civil liberties. A promise of collective benefit does not excuse silencing people or discriminating against them. The people whose interests an institution claims to represent must still be able to hold it accountable.
I hold private power to the same standard. Moving control out of government and into a corporation solves little if people still have no say and no way to challenge those in charge. Under either form of ownership, I want to know who can make decisions, who lives with the consequences, and how those people can object.
Populism
I distrust stories that make “the people” wholly virtuous and “the elites” responsible for every problem. They encourage supporters to judge a leader by the enemy they claim to fight, while excusing what the leader actually does. People with different needs and opinions are treated as if one leader can speak for them all.
I share the anger at inequality and concentrated wealth. Those concerns deserve a response that can withstand scrutiny. I want to know how a proposed solution would help and what power it would give the people carrying it out. The seriousness of a grievance makes those questions more urgent; it does not answer them.
Listening to ordinary people is good leadership. Claiming to speak for all of them is no substitute for listening to people who disagree. I can support someone and still expect honesty, accountability, and respect for dissent. Support should leave those expectations intact.