Personally I don't affiliate myself with one party or another. I am a bit of a contradiction I suppose. I am registered to vote as a republican, but I am an atheist and firmly disagree with much of the agenda of the republican party.
I was originally registered as an independent, however in the US you are not allowed to vote in the initial polling to determine who will be on the docket as presidential candidate unless you affiliate with one party or the other (which is discrimination and BS in my book)
Sue for it and take it to the supreme court, please. Your old enough, save us from that hassle. PLEASE.
Anyhow, I'm a conservative libertarian. The best government is one that is big enough to keep a minimum standard of living and protection, but small enough not to intrude on our daily lives.
In Australia, due to the political shift in party ideology over the past two decades, such that the relatively social-conservative Liberal Party is now slightly more social conservative still, and the relatively social-liberal Australian Labor Party is now where the Liberal Party was ten years ago and trending further that way, my political views are now actually similar to that of the moderately social-liberal Greens. However with the preference system currently the Greens hand their vote over to Labor, so it doesn't make that much of a difference. Yet. But the Greens are growing particularly since Kevin Rudd seemed to have abandoned the social liberals who voted him in (like myself, which I was none too happy about).
However the Labour Party kinda left Kevin Rudd high and dry and so as of Thursday he was replaced by his deputy, Julia Gillard. If she's as smart as I think she is, she'll insist on at least establishing where the Labor Party actually stands on a number of key issues before calling an election, which is due in the next 10 months or so. So we'll see about that.
Yet. But the Greens are growing particularly since Kevin Rudd seemed to have abandoned the social liberals who voted him in (like myself, which I was none too happy about).
Hi five for social liberalism. Ideologically I don't fully subscribe to it, but in practice, it's by far the best balance between market and command.
Personally I don't like to claim to be Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat. I consider myself a swing voter, and due to the fusion of powers, the executive wields far too much power in parliament and as such my MP won't make a difference. That's why my vote changes between Labour and Lib Dem over who will be the best local MP and do the best job in my area, rather than overall government policy.
That said, I am a social liberal, and really liked New Labour's 'Third Way' ideology, until all those trolls from North of the border invaded Downing Street and tried to spend their way out of every problem. As the Lib-Con coalition and recent emergency budget revealed, the Lib Dems are a vacuous bunch involved only in riding in ministerial cars. As for the Tories, they haven't changed a bit since Thatcher, merely rebranded their image, and I could never vote for them.
I say communism because in communism just about no one lives on the street and theoretically everyone gets paid the same, and if the country needs more doctors the government will force some people into studying to become a doctor. In case of war you'll be forced to defend your homeland.
Theoretically that is what communism is, but until it actually becomes that, democracy is what I like.
Social Democrat. I was a Liberal Democrat but I read George Orwell's books and I decided that a democratic form of socialism is better than just liberal laws. More of the people choosing what they want. Plus, European countries are quite successful.
Some irony for you while Im at it. Isn't it funny that the political party that once favored slavery (Democrats) has a black man running the show.
The Democrats in 1850-ish were Conservative and the Republicans were Liberal. Conservatives actually used to support slavery. You just made a fool of yourself and the little you know.
My "god" man, your not reading what I said correctly. Never said 2010, I was talking about in the 1850 period.(slavery in the US ended about 1865-1870)
Another thing to add: The Democrats left the Union as a Confederation. (US CIVIL WAR) They did this because they wanted to have slavery. What I used for 2010, the Democrats today (Yes the current Democrats in 2010, are the same as the Republicans back then) now have a black president. Some one who would have been a slave in the Civil War era, you know, when the Democrats were "Conservative." (CONFEDERATE)
