[confused_european]

Ever since I started paying attention to politics I have considered myself quite liberal (by european standards), lately even liberalconservative. What I haven't been able to figure out though, is whether I would be a Republican or a Democrat in the States, let alone which politicians best represent my beliefs.

• I am all for free-market trade and globalisation.
• I think the government should stay out of everyone's business as much as possible.
• I am against Nationalism and Socialconservatism as they do not belong in a democratic world.
• I personally am pro-life, although I think the unborn baby's mother should be allowed to choose whether she wants to keep her kid or not.
• I think religion should stay away from politics and vice versa.
• I love immigration and believe in the equality of all races.
• I am pro-gay marriage and think it is important to fight for gay rights.
• I believe that education is key to eliminate (minimize) crime.

I think that's it for now. It's 04:04 AM in Sweden (where I live) right now and I'm in desperate need of sleep.
If you manage to find any grammatical errors in this post, please do let me know.

Ciao and good night,
Jon Persson

[J Oswald]

You sound like a libertarian. Most US libertarians wind up within either the Libertarian Party or Republican Party.

[Jackal]

I am all for free-market trade and globalisation.

Being all for free-market trade is pretty Republican. However, I am not sure what the Republican Party's stance on globalization is these days so I will say that being for globalization falls in the middle of the two parties.

I think the government should stay out of everyone's business as much as possible.

Libertarian so, as J Oswald as noted, is likely a Republican Party view.

I am against Nationalism and Socialconservatism as they do not belong in a democratic world.

Libertarians seems to be pretty nationalist but I would say that this stance is a Democratic Party-leaning Libertarian stance.

I personally am pro-life, although I think the unborn baby's mother should be allowed to choose whether she wants to keep her kid or not.

I like to call this the "Catholic Democrat" stance on abortion. However, I am considered a far-rightist and I hold this view as well, though I am sure for different reasons.

I think religion should stay away from politics and vice versa.

Democratic Party stance. The American Libertarian movement, while seemingly secular, is still ultimately run by Christians and many do not seem fond of other religions.

I love immigration and believe in the equality of all races.

Democrat (although it can be considered a soft-Republican) stance. Libertarians do not seem to like immigration and their belief is equality of all races seems be based upon where they are located.

I am pro-gay marriage and think it is important to fight for gay rights.

Libertarian Democrat.

I believe that education is key to eliminate (minimize) crime.

The general Libertarian stance on minimizing crime is arming everyone with a gun. So for this one I would say that your stance is a generic Democrat.


In all, I would say you are a Democrat with a relatively strong influence of Libertarianism.

If you are interested in looking at American politicians that are relatively close to your beliefs, I would say start with (the deceased) Ted Kennedy. He is not an exact match to your beliefs but I believe it would be a somewhat decent start.

Oh, and let's just say that I am glad you are a "confused_european" and not a "confused_american".

[confused_european]

You sound like a libertarian. Most US libertarians wind up within either the Libertarian Party or Republican Party.

Alright, fair enough.

In all, I would say you are a Democrat with a relatively strong influence of Libertarianism.

If you are interested in looking at American politicians that are relatively close to your beliefs, I would say start with (the deceased) Ted Kennedy. He is not an exact match to your beliefs but I believe it would be a somewhat decent start.

Oh, and let's just say that I am glad you are a "confused_european" and not a "confused_american".

Alright. Is it also correct to call myself, errr, a moderate Republican with some Democratic social policies?
I'll definitely have a look at Ted, then.

Haha, maybe so. But as an outsider, I can tell you how hard it is to understand American politics.

[Jackal]

Alright. Is it also correct to call myself, errr, a moderate Republican with some Democratic social policies?

Yes, you definitely can. To be honest, the two parties have so many different members on the spectrum that you could fall on either side. I would say you could be considered a soft/moderate Republican since I do not doubt that many Republicans hold views similar to your own. Some of the hardliner Republicans would probably call you a "RINO" which stands for "Republican In Name Only".

[EastCoastAmerican]

• I am all for free-market trade and globalisation.
• I think the government should stay out of everyone's business as much as possible.
• I am against Nationalism and Socialconservatism as they do not belong in a democratic world.
• I personally am pro-life, although I think the unborn baby's mother should be allowed to choose whether she wants to keep her kid or not.
• I think religion should stay away from politics and vice versa.
• I love immigration and believe in the equality of all races.
• I am pro-gay marriage and think it is important to fight for gay rights.
• I believe that education is key to eliminate (minimize) crime.

Most of your views lean closest to Libertarianism. The "fight for gay rights" is some more in line with the Democrats. Libertarians are against government suppression and persecution of gays, but they also don't believe that the government should mandate anti-discrimination laws against them in private enterprise: this extends to other forms of business discrimination as well. If a restaurant refused to serve gay people, the Libertarians would say "it's his right; it's his private property and his business." The Democrats would say "this is deplorable; this is why we need anti-discrimination laws!"

Also, many Libertarians are against the idea of marriage licenses given out by the State, for they see it as an act of government intrusion between consenting adults.

I think that Ron Paul is the congressman who leans closest to your beliefs. Here's a list of his political positions.

[tofu2011]

Ever since I started paying attention to politics I have considered myself quite liberal (by european standards), lately even liberalconservative. What I haven't been able to figure out though, is whether I would be a Republican or a Democrat in the States, let alone which politicians best represent my beliefs.

• I am all for free-market trade and globalisation.
• I think the government should stay out of everyone's business as much as possible.
• I am against Nationalism and Socialconservatism as they do not belong in a democratic world.
• I personally am pro-life, although I think the unborn baby's mother should be allowed to choose whether she wants to keep her kid or not.
• I think religion should stay away from politics and vice versa.
• I love immigration and believe in the equality of all races.
• I am pro-gay marriage and think it is important to fight for gay rights.
• I believe that education is key to eliminate (minimize) crime.

I think that's it for now. It's 04:04 AM in Sweden (where I live) right now and I'm in desperate need of sleep.
If you manage to find any grammatical errors in this post, please do let me know.

Ciao and good night,
Jon Persson

I don't see a major difference on trade between the two U.S parties but if you want an out and out free marketeer at the moment it would Mr Paul (R).

Again your stance on personal liberty and government fits nicely with Paul.

The issue of nationalism is defunct and as for Social Conservatism; this is where you depart from the Doctor I'm afraid. He may justify his opinions differently to Social Conservatives but in terms of issues like Abortion, Evolution and so on he is on board with them. Your best bet would be Obama (D) if you are completley against Social Conservatism; despite being relgious (apparently) he is the antithesis to the Religious right.

In terms of Abortion you would have to be in the Obama camp.

Religion is an interesting one because I think you also say you are pro-gay marriage? But you also say that Religion should stay out of Government and vice versa? I would like to hear you expand on this contradiction; which to be fair alot of people make, but if you want a Secular focus you would have to say Obama again.

Your love for immigration would not sit well with the majority of the Repulican party. Obama again.

Pro Gay Marriage, see above.

And finally you need to explain whether you mean Public education or not for us to gage your standpoint.

Overall I would put in the Obama to Paul class of 08. You would of voted for Obama back then but you seem to have concerns about the role of government also, you could be defined as a classic liberal.

[confused_european]

Most of your views lean closest to Libertarianism. The "fight for gay rights" is some more in line with the Democrats. Libertarians are against government suppression and persecution of gays, but they also don't believe that the government should mandate anti-discrimination laws against them in private enterprise: this extends to other forms of business discrimination as well. If a restaurant refused to serve gay people, the Libertarians would say "it's his right; it's his private property and his business." The Democrats would say "this is deplorable; this is why we need anti-discrimination laws!"

Also, many Libertarians are against the idea of marriage licenses given out by the State, for they see it as an act of government intrusion between consenting adults.

I think that Ron Paul is the congressman who leans closest to your beliefs. Here's a list of his political positions.

Okay. I always thought Libertarians (obviously) think you should be allowed to say and do whatever you want to, unless unless what you do discriminates someone else's freedom. Is this correct, or have I misinterpreted the Libertarians' views on freedom?

I don't see a major difference on trade between the two U.S parties but if you want an out and out free marketeer at the moment it would Mr Paul (R).

Really? I have always thought of the Democratic Party's trade policy as very left-leaning.

The issue of nationalism is defunct and as for Social Conservatism; this is where you depart from the Doctor I'm afraid. He may justify his opinions differently to Social Conservatives but in terms of issues like Abortion, Evolution and so on he is on board with them. Your best bet would be Obama (D) if you are completley against Social Conservatism; despite being relgious (apparently) he is the antithesis to the Religious right.

Care to explain further? I'm not sure I entirely get what you're saying.

Religion is an interesting one because I think you also say you are pro-gay marriage? But you also say that Religion should stay out of Government and vice versa? I would like to hear you expand on this contradiction; which to be fair alot of people make, but if you want a Secular focus you would have to say Obama again.

I don't see how this is a contradiction. As far as I'm concerned, none of the holy texts forbid gay marriage, but I could be wrong - I have yet to read the Bible and I have only just started reading the Quran.
I think anti-gay marriage is a social conservative policy and not necessarily truly based on religion. I could be wrong though, although I doubt it.

Your love for immigration would not sit well with the majority of the Repulican party. Obama again.

Okay. Ronald Reagan was quite an endorser of immigration though, wasn't he? Is there anyone in the Republican Party that hasn't abandoned the "Reaganist" spirit?

And finally you need to explain whether you mean Public education or not for us to gage your standpoint.

To be honest, I am not quite sure whether public education is the way to go or not. I think Sweden has a pretty solid educational system, although there is room for improvement.

I will attempt to explain our (Sweden's) educational system best I can, please bear with me.

We have public schools and private schools, however the private schools are free, just like the public ones. They (the private schools) are allowed to make profits etc.

I think the best thing to do is to get rid of all public schools (and call it good riddance), and solely rely on private education (paid by taxes). Why? (Swedish) private schools generally provide a much better education than the public ones, even though they don't have any financial advantages. I also think it is okay to profit from private education, for many reasons, one of them being it motivates the schools to compete with other schools, thus improving the overall quality of education.

Overall I would put in the Obama to Paul class of 08. You would of voted for Obama back then but you seem to have concerns about the role of government also, you could be defined as a classic liberal.

Classic liberal as in neoliberal? If so, that's what most Swedes would call me, although a good 20% would call me a "capitalist asshole" and then throw pictures of Karl Marx at me.

[EastCoastAmerican]

Okay. I always thought Libertarians (obviously) think you should be allowed to say and do whatever you want to, unless unless what you do discriminates someone else's freedom. Is this correct, or have I misinterpreted the Libertarians' views on freedom?

American Libertarians believe in a free market with minimal government interference. They believe that the general public is informed enough to buy the best products, and the companies who discriminate or provide inferior quality goods and services will fall by the wayside. In regards to the private sector, they believe that an employer or store owner has the right to sell his services to a select few; if he discriminates and his services suffer for it, then the free market took care of things. The theory is that racist businesses will suffer financially for their discrimination.

But Libertarians are against government policies which discriminate against people based upon their race and religion. Ron Paul and many Libertarians were justifiably upset over the Patriot Act and the brouhaha over the Park 51 Building (aka the "Ground Zero Mosque" in Republican circles); Paul asserted that the Republicans' attempts to restrict liberty would hurt far more people than just Muslims, and that nobody was challenging the Republicans for their bigotry against the religion's practitioners.

Ron Paul was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act solely because it forbid private establishments from discrimination based upon race; he would not want to bring the other aspects of Jim Crow laws back (the grandfather clause, "literacy" tests, etc.).

I disagree with Ron Paul's reasoning; there's still discrimination and racism in many parts of America, and several businesses would not suffer for it. If a business owner in a town full of fundamentalist Christians refused service and employment to Arabs (because he thinks they're secret Jihadists), then do you think this would negatively impact his standing in town? It probably won't. It's sad to say, but discrimination against one group of people has been traded for another in certain political and media circles.

[tofu2011]

Really? I have always thought of the Democratic Party's trade policy as very left-leaning.

Do you mean in terms of trade agreements I.E the World Trade Organisation or just general market principles? There are no concrete differences between the two U.S parties from what I can see.

Care to explain further? I'm not sure I entirely get what you're saying. :?:

I'm saying that although Paul has the same stances on social issues as a traditonal conservative would have, he has arrived at this point from a different thought process. Abortion for instance, where he has said previously that the states should resolve issues such as this and not the federal government. Whereas people such as myself oppose Abortion based on moral grounds.

I don't see how this is a contradiction. As far as I'm concerned, none of the holy texts forbid gay marriage, but I could be wrong - I have yet to read the Bible and I have only just started reading the Quran.

It's a clear contradiction, marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. Furthermore the U.S was founded on religious freedom. I think there would be uproar if we reach a point where a church HAS to marry a gay couple, thats a clear infringement on the first amendment.

Okay. Ronald Reagan was quite an endorser of immigration though, wasn't he? Is there anyone in the Republican Party that hasn't abandoned the "Reaganist" spirit?

Reagan is not the majority of the GOP, expect most nominees running for Republicans to take a tough stance on the issue.


Classical Liberalism can basically be defined as limited govermennt combined with the full liberty of it's citizens, mixed in with liberal economics.

[mikema63]

I think the best thing to do is to get rid of all public schools (and call it good riddance), and solely rely on private education (paid by taxes). Why? (Swedish) private schools generally provide a much better education than the public ones, even though they don't have any financial advantages. I also think it is okay to profit from private education, for many reasons, one of them being it motivates the schools to compete with other schools, thus improving the overall quality of education.

this sounds like charter schools to me, here in the US some schools are taxpayer funded but run like private schools and tends to be a republican libertarian right position to have. how do you feel about national vouchers that give every child a certain amount of money and the freedom to choose any public or private school (the public schools would be funded by the vouchers)?

you sound like a libertarian more or less and your definantly closer to ron paul than anyone else.