Party of Principle

[billydkid]

Back when I used to enjoy discussing politics in here and defending libertarianism I used to make the argument (well, it's really the Libertarian argument) that unlike virtually every other political party the Libertarians based their positions on principle (and God knows I don't want to debate libertarianism right now) and in fact the Libertarians have the principles on which their positions are based all very clearly spelled out. Someone countered that the Democratic Party was also a party of principle and I'm sure others would argue that the Republican Party is also (and probably every other party). But honestly, if I either the Reps or the Dems base their positions on principles, I have not been able to decipher what they are. I really would like to know from someone who feels they can answer what those principles are, because I honestly don't know and I do not see any pattern of positions and policy which would signal any sort of underlying and governing set of principles. This is an honest inquiry because I really don't know what are supposed to be the underlying principles of the two major parties.

 

[UserGoogol]

I feel it should be pointed out that the Green Party does have its 10 Key Values which although not quite as simple as the "Force is bad" philosophy of the Libertarian Party does show that they have some principles that are fairly integral to the party. Of course, it's the big two that are really the interesting ones.

The Democratic and Republican Parties are more complicated. Looking at their websites, there doesn't seem to be an obvious place where they actually outline a basic principle for the party. They say what they stand for, but that's more of an outline of the sorts of changes they want to make rather than being a list of principles. In their party platform, though, they do say things like "This is good because it promotes liberty and justice," which lets principles get in that way, but in a vague way.

Of course, just because the party itself is not based on principles does not mean that the actual politicians aren't based on principle. But because of the way our political system works, it's pragmatic to keep your principles to yourself. Two people can arrive at the same ideas for how the government should be based on radically different principles, and since it is ideas about how the government should be that are actually turned into how the government is, it is more logical to organize yourself that way. I think that as long as voting is done by first-past-the-post, having parties explicitly organized around principle will be a very third party thing to do.

 

[RandFan]

Back when I used to enjoy discussing politics in here and defending libertarianism I used to make the argument (well, it's really the Libertarian argument) that unlike virtually every other political party the Libertarians based their positions on principle (and God knows I don't want to debate libertarianism right now) and in fact the Libertarians have the principles on which their positions are based all very clearly spelled out. Someone countered that the Democratic Party was also a party of principle and I'm sure others would argue that the Republican Party is also (and probably every other party). But honestly, if I either the Reps or the Dems base their positions on principles, I have not been able to decipher what they are. I really would like to know from someone who feels they can answer what those principles are, because I honestly don't know and I do not see any pattern of positions and policy which would signal any sort of underlying and governing set of principles. This is an honest inquiry because I really don't know what are supposed to be the underlying principles of the two major parties.

Hey Billy,

I'll give you a short list of what I perceive are some of the principles.

I would say freedom is an overriding principle for both. I got to visit the Ceser Chavez Center this last week so I'm particularly impressed to say that Dem's also stress the principle of human dignity, justice and equality. Republicans are also big on freedom and justice but also principles of patriotism and national cohesion.

These are ideals and are often lost in the rough and tumble world of politics. I certainly don't claim that they are on the hearts and minds of most members of either party.

 

[MajorOrgan]

It's easy to stick to principles when you have no power (and thus no chance) to violate them.

 

[Admiral]

It's easy to stick to principles when you have no power (and thus no chance) to violate them.

That's absolutely true. If the Libertarian Party became a prominent force in politics, I'd bet on them losing a lot of their principles and approaching maybe a "half-Democrat, half-Republican" point where they are kinda sorta liberal in social issues (just like the Democrats) and kinda sorta conservative in fiscal issues. Obviously, Libertarians gaining such significant power is so unlikely that we could hypothesize all we want...

However, it's simply not true that libertarians only have principles when they're not in power. Let's look the example of Ron Paul, a Congressman from Texas. There's no question that he has firm principles and sticks to them (you probably disagree with them, but that's not the point).

Ron Paul was elected to Congress as a Republican, but there's absolutely no question that he's a libertarian. Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for the 1988 Presidential race, he addressed the 2004 Libertarian National Convention, and, most importantly, even a three minute look at his position on issues removes any doubt.

My point is, though, that even after he was elected to Congress he hasn't compromised his principles. If he doesn't believe the federal government is Constitutionally authorized to do something, he opposes it however popular it is.

He opposes nearly every form of expansion of government spending, including voting against every presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor (including ones that were passed unanimously in the House like Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa, and Charles Schultz) because, as he says, "It's easy to be generous with other people's money." (Incidentally, in cases like Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa, and Charles Schultz, he said he WOULD support giving the medal if the Representatives paid for it themselves, and offered $100 of his own money to help pay for the medal. Unsurprisingly, his offer wasn't matched by his collegues).

The important thing is, he doesn't back down from his insistence on limiting the power of the federal government to ONLY the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, even if that makes him take unpopular and lonely positions. If that's not sticking to his principles even when he has power, then what is?

 

[RandFan]

However, it's simply not true that libertarians only have principles when they're not in power. Let's look the example of Ron Paul, a Congressman from Texas. There's no question that he has firm principles and sticks to them (you probably disagree with them, but that's not the point).

I think you've made an important if unintended point. Principles can only be realized by individuals. The principles of a party are only as valid as the people who live or don't live by those principles.

 

[MajorOrgan]

Admiral, the OP was making the point that the Libertarian Party is more principled than others such as the Democrats and Republicans. Find any party faithful and ask them if their party is principled and if the opposition isn't. I'm very aware of Mr. Paul, and do find him consistent and principled. However, the idea that the Libertarian Party would be more principled after twenty years of controlling congress than any other party is laughable. Sure, they might push through a lot of ideological (and potentially good) legislation at first, but do you really think they would enthusiastically support government transparency when they are the government?

 

[Admiral]

Admiral, the OP was making the point that the Libertarian Party is more principled than others such as the Democrats and Republicans. Find any party faithful and ask them if their party is principled and if the opposition isn't. I'm very aware of Mr. Paul, and do find him consistent and principled. However, the idea that the Libertarian Party would be more principled after twenty years of controlling congress than any other party is laughable. Sure, they might push through a lot of ideological (and potentially good) legislation at first, but do you really think they would enthusiastically support government transparency when they are the government?

If you read the first paragraph of my post, you'll see I agree with you.

Incidentally, it looks like the "Movimiento Libertario" in Costa Rica has shown a similar trend after it gained some power in the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_Libertario

ETA: I'm not an anarchist by any stretch, but this is a pretty good argument for anarchism- people who want the role of controlling other people's lives should be the LAST people who should be allowed to.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Back when I used to enjoy discussing politics in here and defending libertarianism I used to make the argument (well, it's really the Libertarian argument) that unlike virtually every other political party the Libertarians based their positions on principle (and God knows I don't want to debate libertarianism right now) and in fact the Libertarians have the principles on which their positions are based all very clearly spelled out. Someone countered that the Democratic Party was also a party of principle and I'm sure others would argue that the Republican Party is also (and probably every other party). But honestly, if I either the Reps or the Dems base their positions on principles, I have not been able to decipher what they are. I really would like to know from someone who feels they can answer what those principles are, because I honestly don't know and I do not see any pattern of positions and policy which would signal any sort of underlying and governing set of principles. This is an honest inquiry because I really don't know what are supposed to be the underlying principles of the two major parties.

Because the republicans and democrates are more popular because they encompas many beliefs. The way the rules work makes a two party system the most stable in america so politicians want to belong to one or the other, so no one side will have such monolithic ideas that are aplicable to everything, as they are alliances of disparate views.

For example Evangelicals and business interests are not natural allies but the part tries to serve both.

 

[Kerberos]

Back when I used to enjoy discussing politics in here and defending libertarianism I used to make the argument (well, it's really the Libertarian argument) that unlike virtually every other political party the Libertarians based their positions on principle (and God knows I don't want to debate libertarianism right now) and in fact the Libertarians have the principles on which their positions are based all very clearly spelled out. Someone countered that the Democratic Party was also a party of principle and I'm sure others would argue that the Republican Party is also (and probably every other party). But honestly, if I either the Reps or the Dems base their positions on principles, I have not been able to decipher what they are. I really would like to know from someone who feels they can answer what those principles are, because I honestly don't know and I do not see any pattern of positions and policy which would signal any sort of underlying and governing set of principles. This is an honest inquiry because I really don't know what are supposed to be the underlying principles of the two major parties.

Personally I don't believe that any simple and clear set of principles can possibly encomspass the complexity of the real world. Clear and uncompromissing principles are the priviledge of the powerless.

 

[Darat]

I am these days wary of political parties with "principles" (I'm using the definition for "principles" that political parties seem to use e.g. more to do with an ideological stance).

I want their policies to be decided as much as possible on evidence - so if a particular goal can be achieved best via a free market solution I don't want a political party to say "one of our principles is that the free market is bad" and therefore not implement that solution.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

He opposes nearly every form of expansion of government spending, including voting against every presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor (including ones that were passed unanimously in the House like Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa, and Charles Schultz) because, as he says, "It's easy to be generous with other people's money." (Incidentally, in cases like Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa, and Charles Schultz, he said he WOULD support giving the medal if the Representatives paid for it themselves, and offered $100 of his own money to help pay for the medal. Unsurprisingly, his offer wasn't matched by his collegues).

The important thing is, he doesn't back down from his insistence on limiting the power of the federal government to ONLY the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, even if that makes him take unpopular and lonely positions. If that's not sticking to his principles even when he has power, then what is?...snip...

He sounds as if he is a good example of what I mean about ideology/principles getting in the way of implementing the best policies that we can.

 

[Michael Redman]

Dems: hate god, hate America, hate personal responsibility.

Repubs: fundamentalist Christian fascisms where only corporations are free to do as they like.

Libs: remove government and all anti-social behavior will magically disappear.

Green: only the planet has rights.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Dems: hate god, hate America, hate personal responsibility.

Repubs: fundamentalist Christian fascisms where only corporations are free to do as they like.

Libs: remove government and all anti-social behavior will magically disappear.

Green: only the planet has rights.

Communists: all your State are belong to us.

DR

 

[gnome]

Heard this suggestion once of the main principle of liberals vs. conservatives... though this gets distorted in actual party politics of dems vs. republicans...

Conservatives believe in minimizing the use of government resources to essential functions.

Liberals believe that the nation can (and should) benefit from using government resources applied to certain problems or opportunities.

 

[Michael Redman]

Back to the OP, I do think that you could say (being generous) the current Democratic party holds to the principle that government is a tool for society to level the playing field, and remove the inequities inherent in society, allowing the most people the opportunity to succeed, and providing a safety net so that those who try and fail do not suffer long and are sooner in position to try again. Democrats tend to believe that society is advanced by directed common effort.

Meanwhile, the Republicans believe the government should be used to enforce the rule of law and the moral stability of the society, and should otherwise refrain from social engineering, because government involvement in such matters results in worse outcomes than allowing individual complete economic freedom to fail or succeed as they are able. Republicans tend to believe that societal advancement is incident to individual success.

 

[gnome]

Back to the OP, I do think that you could say (being generous) the current Democratic party holds to the principle that government is a tool for society to level the playing field, and remove the inequities inherent in society, allowing the most people the opportunity to succeed, and providing a safety net so that those who try and fail do not suffer long and are sooner in position to try again. Democrats tend to believe that society is advanced by directed common effort.

Meanwhile, the Republicans believe the government should be used to enforce the rule of law and the moral stability of the society, and should otherwise refrain from social engineering, because government involvement in such matters results in worse outcomes than allowing individual complete economic freedom to fail or succeed as they are able. Republicans tend to believe that societal advancement is incident to individual success.

This is very well put, I would only add that most liberals would not deny the benefit of individual success, and believe in a blend of individualism and "directed common effort"... thank you for that phrase, I think I will use it elsewhere if I may.

 

[Michael Redman]

This is very well put, I would only add that most liberals would not deny the benefit of individual success, and believe in a blend of individualism and "directed common effort"... thank you for that phrase, I think I will use it elsewhere if I may.

Thanks. I agree that liberals believe in the importance of individual success, and that also conservatives believe in common cause. At least, those among both groups that are sane.

 

[billydkid]

Admiral, the OP was making the point that the Libertarian Party is more principled than others such as the Democrats and Republicans. Find any party faithful and ask them if their party is principled and if the opposition isn't. I'm very aware of Mr. Paul, and do find him consistent and principled. However, the idea that the Libertarian Party would be more principled after twenty years of controlling congress than any other party is laughable. Sure, they might push through a lot of ideological (and potentially good) legislation at first, but do you really think they would enthusiastically support government transparency when they are the government?

I'm not sure that is exactly the point I was making. What I am getting at is that their policy positions are based on a certain set of principles - which one may agree or disagree with. In that sense, yes I am saying they are "more principled", but necessarily in the way that expression might typically be used. I understand the libertarians positions and can link them back to certain principles which those positions are intended to uphold.

I do happen to believe that the Libertarians are more principled, but I would have no way to know whether or not the Dems or Reps are principled or not since I don't have clue what their principles are. For all I know their fundamental guiding principle might be that the best approach to governing is to take the path of least resistance and expediency is the most important consideration. If that is the case they are very highly principled. The Libertarians have quite clearly spelled out the principles on which they base their positions. That can not be said of the major parties and certainly one can not deduce their governing principle based on their position and policies. Who can say if they are adhering to their principles?

 

[billydkid]

Personally I don't believe that any simple and clear set of principles can possibly encomspass the complexity of the real world. Clear and uncompromissing principles are the priviledge of the powerless.

I really have to disagree here. By their nature principles are broad and intended to cover a broad spectrum of (maybe all) practicalities. One of the most famous statements of principle is the Declaration of Independence. "All men are created equal." As a general statement of principle I can't see any circumstances where that principle can legitimately be forsaken. Or the principle that the people have a right to a just government and that when government becomes unjust people are under no obligation to support it or endure.

This is one version of the libertarian principles:

That all people possess certain unalienable natural rights, and that among these are rights to life, liberty, justly acquired property, and self-governance.

That the only moral basis of government is the preservation and protection of unalienable natural rights.

That no person or institution, public or private, has the right to initiate the use of physical force or fraud against another person, and that all people are bound, without contract, to abstain from infringing upon the natural rights of other people.

That all people are entitled to choose their own lifestyles, as long as they do not forcibly impose their values on others.

That the voluntary and unrestricted exchange of goods and services is fundamental to a peaceful and harmonious society.

Now, if you actually believe in these principles I do not see how adhering to them could in any way hinder the exercise of just governing and any expediency taken which overrides them would almost certainly be an injustice.