Don't worry; I'm not going to be running for office anytime soon. But, because I'm a pretentious bastard, I feel like letting everyone know the beliefs I tend to hold politically. Disagree with me? Great! Drop me an email, and we can argue.
It is the government's job to, as laid out in the Preamble to the US Constitution, form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ... . I interpret this broadly to mean that the function of the government is to maximize the welfare of the people; the major categories in which it must act to fulfill its function are twofold:
In most markets, a free, capitalistic system is essential to the efficient distribution of goods. In fact, a free system is essential in the vast majority of markets: competition lowers prices and increases quality in products. Since governments exist to serve citizens and maximize their citizens' welfare, aggressive antitrust legislation ought to be pursued. This will prevent market failures, such as monopolization of an otherwise free market, or corporations gaining lobbying power at the expense of the lobbying power of the citizens. There are, however, several important exceptions to the rule of thumb that markets ought to be relatively free of government influence (with the exception of antitrust legislation):
Health care: The government's job is to ensure the welfare of its citizens. Therefore, I advocate the creation of a baseline governmental insurance policy for each citizen that guarantees at least partial coverage of medical procedures necessary to live and function. No person ought to be forced to choose between bankruptcy and health. Further, a public dialogue ought be opened to explore the demarcations of the social insurance policy's guaranteed coverage. Please note that this policy ought to be minimal, and its existence does not preclude the existence of far more comprehensive health care plans.
Natural monopolies: A natural monopoly is a market in which only one firm can feasibly control the resource. Such firms ought to be socialized, or at least heavily regulated, in order for the government to maximize the welfare of the citizenry by providing cheap and quality service.
Minimum wage: It is the government's job to ensure the welfare of the citizens. Part of this is by guaranteeing no citizen will starve when he works. While minimum wages that are too high possess definite negative ramifications for the economy, the real minimum wage has been decreasing for nearly two decades, and before that, the economy worked just fine. I therefore support raising the minimum wage to levels which make it possible for people to live on it, and increasing it with inflation as time progresses to prevent the real wage from dropping as it has. I currently believe an appropriate minimum wage to be $7.15 per hour, with cost of living increases equal to inflation; I am, however, as always, amenable to changing my position upon the presentation of a coherent and rational argument to the contrary.
The government does not exist to force citizens to adhere to any particular moral code. It exists to balance freedom and order; to that end, the government maintains order by restricting or prohibiting behaviors which are clearly harmful to other citizens, and permitting behavior which is not harmful. Therefore, my positions on the following issues are as follows:
Family: The family is the foundation of society; the institution of marriage is the foundation of the family. Therefore, in order to maintain a strong and healthy society, the government's definition marriage ought to be extended to include any loving, long-term monogamous commitment in order to promote the welfare of society as well as to afford equal treatment to all citizens beneath the law: government ought not be in the business of discriminating on characteristics that harm nobody. The decay of marriage in general (over 50% of marriages end in divorce!) betrays a lack of maturity and long-term commitment in our society, and it is therefore in the government's best interest to recognize that fact. It is not, however, the government's job to legislate against behavior when doing so restricts freedom more than the harm that might arise otherwise: therefore, the government ought not legislate against the tide of divorces directly, but rather institute reforms in the educational system to attack the problem at its roots. To clarify, the major issue facing the institution of the family in America right now is not gay marriage, but rather divorce and the associated social trauma. Since homosexuality harms nobody, there is no harm whatsoever in redefining the word "marriage" to include gay couples and thereby ending discrimination of a minority based upon an irrelevant factor.
Abortion: Abortion is a complex issue. While the question of when a woman loses her right to choose in favor of a fetus' humanity is pertinent, more pertinent is the fact that the overwhelming number of abortions betrays a deleterious lack of sex education in the schools. Rather than legislate against abortions and risk women undergoing this invasive medical procedure in uncontrolled and unsafe situations, the government ought to attack this problem at its roots in the educational system by instituting comprehensive sex education instead of boneheaded abstinence-only programs now in place. While abstinence must be a part of any sex education program, making it the only part of the program is far riskier should adults choose to engage in a promiscuous lifestyle. That choice is theirs, and it is in the citizenry's best interest to be informed of all options regardless of their choice of lifestyle.
Scientific research: Western civilization in general, and the United States in particular, owes its world ascendency to scientific advance. Therefore, instead of cultivating a social atmosphere stifling to scientific progress, the government ought to fund and encourage research, including, but not limited to, research into high-energy particle physics, cosmology and astronomy, chemistry, biological and medical sciences, and social and economic sciences. In particular, the government ought not enforce strictures against embryonic cloning and stem cell research, especially for medicinal and therapeutic purposes, when such advancements could bring relief to the suffering of millions. Indeed, the government ought to fund and support the use of such embryos as would otherwise be discarded.
Religion and government: Religion has no place in government policy, just as government has no place restricting or prosecuting a struggle against religious beliefs. A full wall of separation ought to exist between the church and the state, as laid out in the First Amendment and subsequently interpreted by the Supreme Court. Further, a wall of separation must go both ways. In particular, the government, as a representative of the people, must not pass laws which possess only religious beliefs to motivate them; such laws not only represent a restriction on freedom without a corresponding greater increase in order, since there is no great harm being prevented, but they as well restrict action which would otherwise be permissible. Bear in mind, however, that while beliefs are not, and should remain, unrestricted, actions, since they affect other people directly, may be prohibited; to borrow an example, while fundamentalist Christianity is by no means illegal, bombing abortion clinics is, and should so remain.
Evolution and Creationism: This topic is near and dear to my heart because I find evolutionary science incredibly fascinating. Creationism, including its masquerading in a clown suit under the name "Intelligent Design", is not, has never been, and will never be science. It therefore has no place in a science classroom, and belongs instead in a comparative religions class along with Sagan's garage dragon and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
America's educational system is broken, and is churning out young men and women who possess no grasp of logic, no foresight, skewed priorities, and very few critical thinking faculties. Therefore, in order to safeguard the future, the educational system, which was designed to create blue-collar workers and send only a few elite on to universities for higher education, must be entirely restructured from the ground up. I would welcome any suggestions on what the reformed school system ought to look like and how to restructure it.
Following the study which showed urban life in America is comparable to the Bosnian war zones, the plight of America's urban centers must be taken seriously. Generational poverty, hopelessness, drugs, and gangs have become entrenched in America's inner cities: a situation that no other first world, industrial nation shares. The government, in order to increase the welfare of its citizens, must therefore work to end the cancer that has taken hold of its urban centers. While I am open to dialogue (and, indeed, dialogue must be opened) regarding how to fix urban centers, I firmly believe increased education and steps to win the war on drugs must be taken to mitigate the situation in the inner cities. Moreover, change must come from within the inner cities; reformers may expect to have the full force of the United States government behind them.
The attitudes toward drugs and prostitution are unconventional, but I claim that they are self-consistent as well as commensurate with the government's function. The war on drugs can be won in one fell swoop: I support the legalization of all drugs in tandem with gradually increasing regulation as the drug's social cost increases. Opioids such as heroin ought to be very heavily regulated and used only for medicinal purposes as well as for treating current addicts; lesser drugs, such as marijuana, ought to be as unregulated as alcohol. Heavy penalties for driving while under the influence of any drug, including alcohol, ought to be instituted. If these steps are taken in tandem with increased education as to the effects of drugs on the body, abuse of drugs can be phased out of the society without the detrimental black market effects, just as nicotine abuse has been over the past two decades.
If drugs become available from the government or legal corporations, two fell strokes will be laid that are otherwise impossible in the war on drugs: the ravaging effects of black-market drugs, including urban warfare, gangs, and bad-quality drugs, will be mitigated because the black market will no longer have need of existence; and it will be possible for the entire industry to be regulated.
Prositution, similarly, is an industry which will flourish wherever humans exist. Since it is illegal, though, it is a black market and outside of the purview of governmental regulation; therefore, egregious violations of the rights of the ladies who prostitute themselves take place. If the industry is legalized, as it has been in several Western European countries, and aggressively regulated and those regulations enforced, women who choose to prostitute themselves will no longer be forced into an underworld of drugs and illegal pimping; money and resources which meanwhile would have been wasted pursuing women whose only crime was violating social mores in a manner which harmed nobody could instead be put to use pursuing crimes which actually harm society.
At some point within the next few hundred thousand years, it is likely that an asteroid will smash into the Earth, releasing energy on impact equivalent to ten million Hiroshima bombs detonating all simultaneously. To avoid being caught in such a catastrophic mass extinction, humanity must spread and expand, as it always has. Our destiny lies in the stars. Moreover, command of space, especially if we have the ability to rain asteroids down on our enemies, is a potential avenue toward military supremacy. Toward that end, I propose that NASA begin research and eventually construction of a new class of orbiter vehicles, land men back on the moon within ten years, and have a fully constructed base on the moon within fifteen years. As well, I direct NASA to, in addition to the International Space Station, construct a fully American space station in order to conduct experiments designed toward increasing human endurance of zero-gravity environments. In the medium term, I would like to see nuclear rockets powering ships toward Mars within twenty years, and Americans mining the asteroid belt within thirty; in the long term, within a century and a half, Americans ought to have made nuclear fusion workable and will be mining the atmospheres of the gas giants for fuel to power sleeper ships and colony ships on their journeys toward the stars.
I do not subscribe to the boneheaded neoconservative foreign policy that landed us in the mess in Iraq. It is founded upon the unrealistic assumption that a liberal Western democracy is possible in Iraq, as well as ignorance of the Islamic culture prevalent in Middle Eastern countries. Rather, I eschew it for a proactive policy of encouraging social change akin to the Enlightenment in Western society by promoting science, secularism, and enlightened thinking in the Middle East. More generally, the United States must acknowledge that in an increasingly globalized society, unilateralism is an unwise and headstrong option; diplomacy is of the utmost importance. Military unilateralism moreover reduces the credibility of military threat; while the United States is capable of reducing any country to ashes in a matter of minutes, that threat will never be carried out save in the gravest of circumstances, and therefore conventional military options must always remain open. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick"; if we have thrown our stick into a sandbox and screeching shrilly at our other perceived enemies, we have no credibility whatsoever. My foreign policy therefore aims to reestablish American credibility as well as goodwill toward America in the hearts of the world.
Israel: The United States' continued support for Israel is the sorest spot in our deteriorating relationship with the Muslim world. The United States must therefore discontinue biased military and economic support for Israel, and especially our habit of writing blank checks for the Israeli state and unqualified support for Israel in the United Nations. This will go a long way to repairing perceptions of the United States in the Arab world and the rest of the first world, as well as discontinuing support for a state that is founded upon a racist premise.
Iraq: The war in Iraq has long since been lost, and it is only a question of how long the United States will continue to waste resources in that desert nation. We have successfully replaced a stable, if belligerent and inhumane, secular dictatorship with a quivering cesspool of sectarian tensions. It has proven literally impossible to maintain order throughout the country; our unilateral approach has deprived us of helpful and willing allies; and through it all, Iraq has shown no signs of improving. Because of the botched occupation and post-invasion nation-building, I see two options:
The so-called "war on terror" is not a war that can be won with military might, as neoconservative philosophy holds. Instead, it is one that must be won in the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. Try as we might, it will be impossible to fully eliminate Islamic terrorism from the world; instead, we must work to marginalize it in Muslim society. Since it is impossible to remove extreme Islamism by force, as we have found in Iraq, we must instead turn to ingratiating ourselves with the Muslim world. I therefore advocate, as above, cutting off our biased support for Israel and instead remaining impartial in the conflict. Moreover, we must continue to export our culture, and, more importantly, the thinking of the Enlightenment. In the end, we can only influence; the change must come from within the Muslim world itself, just as the liberalization and secularization of the West came from within Western culture. I am open to ideas about how to spark that change.
Meanwhile, domestically, the attacks on 9/11 signified a lack of coordination within the intelligence community instead of a lack of information overall. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to grant the government unprecedented and sweeping powers to infringe on privacy; the potential for abuse far outweighs the marginal increase in safety. Indeed, if the intelligence community does not adequately restructure itself, more information will only compound the problems.
Trade barriers weaken our economy through indulgence and deny wealth gained from trade. Therefore, I advocate free and unrestricted trade with our allies in order to strengthen and make more competitive the American economy.
Why the xenophobia in our culture today? Whatever happened to, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp! Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore"? In contrast to closed borders, I advocate recognition that America is a land of immigrants founded on immigration. Arguably our greatest gift to the world, aside from the example of democracy, is our liberal immigration policies. Not only does immigration increase diversity, it also provides innovation and increases economic potential. In addition to revitalizing the work force, liberal and open immigration policies will also cut down on illegal immigration by removing the need for a black market, as well as permitting the government to look out for the welfare of immigrants instead of forcing immigrants to fear the government discovering them, which leads to all sorts of potential abuse.
Our dependence on foreign oil is arguably our greatest handicap. It forces us to constantly meddle in the Middle East, which does not, naturally, ingratiate us with the Muslim world. Meanwhile, it makes us vulnerable to the eventual peak oil: we are consuming fossil fuels far more quickly than they can be renewed naturally, and we therefore will eventually run out of them. Toward that end, I propose broad, sweeping initiatives designed to direct our economy toward basing itself on electricity, generated by nuclear power, and hydrogen. It has been calculated that, with the present technology, there exists enough uranium on Earth to sustain humanity for millions of years.