In the past, I have written exclusively about the utopian ideal of my political and economic beliefs, rather than the practical reality of them. I have referenced a fairly normal set of liberal beliefs in other posts, but have not detailed them much at all. So, I want to spend this post explaining what my "actual" beleifs are; what I mean by actual here is what I would actively like to see socially, politically, and economically in the short term, and medium long term. These are the beliefs that I feel far more confidently in their accuracy and effectiveness as improving society, as opposed to my utopian beliefs which I have very low confidence in. Thus, these beliefs are far more moderated, and would likely get me labeled as a shitlib by most leftists, even those that I know in real life. I don't care, however, as leftism as an ideology is not one that I feel attachment to in terms of my personal identity so much as the set of economic and social policies that are generally associated with leftism seem to me to be likely to produce the best outcomes for society. Thus, my practical liberal and libertarian beliefs are closer to true ideology as opposed to imagined utopia, and thus I think its important that I separate those utopian ideals from these more practical beliefs.
As I am educated in psychology, and have more of a familiarity with sociology and philosophy as opposed to economics, it is my social beliefs that I feel more confident in, and as such, that I will go into first. I am firmly grounded around personal autonomy and right to self-actualize as best as one can, and as a result, I highly value personal liberties and liberalism. Thus, any and all social beliefs are going to be downstream of my beliefs that people should be allowed to self-actualize as best as they can without restricting others ability to self-actualize. This is observed through my beliefs about total racial, ethnic, religious, gender, orientation, and sexual equality, of which are my most firmly held and confident beliefs. I additionally believe it is essential that we create as equitable world as possible where past injustices are properly accounted for such that people are able to self-actualize regardless of the history of oppression surrounding them. This does not mean that I think that any particular racial, ethnic, religious, etc. category is superior than any other or deserving of greater opportunities than any other, rather I believe that a history of oppression places limitations on people based on their demographics, and therefore the best means to allow them the opportunity to self actualize at the same rates as those who were not historically oppressed is to account for that historical oppression to some regard. What this is expressed as gets more complicated, and I am less confident in, so I will not go over them in any great detail, but things such as welfare programs, mental health outreach, economic support for disparaged communities, or affirmative action (which itself has become a hot-button topic with the recent supreme court decision surrounding it, but I don't intend to get into that here). Ultimately, however, the goal is to allow people the capacity to self-actualize as unlimited by factors that are beyond their control, and if a given policy may support this end, I would at least entertain it.
Relatedly, I am strongly opposed to censorship, government restrictions on personal expression, life, and liberty, and am vehemently opposed to authoritarianism in all its forms. Thus, I consider any policy that seeks to prevent someone from doing what they will (insofar as this action does not cause harm to someoen else) to be fundamentally wrong, and I am opposed to it. Because of this, I am confidently in favor of sexual liberation, wherein people can marry, have relations with, and raise families with someone of the same and/or opposite sex and gender, and I firmly believe that anyone can transition to any gender or sex they want at any time for any reason. This does not mean that I think that someone, say, transitioning for political reasons is "trans" in the psychological sense, but I have no desire to stop them from expressing themselves however they want; this is built upon the base axiom that if its not hurting anyone, I don't care, and neither should the government. I believe, foundationally, the government is meant to serve its people, not the otherway around (something of the inverse of the "ask not what your country can do for you", as I would say "ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you"). A government and society which serves its own ends instead of the ends of its people is a failure to its people as far as I'm concerned, and although I do not reject the existence of the state itself, I do reject a state which seeks to limit the freedoms of its people without just cause.
This connects directly to religion, as it is often religious reasons that our personal liberties are restricted (especially recently with the rise of Christian Nationalism), but I am firmly in support of the freedom to practice whatever religion you desire, and for whatever reason, and to whatever end, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. This means that you can be Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, a Dudist, I don't care; what I do care about, however, is applying your religious expectations on others, and this I am strongly against. Religion must never encroach on government, and the state and church must always be separate. Any policy decision which seeks to undermine this separation is fundamentally wrong in accordance with my beliefs.
What these beliefs mean in terms of policy is that I am in favor of laws legalizing same-sex relations, marriage, etc., in favor of laws decriminlizing drug use (but not drug distribution), am in favor of racial, ethnic, and religious equality in government, and society, and reject any laws which seek to censor art, history, or individual actors unjustly (i.e. accounting for avoidance of harm, such as bomb threats, harrassment, child exploitation and abuse materials, etc., which all should be restricted accordingly). Additionally, I am opposed to book bannings, burnings, or restrictions. I think that learning and education are essential, and it is wrong to prevent people from free access to education through books, libraries, etc.
Connected to this, I am strongly in favor of expanding education and scientific research, as I feel that society advances when people are educated, and we advance ourselves scientifically. This will be expanded upon further in the economics section, but in brief, government spending should be allocated about a priority of education and science, as I firmly believe that the future is in science, education, and progress, as a healthy democracy is one where people are educated to understand that democracy, and a country itself is healthier if it advances the sciences. I am someone who deeply values academics, and I think that it should be easier for people to have access to these academic resources through things like free or reduced caused public colleges and universities (or perhaps free or reduced cost community colleges), but once again, this will be expanded upon in the economics section.
Ultimately, I care about liberty, autonomy, justice, and scientific and social progress, and all of my particlar policy positions are downstream of my values therein. Although I am not firmly confident in my economic beliefs, or any individual policies that I would back them with my full confidence, I will back these values with that confidence, and if I was asked who I am politically, it would be through these principles.
As a caveat for this section: I am not an economist, and I have very little confidence in my economic beliefs, so these will be moderated considerably. With that said, I am moderately confident in the policies and values I will describe here.
In consideration of my values of freedom to self actualize, I support economic policies which afford the best chance at allowing the median person to self actualize. Thus, I am in favor of fairly equal distribution of economic resources within a society, which may be found through fairly substantial welfare programs in the vein of the "scandinavian" model. Less confidently, I also have tentative interest in UBI (universal basic income) programs, since they have shown success on the local level, although I would want to see how they work on a large scale before putting my full back behind it. I am also in favor of a minimum of a free option in healthcare, but ideally a universal healthcare model more common once again in the scandinavian model, thus allowing people access to healthcare regardless of their SES (social-economic status)
With relation to the distribution of economic resources, I would want to move funding away from defense and towards science, education, and social services, as I feel that military action is less essential to a healthy society as the education, development, safety, and health of its people, as well as the scientific developments it can promote and maintain. Thus, increases in educational, scientific, and social service spending is vital, and one of my more confident beliefs. I'm not suggesting removing military spending (I'm not so naive as to think such a thing is even possible let alone desirable), but at the present rate of spending more than any other nation in the world (asI am American), it seems to me that there is space in the budget to put resources into developing ourselves scientifically, socially, and educationally, not just militarily. Those who have read my pacifism papers may be surprised that I am affording any military spending at all, and to them I would remind them that these are my pragmatic beliefs, and it is not pragmatic to assume that zero military spending is possible in the modern world for America. Some defense spending is likely necessary for the explicit purpose of defense, even if we stop initiating military action, and this I think is likely unavoidable. Perhaps there is a world where the military is unnecessary, but we are very far from that world.
Fundamentally, I would want more money spent developing us as a society, and less on building the wealth of the richest among us. I think that the existence of a trillionare while people starve to death is an illustration of a deep economic sickness, and we should correct this through a greater marginal tax rate which more heavily taxes the super weatlhy, and reduces taxes on the super poor. Someone like Elon Musk should not have been able to exist, and through a more equitable taxing of the people within America, they wouldn't. I'm not saying people can't become wealthy, instead I'm suggesting that we should not see people dying in the streets while someone becomes that wealthy, and as it stands, it seems like trillionaires and an end to poverty are mutually exclusive. As a result, I would want to structure our system of taxation such that we are reducing poverty as much as possible, and it seems the best way to do that is tax the ultra rich more heavily, particularly on investments as opposed to income tax. It is important to note, however, that in practice I am not anti-capitalist in the traditional sense. Although I am socialist in ideal, in practical ideology, particularly in the short term, I am in favor of regulating markets and progressive taxation, rather than totally upending the current system. This is because I am not revolutionary, nor do I find the violence necessary for a revolution in any way desirable. Indeed, I find any violence inflicted upon someone outside of self defense to be nearly impossible to justify, and that includes the type of violence that occurs in violent revolutions. As such, if indeed socialism is superior to capitalism in achieving a free society where self-actualization is maximized, then I would still seek to achieve it through non-violent ends democratically, and gradually. Any innocent lives lost in a purported better world is unjustifiable for me. I plan on writing more on this in the future, but for the sake of this post, know that no matter how libertarian socialist I am in theory, in practice I am as shitlib as they come, and I would sooner watch capitalism continue on living than see even a single innocent life lost in the quest for a better system, when we could accomplish even 80% of our ideological goals through systematic evolution instead of revolution. Every single human life is essential, and every life lost is a tragedy, and I refuse to move from that.
When taken together, I am far closer to a Kamala Harris than a Vladimir Lenin, and my love for and value of human life will always prevent that from changing. Sure, I may be quite a bit further left in ideal than Harris (if perhaps not quite to the level of a Leninist), but I am only a socialist as far as it takes me to my end goal of a society of people free to self-actualize as they see fit, unhindered by authoritarianism and economic pain. If instead of socialism, a modified capitalism is the best means to achieve that goal, I will become a capitalist without a second thought, because the specificsystem is not what matters--what matters is the creation of a world where we can all live in it freely. To my present mind, that world is best achieved through some form of democratic and libertarian socialism, but I care a hell of a lot more about the world than the system that governs that world.
Yet still I cannot pretend that I'm an expert in economics, or anything really. I'm just Lexi, and I don't think I will ever be anything other than Lexi, and as Lexi, I can say that I know close to nothing, and should not be relied upon to know anything to be absolutely true, save one thing. Humanity is beautiful and matters, and each and every human deserves the same chance and ability to live a life that lets them be the best them they can. I have been given remarkable opportunities in my life, and remarkable privilege that has afforded me not only a comfortable life, but a life that I can strive towards a goal of self-actualization, rather than just a goal of survival. Very few people across the globe can say that, and to me this is the greatest tragedy of history. Everyone should have the opportunties to live freely and happily as I do, and my ideology, such as it is, is the fight for that opportunity for every person on this planet. For now, all I can do is promote the wellbeing of people in my own country, but maybe one day I can work towards a larger goal, of helping more people, and pushing for a global society and culture that helps each other. But probably not, I'm just Lexi, after all. Ultimately, I think the best I can do is help who I can, and try to make the world at least a little bit better every day. That's probably the best any of us can do. But I'm never gonna stop trying to make this world better for as many people as I can, because there is a beauty to humanity, and this wonderful world we live in that cannot be put to words. I am consistently stunned by the immensity of human compassion, the power of cooperation, and of connection. Every single person I see is living such a full and complex life all their own that I will never know, and that to me is one of the most beautiful things that ever could be. So many lives, so many people, so much love, and loss, and joy, and sorrow, and everything in between, and all of it is worth fighting for. I reject all notions that humans are not the most wonderful animals, as in my 26 years of life, I have yet to encounter anything quite as fantastic as us humans. So, in the end, I guess my political beliefs in practice is humanism.
Back