I am an
American by birth, naturally. But it goes a little further than that. I'm at least a third-generation American on all sides of the family (all four of my grandparents were born in the US, and at least some of my great-grandparents). Being a fairly generic, mostly European ethnic mix (Welsh and Norwegian that I know about, probably some English and/or Scottish, and a bit of Cherokee), I was never really urged to think of myself as anything but an American -- not an Italian-American or Irish-American or anything of the sort. Nor was I particularly subjected to sectionalism of any sort; while I'm fond of California, where I've always lived, I don't particularly consider it the "best part" of the country.
But I'm not just American by circumstance; I'm one by avocation, as well. I believe in our basic system and principles of government. Though I would personally take the theism out, I believe in the the words of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."Further, I think the Founders designed a pretty good, resilient, stable system for securing these rights -- the checks and balances of our three branches of government -- and I like the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, most notably the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments. Ours is, ideally, a government of laws, not of men, and that is as it should be.
Of course, I'm aware we haven't always held to the principles as firmly as we should; that mistakes have been made; that no system is perfect. But I'm pretty happy with the one we've got, and think that the majority of the time, we get it right eventually.
I am a
Liberal because I believe that the government has a valid role to play in actively securing these rights for individuals. It's not enough for government to play a passive role, not itself interfering with liberty; it should be an active helper. It should do this through taking responsibility for educating the populace; through providing the infrastructure that allows commerce to take place; by protecting the environment; through consumer protection laws, through mechanisms to fight discrimination, unfair trade practices, abuse and exploitation of the weak by the strong. I do not succumb to what I think of as the Libertarian fallacy, that fewer laws means more freedom; while I believe the free market is the best mechanism yet devised for creating and distributing wealth, I believe an unregulated free market can be as oppressive of individuals as any tyrannical state. I believe in maintaining a social safety net at least strong enough to keep children from going hungry, to keep temporary economic setbacks from leading to a life of poverty, and to maintain public safety and health.
I consider myself a
Moderate, not so much in the sense that I am somewhere between Liberal and Conservative -- though I do have some centrist views -- but in the sense that I am not a radical or extremist. I recognize that I share the country and the world with people who hold some very different views than I do, and that sometimes it is necessary to compromise. Sometimes it's a matter of picking one's battles; sometimes it's a matter of tactics; other times it's genuinely a question of finding a solution everyone can live with, even if no one considers it perfect. I tend to favor working through the institutions of government and society first, resorting to civil disobedience only in cases of particular injustice and failure of government to respond; and to outright violence or revolution only when the alternative is accepting tyranny.
I am a
Democrat -- that is, a member of the Democratic Party -- because I feel it is the party that is working most consistently and effectively in support of my philosophies and interests. Some of the other parties are attractive in some senses (the Green party, for instance), but they often go too far in one direction; also, from a practical standpoint, they simply haven't got the power to effect change directly, though they can influence policy at times. If one looks historically at "third parties" in American history, you find that when one strikes a particularly popular viewpoint, one or both of the major parties co-opt their agenda; the party fades from history due to its success, rather than failure. So if, for instance, one feels the Democratic party isn't liberal enough, I think working to shift the party to the left is likely to be more effective than abandoning it for a smaller niche party.
