Basically, post your top 3 biggest influences on your political ideology. Feel free to provide reasons why. Should be a good chance to get to know each other's political brains better.

My 3:

John Rawls
Jeffrey Sachs
and for politicians, go w/ Robert Kennedy

I'll provide reasons later when I have time.

Go!

6/10/2009 10:10:22 PM

Genghis Kahn
Genghis Kahn
Genghis Kahn

6/10/2009 10:20:59 PM

^I thought it was "Khan," but he should win the imaginary award for best leader/politician ever.

6/10/2009 10:29:44 PM

Alexander Hamilton proposed a strong and capable government back when Tom Jefferson was telling everybody to farm and supporting a weak fed...you know, unless he was in office or something. Hamilton was also pretty much the only founding father who was not only opposed to slavery but also maintained that the races were equal, again as opposed to Libertarian poster child Jefferson, who had a fuck ton of slaves that he fucked a ton.

Teddy Roosevelt showed that we could have a progressive and good country while still maintaining (and demonstrating) our ability to beat the shit out of bad guys. He managed to fight for the little guy while not being a raging "socialist type." Yes, the administrations he oversaw in some American territories was pretty bad, but for his time, I think he did pretty damn well.

Harry Truman* was dumped into the Presidency with very little knowledge and still managed to take in information and make practical, levelheaded decisions. He may not have been the most brilliant politician in American history, but he did a hell of a lot for a guy in his position, and seemed to do it in a mostly reasonable manner.

*-I'm sure about the first two, less so about Truman. Don't get me wrong -- I have huge respect for the man -- but maybe if I thought about it longer I would pick someone else to take his place. I'll consider the question.

6/10/2009 11:41:41 PM

franklin

hendrix

nast

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 11:45 PM. Reason : american heroes i guess]

6/10/2009 11:42:25 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure about the first two, less so about Truman. Don't get me wrong -- I have huge respect for the man -- but maybe if I thought about it longer I would pick someone else to take his place. I'll consider the question."

Yeah, I'm sure I'll revise mine. But here are the explanations:

Rawls: probably the best at articulating the idea of justice as fairness, and in that illustrated that liberty and at least some form of equality was possible in a liberal republican system, updating the ideas of people like JS Mill.

Sachs: today's best advocate for welfare capitalism. realizes that more is needed than just a robust market to bring about economic stability. some criticize him for his efforts in the privatizing of USSR industries too quickly, but his maintenance of some form of social welfare in nations like Poland allowed for a quicker transition to market systems (as contrasted with the Friedman perspective that social welfare is a hindrance).

RFK: The most socially liberal of the Kennedys. Defended civil rights as the law. Went after organized crime. Believed in a vigilant but not overly aggressive Cold War policy.

Quote :

"Alexander Hamilton proposed a strong and capable government back when Tom Jefferson was telling everybody to farm and supporting a weak fed...you know, unless he was in office or something. Hamilton was also pretty much the only founding father who was not only opposed to slavery but also maintained that the races were equal, again as opposed to Libertarian poster child Jefferson, who had a fuck ton of slaves that he fucked a ton."

I think Hamilton is especially important in that, without his articulation of a vision of a national economy in the early days of the nation, we might not have become an industrial power when we did. People love Jefferson, and he was a noble guy in many cases, but his vision of society would have put us more on par with an agrarian nation of the time like Russia, not France or the UK.

I think he'd be in my top 5 or 6 or 7.

[Edited on June 11, 2009 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2009 12:04:33 AM

Thomas Jefferson
Marcus Aurelius
King David Henry VIII

[Edited on June 11, 2009 at 12:39 AM. Reason : -]

6/11/2009 12:38:53 AM

jesus
ghandi
oliver north

6/11/2009 1:14:02 AM

i read that noam chomsky guys wiki and he seems pretty cool
i am a fan of bob gates
anwar sadat?

idk this is hard

6/11/2009 1:16:43 AM

Octavian Caesar (Caesar Augustus)
Julius Caesar
Theodore Roosevelt

I'll give reasons at some point maybe.

6/11/2009 1:23:08 AM

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.

6/11/2009 1:38:03 AM

George Washington - could have easily let the Continental Army disintegrate countless times, could have become King of the US, and could have let the country die in its infancy during the early years. Instead Washington did what few great politicians have - he obtained great power, used it wisely, and then stepped away when the time called for it. Few of the "founding fathers" deserve that title as much as Washington. Without Washington the Revolution would have failed in spectacular fashion. His stable leadership was a big reason the country didn't collapse upon itself. In short, Washington was everything you could ask for in a politician.

6/11/2009 8:34:45 AM

What is the point of this BS thread? Should I be listing famous people that align themselves with what I consider my "political ideology"? Instead I'll list the people that have actually had the biggest influences on my political ideology:

Myself.
My father.
ummmm....whomever really invented the Internet.

6/11/2009 10:00:03 AM

Quote :

"What is the point of this BS thread? Should I be listing famous people that align themselves with what I consider my "political ideology"? Instead I'll list the people that have actually had the biggest influences on my political ideology: Myself. My father. ummmm....whomever really invented the Internet."

you're not a unique snowflake

6/11/2009 10:08:35 AM

I'm not??? Thank you for helping me achieve Enlightenment.

Let me be more specific. I was being honest. I'm sure if anyone actually took a second to reflect how their political ideologies were formed, their parents should be on the list.

Maybe you should have called this thread, "name some political people that you think are cool then show how smart you are by saying profound things about them or quoting them".

[Edited on June 11, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason : explanation]

6/11/2009 10:45:17 AM

Quote :

"I'm sure if anyone actually took a second to reflect how their political ideologies were formed, their parents should be on the list."

Not so sure about this. My parents, at least, are pretty apolitical. Dad votes liberal and mom votes conservative, but neither of them talks about it very much except to make fun of the other. In fact, I'm just about the only politically vocal member of my entire family. Given how young and politicized the soap box is, I doubt I'm the only one in a comparable situation.

Of course, that's all beside the point. PinkandBlack didn't call this thread "post your top 3 political influences," he called it "post your top three political heroes" (although admittedly he did fuck that up a little bit in the op)

6/11/2009 11:46:25 AM

Quote :

"People love Jefferson, and he was a noble guy in many cases, but his vision of society would have put us more on par with an agrarian nation of the time like Russia, not France or the UK."

How so?

6/11/2009 1:13:11 PM

i guess i was subliminally influenced by my parents...growing up they never talked to me about politics. but they also never took me to church, and were pretty against having a gun in their house. thats probably why i dont give a fuck about gun control laws and hate evangelicals. and i love abortion. i definitely became a democrat on my own. i just always kinda thought they were better than the republicans(probably because most of my memories start with the clinton administration which i am particularly fond of). at my hs, most of the kids were indoctrinated from their redneck parents to be republican no matter what. of the "smart kids" i was like 1 of 4 liberals(out of lets say the top 20 students in the school). my stepdad is more politically inclined than my mom, but i'd say both of them are more aligned with dems than repubs. my parents are pretty centrist as am i, but i would def side with dems over republicans

[Edited on June 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2009 1:21:46 PM

Heroes: Washington, Adams, Lincoln - Heroes are pretty easy. Influences would take some extra thought. Milton Friedman and Adams perhaps.

I take some pride in the number of American names that come to mind.

6/11/2009 3:01:26 PM

ron
motherfuckin
paul

6/11/2009 6:11:19 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure if anyone actually took a second to reflect how their political ideologies were formed"

My picks still apply. Whether it be heroes or influences my list stays the same, because they have had the biggest influences on the political world I live in and want to live in.

Marcus Aurelius was the greatest example of a good leader's treatment of the people. He knew he didn't have the best system to work with but he still worked for the good of the people, which was his responsibility to do.

I had to use an American to reflect my views, and Jefferson's personal code of ethics and beliefs are the closest to my view of the "perfect America" than any other president. It would be impossible to enact his vision today, but had we gone more in his direction, we would not have been in such a mess in different points of history.

I crossed off King David since its debatable if he existed or not, but he is my biggest role model of all real and unreal time. He had his flaws, and did some shitty things here and there, but ultimately worked for the betterment of the kingdom and the people. He is the prime example of the common man leading the common people, complete with human flaws and human emotions. He was a warrior who was never afraid to cry in public, and he mourned every soldier's death.

I need more time to go into Henry VIII than I have right now so I'll comment later.

6/11/2009 6:50:45 PM

Washington
Lincoln
FDR

6/11/2009 7:46:24 PM

Quote :

"How so?"

Well judging by his actual historical writings and now what people infer about him based on his admiration for laizzes faire, Jefferson showed little interest in the sort of industry that was beginning in Britain around this time. Hamilton certainly did, advocating everything from private dams for factories to public investments in roads and such.

Jefferson was also fiercely skeptical and distrusting of financiers and cities in general.

Hamilton's central bank was one of those financing institutions Jefferson had in mind. But before the bank, the US had around 50 different currencies in circulation, many of them foreign, most of them highly unstable. This allowed speculators to take advantage of this uncertainty to their advantage. The bank helped establish some financial order, allowed the nation to build up credit, and lend to private industry, which it did.

I think you might be thinking of Jefferson in the terms of modern American libertarianism, the Friedman (or maybe even the crazy Austrian) type. You're thinking that Jefferson's laizzes faire would have led to a business boom since it's "libertarian". But really his libertarianism was more based in the ideas of the French physiocrats and agrarian idealism. That stuff might have occurred under his system, but Jefferson really had no interest in it.

6/11/2009 10:20:04 PM

^However, by the nature of his hands-off involvement with economic affairs, how would his "vision" had any major impact on the direction of the economy?

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 7:03 AM. Reason : ,]

6/12/2009 7:00:17 AM

i know what you're thinking here, and i'll stick to what i said: it would have been difficult for the nation given its state at the time to develop a national economy without infrastructure and a central bank for credit/currency issues but I know you're not going to agree since you've made it clear that you probably don't believe in any gov. involvement, even of this sort.

you would have likely had some strong regional economies, but it's not clear that there would have been a true national economy without the investments that were made. shit, without the national road you might not have had the midwest become tied to the north (and I know you're probably thinking "well private citizens could have done that, but consider that it was private citizens who wanted these, but had to borrow millions from some government to build such things. see: erie canal)

i'm not sure what you're field is, but a majority of historians who study the early national period admit that the American/National System was successful in building America into an industrial power. This is no way means its right for a globalized world. It isn't. I'm sure most libertarians who are more familiar with today's outlook on free trade and believe that the Chicago or Austrian prospectives are laws and not simply hypotheses would disagree, but your northern factories would have had a very hard time competing with the dominant Europeans without some help.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 2:31:05 PM

Preston Brooks

Quote :

"Washington Lincoln FDR"

cliche much?

6/12/2009 3:31:25 PM

Quote :

"Went after organized crime."

worked out well for him.

6/12/2009 4:48:46 PM

DYLAN

DYLAN

DYLAN

DYLAN

AND DYLAN

6/12/2009 4:55:09 PM

He spit hot fire

6/12/2009 4:57:22 PM

Churchill

6/14/2009 2:12:18 PM

this is like describing your top 3 diseases

...

i guess

washington (giving up power)
gandhi("thinking outside of the box" with general pacifist philosophy... i mean... it worked, who would of thunk it)
eisenhower (insightful on the power of the military-industrial complex)

[Edited on June 14, 2009 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2009 2:49:48 PM

Influences or Heros? I'll go with influences (in no particular order):

A) Paul Krugman
B) Milton Friedman
C) Amartya Sen
D) James Buchanan

Krugman and Friedman both fundamentally changed the way I think about how markets operate, which covers about 90% of domestic policy imo. Specific sources include Capitalism and Freedom, Free to Choose for Friedman; Pop Internationalism, and the Return of Depression Economics for Krugman.

From a more philosophical perspective, I don't know much about Sen's other work, but his book Inequality Re-examined changed the way I think about how market outcomes should be evaluated and what the proper aims of government should be.

But even when considering things from a philosophical perspective, you can't escape political realities. Buchanan taught me about that are many barriers to achieving higher aims through democratic government because politicians and bureaucrats face incentives like the rest of us, and democracy doesn't always align those incentives in favor of the "greater good", whatever you want to call it.

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ``]

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ``]

6/16/2009 4:18:50 PM

wow, a few years ago Reagan would be PLASTERED all over this thread.

whats changed?

6/16/2009 4:28:21 PM

ron paul,
ros perot,
dennis kusinich

6/17/2009 1:09:59 AM

Quote :

"Churchill"

CHURCHILL!

6/17/2009 1:39:59 AM