Un-Liberaled Woman

Political Positions

A lot of people will ask me what my political party is. My answer is usually complex but nowadays it starts out with two words – not liberal. Although there are some policies that are associated mainly with the Democratic party I can support (a reformed drug policy, anti-capital punishment, pro-environment, equal pay for women) for the most part I find the tactics of the DNC not as effective to the U.S. when compared to policies from conservatives and libertarians.  I do consider myself right of center, but definitely not far right and MOST definitely not far left.

Here are a few political topics and my stances on them. Keep in mind this is how I currently feel. It’s not necessarily how I felt 5 years ago or will be exactly where I stand 5 years from now.

- Gay Marriage: I’m for gay rights and gay unions (via the state govt); I don’t believe in redefining ‘marriage’ to include gay marriage by the govt. I personally think the govt. should stay out of legislation that defines what a marriage is and who can legally join in a marriage together. I also don’t like the govt. implementing legislation that defines marriage as man and woman. I just think the govt. should stay out of the business of defining what relationships should be. Plus, these types of legislation usually leave out domestic relationships, many of which have more legal, combined assets than your standard marriage. If the govt. wants to use an equal term to define the legal joining of assets between two consenting adults for all types of people/commitments, then call it a union across the board. I don’t think there should ever be a federal ban on gay marriage but will respect a state’s right to govern how the majority of their citizens feel (at this point). And I don’t like how many liberals scream about how gay marriage is an equal rights violation. Too often this ‘violation’ is sold under false pretenses as if an actual benefit is being denied when it is in fact not. Calling a relationship a marriage is not a violation of an equal right, no matter what sex or sexual orientation you are.  Like in California, there are no benefits being denied – it’s just they want ‘gay union’ to be ‘gay marriage’ by the govt. in legislation. I don’t see that as an equal rights violation. The govt. can treat us equally under different classifications. You say they can’t? Then I guess we should start proposing legislation for the govt. to call us all ‘Americans’ even though many of us are different ethnicities and the govt. recognizes us as such through birth certificates, drivers licenses, etc. I mean that’s a violation of equal rights by giving us different classifications, right???  The govt. can recognize our attributes under different classifications and it not be an equal rights violation. I believe marriage to be a religious institution/term that was defined prior to a secular govt., specifically the U.S. govt., and therefore I believe the govt. has no precedent to intervene to restructure how religious institutions are defined. The church should stay out of govt. but the govt. should also stay out of the church.

- Sex education: I’m a pro-life advocate but FOR teaching about both abstinence and birth control/contraception in public schools (with the option for parents to waiver their children out). I would also love legislation that gives tax credits to hospitals that donate their health practitioners time to perform this education. My sex education came via a health teacher and basically it was just a human biology course.

- Taxes: I’m for lower taxes and any economic policy that favors small businesses, who I think are the backbone of our nation. It is clear the income tax structure is flawed and failing. I believe our country should restructure to a consumption tax which would truly make it fair for all citizens and right now my support is most behind the Fair Tax proposition. I suggest to everyone to read The Fair Tax book – it will literally open your eyes to the disgrace of our current tax revenue system and how easy it is to change if only our representatives would get on board.

- Regulation: I’m for responsible and minimal regulation of big business but I think that regulation should fall under one regulatory body that is principles-based not rules-based; And I think any politician in charge of monitoring or legislating any regulation who takes lobbying money is violating a conflict of interest that’s on the same level of insider trading.  Too often you’ll hear cries from the left of “deregulation” causing financial problems when in fact it’s mainly a case of bad regulation not deregulation.

- Environment vs. Energy Independence: I’m pro-environment and conservation BUT agree with the need to maintain an effective energy plan and to domestically produce energy so a). that we’re creating more jobs and $$ inside the US and b) so we’ll be able to keep pace in production with China and India. I see the benefits with wind and solar but also recognize the electrical-capacity storage and delivery benefits as well as cost-effectiveness of nuclear and clean coal (this is all thanks to my LEED-certified engineer of a husband)

- Unions: I’m pro-unions for union members (I come from a big “union family”) but am highly skeptical of union organizers or “fat cat” leaders that run unions (I’m just basing that on personal experience).  I do think unions work effectively in some industries, but there is also a ton of unnecessary unions like the toll booth workers who end up getting paid $20/hr. – starting. I also don’t understand the Liberal party’s logic with being pro-union but then also pro-illegal immigration/amnesty when it is apparent that illegal immigrants are taking away jobs that would otherwise be paid at the competitive rate. I think back in the day unions were very effective in representing employee benefits and stable work environments. But as industry has leaned toward more globalization and the US has increased its candidate base’s skill set I’ve seen a decrease in the necessity of unionization for employees.  As more employees invest more of a self-interest in their education and advancing steps for their career the dependence on a union to provide this seems to disappear. I think some of the current legislation supported by the far-left is not for the benefit of the average union worker but more so to keep/grow union organizers’ power and influence.

- Illegal Immigration: Speaking of illegal immigration. I’m for protecting our borders and punishing businesses (not necessarily the immigrants) for hiring illegal immigrants. You can’t really blame people for wanting to come to America so they can earn a decent wage compared to where they come from. But the way to stop this is by hurting the supply. If the supply of under-the-table jobs is not there I don’t see illegal immigration going up but going down. The argument “they take jobs that other people don’t want.” Trust me, nobody wants to work picking fruit in the fields for $10/hr. but if you paid a competitive rate of $30/hr. I’m sure you could find some legal citizens out there. But if an employer can get away with paying an illegal $10 vs. $30 legally he’s going to do it because that’s more money in his pocket. Letting business get accustomed to this is not good business sense and employers get too acclimated to a skewed version a what the fair operations cost really is. Yes, prices may rise initially when you curve this practice but ultimately you’ll see the same stead flow of the price structure on goods once you set those businesses back on the legal track of managing their operations.

- Lobbying: I despise lobbying and although it is not illegal I think it is at the core of corruption in govt.  I believe the DNC is worse about lobbying because they preach about it’s evil yet they use and depend on them just as much as the Republicans.

- Merit-Base for Govt.: And I think politicians and government workers should be held accountable for their decisions – I’ve always worked under a merit-based review process and don’t see why the same cannot be applied to the public sector in some fashion.

- Military: I strongly believe in providing for our military. (Side rant:  Too bad it’s not more of a requirement for our politicians to have served in the military or gotten an MBA vs. going to law school. I think that’s often the problem in govt. You’ve got too many law students, whose only job experience is campaigning since law school, getting elected on the notion of social issues/civil rights; but then once in office making decisions that affect the military/business vs. social issues 10:1.)  If politicians are going to make decisions regarding our military spending/structure they should be required to either talk with Generals who are in midst of war or respect the intel of the defense/intelligence depts, as well as understand they are just human and can be bound to make mistakes. I also don’t like how the DNC has treated our military since 2003. Code Pink is the worst of them, but really they’re just a bunch of idiots.