As a necessary preface to getting the most possible out of this blog, I feel the reader would benefit from a brief discussion of the philosophical and ideological principles underlying my corpus of work. I furthermore feel that describing my purpose in undertaking this endeavor will help the reader better appreciate the frame of reference from which entries are written.

This blog is very much an endeavor of interest. I write not only to persuade and inform (which I feel is a civic duty of all who take an active interest in political affairs), but more important because I enjoy it. I enjoy thinking about the issues, composing objective analyses of the issues, reading what others have to say of my work, and then engaging in constructive discussion and debate. My interests, international politics and economics, for the most part, therefore inform my writing. More importantly, I am a strident believer in objectivity and the scientific method. I find partisan politics boring and intellectually deadening. I therefore almost always avoid engaging in partisan issues–I prefer to discuss policies and realities, not stilted versions of truth. In the off chance that I do feel strongly against a political party or figure and decide to write about it (such as with some of President Bush’s policies), I strive to do it respectfully and logically. This is why my posts take on a very analytical and strategic tone.

I further avoid interjecting morality into my writing. Although I find many aspects of moral philosophy fascinating (particularly from the Enlightenment on to the age of postmodernism), I do not enjoy writing or debating about them. As the moral relativists have shown, debating morality can be a very difficult task, and often boils down to duels of rhetoric that cannot be logically resolved. I have not the time, training, or inclination to engage in such (for me) unproductive debate. Thus, I write implicitly from my own framework of morality, which I’m certainly willing to discuss here, and almost exclusively focus on analytical and strategic issues. Though I’m a believer in the calculated amorality of international relations and economics, as I shall describe below morality does play a significant role in my other beliefs.

Being as such, it would be productive to establish exactly what moral framework I’m coming from in this blog. In the following paragraphs, I’ll attempt to do so. I welcome comments about my views.

In general, I suppose, I could be called a utilitarian liberal (in the classical sense). My instincts lie fundamentally on the side of liberty and republican government. Yet I temper this view with the realization that life is far from perfect. The panacea of classical liberalism–libertarianism–is for all practical purposes impossible to achieve. History has taught us that government must become involved in the affairs of the body politic in order for society to function well and be economically productive. Government has a positive role to play in enhancing the lives of its subjects. To a point. Although government should take an active role, it must always lean on the side of limits and restraint. Government should fundamentally be minimized, rather than maximized, and should seek to give as much freedom as practically possible to the individual.

In international relations, I’m very much an adherent of the power realism school. Relations between governments are fundamentally dominated by the calculus of power, wealth, and prestige. International politics tends to be amoral and anarchic (although, of course, sometimes it isn’t). I recognize, however, that ideas can have a power of their own, and that has to be factored into the otherwise amoral calculus. I believe that war should typically be a last resort of foreign policy, and that the wise diplomat should use both hard and soft power to achieve national objectives. I diverge with the realist school in terms grand strategy; I believe that a world of democratic capitalism (with each country having its own flavor, whether it be liberal, social, or authoritarian) is a realistic and wise long-term goal for the United States. This maximizes economic prosperity and connectivity, and correspondingly lessens the benefits of militarism. Although great power war can never be truly eliminated, such a system will decrease its occurrence dramatically. Nevertheless, thinking that such a change can be effected rapidly or with force is foolhardy. It will take a century of gradualism (using a combination of soft power, hard power, and ideas) to achieve, and has to be accommodated within the framework of realpolitik, not made a replacement for it.

As far as social policy goes, I lean heavily toward the liberal line of thinking. Freedom, objectivity, humanism, and tolerance are all values that should be encouraged and inculcated. I feel that people should be treated as individuals, not as members of larger groups, and that everyone should have an opportunity to participate in society. On social issues, I’m almost universally pro-freedom (with the exception of dangerous and abusive practices such as polygamy and incest). I’m a strong defender of civil liberties, and I believe the government has little business being involved in religion (beyond, say, providing chaplains and religious services to military combatants). I’m also very much in favor of responsibility; people should be held accountable for their actions (those who break the law deserve to be punished, for instance), and individuals should be expected to support themselves in society unless they are unable to do so. Nevertheless, I understand the Burkean criticism of this line of thought and believe that Burke has a good point in regards to other societies. Whereas I promote liberalism for the United States, I believe authoritarianism is a better fit for Asian society and socialism a better fit for continental Europe.

In matters of economic policy, I categorically reject both socialism and complete laissez faire capitalism. My economic leanings comprise a mix of monetarism, Keynesianism, and classical capitalism. I believe that government has a positive role to play in regulating the economy and smoothing the business cycle. However, I strongly believe in the power of markets and think that capitalism and private property should form the core of the economic system. I think that government control should be minimized, although not excessively so (government should regulate in order to improve economic growth and competitiveness, as well as to achieving some desirable social goals, such as reducing poverty, and to correct natural market failures, such as externalities). I suppose this makes me a neoliberal.

As far as government programs go, I base my feelings firmly in the values of responsibility and efficacy. Where society or the economy inadequately provides a good or service, the government should step in and take action. This is the case for the environment, civil rights, medical care, and other issues. In taking action, the government should seek to adopt the most effective plan (typically market-driven). When dealing with issues such as welfare and retirement plans, the government should have a decided emphasis on personal responsibility. Those who can provide for themselves should be required too, and most of the funding should be reserved for those who truly cannot. The overriding theme, here, however, is to minimize government involvement. I can see government spending being in the range of 20-30% GDP. I’m very skeptical of spending rising beyond that. As far as budget deficits go, I think that they should be capped at 2% GDP per year (and the national debt should be capped at 40% GDP barring national emergency); that way, Congress can stimulate the economy without spending spiraling out of control.