Are my views welcome in the Democratic Party?

[Dirk]

I am a Democrat. I am pro-labor, pro-choice, and pro-freedom. I support a well-regulated welfare state and oppose yanking the rug out from under our nation's poorest. I believe that one of our top legislative priorities should be to make the very rich pay their fair share and close the income gap. I applauded the Supreme Court's long-overdue ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act and believe the Bush Administration should face a military tribunal for their Middle East policy. No person has been a more outspoken critic of President Obama for failing to correct it than I.

Then there are those issues on which my party and I are divided. I agree that drug addicts are some of the most vulnerable members of society and that they need our help, not our scrutiny. However, drug liberalization is one of the most destructive policies we could adopt. We should not end the War on Drugs. We should change the battlefield from America's inner cities to the place where it all starts; the U.S.-Mexico border. I would sanction the use of drone warfare against cartels and the death penalty for drug trafficking. The most effective thing we could do to win this war is clamp down on the border, which brings me to my next topic, illegal "immigration."

I believe that the feasibility of deporting every illegal alien residing here is suspect and I certainly would not support such an enormous waste of resources. However, we should stand up to Congress and demand real immigration reform, not the watered-down version of what we already have that got hawked through the Senate. Illegal immigration should be stopped and legal immigration should be reduced to sustainable levels. In a nation where seven percent of its citizens are unemployed, it would be immoral to let people from neighboring countries come here illegally and take precious jobs. A "pathway to citizenship" should only be offered to aliens who are here right now so they can pay for the benefits they receive. Meanwhile, we should stem the tide of illegal aliens coming here by eliminating incentives to do so. Ending birthright citizenship, prosecuting sanctuary cities, and levying harsh fines against businesses that hire illegal aliens would be good starting points.

Finally, I share my friends' across the aisle distrust of the federal government to always do the right thing. The ATF's handling of the debacle in Waco was appropriate when you consider the circumstances (the Branch Davidians were dangerous insurrectionists, and the world is probably a safer place without them), but their actions at Ruby Ridge as well as their involvement in other snafus makes the label "jack-booted thugs" seem appropriate. Bottom line, the ATF needs serious oversight. I find it odd that the same people who decry Edward Snowden's treatment by our government support an agency that has openly engaged in some of the most flagrant sins against liberty.

TL;DR: Although I consider myself a Democrat, I support a more hawkish War on Drugs with only a marginal safety net for addicts, I oppose amnesty from a protectionist standpoint (not because I'm a xenophobic bigot who hates brown people like Tom Tancredo), and, while my distrust of big business eclipses my distrust of big government, I don't trust either.

So, if I were a congressperson, would I be welcome in the Democratic caucus?

[IceSpear]

Definitely.

While you'd have your fair share of detractors, you'd fit in much more with the Democrats than with the Republicans.

[H. Ross Peron]

Definitely.

While you'd have your fair share of detractors, you'd fit in much more with the Democrats than with the Republicans.

[PJ]

You're conservative views almost make you more electable, if anything. You'd be the perfect democratic candidate for a conservative leaning state like Arizona.

[H. Ross Peron]

You're conservative views almost make you more electable, if anything. You'd be the perfect democratic candidate for a conservative leaning state like Arizona.

He'd certainly make a far better (while electable) Democrat in the South than most Blue Dogs.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Wow, looks like I am more liberal on immigration than you.

[Indy Texas]

No offense but it's 2014. Why are you talking about Ruby Ridge? Is Helen Chenoweth visiting you in your sleep from beyond the grave or something?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Death penalty for drug trafficking? Another issue I am more liberal than you on.

[bedstuy]

I don't really understand the question here.

You're welcome to vote for Democratic candidates and register as a Democrat.  Go ahead and do that please.  But, I wouldn't vote for you or want you to be an elected official, precinct committee person, delegate to a caucus or convention.  A lot of your ideas will never be public policy because they're ridiculous, regardless of party or ideology. 

[Napoleon]

I'd rather have your kind in the other party, No offense.

[IceSpear]

I'd rather have your kind in the other party, No offense.

Well, if he was in the Republican Party, there's no doubt he'd be the most liberal Republican in the House or the Senate. On the other hand, I can think of several current Democratic officeholders who are to his right overall.

[Napoleon]

I'd rather have your kind in the other party, No offense.

Well, if he was in the Republican Party, there's no doubt he'd be the most liberal Republican in the House or the Senate. On the other hand, I can think of several current Democratic officeholders who are to his right overall.

Yes but he's presumably much younger than the average House member. Being extremely cynical about the current political climate, I focus largely on the future. (He's 17 so...extrapolate that, though he will likely change his views, hopefully becoming more liberal).

[Beet]

Definitely.

While you'd have your fair share of detractors, you'd fit in much more with the Democrats than with the Republicans.

Pretty much this. A pro Drug War position, particularly against hard drugs, is fairly standard in both parties. Immigration reform is one of many issues and some Democrats are more hawkish than others. The Branch Dividians were nuts but did the ATF handle Waco or Ruby Ridge well? No. The ATF needs to be folded into the FBI anyway. So I'd say your pretty much a standard Democrat, with one or unconventional views.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I believe that the feasibility of deporting every illegal alien residing here is suspect and I certainly would not support such an enormous waste of resources. However, we should stand up to Congress and demand real immigration reform, not the watered-down version of what we already have that got hawked through the Senate. Illegal immigration should be stopped and legal immigration should be reduced to sustainable levels. In a nation where seven percent of its citizens are unemployed, it would be immoral to let people from neighboring countries come here illegally and take precious jobs. A "pathway to citizenship" should only be offered to aliens who are here right now so they can pay for the benefits they receive. Meanwhile, we should stem the tide of illegal aliens coming here by eliminating incentives to do so. Ending birthright citizenship, prosecuting sanctuary cities, and levying harsh fines against businesses that hire illegal aliens would be good starting points.

The pathway to legalization (be it citizenship or not) is the greatest incentive for future illegal immigration (aside from the pull of jobs) precisely because it has been done so many times that nobody serious expects any mass group to not be legalized when they likewise illegally immigrate to the country. It is a perverse incentive as it is called. It seems foolish to deal with number one but perpetuate the second biggest incnetive and expect anything to change. You are on the right track thoguh considering it from the perspective of incentives.

I am leery of ending birthright citizenship because we needed a citizenship standard in the wake of Dred Scott and the 14th was the result. Ending it seems like very costly way to deal with a specific subset of the immigration issue, namely that of the so called, "anchor babies". If you create enough incentives through enforcement, such as cracking down on employers and halting the cyclical amnesty approach, the benefits of anchor baby citizenship would vanish in terms of being an incentive for illegal immigration, without having to repeal or alter it.

As for levying harsh fines, I agree but you have to have some uniform means of determination so that there is no excuse that could be used to escape such penalties. The best method is mandatory E-verify. As for presecuting sanctuary cities, I don't know how that would work exactly, but a more effective way to address it would be to tie various federal money's to entity's cooperation or hindering of federal law. You could thusly discourage sanctuary cities, in-state tuition rates and the giving of driver's licenses to illegals.

You have to decide how important this issue is for you for the Democrats will never, ever be a reliable advocate for your views on this matter.

[Dirk]

I don't really understand the question here.

You're welcome to vote for Democratic candidates and register as a Democrat.  Go ahead and do that please.  But, I wouldn't vote for you or want you to be an elected official, precinct committee person, delegate to a caucus or convention.  A lot of your ideas will never be public policy because they're ridiculous, regardless of party or ideology. 

They're not that ridiculous in retrospect when you consider that other developed nations have adopted some of them.

The question was whether or not I would be the subject of scrutiny from my fellow Democrats because of some of my more conservative views.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This. I haven't even reached the threshold for voting yet. For me to say that I am resolute in my beliefs would be a lie.

[Lief 🗽]

Obama and Bush have very different Middle East policies, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about with that.

Your views on drugs and immigration sound nice, but there's not a lot of empirical support for the conclusions you reach.

[Miles]

'Sounds good to me!

[free my dawg]

>pro-labor
>make the rich pay their fair share

With open arms. Welcome aboard.

[bedstuy]

I don't really understand the question here.

You're welcome to vote for Democratic candidates and register as a Democrat.  Go ahead and do that please.  But, I wouldn't vote for you or want you to be an elected official, precinct committee person, delegate to a caucus or convention.  A lot of your ideas will never be public policy because they're ridiculous, regardless of party or ideology. 

They're not that ridiculous in retrospect when you consider that other developed nations have adopted some of them.

The question was whether or not I would be the subject of scrutiny from my fellow Democrats because of some of my more conservative views.

Specifically, we're not going to start a war with Mexico over drug trafficking.  We're not going to put people to death for selling drugs.  We're not going to apply your impractical approach to immigration and drug trafficking. 

You also ignore several important facets of the policies you critique like drug trafficking through non-Mexico land border ports of entry and skilled labor immigration. 

That's unwelcome as bad policy generally, not based on ideology.

[morgieb]

I don't see why they wouldn't be. Would be a very good fit for large parts of the South at least.

[politicus]

The idea that immigrants "take" jobs from Americans is noxious and implicitly xenophobic.

If the immigrants dont have skills that make them able to create new jobs they are bound to cut into the existing pool of jobs (or go unemployed).

[Cassius]

The idea that immigrants "take" jobs from Americans is noxious and implicitly xenophobic.

And yet it is of course true (immigrants, generally speaking, work for less). Nevertheless, I would agree that it is more the fault of those who refuse to accept lower wages than of the immigrants themselves.

[TNF]

The idea that immigrants "take" jobs from Americans is noxious and implicitly xenophobic.

And yet it is of course true (immigrants, generally speaking, work for less). Nevertheless, I would agree that it is more the fault of those who refuse to accept lower wages than of the immigrants themselves.

Yeah, it's totally not the fault of unscrupulous employers who would pay someone $0.06 a day if they thought they could get away with it.

[courts]

this sounds legit

[Cassius]

The idea that immigrants "take" jobs from Americans is noxious and implicitly xenophobic.

And yet it is of course true (immigrants, generally speaking, work for less). Nevertheless, I would agree that it is more the fault of those who refuse to accept lower wages than of the immigrants themselves.

Yeah, it's totally not the fault of unscrupulous employers who would pay someone $0.06 a day if they thought they could get away with it.

Well, to be honest, the employers aren't being unscrupulous. They are simply trying to make a profit, which is after all the primary objective of business. Of course, workers can try to fight to get the wages that they think they deserve. But, as history has shown, they always lose in the long run.