Subjects where you diverge from your ideology

[Vosem]

Although generally minarchist and convinced that shrinking the influence of government (or organized religion, or regimented Janteloven society, or other domineering influences) over individuals is good in and of itself, I tend to think that a universal mandatory curriculum would be a good thing (so long as the study of additional subjects is never censored, of course); I think it is fair for government to mandate that all children learn some amount of civics or mathematics or biology. I think conservation of parkland (or, more generally, the preservation of commons) is also a legitimate task for governments.

I generally continue to believe in military intervention to spread freedom and capitalism, but over the course of my time in the Atlas community this has become less central to my worldview (with my opposition to the Libyan intervention in 2011, and its subsequent terrible results, being a turning point for me). I now think that we should try to solve some of our domestic problems first, and am less likely to support a candidate depicting themselves as a hawk. This has brought me further in line with orthodox libertarianism, I guess, so it might not be all that divergent.

I agree with John Dule that a competitive free market cannot exist without some regulation (as you would otherwise, among other issues, have runaway competition-winners erecting monopolies and preventing the continuation of competitive free markets); I would see ensuring the persistence of competition in the market as one of the government's most important tasks. I think this is also pretty standard for libertarians, but perhaps it is divergent.

[Ancestral Republican]

Immigration for high-skilled industries from countries like India and China. We don't need doctors and engineers from elsewhere, we need to make education better here so Americans are filling up those jobs. And American universities (especially public ones) should have a duty to educate all of the American students they can accommodate. If tuition is too high for anyone except the children of wealthy Guangzhou families, then you have a fundamental failure in your educational mission.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Immigration is the big issue where I deviate from most conservatives.  We can debate what to do going forward all day, but I simply do not think that it's the right thing to deport 12 million people who are in this country today.  And, I tend to believe that the only immigration and trade restrictions should be for national security and/or sanctionary purposes.  I also think the idea of a wall is a meaningless proxy debate, as it's probably not the best way to stop illegal immigration.  Now, I could support a high-tech "virtual wall" of sorts.

I also have taken offense to the recent trend in the right towards conspiracy theories.  I'm so against conspiracy theories that I don't even think Epstein was murdered (which pretty much everyone seems to accept).  One of the chief concerning ones to me is the anti-vaxxer movement.  I'm a strong believer in herd immunity as a solution to viruses.  That explains my desired approach to covid (just get it over with by letting it run through all the low-risk people), but, when there's a better option to achieve herd immunity (i.e. a vaccine), we must all take it.

My other disagreement has been on some of the racial stuff this summer, but I would strongly disagree with what many Democrats have been saying as well.  I'm somewhere in the middle on the solution to the tension that we've had this summer and also acknowledge that only Christ can heal us.

Beyond those, it's mostly just views that are beyond the Overton Window entirely (i.e. repealing the 16th Amendment, banning any form of contraception that can act after fertilization but before implantation, etc.) or views that are more issues with the culture that I don't see a political solution for (e.g. belief that sex is only for a married man and woman, belief that we're a nation of functioning alcoholics, belief that Christianity needs to be in the public square and that it's necessary to attempt to convert all non-Christians to Christians for their own salvation).  Note that I'm not talking about government policies for that last set of views.

[lfromnj]

Although generally minarchist and convinced that shrinking the influence of government (or organized religion, or regimented Janteloven society, or other domineering influences) over individuals is good in and of itself, I tend to think that a universal mandatory curriculum would be a good thing (so long as the study of additional subjects is never censored, of course); I think it is fair for government to mandate that all children learn some amount of civics or mathematics or biology. I think conservation of parkland (or, more generally, the preservation of commons) is also a legitimate task for governments.

I generally continue to believe in military intervention to spread freedom and capitalism, but over the course of my time in the Atlas community this has become less central to my worldview (with my opposition to the Libyan intervention in 2011, and its subsequent terrible results, being a turning point for me). I now think that we should try to solve some of our domestic problems first, and am less likely to support a candidate depicting themselves as a hawk. This has brought me further in line with orthodox libertarianism, I guess, so it might not be all that divergent.

I agree with John Dule that a competitive free market cannot exist without some regulation (as you would otherwise, among other issues, have runaway competition-winners erecting monopolies and preventing the continuation of competitive free markets); I would see ensuring the persistence of competition in the market as one of the government's most important tasks. I think this is also pretty standard for libertarians, but perhaps it is divergent.

I think Dule is speaking at a more base level, at the level of life,liberty,property.

[Tiger08]

I agree with Pro-Life Single Issue Voter on conspiracy theories (I wouldn't be surprised if Epstein was murdered though). A trend that needs to stop for sure. I also disagree with some of the right's positions and especially rhetoric on racial issues. I strongly disagree with the woke left on a lot of things like P-L SIV said, but I think we should say that Black lives matter (while distancing from the Marxist views of the organization itself). I used to be team All Lives Matter and still don't think saying that should be a fireable offense (which has actually happened IIRC), but too many on the right act like racism disappeared after the 1960s. The argument showing how stupid "all cities strong," "all cancer matters," etc. would sound won me over. Racism is still a current issue that needs to be dealt with. One can be very patriotic and realize that we aren't where we need to be.

I am also more open to considering some things generally associated with the left in theory. For example, I am not 100% opposed to a basic public option for health care for those that absolutely need it and for slavery reparations, if we can somehow trace down descendants of slaves and descendants of slave-owners. The fact that the government broke the 40 acres and a mule promise still bothers me. I would only want it in the sense of taxing super rich planter descendant families and giving it to poor descendants of slaves, but I don't know how feasible that is. Not 100% sure what specific policies for those topics would look like or what I would support. Also, definitely more of a collectivist than an individualist. I am also pro-red flag laws, increased background checks, and DACA (legislatively).

Also some cultural stuff that isn't really political

[WD]

I would describe myself as a Moderate liberal/center left. The politician my political views are the closest to is Scoop Jackson.   

I diverge on these main issues:

I am strongly Pro-Life and believe in protecting the unborn. I believe that life begins at conception. As living human being the unborn deserve the same rights, the same protections as the rest of us.

I’m Pro-2A and opposed to most forms of gun control. Things like assault weapon bans will not stop violence or save lives.

I believe America has a role to play on the international stage, and we should remain heavily involved in international affairs.  I generally support a muscular foreign policy, and believe in opposing Authoritarian states wherever they arise. I am a huge hawk in regards to China. I don’t believe we should reduce the Defense budge, if anything it should be kept at current levels. I am also a Russia hawk although I believe most other Democrats are, so I don’t really consider that a divergence. Overall, I believe that China and Russia are the greasiest threats to world peace. As the largest remaining Communist state and the largest Authoritarian state China and Russia should have their influence opposed and challenged at any place. I would best be described as a liberal internationalist or a liberal hawk. I don’t consider myself a dove or pacifist in any sense of the word.

[Velasco]

I don't think there are subjects where I diverge from "my ideology". but issues that are highly controversial among my "political friends" where I might diverge eventually from the "official line".

Nuclear power and legalization of prostitución come to my mind

Nuclear power: I am an European leftist with a green avatar, so you can imagine that i'm all for the abolition of nuclear power. However, the climate emergency is so pressing that I would favor a pragmatic and gradualist approach. I mean that I'm not contrary to nuclear fission power as a temporary solution, as long as the energetic transition to clean and renewable sources is completed. However, I strongly advocate its abolition in the mid term and reject those false claims regarding nuclear fission as a clean source.

Legalization of prostitution: my stance is increasingly abolitionist and this might be related to my sense of morality or personal feelings. However, I can't help but sympathizing with people who is fighting for the rights of sexual workers (especially people I've met personally) that oppose abolitionism.  I loathe a practice that is intrinsically oppressive, but I realize its final eradication is nearly impossible.

For sure I can feel ambivalence with loads of subjects at a moment in time, but ai think my leftist convictions are solid enough (even though I tend to avoid orthodoxy)

[Former President tack50]

Immigration is probably the biggest one where I depart from left wing orthodoxy. While I don't consider myself anti-immigration I do think it should be reduced and left wing parties should definitely adopt much more conservative positions on it. The Danish social democratic party in this regard seems like a good model to follow for example at least from what I have heard.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Immigration is probably the biggest one where I depart from left wing orthodoxy. While I don't consider myself anti-immigration I do think it should be reduced and left wing parties should definitely adopt much more conservative positions on it. The Danish social democratic party in this regard seems like a good model to follow for example at least from what I have heard.

Life imprisonment tho?

[Former President tack50]

Immigration is probably the biggest one where I depart from left wing orthodoxy. While I don't consider myself anti-immigration I do think it should be reduced and left wing parties should definitely adopt much more conservative positions on it. The Danish social democratic party in this regard seems like a good model to follow for example at least from what I have heard.

Life imprisonment tho?

Actually I am against life imprisonment; and that is a fairly common thing on the Spanish left.

Its definitely not a popular reform, and the Spanish public is in favour of keeping it. However it is most definitely a left wing position to be against life imprisonment.

I suppose you could argue that my support for federalism and "states rights" is a right wing position (it certainly is one in the US and if I am not mistaken in Italy too); but here that would be very much associated with the left and not the right.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Immigration is probably the biggest one where I depart from left wing orthodoxy. While I don't consider myself anti-immigration I do think it should be reduced and left wing parties should definitely adopt much more conservative positions on it. The Danish social democratic party in this regard seems like a good model to follow for example at least from what I have heard.

Life imprisonment tho?

Actually I am against life imprisonment; and that is a fairly common thing on the Spanish left.

Its definitely not a popular reform, and the Spanish public is in favour of keeping it. However it is most definitely a left wing position to be against life imprisonment.

I suppose you could argue that my support for federalism and "states rights" is a right wing position (it certainly is one in the US and if I am not mistaken in Italy too); but here that would be very much associated with the left and not the right.

I know that you are against. It's that I had no idea it was fairly common in the Spanish left. I imagined it was a fringe position.

Yes, in Italy federalism/autonomism is usually considered a right-wing position because of Lega, but it's not right or left per se in my opinion. Every nation is different.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm much more pro-social spending than most of the Political Calvinists I read. I'm not sure if that really counts though. No one would think twice about my views if I were in a church in say, the Netherlands or Scotland.

[Battista Minola 1616]

I'm much more pro-social spending than most of the Political Calvinists I read. I'm not sure if that really counts though. No one would think twice about my views if I were in a church in say, the Netherlands or Scotland.

Serious question:

Would you vote SGP if you were Dutch?

[DC Al Fine]

I'm much more pro-social spending than most of the Political Calvinists I read. I'm not sure if that really counts though. No one would think twice about my views if I were in a church in say, the Netherlands or Scotland.

Serious question:

Would you vote SGP if you were Dutch?

I'm not sure.

Ideologically, I'd probably be a CU/SGP swing voter, but one's vote in this situation depends more on where you live in the Netherlands and what church you go to. Since I'm Scottish-Canadian and attend an Anglo-Reformed church instead of a Continental one, my background doesn't really have a good Dutch equivalent like it does for my Dutch-Canadian Reformed friends.

[Kingpoleon]

I am very critical of the very idea of an ideology, but I do dissent from a centrist stance most notably on anti-discrimination laws, which deeply bother me. They violate the fundamental freedom of association.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Regressive consumption taxes and nuclear power are good, actually.

[Agonized-Statism]

Abortion still doesn't sit right with me. I don't really understand why killing a developing human being is a women's rights issue. Actually, I don't get how it's even relevant now that contraceptives are a thing. And if access to contraceptives is the problem, shouldn't expanding that be the solution?

The left has always been the champion for children's rights, and there's no magical process that turns a fetus into a baby the moment it leaves the womb. It should be a no brainer. Of course you have a right to do what you want to your body- the living thing inside you which you had a responsibility not to create, a responsibility which hypothetically would be supported and made as easy as possible, isn't your body. That dehumanization is the same reactionary mentality that perpetuates slavery and genocide.

[GlobeSoc]

Housing is one of the few places where I'm fine with supply side solutions in the short term.

Nuclear power is great and the state should pursue technological progress for its own sake

The US can be a force for good, at least potentially. Hating it for its current state is a bizarrely essentialist position.

Electoralism and participation in the democratic party is fine

Even if capitalism should be eliminated, the liberal democratic framework has some good ideas for the structure of the state

In most other respects, I am a maximalist socialist.

[Saruku]

The US can be a force for good, at least potentially. Hating it for its current state is a bizarrely essentialist position.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of the reasons of why much of the left are so dogmatically anti-American.

It reminds me of people saying, "Like it or leave it." I don't hate America because it's a bad place to live compared to the rest of the world - nearly the exact opposite, actually.

[GlobeSoc]

The US can be a force for good, at least potentially. Hating it for its current state is a bizarrely essentialist position.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of the reasons of why much of the left are so dogmatically anti-American.

It reminds me of people saying, "Like it or leave it." I don't hate America because it's a bad place to live compared to the rest of the world - nearly the exact opposite, actually.

i dislike america, i just think that if it had a socialist government one way or the other it would be nonsensical to continue doing so.

[lfromnj]

Immigration for high-skilled industries from countries like India and China. We don't need doctors and engineers from elsewhere, we need to make education better here so Americans are filling up those jobs. And American universities (especially public ones) should have a duty to educate all of the American students they can accommodate. If tuition is too high for anyone except the children of wealthy Guangzhou families, then you have a fundamental failure in your educational mission.

Not going to argue about the rest from your perspective anyway.  But wouldn't more doctors help with reducing the AMA monoply?

[Agonized-Statism]

The US can be a force for good, at least potentially. Hating it for its current state is a bizarrely essentialist position.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of the reasons of why much of the left are so dogmatically anti-American.

It reminds me of people saying, "Like it or leave it." I don't hate America because it's a bad place to live compared to the rest of the world - nearly the exact opposite, actually.

i dislike america, i just think that if it had a socialist government one way or the other it would be nonsensical to continue doing so.

The important thing is that we end settler colonialism. You can't just drop a few kibbutzes in Israel and call it left-wing, for example. For this country to become a force for good we would have to stop looking at ourselves as a part of the West and live up to our claims as a truly internationalist project, become a democracy, and battle neo-colonialism around the world. Then and only then will we be able to criticize nations like China without being major hypocrites. Whether neocon or neoliberal, unilateral or multilateral, the West is still enforcing its supremacy whether by assaulting those nations we disagree with or starving out their people via sanction. Then we turn around and call the suffering we created an example of why their system "doesn't work".

GlobeSoc, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of anti-Americanism. It would be silly to hate some land or a group of people for no reason. The idea is that this country would have to become unrecognizable in order to be good. None of the documents or iconography of the American Revolution or the Civil War should be transferred over to the new government. I'm a history guy, I love studying that stuff, but a leftist understands that positive change in this country has always come when the grassroots/civilian level forces the establishment to act. There are no "good guys" in American political history as liberals and some American "leftists" seem to think. Lincoln wanted to deport the slaves to Africa and make this country a white ethno-state, for example, which is why the "leftists" that propose "Marxism-Leninism-Lincolnism" or synthesizing American patriotism with left-wing ideals are a joke. I recognize that Hawkins wouldn't be able to change anything if elected in some weird alternate universe where that was possible, but I support his ideas.

Not trying to start a rumble with anyone btw, just clarifying.

[GlobeSoc]

The US can be a force for good, at least potentially. Hating it for its current state is a bizarrely essentialist position.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of the reasons of why much of the left are so dogmatically anti-American.

It reminds me of people saying, "Like it or leave it." I don't hate America because it's a bad place to live compared to the rest of the world - nearly the exact opposite, actually.

i dislike america, i just think that if it had a socialist government one way or the other it would be nonsensical to continue doing so.

The important thing is that we end settler colonialism. You can't just drop a few kibbutzes in Israel and call it left-wing, for example. For this country to become a force for good we would have to stop looking at ourselves as a part of the West and live up to our claims as a truly internationalist project, become a democracy, and battle neo-colonialism around the world. Then and only then will we be able to criticize nations like China without being major hypocrites. Whether neocon or neoliberal, unilateral or multilateral, the West is still enforcing its supremacy whether by assaulting those nations we disagree with or starving out their people via sanction. Then we turn around and call the suffering we created an example of why their system "doesn't work".

GlobeSoc, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of anti-Americanism. It would be silly to hate some land or a group of people for no reason. The idea is that this country would have to become unrecognizable in order to be good. None of the documents or iconography of the American Revolution or the Civil War should be transferred over to the new government. I'm a history guy, I love studying that stuff, but a leftist understands that positive change in this country has always come when the grassroots/civilian level forces the establishment to act. There are no "good guys" in American political history as liberals and some American "leftists" seem to think. Lincoln wanted to deport the slaves to Africa and make this country a white ethno-state, for example, which is why the "leftists" that want "Marxism-Leninism-Lincolnism" are a joke.

Not trying to start a rumble with anyone btw, just clarifying.

i actually one hundred percent agree with the bolded part. The issue here is that i don't care for people who want to turn over the land to native americans, as narratively pleasing as that idea is to some. Any return scheme would be symbolic at best (as an oklahoma reservation scheme but national would be) and borderline disenfranchisement of everyone else at worst (the sort that wants to turn over actual sovereignty to the nearest native american tribe). While I think the historical iconography of the US should be de-emphasized, I don't want some sort of cultural revolution style wipeout of american identity.

On the bolded part, I think that a hypothetical socialist united states should try to disrupt exploitation globally, from things like helping the west african countries decouple from france, to fighting for the reduction of unethically extracted cobalt among other things in the DRC (which would actually help dismantle capitalism internationally insofar as exploitation is required to maximize efficiency and minimize costs), to assisting in education to combat the effects of missionaries in Africa imprinting fundamentalist norms on those states, as well as covertly assisting the workers in the UAE and other gulf states in overthrowing their slavers or at least getting better conditions. Plus there is the rising power of China, whose dengism i see as frequently hard to distinguish from fascism, especially with the nationalist surge seen in recent decades. There is lots that a socialist US can do internationally. This would amplify the effect seen from just not doing any harm internationally, which tbf would be majorly beneficial to the international left by itself.

Also in case you can't tell i don't read theory (for a variety of reasons) in favor of reading about world politics and history, so forgive me for tripping over my words a bit.

[Agonized-Statism]

The issue here is that i don't care for people who want to turn over the land to native americans, as narratively pleasing as that idea is to some. Any return scheme would be symbolic at best (as an oklahoma reservation scheme but national would be) and borderline disenfranchisement of everyone else at worst (the sort that wants to turn over actual sovereignty to the nearest native american tribe).

Literally no one's saying that. Anyone should be allowed to live where they want. The theory is that we should dismantle white supremacy.

While I think the historical iconography of the US should be de-emphasized, I don't want some sort of cultural revolution style wipeout of american identity.

Sorry. You have to. As a Mestizo, why should I celebrate the men who terrorized my people for their gain? That would be like an African communist celebrating the European colonists. That's not to say erase the history ISIS-style- of course, history guy, I think it's important to preserve that stuff- but it can't be venerated and it has no place in a hypothetical new identity. It belongs in a museum.

Also in case you can't tell i don't read theory (for a variety of reasons) in favor of reading about world politics and history, so forgive me for tripping over my words a bit.

Neither do I.

[RINO Tom]

I'll keep this broad and generic, as our current political setup is so toxic and dysfunctional that "conservative" has come to pretty much mean what the sitting GOP POTUS says/thinks, and "liberal" has more or less come to mean what his opposition says/thinks, rarely (or at least not often enough) drawing on any type of intellectually based political traditions.

So, historically speaking, I definitely would classify myself as a "moderate conservative," generally being sympathetic to the current hierarchy of things and having a preference for order and measured change.  One main way I diverge from that is that I believe the government/state has an obligation to step in to protect individual rights, specifically civil rights.  While I somewhat appreciate "limited government" in many cases, I think things like discrimination should be actively targeted through government action, though I definitely find the more far left, "woke" types to be bastardizing this commendable mindset and taking it much too far.