Recently I have been considering again the problem of describing my political beliefs. In the past I wrote "A Name For My Political Philosophy ", trying to develop a unique name to apply to my philosophy, but though that was somewhat amusing, it is not truly useful, as any solecism is meaningless, as no one knows what it means. Even if I carefully define it, it has meaning only to those who have read the essay which defines it, and until it enters wider use that means my neologism effectively requires everyone read a lengthy essay, and so I might as well use that essay itself to define my position.

But, if it is pointless to invent a name for my philosophy, I am equally reticent to adopt any current labels, as they have become so broadly defined as to be meaningless. For example, I am a member of the Republican party. I explained why I am in the essays "Why I am a Republican", but as is clear in those posts, I am Republican not because my philosophy is identical to that of the party, but because of the two parties with any likelihood of holding power, the Republicans are closer to my views, being more likely to adopt a position based on small government and personal freedom than the Democrats.

On the other hand, it would be foolish to try to use the term Republican to define myself. First, because the term itself is meaningless, describing everything from near Democrats like Spectre and Snowe to big government types like Huckabee to those who would use government to enforce ethical norms to "paleo-con" protectionists to libertarian types like Paul (either one) to old time "country club conservatives" and "Rockefeller Republicans". The term is meaningless, as it describes not a set of beliefs but a wide range of  opinions which have been deemed acceptable to the party. In fact, as both parties have sold principle for victory, they have come to have fewer restrictions, and the edges of both parties overlap quite strongly. And so the two parties will not serve to define one's political identity.

I am equally reticent to use the term "conservative", for many of the same reasons. I have mentioned this problem several times, most prominently in "The Political Spectrum", but also in "Many Types of Conservatives", "The Need to Correct Ourselves", "What We Deserve", "Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "The Party of 'No'?", "Activism As The Only Acceptable Position? ", "Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!", "Why We Lose", "The State and Morality", "A Bit More Explanation", "Misplaced Blame and A Power Play" and "Remember I Predicted It". The term "conservative" is not a useful term. Many think they know what it means, but as I explained in "Protean Terminology", and even "The Most Misleading Word ", the terms everyone "knows" are the most dangerous, as often they are the least well defined. And that is the case here. Any term which could include big spending, big government Huckabee types, anti-Israel, pro-union, anti-trade Buchananites, isolationist, government fearing libertarians like Ron Paul, and those who would use government to control bad thoughts and behaviors, is a term without meaning. Of course every faction tends to assume its own meaning is the one proper use of the term, but so do all the others, and so, in the end, using the term conservative is meaningless, as while you know what you mean by the word, you have no idea what any listener will assume it means.

And yes, I know I am guilty of the very sin which I describe. I too use "conservative" to describe my own personal philosophy. But I am also careful to point out as much when I do so. It may be a small difference, but I think in doing so I manage to avoid much of the confusion others cause when they simply assume all conservatives share their beliefs.

(Before I move on, let me also point out that many nominal conservatives hold ideas that would, taken to their logical conclusion, lead to authoritarian states. I discussed this in "Inescapable Logic", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention", "Giving Away the Game", "You Lose When You Think You Win", "Why We Lose", "Anti-Business Nonsense", "The FairTax's Liberal Assumptions" and in some detail in my set of essays beginning with "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences - Preface".)

If Republican and conservative are not good terms, then what about libertarian? On the surface, it seems a perfect fit. I believe in a small government, with most power returned to the individual and government limited to a very few stringently defined functions, but there are problems. First, as I described in "Tools" and "An Unappreciated Truth", I believe government is a tool, something that has a proper role. On the other hand, many libertarians, in fact most, seem to suffer from the fear of government I described in "Third Party Problems" and "Some Libertarian Analogies". As I explained in "My (Informal) Nobel Peace Prize Nomination" and "", the fear of government tends to lead to conclusions which are incompatible with a properly functioning government, and so I have to say on that ground alone, I cannot embrace libertarianism.

But that is not the only problem. Libertarians have several more. For example, as I described in "Why I Am Not A Libertarian" and explained again and again in future posts, libertarians, for all their talk of individual rights, still think in terms of monolithic government and top down solutions. They imagine liberty being imposed form above, through a singular monolithic state. In some ways it almost sounds like the liberal arrogance I described in "Those Other People", "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens", "Seeing People As Stupid", "Appealing to Arrogance", "The Citizen Dichotomy", "In A Nutshell", "Cognitive Dissonance Part 2", "Changing Incentives", "Three Types of Supporters of Big Government", "Bad Economics Part 9" and "The Right Way", with libertarians imposing freedom whether you want it or not. I know it is a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. However, as I believe that individuals must have some leeway, some right to differ on the edges of issues, so long as they respect rights of others, I do not like solutions imposed form above, and so I tend to disagree philosophically with the whole idea of a "libertarian party" forcing freedom on all.

Beyond that there are a number of less significant complaints. The way the fear of government often leads libertarians into insane views of national self-defense ("Rational National Defense", "Rights Versus Laws", "Last Word on Defense"). The way that same fear of government sometimes drives them to side with criminals, even to oppose necessary protections from crime. ("Faulty Logic", "All Life in a Day, or, How Our Mistaken View of History Distorts Our Understanding of Events") And finally the fact that libertarians have created such a big tent that they will embrace even such contradictory philosophies as the "libertarian left". ("The Libertarian Left")  And finally, there is the tendency among libertarians to completely ignore social issues. It is understandable in one way, as the libertarians do not want others to think they endorse using government power to resolve social problems, but they could easily make clear that their statements about social issues are intended to elicit individual action only and avoid all such confusion. That they refuse to do so makes me wonder if they place too little emphasis on social issues, and lean too strongly toward a sort of political determinism.

As Republican, conservative and libertarian are all unacceptable, for a time I adopted federalist as a definition (see "The Benefits of Federalism"), and that was acceptable for a time, but the more I thought about it the less it fit. It is akin to a vegetarian calling himself a cook, because he cooks food, or a police officer terming himself a driver as he spends so much time in a car. Yes, federalism is a method to reach the goals I desire, and in some ways it facilitates the desired results, but ti is also possible to form a federation of states while retaining none of the aspects of government that are important to me. Combined with the proper philosophy, federalism is a powerful tool, but on its own it is worthless. And so, defining myself solely through my adherence to a single methodology, and one which is not even sufficient to ensure individual freedom, seemed a bad idea as well.

I even tried to use terms from other areas of thought. Describing myself as a free market supporter, or a subjective value proponent. And, while the free market does imply that the government respects individual freedoms, the term "free market" has been badly misused ("Bad Economics Part 17") and so many think the "free market" allows for quite extensive government involvement. If the free market were properly understood, say as I described in "In Praise of Contracts ", then perhaps that term would be enough to define my beliefs, but as so many do not understand the degree of freedom required to have a truly free market, those who embrace quite powerful government can call themselves supporters of the free market.

Which leaves me in a bit of a quandary. I can't find a way to define myself without writing a lengthy book about it ("My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Prelude", "An Analogy For Government", "A True Conservative Platform", "Greed Versus Evil", "Planning For Imperfection"), or else inventing a term of my own, which, as I said earlier, will have meaning to only a handful of others. I suppose, for the sake of convenience, I will likely pick one or more terms and use those (eg. "libertarian conservative"), maybe adding lengthy qualifiers whenever listeners seem to be making incorrect assumptions.

But the very fact that I cannot find a term even close to my beliefs is rather troubling. What I believe is not too far from what was once a common, or at least not abnormal, belief. I might be more absolute in my dedication, but judging from quotes from Madison and Grover Cleveland (see "Our Official Motto") I am hardly unique. And yet there exists now no term to describe those who held fast to absolute government minimalism. I grant that even in the past many were somewhat inconsistent. Then again, looking at the actions of presidents from Jackson to Cleveland, the proponents of freedom were much less inconsistent then than now. And yet, what was once a popular belief, or at least a know and accepted one, what was once described as the liberal position, currently has no term to describe it. Conservative is too vague, libertarian carries too much baggage, and federalist has the wrong emphasis. We have no term to describe those of us who hold true to freedom and individual rights.

I wonder if that might not be one of the reasons we find so few who hold such uncompromising views. Or maybe it is the consequence? ("Defending Freedom?", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "What We Deserve", "What is Wrong with Us", "The Single Greatest Weakness", "Why We Lose", "Doing Something", ""Doing Something" Revisited", "Who Is To Blame?", "The Difficulty of Principle", "You Lose When You Think You Win", "Selling Yourself Cheap") Whatever the case, I am eager for the day when I finally find a term to describe myself and others who hold these views, as that will let me know we have finally returned from the wilderness and are once again seen as within the pale of accepted political thought. (If you doubt that my views are considered unacceptable, just propose the gold standard on any mainstream political forum -- see "What Is A Dollar?" and "What Is Money? ".)