My Political Philosophy: Core Principles and Reasoning
In a previous post, I outlined my policy priorities as if I were running for State Senate or House Representative. Those priorities addressed specific, tangible issues. Today, I want to share the deeper principles that guide my political thinking. Understanding these principles should provide insight into how I evaluate positions across the political spectrum.
Principled Reasoning: Consistency Above Convenience
I admire leaders who remain faithful to their principles, especially when doing so leads to outcomes they personally dislike. Consider the ACLU, a predominantly liberal organization, defending the free speech rights of Neo-Nazi groups. This exemplifies putting principles above personal preferences.
One of my core principles is universal respect. This means actively listening to others, empathizing with their circumstances, and treating people with kindness even when disagreeing with their opinions or actions.
When evaluating political issues, I deliberately challenge myself with a perspective shift: “How would I feel if the same circumstances were applied to the opposite side of the political spectrum?” For example, if Republicans are pursuing government reduction, I ask myself: “Would I support this same process and outcome if it were being implemented by Democrats?” This mental exercise helps me maintain consistency rather than partisan convenience.
Freedom: More Than a Political Slogan
“Freedom” has become a rallying cry, particularly among conservatives, but what does it truly mean? To me, freedom is the ability to live as you choose without coercion. It means selecting your career, choosing your spouse, raising your children according to your values, deciding where to live, and determining how to spend your money.
A natural consequence of valuing freedom is accepting that others will make choices I disagree with. Some might oppose my decision to send my children to public school. I may disagree with their choice to homeschool, but I support their right to make that decision because I believe in genuine freedom. Similarly, I support same-sex marriage rights. I may personally disagree with gun ownership, but my commitment to freedom means I support that right as well.
Sometimes I notice that certain politicians define “freedom” as “freedom from things they dislike,” which ironically often means restricting others’ choices. This isn’t freedom – it’s the opposite. I believe deeply in personal liberty in its truest sense: the right to choose your own path, even when others disagree with your choices.
Federalism: Fifty Experiments Are Better Than One
Many Americans believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights universally define what laws government can and cannot pass. Many cite the Second Amendment as proof that government cannot restrict gun ownership. However, the amendment specifically states “Congress shall make no law…” – referring to the federal government, not states or local governments.
Our modern understanding stems from the Supreme Court’s Doctrine of Incorporation, which broadly applies constitutional restrictions to state powers. I take a more literal interpretation: states should have significant latitude to create their own laws on issues ranging from gun ownership to drug legality, commerce, and education.
Some might worry this creates chaos without uniformity. I see it as beneficial diversity – fifty simultaneous experiments on every issue. Some approaches will fail, others will succeed, and successful models can be emulated. Fifty experiments will produce better outcomes over time than one national solution that will inevitably fail to address the needs of many citizens.
I support Texas’s freedom to determine their school curriculum, just as I support Massachusetts’s freedom to include materials others might consider too progressive. I may disagree with both approaches, but my principle of freedom extends to states as well as individuals.
In essence, my political philosophy centers on consistent principles rather than partisan outcomes, genuine freedom rather than selective liberty, and diverse state approaches rather than uniform federal solutions.