I presume your question was directed at Arrell, but on the off-chance you misplaced it on the stack, I will answer it as well.

After reviewing my past comments, obviously collected at random by the Wayback Machine, I feel they consistently represent my opinions on these issues.

Specifically, and not surprisingly, I feel my political position is a moderate one, and if I were forced to be more precise, I would place it somewhat to the left of center, a subjective characterization for a subjective topic. I believe that the free market works and is an overall positive force, but that it alone cannot be trusted to operate in the best interests of society as a whole. It is too vulnerable to the manipulation and economic power of those who have a vested interest in it and familiarity with its operation. It must be moderated and supervised by government regulation and direction. The amount of regulation required is a valid subject for debate and must be determined politically, but democratically.

I do not reject all conservative principles or endorse al liberal ones, but I feel if forced to make a choice about a political program which represents my ideology, then the Democratic party represents my best choice. If I were dictator, there are probably quite a few things I might do differently, but I'm not. I am resigned to the fact that in a democracy, some form of compromise based on negotiation and public participation in the political process is the best we can hope for. There is also the wholesome inertia (in moderation) of cultural and constitutional restrictions. I think the US has oscillated around this happy medium fairly well during the time I have been politically aware.

I further believe that in the case of the USA, this position is best expressed by the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party. The names that come to mind that represent this position on the political spectrum pretty much coincide with those Democrats that have been nominated to run for the Presidency since the end of World War II. I draw the line at people like Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader.

As for Republicans, there are some I could live with, even though they might not be my first choice. These include Eisenhower, Nixon (before he turned paranoid), Bush I, and McCain (before he turned right to consolidate the support of his conservative base during the last campaign). I draw the line at people like Reagan, Gingrich and Bush II. In my opinion, they are extremists.

I do not trust those loosely termed "Conservatives", although I recognize that term denotes a direction, not a location. It is my opinion that their political positions are dictated primarily by their economic self-interest, not that of the nation as a whole; even though the honest ones may not even realize it themselves.

If you really want a pithy overall description of what my political philosophy is, and what it is not, here it is. The purpose of government is to manage the nation in a way that its freedom, security, justice, peace and prosperity are maximized in the long term. It is not the purpose of government to provide an arena where individuals are free to rise to any position of power they feel is possible. Government should not restrict or discourage legal personal ambition, but promoting or guaranteeing it is not its purpose.

My ideal model for good government is the United Federation of Planets.