Omegaism

Diplomatic Policy
I consider myself both a Patriot/Moderate Nationalist and both an  Internationalist. I personally see the concept of Nation as important for a population's identity: just like a family has to take care of their children, a Nation has to take care of his people. I see the concept of a " united Humanity" not bad in theory but too unfunctional in pratice, as 8 billion of people are too hard to rule under one government. One of my major criticism of  Globalism is cultural homologation: a world where everyone is equal, without too many differences, a boring world. Hence why I see the concept of National Identity as important. To preserve Humanity's variety.

However, on the other side, one of my main issues with Nationalism, is the blind hostility of certain Nationalists (mostly the more radical types) towards other populations and nations in general. I personally see International/Regional alliances (like NATO and the  EU) as a good potential for friendships between other nations. We can see the success of these alliances in Europe, as a example. No major wars broke out in the heart of Europe for decades, and major enemies ended up improving their relationships in the last decades, such as France and  Germany.

What I propose is this: A form of soft Nationalism (Mostly a mix of  Civic Nationalism and  Interculturalism, to promote both National unity and integration at the same time) combined with  Internationalism, a soft Globalism and a foreign integration between various nations around the World, in respect of every country's identity.

Love your country but also try to look at the rest of the Globe.

Foreign Policy
My foreign policy is generally Pro-West, Pro-NATO,  Pro-USA and  Pro-EU. The Western Bloc is the one that gets the closest to the ideals of Liberal Democracy, and if compared to the alternatives (Theocratic Regimes like  Iran, One Party Regimes like  China or   Cuba, Crony Kleptocracies like  Russia or  Belarus...), then the  United States are a much more preferable superpower for the ideals of  Liberalism.

However, it should be noted that certain foreign actions done by the Americans and other Western Nations can range from "Questionable" to "Absolutely Fucked Up", mostly done to protect Western interests and influence. We can mention the clusterfucks that were the War in Vietnam or the invasion of Iraq, the support for cronies and dictators such as Pinochet, Suharto,  Batista and others, coups in non-Western aligned countries ( Operation Condor is a major example) and more. Obviously Neoconservative foreign policy can really dirty, and some of its actions only ended up being bad for the West's PR.

I'm pretty glad that more recent presidents, such as Biden, are less "hawkish" in terms of foreign policy, but without ditching Neoconservatism as whole.

That being said, I don't see this ideology as entirely bad. We can mention some positive contributes too, such as helping Europe recover Post-WW2 through the Marshall Plan, stopping Serbia's Ethnic Massacres in Yugoslavia, bringing back the order in countries like Panama ( Even though the Noriega shenanigans weren't the best before, mostly a Reagan thing ofc ), Grenada and Kuwait, generally supporting the ideals of Liberalism against its opponents and protecting Eastern European and Eastern Asian countries from Russian and Chinese soft power and hegemonic ambitions.

The United States should definitely find a balance in political toughness and peaceful diplomacy. As Theodore Roosevelt once said:

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far"

The US should try to improve the relationships with Non-Western aligned countries such as Latin American and African ones, possibly prefering Liberal Democracies. But also try to improve the relationships with more stable Anti-American countries, such as Cuba (ending the Embargo too) and  Bolivia; by being more open about its past foreign policy too.

But at the same time, the Western Countries should maintain a tough line against countries such as Russia and China (these two in particular are a major threat to the Liberal Democratic Order). The latter country is definitely tougher, considering its economic soft power and better PRs, especially if compared to its neighbor post-2022.

To make it short: improve relationships with democracies and less powerful Authoritarian States (possibly incouraging for the latter ones a liberalization of the State, kind like how the USA did towards Francoist Spain), be tougher towards Authoritarian Regimes, especially the more powerful ones.

Economic Policy
I am supportive of Free Market Capitalism. While flawed, I still believe that this economic system, through Free Trade and Property Rights is able to make a society prosperous. This is also proved by the support of the free market in the Developing Countries. That being said, I still find myself against the more unfettered forms of Capitalism, as I believe that they are not sustainable for Human living conditions. For example, regarding Neoliberalism, while I generally support global trade, which did improve living conditions in the world, I am critical of the "deregulated, privatized economy" part of it, as it did lead to aspects like  social inequalities, especially in countries like the United States and Italy , and  environmental degredation. I would like to see economic intervention from the State, to fix some of the flaws of the Free Market, possibly reverting some Neoliberal policies, through slow  reforms and also watching out for the  economic deficit. I also support a major economic regulation for the Developing Countries in the world, to watch out for Neo-Colonialist policies from  Corporations and other entities

Cultural Policy
While I lean Left, in terms of Culture, I generally seek a  cultural balance. I personally see a Nation's culture (Folk traditions, language, history...) as its backbone, and I would like to see a world where the national identities of every population gets preserved. Personally, what I consider one of the main problems of Modern Globalization  is the cultural homologation of every population. I don't want to entirely eliminate Globalization, but I want to watch out for these elements too.

But on the other side, I also value a lot Social Progress (Civil liberties, social equality...), as I believe that advancing as society is an important objective and that culture is dynamic, we don't go anywhere by keeping it static. I don't think that Tradition and Progress have to be polar opposites, and a balance between the two is possible and ideal. (Same discourse for Nationalism and  Globalism). We should keep an eye both to the past and to the future, as society. Keep the past but also go forward.

For example, regarding the modern LGBT community, while I do have some criticism, such as the general Wokeness or the sympathesis for  Far-Left ideologies  (especially in the  Trans community), I can understand a good number of demands and points. I wouldn't absolutely mind a legalization of LGBT marriage and adoption as well, as a sign of progress too.

And going in specific on the "T" of "LGBT", while I have a couple doubts about certain requests, such as transitioning for minors, I still believe that the community and its members should be helped. Bullying them is absolutely not the case. That being said, "Xenogenders", "Neo-pronouns" and the like are all ridiculous stuff that shouldn't be recognized as actually valid, as they don't make any sense. I also have some doubts about Non-Binary stuff in general.

Another particular issue is the abortion one. Let's see how Pro-Life people and  Pro-Choice people think of this:

I don't think that an abortion is something to celebrate, and people should be more responsible in terms of sex. The use of contraceptives, when people aren't ready to have a child, should be more incouraged. That being said, I absolutely oppose an abortion ban, because it's an individual choice, not something up to the State. For the rest, I don't want to change too much the Status Quo in my country, regarding that matter.