Tiberius Thought

Braun Spencer Thought is the  - ideology of u/BraunSpencer. He is a  and a supporter of ,  ,  , and. Friends of his have described him as a "Classical Progressive" or  "Old-School Non-Marxist Social Democrat."

Metaphysics
I'm a subjective idealist. Reality is dependent on the mind; nothing is independent of it. And we can only verify our own souls and minds. Objectivity does not truly exist, only individual perception. So I'm in league with anti-realists and  moral nihilists. That is not to say observations in these areas are not invalid—I have personal preferences myself, as will be discussed later. I accept the soul-body distinction; my favorite argument for it is philosophical zombies.

Negative Utilitarianism
My personal moral preference is negative utilitarianism. I believe that our end-goal should be to minimize net suffering in the long-term. But unlike other negative utilitarians, I look at suffering from an Epicurean hedonist perspective—that a  materialistic lifestyle which emphasizes wealth and consumption induces suffering; enslavement of the soul to posessions. Pleasure is not only the absence of suffering, but also moderation, community, and pursuit of knowledge. If we are to maximize pleasure, we should encourage through public policy education, meaningful work, financial autonomy, simple living, and small, tight communities. The ends also justify the means.

Political Philosophy
A reason for my ideological shift is this: The Hamiltonian ideal of a  heavily industrialized,  top-down society triumphed at the Civil War's conclusion. The second the Confederacy surrendered to the  Union,  Classical Liberalism as a strong ideological influence in the US perished. The Jeffersonian and  Jacksonian ideal of a  decentralized,  agrarian society perished alongside it.

By the 1890s those ideals which formed the basis of the original American left became irrelevant as even rural areas adopted industry. Industrialization is like soma; it's god awful in innumerable ways, but the high you get from its "finer" aspects never ends. That's why trade unions in the 19th century never espoused  de-industrialization; though they wanted to improve their working lives, like cutting working hours in half, they wanted to keep the apparent benefits of industrialization. People don't want to give up those conveniences.

The more we industrialized, the more complex America has become as a nation. The greater the complexity, the greater the need for centralization. It's easy to have a heavily decentralized government in an agrarian society. But when industry demands thousands of economic transactions every waking minute—from person-to-person, town-to-town, city-to-city, country-to-country—we need a powerful central authority to regulate it.

And yet Classical Liberalism's espoused values are desirable. People who agreed with the movement's principles like John Dewey and Isiah Berlin realized that the goals of the Enlightenment are worth striving towards. Ideals that cannot be maintained as workers are hopelessly exploited and society becomes more plutocratic. But in a modern context, we have to accept industry as a necessary evil. We need to strive for political equality, equality of opportunity, and class collaboration using a top-down approach.

Instead of accepting Hamilton's notion of a society which worships landlords and wealthy industrialists—as exhibited through his property restrictions on voting—we should instead use his industrialized and centralized system to promote Classical Liberal's core values. (Yes, I still view Hamilton in a negative light.) That and the promotion of positive liberty: a man stranded in the desert has maximum negative liberty, but is not truly free since he doesn't have the means to act on it. We must give everyone a minimum standard of living in order for people to function as humans, not cogs in a machine.

The TL;DR of all this is that I've embraced pragmatism. Hamiltonian means, Jeffersonian ends.

[[File:Soccap.png]] Social Capitalism
I'm a supporter of social capitalism (a.k.a. social market economy). Capitalism:
 * Outcompetes socialist economic systems (which is one reason it triumphed during the Cold War).
 * Efficiently distributes resources by responding to consumer preferences, adapting to rapid changes, cutting production costs to stay competitive, rewarding productivity, etc.
 * Unites people of various nationalities, cultures, religions, and races by prioritizing usefulness; capitalists will hire and promote their products to everyone.
 * Raises living standards and spurs technological, scientific, and medical progress (much of which we take for granted today).
 * Creates financial incentives for disgusting, inhumane, but necessary jobs.
 * Elevates the most [[File:Merit.png]] meritorious, distinctive individuals—many of whom were born in poverty—to hierarchical positions (often to society's betterment).

Capitalism is imperfect, however, as:
 * Excess capital accumulation leads to [[File:Corp.png]] monopolies, oligopolies, and too-big-to-fail firms.
 * Firms with too much market share are stagnant (less innovative) and limit competition.
 * Creative destruction and unrestrained trade results in widespread unemployment.
 * Negative externalities (e.g., climate change) are not accounted for.
 * Unequal bargaining power leads to low pay and systematic abuse.
 * Too much inequality (unequal income and opportunity):
 * Prices vulnerable Americans out of the market.
 * [[File:Plutocrat.png]] Corrupts political and cohesive institutions.
 * Makes top-earners more loyal to wealth than country.

So I believe we should promote collaboration between labor,  business, and  state; while also  regulating negative externalities,  ensuring a minimum living standard,  promoting fair competition, and breaking up  overly-large firms (e.g., Big Tech and Big Finance).

[[File:Soccorp.png]] Trade Unions
I support trade unions. While economic hierarchies are a net positive as they elevate those of supreme merit, they need to be held accountable to those who help build their wealth and to society at large. Trade unions, especially when they have striking power and thereby equalize bargaining power, are the best tool for this. They're great for:
 * Ensuring workers have living wages.
 * High job security, keeping unemployment levels low.
 * Better working conditions and stable scheduling.
 * More leisure time, which is important for mental health.
 * Are (often) a source of mutual aid.

They also regulate capital accumulation, ensuring that profits don't come at the expense of the workers. Monopsony power, or low labor market elasticity, is pervasive in all industries since markets lack sufficient competition. Trade unions best counter this by driving wages closer what they would be in a competitive market.

I want to eventually see a country where one person can sustain a family of four on a single income (like in the 40s and 50s). And employers of every size have a moral obligation to give their workers a decent living standard. Trade unions are milestones for both.

[[File:Marketsoc.png]] Worker Co-Ops
Worker co-ops have many benefits— like being a source of community in regions heavily populated by them, making workers happier, and raise income levels. So I'm not opposed to them on principle. However, worker co-ops are good for their workers because they prioritize their own members over growth. While this is good for them, it's bad for society as a whole. Because co-ops:
 * Tend to operate at a loss to keep members from losing work, which means resource aren't being allocated efficiently.
 * Entrepreneurs can't extract Schumpeterian rents from them; which implies they aren't innovative enough (e.g., no creative destruction).
 * Most of them fail to raise capital since participating in the stock market kind of defeats the purpose of equal ownership of property.
 * Studies on co-ops can't control for how ordinary people would like to be a worker-owner; most people from my experience don't want that responsibility.
 * And structural unemployment might be a significant problem in an economy dominated by co-ops, as worker-owned firms have little incentive to hire more people.

I think trade unions and  Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are superior. They combine the benefits of worker co-ops (like more productivity, job security, higher incomes) with the pros of a capitalist firm (e.g., creative destruction and new jobs). Co-ops that become too big are also no better than a standard company; Mondragon, for example, hires more independent contractors than worker-owners.

Trade
I'm not opposed to trade with other countries. In some sectors of the economy trading with foreign countries is a net positive. While we (the United States) could achieve autarky in many areas of the economy for a long period of time, foreign trade is both efficient and (often) encourages  global cooperation. However, trade agreements must account for externalities. Externalities are any economic transaction which positively or negative impacts non-consenting third parties and isn't factored into the price of the goods or services exchanged. Just as domestic trade must factor in externalities, so too must foreign trade. Here are examples of why not doing so hurts Americans.
 * By trading with countries with lax pollution laws (e.g., [[File:Cball-India.png]] India or [[File:Cball-China.png]] China), goods become too cheap since the costs of pollution, climate change, etc. aren't factored into the costs. And [[File:Cap.png]] those who make money off such trade have a profit incentive to ignore the resulting ecological decay.
 * By trading with countries with awful worker's rights—such as [[File:Cball-Kenya.png]] Kenya or, again, [[File:Cball-China.png]] China, both of which have also been caught red-handed turning a blind eye to or directly using [[File:Slaveism_icon.png]] slave labor—there's a perverse incentive to aggressively outsource. Because why pay workers at home a living wage if you can just make ten-year old human trafficking victims make your shoes! This destroys local industries—some of which are responsible for positive externalities like technological spillover—and also destabilizes domestic politics through mass unemployment.
 * Not to mention the cheap labor argument for exploiting alien workers doesn't work since free trade economically develops the parties involve. Eventually those countries will be economically developed with decent worker's rights while our domestic industries have vanished.
 * Some industries are vital to our national security (another positive externality). Letting too much of their operations move overseas reduces it. Take for example semiconductor manufacturing. The intelligence community (i.e. the [[File:CIA.png]] CIA and [[File:FBI.png]] FBI) needs computer chips from reliable producers for their mission. If most semiconductor manufacturing is done abroad, we are parituclarly vulnerable. If [[File:Cball-China.png]] China, for example, went to war with either [[File:Cball-South_Korea.png]] South Korea or [[File:Cball-Taiwan.png]] Taiwan, the technology we need for a World War III-type situation will decline.

As such, we must:
 * Encourage local consumption (like "Buy Local!" or "Made in America!" ad campaigns).
 * Spur local production for sectors essential to our national security (i.e. semiconductor manufacturing and steel production) through subsidies and (in extreme cases) tariffs
 * [[File:Biden.png]] Biden's CHIPS and Science Act is a step in the right direction.
 * Write [[File:SyndieSam.png]] worker's rights and [[File:Envi.png]] environmental concerns into trade agreements.
 * The Trans-Pacific Partnership would've been perfect for this, as it sought to abolish child labor, promote trade unions, combat human trafficking, etc. while becoming tougher on ecological neglect.
 * Add rules against currency manipulation in trade agreements as well.

[[File:Statecap.png]] State-Owned Enterprises
I support nationalizing industries prone to natural monopoly or having state-owned enterprises (SOEs) co-exist and compete with capitalist firms; and I'm enthusiastic about sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). SOEs in general should be ran on a for-profit basis; the wealth they generate would go towards healthcare, infrastructure, etc. Examples of where SOEs would be optimal:
 * Tap water
 * Electricity grids
 * Gas networks
 * Transportation infrastructure
 * Railways
 * Roads
 * Highways
 * Sewer infrastructure
 * Operating systems

Maximum Wage
I support a maximum wage as argued for by Sam Pizzigati. Basically the highest-paid member of a firm cannot have an income thirty times greater than the lowest paid employee (1:30). Every penny which crosses that threshold will be taxed away. This is to ensure businesses cannot accumulate enough capital to cause serious harm; but it also ties the profits of a business to the well-being of bottom-end employees.

Minimum Wage
Ideally, trade unions,  businesses, and the  government would set minimum standards via collective bargaining institutions. (Countries like Sweden and  have no legal minimum wage because of this  class collaboration.)  Competition, which there would be more of after  breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, would handle the rest. However, we don't have this ideal system and likely won't happen in the near future. As of now, monopsony power—low labor market elasticity—is abundant in most industries. To counter this market failure we should raise the minimum wage to $18 an hour ($15/hour four years ago adjusted for inflation). While low-skill workers having less access to entry-level jobs is a valid concern, I feel the federal jobs guarantee would solve that.

[[File:Welf.png]] Welfarism
I support a welfare state. It's good public policy. It reduces poverty, buys the vote of reactionary minorities, curtails  extremist tendencies, reduces economic inequality, and overall fosters societal stability. Even for strictly selfish reasons I would like something to fall back on if I fall on hard times. I believe already-existing programs should be improved and expanded on, with an employment guarantee so nobody who wants a job can get one.

Safety Nets
We should improve safety nets. Particularly unemployment insurance (UI) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Millions of children today grow up in poverty. Most of them can't access healthy nutrition; nearly half live in financially struggling households. Contrary to GOP propaganda, most people can't live off unemployment insurance alone. We should expand investment into and modernize such safety nets. This should include removing work requirements (which don't, you know, work), automatic triggers in cases of shock, and pouring more money into the program.

[[File:Postkeynes.png]] Federal Jobs Guarantee
Work is a human right. Unemployment is degrading as there's a certain dignity to labor; decent work gives people a sense of meaning, purpose, and fulfillment. There's a good reason suicide rates are disproportionately high among the unemployed.

As stated before, creative destruction often displaces workers. Improving production techniques is good in the long-term, but in the short-term it displaces workers. Unfair trade has a similar effect. And Say's law—the notion unemployment won't exist as production will always be equal to or exceed demand—has been disproven by the historical record.

We should implement a federal jobs guarantee (FJG) to abolish involuntary unemployment. The FJG would be a public works scheme that not only benefits the community, but pays a living wage and good benefits. This would have the added benefit of forcing most private sector firms to adopt higher standards since they now must compete with a public option. The FJG should handle:
 * Infrastructure
 * Roads
 * Bridges
 * Water
 * Rail
 * Housing
 * Childhood care (e.g., day care)
 * Elderly care (aging population)

CTC and EITC
The child tax credit (CTC) and earned income tax credit (EITC) are the [https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-earned-income-tax-credit-affect-poor-families#:~:text=The%20EITC%20is%20the%20single,employment%20for%20low%2Dincome%20workers. most effective] anti-poverty programs in the United States. They not only encourage work, but increase the purchasing power of low-income people. To further reduce poverty we should:
 * Make the CTC fully refundable
 * Increase CTC amount.
 * CTC should be monthly, not annual.
 * Include single workers in the EITC.
 * Remove unnecessary barriers to both.

[[File:Cball-Switzerland.png]] Mandatory Health Insurance
I support universal healthcare. Though something more along the lines of the Swiss healthcare system than single-payer. Which is basically compulsory private insurance, but with a public option to drive down costs and offered free of charge for low-income people. Private health insurance has many benefits—such as low wait times that more socialized systems embarrassingly lack—but uninsured Americans are left in the dust. To preserve the benefits of our system without driving ordinary people into bankruptcy for unexpected emergencies, the Swiss model is ideal, with some necessary adjustments like the public option to drive down costs.

[[File:Gay.png]] LGBT Rights
I support the rights of LGBT people.

I'm personally biased as I'm openly bisexual. But I think homosexuality played a positive role in our evolution.
 * Homosexuality promoted social integration among the populace. Sex plays a social role, not just a reproductive one; which is one reason humans and [[File:Monkey.png]] primates in general are unique social species.
 * As non-reproductive persons prioritize other matters and not breeding with the opposite sex, they assisted in child rearing (caring for their nephews and nieces) which allowed heterosexual couples to safely pass on their genes further.
 * Homosexuality allowed for females—the most [[File:Eugen.png]] eugenic creatures in my opinion, as they will select for ideal traits among kin—to form alliances against [[File:Patriarchy-DiscrimValues.png]] dysgenic, sexually coercive males. Homosexual men also wouldn't take part in such institutions.
 * This may be why [[File:Incel2.png]] incels absolutely despise [[File:Les.png]] lesbians the most. Because lesbian relationships, by virtue of keeping those like the former out of kin selection, had a eugenic effect.

Today, same-sex couples are more than capable of raising the awaiting the nearly 120,000 children awaiting adoption; and they do a great job when they do.

That being said, there are some problems within the LGBT community. The culture of promiscuity common among gay men is a public health crisis; an abundance of sexual partners, regardless of protection use, increases the likelihood of getting STDs. Many of those diseases can be passed onto non-consenting third parties and increases the demand for, and therefore prices of, healthcare services (both negative externalities). As I'll discuss later, I believe this is a case for promoting monogamy among homosexual men as part of a broader socioeconomic effort to promote marriage and decrease divorce.

While lesbians have lower STD rates, they have an absurdly high domestic violence rate. Although I'm unsure how to address it besides expanding healthcare access to include mental health treatment and funding domestic violence support institutions.

Those opposed to LGBT rights often cite high rates of mental illness among same-sex couples, but the worst response to this is to drive homosexuals into hiding (which translates into coercive heterosexual relationships where they can pass on their genes); allowing them to form relationships with each other has a long-term eugenic effect.

As for transgender rights, I'm also biased because I've befriended many transgender and  non-binary people over the years. I've become sympathetic to their situations.

Gender dysphoria is likely a biological condition and currently-existing evidence suggests transitioning is the only way to treat the condition. Removing the stigma surrounding it would also help. I've noticed studies which suggest transitioning doesn't help fail to control for the necessity of bottom surgery. Many trans people I've met don't need bottom surgery, but feel pressured into it to avoid persecution. They would otherwise be fine with hormones alone.

Gender dysphoria is often [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049530.2021.1900747#:~:text=Children%20with%20gender%20dysphoria%20often,%2C%20suicidality%20and%20self%2Dharm. comorbid] with other (often severe) mental conditions which we know have a genetic component (i.e. bipolar disorder). But HRT has a sterilizing effect, reducing their reproductive capacity.

In other words, emancipating transgender people and increasing access to gender-affirming care is a net positive for society.

Abortion
I'm pro-choice. Although we can decrease the number of abortions by improving sex education and access to contraception.

As said before, women are eugenic creatures. They select for partners with ideal traits and prompt competition over access to their love. This is a good thing; humans are the way they are today because women ultimately select their partners. Rape, however, allows for otherwise undesirable men to surpass this kin selection process. And what makes us human is our ability to make horrible decisions. (For example, mating with a psychopath in a leather jacket who drives a motorcycle; he might meet many traits an attractive man would have, but his personality disposition, likely genetic, makes him unfit for parenting.)

Abortion denies men an ability to pass on these bad genes. It reinforces a woman's ability to choose their own partners and have good offspring. Those who support patriarchal values oppose abortion—especially  incels and their  enablers—for this reason. Because they want to control a woman's sexuality to their benefit, regardless of the long-term harm of doing so. It denies a man an ability to pass on bad genes.

As Levitt and Dubner demonstrated in their book Freakonomics, abortion was critical in the fight against terrifying crime wave of the late 20th century. Crime rates dropped by the 1990s because the lower classes sought abortions the most. And they still do. Economists have recently confirmed Levitt and Dubner's arguments. But why was this the case anyway? There's a genetic link to violent crime,  mental illness,  low intelligence, etc.—all traits heavily associated heavily with poverty. We can even predict (with profound accuracy) educational attainment years in advance using genes. So of course keeping fertility rates among the lower classes below replacement levels minimizes those anti-social tendencies.

The humanity of the fetus is irrelevant to me. A woman's bodily autonomy over her reproductive decisions, by virtue of maximizing overall utility, trumps the rights of the would-have-been child. I think abortion up to 15 weeks (when most abortions occur) should be free on demand. On the side, we should use policies we know increase fertility among the middle class (e.g., high-paying jobs and affordable housing).

Summary
I prioritize domestic policy for the most part. Because if a citizenry feels neglected, why would they sacrifice their lives for the body politic? If you grow up with crumbling infrastructure (from dirty tap water to terribly maintained roads), poor access to nutrition, corrupt police, crippling yet unavoidable personal debt, etc., why would you take up arms and fight for that? The most effective foreign policy requires a patriotic population. Otherwise people feel their country isn't worth dying for, and therefore will, sometimes violently as seen with the Vietnam War, protest even the most standard national security measures. We must create a country that's worth fighting for if we can even dream of carrying out other vital state functions.

That said, national security—particularly foreign policy—has always been of interest to me. And something that drives some many of my domestic policy views is my belief that my country, the United States, should pursue its rational self-interest across the globe while promoting strong cohesive and republican institutions across the planet. My long-term goal would resemble a global federation with my country at the forefront. But the national interest—like access to natural resources given my protectionist stance and maintaining the balance of power—being critical in the short-term. My NatSec views have been described as neoconservative.

[[File:Cball-Ukraine.png]] Russo-Ukraine War
I thus far approve of Joe Biden's handling of the Russo-Ukraine War. Russia is an aggressor nation, seeking Eurasian hegemony to the benefit of  Putin's  criminal empire and his  plutocratic friends. Russia's attempt to achieve this fantasy of restoring and expanding the Soviet Union's (or for that matter  tsarist Russia's) former glory should be stopped at all costs. Anything short of a clear victory in Ukraine—and if not a victory, making the Russian occupiers suffer by sponsoring guerrilla fighters—should be dismissed.

[[File:Cball-China.png]] On China
One of the biggest mistakes my country made in hindsight was continuing friendly relations with China after the  Soviet Union's collapse. Working with China against a common threat was a brilliant strategy I can abide. But working with a country that's still ideologically or aesthetically committed to Tankie principles after that was bound to fail. We foolishly suspected China would embrace liberal democracy by pursuing free trade with them. All free trade did was economically empower the totalitarian regime. And now they have us by the balls. Just look at John Cena's pathetic apology to the CPC in Mandarin—Hollywood has been infiltrated by the Red Menace. China is a bigger threat to American sovereignty than the Soviet Union at this point. To counter this threat we should:
 * Embrace [[File:Protect.png]] protectionism and reduce our dependency on China and their neighboring countries.
 * Set up strong military relationships with [[File:Cball-India.png]] India and other neighboring countries in case of future escalation.
 * Make military commitments to [[File:Cball-Taiwan.png]] Taiwan, [[File:Cball-Singapore.png]] Singapore, [[File:Cball-Indonesia.png]] Indonesia, and other countries bordering on the South China Sea.
 * Support [[File:Dem.png]] democratic governments and [[File:Liberty.png]] human rights in the Third World, as the Chinese have cozy relationships with corrupt dictators in those countries.

The Iraq War
I support Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bush Sr. refused to overthrow Saddam Hussein during Operation Desert Storm for a valid reason: To be a counter against  Iran. But Saddam was an irrational actor; he was a delusional, malignant narcissist who sought to revive the Second Babylonian Empire. No really, he considered himself the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar. To achieve this delusional fantasy he turned Iraq into an aggressor nation. He launched a full-scale invasion of Iran in the 1980s. When that failed he invaded to control their oil supply. In both cases Saddam was seeking regional hegemony and control over global energy markets.

Bush Sr. in the 1990s had a solution—sanctions. Similar to FDR's oil embargo on  Japan, in an effort to curtail the Empire's foreign policy objectives, Bush hoped to stop Saddam from pursuing his ego-driven hegemonic aspirations. (Without actually removing the check on Iran.) This of course crushed Iraq's economy and subsequently the locals. The United Nations hoped to make up for this through the Oil-For-Food program. But all this did was economically empower Saddam himself, who re-directed the money towards sustaining a cult of personality. And after calling America's bluff after Bill Clinton's Operation Desert Fox (1998), Saddam, in all his recklessness:
 * Removed all Gulf War-related UNSC from Iraqi law—including UNSCR 687 which mandated Iraq remain militarily weak (disarmament).
 * Sought to build up Iraq's military and WMD capabilities—with the latter he employed scientists to design destructive missiles.
 * Between 1996 and 1998 he accelerated delivery system development and missile programs.
 * From 1999 to 2003 he further accelerated rearmament, suggesting to anyone with enough brain cells he was gearing up for war.
 * He worked with international black markets to get past those sanctions in pursuit of rearmament via Iraqi intelligence.
 * Actively promoted terrorism against neighbors and [[File:Cball-US.png]] America's allies, including subsidies for the families of slain [[File:Cball-Palestine.png]] Palestinian terrorists.

In other words, the Bush-era sanctions failed and anybody with a brain cell at the time could tell:
 * 1) Saddam Hussein was gearing up for further wars of aggression in the pursuit of regional hegemony.
 * 2) That this included the creation of biological and chemical weapons, some of which he could supply to [[File:Terrorist.png]] proxies.

And contrary to popular belief, we did find WMDs in Iraq into the 2010s. But even if there were no WMDs at all, Saddam, being the injudicious moron he was, convinced us that he did; and therefore he brought the war on himself. There's nobody to blame for the Iraq War but Saddam. Period. To embrace a pacifistic approach to that Ba'athist regime at this point is to be pro-Fascism. While there are valid criticisms of the occupation itself and there's short-term instability (most democracies actaully start off unstable, including the French Revolution and American Revolution (Articles of Confederation and numerous revolts), Iraq in the long-term will be a thriving  democracy.

Climate Change
Although this could be considered an economic issue, climate change is a global predicament. That means we need global cooperation on the matter. But China is the world's biggest polluter. Even if the United States went completely green tomorrow, China would likely still continue their lax pollution measures to encourage foreign investment. So while we should do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must apply severe economic pressure to countries which refuse to comply. Especially China and Russia. International treaties dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions would also do the world a favor.

Based

 * - Based philosophically and overall interesting ideology.
 * - We're have rather similar policy platforms and you seem nice as a person.
 * - A lovely friend I share a lot of common ground with.
 * - Isolationism is cringe, but otherwise I'm highly sympathetic to your beliefs.
 * [[File:Uzarashvilism.png]] - Epic.
 * - HUEY LONG GANG!
 * [[File:Floofelsballicon.png]] Fluffy Thought - A wonderful friend who's basically what I was earlier this year.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I like you, but now I must convince you that a [[File:World_Federalism2.png]] global federation requires [[File:Libhawk.png]] getting your hands dirty. ;)
 * - We might be drifting apart ideologically, but I consider you a good friend.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe - Not bad.
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - You seem chill. I still have a soft spot for democratic socialism.

Bringe

 * [[File:NeoArctoismIcon.png]] - You're not as bad as I thought you were, but I still think much of your ideology is self-contradictory and that many of your stances on sociocultural issues have no basis in reality.
 * - Uh...

Cringe

 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(27).png]] New Model Of Cheesenism - We may have vague similarities economically, but I'm not a fan of your reactionary tendencies.

Positive

 * [[File:Soclib.png]] - Effective [[File:Welf.png]] welfare states? Check. Effective [[File:Regulationism.png]] regulations? Check. Promotion of [[File:Markets.png]] SMEs and [[File:SyndieSam.png]] trade unions? Check. For-profit [[File:Capcom.png]] state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and [[File:Nordmodel.png]] sovereign wealth funds (SWAs) in key industries? Check. Based ideology.
 * [[File:FDRismF.png]] Rooseveltianism - FDR and Truman led [[File:Cball-US.png]] America against [[File:Nazi.png]] Nazi Germany, set the stage for a global [[File:Anticommunism.png]] anti-communist effort, gave commoners assistance during the Depression through [[File:Welf.png]] redistribution and public works, and helped organize the post-war prosperity. Respect.
 * [[File:Kemal.png]] - Pushing for [[File:SyndieSam.png]] trade unionism and [[File:Monkeyzz-Enlightenment.png]] Enlightenment values while opposing [[File:React.png]] reactionary influence? Based.
 * [[File:Lyndon B. Johnson.png]] LBJ Thought - Bringing my country closer to [[File:Socdem.png]] social democracy, getting my party the most loyal [[File:Blacknat.png]] voter base in recent memory, and stubbornly waging war against the dirty [[File:HoChiMinh.png]] Reds? Based and underappreciated.
 * [[File:Necon.png]] - Advancing [[File:Cball-US.png]] my country's national security, [[File:Imp.png]] access to resources, and [[File:Dem.png]]/[[File:Prog.png]] democratic/progressive causes globally? Sign me up!
 * [[File:NatProg.png]] - We need more of your [[File:Trustbust.png]] trust busting now more than ever. Plus, [[File:LaFollete.png]] La Follette was a chad.
 * [[File:Mach.png]] - Sometimes making a positive change in the world requires... Getting your hands dirty.
 * [[File:Long.png]] - A based gentleman who wants to share the wealth.

Mixed

 * [[File:Reagan.png]] Reaganism - Epic foreign policy, mediocre economic policy, bad sociocultural policy.
 * [[File:Neoliberal-icon.png]] - A useful asset against [[File:ML.png]] them, but foreign trade needs to be regulated and you should embrace [[File:Trustbust.png]] trust busting.

Negative

 * [[File:Nazi.png]] - Vile.
 * [[File:ML.png]] - I'm happy you lost the Cold War.

Comments
Will clear every once in a while.