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.

Economica Summarium
My economic views are driven by my belief that, in order for capitalism to function optimally, we must create and maintain a  thriving middle class. A middle class is necessary for:
 * Developing human capital (usefulness people have to society).
 * A well-educated population, necessary for sustaining [[File:Dem.png]] democratic institutions (per Truman and Jefferson).
 * Spurring entrepreneurship as middle-class individuals have greater financial security (can take on more risk) and access to education than lower-class people.
 * Fosters macroeconomic stability by creating a strong consumer base from which producers can reliably sell products to, which increases demand, creates more jobs, leads to more innovation, etc.

Ultimately, as most of the Founding Father agreed, maintaining a virtuous republic necessitates a strong middle class. As inequality rises and more people enter the lower classes, so too does our cohesive institutions decline. Much of the progress and prosperity we take for granted today—what's left of it—was a product of the strong middle class which came out of World War II.

To revive and sustain the middle class, I support the social market economy (SOME). The SOME entails a free market economy with:
 * [[File:Regulationism.png]] Regulations to minimize negative externalities and promote consumer safety (e.g., policies against pollution or using Plaster of Paris in bread, respectively).
 * [[File:Soccorp.png]] Tripartist cooperation between [[File:SyndieSam.png]] trade unions, [[File:Cap.png]] business leaders, and the [[File:Statism.png]] the state.
 * [[File:Markets.png]] Fair competition measures (e.g. [[File:Trustbust.png]] anti-trust legislation) to ensure the economy is constantly innovating.
 * A generous [[File:Welf.png]] safety net to ensure an adequate living standard for all citizens.
 * The use of [[File:WorkWelf.png]] public works to address both temporary and long-term unemployment (e.g., structural unemployment and technological unemployment).
 * Wealth caps to inhibit excess monetary and property accumulation, ensuring equitable access to them.

[[File:Cap.png]] Capitalism
Capitalism is an imperfect but necessary economic system; and my advocacy boils down to it:
 * Outcompeting socialist economic systems (which is one reason it triumphed during the Cold War).
 * Efficiently distributing resources by responding to consumer preferences, adapting to rapid changes, cutting production costs to stay competitive, rewarding productivity, etc.
 * Uniting people of various nationalities, cultures, religions, and races by prioritizing usefulness; capitalists will hire and promote their products to everyone.
 * Raising living standards and sparking technological, scientific, and medical progress (much of which we take for granted today).
 * Creating financial incentives for horrible 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).

Of course, capitalism when left completely unchecked had nasty results in the long-term.
 * 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.

I believe the best way to address the issues with capitalism while maintaining its benefits is class collaboration,  pro-competition measures, and effective  welfare programs.

Work
I believe every American has the right to a job that pays a just wage. Or, compensation that allows someone to sustain a family without putting their spouse or children to work while enabling savings. Work that allows people to afford a healthy lifestyle. The federal government should implement programs and schemes to guarantee this.

[[File:SyndieSam.png]] Trade Unions
Labor markets aren't perfectly competitive. Workers will never have perfect information, and job mobility forever constrained to some degree. The result is low labor market elasticity, where workers aren't responsive to wage increases or decreases; so employers can compensate labor far below what it would be in a competitive market. We call this market failure monopsony. Industries exhibiting this trend the most pay lower wages. Because it gives employers enough unequal bargaining power to pay whatever they wish.

What the research shows is that trade unions are the best way to address this. Through striking power trade unions are able to drive wages closer to what they would be in a competitive market. The auto industry, which remains heavily unionized in many parts of the country, pays $30.95 per hour ($61,900 a year). Manufacturing also offers competitive wages, despite its decline, thanks to unionization. Healthcare and administration have less competitive wages as they have no organized labor.

We should strengthen the role of trade unions in the economy. Eventually we should have sectoral collective bargaining with government mediation. Singapore's triparitst institutions is a great example of this. Countries like have comparable systems.

In the meantime, as we don't have the material conditions for this yet, we should raise the minimum wage (ideally to $18/hour). Adjusting it for inflation every year.

Job Guarantee
There are several factors in unemployment.
 * 1) In a free market aggregate demand is never high enough to ensure full employment. (By that I mean no involuntary unemployment; that nobody who is mentally or physically who wants a job is without work.) To simplify: The demand for new jobs is never enough to cover the need for work.
 * 2) Advances in technology (e.g., automation) produce temporary unemployment. As job retraining schemes don't work, millions of people are jobless or underemployed. This radicalizes those left behind against the system (see the rise in [[File:Trump.png]] Trumpism today or [[File:Ludd.png]] Luddite terrorism in the 19th century).
 * 3) Trade unions—or the minimum wage for that matter—produce structural unemployment. If [[File:Cap.png]] employers deem you unworthy of $15/hour (nevermind $30/hour) then you'll be out of the job market. Trade unions also limit the number of co-workers to keep wages high. These are not arguments against either, contrary to the juvenile assumptions of fiscal [[File:Libertarian.png]] libertarians, as they are trade offs. (The alternatives are worse.)

To address these forms of unemployment—temporary and long-lasting—we should employ public workers. Particularly a federal jobs guarantee. It would be a federally funded program with baseline standards established (like the minimum wage), but otherwise administered by state and local governments to meet local needs like infrastructure. Not only would this mean everyone has a job to fall back on if something unexpected occurs, but it also forces the private sector to adopt higher standards as they now must compete with a public option. This job guarantee would focus on:
 * Environmental causes (e.g., flood control and tree planting).
 * Improving our declining infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, water, and transportation).
 * Early childhood care to strengthen our educational institutions.
 * Elderly care to cope with the aging population.

[[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.

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.

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.

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.

War on Drugs
I oppose drug legalization.

Although I'm fine with legalizing marijuana, drugs in general pose a serious public health risk. Someone who's addicted to drugs doesn't have true freedom either, as they're  slaves to whatever they're hooked on. While I'm not a fan of jailing non-violent drug users, I agree with the Portuguese that addicts should be forced into rehabilitation for their own good. (In that country they have a commission dedicated to dealing with drug addicts, capable of doing everything short of actual imprisonment like property confiscation.) While limiting the demand for drugs via mandatory rehab helps, we also must go after supply. I would the death penalty for drug dealers.

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]] - I think we have more in common this point, albeit for very different reasons.
 * - Uh...
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - Why the hell do you like so many commies?

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.