All information is part autobiography. Thus, if I dare to write anything I necessarily convey a political view, as politics is the flower of personal philosophy, preference, perspective, etc. I would rather make a clear statement and have that understood than make no statement and thus be misunderstood.
So, I’ll tell you how I would vote
- For President: whoever has a big bold vision that can inspire many, who is neither a revolutionary nor a tyrant, and who will appoint a team of John Adams-esque realists to Departmental and advisory positions.
- For Senate: one liberal and one conservative. I advocate a 50/50 split Senate-wide. 10-year terms. One term limit.
- For the House of Representatives: someone honest, honorable, and who is a local and always will be local, with the exception of their time in DC as an elected representative.
- For the Judiciary: boring, experienced, textualists. Yes, I know you don’t vote for this, but I’m still stating my view given the increased attention on Supreme Court nominations. If you think we should not have textualists on the bench here is a test. You’re about to sign a legal document – do you want a textualist to interpret this? Or someone open to a wide range of legal interpretations?
- Regarding Political Media: it should be nonprofit. Payscales should be legislated and made public like military payscales (and probably comparable to military payscales in terms of salary). Political speech should be detached from ambitions of wealth because if you offer a group of people a lot of money to say certain things, many of them will.
In Sum. I identify most closely with the 18th century Irish Whigs. Mainly Edmund Burke.