  I've always though of myself as a liberal,  but the more I think about it,  the more conservative I am.  If I were put on a national average I'd probably be a moderate or slightly left- of- center,
 which makes me part of the reactionary right at Gunn.  I like to read The New Republic ,  a liberal political magazine,  but I don't agree with many of the positions it pushes.  I agree with it more,  however,
 than I do with conservative magazines like the Weekly Standard .  Here are some politicians whom admire for various reasons.  Yes,  I know that their stances on issues vary widely.  You can accuse me of being manipulated by the media and having no real political thought on my own,  and I'll defend myself by saying that I'm just a dumb 16-
year- old who doesn't have any meaningful comprehension of politics,  doesn't pay taxes,  and takes too much for granted in his country,  yet is still trying to formulate a substantive political position.  If you look carefully,
 you'll notice that all five people I've listed have been really famous recently.  I would add Olympia Snowe,  Arlen Specter,  Diane Feinstein,  and Jim Jeffords onto this list but that would make me look wholly beholden to heavy media coverage.  Colin Powell (
Republican)  urlLink Colin Powell is a moderate Republican. nbsp;  urlLink I don't know a whole lot about Colin Powell's domestic stances- he probably doesn't have any- but I do know that his foreign policies are pretty reasonable.
 I don't think that war is ever really necessary and believe that it should pretty much be avoided/ prevented at all costs,  but as far as actual statesmen go,  Powell seems to highly dislike fighting,  and has the credentials- as a four star general-
to oppose war.  My bet is that if Powell were president,  we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq ( I've heard this term so much it makes me want to cry;  hereafter it'll be known as the war)  which would have been good.
 John McCain ( Republican)  urlLink John McCain is a moderate Republican& nbsp;  urlLink John McCain styles himself as a modern Teddy Roosevelt,  and I find that kind of gung-
ho progressivism romantically appealing.  He's a little conservative on some social policies for me,  but in general his fiscal stances make a lot of sense and he seems pretty honest,  with all the campaign finance reform and such.  He's a little too hawkish for me,  though,
 having supported the war.  Arnold Schwarzenegger urlLink Arnold Schwarzenegger is also a moderate Republican. nbsp;  urlLink Schwarzenegger is a great guy.  I'll ignore his questionable personal history and talk about his stances.  His fiscal policies are nice,
 especially to my well- off family,  and his social policies are pretty reasonable,  being pro- abortion and not really caring about gay marriage.  If anything,
 his social policies are left of where I am.  Also,  he generally seems pro- environment which appeals to me,  which is ironic because I drive a full- size diesel that gets like 22 miles per gallon.
 Howard Dean urlLink Howard Dean is a moderate Democrat ( nbsp;  urlLink I almost volunteered for this guy over winter break.  His fiscal policies in Vermont were very good,  balancing the budget while improving health care and education,  and in general is more moderate than most people think;
 he's pro- guns,  for example- not that I really care about gun control laws.  Civil unions are pretty reasonable,  too.
 Bill Clinton urlLink Despite what some people say,  Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat. nbsp;  urlLink Bill Clinton sort of started the whole New Democrat thing where Democrats were actually pro- small government and pro- balanced budgets.
 As a young person,  deficits are incredibly important to me ( third only to having cheap public universities and promoting jobs for entry- level people)  and Clinton and all of the others I've mentioned in this post- eexcept Powell because he doesn't have any evident fiscal policy stance-
are anti- deficit,  unlike our current president.  During Clinton's administration,  welfare reform and NAFTA were enacted,  and thusfar I think those programs have been tremendously successful and I support them fully.
 I guess I'll summarize what I think about politics now:  Foreign Policy I don't see the exercise of U. S.  power as useful in this world;  it's pretty much impossible for us as a nation to change the lives of any people in the world with hard power unless we want to spend trillions of dollars on troops and weapons and lose hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of soldiers- just look at how Iraq and Afghanistan are and how much they cost (
150 billion and 300 lives a year is a reasonable estimate)  I suppose that means that I would surrender to the terrorists;  no,  that doesn't mean convert to Islam and stop drinking alcohol,  which by the way I don't drink,  but it does mean pulling troops out of places we aren't wanted (
like Saudi Arabia and urlLink Iraq )  and accepting the resultant doubling,  tripling or quadrupling of petrol prices.  We could use the $ 150 billion we currently spend on fighting on helping people adjust for the increase in energy costs and on promoting the use of non- petroleum based fuels.
 I definitely wouldn't start a war to keep energy prices down.  It's kind of depressing,  but I see the United States as a country in relative decline when compared to the rest of the world.  That doesn't mean that the country itself is declining;  no,  it means that the rest of the world is growing stronger faster than we are growing stronger.
 The European Union,  which I know is not really a nation,  is already on par with us economically,  and it's probably impossible to prevent China and India from growing to our size in the next 50 to 100 years except by military power.  I wouldn't start a war to keep other people from getting rich enough that they are as wealthy as me.  Also,
 as a Christian who doesn't know any way to rationalize fighting into Jesus's teachings about turning the other cheek,  I'm a pacifist,  sort of like 7th Day Adventists and Quakers.  Social Policy I'm definitely left of center when it comes to social policy,  and I reconcile this with my Christian faith with two ideas:  that of free will,
 and that of the secular state.  First,  free will:  somehow it seems to me that it's more meaningful for me to be allowed to sin and not do it than for me to not sin out of fear of going to jail;  it's more meaningful to tell the truth when I don't have to than to tell the truth when someone puts a gun to my head.  I get this sort of out of Paul's writings about everything being permissible but not everything being profitable and Paul's saying that he chooses to do stuff like not eat sacrificed food even though he can because by doing so he doesn't cause those around him to stumble.
 For example,  if nobody fornicates because fornication is punished by death,  then that I do not fornicate out of my own volition isn't meaningful.  In contrast,  if it's perfectly legal to fornicate ( as it is today)
 and I do not out of my own volition,  then it's clear that I'm somehow different,  which opens the door to spreading the Gospel,  and makes me feel more legitimate.  I guess you could say that the law is sort of a crutch.  Second,
 the secular state:  I know that the secular state is entirely non- Biblical,  and the theocratic state is Biblical,  but that Israel was a theocracy a few thousand years ago doesn't mean that the United States should be one today.  Most of the stuff the Bible says about government is in the Old Testament;
 the New Testament largely leaves the topic alone aside from implying that I should generally obey the government except when doing so puts me counter to God's will.  ( Romans something talks about obeying the government,  and Jesus has the whole thing with the giving coins with Caesar's head on them as taxes.  Paul breaks a lot of laws by continuing to preaching the gospel.  Daniel,
 which is OT,  I know,  shows a good example of civil disobedience when the Persian king,  Cyrus I think,  does the 30 day non- worshipping thing which Daniel doesn't comply to.
 I guess my reading of the Old Testament is selective,  as I just realized that I only follow the parts that I agree with;  I'll have to pray about this.  In any case,  I don't see the government,  especially the federal government,
 as having a huge responsibility to regulate morality;  that should be left to families,  churches and communities.  I hate to repeat cliches but here goes:  not everything that is sinful should be unlawful,  and not everything unlawful is sinful.
 That's a cliche that many urlLink mainline to liberal protestant churches repeat a lot.  But I digress.  My social stances:  I don't care a whole lot about gun control;  I'm rich enough to not live in the projects of Chicago,  and I am not a southener.
 I don't personally own a gun and I don't really care whether my neighbor does,  as long as he isn't shooting people or other people's cars and animals.  It makes sense to outlaw machine guns/ anti aircraft guns/ explosive rounds/ require non-
invasive background checks/ c.  though.  Abortion is generally a bad thing because of the whole God forming people in mother's womb thing ( if there's another thing in the Bible that people use to attack abortion,  please let me know as it might change my view on this though probably not)
 though there is an argument to be made about the first couple months because back in Biblical times people couldn't tell if a woman was with child until quite a ways into a pregnancy.  If I were a woman with a healthy,  non- health threatening child who was not a product of rape/ incest,  I wouldn't have an abortion even if it were out of wedlock.
 I'm glad I'm not a female,  especially one in said situation.  Saved!  is a fun movie to watch just for the illegitimate child,  by the way.  On gay marriage:
 I don't think the government should be using the word marriage.  Marriage is a holy covenant between man and woman that forms the basic unit of society,  when in reality in our society it frequently is just a tax status.  Since the government shouldn't be regulating morality,  it doesn't have much of a role in marriage.  It should issue civil union licenses to couples (
only to couples,  though)  and let the churches bless them and call them marriages if they want to.  I don't really know what to think about gays adopting kids,  though.  I don't like entitlements (
social security,  medicare)  largely because I probably will end up getting taxed superheavily for them and then have them go bankrupt right when I retire.  Welfare reform was a good thing.  That welfare exists and is effective is also a good thing.  Right now we have a pretty good balance.
 The federal government has no role in K- 12 and preschool education.  It should hand out more research grants,  though.  Fiscal Policy I touched on this topic earlier,  but basically I'm a budget hawk because people who pile on debt today are hurting my future by making me have to pay a lot of taxes,
 undermining social security and medicare,  and possibly even leading to a urlLink destabilization of the dollar .  We should balance the budget over rolling six year periods to adjust for the cyclical nature of business,  and start chipping away at our general debt,  though having a little debt is good.  We should also fund social security and medicare while reducing entitlements.
 Defence doesn't need as much money as it has;  we can reduce our role in the world,  too- let Europe be the policeman.  Taxes should be changed so that passive income like capital gains are treated like normal income,  and money saved should be used to pay down the deficit first and then lower general income tax brackets (
progressively)  Attempts should also be made to encourage Americans to save part of their income,  perhaps by weakening the dollar.
