I would argue that his only ideal that he shares with the left wing is to leave Iraq. Everything else that he stands for is smaller/decentralized Federal Gov't. All Libs want is larger and federalized programs. Universal this and free that, it's almost a joke to hear them discuss these great ideas and not touch on where the funds are coming from.
I am so conflicted between idealism and realism when it comes to the whole federalized programs situation. I believe in it in theory, I don't mind paying a percent of my check to make sure single mom's can afford medicine AND food for their kids, I don't think that's too much to ask of a society whatsoever. And I'm far from rich.
But I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate who plans on such programs SOLELY BECAUSE THEY WILL HORRIBLY **** IT UP!
It's so frustrating. I believe in a sense of national "Got your back" sort of mentality and solidarity between all people, that's the "good" kind of national pride that doesn't focus on hate but rather on looking out for your fellow citizens.
But the government is SO FAR REMOVED from citizens that they notoriously bungle, mismanage, and outright embezzle funds that we donate to cover the things that our neighbor might need that we don't have.
They **** cocks at managing tax dollars and creating programs. 90% of the things my tax dollar goes to, I hate the management/implementation/downright existence of!
This is the reason I support minimal government. Even though more good COULD BE DONE with the same money that I'll have the choice to help people out with, it WON'T be, because everyone is in bed with a lobbiest **** orgy.
No humans can be trusted with controlling the structures of society. It has literally never worked well. Ever.
Maybe I will run for president on the hunter/gatherer platform.