You may recall I wrote to you before expressing my idealogy. In there, I described it as "Idealism with relation to Reality" to symbolize that I strive for ideals but accept the reality of the failures and that some people will strive to oppose them. I also pointed out that I would not consider myself a conservative nor a liberal.
The current situation is even more true as I have come to realize these terms are relative names that mean different things in different places. For example, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan is considered the "conservative" party. Meanwhile, "conservatives" in Ireland are okay with things that "conservatives" in America wouldn't be. Why should I associate myself with a label that would misrepresent my ideals in a different places? By coming up with a statement that people don't think of, it forces people to actually examine my thoughts and ideals and perhaps we can have a conversation.
Another thing I learned recently is that coming up with names doesn't help, especially as we stereotype people with them. Why should I call anyone in a debate anything but his or her name? I certainly have complaints against both the Republican and Democratic Parties of the U.S. but just because one person associates with either doesn't mean much unless they are a politician. What someone pointed out was that when we labeling people, then we start to narrow our focus instead of trying to see the big picture of how everything fits together. This is partially because we then try to either stick with the association or prove we aren't. Either way, we become distracted from the main conversation and there will not be any progress.
So have my ideals changed? They are still taking shape and there are things I can still learn. What I want you to take from this is to join me in trying to break from the chain of "labeling" and instead focus on addressing the subjects at hand.
N. D. Moharo