democrat

Yes. I believe in majority rule. That doesn't mean it never terrifies me to think what majorities are capable of.

liberal

This one means so many things to so many people. I believe that I qualify because I value freedom, although not in infinite amounts or infinite extent.

I am certainly not what an American would call a liberal, which is really a social democrat, verging on a socialist, although I used to be a social democrat.

republican

I believe in government of the people by the people for the people. I am not an anarchist, a monarchist or a believer in rule by permanent elites. Republican (small r!) seems a good label.

socialist

I do not believe in the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange as being a good thing in and of itself. I support social ownership as a tactic to attain other specified goals in particular and very limited circumstances. Socialism is not the end, it can be a means to some of my ends. I do not consider myself to be a socialist.

leftist / left wing

right wing

Until the middle of 2010 I did consider myself of the left, perhaps the Darwinian left, but now I reject the whole left-right split and I have no aspirations to be seen as either left or right.

nationalist

A nationalist believes in his nation and its right to exist. I believe that England is one of the last colonies of the British Empire. I want freedom from oppression for my people. I don't feel comfortable with foreign troops marching through the streets of London, that includes Scots. Whilst I am am undoubtedly now a nationalist, in the medium term (decades ahead) I do not see myself as somebody who would fight for a separate nation under every conceivable circumstance. My nationalism is a policy stance, not a definitional stance.

Racist

I do not believe in the superiority of one race over another. Neither do I believe that every single human group however you define it will have identical scores for intelligence any more than they will have an identical mean height or mean age of puberty. My political beliefs are not based upon a dogmatic belief about races, their status or existence. There may be statistically significant differences between some groups, if there are I don't care, I still think every person (a category which need not be confined to biological entities let alone members of our species) should be treated fairly and be treated according to the traits and abilities they display as individuals, not as a representative of any group.

Bigot

I believe that people holding certain beliefs are dangerous and should be treated accordingly. People who believe that a man in the sky talks to them should not be treated as normal and should not be allowed to hold positions of power, again. People who believe they have a duty to fight a war until they have subdued the whole world should be treated as if they mean it and not allowed an opportunity to kill or enslave people. That means I will be accused of being “Islamophobic” by those who think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that people who proclaim a vicious faith don't really mean what they say and are not a threat.

fascist

As I am not a socialist nor a fundamental nationalist I think that I can rule out National Socialist and fascist as reasonable labels for my views.

internationalist

Excellent label. I believe that the future of our society and culture depends upon international co-operation to begin with, leading to the creation of a federal world state. The abolition of nations as nation-states with the power of veto and the power to fight wars is a vital step towards the creation of a democratic federal republic of Earth. India has a federal structure of a billion people within a single democracy, I suggest if it can operate over one billion people with several thousand languages and many religions there is no reason to believe that it cannot work on the next level. However this must remain a long term aspiration, it is not likely to be practical within my lifetime and great harm could be done by going for a quick fix. The world needs to be civilized and enlightened before we can do away with the protection of democratic states. This may take 50, 100 or 150 years, but however long it takes we must not dismiss it as fantasy nor leap into it prematurely.

utilitarian

This one seems to fit. While I do not believe it is possible to literally and explicitly calculate the greatest good to the greatest number it seems to me to be the only truly honourable way to decide policy aims. I never put ideology ahead of practicality. If I have any ideology this is it: be practical, achieve desirable ends through legitimate and defensible means.

environmentalist

I believe that we must respect the environment we live in in order that we maintain overall utility for ourselves, including our own self respect as people and a culture. We also owe a duty of care to the future, whether you see that in terms of family, race, species, nation or culture, the result is rather similar, we need a clean environment not denuded of basic resources.

Conservative

For decades conservative was the very last thing I would ever like to be called, even worse than being called late for dinner. Now I have shifted and I don't care any longer. I am certainly no longer a knee-jerk anti-conservative or a simple-minded contrarian. I don't see history moving uniformly in a single coherent direction. Neither do I see endless cycles of dark and brighter ages. Some things we have now need defending, others need building and we need to have shared values, rubbishing conservatives and dismissing and ridiculing all our past values is not a good strategy. I'd rather be seen as a conservative than be wrong or damage my country or humanity's future.

communist

Not even close. I respect Marx as a sociologist, much less as an economist and barely at all as a political philosopher.