Choosing Views

My political views are in a state of constant flux.  My many conservative friends and family would call me liberal, maybe even radical in a couple of areas.  Then again, my most liberal friends might not approve of "liberal" as a moniker for me.  After all, I am fiscally moderate and actually approve of the medical and pharmaceutical fields' work.  Hell, I'm actually kind of a libertarian in certain economic and individual rights issues.

Generally, I guess I side with the scientific community.  So yeah, I'm all about evolution, but I don't set much store by alternative medicine.

I guess I'm some kind of pragmatic materialist.

I'm not patriotic per se... I care very much about the welfare of US citizens and the goings on in this country, but I don't think the USA is the infallible beacon of all that is good that some others think.  I don't like the USA's extensive military presence and activity in the world.  Does that make my un-American?
I guess I don't care too much about being "American" or "un-American."  I'm mostly concerned with the happiness and suffering of people in general, not Americans in particular.

I guess it's a tricky question... is it moral for me to value those who happen to live close to me more than those who don't?  (Here I use "close" not exclusively in reference to distance.  Cultural experience and roots count, too)
On one hand, this assumption seems utterly immoral to me.  Why should other people be more important just because they happen to be more similar or at least close to me?
On the other, the world is too big to try to help every single person.  So I guess we should start at home?
I can't tell.  Hrmph.  Moral ambiguity is so tricky all the time.

Ah well, when I try to nail down my own political stances, I either have to laugh at the absurdity of it all or get really frustrated, so I'm practicing laughing.  Dead children... ba hahahahahahaaaa!

I've actually formulated the ideal political solution.  It's a version of democracy where people vote on basic moral statements, not policy.  Awesome, no?!
See, you just poll the entire population on what they value, getting a large base of simple moral statements that can be rationally extended into moral statements about potential policy.  Then, you enact the combination of policies that results in the highest overall moral satisfaction score!
What shall I call it?  Ethical... Ethos... Etho-rational democracy?  Or maybe Logo-moral self-representation...
And yes, I know it couldn't work  just like that.  Maybe I'll post on it later.