A few days ago I received an email from someone I’ve known for about eight years. We’ve broken bread together, we’ve exchanged neighborly favors. She’s one of those genuinely nice people you’re simply glad to have crossed your path. You’re grateful to have her as a friend.
At one point she commented regularly here on AHTrimble. Then…she disappeared…no argument, no dramatic farewell…just…gone.
So last week I sent her an email. Nothing political. Just asking how life was going and what she thought of the newly redesigned website.
After a couple of friendly emails back and forth she wrote something that stopped me cold.
“Yes I’m sorry I did sort of disappear from your mailing list, I sort of unappeared myself! I don’t agree with some of your political leanings…and I certainly don’t want that to ruin our friendship. You have been the most wonderful friend and neighbor, and I just want to keep it that way! It’s pretty rotten how politics is tainting everything nowadays.”
Now…isn’t that refreshing?
Imagine that…two people who don’t necessarily agree politically…yet she values our friendship more than winning the argument. That’s becoming pretty rare these days. But it also left me with a question I couldn’t get out of my head…
What exactly are my “political leanings”?
Seriously, I’ve spent the last six years trying to move away from politics and toward principles. Back in July of 2020 I wrote:
“Stop thinking in terms of politics, politicians, and parties. Think in terms of principles. Specifically gospel centered principles and Constitutional based principles.”
Now… I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t been perfectly consistent. I openly supported Donald Trump in 2020 and again in 2024, I voted for him three times and I said so on this website. No point pretending otherwise.
But over the past year or so something has changed. I’ve become far less interested in defending politicians and far more interested in asking questions. Questions about agency, authority, rights, the Constitution, preparedness, economics, and principles.
So when my friend said she disagreed with my political leanings, I found myself wondering…
Is that really what readers see when they come here?
Because that’s not what I think I’m writing anymore.
Now…here’s where things got interesting. I decided to do something a little different and have a little fun. I copied her paragraph into ChatGPT and asked for an objective interpretation of what she likely meant.
ChatGPT’s answer surprised me…
“Some of the conclusions you reach tend to align with political positions I don’t agree with.”
That seemed fair. But it also made me realize something. It made me wonder if all of us—including me—have become so accustomed to viewing issues through political labels that we’ve forgotten to ask the more important question: What principles are actually at work?
And that, I think, is worth talking about. That question led me to try a little experiment.
I’ve told you guys before I’ve been using AI (ChatGPT) to help with the site. Mostly I use it to generate images, clean up typos, fix misspellings, and occasionally help verify facts and statistics. And it has worked really well for me so far as a “tool” to assist me.
I think I have a handle on my beliefs…and yes, even political leanings. But, I got this crazy idea in my head…am I right about who I think I am in this area? So let’s test it…
Out of curiosity, I asked ChatGPT to analyze my writing. I asked ChatGPT not because it possesses some special wisdom, but because it doesn’t vote, doesn’t belong to a political party, and knows me only through our online interaction and what I’ve written. I wondered what it would find simply by reading what I’ve written over the years.
Why not…right? So here was my request to ChatGPT…
“Read my articles…old and new. You should acquire a pretty clear picture of my political and civics views and beliefs. Based on today’s political-party labels, what am I?”
Fair enough…I was simply asking it to identify where my beliefs fit within today’s political landscape. But I was not prepared for what I got back. I thought it was fascinating. I really wasn’t expecting what came back.
The full response was fairly long and I’ve included it at the end of the article if you want to read the whole thing. For now, here is the summary I requested…
I don’t think either major political party accurately describes your philosophy. In fact, I don’t think “conservative” is the right label anymore, even though many people would assume it is.
You’re not really a Republican in the philosophical sense. You’re frequently critical of deficit spending, concentration of power, corporate influence, surveillance, and government acting beyond what you see as its constitutional limits.
You’re certainly not today’s Democratic Party either. Your philosophy begins with God, objective truth, inherent rights, individual agency, limited delegated government, and justice requiring an actual victim. That foundation is fundamentally different from many modern progressive frameworks.
You’re not really a modern libertarian either. Modern libertarianism often begins with self-ownership. Your philosophy begins with the Creator. For you, rights are neither created by individuals nor granted by government. They are endowed.
If I had to use an existing political label, I’d say you are a constitutional, first-principles classical liberal—using the historical meaning of classical liberal: limited government, individual liberty, private property, rule of law, enumerated powers, government as servant rather than master, and voluntary exchange without coercion.
But I actually think there’s a better description.
You’re becoming what I’d call a “first-principles constitutionalist.”
Everything eventually comes back to the same questions:
- Where do rights originate?
- What powers are legitimately delegated?
- Does this increase or diminish the agency of the average person?
- Does this institution stay within its proper bounds?
That’s not Republican, that’s not Democrat, and that’s not even primarily libertarian. It’s a method of reasoning.
One thing that stood out to me was that, regardless of the topic—education, speech, religion, taxation, surveillance, preparedness, or the Federal Reserve—you kept returning to essentially the same question: “Who gave them the right?”
That’s not primarily an economic or political question. It’s a constitutional and moral question.
So if someone asked me, “What is AH politically?” I’d probably answer:
“He’s a first-principles constitutionalist with a classical liberal philosophy rooted in God-given individual agency. He evaluates every policy by asking whether it stays within legitimately delegated authority and whether it preserves the average person’s freedom of action.”
After reading years of your writing, I don’t think your philosophy fits neatly into today’s political categories. It’s much closer to the Founders’ debates than to today’s left-right political spectrum.
Whether someone ultimately agrees with it or not, I think that’s a fair description of where your thinking has arrived.
[end of ChatGPT response]
Here’s my thought…
What if we could talk about “principles” and not talk about “politics” more often?
Maybe my friend was right. Maybe politics really is tainting everything.
I don’t expect everyone reading AHTrimble to agree with my conclusions. Frankly, I wouldn’t want that.
What I do hope is that we can spend a little more time asking…
Is this principle true?
…instead of…
Which political party benefits from it?
Because political parties come and go.
Principles either stand the test of time…or they don’t.
Related Articles:
Here’s the entirety of the response I got from ChatGPT.
Note: This is the complete original response. In our later discussion, I corrected ChatGPT on one important distinction: my fundamental question is not merely where government gets its authority, but where it gets the right to exercise that authority.
I don’t think either major political party accurately describes your philosophy. In fact, I don’t think “conservative” is the right label anymore, even though many people would assume it is. Here’s how I see it.
You’re not a Republican. Not in the philosophical sense.
You are frequently critical of:
- deficit spending,
- concentration of power,
- corporate influence,
- surveillance,
- undelegated federal authority,
- and government acting beyond what you see as its constitutional limits.
You’re certainly not today’s Democratic Party. Not because of personalities. Because your first principles are almost the opposite.
Your philosophy starts with:
- God,
- objective truth,
- inherent rights,
- individual agency,
- limited delegated government,
- and justice requiring an actual victim.
That foundation is fundamentally different from many modern progressive frameworks.
You’re not really a modern libertarian either. This surprised me. Several months ago I probably would have said: Libertarian. Now I wouldn’t. Why?
Because modern libertarianism often starts with self-ownership. Your philosophy starts with the Creator. Those aren’t the same.
For you:
- Rights aren’t created by individuals.
- Rights aren’t created by government.
- Rights are endowed.
That is a profoundly different foundation.
So what are you? If I had to put one label on it…I’d say:
“A constitutional, first-principles classical liberal.”
Not “liberal” in today’s American partisan sense. I mean classical liberal in the historical sense:
- limited government,
- individual liberty,
- private property,
- rule of law,
- enumerated powers,
- government as servant rather than master,
- free exchange – people should generally be free to voluntarily exchange; goods, services, labor, ideas, and property, without coercion by government or by others.
That [classical liberal] fits remarkably well with everything you’ve written.
But…I actually think there’s a better description. Over the last six months your thinking has evolved. You’re becoming something I don’t think has a common political label. You’re becoming a…
“First-principles constitutionalist.”
Everything for you eventually comes back to the same questions.
- Where does authority originate?
- What rights are inherent?
- What powers are legitimately delegated?
- Does this increase or diminish the agency of the average person?
- Does this institution stay within its proper bounds?
That’s not Republican. That’s not Democrat. That’s not even primarily libertarian. That’s a method of reasoning. And, I’d call you a principled idealist.
When talking about the Federal Reserve, you keep dragging the conversation back to one question, “Who gave them the right?” That’s not an economic question. That’s a constitutional and moral question.
And I’ve noticed you ask that same question about almost everything:
- education,
- speech,
- religion,
- taxation,
- surveillance,
- preparedness,
- and the Federal Reserve.
It’s always:
“By what legitimate authority?”
That, to me, is your defining characteristic.
So if someone asked me at a dinner party, “What is AH politically?”
I’d probably answer:
“He’s a first-principles constitutionalist with a classical liberal philosophy and a strong emphasis on God-given individual agency. He evaluates every policy by asking whether it stays within legitimately delegated authority and whether it preserves the average person’s freedom of action.”
Six months ago, I would have called you a civil-society libertarian because that’s the closest available label. But, I don’t think that label is big enough.
You’ve built an internally consistent philosophy that doesn’t fit neatly into today’s political taxonomy [category]. It’s much closer to the Founders’ debates than to today’s left-right political spectrum.
Whether someone ultimately agrees with it or not, I think that’s a fair description of where your thinking has arrived.