Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't disagree with you, but it's on the other side as well. Those that want everyone to have basically unlimited social freedoms do not want all to have commensurate economic freedoms. That is what I meant by saying that your definition doesn't adequately describe people accross all issues.
|
And I agree with you. It seems that the Democrats can't divorce themselves from the arm of their party which demands that the govt retain a babysitting role. That's too bad. I think if the liberals got rid of that vehement minority in their camp, they'd discover most of the country agrees with them. Most people are "liberal republicans" (less govt/taxes + as much social freedom as possible).
Here's a hypthetical for you... What would happen if the Dems suddenly dropped the plank of their platform which supports govt regulation/babysitting? What if suddenly they became the party of less govt and more social freedom? How would the traditional GOP deal with all the liberal republicans who've only voted GOP for tax reasons suddenly switching to a liberal republican alternative party? I think at a minimum, such a move would create a more honest debate in this country. It would force the alleged "copnservatives" to admit they're actually not for freedom and liberty at all, but for freedom and liberty for people to act as they see fit.
The real crux of the difference between the Right and Left in this country is that the Right wants to regulate people's social lives and the Left wants to regulate their pocketbooks. I lean left a lot more these days because I can always ,make more money if the Left's in charge, but I don't know how to go about creating liberties once they're taken away from me. I'm beginning to understand why some people see this election as so important. Maybe Bush's ideologues will never get to regulate our lives as they'd like, but why even give them an inch?
