Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
I think it might better than one would suspect.
Currently, you are correct, there isn't a correlation between applying "leaving people alone / telling people what to do" and political parties. That's why many people have to weigh their stances on these issues. I think you and I (and SD) weigh toward the leave people alone side. But you find yourself a Republican disappointed with their stands on social issues (because the economic ones are more important to you) and I find myself a Democrat disappointed with my party's traditional (but as an aside, I think getting much better) stands on economic questions, because of how I rank the relative importance of my values. I'm okay with pandering to unions, because the alternative is to throw my hat in with people who hate gays, which I will NOT do. You tolerate aspects of the Republican platform because you will NEVER support raising taxes. It's just priorities (I'm genuinely trying to be neutral here: I understand your priorities even while I may disagree as to their relative importance).
I think the next ten years will show a reflection of a trend from the last ten years: periodically, the two parties have some big realignments in their philosophies to more accurately reflect the biggest masses of public opinion. It'll take another 10-15 years for party loyalists to realize they are in parties that don't reflect their interests (much like the defections of Southern Democrats to the Republican party in the 70s and early 80s), but I suspect you and I will find ourselves in the same party in 20 years.
|
A better assessment of the sad state of our choices would be hard to find. "Damned if you do..."
But lemme ask you this... Why is it that we can't have a party that demands fiscal responsibility and is also socially liberal? Why do social conservativism and fiscal conservativism have to walk hand in hand? If the majority of the country is really liberal republican (and from what I read about dicontent with the parties, I believe it is) why can't we have a liberal repiublican party? Why can't we dredge up Nelson Rockefeller's plank and run with it? Why in today's world shouild it be such a sin to stand up and say "I'm a socially liberal Rockefeller Republican." Isn't that kind of the platform this country was built upon? The idea, as I recall, was that we'd be free from both taxes and govt - state and fed - interfering in our lives. I should not be taken to task by some self-centered moralizing states righter when I say I'm a Liberal Republican (I guess that's Libertarian). He should be explaining to me where he derives his platform, because I see nothing in 200+ years of this country to support what either party desires as truly "American" goals. I see a lot of false patriots and people trying to force other people to live under their unreasonable and unwanted rules. That is not "conservative", its un-American.
