I understand this is more suited for peri_renna, but tell me about why you're a Republican. Family influence? The world around you? Get into depth. What does conservatism mean to you?
Not a problem - packbat is really where all the action is.
Why Republican? Well, to present the choice in the most positive light: the U.S. works on a two-party system, and a two-party democracy cannot work unless both parties are acting in the interests of the people. I feel that the present Republican party has farther to go.
To be honest, I disagree with essentially every characteristic that is emphasized in the modern party - American exceptionalism, promotion of religion in the political sphere, opposition to LGBT (LGBTQ? LGBTQA? MSGI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT#Variants)?) rights, opposition to legalized abortion, neoconservative foreign policy, opposition to taxation in any form but progressive taxation in particular, opposition to the social safety net ... the list goes on. I watch the Daily Show. I mock Fox News. I am a liberal. If it were a matter of plotting all the policy positions on axes and minimizing the distance, I'd have a D by my name.
But I'm not happy with that. I want a nation that agrees with me on the issues I'm passionate about, not merely one party that is sometimes in power doing so. And I want disagreement - I want a credible voice to say, "If you really want to encourage mass transit, you need to reduce the regulatory barriers - otherwise communities will just build more highways." For example. If, say, nine years from now the Republican party is down to ~10% of the U.S. population and the Libertarian Party is up to ~10%, I'd join the Libertarian Party instead, but I won't believe that until it happens.
As for "conservatism" - well, right now it's a codeword in the same way "pro-life" is; what it means has nothing to do with its framing. But what it should mean is caution. It should mean having as your Prime Directive not "don't interfere", or "don't do anything", or "vote for a righteous king to rule us and lead us forward for the greater glory of God", but "avoid catastrophic failure". It should mean skepticism towards shiny new ideas, no matter how "obviously" brilliant they are.
You are making sense, and I thank you for explaining your views to me. I am a fan of how you agree with me on pretty much every issue!
I find the political party thing to be very testy. I'm not sure which party to identify with, but I know for sure that I am a super dee duper "bleeding heart liberal" (though I do hate that phrase; it's rather grim). If the Republican party today was what it was when Lincoln was president or when Teddy Roosevelt was president, I would probably be a Republican. But I have been raised to hate -- and I do hate, of my own accord -- the modern Republican party. So I turn to the modern Democratic party, which seems to have become what the Republican party once was.
I don't agree with Libertarianism because I think the government needs to interfere at some point -- that's why we have one in the first place. How did we get out of the Great Depression? Well, WWII, but also because of government made programs (and a modern Democratic president... I mean, what? :P). Obama just happens to be in favor of the government stepping in to fix things. Oh, and I'm going to add that I don't understand this "Socialist" business. He said one thing that indicated that way of thinking. But why doesn't America see that he is SO MODERATE? I WANTED HIM TO BE MORE RADICAL SOMETIMES.
I don't understand how anyone can be FABGLITTER (just read that link and have to use it because LOL) and a neo-con. THEY HATE YOU. Also, you're right, people should include the Q&A every once in a while because they are components. There are just a lot of letters ;)
I'm hoping America will start seeing him as moderate - the Overton window needs a little pushing to the 'left'.
As for MSGI (I like the idea of MSGI, I'll give it a shot) Republicans ... well, my take is that they, like me, hope to help convey the party out of the culture-war quagmire and into being a genuine alternative voice on issues. A voice which offers analysis and challenges assumptions, not just demonizes sick twelve-year-old boys for the sin of not supporting their current leader (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
no subject
Why Republican? Well, to present the choice in the most positive light: the U.S. works on a two-party system, and a two-party democracy cannot work unless both parties are acting in the interests of the people. I feel that the present Republican party has farther to go.
To be honest, I disagree with essentially every characteristic that is emphasized in the modern party - American exceptionalism, promotion of religion in the political sphere, opposition to LGBT (LGBTQ? LGBTQA? MSGI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT#Variants)?) rights, opposition to legalized abortion, neoconservative foreign policy, opposition to taxation in any form but progressive taxation in particular, opposition to the social safety net ... the list goes on. I watch the Daily Show. I mock Fox News. I am a liberal. If it were a matter of plotting all the policy positions on axes and minimizing the distance, I'd have a D by my name.
But I'm not happy with that. I want a nation that agrees with me on the issues I'm passionate about, not merely one party that is sometimes in power doing so. And I want disagreement - I want a credible voice to say, "If you really want to encourage mass transit, you need to reduce the regulatory barriers - otherwise communities will just build more highways." For example. If, say, nine years from now the Republican party is down to ~10% of the U.S. population and the Libertarian Party is up to ~10%, I'd join the Libertarian Party instead, but I won't believe that until it happens.
As for "conservatism" - well, right now it's a codeword in the same way "pro-life" is; what it means has nothing to do with its framing. But what it should mean is caution. It should mean having as your Prime Directive not "don't interfere", or "don't do anything", or "vote for a righteous king to rule us and lead us forward for the greater glory of God", but "avoid catastrophic failure". It should mean skepticism towards shiny new ideas, no matter how "obviously" brilliant they are.
Am I making sense?
no subject
I find the political party thing to be very testy. I'm not sure which party to identify with, but I know for sure that I am a super dee duper "bleeding heart liberal" (though I do hate that phrase; it's rather grim). If the Republican party today was what it was when Lincoln was president or when Teddy Roosevelt was president, I would probably be a Republican. But I have been raised to hate -- and I do hate, of my own accord -- the modern Republican party. So I turn to the modern Democratic party, which seems to have become what the Republican party once was.
I don't agree with Libertarianism because I think the government needs to interfere at some point -- that's why we have one in the first place. How did we get out of the Great Depression? Well, WWII, but also because of government made programs (and a modern Democratic president... I mean, what? :P). Obama just happens to be in favor of the government stepping in to fix things. Oh, and I'm going to add that I don't understand this "Socialist" business. He said one thing that indicated that way of thinking. But why doesn't America see that he is SO MODERATE? I WANTED HIM TO BE MORE RADICAL SOMETIMES.
I don't understand how anyone can be FABGLITTER (just read that link and have to use it because LOL) and a neo-con. THEY HATE YOU. Also, you're right, people should include the Q&A every once in a while because they are components. There are just a lot of letters ;)
no subject
As for MSGI (I like the idea of MSGI, I'll give it a shot) Republicans ... well, my take is that they, like me, hope to help convey the party out of the culture-war quagmire and into being a genuine alternative voice on issues. A voice which offers analysis and challenges assumptions, not just demonizes sick twelve-year-old boys for the sin of not supporting their current leader (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827).
no subject
...that's just appalling. What is wrong with these people, trying to discredit a kid who was in a car crash?
no subject
Edit: "Stop"ing Growl doesn't do anything - now disabling GrowlMail in Mail...
Edit 2: Reenabling GrowlMail...
Edit 3: Relevant forum thread (http://forums.cocoaforge.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19522&sid=7afd76993b9ab66f031f5ad90bd92068)...