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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
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?