The Democratic Party wants government to help the sick, the weak, the poor, and the middle class in their perpetual struggle for a better life against powerful forces that want to exploit them. The Republicans oppose this and believe it is "every man for himself." They want a smaller government that intrudes less in people's lives (except when it comes to anything touching sex, like abortion and homosexuality, in which case the government should dictate acceptable behavior).
I suppose I get why people are against abortion because they see it as murder. That's fine. But why all the anti-contraception stuff then? More importantly, why do they care so much about gay marriage? It makes no sense to me whatsoever coming from the same crowd who is pathologically against government intrusion into people's lives.
In our state we are currently going through yet another recount. Should the battle drag on past January, Tim Pawlenty has vowed to stay on as governor with the Republicans having won back both houses in the state legislature. Their first priority?
A state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
5 comments:
That's a pretty funny description for both parties.
Here's a more accurate one:
Republicans believe in having the minimum possible number of laws and regulations, strictly and evenly enforced on everyone. Democrats believe in the having the maximum possible number of laws and regulations, but that Democrat officials and favored constituencies should not have to abide by them.
The preoccupation with gay marriage is one of the main reasons I look askance at republicans, as well as the whole "we're for smaller government - except when we're in power" thing.
But you do touch on the fundamental difference between right and left. At the bottom of everything lies the huge disagreement about what role government should play in our lives.
I'm for as little as possible. I'd like as much freedom to chart my own destiny as is humanly possible, constrained only by laws that would punish me if my actions would harm another. I don't want to waste any time or effort telling anyone else what to do either, unless their actions would harm me.
Personally I don't think government should be in the marriage business at all. I don't care whether you're marrying the opposite gender, the same gender, a major household appliance, your dog, or as many people as you can pack into a room. It's not any of my business and I really don't want to know, thank you very much.
Basically I take the "let the free market decide" principle and apply it here as well.
I'm finding it a little amusing, more than a little depressing, and very revealing that most of a week and half a dozen posts later, no one challenges the assertion that Democrats think they shouldn't have to abide by the law if it's inconvenient to do so.
Kevin at TSM is apparently correct: Different first principles. It's pointless to discuss anything with you, because even where there appears to be common ground that will only be an illusion. Even if/where we agree on "this should be the law regarding this situation," the distinction between the conservatives' unspoken addendum, "and it should apply equally to everybody" is completely at odds with the liberals' "and it should only apply to conservatives/white people/rich people/whatever group we've decided it's okay to hate today."
No wonder I often feel like I'm trying to explain something to a doorknob.
Post a Comment