Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Not filtered. Why hide this?

  • Nov. 3rd, 2004 at 7:46 PM

I guess I'm outing myself politically.

I'm a very conservative person in many ways, but I'm not a Christian Fundamentalist (way far from that, really). If the Republican party did not back big business over the good of the country AND bear the worst of Christian Fundamentalist scaremongering like a battle flag, I'd probably be a Republican. I'm for the death penalty, for specific crimes, though I want reforms in our justice system to help ensure we don't kill innocents. That, alone, should get me kicked out of the Democratic party. I like guns, I use them, I'd carry one if my job required it, and I think that teaching kids about guns PROPERLY is how to avoid accidental deaths. Outlawing them doesn't work, that's when you get kids finding them and killing each other by mistake. I am fond of upholding our country's constitution, all of it.

That makes me a Libertarian, sort of, but I strongly dislike them as well. I have plenty of views that really ought to keep me out of the Democratic party, but there are still conservatives there, too (my grandmother is one of them - she's an old-school Dem, and I think, so am I), which means I at least have some company in my unpopular views. I'm pro-choice for others, but I personally will not have an abortion (for reasons that are personal - and that's how it should be, PERSONAL), and as with guns, I believe education about sexuality is the key to resolving the unwanted pregnancy and STD problem. I believe that recycling can work if it's actually encouraged (on a corporate level - that's where it breaks down), I want a sustainable economy, and I eat meat and wear leather (use the whole damn animal). I'm for letting people live their lives unmolested by 'bedroom laws' that will destroy the lives of good people that I know - gay people make perfectly decent parents, as do poly people.

Maybe I'm a moderate. Perhaps one side balances the other.

In another person's journal someone stated that they have never heard of Republicans wanting to leave if a Democrat wins. The reason you have not heard any republicans express a desire to move away is that a democrat in power doesn't ever mean that their rights may be taken away. Many people who are not deeply ensconced in the Religious Right are terrified that the basic principle of religious freedom is going to be eroded even further that it already has been (I could care less about prayer in schools, honestly, as long as everyone was allowed to do so in their own way - it's things like creationism superseding evolution in PUBLIC SCHOOLS that scare me). Women's rights are almost guaranteed to backslide in the next four years. Gay rights are already almost worse than they were ten years ago. Our President has practically promised that he will do all he can to do these things. How can institutionalized intolerance be good for our country and its people?

That is what frightens me - the threat of a theocracy in which I'd be a non-person. If it was a question of democrat vs republican as it was in the 1970's I'd be far less concerned.

I know plenty of intelligent, compassionate people who are not Fundies who are Republicans, and while I have to admire your loyalty to the other values, I also have to wonder why you turn a blind eye to what I find so frightening about the party as it stands today. I can't get my head around it. Maybe it's time for your party to re-evaluate its priorities? 

Comments

[info]paquerette wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:26 pm (UTC)
I think we have a lot of this in common. I'm never sure what to call myself. I fit equally badly in any common party. Oddly enough, I think Mike agrees on everything but the death penalty part, and he used to think he was a Republican.

It might not be entirely true that the Dems don't pose any threats to personal freedoms, though. There is the gun control thing, for one. Various other things I think they like to take too heavy of a hand in. I could go overbroad here and say "PC-ness". It goes too far sometimes. Hate crime laws and affirmative action spring to mind.
[info]kaffee_spinne wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:26 pm (UTC)
The reason you have not heard any republicans express a desire to move away is that a democrat in power doesn't ever mean that their rights may be taken away.

My brother is a total Republican, and he left Berkeley and moved to Vegas b/c he felt the Liberals were stealing his freedoms to express his views and to go to rifle ranges and collect firearms.
[info]jauncourt wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:43 pm (UTC)
He's unlikely to be demonized or lose a job or custody of children because of guns or conservative views, however. He wasn't driven out of the state by anything but preference.

AFAIK, it's still quite possible to go to gun shows, own LOTS of firearms, buy firearms, and use firearms at ranges in California, even in the Bay Area. How do I know? I have good freinds in the South Bay who own a veritable armory and practice with it, REGULARLY.

Also, he could very easily have voiced his views. Nobody was ordering him to shut up, were they? Did he leave because he wasn't allowed to express his views, or because he was made uncomfortable by the reaction he got?
[info]paquerette wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:48 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised to hear about someone losing custody of kids because of gun ownership. In some areas, in some courts, that would be seen as a horrible environment to have a kid in.
[info]kaffee_spinne wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:57 pm (UTC)
I would have to agree...it's all how a lawyer (or vindictive, intolerant ex-partner) can spin it.
[info]buttler wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:28 pm (UTC)
murder, they wrote

actually the democratic party has never taken a stand against the death penalty because to do so is still seen as political suicide, despite the fact that, you know, no other western nation still puts people to death. it makes me crazy, but that's one of the things the mainstream's still pretty reactionary about.

[info]jauncourt wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:46 pm (UTC)
Re: murder, they wrote
Not officially, no, but it's almost a given that you'll be opposed to it if you are in the Democratic Party since it's become synonymous with Very Liberal Left-leaning politics, however true or untrue that might be.
[info]buttler wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:52 pm (UTC)
liber-what?

yeah, but i think you'll find that most democratic politicians support the death penalty, at least publicly, unless they represent (or seek to represent) a very left-leaning district. the democratic party is pretty afraid of the L-word for the most part.

it's far from a given that you oppose it if you're in the democratic party, but it's very likely that if you oppose it you're in the democratic party -- unless you've given up on them for being so damn middle-of-the-road.
[info]divine_ambrosia wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 04:39 am (UTC)
Re: murder, they wrote
No other western nation still puts people to death? If by that you mean Canada....then maybe. I have a feeling that those in mexico and south america might argue with you.
[info]buttler wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 10:00 am (UTC)
Re: murder, they wrote

yeah, i was unclear in my terms: i was using 'western' to refer to the western european nations the u.s. formerly considered to be its collegues, rather than the entire western hemisphere. i would have said european, but yugoslavia and some former soviet republics still practice it.

but you're certainly correct that the united states has the policy of a third world nation in this particular case, so our colleagues would indeed be chile, cuba, and guatamala.

actually, here's a list of the countries and territories that still practice the death penalty:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial-Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgystan,
Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco,
Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, St Christopher, Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tadzhikistan,
Taiwan, Tajikstan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, U.S.A., Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

so yeah, that's our company. make of it what you will.
[info]lady_guenievre wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 07:01 pm (UTC)
I'm very impressed - you've managed to articulate most of my political leanings, even my view on abortion! The only thing I'm not sure I agree with you on is the gun control issue, and that's one I'm still torn on - while on a "personal freedom" level I agree with you, on a societal level I'm still torn by the fact that guns that don't exist can't hurt people... but really it's a genie that's already been let out of the bottle, so at this point I'm leaning more towards the personal freedom aspects of the issue. Though I still can't stand being in the same room with the damn things...
[info]sorchekyrkeby wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 08:11 pm (UTC)
*smile* Why on earth would I remove a person from a friends' list just because we don't share the same political viewpoint? The First Amendment is in effect wherever you are, too -- it's not just a conservative midwestern thang.

I *appreciate* a civilly-worded opinion of differing viewpoints. It's name-calling and vitriol on either side I can't stand -- extremists of any stripe scare me. It's the Libra in me. :-)

[info]laurensa wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 06:08 am (UTC)
I used to think I was a Republican. I still hold some of the same beliefs.
I'm a Christian, and a fairly conservative one, but I simply can't identify with the fundies.
I hate being dependent on foreign oil for our energy, and that whether or not my kids can see their grandparents for Christmas depends on whether some idiot decides to cut their production of oil. OTOH, the thought of tearing up what little wilderness we have left makes me physically ill. Nuclear power scares the crap out of me, especially living so close to Three Mile Island.

My DH and I are looking to move, and we have totally ruled out one local area because of a recent decision by their school board. They have ruled that Intelligent Design MUST be taught in the Dover public schools, along with evolution.

Bear in mind, I AM a Christian. But I fiercely believe in the separation of church and state, and I would prefer my kids to receive their religious education from me and the church of my choice, thank you very much. Keep your personal agendas out of the damn school!
[info]narnee wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 08:36 am (UTC)
Like you, I have opinions which don't quite mesh with either of the two main parties -- or even the two major third parties. I've been thinking for a while that what the US needs is some sort of left-libertarian party; pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-sex ed, pro-environment, pro-social safety net but with a free market economy, etc.

(Actually, I mostly agree with you, although I have had an abortion and I'd be for the death penalty if there was a way to make sure innocents weren't killed which I don't think there is.)
[info]sorchekyrkeby wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 10:41 am (UTC)
I'm for tightening restrictions on the death penalty -- as it is, the Innocence Project is great, and really brings home that we need to have more concrete evidence as proof a criminal committed said crime(s) before allowing an execution take place. After all, you can free someone behind bars, but you can't bring the dead back to life.

[info]alienor wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 12:46 pm (UTC)
The reason you have not heard any republicans express a desire to move away is that a democrat in power doesn't ever mean that their rights may be taken away.

I'd have to disagree with you here. Gun ownership (second amendment) is just as much a part of the Constitution as religious freedom (first amendment).

In addition, the current liberal interpretation of seperation of church and state (in school and public places) is NO speech, which can be interpreted as a violation of first amendment rights.


I'm not trying to be mean or critical, but I am trying to present an alternate point of view (which is not necessarily my own, but it is my background and I know where they are coming from).