Originally posted by MidnightTarget
Libral Ideals (Gauntlet accepted)
1. Opportunity should be equalized for all. No one is less or more deserving of the benefits available in our system.
2. Women should have a right to choose to be an incubator or not.
3. No religion should have a precedence in our government or any of its institutions.
4. Freedom and rights should apply to all regardless of race, religion, national origin or sexual preference.
5. A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority. Hence part of our government's mandate should include those protections.
6. The environment is for everyone to enjoy and for us to protect. Future generations should not have to pay for our short term gain.
7. Any government intrusion or restriction of the personal liberties of a citizen must be questioned.
I'm sure there are more, but these will do for now.
I applaud your willingness to put down your liberal beliefs. Am I correct in assuming you believe these are, in general, representative of the beliefs of liberals in America? If not, why then do you describe them as “liberal?” It should be clear to most that reasonable people on both sides of the isle, as they say in Congress, have some common desires and beliefs, at least on the surface. The crux is in the “how”, not the what. By that I mean the method of achieving their goals. There is also very often a question of definition. A classic example is the definition of “peace.” To a tyrant, someone who wants to control the world for instance, “peace” means the absence of competing powers. To people of freedom, it means using reason and compromise to resolve differences. To pacifists, it simply means the absence of armed conflict. Taking your list above, let me comment on each item:
1) I pretty much agree, which is why I oppose affirmative action, race-based quotas, and the like. Since the preservation of affirmative action is a cornerstone of liberal social policy in this country, I’d say you are in the conservative camp on this one. Your liberal bent is, however, revealed in the second sentence. “Opportunity” does not equate to “benefit.” I’m assuming by benefit, you refer to “entitlements.”
2) Again, we agree in general, but not on definition or process. I believe life is precious, and should never be terminated simply as matter of convenience. I also believe it begins at conception, but concede the need to consider a compromise on this point. Choice must come with responsibility. The “choice” is in whether to engage in sex, with its attendant risk of conception. If you accept the risk, you’re responsible for the consequences, both the woman and the man. I am all for men sharing that responsibility, but ONLY if they also have a say in the choice. In the case of significant risk to the life of the mother (which almost never is the case today, in this country), or where the woman had no choice in whether to engage in sex or not, the choice to abort a pregnancy should be available, and solely the decision of the woman. It all comes back to my first belief, that of personal responsibility for your own actions.
3) Here, I’m more inclined to go by the letter of the Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no laws establishing or outlawing a religion. I do not believe it means that all references to God must be exercised from all things “governmental.” I do agree, however, that government must view all religions equally. This is why I have no problem with the images on the Supreme Court buildings, which depict Moses as well as other religious lawgivers. I likewise have no problem with the Ten Commandments being in the atrium of that courthouse in Alabama. I also don’t have a problem with the five explicit uses of the word “God” (as well as several other references to a divine being) inside the Jefferson Memorial, a Federally maintained building.
4) I agree with the first part, but disagree with enumerating specifics. It should simply read, “Freedom and rights should apply to all equally.” That also means that a specific group should not get special laws in their name. I would never include such a category as “sexual preference” as this is too broad. Sexual preference includes such activities as pedophilia, bestiality, and incest, and not just homosexual behavior.
5) A flowery and sophisticated-sounding phrase, but dead wrong on I’m afraid. This is in direct conflict with your first point. Our government’s mandate is to preserve our basic rights, and to insure equal protection for
all…period. A democracy is, in its most basic form, the rule of the majority. Our Constitution is there to insure that the majority does not deny the minority their voice or basic rights under that Constitution.
6) We’re pretty close on this one, but I would substitute the word “steward” for the term “enjoy and protect.” Our natural resources are just that, resources. Some we use for recreation, some for commerce, and others for industry. As stewards, it is our job to insure those resources are managed and used in such a way that they give the most benefit to our country, both now and in the future. Sometimes that involves protecting aspects of it, sometimes in involves careful and deliberate use of it.
7) Spot on, my friend. However, after asking those questions, those that make sense should be supported.
Of course, we never even touched on non-domestic issues, like foreign policy or trade, but perhaps that is best left for another debate. In the mean time, I would suggest that the current crop of liberal politicians, particularly the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, have come nowhere as close as you to articulating what they stand for.
