Oh, the pressure. This somewhat tardy edition of the Carnival of the Liberals happens to be the last one before election day, which makes it important to bring up the issues we ought to be considering as we make our decisions about who we're going to vote for…although, if you're liberal, this is a year when the decision is remarkably easy to make. So here we go with an issues-oriented carnival.
Foreign policy: What do you think of the Bush Doctrine, the idea that we should unilaterally and preemptively attack anyone we think might be a threat? Here's a better plan: Let's be the good guys.
Health care: Compare and contrast Obama vs McCain on Healthcare. There are important differences in how they would improve the management of the country's health.
Abortion: To a liberal, abortion is also a health care issue — we care about the health and autonomy of women, something Republican candidates don't seem to comprehend. Consider McCain's Legal Errors at the Debate, and Why They Matter.
Poverty: It's a related issue. How do women break out of the entrapment of pregnancy? It's a question of Poverty & Choice.
Homosexuality: Conservatives want to strip a significant minority of their rights, and in every election cycle someone gets the bright idea of rousing the right-wing vote by throwing anti-gay legislation on the ballot. This year, California has Proposition 8, a proposed law that would once again make whipping boys of the homosexuals. Read a Brief Analysis of the Yes on 8 Side — they're really bringing on the sleaze.
Race: Every American election is about race, deep down. When Republicans rail against crime, or welfare, or immigration, it's all about suppressing minorities further. Greg Laden's Review of the Science Museum of Minnesota's Exhibit on Race and Racism has a lot to say about the cultural effects of racial differences.
The economy: With the economy in its current state of crisis, with lending companies receiving massive bailouts, you might be wondering Are you stupid for paying your mortgage? After all, if Wall Street can be forgiven for errors and mismanagement, why can't you?
Religion: I'm often told that religion is an institution that provides support for the underprivileged — it is a private, charitable source for public assistance. How can that be if, in their ignorance and dogmatic biases, the faithful dismiss important issues in health? There's nothing like the fallacious belief that mental illness is the work of devils to deprive people of good medical care.
Patriotism: To a liberal, patriotism is not an unquestioning faith in the perfection of one's country, but a recognition that a country can always be bettered and its flaws corrected. We have a perfectly horrid example of illiberal, unthinking jingoism right here in my home state, with Michele Bachmann and her Anti-American Paranoia. Let's hope we can get her out of office soon.
In a similar vein, none of our candidates are perfect; there's a lot I personally dislike about Barack Obama, for instance. What we have to do on 4 November, though, is balance our concerns about the issues in the election, and perhaps follow a harm reduction model of politics — let's try to get a candidate in office who at least moves the government in a better direction. I think we all know what that means, and the choice is clear: despite his flaws, we need to put Barack Obama in office. Let's make the country better. Not perfect, but better.
The next edition of the Carnival of the Liberals will be at The Lay Scientist on November 5th. Hey, that's the day after the big election — that's going to be an interesting one.
- Log in to post comments
The Vet Who Did Not Vet
I'm sure No on 8 could use a little more financial support. http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4375153
The Mormons have invested heavily in trying to pass this hateful legislation. Unfortunately, my wife and I are not fully canceling out the yes votes of others in my family.
We have our own problems in Arizona- Prop 102. Even though gay marriage is already illegal, let's write discrimination into our state Constitution, so we can REALLY show our good redneck backward xian hate!!
http://www.votenoprop102.com/web/index.php
Colorado has the very creepy Prop 48 on its ballot. Pushed by a homeschooled crazy-mccrazypants, to boot. These people need to crawl back under their rocks.
Adding yet another to the anti-gay legislation in this election, in Florida we've got Amendment 2.
Somehow I missed the opportunity to submit to this one. So here's a post on my new blog that blends politics and science.
This is what I would have written if only I had ability. Enjoy.
Message found at Daily Kos
"I'm a middle-class white guy living in Jacksonville, Florida. I've got a wife and two kids. Because the kids had no school today, I took a vacation day from work, and took the kids downtown to vote early. Fifty-nine minutes later, two smiling children and I proudly sported "I Voted" stickers.
But I didn't vote for Obama.
I voted for my ancestors, who believed in the promise of this country and came with with nothing as immigrants.
I voted for my parents, who taught in the public schools for decades.
I voted for Steve, an acquaintance of mine from Kentucky. (Killed by an IED two years ago in Iraq).
I voted for Shawn, another who's been to Iraq twice, and Afghanistan once, and who'll be going back to Afghanistan again soon -- and whose family earned eleven bucks a month too much to qualify for food stamps when the war started.
I voted for April, the only African-American girl in my high school -- it was years before it occurred to me how different her experience of our school must have been.
I voted for my college friends who are Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and yes -- Muslim.
I voted for my grandfathers, who worked hard in factories and died too young.
I voted for the plumber who worked on my house, because I want him to get a REAL tax break.
I voted for four little angels from Birmingham.
I voted for a bunch of dead white men who, although personally flawed, were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, and used a time of great crisis to expand freedom rather than suspend it.
I voted for all those people and more, and I voted for all of you, too. But mostly, I voted selfishly. I vote for two little kids, one who has ballet in an hour, and once who has baseball practice at the same time. I voted for a world where they can be confident that their government will represent the best that is in this country, and that will in turn demand the best of them. I voted for a government that will be respected in the world. I voted for an economy that will reward work above guile. I voted for everything I believe in.
Sure, I filled in the circle next to the name Obama, but it wasn't him I was voting for -- it was every single one of us, and those I love most of all.
Who else is there to vote for?
October 21, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. "
Apology if it has already been posted here. TFU
Let's look at the economy first, parties from both sides allowed it to happen, John McCain did more than Obama did, he endorsed a bill back in 2005 for reforming the banking system while Obama just wrote a letter to complain about it. Both parties got money from lobby groups, the Dems got a little more because they have more control since 2006.
Let's look at immigration, this election might be very tight. Every vote (legal)will certainly be important. However, liberals have often said voters are not smart enough to present voter IDs, proving who they are. Claiming this would confuse them, and they wouldn't vote as a result. Far from the truth! It's possible if the election is really close, voter fraud might determine the election. And perhaps the end justifies the means to a liberal if that's how they can get their man into office.
Foreign policy, be nice to them like we were before 9/11 in the Clinton years? lol...What happens when they attack anyway like they did in 9/11? Do we continue being nice to them? lol
And finally will PZ redistribute his wealth to poor citizens and non-citizens alike? lol
I told you that you'd vote for Obama! My predictive powers are amazing. lol
Check out these Prop 8 Yes supporters: http://vimeo.com/2053489?pg=embed&sec=2053489
It's a mob of the type you can imagine having fun with pogroms in the distant past, or shrieking hate at black students in the American civil-rights era. It's disturbing as hell. If I knew nothing of Prop 8, I'd know simply from observing its deranged, violent supporters that it is a evil, awful thing.
ennui @1: We needed that video as a partial remedy to all of those depressing videos of/by idiots. Post #8 is beautiful, too.
I voted today, so I'm feeling less bummed out than I have been over all of this politics crap (and crap politics). I'll have to wait for election day to see if it lasts.
But I'll pick up a bottle of champagne before the election, and I'll drink to Obama however it turns out.
Apparently the Yes on 8 people have been sending somewhat threatening letters to CA businesses that have supported the No campaign. Basically if those businesses don't renounce their support and give money to the Yes side, they're going to "expose" all the businesses. Of course the businesses refused to go along with that and reported what was going on. The Yes side is shameless. First ads full of lies, then attacks on the school system, and now this. Disgusting.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/10/same-sex-marria.html
I think you forgot one category: Fraud.
A U.S. Congressional investigator reported that a defence contractor who is a prominent contributer to the U.S. Republican Party inflated its contracts and cost the U.S. military up to $180 million in fraudulent charges, according to the Miami Herald.
And I thought it was scandalous that our current (and newly re-elected) prime minister's wife used to work for one of those decoy "women in trouble" crisis centres that seek to delay and dissuade pregnant women from getting abortions. Causing later abortions, of course, if they fail to get the women to miss the short window for medically allowed abortions.
I'm not a US Citizen but I follow the election somewhat. Point by point what I agree with and what I don't.
Foreign policy: I Think Bush has been a disaster in this regard. From the beginning he has been unable to identify the enemy other than as "terrorists". The enemy is totalitarian islam. Several countries around the world are activly sponsoring terrorism and spreading this vicious ideology. This is the root of the problem and we must remove this cancer from the world just as we did with fascism 60 years ago.
Imperial japan was also motivated by a religous ideology, but after we defeated them they gave up their goals and japan is today one of our best allies. Most people in Japan still choose to adhere to Shintoism, but the political aspect of the religion has been removed. I hope something similar could be done with islam.
Health Care: Health Care is not a right. A "right" to health care means someone will be forced to provide it for you. Doctors and rich people have the right to enjoy their lives too you know. They are not slaves who must provide you with anything you want or need.
Abortion: I agree. An embryo or fetus is not a person and has no rights. The woman however does and has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy for any reason.
Homosexuality: We probably agree on this one.
Race: I'm a huge supporter of open borders, immigration is great from an economic perspective. Besided it would be a great way to stabilize the housing-market. If the US would allow more immigrants to come, there would be more demand for houses and the price would go up accordingly, hopefully this could ease some of the related problems in the economy.
As to welfare. I don't think there should be such a thing as welfare, if you care about the poor you can give your money to them and encourage others to do the same. You shouldn't be allowed to give away OTHER peoples money however. geez.
As to crime, I don't see what it's got to do with race.
The Economy: I agree that the US government should not bail out banks when they fail. See above for my view on welfare. I think the bailout was more popular with Democrats than with Republicans however.
Religion: We agree on this one. I live in Sweden and while I love the USA this is one area where you are far behind :P
I don't even think I know a religious person. We have one Christian political party that usually gets about 4 percent of the votes.
And get this - they support the right to abortion, walk with their banners in the gay-pride parade and oppose religious schools...
Best Regards FH
Might I ask where one can submit posts for the Carnival of the Liberals?
My mistake! It was Stockwell Day's wife, Valerie Day, who was involved in the "scare them away from abortion" tactics. Too bad there isn't education on the much greater dangers of childbirth, first.
I heard about a study where Republicans (conservatives?) were told about Proposition A.
Half were told only about A and half were told that Democrats (liberals) disagreed with A.
The first half disagreed with A 2-to-1.
The second half AGREED with A 2-to-1.
Can anybody link me to that study?
A "right" to health care means someone will be forced to provide it for you.
That's nonsense. It's like saying that the right to free speech means that TV stations have to let anyone who walks in the door go on the air. Nobody is saying healthcare providers won't get paid for their services, it just means that more people will be able to afford those services.
Oh, Michael, you are so cute. Who gave you idea that you know what you're talking about?
Economy: the bill you're referring to only affected Fannie Mae. Considering that at least half of the problematic subprime mortgages were sold by private brokers, I think we can safely say that this problem wouldn't have been completely averted, no matter what happened to Fannie and Freddie. So in this regard, the candidates are about equal.
Immigration/Voter fraud: You watch a lot of Fox, don't you? No one has alleged that any voter fraud has occured or will occur. What some employees of ACORN have been doing is voter registration fraud - two different things. In order for it to be voter fraud, we would have to believe that these same ACORN volunteers have lines up a bunch of fake IDs for Mickey Mouse and are planning on voting twice.
Incidentally, I find the fact that Republicans are now crying about voting irregularities to be hilariously hypocritical.
Foreign policy: Michael, do you remember the '93 WTC bombing? That was during Clinton's presidency. So, using your own standard of evidence, it doesn't matter which party holds the presidency.
#13:
And it gets worse and worse. Yes on 8 supporters are now claiming that same-sex marriage will promote -- get this -- child prostitution.
No, really.
It's disgusting. They have no shame at all. And no compunctions about bearing false witness against their neighbors.
Please everybody: even if it's just a small amount, donate to the No on Prop 8 campaign. The Yes on 8 campaign is incredibly well-funded by the Christian Right, especially by the Mormon Church, and they're running a depressingly effective ad campaign full of lies, sleaze, and blackmail. Don't let them win.
Ummm, Sarah Palin bein' a bibble-addled homo-hatin' theocrat who would have our kids praying in school and reading the bibble in science class, isn't that an issue, too? It is to me.
"Race: Every American election is about race, deep down. When Republicans rail against crime, or welfare, or immigration, it's all about suppressing minorities further."
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on a 'blog.
We're talking the Intelligent Design / homeopathy / vaccines create autism / space aliens built the pyramids level of dumb.
Don't stoop to this sort of nonsense, PZ. You're a GODless liberal, not a MINDless one.
#16: You submit posts to the Carnival of the Liberals here.
And here's an extensive list of other blog carnivals, including the Carnival of the Godless and the Humanist Symposium. (Be aware though: a lot of the carnivals on this list are moribund. If they don't have a Next Edition date posted, don't bother.)
Also, let's not forgot that even though not all liberals are secularists, those who take up the cause of removing "God" from the pledge of allegiance, presidential speeches, etc... are pretty much exclusively liberals. Also, though Barack Obama says he himself is religious, he did have an atheist parent and when talking about bringing this country together, he never fails to include the nonbelievers in that mold. Check this video out, Professor Myers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvKX16Eygs0.
be nice to them like we were before 9/11 in the Clinton years?
Um, were you even around during the Clinton administration? We weren't "nice", but every time Clinton took any action, the Republicans accused him of trying to distract attention from Important Issues like Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. It was Bush 43 who ignored the Clinton administration's warning about bin Laden's plans to strike again.
Lack of affordable health care is one of the biggest causes of bankrupsy, poverty and homelessness in US. What is so wrong with the country providing a basic level of health care for all citizens? Even if you limit it to accident and emergency and life-saving procedures it would alleviate a lot of suffering. Make the non-citizens pay a small charge to contribute, if giving it to them free is such a problem, but why deny your own fellow citizens?
OK, so being a Brit I don't get a vote, but if I did I'd have been eligible to vote in three elections including this one. So that's G.W.Bush vs Al Gore. (No contest there methinks). G.W.Bush vs. Kerry. (I know nothing of Kerry I'm afraid, but I'd certainly be voting against Mr Bush Jr.) and Barack Obama, vs John McCain and Sarah Palin. I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but against those two? The Democrats could have nominated a mollusc and I'd have voted for them. The only way the Republicans could have made it worse for themselves is if McCain picked Mike Huckabee as his running mate.
However, I'm considered fairly left wing by European standards.
I just had a thought. The US 'health' system is 'owned' by the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, isn't it? They probably wouldn't be happy about all those little people escaping their clutches, would they? All those little payments that add up. Not to mention a public health system would probably reduce their overall controlling power in the industry. Man, you poor Americans are screwed, aren't you? You are all OWNED by the corporations.
"Race: Every American election is about race, deep down. When Republicans rail against crime, or welfare, or immigration, it's all about suppressing minorities further."
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on a 'blog.
Oh, please. The "war on drugs" is a war of race, "minorities" are the ones getting selectively heavy sentences, read: crack cocaine vs.powder cocaine. And a stupid black kid who sticks a pistol in someone's face to steal $30 does hard time, a smart white guy who steals millions with a briefcase walks. Oh, look, they're walking away with granny's money right now.
ROTFL. Are you ignorant, hypocritical, or both? Do you know who counted the votes of Ohio of 2004 in the computer on his desk? (And that's just the most blatant example.)
It should be considered a human right.
You live in Sweden, and you really don't know better than that? Surprises me.
You have a strange idea of what it means to live in a country, as opposed to living in Somalia. Taxes mean that we pool some of our money together to collectively get something done that we couldn't do alone. In this case, it's to make sure nobody falls below the poverty line. Even if you are a complete asshole and pathologically devoid of empathy, there are good utilitarian arguments for not allowing anyone to fall below the poverty line. Henry Ford: "Who will buy my products?"
Charity has never come anywhere close to accomplishing this goal. Many societies have been considering charity a religious duty for the last few millennia, and yet, the only societies without significant numbers of poor people can be found in the 2nd half of the 20th century and later, and that only in countries with some degree of a welfare state. You have fallen among the scientists here. You can't simply pretend that empirical evidence doesn't exist.
Admittedly, I don't know enough about that particular bailout to tell if the analogy is appropriate, but it has been made: Imagine you're on a plane, 12,000 m above the ground, and you discover that the pilot has passed out from being drunk. What do you do? Do you let the plane crash so the pilot learns his lesson for next time? Didn't think so.
Not just deep down. If you're Native American, your vote is 2,000 times less likely to be counted than if you're white. The black and Hispanic values are somewhere in between, I forgot where.
@ ThirtyFiveUp - Thank you for sharing this... it was very moving.
AaS
It's been SO depressing living here in CA while the Yes on Prop 8 people have been picking up steam and ROLLING over the rest of us. When people tell me they have religious reasons for voting Yes, I tell them that they CANNOT vote Yes based on religion. I point out that here in the US we have no state religion, AND we have explicit statements that the govt. should not put one religion over another. I tell them that my sister is a rabbi, and her reform Judaism states that homosexuals DO have the right to marry. It is completely unconstitutional for the govt. to allow one religious viewpoint rule over another in the matter. There has to be a secular reason.
Of course it's hard to think of a secular reason for limiting marriage, because the only stake the govt. has in supporting marriage of any type is to help make society more stable. Obviously, therefore, a NO on 8 vote would promote more stability.
But this argument doesn't cause any YES-on-8 supporter to pause for a millisecond. They feel that my sister has the right to vote according to her religion, but that they have the right to vote according to theirs. They are confident that they are the majority religion (and that they always will be), and they mistakenly feel that it is totally fine for the majority to take away rights of a minority. My daughter's high school civics book clearly states that these people are wrong, but YES-on-8 supporters can't see further than their pastor/priest's preaching on the matter.
However, even the very religious teens I know disagree with their parents. EVERY young person I know (here in Calif.) wants 8 to fail. Eventually gays will gain equal rights. My generation just has to die off or get too old to vote. Sigh.
The Mormon church not only is a large part of funding and pushing Prop. 8, but people from Utah are calling Californians to urge them to vote Yes. I am looking forward to the Supreme Court case that will outlaw discriminatory state marriage laws. We don't need activist judges to do outlaw the unfair treatment -- any fair-minded strict constitutionalist should be able to see the force of the argument.
Beautiful, #8. And here I was only thinking about my mortgage, getting ready to post something really sarmp...
Foreign Policy- Stop insinuating ourselves in other people's business. Bring all of our military back to the US and do a complete expose and audit on the DOD.
Health Care- Tell dumbfucks who want to impose health care requirements on others to band together and resolve their own health care issues. For example, there are about 100 million registered Democrats. Plenty enough to pool resources and create and operate a Democrat health care plan without forcing those opposed to go along. Forcing others to pay for things you want is a form of soft fascism.
State governments could also offer OPT-IN health care without creating another huge federal beaurocracy that will just steal from the health care kitty and blow up brown people overseas...
Abortion-- Get the federal government out of the habit of even asking the question. The federal government does not need to meddle in the health of women.
Poverty-- Move welfare responsibility to state and local communities, and then be creative in finding ways to lesson poverty by promoting and teaching good work habits and self-sufficiency strategies. stop just writing federal checks to solve local problems.
Homosexuality-- None of the federal government's business. Period.
Race-- "All men were created equal". Nuff said.
The Economy-- Open up the Federal Reserve to scrutiny and full discosure. Reopen dialogue about monetary policy, and let's have a national referendum on what kind of money we Americans want. The debate is an old one with new relevance. But as can be observed by Greenspan's lies about "not seeing this coming", and Bernanke's insistence that everything was great two weeks before he claimed the world would end, the federal Reserve is at the core of all our new money woes.
Religion-- "Congress shall make no laws"... Nuff said.
Patriotism-- Has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with tribalism.
SoF, nothing to do with the discussion.
One might say Obama is the more conservative candidate, because the wing nuts have gone 'round the bend. David Brin has better words than I do, see: http://www.davidbrin.com/ostrich2a.htm
Natalie, #20
But consider how much debt Fannie and Fred held. Were it just private financial institutions going belly up we would have nowhere near the problem we do. The problem really was not regulation, deregulation, or even risky loans, it was the lack of accountability. Fannie Mae was a preschooler with a match in a badly maintained oil refinery.
Scott from Oregon, #36
You said,
Big problem, we have interests outside our borders, and not everybody's a sensible chap. Keeping our trade lanes open alone requires a military presence. Because without a credible threat against trade interference of any sort we'd be shit out of luck.
And then there is the matter of our allies and protectorates. They have enemies, we act as a guarantor of their sovereign rights. Chad against Libya, Moslem Azerbaijan against Christian Armenia. Her neighbors against Russia. (When countries like Georgia and Poland prefer working with the far off U.S. instead of you, you're doing something wrong.) There's a book I've heard of in which the United States---lock, stock, and the Marianas Commonweath---disappears. The results aren't pretty.
What you are asking us to do is to renege on our promises and obligations. When you have the most powerful economy in the world you have responsibilities.
On cleaning out the crap in the DOD you're pretty spot on. Cleaning out the crap in Congress would be a great start to the project.
""Big problem, we have interests outside our borders, and not everybody's a sensible chap. Keeping our trade lanes open alone requires a military presence. Because without a credible threat against trade interference of any sort we'd be shit out of luck.""
OUR TRADE LANES?
I call bullshit. These are trade lanes that belong to "the world", not the US. Our "interests" abroad are not "our interests" but the interests of individuals and corporations. No American taxpayer signed up to pay for military "protection" for corporations, and most would not agree to it if they were told that that is what they were doing.
The "deals" and "agreements" we have quite often involve an economic extortion of the country where our military is allowed to keep a base. Countries are strong-armed into accepting these bases. There are nefarious corporate ties to many of these so called "arrangements", and quite often an unpopular local leader is supported to maintain permission for the base.
The US military, and its volunteers, are not sworn to defend the interests of corporations, most of which are multi-national. They are sworn to defend the United States, as stated in the Consstitution. It is immoral to use American lives to protect the interests of multi-national corporations. It is immoral to use military threats to try and maintain an economic order that favors a small elite who profit from it.
Again, what I would suggest is that every foreign base be subjected to an open inquiry, and all of those that are not essential (like those in Japan, for example, should be closed).
Enough with the emperialistic attitude already...
SfO at #41: I partially agree, but not entirely. While I entirely concur that the role of the US military should not be to protect corporate interests, I do think it is legitimate for the US to maintain overseas bases for the protection of its allies in NATO and around the world. The troops in South Korea, for instance, are there because of the ever-present threat of North Korea.
I do agree, though, that a defensive review needs to take place. With the US (and British) military drastically overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq, it doesn't seem to me necessary to maintain massive garrisons in countries that are no longer on the front line. Both our countries still maintain extensive forces in Germany, for instance.
Defence spending is very important; I support the troops (I'm in my university OTC - similar to American ROTC, but not automatically leading to a commission - and considered joining the British Army at one time) and I believe that freedom cannot subsist without adequate protection. But I do think it needs to be efficiently targeted to meet the military needs of today.
A reply to Prof Myers' substantive points on the issues:
(1) Foreign policy - I agree that it is necessary to be cautious and restrained in foreign policy; military action, though sometimes necessary, should be a last resort. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is IMO the approach to take; belligerence is not helpful. However, I would remind you that it is Obama, not McCain, who has advocated unilateral strikes on terrorist strongholds in Pakistan.
(2) I'm not convinced by either of their healthcare plans. Although I approve of McCain's $5,000 tax credit and his plan to allow more inter-state competition, I'm unimpressed by his willingness to pay for it by abolishing tax exemptions on employer healthcare plans. And I do think there are inherent problems with the health insurance industry (negative externalities etc.) which make it difficult to have an effective free market for the benefit of consumers. I haven't looked into Obama's healthcare plan enough to have a meaningful opinion, but on a brief glance it seems too complex and expensive.
(3) I will not express an opinion on abortion itself, but as I've said elsewhere, Roe v Wade was simply a wrong decision in law. Nothing in the Constitution confers, or was intended to confer, a "right" to abortion. The creation of new constitutional rights should be done only by constitutional amendment; it is not for the courts to develop new rights in order to "meet the needs of modern times". To do so simply usurps the sovereignty of the people.
(5) Homosexuality - I agree with you totally on this issue, and am fully in favour of same-sex partnerships. There is no legitimate secular reason to prevent such partnerships from being recognised in law.
(6) "When Republicans rail against crime, or welfare, or immigration, it's all about suppressing minorities further." - I disagree. There are massive problems with the welfare system, and with the criminal justice system, in America; and pointing these things out does not make one racist.
(7) Economy - As I've said elsewhere, the root cause of the subprime mortgage crisis is in US government policies going back to the 1970s. Banking is, other than running a nuclear power station, possibly the most regulated industry in the world, so the argument that deregulation is to blame simply doesn't cut it. In fact, Gramm's 1999 deregulation has ameliorated this crisis by allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks, meaning that fewer banks have become fully insolvent than would otherwise have been the case.
(9) Patriotism - I agree with you entirely that criticism of one's government is not inherently unpatriotic; as a libertarian I believe that the government is there to serve and protect its people, not the other way around. And though I'm not very familiar with Bachmann, she sounds like a lunatic.
I'm only trying to demonstrate that not all conservatives are raving lunatics, and that there are rational arguments on the issues against the "liberal" viewpoint (a term I try to avoid, since it has such different meanings around the world). I am not homophobic, racist or a religious zealot; I hope those who have engaged in discussion with me have realised this. I believe in freedom of the individual, both economic and social. Maybe that doesn't make me a conservative by American definitions; I don't doubt that neither Bush nor Palin would consider me a "real" conservative. But I'm just trying to show that there is a rational alternative, and that we are not all idiots or closet racists.
I can't wait until November 5th. That day, I get to pull off the bumperstickers and bitch and complain "Who elected this damn asshole?" I'll turn on Comedy Central and watch John Stewart tear Obama up. PZ can mock him. It'll be just like having the "Real America" back. Well, for three years, then we'll have Huckabee poking his nose around again. *shiver*
The Constitution does not grant rights to individuals, it restricts the government.
"Unenumerated rights" look it up.
Donovan,
it's gonna be awesome, reaming the prez & Congress for not being left *enough*! it makes me all squealy!
honestly, though, most every progressive is making these critiques already(and has been for a while). i personally do it all the time, just not in front of my extented family. gotta present that unitied front, and all
Thanks for mentioning abortion in there. Yes, it is important and no, religious conservatives don't seem to view women as being any more human than gay men.
In the last election in Australia we got rid of a Bush like problem but unfortunately elected yet another Sydney Anglican with little difference in underlying motive. I hope you all can make better headway.