We're talking about different things. I thought you were talking about the global human rights campaign, the kind of thing Michael Ignatieff did. That's an activity engaged in by folk who sacrifice much, put themselves in great danger, and get little or no support from established governments.
You, apparently, have a different issue in mind, something more like what might be termed civil rights. I gather you consider passing laws against discrimination that sort of matter. That's definitely necessary and largely the work on the Dem party, in so far as it lodges in a political party.
As for this characterization:
The right sees the left's attachment to "Human Rights" as a based on the "there ought to be a law" approach, which they feel has unexpected consequences. The left sees the right's "free market" approach as cold hearted, country club, "let em sleep under the bridges."
My problem with it is there are definitely politicos who think of themselves as conservatives who've advocated strong civil rights laws. And, historically, some Dems who've opposed them. If one looked, for instance, carefully, right now, at who advocates laws protecting the rights of homosexuals, my guess is the cut above would work. Preponderantly it's politicos who think of themselves as liberals who argue for such; preponderantly it's politicos who think of themselves as conservatives who do not.
But one distinction needs to be made. If there is one characterizaton of the vast middle sector of American politics that makes sense to me right now it's that they are fiscally conservative (opposed to deficits) and socially liberal (opposed to any form of discrimination).
All said, your characterization sort of works for me. |
