Well, as a capital L Libertarian, I well understand your point, I don't know that I can really help you understand how seemingly incongruent views can be held by the same people, I'd just comment in general. My use of "right wing" was in a very broad sense, intended to represent Bush voters. The sort of concerns you seem to mostly describe is limited to small factions of the right wing of the right wing, as it were. Likewise, out and out socialists wanting to control our money and well-being, are limited to the left wing of the left wing. I happen to most fear my liberty is most at risk from the left-wing than from any other element in society, because at the root of it, it argues we can have something for nothing, and too many folks on both sides are too tempted to buy into the socialism offered for the "good of the people," while few will ever buy into the wrong right wing crap, IMO. Traditionally, Libertarians offer Democrats freedom in speech concerns, while offering Republicans economic freedom.
What we have in our government significantly tramples on both issues.
Even though I went though a "bible study" class once every two weeks or so in grade school(practice banned since), I really don't fear hugely significant imminent losses of freedom resulting from either parties election, perhaps because along my way, I SAW that local officials, though forced from above, indeed DID end bible study classes in my hometown gradeschools. Republicans and Democrats supported these classes...common small town folks having it their way. In fact, oddly enough perhaps, it seems thinking Republicans were ready to recognize this was improper. Then, oddly enough, it was the Republican Nixon who gave us wage and price controls which caused significant short-term harm in this country, IMO, and was the sort of control I would have thought only a Democrat would support at the time. Oddly enough again, there is the matter of guys like Clinton and Carter siding with freedom on economic issues like free trade and de-regulation(sure reversed Nixon's socialism). It seems I don't know which side will suddenly and unexpectedly give me a bit of what I'd seek from government.
Here's something to consider. Put two conservatives, say Nixon and David Duke, together for a discussion. You get an argument. Each holds incongruent views. Nixon is willing to give us wage and price controls, and Duke would blast him for this, rightfully so. Duke offers religion in schools perhaps, and Nixon would likewise blast him for that and more. To the extent that they both attempt to change the other's mind, or prevent the other from having his way, the bad that's done is limited from within a single political party. A similar scenario could be laid out using Democrats. So it's not only the two parties battling, battling comes from within each, of course.
Because our system allows both sides in, and the beliefs on both sides have tremendous crossover depending on who you talk to, neither is likely to go too much further off the path too quickly, so my grave fears dissipate.
Both parties are heading us out on a seemingly bad path right now, IMO, but it is slow progress downward, and along the way these little wins and incongruities confirm and delineate some basic truth that people eventually grasp and remember. The overall path is upward, despite great setbacks from time to time.
Oneday, probably long after I'm gone, the recognition of the value of freedom will become so clear to the masses that we will have essentially Libertarian government. I think that's where the world is headed, inevitably.
In the meantime, we'll live and die with injustice in the law quite noticeable, no matter which of these major parties has control at any given time, and I'll keep proclaiming,
Freedom Works,
Dan B |
