I generally try to stay away from political discussions when among friends. I believe that people hold specific political (and religious) viewpoints because life brought them to that point for one reason or another. No body holds a political or religious view point "just because."
To write off an entire party as "liberal kooks" or "conservative bigots" does nothing to advance the actual discussion of issues in any meaningful way.
I went from a school-indoctrinated liberal, to a right-wing nut, and have finally settled somewhere center-right. My biggest issue with BOTH parties is that they BOTH are about increasing and further defining government intrusion and power over individual liberty and rights, just in different ways.
The Democrats shout from the rooftops about freedom of speech, social equality, the end of bullying, etc. Google "Santorum" and check the first result to see just how much they value their own stance about social tolerance. But even if we were to take them at face value about the social issues, they are all about advancing government control over fiscal matters: regulation, increased government programs, punitive taxation, and the list goes on.
The Republicans on the other hand rail against government intrusion, promote lower taxes for all, taking personal responsibility, and that states should be given greater authority and the federal less. But what is the first thing they want to do? Constitutionalize discrimination by promoting federal Defense of Marriage laws, trying to regulate medical matters (primarily abortion, and while I'm pro-life, I believe that is something that should be handled on a grass-roots community level, rather than regulated at the federal level).
I am DYING for a candidate who is consistent on matters, one that is for INCREASING individual liberties, and DECREASING government intrusion. This means liberty both in the opportunity to succeed or fail financially on our own, and our liberty to succeed or fail in pursuing happiness on our own. I want the government out of my bedroom as much as I want it out of my wallet.
The problem is with the way our two-party system has become entrenched in modern politics, your choices are social liberty but financial constraint, or social constraint and financial liberty. I don't understand why more people don't see the absurdity of this narrow set of choices and stop voting for the people the media tell us we need to vote for.
Next year I'm stuck: I'm lucky enough to have the right to have married at the moment, but now I need to decide of all the issues out there, which is the most immediate and critical. Do I vote for the guy who doesn't recognize my union, but has sound reasoning for my primary political issue, or do I go with the guy who tells me that while he disagrees with my union, he doesn't think he can stand in the way of it, but has given me three years of the most absurd decision making on my primary political issue.
I know what that primary issue is for me this election cycle. To me, I believe this particular one can mean whether our nation will be able to stand strong enough to defend my liberties whichever ones it happens to support at this time. The problem is, I literally, need to select the lesser of two evils because, for me, the critical nature of my personal primary political issue trumps just about everything else at the moment.
What I wouldn't give for a more viable third-party that is closer to the libertarian side of the political spectrum.
