N.O. Pundit

Regions of Mind Comment

Left as a comment at Regions of Mind:

I voted for Bush for one reason: to continue to successfully prosecute the war on terror. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and I suspect I am not alone. There are many among us (Americans) that view having to choose or show allegience to the two party choices as an unresolvable cognitive dissonance.

Is it too simplistic to state the platforms of the two main parties thus?:

Rep = hawk/social conservative/fiscal conservative
Dem = dove/social liberal/fiscal liberal

While historically, Democrats had many hawks, that just doesn't appear to be the case today. Zell Miller and Ed Koch are two who touched on this. To me the choice above puts me on the horns of a dilemma. My ideal party is:

Me = hawk/social liberal/fiscal conservative

To me this is a consistent position as in each case my individual freedoms are expanded. Social liberalism connotes freedom to choose in religion, relationships, "bad" behavior such as electing to smoke pot, pay for sex, gamble, etc (please spare me the canard of: oh, just another dope smoker); simply being left alone so long as you don't trespass on another's freedom. [Update 11/7/2004: Maintream social liberalism traditionally advocates gun control. This is completely anathema to my view of what is (and should be viewed as) a freedom of choice issue. Keeping and bearing arms is ensconced in our Constitution as an inalienable right, and should be treated as such at all levels of government. That the ACLU chooses not to aggressively defend gun rights (inexplicable in my opinion) makes them the inevitable whipping boy of mainstream conservatives.] Fiscal conservative is also a "freedom to choose" avenue for me insofar as I am a small federal government/lower taxes/free market/minimal regulation/end to indefinite welfare and entitlements (as opposed to true emergency relief) kind of guy. And I am a hawk insofar as I see the WTC attacks (and the many before) as trespasses against Americans living the way they choose (influencing the "market behavior" of everyday life). I don't for a moment buy that our warring is driven because of enrichment or imperialism. Americans must choose to defend our sovereignty or lose everything that makes this country great.

It appears to me that Democrats (especially, but not solely) continue to lose ground precisely because they choose to view "them" as stupid, easily cowtowed, genuflecting morons. To even choose the term "them" underscores this adversarial problem. I suggest to Democrats that they rethink their positions not as being superior or obviously correct but as being just that: positions. I'll gladly join in the dialogue when that time comes.

Posted by nopundit at November 5, 2004 10:13 AM