I just read as much of this thread as I could stand, which while not impressive on a percentage basis, leads me to make the following comment:
I think there is a unifying theme to the objections of the conservatives, "lazy sods for rejecting opportunity and economic empowerment" and the horror of the liberals, regarding lassiez-faire social services (up to "nature red in tooth and claw") aka some primtivist Hobbesian nightmare.
The difference is one that plays out quite strkingly in the differences between the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations.
The conservatives (both on this board, and the ones running the show from the White House) like to work from expedient *principles* and have faith that everything will turn out swimmingly, or at least as well as can be expected in an imperfect world.
Liberals on the other hand, tend to attempt a more complex optimization where the *consequences* of a policy or behavior is paramount, and believe the amelioration of crippling economic conditions (which lead to antisocial behavior fairly consistently) is a necessary step in maintaining the society in the civilized sense of the word.
I tend to favor the latter view, since I'm not sure that a very small percentage of the population having a very large proportion of the assets in a democracy (a natural, indeed *inevitable* result of unbridled capitalism) is likely to have a positive effect on the quality of life of the population at the median.
Take gun control for example. Repulicans are in favor of free gun ownership, because people have a right to self-defense.
This is plausible enough. In principle it seems like it should elegantly self-equilibriate.
The actual data shows, however, that the effect of widespead gun possession, is that people use the guns, on each other and themselves, in a way that exacerbates the effects of their innate aggression.
This is why liberals everywhere attempt to restict freedom of access, not something they
If the most advanced easily available weapon technology was a particularly foul-smelling wet herring, fatal outcomes in violent situations would be far less common.
Note that in most first world republics, personal firearms are much harder to obtain, with a very pronounced effect of murder and even suicide rates, even where improvements on herring have been made.
Bush, in my view, has a problem in that he appears to be immune to negative reinforcement.
The inabilty to admit error is not a useful quality in an ruler. This is compounded by his confusion on the concept of leadership.
Leaders require followers, which further mandates, in the long term, both well thought out policy and flexibility in implementing it.
I almost hope he wins so he has to clean up his own mess. Almost.
But overall, I agree with the person who was shuddering uncontrollably in fear of what 4 more years of this administration, with no election at the end to keep them constrained, would be like.
My issue with the Republicans isn't that they aren't Democrats, (who are it must be admitted enslaved to a much more diverse group of special interests!
) but that they aren't even democrats.
I expect the voter fraud we saw in 2000 is going to seem minor compared to what is coming, even ignoring the probable (dogwagging) October surprise.
Plutocracy, corporate feudalism and Christian Fascism are not pretty ideologies, particularly when employed running the alpha superpower on the highly militarized planet.
Human beings are just monkeys with hypertrophic cerebral cortices. The thalamic reptile brain is still down there, and appears to be running the show.
Lord help us.
Rabe the Political Nutjob