Quote:
Yes, some things should be left to the states, but restricting a freedom protected by the federal government is not one of them. As I understood the Republican party when I was younger, its appeal lay in the idea that personal no-harm freedoms should not be limited by government interference. This was carried into economic policy by reducing restrictions on businesses that would hamper growth. The economic part stayed, but then the social part flipped. Now, in order to gain support from social conservatives, Republicans have to say they are all for restricting personal freedoms that counter the morality of the social conservatives. Old Republicans would say it's none of the government's business what people do in their own lives, but new Republicans say they want to make (or keep) things illegal that go against conservative morality. Politicians should not be legislating morality with respect to no-harm personal choice. And the very idea of social conservatism runs counter to the progression of society -- if we kept things the way they were 100 years ago, I doubt many of us would maintain a socially conservative stance, yet 100 years ago, social conservatives were trying to do just that (remember -- the 100th anniversary of women's right to vote won't happen for another nine years).
In short, let the politicians be in charge of running the country, but let me be in charge of running my life.
I agree with the no harm, no foul concept of living, but the only problem with the concept of progressivism, is that there is never a moral line, which cannot be fudged.
As for the Republicans being co-opted by social conservatives,[ a nice friendly, noconfrontational word] the Democratic Party has also been hijacked by socialist idealogues, whose political and social agenda, [and yes, they do have one], runs counter to everything which has made this country the envy and desire of the rest of the world.
This agenda has been a long time in coming, in it's implementation. The old frog in the pan of water analogy.
Whether it started out as a long term plan, or just some do nothing professor, with a wild idea, who knows.....Something tells me that Karl Marx never really got down into the mud with the people he was trying to influence.
Regardless, it seemed to have been spawned in the higher halls of learning and thought, and therefore, who could question it. It was implemented under the guise of free thinking, when its actual intent was to take individualism from the individual, and create a complete system of group think. Meaning that, we'll do your thinking for you.
It is a system of mental and spiritual slavery, where no individual is allowed to reach their full potential, for their own sake. If you are allowed to excel, it had better be for the good of the state, and you'd better not have any thoughts of going rogue.
The implementation is twofold. Start with children, using brainwashing and groupthink, and for the older generations, who have known freedom, give them just enough to keep them from rising up and complaining.....Thus, the permanent welfare state...What a voting block.
