Screaming Penguin

Before the election I just wanted to state a few things about my positions and solicit feedback from others, then sit back and watch the fray. Warning, this article talks about some controversial things such as gays, abortion, race and guns, it is not intended to offend but it certainly may, cope. (Also note that is a rambling article written with abandon about my personal views and does not reflect any views of this site or anyone else involved with this site, feel free to rip my views to shreds but dont hold it against the penguin.) My personal political philosophy is one of being in favor of personal freedoms and less government overall. That said I do believe the government has a place when societal rights are at odds with individual rights and there is a tangible real collision of the two. (What I mean is that just not liking what another group is doing is not enough, there must be a real impact on society not just on ideals for a "collision" to be present and government to get involved). I also believe very much in a more central authority, federal government, and a global interaction of governments. With those ideals I should be a great Republican. Based on the definition of the word and the "standard" Republican ideas of liberty and less government. And I DO agree with many Republican views. However the Republicans always lose me entirely on Religious and Lifestyle issues. Republican candidates in my area are *very* adamantly anti gay, anti abortion, and pro monotheistic Judeo-Christian religion. By anti Gay I mean stating openly that same sex benefits should be illegal, stating openly that same sex partners should not be allowed to adopt and blatantly stating openly that "God says it aint right so thats why its bad". I find the anti gay thing a HUGE problem as I see it as an overall character flaw that reveals a deeper problem in the way that persons brain works. Gay people are people. I am not personally gay but have no problems with gay people ("not that there is anything wrong with that"). What consenting adults do behind closed doors in a bedroom is none of societies overall business, there is no collision of any rights there (people might not like the idea, but only ideology is affected not a tangible affect). Not allowing gay people the SAME rights (not special rights mind you, but the SAME, equal, rights) is ludicrous. If your brain sees gay people so differently that you would disallow a gay couple benefits, or adoption of a child, then your brain does not work clearly, logically or fairly. Simple. This type of discrimination based on sexual orientation is the same vein that fought vehemently to keep black people slaves and then later to deny black people and women the right to vote. Its the same closed minded abject misunderstanding and ignorance and if it exists in ANY part of your brain then I personally dont trust any of the rest. Then the religion in government thing is another matter, again very serious flaw. There are reasons religion should not be in government regardless of how religious any person is outside of government. These were the founding principles of this country, today they are largely ignored and or trampled. Then abortion, thats another discussion but basically if you dont want one, then dont have one, legislating who can and cant have one is stupid, legislating it with the zeal for it the Republicans show is borderline lunacy. There go the Republicans. The Democrats are basically out in my book because they in general want more government, more regulation and more tax money for programs that I do not think the government should be involved with. I do agree that poor people need help with the rent, hungry people need food, etc, and I give money to charities that do those things but I do not think it is the role of the government in most cases. However, on the Democrat side many dont have the character flaws that I see in Republicans (as outlined above) and therefore see the lesser of the evils even though I dont agree with their approach. Then the Libertarians. These are in general the group I agree with the most. Government out of peoples lives. No national income tax, realize that drugs being illegal is stupid, no problems with gays, no issues with religion out of government (for the true libertarians anyway). The issue I do have with Libertarians is guns. I dont think we should outlaw guns but I do think we have a gun problem in the states and we need to deal with it. I think enforcement of existing gun laws would be a great first step, on this point I agree with the gun advocates. No new legislation but use the existing stuff. However, I also realize that that might not be enough and in my view this is a clear case of where societal concerns may outweigh individual preferences. This is a case where a tangible "collision" is present, people in everyday society that dont want sidearms are killed because of a culture that does not address gun problems. I say preferences and not rights because I dont think any reasonable person would ever outlaw guns. Simply greater control such as having a license like is required to drive a car and background checks wherever you buy a gun, etc. Now gun advocates do argue that this will just inconvenience legitimate gun owners and not help the problem. To that I say that it is an inconvenience but one that is well worth it for overall society and that it *might* help the problem. They say that then "only outlaws will have guns", I say exactly. Then we enforce the existing gun laws and use the resources we have been devoting to drugs to clean up actual victim affecting crimes such as gun violations. On the gun issue I give the Libertarians their props for being consistent, no government, anywhere, but at the same time thats where they lose me. Back to the "collision" and societal rights versus individual rights. In all of this then who the hell do I vote for? Well, after learning my lesson in past elections I have come to think that voting for the ideal candidate, the one you agree with the most, is not the best course of action. I vote for the one that I think CAN win that will do the least damage. Its lame to vote this way I agree, but I think it is more wise than voting for someone with no chance whom in the end makes no difference at all (my apologies to Harry Browne whom I voted for in the last 2 presidential elections). In the upcoming elections I will probably be voting for a few Libertarians and mostly Democrats. That said I almost at this point think it will be good if the Republicans do win it all, so I may change and vote a few Republicans. I say this not because I think Republicans will do a better job on any issue (contrary) but because I think if they control the Pres and the Congress they will trip over their own agendas (so to speak) at some point in the next two years and then when the next election comes there will be great backlash against the party, and that next election includes a President. I think that if Republicans have it all for 2 years they will alienate enough core voters and constituents that the next elections would be a landslide the other way. The question is how much damage could be done by one party (any party) in complete control for 2 years? On the other hand if the Democrats win the Senate and the House then it will make the President that much less powerful because he showed up in an unprecedented number of districts to push his candidates. If those candidates dont win then those who did will not like the President very much (for campaigning against them) and not be afraid of his influence any more. At that point the split might be healthy for the country overall (congress check on executive power) but that would just leave the opportunity for each party to continue to blame the other right up until the next election. Maybe one party should have the power for a while? Well, whatever happens, go vote.