Cornbread Maxwell wrote:
Amazinz wrote:The terms Left & Right are not usually used to describe economic stances more than social stances. And currently it is quite the opposite. I think most people right now would associate the left with socially progressive and the right with socially conservative. This is not a mistake by the media since these terms are not absolute. The reason people don't call Libertarians far right is because it would be misleading.
I gotta disagree with you there. I see the vast majority of issues breaking down into role of government - be it social or economic, and there are very few issues that libertarians dont see solving with less government intrusion, therefore they are far to the right.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Cornbread had it absolutely right; the vast majority of voters see themselves as conservative or liberal based solely on social issues. This is a trend that had been pushed solely by both liberal and conservative pundits and radio hosts. I don't hear one thing from any so-called conservative about fiscal responsibility or government limitations. Yes, that notion is gaining popularity thanks to ex-libertarian Ron Paul speaking out against George W. Bush, the war in Iraq and Republican pork barrel spending. But it is NOT what defines liberal and conservative in American among the general public. What defines liberal and conservative is whatever Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly (et al.) is spouting; immigration, abortion, gays, terror, secularism, "the war on Christmas," drugs, morals... anything to take national interest away from whatever really matters. If social issues didn't matter, then there is no way Bush would have been elected twice. Every political scientist in the country spouts the effect of the evangelical vote and how important it was to the Bush victory. It's only many years later that polls indicate, with an approval rating hovering around 30% for some time now, that people are only now waking up to the realities of the world. That thinking from the head is more important than thinking from the gut.
Amazinz, you are a smart dude, I see that time and time again from your posts here. You're a true conservative, through and through, and you see the world in the way it's meant to be seen on a two-party system. But if economics meant anything to you, then you'd realize the neo-conservative trend of spend, spend, spend is not the conservative party that Ronald Reagan and those before him constructed. Libertarians, at large, while economically conservative, all stand for a very liberal social America; that people should be free to do what they want to do without interference from the federal government and that does not just mean the second amendment (which it very much does). Libertarians largely support the legalization of drugs, the abolishment of any and all government censorship in the media, gay-rights, embryonic stem cell research, the large-spread privatization of social security and other government programs, and ending of ALL government barriers to free, international trade. Libertarians may be conservative when it comes to guns, but they are also quite liberal when it comes to things you probably hate.
So, cornbread maxwell is absolutely, 100% right when when he says that labels like liberal and conservative are applied in a purely social-political ideology. This is how each side attacks each other and this is how every pundit in America, conservative or liberal, puts their point across. It's not about economics or government spending; those things are difficult to understand. But the social stuff; flag burning and gay-marriage... now THAT hits home and it doesn't matter how well informed you or I may be on the intricacies of daily politics, the average Joe American is a social issue voter and other than the Iraq war itself, that isn't going to change for a most people in a long, long time.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....