Recently the New York Times published a piece which suggests social conservatism or liberalism (best termed the Left to avoid confusion with real liberalism) is determined genetically. Where does that leave me? I'm a moderate on social issues. Having taken several political-orientation tests, I always fall in the exact middle socially with a slight tendency to libertarianism when considering the role of government in society.
Women should have a limited right to abortion. I do not believe late-term elective abortion is anything but early infanticide. I was born premature, as was my now-deceased son. I was actually more premature, and more underweight than Alexander. Don't tell me a six or seven month fetus is not a human being. I'm living proof that's a crock of feces. Women should have a choice, strictly limited to early pregnancy except under extreme circumstances: horrible birth defects or the life of the mother. "Health" is too broad. Having a baby is unhealthy for women, and has been for the entire breadth of human history.
In the law, no choice is unaffected by when the choice is made. Similary, no rights are unlimited when another party - in this case a potential human life - is directly affected. I read a column in the Telegraph (UK) which suggested that many feminists would support abortion after delivery when the umbilical cord is still attached. That's inhumane, sick, and nothing but an excuse for infanticide. Once you cross the birth barrier, what prevents you from extending abortion out until the end of breast feeding or the child's first words?
Embryonic stem cells:
Are we going to put no limits on human experimentation? Do we really want to allow science to determine the limits on human experimentation without considering the moral questions which arise? Germany, Austria, and Ireland have banned embryonic stem cell research for that reason. Germany and Austria are particularly experienced on the slippery slope of human experimentation. Someone must draw a line somewhere. Wherever that line is drawn will stop science from human experimentaton alleged to be important by some researcher. I don't have the "right" answer to these questions. And I am equally certain, drawing no legal lines is the wrong answer.
I don't have a problem with states permitting gay marriage. If it came up for a vote in Florida, I'd vote for it (ending up on the losing side). Pretending there is a penumbra or emanation from the United States Constitution which makes gay marriage a national constitutional right is based on nothing but abusive judicial activism. Given the long history of gay marriage - which is to say, never until recently - social change should follow the democratic process. That means slow, messy, contentious change at the state level. That's democracy.
On these three key issues, the moderate position actually parallels (without being a great fit, granted) the so-called conservative position. Those who would ban all abortion, permit no stem cell research, or pass a constitutional amendment precluding any gay marriage, I oppose.
In a nutshell, my views don't parallel the extreme Left or extreme Right. I would prefer both sides tone down the rhetoric and start asking the hard questions instead of trying to score political points.
BOTTOM LINE: Given the wash on social issues, I'm a foreign policy voter.
That leaves me with Pelosi, Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, Conyers, Lee, Rangel, McKinney, (Pat Buchannan), and Dean on the Democratic (anti-war) side of the coin. If modern history shows us anything, and it does, it shows us that the extreme Left and extreme Right consistently oppose the U.S. military and always end up on the wrong side of history: supporting terrorists, fascists, Communists, theocrats, thugs, despots, and those who would destroy our constitutional republic.
Until the Democrats get serious about foreign policy, they cannot expect to gain any traction with their extreme views on social issues. This is why Demorcatic rhetoric gets more shrill and divorced from reality. Only by misrepresenting the mainstream Republican positions on social issues can the Democrats hope to gain any political traction on the Heartland Street. So far, they've managed to make themselves look like defeatist, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, totalitarian, radical, secular fundamentalists.
It would not be unfair to say the leadership of the Democratic Party supports the global Islamic jihad against the United States. The Nazi, Left, Islamist coalition is alive and well in the Democratic Party.
If GWB had one half the rhetorical skills of a Reagan or Clinton, or their understanding of the bully pulpit, the Democratic Party would be on the ropes and hoping for the bell to ring.
The Grim Milestone of Blogs "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational" - Prince Charles "Nuts" - Gen McAuliffe America: Saving idiots from themselves since WWI