by 3aidlillahi » Sat 17 May 2008, 18:06:26
I'd prefer a fairly small, conservative government that would only intervene in free enterprise to ensure the well-being and safety of its citizens such as militarily, environmentally or in the workforce, for example.
I do think that the leadership of the government should be far-sighted and willing to sacrifice. I don't think they should be in a position to let the country continue along a dangerous path nor should they enact cruel, binding measures to the people to correct that path.
What I mean is that the government, take the current situation with energy, shouldn't enforce an unreasonable burden on the oil-consuming population with say a $5 tax on gas, but instead try to inform the public as best as possible on what is actually happening and ways to avoid disaster. Small tax increases could be used but nothing that would overburden, only cause awareness and quicker transformation.
They should also show that they are serious about the problem by cutting back. Ditch the energy-inefficient White House and move into a 1 000 sq-ft apartment or townhouse, reducing the size of the motorcade, teleconference, etc. Show that being a leader is not a privilege in which you are above the people but instead just an occupation and that they are still just one of the people. Doing as such, I believe, would help the people see the correct path and have options to correct it. (Not that I ever support grandiose displays of power such as in the White House mansion, large private budgets, etc. I mean, the wife of the VP even has her own secretary!)
While a strong and large government with good leadership can do very good things, I believe an educated, free and willing nation can accomplish more.
But since you can never find an educated population or a greed-free government in reality, I tend to be more centrist or apathetic.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m suprised by the low support for left-wing liberalism so far. The general atmosphere here is very anti-neocon (not without reason I admit), and I thought "liberal" is the default choice for Americans who are disappointed in the right wing.
One of the main problems with neoconservatism is the foreign policy which was basically adapted from the liberal foreign policy which is that we have the big stick so we should use it. Think of Korea, Vietnam, etc. With Democrats and it was Republicans that got us out. The whole idea of going to war in the ME for "our strategic interests" (ie. oil)? Carter. It was continued with the Bushes and Reagan, but they got it from him.
(The corruption is also horrendous).
That's why there's been a backlash against Neocons and since going to the Dem side yields the same idea of interventionism (at least historically), most would rather stay to the right of center.
There are plenty of options between Neocons and actual conservative Republicans. BJ Lawson (11th NC), Walter Jones (3rd NC) and Ron Paul all defeated Neocons in the Repub primary. So to assume that one must defect to the other side of the aisle if one is tired of neocons is inaccurate.
Riches are not from abundance of worldly goods, but from a contented mind.