OK, I'm not really an overwhelmingly negative person. It just so happens that two of the topics that have been major sources of discussion here lately -- guns and workers' rights -- are two of the most frustrating and hopeless topics out there.
In both cases, big money has carried the day by means of decades-long PR and lobbying campaigns to the extent that there is little hope of even slowing, much less reversing the momentum.
On workers' rights (is that now an oxymoron?), companies are getting increasingly brazen about abusing workers knowing that there is little recourse. And after having unions on the run for the past 30 years, big business is now going about trying to finish them off. No matter what happens here, things are going to be very bad for American workers for quite some time, until business gets so over the top (think late 19th/early 20th century) that the worm finally turns.
On guns, the NRA has won. GOP lawmakers are all bought and paid for, and over half of Dems are terrified (even those who have no reason to be).
Frankly, massacres like Aurora and Newtown are happening with growing frequency in this country, and they don't move they dial one bit. Gun control advocates can't compete with the NRA. And public opinion seems unmoved, even by the slaughter of little children. If anything, such events seem to have the perverse effect of encouraging people to go out and buy *MORE* guns. Like that's a solution. Sigh.
is just looking for dick they are a hypocrite of the highest order.
You make some excellent points. Not making any inferences.
Please note the careful nuance of what I wrote - for example, I did not say outright or in any other way that "liberal = Democrat" or that "conservative = Republican"
Also, please note that I used the word "typically" - that word does not suggest a generalization... Generalizing about the right and the left, about Democrats and Republicans is not supported or reasonable in my opinion...
I agree that the "role of government" certainly changes based on the party in power. The point however is that between liberal and conservative attitudes about that there is a wide chasm. But that particular item is merely to suggest that there is a difference in "philosophy."
Again, my friend, I do not suggest on this site that on the issue of "gay rights" that there is any given position that every participate on this site (or anywhere else in the country, for that matter) would agree with...
For example, on that issue alone it is a different question to agree/disagree with "gay rights" carte blanche - whereas if the question is agreeing with "gay marriage" that is much more specific. Is the question one of "standing in church as a man and woman would"? or does the question call for some form of civil union? or, does the question infer that government should mandate unions between two members of the same sex under the guise of a Federal mandate (e. g., at a military base)? or, does one see "gay rights" on a specificity level something that the Federal government has any business in or that rests with the various states (after all, every state in the union is "sovereign" and the constitution does have some play in such arguments)...
It is too easy to generalize when a topic such as "gay rights" is assumed to mean every possible subset of issues surrounding that social issue in the country. The same is true with "gun rights" - if one says "no weapons in the hands of the public" it is a great deal different than "no assault weapons or weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the public..."
"Equal rights and protection" is your phrase - not mine. Of course I believe that gay people have the same rights to equal protection under the law - just like every other citizen. That phrase however, when linked to "marriage equality" means different things to different people. Apply my thought process to the description I exampled above... Please do not presume that I have a personal opinion one way or the other (not, at least, based on anything I write) - I have studiously avoided stating my personal opinon in many respects in numerous blogs here - simply because the language used can be defined differently for different people... Suffice it to say I listed "gay rights" as an example of a complex issue that, to a large extent, is an open issue and largely unresolved in this country simply because not everyone (liberal, conservative or otherwise...) have not come to concensus on whatever specific aspect of that broad topic is really meant...
Broad brush and assumed meanings in what constitutes "liberal" or "conservative" is dangerous. The reason is that it lumps all people in one camp vs the other. It does not allow for a middle ground. It eliminates the possibility of compromise because it is "everything or nothing." Life (and people) are much more complex than that!
I commend you for the clarity with which you express your opinions because they communicate a clear level of understanding that is sadly missing in many other settings that I interact with (which includes outside of this site)...
The role of government (or at least the approach to government) changes according to the party in power.
On immigration, I don't think there's a clean liberal/conservative split. Some conservatives take the view you mention; others want to send all illegals back.
Abortion has been at a stalemate for years, but the anti-abortion conservatives do keep producing small wins. Enough to keep them motivated anyway.
I will say that at least we do feel free to discuss gun control here. It is almost not permitted on a national stage. If you read one of the other blogs here, even a liberal like Morgan Freeman doesn't want anything to do with the topic. And the sportscaster who mentioned guns after the Jovan Belcher/KC Chiefs murder suicide was crucified for it. The NRA has so thoroughly succeeded on the topic that even healthy debate has been squelched.
Other, equally discouraging, topics would include:
(1) the role of government: a liberal position typically would be that more government is better and government is the solution whereas a conservative position typically would be that less government is better and government is not a solution to much...
(2) abortion rights: a conservative position typically would be that abortion is abhorrent, destructive of life, and morally indefensible whereas a typically liberal position might be that abortion is a woman's right, that the abortion is a "fetus" (not a person regardless of the point at which aborted)
(3) gay rights: a liberal position typically would be that gays are entitled to the same rights traditionally enjoyed only by heterosexual couples whereas a conservative position might be to hold onto tradition
(4) immigration: a liberal position typically would be that those who entered the country without legal sanction should be forgiven whereas a conservation position might be that one must "earn" entitlement to the privileges enjoyed by citizens and others who followed the rules for getting here...
and so forth...
Isn't it great that in this nation we have pretty much achieved recognition that there is no liberal/conservative view of such things as:
(1) freedom of assembly
(2) religious freedom
(3) freedom of expression
(4) freedom to be secure in one's own castle
(5) the freedom to pursue a better life for one's self and their posterity or not...
and so forth
But, we still have slavery (right here in Grand Rapids, Michigan!)
we still have discrimination (age, gender, sex , class, race)
All of these issues, and a host of those not referred to here, are issues that any democracy will revisit and redefine as it evolves and matures. We must remember that the democracy in the USoA is a relatively young one compared to countries such as France and England. Every social dimension of every society clinging to the idea of what a democracy is about is wise to address these issues afresh. What holds a democracy together (as much as anything else might) is the ability of the people to believe in the vision that gave rise to the democracy in the first place. When the people lose a sense of belief in themselves and their ability to influence the future is when the democracy may be numbering its days to its demise...
If anything, all the list you link to shows is that the NRA's influence is even more pervasive than it used to be.
Folks, the debate on whether Americans will have the right to possess guns is OVER. Boogeyman socialist Obama is NOT going to come into your home in the middle of the night and snatch your weapons away from you. The NRA is only telling you that crap to scare you into buying more guns and giving them more money.
The debate in this country now is whether, in the future, there will be ANY limitations whatsoever on gun ownership. The NRA, via its minions in the courts and legislatures, is moving us slowly and steadily in the direction of none.
The Illinois court ruling, should it be upheld, should send a chill down the spine of all but the hardest core of gun freaks. Basically, if concealed carry is declared a constitutional right, then how can states, even pro-gun states like Texas, legally force people to undergo training and receive a license to do it? They won't be able to, and that is right where this is going.