[chrisprice]

See 4/19 posting for reason why this question is meaningless.

http://christopherprice.blogspot.com/

Comments?

[enLight]

Just because the country has chosen to take the path opposite to social conservatives, does not mean they're wrong - it just means that their ideas did not "win" in the political battle.

For instance, if the nation decided tomorrow to abolish the traditional family unit, social conservatives would not be happy. Does this make their stance wrong? Of course not.

[chrisprice]

Good point...In fact, I considered writing it as, "wrong". However, I also didn't want to imply I was endorsing ethical relativism, as I would claim that some political decisions JUST ARE right (or wrong), such as the emancipation of slaves.

thanks

[Astaroth]

Hey, high regards. I enjoyed reading this, I felt there was some very astute observations.

I've always struggled with this when arguing history with an opponent. Many times a democrat will espouse that Republicans are bigots and racist since part of the history includes a resistance to emanipation and overall civil liberties of black people.

Yet party platforms change. Values generally don't. (This is why I can still be overtly critical of Sen. Byrd, KKK-W.Va..tee hee) Although I understand that people change, all that tends to do is tell you to switch to a party that you associate deeper with...the party itself changes through political volition, rather than some value system. This is instructional because in government, there is always intended to be a minority that serves as an 'opponent' of the majority...a check in the system to keep a balance. In this sense, it is IMPORTANT that we have at LEAST two parties, as it ensures debating issues to ensure justice and liberty. Yes, this can be idealistic, but I believe this goes to show that the party values are not generally standardized through the hearts/minds of its members, but of the political impetus it gains to achieve a voice (power).

Now, that's not to say that a party doesn't shift slightly with it's memberships' belief and value systems, in fact, that's exactly why the parties do end up looking much different than they did 20 years down the road. In truth, I think in many regards I would be an avid Democrat during the civil rights movement simply based on the values they espoused at the time as being concurrent with mine. Contemporarily however, I find the DNC made up of wimps and elitists and I find them (their platforms) morally bankrupt. Does this mean that all dems are slime? Absolutely not...I'm critical of the the party 'platforms/ideals/values' and judgemental of only those that lie or are especially worthy of scorn.

So this all comes back to what you were all saying, i believe..the values in a person don't change as much over a lifetime, but the party 'label' may fluctuate where you find yourself voting for a party that you didn't associate with 20 years ago. This is why I feel it is of a VERY high value to consider oneself an independent and critical of EITHER party so that you do not fall into the trap of naively thinking that 'MY' president cannot do anything wrong and I'll vote for him no matter what...that's dangerous for democracy and freedom in general if you ask me as it allows for politicians to take advantage of your vote.

I'm glad you brought this up, as I don't think it's discussed often enough.
Regards,

Astaroth