Republican Fantasies, Part 2
Republicans and conservatives in general declare that freedom and liberty and small government is the hallmark of their politics. That declaration is grand hypocrisy at its worst because of the sad impact it has on the lives of people. Their position is that government is bad and freedom and liberty are good while at the same time they want this "bad" government to force women to carry pregnancies to term against their will. Where is freedom and liberty for women? What about anyone being able to marry whom they love? Conservatives talk about freedom and liberty and small government but they want the government to prevent men from marrying men, or women marrying women.
Sure men can live with men, and women with women now, but certain privileges come with being married, tax benefits, death and hospital benefits, etc. Republicans and conservatives cannot claim to be for freedom and liberty when they place qualifications on it. They cannot say, "well, freedom and liberty for us, but not for women, not for gays and lesbians". In fact it is difficult to avoid the concluding that when they talk about freedom and liberty, they mean that freedom and liberty and small government are exclusive for white, Christian, straight men. "Keep government off our backs, but not if you're a woman." "We're for small government, but if you're a woman, we want the government stand between you and your doctor making your medical decisions for you, and if you're not careful we want you and/or your doctor to go to jail."
Republicans and conservatives are in this fix because they have a religious base to placate, and religion simply cannot be reconciled with freedom and liberty. A very good friend of mine was both libertarian and a fundamentalist religious person. But eventually he found out that he couldn't be both so he ended up picking religion and abandoned libertarianism. The fact is you can be for liberty and freedom or you can be religious, but you can't be both. And that's a fundamental problem for Republicans that say they want both. So they end up being hypocrites, saying they're for freedom and liberty but they're not really.
Sure men can live with men, and women with women now, but certain privileges come with being married, tax benefits, death and hospital benefits, etc. Republicans and conservatives cannot claim to be for freedom and liberty when they place qualifications on it. They cannot say, "well, freedom and liberty for us, but not for women, not for gays and lesbians". In fact it is difficult to avoid the concluding that when they talk about freedom and liberty, they mean that freedom and liberty and small government are exclusive for white, Christian, straight men. "Keep government off our backs, but not if you're a woman." "We're for small government, but if you're a woman, we want the government stand between you and your doctor making your medical decisions for you, and if you're not careful we want you and/or your doctor to go to jail."
Republicans and conservatives are in this fix because they have a religious base to placate, and religion simply cannot be reconciled with freedom and liberty. A very good friend of mine was both libertarian and a fundamentalist religious person. But eventually he found out that he couldn't be both so he ended up picking religion and abandoned libertarianism. The fact is you can be for liberty and freedom or you can be religious, but you can't be both. And that's a fundamental problem for Republicans that say they want both. So they end up being hypocrites, saying they're for freedom and liberty but they're not really.
Comments
Post a Comment