The government should not change society. Government should adapt to a changing society. Less than 1,000 people have neither the right nor the Constitutional authority to set social policy. If you want that small number of people to determine how millions should think and live their lives, make a good argument for that position, convince 2/3 the country and amend the Constitution. Until then, the government can but the hell out of my bedroom.
Without the vocal extreme minority of right-wing lunatic Christians in office, this country would have been well on the road to accepting and legalizing gay marriage because the vast majority of the country just doesn't care what others do in their own homes.
The problem with your scenario is that it only works for you if people who think like you win. What happens when the person who fits your general description of someone who leads the mob and imposes his social viewpoint on the country is exactly the opposite philosophical bent as you? Then where are we? We're in exactly the spot we are in now. We had one of those in Bill Clinton and look how the people just like him on the other end of the political spectrum reacted. They waged a political war and landed Dubya in office. Now we have the anti-Clinton version of what you want and the country is not sitting pretty.
Bill Clinton was no more respectful of viewpoints that clashed with his than Dubya. In fact, according to a VP in my office who came into contact with President Clinton on almost a daily basis, Clinton was positively hateful and vindictive to anyone who voiced disagreement with him and his wife was worse.
That kind of intolerance in the guise of liberalism or progressiveness is as unacceptable as the intolerance the extreme right displays. It is okay to disagree with someone and that doesn't make them wrong. The belief that it does is a fundamental cause of our current situation. I find it sadly ironic that people who argue for tolerance of their beliefs are so intolerant of others' beliefs.
Your leader only works if everyone in the country thinks just like you. As good as your beliefs are, that is a very frightening scenario... A nation without any individual thinkers.
no subject
Without the vocal extreme minority of right-wing lunatic Christians in office, this country would have been well on the road to accepting and legalizing gay marriage because the vast majority of the country just doesn't care what others do in their own homes.
The problem with your scenario is that it only works for you if people who think like you win. What happens when the person who fits your general description of someone who leads the mob and imposes his social viewpoint on the country is exactly the opposite philosophical bent as you? Then where are we? We're in exactly the spot we are in now. We had one of those in Bill Clinton and look how the people just like him on the other end of the political spectrum reacted. They waged a political war and landed Dubya in office. Now we have the anti-Clinton version of what you want and the country is not sitting pretty.
Bill Clinton was no more respectful of viewpoints that clashed with his than Dubya. In fact, according to a VP in my office who came into contact with President Clinton on almost a daily basis, Clinton was positively hateful and vindictive to anyone who voiced disagreement with him and his wife was worse.
That kind of intolerance in the guise of liberalism or progressiveness is as unacceptable as the intolerance the extreme right displays. It is okay to disagree with someone and that doesn't make them wrong. The belief that it does is a fundamental cause of our current situation. I find it sadly ironic that people who argue for tolerance of their beliefs are so intolerant of others' beliefs.
Your leader only works if everyone in the country thinks just like you. As good as your beliefs are, that is a very frightening scenario... A nation without any individual thinkers.