Has anyone noticed that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street Movement are basically philosophically the exact same thing? They’re literally just two groups of people who are upset with the big government cronyism that has taken over Washington. Both want a smaller, more accountable government, they just happen to be comprised of people who are demographically different in almost every way, aside from being primarily white. Maybe a good third party candidate could unite these two factions and enact some actual change in Washington.
One thing to keep in mind about the abortion debate is that those who are pro-life, despite many being Christian conservatives, are not bigots or racists, or sexists. In the debate surrounding same-sex marriage, it’s easy to identify those who are against gay marriage as just prejudiced, because it’s hard to see a real argument for banning gay marriage. It all really does seem to come from a fear of the unknown or just homophobia. Because the same people are often times against abortion and gay marriage, it’s easy to identify them as unjustified in their argument against abortion as they are in gay marriage. That’s simply not the case. Abortion is, at the very least, the termination of the potential for human life if not the actual ending of one. All of science agrees that since sperm and egg cells can be considered to be alive, the fetus that they create is alive as well. The debate doesn’t center around the fact that abortion ends a life, just about when in development a fetus does become a human life. The law is very unclear about this, as the murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder, but abortion is somehow justified.
As a pro-choice libertarian, I believe that it’s a personal decision for the mother to make. But those who are pro-life are just extending the duty that I’m sure we all agree that government has to protect its citizens. Murder is unquestionably wrong, and if you believe a fetus to be a human life at any stage of development, then abortion is synonymous with murder. This doesn’t come from sexism or bigotry, but from a genuine belief that every human life has value, and it’s the government’s job to protect these lives. It’s important to keep this in mind as debate rages on about this incredibly divisive issue, because both sides have genuine, humanitarian, justifiable interests at heart.
How can a conservative Chris Christie and a very liberal Cory Booker both be comfortably cruising to victory by a large margin in the same electorate in New Jersey? Does this show the power of charisma and that the public largely doesn’t care about policy as much as leaders that they trust and feel are accountable? Or does this simply show the power of independents who break largely for Christie and Booker?
“I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom,” he said in a speech then. “No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists.”
-President Obama in 2007
If the executive branch is so vast that President Obama can’t be expected to know about all of these scandals, there’s an even bigger issue at stake here. The government is too big to be managed by the systems that we have in place. This transcends institutional incompetence and gets into a grand old American battle about the size of government, and in the wake of all of these scandals, it seems that big government’s advocates are the best case against it.