Libertarian

Politically, I identify mostly with the idea of libertarianism.  The definition of which defers person to person (much like “right” and “left”) but the the tiny political party claiming to represent the ideology, provides a pretty good baseline definition,

Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility.

***

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions.  Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?

Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we’re in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable — rather than government — welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant.  We won’t demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles.

Think of us as a group of people with a “live and let live” mentality and a balanced checkbook.

In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole — but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That’s why we call ourselves the Party of Principle.

Notwithstanding, my self imposed and loose label, I find that I much more closely relate with/to the Republican party rather than the Democrat party.  As such, I found myself watching the train wreck that was the first republican primary debate last week.  It felt like the first few episodes of a reality show where you know that in a few weeks most of these people are going to be “voted off” and you can really emotionally invest later on.

Republicans Need to Bail on What are Traditional Social Issues

In my opinion, in 2015 there are two “main” social issues:

• Same-sex Marriage otherwise known as Marriage Equality
• Abortions

My personal feelings are not all that important to the discussion, and they are complicated at best regarding both of those issues (Very long story short, I end up on the side that all people should have the right to marry whomever they want and I am pro-choice). The reason the Republicans should bail on these two issues is simple – they just don’t matter when it comes to running for executive branch, and all they do is alienate the middle of the ground people which may or may not have voted for a Republican President.

First and foremost, the fight against same-sex marriage is over.  Conservatives lost. Period.  The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that,

…the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In November 2014, following a lengthy series of appeal court rulings for the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that such state bans were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found them constitutional, creating a split between circuits and leading to an almost inevitable Supreme Court hearing.

Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.^[4] This legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States, its possessions and territories. The ruling examined the nature of fundamental (constitutional) rights guaranteed to all by the constitution and which are harmed by waiting and therefore need not wait for legislative processes to be remedied, and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality which has developed greatly since the court last visited this question.

So at this point there is literally nothing that could be done by an incoming Republican President – so why is it even being brought up?  You have to be absolutely delusional if you think that an incoming President is going to use any and all of his (or her) new political clot to overturn marriage equality.  So Republicans lets stop alienating those middle of the line voters on this issue!

The second issue often referred to as a “Social Issue” is the political third rail of pro-life vs pro-choice.  Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum – the President has absolutely no power to do anything about this issue!  Regardless of the president who is elected they won’t effect change when it comes to abortion.  Why?

• The President doesn’t write the law (so he would need to get something through Congress for him or her to sign – not happening)
• The President can’t “de-fund” programs – Congress has the power to spend money

I guess the President could try to “Pack the Court” (appoint federal judges that agree with the same stance) but that would take a ridiculous amount of time for the issue to be heard in and ruled upon in the Federal Court System.

Soooooo, since these are two issues which can’t be changed lets stop alienating swayable voters!