[einhverfr]

Opposing someone whose policies are opposed to civil liberties (like Bush) limits them far more than opposing someone who talks a lot about how important the civil liberties are but erodes them anyway (like Obama). So yes. Voting for the greater evil strikes me as a very rational approach here.

[CWuestefeld]

Opposing someone whose policies are opposed to civil liberties (like Bush)

Not that I disagree with you, but I'd like to point out that "civil liberties" is a very broad category. I think that if you examine the question deeper, you'll find that Obama also explicitly eschews some kinds of civil liberties.

Liberals, and specifically Obama, are openly hostile to one's right to property and the fruits of one's labor. And they're not too keen on the sovereignty of the individual: their right to decide their own values, and act as they deem best to maximize their own values.

The way our current system, with a single "left/right" dimension, divides up support for these seems to demand that we all take a position on which grouping -- column A or column B -- are more important, and that's very unfortunate. But even more unfortunate is that the media seem to implicitly consider only those in Column A to really be civil liberties, while either ignoring, or considering as an entirely different species -- those from Column B.

[king_jester]

> Liberals, and specifically Obama, are openly hostile to one's right to property and the fruits of one's labor. And they're not too keen on the sovereignty of the individual: their right to decide their own values, and act as they deem best to maximize their own values.

I'm sorry, but this is a gross oversimplification. There are those that call themselves liberal but have a point of view exactly as you describe, but there is nothing that requires someone who is liberal to be against property rights and determination in individual's work.

[CWuestefeld]

this is a gross oversimplification.

Of course it is, but so is the claim that Conservatives hate the "Column A" civil liberties. For example, despite it seeming to be a core GOP plank, I only know 2 people opposed to gay marriage (one of them my father <sigh>).

So: yes, it's an oversimplification. But part of what I was saying is that when we're stuck with only 2 parties (in practice), and a single "left/right" dimension, then these awful generalizations are all that we have to work with.

[bencpeters]

I don't think that the two oversimplifications are on the same level. Lots of prominent GOP politicians espouse positions that are very openly against gay marriage (as do some Democrats, unfortunately). But you'd be very hard pressed to find many "liberal" politicians who are against property rights and an individual being allowed to reap the fruits of their labor. Yes, liberals are marginally more likely to see situations where public good might trump these to some extent (e.g. more progressive taxation to pay for a social safety net), but to say that liberals are "against" these things flat out is not accurate.

Finally, the fact that someone else made an oversimplification isn't really a great justification to do it yourself...

[CWuestefeld]

the fact that someone else made an oversimplification isn't really a great justification to do it yourself.

That's not what I intended to convey. I'm trying to say that, when you've only got two choices, the resolution of your choices is horrendously coarse. In the end, the system as it exists today forces us to look through lenses that oversimplify like this.

I don't think that the two oversimplifications are on the same level. But you'd be very hard pressed to find many "liberal" politicians who are against property rights.

On the contrary. Most controversially, it seems to me at least that most of the cards that the Democratic party is playing these days are in the "class struggle" suit. Beyond that, though, I'd say that the very fact that you're not noticing it demonstrates how ingrained it has become. For example, consider the way that environmental legislation takes away a person's rights to his property without any compensation[1].

Also, no one has commented on the personal sovereignty aspect of civil liberties. This is the idea that each of us has different priorities, and we should be allowed (without endangering others) to maximize those values. "Nanny state" laws like smoking bans, mandates for motorcycle helmets, and yesterday's calls by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to ban flavored cigars [1] clearly curtail my civil libeties, and it seems to me that these tend to be championed by the left.

[1] I was once advised to chop down a tree on my property because it was expected to show up on the list of endangered species; once it was there, I wouldn't be allowed to do anything to develop my property.

[CWuestefeld]

As I watch my score on this post waver up and down, it seems that this is a controversial point.

I find this surprising. Perhaps some down-voters could respond regarding their downvotes.

I believe that my post is topical, certainly with respect to its parent; and it's at least trying to add a finer level to the discussion, rather than just a throwaway.

Is it that you don't regard those "Column B" things like property rights as "civil liberties"? Is it that you think this A/B distinction along left-right lines is the natural order of morality, and I should just accept it?

[king_jester]

This doesn't make any sense to me. This argument assumes that the output of Bush is the same as the output of Obama, which is most certainly not the case. I agree that there are disturbing similarities, but economic and social outlook is very different between those two presidents.

The main problem is that the system does not allow for effective involvement of the people. The key to solving this isn't to vote for the worst option possible, but rather to reform and change the system itself.