The Radical’s Blog: Sometimes the Left is Right

When I took the moniker of “Radical Republican,” it was a spoof given by folks trying to discredit me personally, so I laughed and embraced the name in the same way a tall man calls himself “shorty.”

The misnomer I use does highlight the dichotomy within myself that many others have with respect to the stereotyping of people based on their political affiliation. Unfortunately in this country, we tend to think of people against a single axis spectrum: socialists on the extreme left, moderates in the middle, and fascists on the extreme right. The reality is that people are not one dimensional. This imaginary spectrum should be at least two dimensions when it comes to politics: fiscal and social.

When it comes to fiscal matters, I am a proud “conservative.” I believe that government should be funded to just have enough to do whatever it is the people want it to. Public servants should have a comfortable life, but no one should get rich from public service, including contracting companies and insurance executives. Many others think because you believe in being smart with the people’s money, you also share the social views of everyone else who is a “conservative.” This is simply not true. When you look at my personal views on almost every social issue, I tend to agree with the progressives. My views on a lot of topics can best be described as “live and let live” as long as that does not infringe on others' rights and beliefs.

Recently, there have been a number of social issues discussed in the media that are being used as political footballs. Some are very “progressive” agenda items but when you look at them in detail, they are actually “conservative” issues as well. Many conservatives believe in the nation’s founding principles of individual liberty and non-interference by the government. Issues like lower property taxes cross both ideological spectrums. On the progressive side, it is about allowing seniors to stay in the homes and towns they have literally built over 40 or 50 years. On the conservative side, it is about lowering the cost of government. The reason for wanting the change might be different, but the goal is the game. The goal of the Left is the same goal of the Right.

But there are a number of issues where the two sides differ, but when you argue it from a purely constitutional or individual liberty point of view, I cannot find a reason to oppose many of the arguments as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. On the grounds of individual choice I support gay marriage but as long as it is done in a way that protects the moral beliefs of officiants, the religious, and other states' beliefs. To me—personally—the thought of two men doing that to each other they wish they could do to themselves is rather disgusting. But if two men love each other and want to commit their lives to each other, who am I to tell them no? I see many heterosexual couples where the thought of them procreating makes me sick too. That doesn’t mean “Disgusting Marriage” should be outlawed (as much as I might want to). I remember growing up hearing stories of how interracial and interfaith marriages were outlawed and eventually legalized. Maybe same sex is next? As someone who believes in individual choice and liberty, I do not want anyone telling me I can’t marry a given woman because they don’t approve of her hair, or height, or weight, or last name, or skin color, or whatever else they happen to not like. I am an adult and can make my own decisions even if it means a expensive divorce a decade later. For a gay or lesbian citizen to make the choice to marry someone of the same gender, they know the negative side and reactions of their families but do it anyway. This alone tells me it is not a fad or political choice. I learned a long time ago many people have a “type” of person they like. And in this case some men like their women to be, well ... men. If one of my boys tells me in 20 years he is gay and wants to marry another man will I be crushed inside? Of course—every father wants their boys to grow up and marry a pretty woman and have a picture-perfect family. But I will always love my sons and will accept whomever they marry as long as they are treated well. This type of personal choice is exactly what Constitutional Conservatives want left up to the individual, not the state. On this issue, the Left’s position is also the moral and constitutionally right one.

When it comes to other hot item issues, I personally have no problem with stem cell research as it could yield a lot of invaluable insight into medicine. I just do not think the state should float $400 million bonds to build a research center for it.

I agree with medical marijuana as long as the state does not become a giant “head shop.”

I am pro-choice but support parental notification for minors and spousal notification for married women (the child is legally his obligation if married, so he should at least know it is being aborted even if he does not have a vote). To elaborate on abortion, as a nearly 40-year-old man I probably could not terminate a pregnancy the way I might have at 17. I don’t know when “life” begins and until we have conclusive proof I can’t make the moral choice for someone else. That is their moral decision to make.

That said there are a number of issues where both sides taking absolute sides are both wrong. You can support an issue but believe in reasonable limits to it: For example, I am a big “car guy” who has an old IROC I keep as a hobby and joy-ride car but have no issues with reasonable speed limits or restrictions on the volume from an exhaust. My personal right to enjoy the car ends when the noise or dangerous driving affects other people. I also support the death penalty but think we are applying it wrong. It shouldn’t be for someone who killed a store clerk while robbing them; it should be for the white-collar a-hole who wiped out the life savings of thousands of people forcing many of them to commit suicide or live in destitution. These are the ones who should be getting the needle or chair. I am a big supporter of the right to bear arms but also have no problems with reasonable restrictions on gun purchases and semi-automatic weapons. I also have no problems with concealed carry permits for citizens who are trained on firearm safety.

When it comes to many of the social issues we face, both sides of the political isle actually agree on the result. In some cases, both are wrong. In many cases the progressive agenda can be successfully argued from a conservative point of view.

With respect to a lot of the social issues being discussed this election cycle, the Left is actually the Right choice. Just because someone believes in fiscal and constitutional conservatism, it does not mean they do not agree with many of the progressive agenda items.