I'm not an extraordinarily opinionated person. In fact, I pride myself quite a bit on being able to see issues from different viewpoints, and understand the benefits of different courses of action. However, through the course of this 2012 election, I've come to realize that although I will probably forever be an independent, I lean just slightly to the democratic side of the issues. And here's my reasoning, accept or reject it as you may:
The separation of church and state and the freedom of religion is sort of the basis of it all. This, to me, is sort of the social version of the Christian idea of free agency - the ability/right to make decisions on our own and to suffer the consequences. The beliefs of others, for the most part, I feel shouldn't be imposed upon me, and mine shouldn't be imposed upon others. This holds up as long as their beliefs don't put me in any kind of immediate danger (or "clear and present danger," to borrow lingo from a supreme court case about the limitations of freedom of speech). To use the traditional example, falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater causing a panic is an example of the limitation of the freedom of speech because it puts people in a clear and present danger of being trampled.
So many of my (still-forming) beliefs on the social issues (doesn't apply so much to the economic ones) are based on this idea: just because I believe something doesn't mean we should pass legislation that imposes that beliefs universally. Take abortion for example. I'm not a supporter of abortion. I not only think it has some pretty heavy spiritual ramifications, but I've spoken with a few women who have had one (not a great sample, I know) and it has some pretty heavy permanent emotional ramifications as well. But I can't use that as an excuse to forbid someone from making their own decision, especially since the story gets all hairy when it comes to rape and incest. (It's not okay to kill babies except when in instances of rape or incest? If your main objection to abortion is that it is killing babies, why would it ever be okay to kill babies?) And as a side note, why is it opposers of abortion are also so heavily in favor of the death penalty?
It's the same idea behind the freedom of speech. I'm not a person who enjoys that there are picketers outside of temple square every six months to make a mockery of what I believe to be the truth. But they have every right to be there. The fact that they are there simply reminds me that we are so free in this country that we don't have to worry about getting in trouble for expressing our beliefs. Sort of the "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" thing.
So, for example, I hate pornography. I think it does so much damage to this world, to families, the individuals, to relationships, and to spirit. But I don't think it should be outlawed. It is protected under the same freedom of speech that guarantees we never have to worry about being publicly executed for expressing our opinions. And no one is being forced to look at it, to boot. (This is not a political example, since I don't think anyone is hoping to ban pornography.)
Economically, I know that through this election the candidates (especially Mitt Romney) have been addressing the "entitlement nation," those who have come to rely on the government for their sustainability and are not making the jump to self-sustainability despite being fully capable of doing so. To get rid of entitlement programs, in my mind, is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Universal health care adds coverage to SO many new people who previously could either not afford it or not receive the benefits of health insurance coverage due to previously existing conditions, that it more than negates the bad that may come from it.
Anyway, I'm sure I could continue but I've waxed boring enough for one day. This is not me saying that I have no room for being convinced otherwise (an ailment that I see as being the biggest culprit of government inaction today -- stubbornness and pride) or that new facts coming to light wouldn't completely change my mind. I also have completely left out things I agree with the right about, and I wholly admit that I don't know enough about economics to know what is the "right" course of action. (Actually I think it's foolish to think there is one "right" course of action, especially when it comes to politics. There is and always will be an argument on the other side that makes completely valid points and brings the issue to a standstill. And as a side note, I would rather test out someone's hypothesis and see where it goes and then make corrections rather than not do anything while people in congress argue about it. This is why I don't really care who wins today's election: Mitt Romney changes everything put in place in the past four years and it works out great? Awesome! It doesn't? Then we know better which course of action to take. Obama gets another four years and his policies have time to take effect and they work? Awesome! If not, then we get a new person who will have a more clear idea of how to fix problems. And although the meantime may be painful while working out the kinks, I still think this would solve the problems faster than bickering and blocking in congress does.)
Anyway, this is where I stand for now, slightly leaning to the left. And now it may make more sense (and give more meaning to) when a democrat says they stand for freedom.
