I’ve determined the five reasons I simply cannot be a Republican. These are issues that are so fundamental to what I believe that I could never compromise them. I hope this helps explain why I post what I post.
I realize this is a divisive one. However, I take the position I do (pro-choice, to use the rhetorical term) not for moral reasons. It’s not the fact that I have no moral objections to abortion that makes me support it’s legality: it’s the fact that the country is so evenly divided on it. It strikes me that, if a significant (more than a third or so; you really can’t put a fraction on it, however) amount of the population wants an act to be legal, and a significant amount doesn’t, a reasonable compromise is to let those who want to perform the act, while allowing those who oppose the act to oppose it. How is what some women choose to do anyone else’s business? This is the most convincing argument to me.
I see this as a civil rights issue: always have, always will. Again, I don’t see how two consenting individuals wanting to be married threatens anyone whatsoever. I think that the “yuck” factor, more than anything else, guides the opposition. That and some extremely literal Biblical interpretation, which, obviously, should have no place in government whatsoever (see next reason). This is a civil liberties issue, not a moral one; even if it was a moral one, Lawrence vs. Texas
banned states from legislating morality. At risk of being too “P.C.” (like I’m one to ever stray from that acronym), opposition to this seems, to me, to be bigoted. And bigotry is the last thing government should promote.
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”: This phrase has been under attack by the Republican Party since the 50s. The Pledge, the Ten Commandments, School Prayer, “In God We Trust”, “God Save This Honorable Court”; all of these things have absolutely NO place WHATSOEVER in government. All of these express a clear belief in monotheism, which, yes Ms. O’Connor, does constitute a religion. Removing religion from government was a huge amount of what the constitution’s framers wanted in America; the argument that all they wanted was no state denomination is laughably narrow. Don’t get me wrong, I like my religion; I also like my government. I just don’t like ’em put together.
I support Israel. I support Palestine. Unfortunately, that nuance seems to be contradictory nowadays. Let me explain: Hamas, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad are all undeniably awful. They should be eradicated as quickly as is humanly possible. I supported the killing of Yassin: I am disappointed that the U.S. did not condone it. I do not buy the argument that it provoked Hamas: if it did, they would have struck Israel very hard by now. However, extreme actions of the Israeli military must not be condoned either. Since September 29th, 2000, 2,810 Palestinians have been killed. Chris Hedges has allegedly seen Palestinian children lured by Israeli soldiers and then shot for sport. This cannot be tolerated. The only practical solution is a two-state one, with sane moderates at the helms of both.
Also known as “judicial review”, or, if you ask Robert Bork or George Bush, “judicial activism”. This two-century old Supreme Court decision embodies the radical idea that Congress can’t pass any law it wants. Imagine that! The Bill of Rights being enforced! Speech and media that are actually free! Citizens who have equal protection under the law! This is activism at it’s worst, folks. Through constitutional amendment (ironically supported by a constitutional scholar) and law (not ironically supported by someone who doesn’t get the constitution), conservatives have attempted to prevent the Supreme Court from having any power of judicial review. What it would do instead…they’re not sure. But I’m sure of one thing: it would be much worse than what they do now.