It's freedom, stupid

Cluefon
    By Dan Dudis

Iwas perhaps a little more concerned with the results of the election on Tues., Nov. 3 than most voters. You see, my friend Ethan and I had one-dollar bets riding on the outcome of 12 particularly close races. Ethan, a Democrat, picked the Democratic candidates to come out on top, while I, a Republican, chose my party's nominees—we weren't exactly doing this scientifically. While Ethan seemed enthused about his party's candidates, I came to the disquieting realization that I would really be much happier if most of my party's nominees went down to defeat.

If I am so dissatisfied with my party, why, you might ask, am I a Republican to begin with? My party affiliation stems from the fact that I believe in the blend of social libertarianism and fiscal conservatism that characterized the Republican party of old, and one which is still clung to by a few in the northeast and on the west coast. In short, I'm a liberal—or Rockefeller—Republican. A dying breed, yes, but, to me, Rockefeller Republicanism epitomizes the ideal of a benevolent, laissez-faire society. In deference to this ideal, I still remain a Republican.

Practically speaking, however, the Republican party is about as far from this ideal as it possibly could be. Most social liberals now identify themselves as Democrats. Just two percent of voters strongly identified themselves as liberal Republicans in this November's election. Still, the Democrats have little to offer fiscal conservatives. As a party that promotes wasteful spending and opposes free trade, the Democrats are hardly the party to put our country's fiscal house back in order.

So, for the many voters like me who, regardless of party affiliation, are both fiscal conservatives and social liberals, November's election presented a quandary. Many of the Democrats who ran for office—Barbara Boxer, Carol Mosely-Braun, Russ Feingold—are among their party's most fiscally irresponsible big spenders. Many of the Republican—Lauch Faircloth, Dan Lungren—are among their party's most socially conservative. Even the supposedly moderate Republican Matt Fong was discovered to have given $50,000 to a far right-wing religious organization. What to do? What is more important? Voting for free trade and less government, or voting for women's reproductive rights, gay rights, and religious freedom?

For those of us who aren't planning on having an abortion any time soon, aren't gay, and are at least nominally Christian, protecting the civil liberties of others may not seem all that important. Economic issues may seem more pressing. It's easy to walk into the voting booth and selfishly vote for the socially conservative Republican because, after all, he or she is the one who's going to cut spending and give us a phat tax cut. Yeah, that person's also going to vote against gays, non-Christians, and the reproductive rights of women, but that doesn't directly affect us.

Wrong. Our democracy is predicated on the fact that we live in a free society—and this is certainly not a free society if women don't have sovereignty over their own bodies, if an entire group of people is denied equal rights because of their sexual orientation, and if non-Christians are forced to sit through Christian prayers in school and in government offices. Make no mistake, this conservative reality is exactly what Trent Lott and the Bush brothers want for our country. If they have their way, we can kiss any illusions we have about a free and open society good-bye. If we don't live in a free society, none of that other stuff matters. Who cares about free trade? Who cares about a tax cut? The importance of any of these fiscal issues pales in comparison to the question of whether or not we live in a truly free society.

So I urge all of you who are simultaneously fiscally conservative and socially liberal to decide that voting for social liberalism is of paramount importance, regardless of the candidate's party affliation. Nothing is more disheartening than a social liberal voting for a Christian conservative simply to get a tax cut. It is selfish, and it may ultimately sentence many in this country to a life of oppression.

Therefore, hold your nose and vote for the Barbara Boxers. If you're very lucky and live in states like Maine or Vermont, vote for people who are both fiscally conservative and socially liberal, such as Olympia Snowe and Jim Jeffords. Maybe someday the Republican party will come to its senses and purge intolerant Christian activists from its ranks. Here's hoping they do...

Back to Opinion...