It seems that we have vaguely similar political views, but vastly different priorities when it comes to government policy. For a reason that I am not aware of, you deem that social policy, specifically issues like gay marriage, abortion, intelligent design, and health care are not important. You think that a government must take more interest in economic well-being.

While its clear that the economy is critical, its not the only aspect of people's lives. Other aspects, like marriage and abortion, can be decided by government policy, and both are very important to the lives of many. In some cases like that of abortion, these questions can mean as much as questions of economics to some. Unwanted children can have a horrible impact on many people, likewise if the fetus is a life, then its death is a tragedy. So clearly, both sides of the issue can be important to the average citizen. In other cases, such as intelligent design, these are important philosophical debates. While they do not decide anything important about how we live, it can decide important intellectual issues which decide how we think, and how we view the world. This can be as important for our happiness and mental wellbeing as that good job.

Specifically, I want you to explain why social policy is not important, or minimally important compared to economic policy.

I don't think Y2A thinks that social policy is irrelevant. I think he merely sees that people can be conned into voting for what he perceives to not be their best interests based upon issues which do not affect their day-to-day lives. Abortion and gay marriage would be two of these issues.

For instance, most conservatives would not be affected by gay marriage. But the stigma against it is very strong amongst conservatives and moderates and consequently conservatives use it as a wedge issue. The religious nuts have to be fed something for their votes and gay marriage is excellent bait. The Democrats weren't wise enough to deal with this in the last election cycle.

Alito would be confirmed in an instant if people thought he was pro-abortion even though he would be deciding cases which have much more significant implications for Joe and Jane Sixpack. The Democrats use bulldyke opposition to any restrictions on abortion regardless of how reasonable they seem as a justification to possibly filibuster Alito when in reality I would guess that most of them have different reasons for opposing him and some perhaps don't have a problem with his record but have to 'fall in line'. The overturning of Roe v. Wade would likely have a limited affect.

Do you speak for Y2A now? I know he will never duel anyone on anything as he is much too intellectually inept for such a thing...

Obviously not. I think I agree with Y2A in large part about the relative unimportance of issues which many deem critical and which can have a huge impact on elections.

No he isn't, but considering that Y2A is never going to dignify this waste of human life with a response, Mr. methodology thought that he would offer what Y2A might say.

Well an Alito fillibuster is not going to happen.

While Dakyron is right that you're not Y2A, I would like to say to you that its impact is not as wide as the impact of abortion or gay marriage, but neither is Iraq. Iraq has had a fairly minimal impact on my life, yet I still considered it when I voted. When we vote, we should not vote on whats best for us, we should vote on what we feel is right, and what benefits our people and the people of the world. I think most people vote on issues that do not affect them because first, most important issues do not affect most people, and second, because human beings are a traditionalist, sympathetic, and empathetic species for better or for worse.

So regardless of what we think of gay marriage, I think both you and I care about it. Its not what decides a vote for me-I view a variety of issues, but its still an issue which is important to me.

To be honest, if I voted based soley on my self interest, I wouldn't vote.

So in summary:

Many of the issues we discuss here, and that are more important than gay marriage or abortion to most people like the war in Iraq, still do not affect anyone who is not a contractor, friend/family of a soldier, or employeed by a humvee manufacturer.

Both of those issues can have an impact on any family in the indefinite future, unless there are no sexually-driven individuals in the circle of family and friends

Its our duty to vote on issues that affect people outside of our own circle.

If Y2A is actually willing to defend his viewpoint, I'll let you go on your way BM. Thanks for actually responding.

This post has been edited by necrolyte: Jan 24 2006, 09:14 AM

I'm not so sure. Liberals better pray that it doesn't happen though.



Iraq will have an impact on your life regardless of whether or not you have any friends/family in the armed forces if you ever plan on paying taxes or receiving government benefits. The war on terrorism has enormous economic implications but not just due to government expenditure. Attacks create panic and uncertainty which leads to investment dollars leaving the country. Look at Wall Street's reaction to 9/11.



What we should do is irrelevant. Most people vote for their one interests (whether or not they know what is in their best interests is debatable).



I didn't really care about it when I voted. I voted for the ban though.



I outlined some of the broad, long-term effects earlier in my post.




You should throw the word irresponsible in there somewhere.



What percentage of the voting populace do you think actually does that?