Economic vs. Social issues which means more to you

[TheWildCard]

Didn't include homeland security or international relations because they'd easily win out.

4th option for me.

[WalterMitty]

hard to say.  im a 100% capitalist and i believe we must fight these neo-populists with all of our might to prevent them from turning back the clock 100 years.

im also concerned about social issues.  the abolition of abortion and the death penalty are important issues for me.   im also concerned that minorities arent getting the same opportunities as whites.  

[ilikeverin]

#5, but that's because I don't pay taxes yet

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I voted economic, and according to my political compass I'm further to the left economically than socially, although I'm actually super-liberal on both. the main reason I voted economic is because social progress is in a way inevitable. Look at the polls on gay marriage among my generation. I imagine back in the 1860s young people were more anti-slavery and in the 1960s more anti-segregation as well. And as much as it pisses Republicans off, social progress doesn't require legislation, simply the courts. To fight for economic equality takes a lot more work.

[© tweed]

Impossible to say

[12th Doctor]

For me, social issues take presidence.  If I were dirt poor I would be happy as long as I lived in a strong society where people cared for one another, took responsability and had a good sense of right and wrong.  Just my opinion.  I'm bracing for attacks.

[Keystone Phil]

For me, economic and social issues are pretty equal.

[Nym90]

Democrat, economic issues.

[opebo]

Economic.  Its a lot easier to escape social oppression if you can get money openly than to have to escape economic oppression through an ill-functioning black market.

[12th Doctor]

Well, looks like I'm a one man minority.

[Storebought]

To be honest, I could give a flying rat's ass about some of the social issues the GOP decides to take national.

If San Francisco wants mandatory, unrestricted same-sex marriage within county borders, then bloody fine, let them! On the other hand, if high schoolers in Alabama want to recite the Song of Deborah after a football game, then let them as well! It's mind-numbingly ridiculous the way certain sections of the country (MA and CA) use the federal judiciary to impose their values on another (The South), and the lame attempts by the congressional GOP to reverse the process.

I would really want the GOP to implement to long-needed goals: (1) the abolishment of the graduated income tax (2) the privatisation of Social Security.

[MHS2002]

Well, looks like I'm a one man minority.

Nah, I agree with you. I guess I have always been more passionate about social issues; as someone who loves order I like to have some order and security in my world.

[Horus]

If the GOP were more socially centrist I would probably vote GOP more. I almost never vote GOP, except sometimes in local elections.

[WMS]

Well, looks like I'm a one man minority.

Nah, I agree with you. I guess I have always been more passionate about social issues; as someone who loves order I like to have some order and security in my world.

Add an Independent who cares more about social issues to the list! In fact, the next-to-last line in BRTD's post displays exactly the attitude that helped drive me away from the Democratic Party...

[TeePee4Prez]

To be honest, I could give a flying rat's ass about some of the social issues the GOP decides to take national.

If San Francisco wants mandatory, unrestricted same-sex marriage within county borders, then bloody fine, let them! On the other hand, if high schoolers in Alabama want to recite the Song of Deborah after a football game, then let them as well! It's mind-numbingly ridiculous the way certain sections of the country (MA and CA) use the federal judiciary to impose their values on another (The South), and the lame attempts by the congressional GOP to reverse the process.

I would really want the GOP to implement to long-needed goals: (1) the abolishment of the graduated income tax (2) the privatisation of Social Security.

Uhh, on those last two... NO and NO!!  Anyway, I'm a Democrat that takes slight precedence on economic issues.  Social issues are important and I'm more willing to compromise there.  I feel our Coingress has not worked enough on economic issues and are more worried aboiut gay marriage and Janet Jackson's bare breasts.  PLEASE!!

[migrendel]

You're absolutely right, BRTD. There is no need to dawdle by lobbying legislators who are bound by public opinion, when we could take our grievances before life-tenured judges who have no one to answer to about what they rule. The state and federal Constitutions protect more rights than many people think they do, and there is no flaw in merely acknowledging a broad and substantive body of liberty in those writings.

As for me, I am more concerned about social issues. In the end, I believe that people will remember more about whether they were free or not than what tax rate they had to pay or whether their wage rate was 50 cents lower than would have prefered.

[bullmoose88]

3rd option.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I voted economic, and according to my political compass I'm further to the left economically than socially, although I'm actually super-liberal on both. the main reason I voted economic is because social progress is in a way inevitable. Look at the polls on gay marriage among my generation. I imagine back in the 1860s young people were more anti-slavery and in the 1960s more anti-segregation as well. And as much as it pisses Republicans off, social progress doesn't require legislation, simply the courts. To fight for economic equality takes a lot more work.

I agree with this...and I think we will achieve social progress even without the courts...look at how much opinion on gay rights has shifted in the past 20 years.  In another 20, gay marriage will be accepted by a majority of people no matter what the courts or legislature do, because that is the way our society has always progressed.

But in terms of economic equality, we have been moving backward for a long time now, and I don't see public opinion moving us forward in the forseeable future.  In this case, we have to change the course of society rather than just ride along with it.

[nclib]

5th option.

Although I am very liberal on both economic and social issues, social issues matter more to me.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

If the GOP were more socially centrist I would probably vote GOP more. I almost never vote GOP, except sometimes in local elections.

Same here, but the GOP will never go as far left as me socially, so I see myself sticking with the dems for a long time.  

[TeePee4Prez]

If the GOP were more socially centrist I would probably vote GOP more. I almost never vote GOP, except sometimes in local elections.

I simply feel the GOP didn't do conservatism right.  I'm all in favor of personal responsibilty because I felt the Dems have got a little too "bleeding heart" for a while.  I feel some social programs were too much such as welfare where people were driving better automobiles and eating better food than me.  Some are also getting better homes and ruining them via the Section 8 program.  I am a moderately liberal Democrat, however, I feel this is wrong.  

I feel the GOP really didn't remedy these ills through job training and helping to lift up these people to become productive, responsible citizens instead they kept them where they are to get working people angry and vote GOP out of reactionism.  Throughout the 1990s, the GOP promised to do this, but they have failed and ended up giving more corporate welfare to the people who don't need it vis ceratin tax credits and uneven tax cuts, which is even worse than the social ills of individual welfare and more costly.

If you have been tuning in to the arguments me and Keystone Phil are having, we are both from Northeast Philadelphia and see some of these socioeconomic ills firsthand.  Our Congressional district as you may or may not know is PA-13 which Allyson Schwartz(D) is facing perennial runner Melissa Brown (R) for Joe Hoeffel's open seat.  Section 8 is a hot issue here because it is ruining a lot of neighborhoods.  Melissa Brown is trying to capitalize on this issue to get noramlly Democratic voters on her side.  Classic "divide and conquer" strategy.  Given this situation in the 1990s, I may have voted for Ms. Brown, however, I am vehemently opposed to Bush's policies many of which Ms. Brown gives the seal of approval to.  Ms. Brown is more moderate than Dumbya and is very accomplished however, I am voting Allyson Schwartz.  I still object to how some social programs are managed, but I'm alos being objective here and evaluatiing how I would want my vote to go on Capitol Hill.      

[WMS]

There is no need to dawdle by lobbying legislators who are bound by public opinion, when we could take our grievances before life-tenured judges who have no one to answer to about what they rule.

Wow, the Authoritarian Left rears its ugly head. This is so anti-democratic it is beyond words. And I note that all you Democrats and leftists on this board have said nothing against this statement - in fact, BRTD and NickG support it!

How unbelievably arrogant is the left - you 'know better' than the rest of us, therefore there is no need to go through the people or their elected representatives, as long as you can use the court system to shove your viewpoint on everybody else. And how ironic that you are the ones who scream the loudest about the 'religious right' ostensibly doing the same thing!

I knew you were a left-wing extremist, migrendel, but I didn't know you supported tyranny.

And I'm a federalist on social issues, hoss, so don't accuse me of restricting your rights - if Massachusetts, or Cambridge for that matter, wants to legislate leftist social laws, then that's their right. But don't assume that everyone must live according to what YOU deem to be right.

Bloody leftists...

[English]

Too over simplified, but probably economic. My main concerns are unemployment and health. I believe the governments main priority should be to run a healthy but responsible economy and to foster job creation. Social matters shouldn't be a concern of government other than a free health system and education.

[nclib]

There is no need to dawdle by lobbying legislators who are bound by public opinion, when we could take our grievances before life-tenured judges who have no one to answer to about what they rule.

Wow, the Authoritarian Left rears its ugly head. This is so anti-democratic it is beyond words. And I note that all you Democrats and leftists on this board have said nothing against this statement - in fact, BRTD and nclib support it!

WMS, though I do partially agree with migrendel's statement, I was wondering where had I explicitly indicated that...

[opebo]

There is no need to dawdle by lobbying legislators who are bound by public opinion, when we could take our grievances before life-tenured judges who have no one to answer to about what they rule.

Wow, the Authoritarian Left rears its ugly head. This is so anti-democratic it is beyond words. And I note that all you Democrats and leftists on this board have said nothing against this statement - in fact, BRTD and nclib support it!

How unbelievably arrogant is the left - you 'know better' than the rest of us, therefore there is no need to go through the people or their elected representatives, as long as you can use the court system to shove your viewpoint on everybody else. And how ironic that you are the ones who scream the loudest about the 'religious right' ostensibly doing the same thing!

I knew you were a left-wing extremist, migrendel, but I didn't know you supported tyranny.

And I'm a federalist on social issues, hoss, so don't accuse me of restricting your rights - if Massachusetts, or Cambridge for that matter, wants to legislate leftist social laws, then that's their right. But don't assume that everyone must live according to what YOU deem to be right.

Bloody leftists...

Democracy is very dangerous to individual freedoms - I think migrendel is right on this one.  The Constitution should be a protectoin of individual rights against majority rule.