May 20, 2012

Your logical fallacy is…

April 27, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Someone ought to make finding logical fallacies in a politician’s speech into bingo. Just turn on the State of the Union speech and start filling your bingo card.

If it was a game, yourlogicalfallacyis.com would be the score keeper and the posters they are giving away for free would be the bingo card.

From the text on their poster, the site explains what a fallacy is, where  you can expect to find them,  and how to turn them back on their user.

A logical fallacy is often what has happened when someone is wrong about something. It’s a flaw in reasoning. They’re like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians, the media, and others to fool people. Don’t be fooled!

And the site is great, featuring links to each type of logical fallacy so that, when you’re deep in the midst of that never-ending online debate, you can finally prove why your opponents argument just doesn’t carry water.

Also, if you’re feel really gung-ho, they have full size vector files linked to the site that allow you to print out a full color poster of the fallacies, summarized and stylized for your reference. It would look great up on the wall next to that autographed picture of Antonin Scalia, don’t you think?

Learn the fallacies, and learn them well. You’ll be arguing like Plato in no time flat!

 

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , , , , , ,

What do women want?

April 20, 2012 By 2 Comments

I don’t know.  And I don’t  claim that I have a strong grasp of everything that women want or think (including on those occasions when my better-half asks me, to my horror, “what do you think?”).  I’m not a woman, and it would more than presumptuous to know what they want.

On that basis, I’ve found the made up “war on women” more than a little disingenuous. Whether it is Democrats attacking Republicans or Republicans attacking Democrats, both political parties are headed by men, have been for over a hundred years, and recently have even been bitten by awkward revelations and comments that seem to contradict what they say.

Democrats have criticized the Mitt Romney for not supporting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play act that extends the time that someone—ostensibly, women—may sue for equal pay treatment. And this is just one more piece of the criticism of Romney that he is conducting a “war on women” on issues ranging from maternal leave, contraception, and healthcare.

Ironically, it comes as Barack Obama’s White House was accused last week of paying female staffers 18% less than the men (and don’t start on the women in the White House working in lower level, and therefore lower paying, positions—it only begs the question why discriminatory hiring has put more men than women at the top).   Meanwhile, Hilary Rosen, a CNN pundit and Democratic strategist questioned whether Ann Romney, stay-at-home mom of five boys, had ever even worked a day in her life.

Listening to the tit-for-tat, one can’t help but suggest that perhaps both sides should “cast out the beam” from their own eyes…

Like I said, I don’t know what women do want, but I do know this: whether at home or in the workforce, women have more than proved their value to our society, many times over.

There are some things common to both men and women. We both want to be respected, honored for our choices, and appreciated for our work, whether in the home or out. We both want our children to have enough and grow up to be independent and productive members of society, we want to enjoy free time with our families, and we want  a little extra money to save:  for retirement, a vacation, a new car, or a down payment on a house with a bit more elbow room…or whatever.

And whether they are in the workforce or at home, women know this stuff just as well as men, if not better.

Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank

Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ask Muhammid Yunus.  In the mid-1970s, he pioneered a concept of using microloans to help impoverished villages in Bangladesh create economic development.  The loans had an incredibly high level of payback and low default rates, even compared to developed countries.  The institution Yunus founded—the Grameen Bank–actually worked to expand economic growth in the villages where they worked, especially among women.

One of the most interesting things Yunus found as the program grew was how effective the loans were at helping women take control of their future.   In fact, women were better borrowers than men. They would use the money to benefit their household to produce a steady stream of income, putting their children in school, and ending generations of poverty and ignorance.

And they paid off their loans on time, too.  Recognizing the power and the influence women had to transform their communities, the Grameen Bank, as of 2009, extended loans to 8 million borrowers, a whopping 97% of which are women.  In 2011, it was lending $100 million a month.

Lesson?  Women are reliable, they make smart decisions, and they understand economics.  Further, they know what they want and they don’t need men—whether in the White House or in the home, to tell them what it is they need.

All this is just prologue. When we come down to it, this is about how we—men, the government, and CNN pundits–get out-of-the-way and let women make the choices themselves. Whether it’s a husband, father, or government, women don’t need men to tell them what is right or what is wrong, how to spend their money or whether they should be working or not.  They know what is best for their families and they are perfectly adept at figuring it out without Uncle Sam telling them how.  They just need to be treated like their decisions—whether to stay-at-home and raise their children or to share the responsibility of providing with dad…or even, to not have children at all—matter and are respected.

That’s the reason why Hilary Rosen’s comments elicited so much ire last week, from all sides of the political spectrum.  From the stay-at-homes, it was a feeling that the elites of the world, the pundits and powers in Washington, don’t respect the work that a mom does at home. From the moms who work outside the home, it was a feeling that Ann Romney can’t understand how hard it is for those who must work to get by, or don’t have a man to share the load with them. For those of us who are neither (i.e. men), it was a collective feeling of recognition for what our mothers, wives and sisters have done to get us and themselves to where we are. To all of us,  it was offense that such an enormous sacrifice could be so blithely passed over.

Speaking as a man, women are our equals, if not our betters. Speaking as a member of the workforce, stay-at-home mothers are our equals, too.  Among other things, there is one thing we can do now to show our appreciation: let’s pay them fairly and equally when they are in the workforce, and encourage and support them in their choices when they opt to work in the home. It’s tough to be a mother—and no one should try to tell them that one political party or the other knows what’s best for them. They know best for themselves.

What do women want? They want to be treated equally and fairly in whatever choice they make.  They are smart, they understand the effects of their choices, and they move the economy.  Whether they choose to be in the workforce or at home, it’s time we treat them like they are the equals that they are.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Hilary Rosen will never know the “joy” of changing 10,000 diapers.

April 13, 2012 By 11 Comments

Brittany Burton is an occasional contributor to Publius Online. She is a stay-at-home mom who wishes homemaking involved more bon-bons and fewer dirty diapers.

_______________________________________

Late Wednesday night, my husband mentioned the attack on Ann Romney for “never working a day in her life.” In other words, for being a “stay-at-home” mom. I was busy breast-feeding my youngest, so I didn’t think much of it at the time. I rolled my eyes and said something like, ‘Oh brother, what next?’ It was morning before I actually watched the clip of Hilary Rosen making her jab at Ann Romney.

Only then did it strike home just how personal Rosen’s attack was on me and my choice to switch careers to raise my children.

Before having children, I worked full-time in a middle-management position. It was a demanding and usually thankless job. With how many hours a week I put in, my salary felt pathetic, but considering that I didn’t have more than a bachelor’s degree, I couldn’t complain. I had my own money, I was moving up, and people looked to me for leadership and direction.

When I gave birth to my first child, I made the decision to stay home full-time. For as long as I can remember, it was what I wanted. My own mother was a stay-at-home mom, so I thought I had a pretty good idea of what the job entailed.

I was wrong. I had no idea just how demanding the work of a stay-at-home mom is. Since, I’ve often looked back on my life before children longingly as it relates to the amount of work and monetary compensation I received for it. Back then, I knew my value and could put a number to it. Today, it’s not so easy to put a number or see appreciation for my efforts.

Despite the challenges, I am happy with my choice to be a stay-at-home mom. I want it because I believe my children will be better off if I raise them than if they’re raised by someone else. The smiles and laughter, baby-steps (literally and figuratively), the random ‘I love you, Mama,’ the growth and happiness of my beautiful girls makes it worth the effort.

As foreign as it may seem to our increasingly progressive culture, I also want to be a stay-at-home mom because I believe it’s where God would prefer me to be during this season of my life. He knows, and I know, that I could be doing things a lot more glamorous than breast-feeding multiple times a day, changing diaper after diaper, disciplining a whining child, reading picture book after picture book (and sometimes the same one repeatedly), oxy-cleaning juice- and marker-stained clothes…

But He also knows, and I also know, that being the best full-time, stay-at-home, change-the-diapers, read-the-books, endure-the-whining, and love-the-littles mom I can be is more meaningful than any other job I could be doing right now. I believe that nothing I can do will have a greater impact on the world than teaching my girls to be the best they can be.

I don’t say all this to devalue women who work outside the home, whether it is by choice or because of need. I recognize that there’s a lot that goes into the decision to work outside the home. I’m thankful I live in a time when women have more opportunities than they have had in previous generations. However, I also acknowledge that our culture is built on what happens in the home and what starts there, and I have chosen to dedicate my life to building my home strong.

…which brings me back to Hilary Rosen and why she makes me feel like a mama bear with threatened cubs. I feel that she has not just insulted Ann Romney, but assaulted the very purpose I have given my life to: giving my kids the best life I can and all of the hard work it entails.

I have made genuine sacrifices to raise my children. When Rosen decides to mock that sacrifice, I find it extremely offensive and personally disheartening. She reflects a society that devalues my contribution.

Ironically, I feel bad for Rosen because clearly, at least as it seems to me, she’s out of touch. She’s out of touch with stay-at-home moms and out of touch with working outside-the-home moms. She’s just out of touch with moms.

My struggles may look a bit different than a mother who is not a stay-at-home mom. But in some respects, I have more empathy for the mother who must work than anyone else, and her for me. Because working out-of-the-home mom or working in-the-home mom, we all know how hard it is to be a mother. We know what it means to sacrifice and work hard for our families. We’re making different sacrifices, but sacrifices none-the-less.

I also found it offensive and disheartening when Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager said that ‘[Rosen’s] comments were wrong and that family should be off limits.’ I think Messina kind of misses the point by saying that, ‘family should be off limits.’ It makes it sound like he’s saying Rosen’s comments were wrong because family should be off-limits. How about Rosen’s comments were wrong because they were just wrong?

And yet, the irony and hypocrisy continues to the top. I watched the clip of President Obama saying that his family didn’t have the luxury of Michelle being a stay-at-home mom…when he was making over $162,000 a year. It’s one thing if Michelle didn’t want to be a stay-at-home mom, but implying that they couldn’t afford it? I know lots of stay-at-home families with 2+ children that are making less than half that amount—much less than half that–and are doing just fine.

Moms make personal sacrifices that most men won’t make and can’t really understand, either. If Obama’s people think that this anti-mom message is how you empower women, that this is how you reach out to women and give them the tools they need to be successful and relevant, then they are the wrong choice to represent women in America. If they think that attacking stay-at-home moms is low hanging fruit, they have picked the wrong demographic to anger.

Don’t demean the hard, sometimes thankless work I do in my home. Don’t assume that because my family is making it on one income (and that of a man) that I don’t understand economics and how it affects my family.

Don’t assume that because of the traditional role I’ve chosen that I don’t value women’s rights. Don’t imply that because I’m a stay-at-home mom I can’t relate with other moms. Don’t think that I don’t make just as many sacrifices.

Hilary Rosen’s comments aren’t an attack on Ann Romney, except for superficially. They’re an attack on moms, our choices, our families, and our right as women to choose. And I’ve got news for you, Rosen: there are a lot of us.

And we vote.

Related articles
Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Who’s really got a “woman” problem?

April 11, 2012 By 2 Comments

It’s Orwellian, really. In a series of confusing contraditions, Obama’s White House and campaign are talking about helping women, but paying them less than men and attacking the ones who opt to raise their children at home.

That’s going to create a credibility problem for Barack Obama.

Democrats have been spinning the tale that Mitt Romney‘s got a woman problem. Women don’t, and won’t, vote for him, they say, because a perceived hostility to contraception, to abortion, to birth control, to equal pay for women…if you don’t believe me, go back and watch GOP debates where moderators threw in questions, much to the befuddlement of the candidates, asking why the GOP wants to limit contraception, something Republicans patently do not want to do.

It creates a false narrative, and it has played right into the hands Barack Obama’s advisers. Or perhaps the media was receiving the questions from the Obama campaign in the first place.

It turns out that it’s not Mitt Romney who has a “woman problem,” though. Evidence is that it’s Barack Obama with a woman problem

.

Exhibit A: women in the White House make less than men

Whatever happened to women breaking through the glass ceiling? This, from the Washington Free Beacon:

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Awkward, especially as the President has frequently criticized gender pay gaps and criticized Romney for not supporting a law (the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Restoration Act) that allowed law suits based on discrimination.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

Like I said, kind of awkward. And that’s just exhibit A. How about we look at Exhibit B?

BELMONT, MA - MARCH 06: Republican presidenti...

BELMONT, MA - MARCH 06: Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (L) walks with his wife Ann Romney after voting at the Beech Street Senior Center on March 6, 2012 in Belmont, Massachusetts. Mitt Romney cast his ballot for the Super Tuesday primary in Massachusetts before attending his Super Tuesday gathering. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Exhibit B: feminist Democrats don’t like stay-at-home moms

Ok, maybe not all national Democrats, but there’s certainly a strain of liberals that struggle with traditional, conservative families where the father/husband works and the mother/wife stays in the home to raise the children.

Enter Hilary Rosen. Today, she made a frontal assault on the conservative beliefs of Ann and Mitt Romney, criticizing Ann for staying home with the Romney’s five boys.  The attack came just as Ann Romney joined Twitter.

Ann’s first tweet came just moments after Democratic strategist and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen lobbed an insult at Ann Romney, suggesting that the 64-year-old mother of five and grandmother of 16 had never held a job.

“Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” said Rosen, who was being interviewed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the “war on women.”

I know that social views in America have changed a lot over the last few decades, that more women are in the work place than ever, and I don’t have a problem with that. However, since when did choosing to live on one income and raise your children become a negative? Has our view of what a woman is been so distorted by extreme feminists that they no longer respect a woman’s right to make a career out of raising children?

It may be old-fashioned, but it’s still de rigueur for a large portion of America.  When possible the father provides economically while the mother is the primary caregiver in the home. While economic times have made it difficult for one parent to stay home while the other works to provide, many still hold the paradigm of the mother in the home as the standard.

It’s also how a lot of people were raised. My mother stayed home, my wife’s mother stayed home, and my wife in her turn has chosen to stay home with our children, as well, leaving her career to raise them when they joined us.  While we don’t have the money that Romney does, we feel no less about the impact that she has on our daughters by being a daily part of their lives.

That’s just not good enough for Rosen, though. She recognizes how powerful an asset Ann Romney is to Mitt in the contest for the White House.  She may be just a little jealous, too. Ann Romney is married to the wealthiest man to seek the White House, has five handsome sons, and stands a good chance to become the First Lady, too. All without having entered the workforce.  It’s a paradigm that Hilary Rosen just can’t understand. In her world, women are successful by the same measure as men–how the do in the workforce. It’s hard to believe that Americans might like Ann because she has put other things first–like her family and her husband.

This is just the beginning.

If this seems a galling example of the egregiousness of the liberal war on women and the Orwellian spin by the Obama campaign, just sit tight. With the first Mormon to carry the banner for a major party in the contest for the White House, we’re sure to see more attacks on the conservative, traditional, and religious. It’s going to be a long seven months to November.

Related articles
Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

McNaughton’s “One Nation Under Socialism” Harms Political Discourse

March 26, 2012 By 4 Comments

I’m embarrassed that the likes of Jon McNaughton are helping raise Utah‘s profile nationally.  Depicting Barack Obama in terms that are just short of demonic, McNaughton is harming more than hurting. Perhaps the purpose of art is to shock and persuade, but subtlety is lost on McNaughton as he uses art like a 2×4 to hit his viewers over the head with his opinions.  Playing on fears and anxieties that are real, McNaughton distracts from the important educational process that is necessary to create an informed public.  From the Washington Post.

McNaughton, who is described by Salon as “the right’s Shepard Fairey”and who also creates Thomas Kinkade-esque landscapes and holiday paintings, has gained notoriety for some of his previous anti-Obama paintings: He has depicted the president trampling the Constitution andenslaving Americans in chains. In response to an article on the Blazeasking whether his work was free speech or offensive, McNaughton replied on his Facebook page, “I for one am deeply offended. I can’t believe I had to paint this in our own country. Stand up and be heard America!!”

Simply put, he creates a straw man out of Barack Obama and sets the straw man on fire.  What a way to put Utah on the map. Where Shepard Fairey channeled the hope  of  America (however misplaced those hopes were), McNaughton slaps people in the face with dark, ominous images of Barack Obama stomping on or burning the Constitution.  You might as well just depict the President in a mug shot wearing an orange jumpsuit. It couldn’t be a more damning depiction.

It does little to educate or inform. It appeals to our lowest, and least informed, qualities, pandering without raising our level of discourse. It obstructs any opportunity to form reasoned and educated opinions. And it makes it hard to meet our opponents on grounds where we can make a persuasive argument.

There’s a lot at stake. Our country is facing serious issue. We grapple with a health system that is expensive and wasteful, a government that costs more than it can afford, and an economy that is struggling to recover. Boiling that all down to the fault of one man, painting him in the most demonic of shades, and calling it “socialism” does little to move the American public to the qualities our country must readopt if we are to change.  As Charles Murray argued in last week’s Wall Street Journal, our country is facing a multitude of problems, none of which can be solved by a government program. Just as the solution cannot be the government, neither can the fault be laid solely at one man’s feet. Instead, we should be focused on shifting how Americans view government, understand their government, and the level to which they participate in government. If it matters, it merits the time to understand and learn how it works.

[Washington Post] [Salt Lake Tribune] [Wall Street Journal]

Related articles
Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Guest Post: “Observations on the Tea Party” by Keith Seegmiller

February 3, 2012 By 4 Comments

[This is a guest post by Keith Seegmiller, Republican and long time Utah resident from Cedar City, Utah. I've long swapped opinions with Keith, my uncle, over the years, over the kitchen table, at conventions, and in our correspondence. The opinions are his own.]

______________________

Having studied the Tea Party movement some, I’ve come to the following conclusions.

It’s a populist movement of dissatisfaction and desire for change.  Though an undetermined number of people claim to believe in and support its philosophies, it has no unified, national organization or platform.  Tea Party caucuses have been organized in both the House and the Senate and wield some influence there (mostly on Republicans).  Three or four non-profit organizations have been formed each of which claim upwards of a million members/adherents loosely organized in smaller organizations around the country.  In the last election, a number of candidates for federal office who espoused Tea Party ideals and were supported by Tea Party organizations were successful, some in unseating long-standing and respected incumbents.

Though individuals and subgroups claim a number of different issues under the Tea Party philosophical umbrella, only two principles stand out as being of universal concern among all adherents:  a return to fiscal responsibility and restraint, and a return to more constitutionally limited federal government.

If it is understood that:

1) Our nation is now over 15 trillion dollars in debt and adding to that amount by over a trillion dollars each year;

2) The primary cause of, and potential cure for, this condition lies with the executive, legislative (and to a lesser extent, the judicial) branches of federal government that have allowed the growth and cost of government spiral out of control over many years; and

3) If we have any idea what the consequences of a continuation of this condition will be for this once great nation; then,

How could any right-minded person not embrace these two fundamental principles of the Tea Party movement?

______________________

That being said, I have concerns relating to Tea Party politics. Let the voter beware.

(1) These fundamental Tea Party principles, however urgently essential on a federal level, have a more limited application at local and state levels, especially in Utah where we have generally balanced our budgets for generations and have little opportunity or influence to effect changes to the U.S. constitution or how it is applied. Therefore, supporting and voting for state and local candidates whose platforms are based mainly on Tea Party principles of limited applicability locally, may be shortsighted at best and disruptive at worst because they expect to fix what is not broken and change systems that have proven effective for many years.  This is not to say that some improvement in government is not always needed, but we should be careful we aren’t trading the wisdom, experience, contacts, reputation and influence of respected and effective candidates for the vigorous idealism (and little else) of Tea Party challengers in local and state races.

(2) In my experience, Tea Party candidates are generally long on idealism and short on realism. I.e., they are so intent on changing a corrupt and misguided federal system that they may not realize that the system has deteriorated over many years and cannot, under the best of circumstances, be completely turned around in the near term.  Though this major effort must be unrelentingly pursued, I’m concerned that with uncompromising single-mindedness and tunnel vision, Tea Party candidates, once elected, will neglect the fights that still need to be won—now, under the present system—while tilting at the windmill of federal system change that will realistically take years to accomplish.

(3) We also need to be wary of those opportunists who seek to ride the wave of change for their own benefit, caring little for the fundamental ideals of the Tea Party movement.

Related articles

Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , ,

“Liberalism’s problem in one graph.”

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Courtesy Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, "Liberalism's problem in one graph."

[Washington Post]

Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , ,

About Publius Online

September 20, 2011 By Leave a Comment
An advertisement for The Federalist

Image via Wikipedia

Publius Valerius Publicola was one of the four aristocrats that led the overthrow of the Roman monarchy and became a consul of the Roman republic that followed the fall of the monarchy. In honor of him, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius” to urge Americans  to ratify the US Constitution.

It is in the spirit of Publius, then, that I (and any other contributors here) write this blog. The original bearer of that name was a man who brought down tyranny and founded the Roman republic, which stood for about five hundred years and was the first example (of many) to which America’s founders looked for a model as they wrote the Constitution. Jay, Madison and Hamilton, though they later went their separate ways and even became rivals, were one in the purpose during the drafting and ratification of the federal constitution. They were men of great curiosity, intellect, and energy, and all were vivacious in their support of the American republic.

While my interests and posts here may include restaurants, books (fiction and non), law, and a hundred other topics, at root I am a patriot, a believer in the American republic and the American people, their peculiarities for good and for bad, and the messiness of politics and government. After all, democracy is the “worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”

If you’ve feedback, thoughts, or have something interesting to say, I welcome the conversation, and I look forward to getting to know you.

I can also be found on Twitter as @publiusdb.

Related articles

Filed Under: Political Thought

is it rational to be informed?

August 11, 2011 By Leave a Comment

“it is irrational to be politically well-informed because the low returns from data simply do not justify their cost in time and other resources.”

Anthony Downs

Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , ,

In which I am distracted, and libertarians infiltrate polite society

June 21, 2011 By 2 Comments

I’m a bit preoccupied. My Better Half reached her due date yesterday, and we are anxiously awaiting whatever comes next.

So, in the meantime, while I’m trying to get my “head in the game,” here’s some stuff to expand your knowledge and entertain your senses. Or maybe vice-versa. Also, libertarian views on the rise:

  • Said Judge Posner, of an alleged serial spammer’s courtroom presentation. “It’s not only incompetent, it’s grotesque. You’ve got damages jumping around from $11 million to $130 million to $122 million to $33 million. In fact, the damages are probably zero.” Timothy B. Lee at Ars Technica.
  • “Montgomery County officials have allowed the children to reopen their lemonade stand, by relocating it about 100-feet away from the intersection where it was set up Thursday.” This after they fine the tots $500 for their enterprising ways. WUSA9.com
  • Wanna go to Harvard? Apparently the White House is a good stepping stone. “About a half-dozen staffers will begin at the premier law school this fall, bringing a rare skill set, a golden Rolodex and tales of the corridors of power to Harvard Yard. The exodus of the younger White House staffers marks the first major departure of junior aides in the Obama administration.” Politico.
  • This is for you Alex (as you consider forcibly moving your fellow Americans to Somalia): Ilya Somin wonders if the public is becoming more libertarian. “Obviously, the vast majority of the public is not nearly as libertarian as most libertarian activists and intellectuals are. But it does seem to be more libertarian than the median voter of the recent past.” The Volokh Conspiracy.
  • If Ilya ain’t enough for you, the NYT column FiveThirtyEight (Nate Silver) is getting in on the action, too, citing a CNN poll that seems to show a shift.

Whether people are as libertarian-minded in practice as they might believe themselves to be when they answer survey questions is another matter. Still, there have been visible shifts in public opinion on a number of issues, ranging from increasing tolerance for same-sex marriage and marijuana legalizationon the one hand, to the skepticism over stimulus packages and the health-care overhaul on the other hand, that can be interpreted as a move toward more libertarian views.

And, just for kicks, here’s a graph:

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Next Page »