It seems you are quite progressive on the social issues that really matter, in common with other really intellegent people I know of. Although I don’t necessarily agree with conservative economics (on just about every measure, the most socially healthy countries are the Scandinavian countries, and they have high taxes and big government), I can certainly respect your position. I should point out though: the neo-cons are hardly conservative economically – look at the debt they’ve run up!

I should tell you that I am not a ‘Christian conservative’: I am an agnostic ( a 6 out of 7, to use Dawkins’ own scale) I also happen to be fairly liberal on a number of social issues (I think I read on your website you support the legalization of prostitution: I happen to as well, as an example) I do, however, understand social conservatives’ views on the subject, even for reasons that have nothing to do with Christian morality.

I am mostly a conservative in the economic sense: I do not believe in government hand outs, either to business or individual, and believe in a small, limited government through low taxation. I won’t go into details here, but if you wish to press further, I would truly enjoy striking up a conversation with you. You can reach me by email, or if you have skype, or yahoo or MSN messenger, you can chat w/ me in real time.

I’d really be interested to read more of your thoughts on these issues. I’m currently preparing a post on the attitudes of conservative vs. progressive Americans, and you are one of the most intellegent conservatives I’ve come across – so I think I could learn a lot about them from you!

One of the things that makes the people on the U. S. coasts different from the people in “the heartland” of America is that the latter don’t do too much traveling abroad.

Unfortunately, that is complete and utter poppycock. The reasons you don’t see “heartlanders” outside America more is that there are fewer of them. The majority of Americans live on the coasts. Statistics show that a larger percentage of Americans w/ valid passports live in the heartland per capita. Why? PEOPLE ON THE COAST don’t travel, except to Canada and Mexico, because the cities there are so much more diverse, they don’t think the rest of the world is any different than their backyard.

As a heartlander, I find it offensive that those on the coast seem to think so little of us as that. I have spent a great deal of my life abroad. I lived in Australia for a summer on an exchange program, have visited China w/ my wife four times, as a scholar, businessman, & to visit family for extended periods of time, and I currently reside in the UK. Perhaps if the people on the coast spent a little time in the hinterland, they might understand why we have the values we do. Perhaps it is the condescending attitude that people on the coast have towards us that makes us seem bitter and angry. It’s pretty hypocritical of coastal people to tell us to change our attitudes towards the rest of the world when they keep the same old biased, ignorant view of half their own country.

Originally Posted By zhuxiu
One thing that many are missing in this current campaign is that fact that so many are NOT being polled. Since polling groups mainly use landlines in their efforts, as one who works with youth on a daily basis, I can tell you they all have cell phones and are texting each other constantly. They are not polled, unless someone happens to ask them questions on the street.

The thing about polls which always disturbs me is that once you purposefully take steps to get a “random sampling,” you sampling, by definition, cannot be truly random. Likewise, taking pains to make your sampling “representative” raises the question: “Representative of what?”
The only poll that counts is the one we take Nov. 4.

@zhuxiu – I really hope you are right!

Many are also highly organized in support of the Obama campaign. And, as youth turnout did increase over the past two elections (2004 and the midterm in 2006), it is hoped that they will come out in even greater numbers this time around. Also, one heartening aspect is the fact that we seem to see minimal to no racial or ethnic impact among young people. They say to me, ” we don’t think about race or gender on the issues, since we have longterm friends from all different backgrounds and we are used to seeing women in positions of authority.” We shall see.

Certainly the distortions and misrepresentations of fact from the “honorable” John McCain campaign won’t fly with these young people.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/09/i_approve_this.html

It’s also notable that this ‘patriotic’ US government was quite content to neglect its wounded soldiers until it became a media scandal. True patriots would never treat Iraq veterans with contempt. Cowards and liars who hide behind the flag are another matter. I was astonished when I found the ‘Chickenhawk’ list of top Republicans who’d dodged service in Vietnam. And these people smeared Kerry, a brave man who put his life on the line. Amazing hypocrisy.

That said, I don’t agree that Obama has much of a chance. I think millions of white American – Democrats and independents – who say they support him won’t actually vote for a black candidate. The polls are wrong. But maybe there’ll be a big surge among black (and Hispanic?) voters.

Originally Posted By Craig
I have to disagree with Shachiko on Afghanistan, I think Al-Qaeda being so deeply embedded with the Taliban made it necessary to go full bore into Afghanistan (I wasn’t too sad to see the horror that was the Taliban pushed away either). But this is something that reasonable people can have different views not.

Thanks for your comments Craig! It is very possible you are right about this, although I do think the Bush administration should at least have tried other options first, such as what I suggested. If they didn’t work, go to war then. But war should always be the last resort, not the first course of action.