[
Quote:
Where do you hail from? I'm curious as to what exactly you see when describing an American version of freedom.
I'm from delhi, India, though currently studying in massachusetts.
When I said American version of freedom, I included freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right to vote, equality before the law, and a whole slew of other rights and freedoms, which while not unique to America, are intrinsic to its nature. I hail from another democracy with its own set of problems, which are not really pertinent to this discussion.
However, as regards to character defamation during elections, their will always be people who try to put down their opponents in what is essentially a popularity contest. Their are however, I believe, a lot more people out there who are able to see through slander and decide on issues which matter to them. And again while the rhetoric during elections isn't pleasant to hear, politicians too have the right to freedom of expression.
Unfettered Capitalism: it is my opinion that capitalism is one of the few economic models which can sustain a democracy. Communism requires people to act against their own self interest and therefor needs a dictatorship to enforce it. Capitalism may not be a bed of roses, but it means that people work for money and better work means more money. America, seems to me to be a merit oriented society and there is nothing wrong with that.
Voter fraud, is something i'm not really sure I believe happens on a large scale. The system comes with its own checks and balances, and the american media seems to be doing a good job. However, this is not something I've seriously considered, so if there are any hard facts I've overlooked, let me know.
About the media reaction to dissent within America, it seems to cover both sides of the spectrum. When a professor in Colorado made what I considered very insensitive comments, Fox news brought it up. Similarly, when someone on the extreme right makes a mistake, certain papers, news channels and almost all the comedians on the TV cant seem to stop talking about it. What I fail to understand is why when a liberal is asked to defend a stance he/she's taken, they seem to consider it an infringement on their right to expression rather than as an invitation to debate that stance, aka the colorado professor. Asking a person to explain a stance isn't a threat or an accusation of treason.
Conservative christian values: this is I believe a comment on religion in politics. Religion for most people is a very private belief, but it does tell people how they should live their life, while politics sets the framework for that life. It is hard, if at all possible, to untie these two. Collective social morality depends upon individual morality, which in turn is shaped in large parts by religion. The policy of a democratic state is shaped by collective morality, thus a finite overlap between church and state seems to be a logical conclusion. The american constitution and independent judiciary are the required checks to ensure the rights of the minority and so far they seem to be equal to the task.
This being said, I believe you are right in saying that the answer to your questions is more complicated than the general outline I have presented here. But doesnt't that just mean that extreme positions and the inability to admit error are what hinder true answers?
