The Republicans need to evolve out and make more explicit their principles, so that they have a stronger basis on which to be the champions of small business versus government power and large corporations. The Republicans do not need to be against the rich and government regulation of business so much as they need to be strongly for a "fair game" as a core principle. If people believe that is held as a core principle and it shows itself as the basis for this or that action, then people will support the Party more, because they believe that they will act to correct things where the game is not fair. On the other hand, if people believe the Party is instead pro-corporation as a core principle, and corporations act unfairly, then they will not see Republicans to be the ones that will correct things to make the game fair again.
— What are some credible arguments for supporting Traditional Marriage?
Society, overall, does not have a clear concept of what marriage really is. I'd propose that it is: a socially recognized and valued bond between two people, formed on a basis of mutual love and respect. Those people form a social unit and function as one. Now, if the society lacks comprehension of that and is not able to see that same sex couples can do that just the same as straight couples, then the society does not value them in that way, and the notion of the marriage is undermined, because part of what makes a marriage be a marriage (in this definition) is the society valuing and supporting that bond.
That said, I disagree. Sometimes a society should have things imposed on it and be forced to adjust over time.
— How advanced should North Korea's missile and nuclear programs be allowed to get before intervention is considered?
North Korea is, and has been, developing ICBMs to hit the US. It is unclear how much of a threat they really are. The fact that the ICBMs are not much talked about suggests either that: (1) they are not really that much of a threat -or- (2) they are a threat, but there is not much the US intends to do about it (too high a cost to pay), so there is no sense in talking about it. Either way, the US is not likely to launch a preemptive strike against North Korea.
I would further infer from all this that the risk/reward ratio of an intervention is not very good, and so an intervention is not something that I, personally, would advocate for.
— McDonnell v. U.S. How do we define political corruption?
Corruption occurs when the integrity and function of an institution are undermined by its office holders being incentivized to act for the benefit of some private party, as opposed to how they would normally execute their office without the incentive. Incentivization is enough, by itself, when it creates the appearance of unfairness and undermines public faith in the institution.
It seems to me that it ought to be a function of the court to look to corruption and to the integrity of political institutions rather than wait for legislatures to narrowly define corruption by dollar amounts on gifts. They should look at individual cases where corruption is alleged, and rule to protect the public interest. If speech is something which we have to develop out our concept of over many court cases, then we can expect that it should be likewise with corruption and the political process.
— "It seems like it's in my personal interests, then, to vote for pro-fracking politicians, but I usually find their other positions detestable and I still think environmental issues are extremely important. Have you experienced a conflict between voting based on global issues or your own personal interests? How have you managed this?"
I agree that environmental issues are important, and it seems unlikely to be the case that a solution that harms the environment will be worth it in the long run.
However, all politics is local. I do not think that it is necessarily wrong to push for your own interests, because that may be the way to force the other side to offer you a solution you can live with. It is possible to go too far, and it is possible to lose, but you cannot much fault people for defending their livelihood. Another way to look at it is like this: in our courts, we have a prosecution and a defense, and each side does its best to argue its case. Seems to me the global vs. local divide is analogous. One should try to advocate honestly, and hope that the political process, overall, will work things out.