""I think a nation is crying, "Enough.' A nation is saying, "We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims. We don't believe that the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation. We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics"but most of all, we're sick of your self-perpetuating, burdening bureaucracy weighing ever more heavily on our backs." (205)
Fuller was a big supporter of Ronald Reagan for President in 1980 when he made this statement. Over the years, I have heard similar things said by Republicans who try to explain Democratic ideas. It is bad enough that they, like Fuller, claim to speak on behalf of the "nation" or the "people."
But what is worse is that they mischaracterize some points of view and flat out distort others. So I made a dialogue between this kind of Republican and me.
"We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims."
That's funny. Neither do I and neither does anyone else I know.
Maybe you are talking about the rights of defendants. I believe that a person is innocent unless proven guilty and deserves the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, such as the right not to be a witness against themselves, the right to counsel, the right to due process, etc.
If you want the rights of victims to take precedence over these rights, first ask yourself how you would feel if you were put under arrest.
"We don't believe the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation."
You probably have a different concept of creation than I do. That's OK. But what is not OK is a society where my wife and I have the right to marry one another and two other people are not allowed that right.
And please do not give me a "slippery slope" argument that if we allow same-sex marriage, we will wind up allowing people to marry animals or any other absurdity. The movement to allow same-sex marriage simply would allow two people of the same sex the same rights as a man and a woman.
"We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics."
I don't believe this, either. However, it is not what you say, but what you imply.
Some people simply cannot work. Other people have trouble finding work. Still others would rather take a welfare check than work. And some of those on welfare do abuse drugs, including alcohol.
But how do we monitor those on welfare so they do not engage in this kind of behavior? Do you want to add more bureaucrats to check on them? (Just asking!)
"But most of all, we're sick of your self-perpetuating, burdening bureaucracy weighing ever more heavily on our backs."
I assume you are talking about the government. I've got news for you: have you ever been to a typical corporation? They have a bureaucracy, too. You don't apply for a job at Costco by going to the Customer Complaint line, do you?
It sounds like you are saying that you want the government off your back. What, exactly, does our government force you to do? Pay your taxes, serve on jury duty and"it used to force men to submit to the draft.
If you don't like what your government is doing, remember that most government is local. Go tell your city council what you think about regulations, taxes, fees, etc.
Oh yeah, there would be a problem if you want fewer bureaucrats: no one would be there to listen to you tell them what you are sick of!