^I believe it wise to follow the middle road, moderation in all things. But I also recognize honest men may legitimally disagree where the middle actually is. The only thing I reject categorically is ideology. Human and community relations are not physics, not only are they subjective, we must work tirelessly to ensure they remain subjective. ^

^Since I do not accept politics, or any social science for that matter, can be objectively measured or delimited, then political or social positions should be determined by what works, what we can agree or compromise on, or what has been established by precedent and custom, provided we are always ready to amend and re-evaluate our position from time to time. We must also never forget that it is human nature (not the work of the devil) than even good men generally believe what is good for them is good for everyone else. "Political principles" are an oxymoron. Politics by its very nature is determined by "the consent of the governed", to coin a phrase. Oh sure, it is obvious that freedom is better than the lack of it, that construct is built right into our language. But I reject anyone deciding for me what freedom actually is. I rely on my own conscience for that, not God, my leaders, or the founding fathers. ^

This is what you wrote. I reject the premise that political ideas are entirely subjective, which when it comes down to it, essentially means politics by personal whim of the powerful. "I think this is right, so it is."

Where the swinging fist is hitting noses in this country is that whims are being enacted into laws. "I believe (at least today) that this is what everyone should do, so we'll make them do it." If there is no recourse to objective ideas or principles, nothing above the "sez me, sez you" level, politics becomes the tyranny of the majority. Mob rule. This has happened in many places. "I won," said Obama. In his worldview, that makes him the king.

Our country was founded on the concept that there are some things that are true no matter how many people believe them or not. That some things are right or wrong even if a thousand people are on one side and only ten on the other. That this is as true for political ideas as for any others. The founders and others back then literally wrote volumes on the application of reason to politics. Even if they came to the wrong conclusions sometimes, the premise was still there that reason and objectivity were applicable to the problems.

When the Constitution was written, it was unthinkable that the Federal government would someday be in a position to command every aspect of the American citizen's personal and working lives, otherwise they probably would have tightened up a few things.

I wish this really was just an academic argument, like whether or not Brussels sprouts taste good. In a country where the state has as much power as it does now, ideas matter. Today, who runs Washington affects everything in my life. In this context "I get to tell you what to do about everything" and "we'll mostly leave you alone" are not two sides of the same philosophical coin.

The contradiction in your viewpoint is that modern "progressive" ideas are all about deciding for other people what "freedom" is. At least my ideas are self-consistent.