Propaganda is the business of wining minds.

After months of campaigning, debates, interviews and Billions being spent everything comes down to one thing only:

What’s in our minds? What did we take to that polling booth? Were we thinking security, jobs, leadership, trust, personality or even good looks? Or something specific like a nice comment or an insult?

I want to hear from all of you even those 100 who just read but don’t post.

They thought "Fear", not logical questions about the economy, environment, education, jobs, healthcare, etc. They thought about the fear-mongering constantly fed into their heads. Unfortunately, America proved once again that its citizens can be trained like sheep.

Tanya

Tanya's right. They thought "fear, threat of terrorism, suicide bombers in shopping malls". Osama bin Laden is sitting in his cave laughing his head off.

I thought about the principle of limited government upon which our country is founded.  Few Americans understand, much less respect, this principle, which is why this election didn't really matter very much at all.

I thought about the principle of limited government upon which our country is founded.  Few Americans understand, much less respect, this principle, which is why this election didn't really matter very much at all.


That was a big reason for me too.

Propaganda is the business of wining minds.

After months of campaigning, debates, interviews and Billions being spent everything comes down to one thing only:

What’s in our minds? What did we take to that polling booth? Were we thinking security, jobs, leadership, trust, personality or even good looks? Or something specific like a nice comment or an insult?

I want to hear from all of you even those 100 who just read but don’t post.



What was on my mind when I voted?  Yes, I was thinking security, jobs and especially leadership and intelligence.... unfortunately my candidate didn't win. I also thought about ending the war and thought about the insults that G. Bush hurled at me & others.  What happened?

Unfortunately we have gone way beyond the point of reeling government in.  To many people
also have to many ideas as to when government should intervene, and when it shouldn't.

What was on my mind when I voted?  Yes, I was thinking security, jobs and especially leadership and intelligence.... unfortunately my candidate didn't win. I also thought about ending the war and thought about the insults that G. Bush hurled at me & others.  What happened?


When I voted I was thinking of the integrity of our country, and the knowledge I have attained by being
informed about the policies and character of the people who would run this country.  I have been a
political junkie since I was 18 and I have gotten tired of people saying to me "y'know, you were right
about that" .  I know I am going to hear it again.

I was thinking of many things-the lost jobs, education funding (or lack of), health care coverage (again, lack of), the fact that this government is owned by corrupt corperate leaders, how some want the government just small enough so it fits in our bedrooms, the whiddling away at our Constitutional rights, and of course, men, women, and children dying for oil. That is just to name a few things that I thought about but you get the gist.




Cat

This was my point in a previous thread.  What made people fanatically go out on the streets and scream their names... what exactly will they get from it.  I saw both candidates have dozens of plausible wish lists, a few strategic policies and absoloutly no procedures.  We got to see people getting into verbal rows over who should win, the United States was a Divided States.  Time will tell if terrorism will be conquered but as I sit in my English two up two down I feel fear that Bush has been given another 4 years to make a mockery of the Western World. 

Osama may be sitting in his cave laighing his head of and now he has even more to laugh at due to the fact that he knows he is safe for at least another 4 years.

Time will tell if terrorism will be conquered but as I sit in my English two up two down I feel fear that Bush has been given another 4 years to make a mockery of the Western World. 
Osama may be sitting in his cave laighing his head of and now he has even more to laugh at due to the fact that he knows he is safe for at least another 4 years.


You've got that right!

I thought about the principle of limited government upon which our country is founded.  Few Americans understand, much less respect, this principle, which is why this election didn't really matter very much at all.

If the principle of limited government is what you wanted to vote for, I hope you voted Libertarian.  The Republican Party sure don't have no use for limited government!
The GOP only likes eviscerating social programs.  The actual size and scope of government I predict will increase quite a bit over the next four years. 
Taking food money away from poor people has next to nothing to do with "limited" government.
I'm not a Libertarian.  I believe they are fundamentally mistaken their beliefs.  However, I respect them when they say "limited government."  When Republicans say it, it's just menacious rhetoric.

What was I thinking when I went to the polls?

Get this scorpion out of my pajamas!!!

Nope he's still there, and he's an even BIGGER pain in the @ss!

Having thought about all the questions, issues, problems we face long before voting, there was little to think about once in the booth, just making sure I got it right.  

I agree with Cheer.  We are in for some hard times, not just in the next 4 years but for many more to come.  I fear the Roe v Wade will go away, the anti-gay amendment will get through congress, labor rights will disappear, the environment will be further despoiled, the draft will reappear, our foreign policy will become more aggressive...  Democracy will come to mean the corporate state more than it does today while ouir personal liberty and privacy will be increasingly invaded while social programs (the safty net) will disappear.  I fear for the future of my grand children (second one due in early Dec. but that's for the PPP area).

If the principle of limited government is what you wanted to vote for, I hope you voted Libertarian.  The Republican Party sure don't have no use for limited government!
The GOP only likes eviscerating social programs.  The actual size and scope of government I predict will increase quite a bit over the next four years. 
Taking food money away from poor people has next to nothing to do with "limited" government.
I'm not a Libertarian.  I believe they are fundamentally mistaken their beliefs.  However, I respect them when they say "limited government."  When Republicans say it, it's just menacious rhetoric.

At last we agree on something.  Tell me, though, what's "fundamentally mistaken" about believing that individuals have the right to make their own choices and the responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions?

At last we agree on something.  Tell me, though, what's "fundamentally mistaken" about believing that individuals have the right to make their own choices and the responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions?

Let us just say the country is too big for small government.  You can do away with social programs and get higher illiteracy rates, more crime, and more sickness.  That doesn't really address the bigness of big government.  There is a disconnect in Libertarian doctrine of individual rights and responsibilities and Libertarian love of money and property.  Most of the vast web of federal law and subisidies is based on protecting and advancing the interests of wealth and property.  Those who have wealth and property want to retain it, and get more if they can.  Fair enough.  However, when you have a country of nearly 300 souls and encompassing an entire continent, when you have GDP in the trillions of dollars, when you have thousands of businesses everywhere all competing for a piece of the pie, you DON'T have a society capable of managing with a tiny Jeffersonian-style state.  This ain't 1790, my friend, and never will it be so again!  It isn't "liberals" who built this big government it is the exigencies of the modern chartered corporation.
::) ::) ::)

Let us just say the country is too big for small government.  You can do away with social programs and get higher illiteracy rates, more crime, and more sickness.  That doesn't really address the bigness of big government.  There is a disconnect in Libertarian doctrine of individual rights and responsibilities and Libertarian love of money and property.  Most of the vast web of federal law and subisidies is based on protecting and advancing the interests of wealth and property.  Those who have wealth and property want to retain it, and get more if they can.  Fair enough.  However, when you have a country of nearly 300 souls and encompassing an entire continent, when you have GDP in the trillions of dollars, when you have thousands of businesses everywhere all competing for a piece of the pie, you DON'T have a society capable of managing with a tiny Jeffersonian-style state.  This ain't 1790, my friend, and never will it be so again!  It isn't "liberals" who built this big government it is the exigencies of the modern chartered corporation.
::) ::) ::)

As always, I'm no more enthralled with laws and subsidies that unfairly benefit large corporations than you are.  That doesn't automatically mean that the answer is to go the other way and violate their rights with crippling regulations that unfairly benefit labor.  The essence of limited government is to protect rights -- everybody's, not just groups you happen to like -- and if more people realized this, there's no reason why it couldn't work on any scale.  The liberal mistake is the belief that economic issues are somehow different from civil issues, simply because it offends their sensibilities that some people make more of whatever opportunities they have than others.  Much in the same way the conservative mistake is the belief that civil issues (drugs, gay marriage, etc) are somehow different simply because they find these choices repugnant.  To a libertarian, it's extremely simple and obvious that both groups are equally guilty of using government to force their beliefs on society.  I don't see what's wrong with having a government designed not to force but to protect individuals from it -- whether it's pseudo-socialist meddling or Christian meddling, it's still meddling.

The question I have about Libertarians is why to they turn their back on me when I go
someplace they are passing out literature?  They tend to be at alot of the auto or motorcycle
flea markets and it is quite obvious that they are not interested in giving me their literature.  I
have to stand in front to them and say specifically "I want a copy of what you are passing out"
and they can be quite grudging about it.  It is not just me, I do this "watch this guys" thing to
whoever I'm with and they agree.  (I am an African American, have pointed it out to Caucasian
friends to get a somewhat unbiased opinion)

The question I have about Libertarians is why to they turn their back on me when I go
someplace they are passing out literature?  They tend to be at alot of the auto or motorcycle
flea markets and it is quite obvious that they are not interested in giving me their literature.  I
have to stand in front to them and say specifically "I want a copy of what you are passing out"
and they can be quite grudging about it.  It is not just me, I do this "watch this guys" thing to
whoever I'm with and they agree.  (I am an African American, have pointed it out to Caucasian
friends to get a somewhat unbiased opinion)

Well we know you negroes cain't read.  That was a joke; couldn't resist.  I couldn't say since I wasn't there, but I wouldn't assume it was your skin color.  Perhaps you didn't exude an approachable attitude.  We Libertarians can be pretty squirrelly, y'know.

Well we know you negroes cain't read.  That was a joke; couldn't resist.  I couldn't say since I wasn't there, but I wouldn't assume it was your skin color.  Perhaps you didn't exude an approachable attitude.  We Libertarians can be pretty squirrelly, y'know.


;D ;D, yeah, maybe it seems to be a bit worse in New Hampshire,  they seem to have squirrelly
bred into them. ::)

;D ;D, yeah, maybe it seems to be a bit worse in New Hampshire,  they seem to have squirrelly
bred into them. ::)


New Hampshire, eh?  Ooh, you know that's the state they're planning to "take over", right?  If they'd just picked Hawaii, I'd be so there.

New Hampshire, eh?  Ooh, you know that's the state they're planning to "take over", right?  If they'd just picked Hawaii, I'd be so there.


Say what? ???

Say what? ???

http://www.freestateproject.org/

As always, I'm no more enthralled with laws and subsidies that unfairly benefit large corporations than you are.  That doesn't automatically mean that the answer is to go the other way and violate their rights with crippling regulations that unfairly benefit labor.  The essence of limited government is to protect rights -- everybody's, not just groups you happen to like -- and if more people realized this, there's no reason why it couldn't work on any scale.  The liberal mistake is the belief that economic issues are somehow different from civil issues, simply because it offends their sensibilities that some people make more of whatever opportunities they have than others.  Much in the same way the conservative mistake is the belief that civil issues (drugs, gay marriage, etc) are somehow different simply because they find these choices repugnant.  To a libertarian, it's extremely simple and obvious that both groups are equally guilty of using government to force their beliefs on society.  I don't see what's wrong with having a government designed not to force but to protect individuals from it -- whether it's pseudo-socialist meddling or Christian meddling, it's still meddling.

The only time I hear Libertarians even mention the power of the corporation is when an opponent like me asks them about it.  Then they say, "Oh, we don't like corporate welfare either," and then they keep right on with their duck-billed platitudes about taxes, the nanny state, property rights, and personal responsibility.
The Cato Institute bills itself as a "Libertarian" think tank, yet it owes its existence entirely to the petroleum industry.  See link:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/koch_family_foundations.htm
I may be wrong, but I've never known other Libertarians to condemn Cato.  Basically the contradiction is this: the petroleum industry relies on big govermnent.  You could not have the present-day petroleum industry without giant federal subsidies and the deployment of U.S. military forces abroad in service of retaining and advancing corporate interests in the world's petroleum deposits.
That marriage of big government with big business is not "Libertarianism," it is "fascism."  However, I always say Libertarianism is just an order of fascism for one.
As far as those core "principles" are concerned, the oft repeated cliches about "individual liberty" and "personal responsibility," it's hard to find anybody who comes out against those.  It's like when political candidates say they're in favor of "education, law and order, and the family."  What politician comes out and says, "I'm in favor of rum, Romanism, and rebellion"?

And, I'm sorry to say, I do believe Danoota's exprience with the Libertarians is based on skin color.  African Americans vote 9 to 1 Democratic, and sometimes much more.

The only time I hear Libertarians even mention the power of the corporation is when an opponent like me asks them about it.  Then they say, "Oh, we don't like corporate welfare either," and then they keep right on with their duck-billed platitudes about taxes, the nanny state, property rights, and personal responsibility.

I've never encountered anyone who disagrees with us about corporate welfare.  My argument is that the reason it continues to exist is that  fundamentallly people refuse to limit government to the protection of rights.  They're too busy trying to use it to their advantage themselves.  Until people are willing to give up their own abuses of gov't power, they have no hope of convincing others to stop using it.  I can't speak for other Libertarians, but that principle is pretty much always my focus when arguing, so if I'm ignoring a particular abuse such as corporate welfare, it's because the person I'm dealing with either hasn't brought it up or already agrees with me.  What I don't get is why you're so hung up on that one abuse when they're just doing the same thing everyone else is doing -- making it legal to rip people off.  That's what social security is, that's what "free" health care is, that's what just about every spending program is -- just a way to get someone else to pay for what you want.  But I sure never hear liberals complaining about those things; what's up with that?




The Cato Institute bills itself as a "Libertarian" think tank, yet it owes its existence entirely to the petroleum industry.  See link:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/koch_family_foundations.htm
I may be wrong, but I've never known other Libertarians to condemn Cato.  Basically the contradiction is this: the petroleum industry relies on big govermnent.  You could not have the present-day petroleum industry without giant federal subsidies and the deployment of U.S. military forces abroad in service of retaining and advancing corporate interests in the world's petroleum deposits.
That marriage of big government with big business is not "Libertarianism," it is "fascism."  However, I always say Libertarianism is just an order of fascism for one.
As far as those core "principles" are concerned, the oft repeated cliches about "individual liberty" and "personal responsibility," it's hard to find anybody who comes out against those.  It's like when political candidates say they're in favor of "education, law and order, and the family."  What politician comes out and says, "I'm in favor of rum, Romanism, and rebellion"?

Sorry, but you can't invalidate a principle just by attacking one of its proponents.  That's like saying the Declaration of Independence is worthless because Jefferson owned slaves.  That unfortunate fact doesn't change the truth or power of his words.  All men ARE created equal, whether he personally treated them that way or not.  And the protection of individual rights IS the only legitimate function of government; whether Cato or the Heritage Foundation or any of the other groups you hate really believe it or not.  And although it may not be difficult to find people who will SAY they're in favor of individual liberty or personal responsibility, it sure is difficult to find people who can accept what these things really mean -- that it's wrong to impose your will on someone else, even if you get the government to say it's "legal".


And, I'm sorry to say, I do believe Danoota's exprience with the Libertarians is based on skin color.  African Americans vote 9 to 1 Democratic, and sometimes much more.

Well, that would make sense if she was the one who apparently wanted nothing to do with them.  I don't see what it has to do with this situation. 

I thought about the principle of limited government upon which our country is founded.  Few Americans understand, much less respect, this principle, which is why this election didn't really matter very much at all.


But certainly it's not difficult to understand why some look on with skepticism as so-called conservatives trumpet the limited government 'ideal' while selectively conferring marital benefits, curbing reproductive autonomy and restricting medical research.

To talk about 'limited government' in the abstract is meaningless, and defining 'conservatism' by this simplistic concept is, at best, not at all helpful.  Obviously government must have a role in a society, or else there's chaos.  Most everyone agrees with the basic principle that government should be hands-off where it can and intervene where it 'must'.  So the question is 'In what areas must government have a role, and in what spheres should it not?  This can be determined by exploring quetions such as what kind of society do we want to have? What are the challenges to creating such a society? and How are those challenges most effectively addressed?

Socio-political issues are not black and white, Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, red and blue.  The issues are complex because life is complex, because human beings are complex.  If we weren't we'd have figured out how to live without all this conflict, misery, jealousy, envy, hatred and war centuries ago.  Regardless of our ideological bent, we would all do well to risk being labeled 'elite intellectuals' and engage our god-given intellects to explore issues with the level of seriousness they deserve.

Or we can just keep on with the us/them struggle for domination -- we'll all be dead soon enough anyway, and it'll be the next generation's problem... and the next... and the next...

the country is too big for small government. 

So you’re saying that if the American Population grows to a certain extent a Dictatorship will have to take place to control those competitive, savage Americans.

Adam Smith’s ideas are still working even though he wrote it in 1776. Markets translate the will of the people.

So the question is 'In what areas must government have a role, and in what spheres should it not?  This can be determined by exploring quetions such as what kind of society do we want to have? What are the challenges to creating such a society? and How are those challenges most effectively addressed?

I completely agree about the question.  My problem is with phrases like, "what kind of society do we want to have?".  Who, exactly, are "we?"  You've already said that you don't necessarily agree that we should be a society that gives benefits to married couples, for example.  But because you're in a distinct minority, you're not going to get what you want.  When you talk about "society" as a concrete entity instead of as an abstraction, you automatically agree to be a part of whatever "society" the majority of people decide they want (this is why 48% of the country's voters are so distraught right now). 

To me, the question of which areas the government should interfere in can be determined by exploring questions of natural, individual rights.  It worked pretty well for the framers of the Constitution (though many compromises had to be made).  Limiting government to the protection of these rights is the essence of freedom, and using government force to create the kind of "society" you want is the essence of tyranny.  It's not "meaningless" to discuss whether or not government has any business in our bedrooms, medicine cabinets, or checkbooks.

So you’re saying that if the American Population grows to a certain extent a Dictatorship will have to take place to control those competitive, savage Americans.

Adam Smith’s ideas are still working even though he wrote it in 1776. Markets translate the will of the people.



Adam Smith warned us about the current state of crony capitalism.  Anyway, a dictatorship isn't "big government."  A dictatorship requires only a charismatic leader and a compliant military.

I've never encountered anyone who disagrees with us about corporate welfare.  My argument is that the reason it continues to exist is that  fundamentallly people refuse to limit government to the protection of rights.  They're too busy trying to use it to their advantage themselves.  Until people are willing to give up their own abuses of gov't power, they have no hope of convincing others to stop using it.  I can't speak for other Libertarians, but that principle is pretty much always my focus when arguing, so if I'm ignoring a particular abuse such as corporate welfare, it's because the person I'm dealing with either hasn't brought it up or already agrees with me.  What I don't get is why you're so hung up on that one abuse when they're just doing the same thing everyone else is doing -- making it legal to rip people off.  That's what social security is, that's what "free" health care is, that's what just about every spending program is -- just a way to get someone else to pay for what you want.  But I sure never hear liberals complaining about those things; what's up with that?
Now you're just thinking from the reptilian brain stem.  I could launch into a treatise about government, business, and the people, but you wouldn't hear it.
Suffice to say, if your doctrine is "do for yourself or go and die," you'll get the kind of third world scenario where 1% of the population lives in grandiose luxury, and everybody else lives in cholera-ridden huts and digs through garbage for daily sustenance.  But...you won't see that either.  To be a Libertarian you must declare your ultimate faith in the "individual," but file for divorce from the real world!

Sorry, but you can't invalidate a principle just by attacking one of its proponents.  That's like saying the Declaration of Independence is worthless because Jefferson owned slaves.  That unfortunate fact doesn't change the truth or power of his words.  All men ARE created equal, whether he personally treated them that way or not.  And the protection of individual rights IS the only legitimate function of government; whether Cato or the Heritage Foundation or any of the other groups you hate really believe it or not.  And although it may not be difficult to find people who will SAY they're in favor of individual liberty or personal responsibility, it sure is difficult to find people who can accept what these things really mean -- that it's wrong to impose your will on someone else, even if you get the government to say it's "legal".
A Libertarian government would not end up imposing its will on others?  There's the divorce from the real world again!
The attitude I hear coming out of Cato is the same attitude I hear from the Libertarian party.  They will blame the existence of corporate welfare on "liberals," for whatever specious reason fits their politico-fantastical jigsaw puzzle and keep right on with the cliches and sanctimony.

My problem is with phrases like, "what kind of society do we want to have?".  Who, exactly, are "we?"  You've already said that you don't necessarily agree that we should be a society that gives benefits to married couples, for example.  But because you're in a distinct minority, you're not going to get what you want.

"We" is "we, the people...", isn't it?  Americans. Why is it a "problem" to be engaged in questioning what kind of society we want?  I'm not sure why people are so resistant to discussing/debating ideas in open-minded manner. 

I posed a simple query to question the reasoning of a particular practice, and so you already me pegged as a 'them' who's opposed to the 'it' that 'everyone else' wants, so as a result I'm "not going to get what I] want".  But that specific issue doesn't even affect me personally.  Does it make sense to me that married couples get benefits?  No.  But does it affect my self interest in a meaningful way?  Not at all.  But aren't there more important issues that our own individual self-interests?  Thank god "we the people" believed so in the past, otherwise we'd still have slavery, and women wouldn't have the vote.  Among other things.



To me, the question of which areas the government should interfere in can be determined by exploring questions of natural, individual rights.  It worked pretty well for the framers of the Constitution (though many compromises had to be made).  Limiting government to the protection of these rights is the essence of freedom, and using government force to create the kind of "society" you want is the essence of tyranny.  It's not "meaningless" to discuss whether or not government has any business in our bedrooms, medicine cabinets, or checkbooks.



I never said it was 'meaningless' to discuss government's role in specific areas.  In fact, my point is that it's not particularly useful to identify any one particular political ideology with the 'limited government" in the abstract, because notwithstanding the rhetoric of the politicos, I suspect that most people -- of all ideological stripes -- want to limit government to the protection of 'fundamental rights'.  The challenge is that people have varying ideas about what these 'fundamental rights' are.

Now you're just thinking from the reptilian brain stem.  I could launch into a treatise about government, business, and the people, but you wouldn't hear it.
Suffice to say, if your doctrine is "do for yourself or go and die," you'll get the kind of third world scenario where 1% of the population lives in grandiose luxury, and everybody else lives in cholera-ridden huts and digs through garbage for daily sustenance.  But...you won't see that either.  To be a Libertarian you must declare your ultimate faith in the "individual," but file for divorce from the real world!

Yeah, I've read your "treatises" before; they go something like this:  "Blah blah blah property rights are a nice idea but it's more complicated than that you stupid moron blah blah blah those nefarious industrialists and their profligacies blah blah blah do for yourself...unless it's REALLY HARD -- then don't worry; there are plenty of ignorant billy bobs out there who we can force to support you because we're way smarter and more caring than they are blah blah blah and so on..."  A little difficult to take your hysterical ranting about third-world scenarios seriously when we live in a country that has:
1.  The most limited government ever, and
2.  The most wealth ever.  It must kill you that no one in the US is living in a cholera-ridden hut.  You'll never admit it, but we have the most opulent "poor" people in the world.


A Libertarian government would not end up imposing its will on others?  There's the divorce from the real world again!
The attitude I hear coming out of Cato is the same attitude I hear from the Libertarian party.  They will blame the existence of corporate welfare on "liberals," for whatever specious reason fits their politico-fantastical jigsaw puzzle and keep right on with the cliches and sanctimony.

I'd say it's pretty tough to find a more sanctimonious cliche than "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" -- but that's all I ever hear from you.  I blame the existence of corporate welfare on the refusal of the American populace to hold their politicians to the standard of the Constitution.  Again -- and I know I'm sounding like a broken record here -- both liberals and so-called "conservatives" are guilty of using government to trample on the rights of those who don't happen to share their values.  All Libertarians want is for both sides to stop doing it.  I'll say it over and over again but all that matters to you is that you're convinced it's a trick to sucker doofuses like me into letting them take all the money until we're all living in those cholera-ridden huts you keep talking about.

"We" is "we, the people...", isn't it?  Americans. Why is it a "problem" to be engaged in questioning what kind of society we want?  I'm not sure why people are so resistant to discussing/debating ideas in open-minded manner. 

I posed a simple query to question the reasoning of a particular practice, and so you already me pegged as a 'them' who's opposed to the 'it' that 'everyone else' wants, so as a result I'm "not going to get what I] want".  But that specific issue doesn't even affect me personally.  Does it make sense to me that married couples get benefits?  No.  But does it affect my self interest in a meaningful way?  Not at all.  But aren't there more important issues that our own individual self-interests?  Thank god "we the people" believed so in the past, otherwise we'd still have slavery, and women wouldn't have the vote.  Among other things.


But what about majority decisions that DO affect your self interest in a meaningful way?  Are those okay, too, simply because the majority agrees that "we" are the sort of society that, say, exterminates all the Jews?  Letting the majority do whatever they want is great as long as you're not in the minority.  The standard of government has to be to protect the rights of all individuals, regardless of whether or not they share the values of the majority.  Thank god "we the people" finally figured out that blacks and women are individuals too.


I never said it was 'meaningless' to discuss government's role in specific areas.  In fact, my point is that it's not particularly useful to identify any one particular political ideology with the 'limited government" in the abstract, because notwithstanding the rhetoric of the politicos, I suspect that most people -- of all ideological stripes -- want to limit government to the protection of 'fundamental rights'.  The challenge is that people have varying ideas about what these 'fundamental rights' are.

The left and the right don't really have "varying ideas" about fundamental rights.  They both want to do the same thing:  ban stuff they don't like, and have everyone pay for stuff they do like.  The proper standard is property rights.  The person that owns something -- whether it's land, a business, or their body -- has the right to do with it as they please, as long as they don't interfere with another's right to do the same thing.  It's called "natural rights", and it's not exactly a new concept, though you'd certainly think so listening to people these days.