The Comfort of Being on the Fringe

In the few years since I started this blog, I've shared some pretty abnormal beliefs. From proposing Iraq decide whether we stay or not to suggesting free trade as a solution to global conflict. From subsidizing interracial marriage to suggesting students take educational drugs. And we can't forget my request for more political apathy and oil speculation. And what's more controversial for a white male to tackle than economics of slavery? But this post is not about rehashing old debates, it's about questioning why I am so comfortable being on the fringe.

Thomas Jefferson, seen by many as America's first libertarian, was famous for criticizing the early US government for being too intrusive. Whether it was the controversy over the creation of the national bank or the restriction of free speech with the Sedition Act, Jefferson became a champion of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. However, when he became the first president from the Democratic-Republican Party, his desire to restrict the power of government seemed to lessen. His controversial war against the Barbary Pirates and his unconstitutional (by his own definition) buying of the Louisiana Purchase are prime examples.

When you have very little political influence it is easy to stay ideologically pure, but when your beliefs have real influence on the lives of American citizens, it is more difficult. It's easy for me to say the government bailout of banks won't work or that the economic stimulus is a bad idea, because my statement has no real political impact. There is a certain amount of ideological comfort that comes with being on the edges of political and social thought. You can say and think what you want with little worry they will ever be taken seriously. That said, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.