I think that people in this country agree with solutions to problems that when implemented will not actually work.  For example, many young people support the solutions to health care and education without actually realizing that the things they think they are getting for free, are actually going to be paid for by them.  Instead of looking for total solutions to problems, people need to look for what they can do for the people around them.  The government is not going to have the solutions to these problems on a nation wide scale because the problem is too large.  Individual areas in this country have problems and the people closest to them with figure out the best solutions to them. 

I think that it is incredibly sad that this has happened so many times after the Convention on Genocide in 1948. However, due to the vague nature of the conventions stipulations it makes it hard for the UN or any other country to recognize an act as "genocide" because then action needs to take place.  I think that Clinton did not deal with the issue because he had lost so much public support after going into Somalia that he could not afford another disaster which would cost him reelection. Also, by choosing not to address the issue people were less knowledgeable about the genocide. 

They have done neither, and the fact that his own VP thinks his actions are wrong sends a terrible message to the people in this country and makes him seem like he is better than every other policy maker out there.  The system is in place for a reason, and he is completely disregarding America and our values as a people. 

I think that this article was not  all encompassing.  Haidt decided to use psychology of Republicans on social issues to make a broader statement of why people vote Republican.  While this could be true for why Republicans vote a certain way on social issues, I don't think that he can make that full jump to conclude about the broader issue of conservative voters.  In addition, his examples and statements provided little evidence to prove that his conclusions were actually true.  Haidt can come up with a philosophy that sounds reasonable but that in itself is not enough evidence to prove a point.

I like that he references De Tocqueville because I love his theories on freedom especially in American society and also because he realizes that there are limitations to freedom but they are ultimately very similar to the freedoms that others desire.

I feel like he is saying that we cannot live in a society where "we can have it all." We must give up certain fundamental rights because not everyone is equal, socially or economically, and that's not fair.  Has this guy never heard of the expression, life isn't fair?  I am all for people helping out the underprivileged, but how about letting it be just that? People helping people, not some corrupt holier than thou politician in big government deciding what is "fair" and what is an equal distribution of rights and money. This ideology is setting people up to look like villains if they disagree with it.