Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." I'm not sure even he would defend the level of inconsistency demonstrated in this clip by Reason TV:
In case you lost track, these Democrats think government ought to intervene in choices involving: soda sizes, smoking, alcohol consumption, trans fat consumption, mixed caffeine and alcohol consumption, light bulbs, unionization, and public education.
One woman suggests people should "make the choices that have good results." She's speaking of things like soda bans, but one can only wonder if she has ever applied this principle to her stance on abortion. Nearly forty years after Roe v. Wade and endless battles since, this alternate perspective doesn't seem to have occurred to her at all.
My favorite answer is this one given by a woman about midway through the clip. Asked about unions, she answers in a way that is consistent with her previous stance on choice, saying, "It should be a choice not to be in a union." Pressed on whether this means she supports right-to-work laws, she does a complete 180 in the span of 10 seconds: "I guess not. I'm not in favor of right-to-work." This is what it looks like when the dictates of the party trump individual thought.