I’ve rarely heard or read a UU weighing options in terms of their larger moral imperatives. It’s usually a cut-and-dried, good versus awfully bad thing. You’re on the side of love, or your not, and if not, you’ve gotta be a hateful phobe of some sort.
From Juicy Ecumenism on Estonia,
The question the two sides disagree over is, where does the larger moral imperative lie: with the next generation, or with the current poor? The liberal solution to both the current economic downturn, and the problem of poverty in general, is increased government involvement and spending to “stimulate the economy.” Given the near complete lack of success of the 2008 stimulus package, one hardly needs to wonder why conservatives aren’t exactly on board with a Stimulus 2.0. The alternative those on the Right offer is an extensive plan of government spending and program cuts that would place the U.S. on the path to putting our nearly $16 trillion debt and suffering economy in the rear-view mirror.