So, this blog started out as just an art blog, and it still is, for the most part; really, it’s just a catch-all place where I can jot down notes so they’re not running through my head. And as I’ve watched the political landscape over the past few years, I’ve got to admit that political questions are consuming more and more of my thoughts.
So, full disclosure: my main political leaning is towards small government. I’m registered as Republican, but like many Republicans, I’m not feeling oodles of loyalty to a political party right now. (I considered registering as Democrat just to keep myself honest at voting time.)
I posted a week ago that I’ll be much more likely to vote for anyone who’s willing to move power down the food chain, from the federal government to states, from states to local government, and from local government to other institutions such as the family, the church, etc. I’d love to see the de-polarization of the country, which I think in many ways could be accomplished by taking many of our conversations off the national table and addressing them according to the context of the local culture. I feel strongly about certain moral issues, but believe that one-issue voting is a misuse of our responsibility as free people with the right to elect our government.
Annnnyhoo. All of that to give a little background to why I occasionally post political rumblings on this otherwise art-oriented blog. (Most of the people reading probably skipped this post in the first place, since you came here to see pretty pictures, so I’m just talking to myself. Which is fine.)
All of this gets back to the title of this post, and my basic question… if anyone’s actually gotten down this far, I’d love to hear your thoughts: which would be more beneficial to the United States of America — for the Tea Party (or some such libertarian-oriented entity) to lean all the way into its own party, or for there to be sweeping Republican reform?
To be clear, I understand that a libertarian offshoot of conservatives would mean losses in elections this cycle; as long as Democrats stay as one solid voting block, it’s 2-year or 4-year suicide to split conservatives into two groups. But after those 2 years or 4 years, even if we lost, would it be worth it to break up the establishment as it is?
Since my main leaning is towards the decentralization of power, the idea of breaking up the sumo match of Democrats and Republicans is appealing to me… but would it actually be productive?
Typically, I avoid long, wordy posts on here. Who has the time to read a long, rambling, political piece while you’re grabbing your daily muffin and hitting Google Reader? You were probably just hoping for a YouTube video or some pencil sketches (see below). But in case anyone HAS stuck with me, I’d love to hear your thoughts. I don’t have answers, but I believe that there are answers out there, and would greatly love to be part of a productive conversation towards a solution.
“Come on boffins, let’s really bang our heads together!”
5 responses to “Third party or Republican reform?”
Multipolarity amongst interest groups and factions (what we would now call political parties) is what the Founders desired as they began this nation. Technically speaking, the United States system, as it was originally intended, failed about 10 years after its inception. The Federalist (specifically numbers 10 and 51 I believe they are) is an interesting read on the subject. However, as the Federalist is practically an apologetic for centralized government, it is not something in which I would place too much value. So from a purely founding standpoint, another party has been a long time coming and cannot come soon enough.
That being said, the whole issue arises of whether or not to vote on principle or vote on who can win. Honestly, my thinking on this is to vote on principle every time. I personally dislike the “lesser of two evils” argument. To me that seems like an excuse for compromise. I understand why people do it, but I disagree with some of the logic presented.
I think that republicans are just as guilty as the democrats and always have been. The right wing establishment has been pounding the left with shouts of socialism and bankrupting the nation with the welfare state for decades. Yet, republicans apparently don’t see interventionism as bankrupting our nation or contributing to a larger central government. A professor at Cambridge, speaking about the fall of the British empire, claimed that it was just as much the warfare state as it was the welfare state that contributed to England’s decline. I see the United States in very much the same position. There is, sadly, a tremendous amount of hypocrisy on both sides in my opinion. So voting republican will, once again, in my opinion, still bring about the crippling of our nation, simply in a different way.
Which is why I believe Libertarians are the best bet. Even if they are not “as electable” (in itself a debatable point) as mainstream republican or democratic candidates, why not at least try to put them into power? Libertarians appeal to both sides in different ways because they stay true to certain values. They are against central government (sometimes against government at all) which appeals to the right and at the same time, and for the same reasons, they are against interventionist foreign policy which appeals to the left. So why wouldn’t they be electable? I’m going to register as a libertarian because I see the most consistency in their ideology as well as the best way forward for our country. The tea party is nice but it’s simply a return to old conservative (typically Reaganite) politics, which means less spending on healthcare but more on the military. So there’s no gain there. I personally have distanced myself from both the republican party and the tea party movement. Libertarianism is the only hope for our country in my view and if people don’t start voting for them simply because they may be unelectable, then we’re sunk for sure.
Thanks for letting me ramble! And thanks for thinking about this stuff
Evan, thanks for a thoughtful reply! Anyone else have contributions to the conversation? I’m really looking to learn here.
I should mention that what really got my wheels spinning on this was the following article at CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/03/thune-tea-party-could-form-splinter-group-by-2012/?hpt=Sbin
Just to keep the conversation all in one place, here’s a relevant tweet from @lew_jeffrey: @smrvl have u heard of “Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative” by Trueman http://ow.ly/2O5Sz it may provide A’s 4 ur Q’s
Here’s the thing, the Democrats (these days, read liberals/progressives, since they effecitvely control the party) WILL pass their legislative agenda if it is at all possible to do so. If you were paying any sort of attention during mid 2009-early 2010 you are aware that there was massive resistance to Obamacare, but the Dems passed it anyways. And in a manner that left practically nobody at all happy or satisfied.
So, not only would a third party be political suicide for several election cycles, but it would be giving carte blanche to the liberal/progressive movement to do whatever they liked. And, ultimately, you’d wind up (most likely) with a two party system anyways.
I have several reasons for arguing this.
1) People like to actually win. And the Democrats will win every time, unless there is a single and united voice of opposition to them. So, Tea Party, Republicans, or Libertarians (Ron Paul, et al) … sooner or later, just to win SOMETHING, it’ll collapse into a single party.
2) There have been a couple of party collapses in our history. I think the Federalists were one of them, and there’s another that escapes me at the moment. So we’ve been through this before, historically, and two parties is where we end up.
3) A big part of why we have only two parties is the essential unity of our nation – brought about by the fact that we’re essentially a giant melting pot of cultures, races, creeds, etc. In other nations, where they really do have multi-party politics, a lot of it is based in race/religion.
3a) Obviously, we have many sub-groups in our two parties – blacks, gays, hispanics, greens, pro-abortion, Christians, fiscal conservatives, country club, Bible belt, etc.
3b) But in order to win, we stake out platforms that we can agree enough upon as a collective group in order to get things done.
3c) I think that if you examine multi-party systems, you’ll find that they effectively do the same thing. Just with a lot less stability/cohesion between the sub-groups. i.e. they change around as best suits their advantage.
3d) Note: in my opinion, muliparty system lends itself very much so to single issue voting. Each group listed in 3a has basically a single, central issue that defines them. They respond to everything else through that prism. Choosing which candidate to vote for would involve choosing what single issue is most important to you. As it stands, a vote for a Republican – generally speaking – is for lower taxes, smaller gov’t, pro-life, less spending, etc. In theory at least. A multi-party system, would let you choose one, maybe two of those options.
Bleh, how to have a nuanced discussion in print when it’s the end of a long day with UPS. Hopefully, y’all grasp the point I’m trying to make overall, without fighting over every detail or phrasing.
Actually, to respond to Dave’s question about the Tea Party splitting off, I think we’re at a crucial tipping point with several options available.
1) They split off. Electoral defeat for several to many cycles, depending on who survives for how long.
2) They take over and reform the Republican party, taking it back much farther to its conservative roots/principles.
2a) This is what’s going on now, in my view, with victories by Miller (?) in Alaska, or O’Donnell in Delaware, etc. The whole Sarah Palin phenomena is part of this as well. There are races all over the country, for congressional representatives, senators, governorships, etc that repeat the pattern of people rising up to take back the reigns of power from RINOs.
2b) Guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Levine have been laying the groundwork for this for years. Short version: ideas take time to bear fruit. They have to be planted, nourished, grow, and finally bear fruit. Reagan didn’t just spring up in 1980. His victories were the fruit of a campaign in ’76, of the thinking of Goldwater and Buckley, etc.
2c) Reagan, the ’94 Congress under Gingrich, Bush in the 2000s – each wave of conservatism gets stronger. We’ve still got a lot of RINOs in charge of too much (i.e. anything) who think like losers. Sort of like the Israelites fresh out of Egypt. They had God with them – to conquer the land, but they lacked the faith/courage to do so. After being refined in the wilderness, they came back with Joshua and finished the job. If God is kind to our nation, he’ll give us a strong candidate with excellent character in 2012. Maybe by then, we’ll have enough conservatives (not the same thing as Republicans) in office to really make a difference in the teeth of the howling opposition of the left.
3) Split or no split – the politicians on the Right fail to take the momentum of 2010/2012 and DO something with it – resulting in disillusionment and despondency on the Right and emboldening the Left.
To respond briefly to Evan’s point (and this is sort of a summary of my thoughts above); there aren’t enough libertarians to win. So voting for principle every time is inevitably going to result in people with whom you disagree much much more coming to power. (I assume you disagree with Dem more than Rep) In the long haul (30-40 years) you might be successful. But by then, we’d be in heap big trouble. So long as the liberals control the schools and media and entertainment, they will continue to win politically. They’re only about 30% of the population, but they control much of what shapes opinion. If you want to take over politically, do us all a favor and go boot a bunch of marxist liberals out of the college professorships! As it is, conservatives are already taking back the media.
Dave, your job is to re-take Hollywood. Good luck.