I am just not as conservative as most of you

[doseyclwn]

My problem with the 2 party system in this country can be summarized by looking at the party platform on their respective websites. In a nutshell, it says "We, the (insert one of the two parties here) party are good, and the (name of other party) are bad."

Republicans and Democrats alike have both set up this mindset whereby they will not listen to ANYTHING ANYONE from the other party has to say simply because they are a member of that party. I cannot in good conscience vote for the republicans just to achieve balance.

 

[Tamara]

JerryN,

Ummm, yes it is about balance.

Ummm, no; it is about freedom.

You can split hairs all you want.

You're the one splitting hairs: "This guy is slightly less wrong than that guy, so I'll vote for him". Me, I'm done splitting hairs and voting for people who want to infringe my rights..

I used to do that too. But Klinton showed me the error of my ways.

Do you even remember Clinton's '92 campaign? The man ran on a very "centrist/middle-of-the-road/third way" ticket. Exactly what you're advocating here.

You have to get off your flabby middle of the road ***

...and you need to grow some manners. Besides, the only person I see urging a move towards the "middle of the road" is you, sir.

...and vote right until we get our "free" society moved in the proper direction. Then you can be as stubbornly independant as you freakin want to be.

Tell me again how we're going to get more freedom by voting for anti-freedom candidates? It's still not making any sense to me.

Until then, if you don't get it, you are hurting the cause, not helping it. And I say that as a firm believer in the Libertarian way.

One of us "doesn't get it", all right, but I'm beginning to have a sneaking suspicion that it ain't me...

 

[Pappy John]

late to the game

I'm not a great fan of the current 2 party system, but I don't see a way out of it in anyones lifetime short of some kind of dangerous upheaval that puts our countries very existence in danger. My own leanings are libertarian, but after voting that way for a decade and seeing Clinton winning two elections, I had to rethink my position. I might as well have not shown up at the polling place at all. I hate being put in the position of casting a Republican vote, for a party that I really have no love for, just because I despise some of the Democratic positions with even greater vehemence, but seemingly that's what I'm left with. A person shouldn't have to vote "against" something just because there's nothing good to vote "for". Awwww...this is just turning into a disgusted ramble...:banghead:

 

[Art Eatman]

I'm gonna generalize, so there's a lot of "some" and no "all", okay?

In general, the problem that I see with the Libertarian philosophy, as regards voting strength is that it requires a lot of personal responsibility for the consequences of one's actions and decisions.

IMO, too large a percentage of those who vote have been led to or raised to look outside themselves for the Causes Of Bad Things. The "Society's fault" concept is an example. The mindset that blames things for bad deeds. "Race-norming" of test scores is an example. Too many people, IMO, shun personal responsibility.

I think that Libertarianism is a bit more appealing to those on the right of the political spectrum, but for many there it calls for too much independent thought for them to be comfortable. (Not sure...)

In many ways, Libertarianism = Rugged Individualism, and that doesn't play all that well in modern America's voting booths.

I guess.

Art

"Frisbietarianism: The idea that after death, the soul gets stuck on the roof, forever."

 

[Dutchy7]

For Tamara:

I read several forums, and see your "signature" frequently. If you don't mind, what is the meaning of "Molon Labe " ??

 

[David Scott]

The problem with "liberal" versus "conservative", as I see it, is that they are just two arbitrary divisions. The two political parties in the US use spin to force people and issues into one or the other, creating easily led voting blocs. This also makes it easier for them to prevent any third parties from getting a major presence established, so they won't have to share power.

I like to decide each issue on its own merits. Most of my conclusions would be caled "liberal" by someone hung up on the two-party, two-viewpoint system, but there are plenty of points of divergence. I support RKBA, considered a "conservative" cause, but I think it should be "liberal" in the purest sense, because it supports the right of the individual. Why is it that supporting anything else guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is called "liberal" while RKBA is not? Two words: spin doctors.

So here I am, a pistol-packing supporter of feminism and gay rights, who thinks the "war on drugs" is a fraud, the death penalty should be abolished, and campaign finance reform is desperately needed. A person who has never been registered in a political party. A person who thinks that voting the straight ticket is the mark of a lazy voter.

I think there are more of me than the Reps or Dems want to admit, more whose sentiments can be summed up in Shakespeare's words, "a plague on both your houses".

 

[Art Eatman]

Dutchy7, it's Greek for "Come and take it." IIRC, it goes back to the battle for Thermopylae.

You want my gun? Come and take it.

It started at TFL, and became our motto.

Art

 

[tyme]

You're the one splitting hairs: "This guy is slightly less wrong than that guy, so I'll vote for him". Me, I'm done splitting hairs and voting for people who want to infringe my rights..

That attitude is self-destructive, and I get upset every time I read it.

Anybody who spends some time researching a campaign can make a good judgement about whether a third-party candidate has any chance of being competitive. The pollsters might have really screwed up their predictions when Jesse Ventura was elected, and I wasn't there, but I suspect it would be obvious to someone really bothering to pay attention to politics that there would be large turnout among young voters.

Now take the recent TX Senate race. A MIS techy with a lousy web page and rather hollow (IMHO) platform, a political unknown who has no major selling points (any solid Lib could have stood in for him) vs the Attorney General vs the [black] ex-Mayor of Dallas. Does anyone really believe that voting for Jameson would have been the right thing to do, given that he didn't have a single substantial voting bloc supporting him? Individual 3rd-party voting blocs alone will never win someone an election. Only major issue voting blocs get candidates elected.

If a third party candidate has a realistic chance of getting elected and that candidate is worthwhile, I'll ditch the Republicans in a heartbeat. Even if that third party doesn't win, being competitive means that the other two parties will have to seriously reevaluate their strategies, and that can only be good.

 

[doseyclwn]

I'm not a great fan of the current 2 party system, but I don't see a way out of it in anyones lifetime short of some kind of dangerous upheaval that puts our countries very existence in danger. My own leanings are libertarian, but after voting that way for a decade and seeing Clinton winning two elections, I had to rethink my position. I might as well have not shown up at the polling place at all. I hate being put in the position of casting a Republican vote, for a party that I really have no love for, just because I despise some of the Democratic positions with even greater vehemence, but seemingly that's what I'm left with. A person shouldn't have to vote "against" something just because there's nothing good to vote "for". Awwww...this is just turning into a disgusted ramble...

Part of the reason I think it doesn't work is that the two parties are actually in cahoots to make people believe that a 3rd party vote doesn't count. My suspicion is that if everyone STOPPED believing that and voted for the candidate that most closely fit their beliefs, the 2 parties would HAVE to take notice. It wouldn't have to be a massive upheaval.

 

[pax]

Part of the reason I think it doesn't work is that the two parties are actually in cahoots to make people believe that a 3rd party vote doesn't count. My suspicion is that if everyone STOPPED believing that and voted for the candidate that most closely fit their beliefs, the 2 parties would HAVE to take notice. It wouldn't have to be a massive upheaval.

Smartest thing yet posted on this thread.

pax

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. -- John Philpot Curran

 

[tyme]

I think most people already vote their conscience. I don't think there's any way to distinguish between people voting based on party loyalty and people voting based on beliefs instilled in them by their party.

 

[Dutchy7]

Art Eatman

Good motto, I like it.
Thank you. Do you know M. Deardorff?

 

[Zander]

It ain't about "balance", it's about the fact that the guys way over to the right have some ideas I find just as repulsive as the guys way over on the left.

It helps to think of the political spectrum as a circle and not a straight line.

I still get a kick out of hearing that fascism is "right-wing". That's what political science professors pandered in the 70's to help excuse their life-long affairs with socialism.

Fascism ain't "right-wing" and never has been...in this country, it's allied with socialism in every city-state and state burdened with the thieves and grave-robbers of the left.

Choose your arc on the circle, but beware of that segment of 10 degrees or so where "left" meets "right", where upChuck Schumer and Hilldebeast meet Tom Ridge and John Magaw. <involuntary shudder>

 

[Art Eatman]

Sorry, but I'm ignorant as to the Deardorff reference.

One thing I've noticed about the Third Party thing is that they try to start at the top. The result is that they work their way down. Ross Perot is a classic example; where is his party-effort, today?

The Republicans used to do this in Texas. There would be some well-to-do fella who'd have a heckuva radio campaign, but he was rarely previously ever heard of. No grassroots effort on the part of the party. This changed during the 1970s, and now the state is Republican controlled.

Right now, the Greens seem to be achieving the most gains. They've earned a permanent spot on some ballots in some voting jurisdictions. And it's all through grassroots hard work.

Could be that Libertarians are much like gunowners and ranchers. Just too independent, and too busy trying to make a living, to gather up in large wads to organize and create voting strength.

The election laws militate against third party efforts in many states, but not all. I don't know about "cahoots", but there is a pretty good argument about third and fourth parties.

Italy is one of the worst-case examples. I think they have some 30 different political parties there. The problem, really, is simple: With multiple parties, it takes a coalition to get elected. Coalitions can win elections, but they cannot govern. The competing interests soon diverge, and you wind up with total gridlock. Of course, some say that's a Good Thing, and I don't know as I disagree.

In this country, the Democratic party is made up of coalitions, mostly victim groups. You see the results; they can only agree that they hate Republicans and other than that, raise taxes for more social programs...

Art

 

[Dutchy7]

Art Eatman

M. Deardorff is my son-in-law. He owns a piece of property close to the Terlingua store. Thought you might know him.

 

[Beer for my Horses]

I don't expect I'll run into many of y'all tomorrow at the big anti-war rally in SF

No, I'm still trying to find a Pro-War rally to go to.

 

[Tamara]

Beer for my Horses,

Those seem mostly to be going on in the House and Senate chambers...

 

[BigG]

Stick a fork in it. This thread's done.

 

[Beer for my Horses]

Stick a fork in it. This thread's done.

This "thread" will never be "done."

 

[Art Eatman]

Dutchy7, Terlingua is mostly first-name country. Anyhow, I'll hunt him up next time I get home.

Art

 

[Dutchy7]

Art, His first name is Michael. Doesn't live there, visits several times a year to check on his stuff. Didn't mean to drag this out, know it's wrong thread, sorry. Anyhow, good to meet you, kinda.
Vic

 

[JerryN]

Tamara, my apoligies for sounding offensive, which was certainly not intended. I wasn't implying anything toward you personally.

I don't advocate middle of the road political fence sitting. I do advocate voting conservative, republican tickets so that the political direction of this country moves away from the left before its too late to do anything about it.

Libertarian votes have largely been protest votes and as such, are ineffective in moving us away from the left. The only avenue remaining is to vote Republican until we get to a point where Libertarian votes will mean something.

Thats my point.

 

[Marko Kloos]

The two-party system is slowly killing this Republic, and I disagree with the notion that we can have any effect on the direction of the juggernaut State by voting for the lesser evil. Now we get to choose our mugger every four years, and that supposedly implies tacit consent to everything that gets passed for the subsequent four years. I will not give my consent to either of these freedom-trampling camps by voting for them.

Both Democrats and Republicans are equally eager to incinerate the Bill of Rights, and voting for one just because they hold the Zippo to an Amendment which is not a priority to you is an insult to the Constitution and an active step against freedom. With either party at the helm, we're moving away from a free society, and giving either of them another shot at the helm is not going to reverse the course.

If there's a libertarian on the ticket, I will vote my conscience. If the only candidates in the race are Republicans or Democrats, I will not vote. Don't tell me for one second that it is my fault when a Democrat gets elected because the Republican didn't get my vote. That's like saying the mugging was my fault because I failed to "choose" the mugger who promised to take only half the contents of my billfold, and therefore the other mugger helped himself to all my money. A chice between two enemies of freedom is no choice at all, and there are no mitigating points for tacit support of gun ownership on the part of the candidate. I will *not* give consent, implied or otherwise, to the rule of another group of populist weasels who leave me alone for now because they're busy trampling on my neighbors.

"Vote for the guy who will let you keep some of your favorite right" is not a strategy for the restoration of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Beer for my Horses]

The two-party system is slowly killing this Republic

As Winston might say: the two-party system is the worst type of democratic government, except for all the other types.

This Republic has thrived because of the two-party system. True, it leaves those on the fringe feeling they have no voice, but it guarantees that the vast majority of Americans feel represented to some degreee. I take issue with many positions staked out by Republicans, but on balance I choose to vote Republican because they best represent my political beliefs. I agree with many libertarian views, but the fact is that the Libertarian Party is not a serious political party; not yet anyway. I've seen too many Libertarian candidates who are whack jobs. To become a serious party, the Libertarians would need to establish a strong base and to do that requires a set of political values that a large segment of the population believes in. The Libertarian party may share the beliefs of conservatives on the Second Amendment, the size of government, taxes, and social spending, BUT they share the beliefs of modern liberals on many social issues, advocate legalizing drugs, and favor an isolationist view for foreign policy. Most Americans don't relate to that type of mixture, and probably never will. There are no political fault lines or demographics to suggest that a significant portion of the voting public will ever warm up to the type of mix that Libertarians propose.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

As Winston might say: the two-party system is the worst type of democratic government, except for all the other types.

I suspect Churchill would have preferred the system he worked so well in, which is not at all "two-party" and every bit as democratic (once they took the hereditary office from the Lords) as ours.