Reply to "The Midnight Ride of Ron Paul?"
28 Comments Published by tet on Thursday, October 4 at 12:00 PM.
I think that Americans in the next decade are going to have an opportunity to witness something that hasn't happened since 1856--the death of a political party. A century hence, the history downloads are going to be speaking of the old GOP in parallel with the Whigs and noting that in both cases, their end occurred before extreme social upheavals.
A lot is made of the theory that the Democratic Party is made up of a coalition of disparate groups united mainly by their own enlightened self-interest and a dislike of their opponents. What many pundits continue to ignore, however, is that the Republican Party is equally fractionated, and the glue holding those groups together is dissolving.
Let's do a bit of a history lesson. For the first three-quarters of the 20th Century, the Republican Party was a minority party, even when they had a member in the Oval Office. The power that those of you who are younger than 35 are familiar with is a relatively recent event.
The party of Lincoln during the first half of that century was populated almost exclusively by northerners. The scars of Republican carpetbagging in the Deep South put a lock on the offices there for the opposition. Most of the GOP members were "owners" of one kind or another--they owned the steel mills, the prosperous farms, the businesses, and the banks. Their bastion of strength was the Northeast, where families like the Rockefellers and the Bushes fiercely protected their wealth.
Internationally, the party was isolationist, opposing not only the two world wars, but also adventurism in general. The big exception to this was the Communists of the Soviet Union. Since the power in the party was in the hands of capitalists, those who executed them whenever they got the chance were natural blood enemies.
Now, it's easy to explain why the Republicans were a minority during these years. There are always a lot more workers than plant owners. There's only enough prosperity, even in boom times, to support a few multi-billionaire families. Having to write off an entire section of a nation year after year is never a winning proposition.
Enter Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The economics that they espoused ran contrary to the vast majority of thinkers at the time in that it theorized that government was not the solution to problems in the marketplace, but the root cause of many of them. This stood in opposition to the interests of the eastern capitalists, since many of them were dependent on the Cold War buildup of the military-industrial complex that was making them richer every day. A new kind of Republican began to gain influence--the Libertarian. These outlaws expanded the economic theories of the "Big Three" above to social questions. In 1964, they managed to get Barry Goldwater nominated to oppose LBJ. He lost the main election by a landslide, relegating that group to the wings for a while. In many ways, this was not a bad thing, since it allowed visionaries like Karl Hess (who wrote Barry's speeches) to mature in their thinking.
We entered the mid-1970s with the two sides sparring, but not having much to fight over. The party was in disarray from the scandals of their last elected President, Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan, the governor of California during the hippy years, served as the torch-bearer for the libertarian wing and Nelson Rockefeller did the same for the eastern capitalists. Reagan mounted a respectible challenge for the 1976 nomination, but the monied interests kept the incument, Jerry Ford as their candidate.
During the years of the Carter administration, though, there was a sea change in the South. Even though the president was from their section of the country, many many voters there felt betrayed by the Democratic Party on social issues. The late 70s was a heyday of progressive thought, with social experimentation occuring in areas such as women's roles in the family, gay rights and affirmative action in education and employment. Sex was casual and often, especially among the young, since there were few impediments to it--diseases were easily cured by antibiotics and pregnancies were either avoided by birth control or ended with abortion.
There was a large segment of social conservatives, however, who felt that progressive thought had gone way too far. Many of these were evangelicals from the southern states and the west. When the Republicans nominated Reagan in 1980, they attracted both the social conservatives (who became known as "Reagan Democrats,") and the Libertarians. In exchange for one of the monied class, George H. W. Bush, becoming Vice-President, the eastern capitalists agreed to support the ticket.
For the first time since the stock market crash of 1929, the Republican Party had managed to put together a winning combo. The Congress was still in the hands of the opposing party, but the wide-ranging influences of the three groups would often provide synergies which would allow bills to pass through Capitol Hill that would have failed under Nixon or Ford.
In the late 1980s, because of the success of the coalition, especially in the foreign policies that were considered to be responsible for the ending of the Warsaw Pact, the GOP attracted a new group of ex-Marxists and student radicals. The Neo-conservatives saw in the collapse of Marxist states and Fukuyama's End of History an opportunity for the birth of a new opportunity for a Wilsonian expansion of democracy to the world.
They were all thrown a curve by a new, rising force in the early 1990s, however, Nativist Populism. An unknown and eccentric millionaire, Ross Perot, appealed to these new sentiments in the American people and managed to divert enough votes away from the Republican candidate to get Bill Clinton elected. However, two years later, the Republicans showed enough power to take control of Congress for the first time since Harry Truman. This control would last a full decade, almost to the present day.
Ok, so much for history. Now, let's discuss the present state of affairs and see how it is perceived by each of the four members of the GOP coalition:
Neo-conservatives--The Iraq War has not been as easy as they thought it was going to be. For the most part, the members of this group are not blaming flaws in their own Wilsonian theories, but on outside agencies like Iran. While the lesser candidates of the Democratic Party are loud in their criticism of the war, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has already stated that she is opposed to an immediate pull-out from Iraq and a continued presence in the country. In addition, Clinton's husband showed a great deal of ambition on the world stage by promoting democracy in Yugoslavia along the lines of neo-con theories. It is rumored that neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are already briefing Hillary regarding the situation in the war zone in the belief that she will win.
Social conservatives--There are three major issues in play with this group. First and foremost, there's abortion. No matter what any pundits say, this group absolutely will not vote for someone who is even perceived as soft on this issue. They will stay home or vote for an available third party. The second issue is "family and tradition." While this is most strongly exhibited by the call for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, it also causes this group to look closely at the past history of a candidate to determine the liklihood of their supporting legislation in this direction. Scandal after scandal within the GOP's members in Congress has also eroded any confidence that the social conservatives might have had in there being a difference between the two parties. The third is immigration. Since most of the social conservatives and evangelicals are Reagan Democrats, they are concentrated in southern states and the West. These states are closer to the Mexican border and therefore have been exposed to a larger influx of illegal immigrants. The Republican party has not shown much ambition whatsoever in ending the wave by enforcement and has extended the olive branch to the new, potential citizens in the last few months.
Libertarians--To a libertarian, there is no signficant difference between the Republicans and Democrats at the moment except the issue of abortion. Neither party is particularly interested in reducing the size of government, lowering taxes for all Americans and reducing the amount of foreign involvement, especially where money is concerned. The GOP has been more intrusive on individual rights with the Patriot Act than any Democrat has ever dreamed of being. The only candidate of either party that looks attractive to a Libertarian is Ron Paul.
The Capitalist Class--These guys are going to go for whoever is going to do them the most good. They don't have large numbers, but they have a great deal of money. The best way to tell who they're backing is to look at the rate at which candidates are collecting campaign contributions. The Republican congressional campaign financing in the past year has been so unsuccessful that they laid off their phone solicitors, so the party is doing very poorly on the grassroots level. The power of each individual capitalist these days, however, is so great financially, that the race on this level could shift back and forth at a moment's notice. The capitalists, however, are consistenly in favor of free-trade and would like a new, low-salaried working class in the country.
The situation we see, therefore, is one in which the four parts of the Republican coalition no longer have a common interest and in some cases are in direct opposition. The Libertarians see no real reason to vote for any candidate of either party. The social conservatives simply will not vote for Giuliani and have questionable support for any candidate except Ron Paul. The Neo-cons like Giuliani for his support of the war, but are very nervous about his stability long-term. All of the candidates have spoken about protectionism and are in favor of reducing immigration so the capitalists are shaking in their boots.
So, I think that the candidate next year will probably be Rudy. What I expect to happen, then, is this--there's going to be a third party in the election, promoted by the social conservatives. It might nominate Paul, or its candidate could be someone else like Dobson or one of the other evangelical leaders. This will draw enough votes away from the mainstream of the Republican party to create an election landslide for the Democrats that will put a veto-proof majority in Congress.
The rancor afterwards will make the dislike of Nader in 2000 look like a love-fest. The social conservatives will have already left. The libertarians, encouraged by the support for Paul, will work to merge with the Buchananite nativists to bring about a reduced government state. The GOP will find itself with only the remnant of the Eastern capitalists that didn't go over to Hillary and the Neo-cons.
...And then we lose the war in Iraq. The Neo-cons are eliminated--laughed out of town riding a rail. The end of history has not only not occurred, but we're stuck in the middle of a rather unpleasant chapter. What's left of the party is exactly where it was in 1960--a minority, dreaming of its halcyon days.
The funny thing about all this? Ron Paul, if the party got behind him, could draw in all of the voters of the party except for the Neo-cons. He's not going to come close this election, but watch closely. If he even gets close to putting up a floor fight, the neo-cons are going to sharpen their pitchforks. He is the only candidate with even a minor chance of beating Hillary in 2008 for all of the reasons that I have explained above.
And one, final note: Here's the best example of why Rudy will never win the Presidency of the United States and a salute to New York City in general, courtesty of The Onion (hat-tip to Vox.)
A Challenge for Al-Qaeda!
Tom
A lot is made of the theory that the Democratic Party is made up of a coalition of disparate groups united mainly by their own enlightened self-interest and a dislike of their opponents. What many pundits continue to ignore, however, is that the Republican Party is equally fractionated, and the glue holding those groups together is dissolving.
Let's do a bit of a history lesson. For the first three-quarters of the 20th Century, the Republican Party was a minority party, even when they had a member in the Oval Office. The power that those of you who are younger than 35 are familiar with is a relatively recent event.
The party of Lincoln during the first half of that century was populated almost exclusively by northerners. The scars of Republican carpetbagging in the Deep South put a lock on the offices there for the opposition. Most of the GOP members were "owners" of one kind or another--they owned the steel mills, the prosperous farms, the businesses, and the banks. Their bastion of strength was the Northeast, where families like the Rockefellers and the Bushes fiercely protected their wealth.
Internationally, the party was isolationist, opposing not only the two world wars, but also adventurism in general. The big exception to this was the Communists of the Soviet Union. Since the power in the party was in the hands of capitalists, those who executed them whenever they got the chance were natural blood enemies.
Now, it's easy to explain why the Republicans were a minority during these years. There are always a lot more workers than plant owners. There's only enough prosperity, even in boom times, to support a few multi-billionaire families. Having to write off an entire section of a nation year after year is never a winning proposition.
Enter Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The economics that they espoused ran contrary to the vast majority of thinkers at the time in that it theorized that government was not the solution to problems in the marketplace, but the root cause of many of them. This stood in opposition to the interests of the eastern capitalists, since many of them were dependent on the Cold War buildup of the military-industrial complex that was making them richer every day. A new kind of Republican began to gain influence--the Libertarian. These outlaws expanded the economic theories of the "Big Three" above to social questions. In 1964, they managed to get Barry Goldwater nominated to oppose LBJ. He lost the main election by a landslide, relegating that group to the wings for a while. In many ways, this was not a bad thing, since it allowed visionaries like Karl Hess (who wrote Barry's speeches) to mature in their thinking.
We entered the mid-1970s with the two sides sparring, but not having much to fight over. The party was in disarray from the scandals of their last elected President, Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan, the governor of California during the hippy years, served as the torch-bearer for the libertarian wing and Nelson Rockefeller did the same for the eastern capitalists. Reagan mounted a respectible challenge for the 1976 nomination, but the monied interests kept the incument, Jerry Ford as their candidate.
During the years of the Carter administration, though, there was a sea change in the South. Even though the president was from their section of the country, many many voters there felt betrayed by the Democratic Party on social issues. The late 70s was a heyday of progressive thought, with social experimentation occuring in areas such as women's roles in the family, gay rights and affirmative action in education and employment. Sex was casual and often, especially among the young, since there were few impediments to it--diseases were easily cured by antibiotics and pregnancies were either avoided by birth control or ended with abortion.
There was a large segment of social conservatives, however, who felt that progressive thought had gone way too far. Many of these were evangelicals from the southern states and the west. When the Republicans nominated Reagan in 1980, they attracted both the social conservatives (who became known as "Reagan Democrats,") and the Libertarians. In exchange for one of the monied class, George H. W. Bush, becoming Vice-President, the eastern capitalists agreed to support the ticket.
For the first time since the stock market crash of 1929, the Republican Party had managed to put together a winning combo. The Congress was still in the hands of the opposing party, but the wide-ranging influences of the three groups would often provide synergies which would allow bills to pass through Capitol Hill that would have failed under Nixon or Ford.
In the late 1980s, because of the success of the coalition, especially in the foreign policies that were considered to be responsible for the ending of the Warsaw Pact, the GOP attracted a new group of ex-Marxists and student radicals. The Neo-conservatives saw in the collapse of Marxist states and Fukuyama's End of History an opportunity for the birth of a new opportunity for a Wilsonian expansion of democracy to the world.
They were all thrown a curve by a new, rising force in the early 1990s, however, Nativist Populism. An unknown and eccentric millionaire, Ross Perot, appealed to these new sentiments in the American people and managed to divert enough votes away from the Republican candidate to get Bill Clinton elected. However, two years later, the Republicans showed enough power to take control of Congress for the first time since Harry Truman. This control would last a full decade, almost to the present day.
Ok, so much for history. Now, let's discuss the present state of affairs and see how it is perceived by each of the four members of the GOP coalition:
Neo-conservatives--The Iraq War has not been as easy as they thought it was going to be. For the most part, the members of this group are not blaming flaws in their own Wilsonian theories, but on outside agencies like Iran. While the lesser candidates of the Democratic Party are loud in their criticism of the war, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has already stated that she is opposed to an immediate pull-out from Iraq and a continued presence in the country. In addition, Clinton's husband showed a great deal of ambition on the world stage by promoting democracy in Yugoslavia along the lines of neo-con theories. It is rumored that neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are already briefing Hillary regarding the situation in the war zone in the belief that she will win.
Social conservatives--There are three major issues in play with this group. First and foremost, there's abortion. No matter what any pundits say, this group absolutely will not vote for someone who is even perceived as soft on this issue. They will stay home or vote for an available third party. The second issue is "family and tradition." While this is most strongly exhibited by the call for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, it also causes this group to look closely at the past history of a candidate to determine the liklihood of their supporting legislation in this direction. Scandal after scandal within the GOP's members in Congress has also eroded any confidence that the social conservatives might have had in there being a difference between the two parties. The third is immigration. Since most of the social conservatives and evangelicals are Reagan Democrats, they are concentrated in southern states and the West. These states are closer to the Mexican border and therefore have been exposed to a larger influx of illegal immigrants. The Republican party has not shown much ambition whatsoever in ending the wave by enforcement and has extended the olive branch to the new, potential citizens in the last few months.
Libertarians--To a libertarian, there is no signficant difference between the Republicans and Democrats at the moment except the issue of abortion. Neither party is particularly interested in reducing the size of government, lowering taxes for all Americans and reducing the amount of foreign involvement, especially where money is concerned. The GOP has been more intrusive on individual rights with the Patriot Act than any Democrat has ever dreamed of being. The only candidate of either party that looks attractive to a Libertarian is Ron Paul.
The Capitalist Class--These guys are going to go for whoever is going to do them the most good. They don't have large numbers, but they have a great deal of money. The best way to tell who they're backing is to look at the rate at which candidates are collecting campaign contributions. The Republican congressional campaign financing in the past year has been so unsuccessful that they laid off their phone solicitors, so the party is doing very poorly on the grassroots level. The power of each individual capitalist these days, however, is so great financially, that the race on this level could shift back and forth at a moment's notice. The capitalists, however, are consistenly in favor of free-trade and would like a new, low-salaried working class in the country.
The situation we see, therefore, is one in which the four parts of the Republican coalition no longer have a common interest and in some cases are in direct opposition. The Libertarians see no real reason to vote for any candidate of either party. The social conservatives simply will not vote for Giuliani and have questionable support for any candidate except Ron Paul. The Neo-cons like Giuliani for his support of the war, but are very nervous about his stability long-term. All of the candidates have spoken about protectionism and are in favor of reducing immigration so the capitalists are shaking in their boots.
So, I think that the candidate next year will probably be Rudy. What I expect to happen, then, is this--there's going to be a third party in the election, promoted by the social conservatives. It might nominate Paul, or its candidate could be someone else like Dobson or one of the other evangelical leaders. This will draw enough votes away from the mainstream of the Republican party to create an election landslide for the Democrats that will put a veto-proof majority in Congress.
The rancor afterwards will make the dislike of Nader in 2000 look like a love-fest. The social conservatives will have already left. The libertarians, encouraged by the support for Paul, will work to merge with the Buchananite nativists to bring about a reduced government state. The GOP will find itself with only the remnant of the Eastern capitalists that didn't go over to Hillary and the Neo-cons.
...And then we lose the war in Iraq. The Neo-cons are eliminated--laughed out of town riding a rail. The end of history has not only not occurred, but we're stuck in the middle of a rather unpleasant chapter. What's left of the party is exactly where it was in 1960--a minority, dreaming of its halcyon days.
The funny thing about all this? Ron Paul, if the party got behind him, could draw in all of the voters of the party except for the Neo-cons. He's not going to come close this election, but watch closely. If he even gets close to putting up a floor fight, the neo-cons are going to sharpen their pitchforks. He is the only candidate with even a minor chance of beating Hillary in 2008 for all of the reasons that I have explained above.
And one, final note: Here's the best example of why Rudy will never win the Presidency of the United States and a salute to New York City in general, courtesty of The Onion (hat-tip to Vox.)
A Challenge for Al-Qaeda!
Tom
Labels: future, libertarianism, politics, Tet
The Republican party will be fine. You don't need a complicated theory or history lesson to understand the underlying equilibrium in our political system. Indeed, Tom's history highlights the stability of the two-party system. The history of the two parties shows a constant shifting of political coalitions to gain advantage. If one party or coalition gains the upper-hand, it will create strong incentives for members of that coalition to defect to the other coalition for a better deal.
The classic example is when the Southern Democrats who were opposed to civil rights legislation left the Democratic Party en masse and made the Democratic Party what it is today.
Such defections are to be expected in the future, and the fortunes of the parties will continue to rise and fall with the times.
Allan, you're got valid points about the very recent past.
How would your theory bear out, though, if the people who left one or both of the parties felt that, on principle, their non-cooperation with either was more important in the short run than getting a "better deal" by joining the other party?
Is that not what has happened twice in America's history--once at the time of Andrew Jackson over the West and once right before the Civil War over states' rights and slavery?
In both cases, the end of one party and the birth of a new one occurred. Historically, it can be demonstrated that your equilibrium, when it is achieved, doesn't always include both of the original parties involved.
The Republican party is not going to be fine, and no amount of rationalization for its continued existance is going to help it--as a matter of fact, ultimately it will doom it, since the cracks in its coalition will not be repaired in time to save it.
I mean, seriously, Allan--do you really think the social conservatives are going to return to the Democratic party because it's going to win an election?
Tom
OK, so tet can bring us quality commentary. He can stay.
Ron Paul is 'Hope for America,' but the Republican establishment won't back him one bit.
For those of you with any real doubt left that I know what I am talking about, let me post this little snippet:
Rasmussen Reports
Please note that this went up on their site after I wrote my article this morning.
Oh, it just gets better and better.
Tom
tet,
Indeed, it is true that from time to time a new party forms and displaces a previous one. However, that such occurrences are rare and appear only to happen at times of extreme social and political difficulties makes me feel quite comfortable in predicting that the current parties will be with us for the foreseeable future. Of course, the parties will ebb and flow in their power, but that is an inherent part of the equilibrium that has lasted for over one hundred years.
A good illustration of the stability of the current environment is the following poster:
http://www.historyshots.com/Parties2/index.cfm
But to answer your question, "do [I] really think the social conservatives are going to return to the Democratic party because it's going to win an election?"
No, of course I don't. But I also don't see any indication of a broad exodus from the Republican party. I have read articles that suggest that some evangelicals might be interested in running a third-party candidate under the Constitution party. While that may, in fact, occur, I don't think it changes the fact that social conservatives and Republicans are still a very comfortable fit. So, while 2008 may be a tough election for the Republicans, it won't be the end of them--not by a long shot.
Allan, did you read the Rasmussen Report I posted above before you wrote your post?
If so, how do you explain their findings in light of your statements? Even 14% would be a hell of a lot of a reduction for Rudy.
If Paul is the 3rd-party candidate, it gets even more interesting--add in the number of people that would come over to vote for Paul on other issues and Hillary becomes a lock.
Tom
tet,
The Ramusssen Report is hardly a vindication of your thesis. If anything, it suggests that Giuliani is not such a strong candidate for the Republican nomination as he might appear. It most certainly does not show that the Republican party is in a long term decline.
Indeed, I wish it were so. Nothing would please me more than to have a viable, libertarian, third party. It is the sad fact of our time that the Republicans and Democrats are competing to be the most pro-government party. It appears that are choice is going to be between massive, expensive, and wasteful government health care or massive, expensive, and wasteful police and military. No to both, please.
Yet Ron Paul is hardly a savior. Even though I am sympathetic with him on several issues, on many others he is out in loony land. It is not clear to me why he wants to turn over the money presses to politicians or foreign governments (through the abolishment of the Federal Reserve), and at the same time wipe out free trade agreements because (horror of horrors) other countries expect us to abide by them.
That said, I was pleased to see that Paul pulled in a decent fund raising quarter. I think it will send a strong message to the other campaigns that us libertarian folk still exist.
Well, perhaps not. Time will tell. I am glad that you're at least willing to concede that the standard party line on Giuliani may be flawed.
I am very excited about the next year in politics. I've loved vindication in the past and it never gets old.
Tom
I love those who use theory to justify that the two-party equilibrium is perpetually stable. Unfortunately for the parties, however, they are guided by fallible men, not gods. The party system is just one institution in our society that is less than solid.
Ron Paul is the greatest candidate that will never get elected to the office.
Tell you what--I'll give you another little prediction for free....
When Congress convenes in early 2009, there will be no more than 39 Republican Senators.
Tom
Ah! I figured out why your equilibrium theory will no longer work, Allan!
The two-party power equilibrium will maintain itself if and only if there is enough difference between the two parties in aims and policies for a disaffected group to have a choice on where to go.
My contention is that to either a social conservative or libertarian, there is not a bit of difference between the policies espoused by Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
There's currently nowhere for a anti-abortion, anti-war, pro-religion, small-government citizen to go except for Dr. Paul.
Tom
"There's currently nowhere for a anti-abortion, anti-war, pro-religion, small-government citizen to go except for Dr. Paul."
Quick question. As a libertarian, wouldn't Ron Paul be in favor of abortion rights? Not that he supports it or wants the government to support it, but wouldn't he be opposed to using the power of the state to deny people abortions too?
He and I differ on that subject, Hanno. This is a big controversy within the libertarian community, as much as it is with the nation at large.
People like myself feel that the power over the life of the mother by the government is interference in an area that belongs instead to the church.
Other libertarians feel that the question of whether or not the fetus is a person has been answered well enough and that it is a person like its mother. Since one of the only legitimate purposes of government in their minds is to protect human life, then the government is justified in intervening in the case of abortion.
Dr. Paul falls into this latter group. I figure that any abortion laws would have little chance of passing while we were busily bringing the troops home, dismantling the rest of the government, and arranging for Vermont to leave the Union.
Besides, it's pretty hard to raid abortion clinics without FBI agents.
Tom
Tom,
I heard Charles Krauthammer say on Fox News that Rudy Giuliani has pledged to appoint conservative judges and that he thinks social conservatives would end up voting for him.
Do you think social conservatives would vote for a third party candidate, knowing that would allow Hillary to win? They know she isn't going to appoint conservative judges. It seems they risk losing everything they gained with the Roberts and Alito appointments.
Why must the Republican party die completely? Why not embrace a three or four party system?
Embracing a 3-4 party system would just make too much sense!
In a winner take all system characterized by single member districts from fixed geographic areas, third parties are unviable. Countries that do have strong third parties have either multi-member districts that elect the top X on the ballot or have at-large voting which allows third-party candidates to win by uniting like-minded people from across a wider geographic area.
Karen, these are really great questions. Let me answer them in turn.
The social conservatives voted for W and the Republican Party in general in the hope that they would implement social change. One way that would be done would be by appointing judges who would interpret the constitution as it was written.
The problem with that is the importance of precedents in law. After nearly 35 years, Roe v. Wade is in the position of being established, traditional law and therefore is much less likely to be challenged in a lower court, forcing a ruling by the SCOTUS. This drastically reduces the importance of judicial appointments.
[I'm an amateur--you lawyers out there, is this accurate and reasonable?]
What the SCs wanted, therefore, was movement on Constitutional Amendments to safeguard two-person heterosexual marriage and abolish abortion. This didn't occur, therefore they are feeling betrayed.
At the same time, the Republican Party in which they had invested their trust has shown itself to be full of criminals and perverts. Larry Craig, the latest to get into trouble, has decided at this point to endanger his senate seat for the party by refusing to step down.
The current crop of Republican candidates have shown no real interest in courting the SCs at all. A coalition of Social Conservatives held a debate in Florida last month and none of the top four Republican candidates bothered to show up for it.
Since in the minds of the Social Conservatives, there is no real difference between Rudy and Hillary, voting for either would be tanamount to sleeping with the Devil. If no other option is offered, they'll stay home on principle. Some of them may even vote for Hillary in hopes of bringing on the Apocalypse.
Kofi, Ryan, a multi-party system is a great idea. It forces coalitions and thereby reduces the amount of legislation and activity that government can accomplish, so it's bound to be a good thing.
However, until the states stop the "winner-take-all" situation in their delegates to the electoral college, the net effect of a third-party candidate is to ensure the election of a president from the main party that is most different from the third-party's philosophy.
It's counterproductive, in other words. An interesting point is that there is nothing requiring the "winner-take-all" method in the constitution--it's state law and custom.
Hanno, a third way of doing elections could be for each voter to have, say, six total votes and be able to allot them at will between the various parties (let's say I would give Paul's electors 3 votes, Rudy's 2 and Hillary's 1.)
The state would then allot the electoral votes proportionally to the percentage of votes received by each party's candidates.
Both of Hanno's suggestions reduce the power of party machines and thereby elected officials, so they're definitely a step in the right direction.
Tom
Inside the beltway libertarians dismiss Paul as a joke, and more of a caricature than a candidate. I've talked to scores of think tank folks who feel this way.
The beauty of libertarianism here and now, is it gives republicans a way to oppose our dipshit president, without being inconsistent ideologically. They can oppose his spending, and use that as a justification for opposing the war, and also speak against his intrusions on personal freedom, all while maintaining their identity. If a mainstream, "real" candidate, figured this approach out, they would be way ahead of the curve. I almost expected Newt to do so.
The republican party will not dissolve or be broken and fragmented, rather, its message will slowly evolve to be more in line w/ libertarians. It's hard to argue with "dont tax me so much, stop wasting my money, and leave me alone." No one trusts the government - check the almost historically low approval ratings for both parties. People want government to leave them alone.
This could present real problems for democrats, if the republicans can make the agenda about forcing democrats to justify their spending and policy priorities. My guess is that the GOP will make this transition in the next 8 years.
Another lesson to be learned is that while we enjoy the almost inevitable next 4-8 years of power, we have to avoid the kind of overreaching that got the republicans in trouble.
Augur, I'm going to be as kind as possible.
The people in the think tanks inside the Beltway were obsolete by the turn of the century. I'm sorry you hitched your wagon to a star that's going to turn out to be a reflection in a mud puddle of the real stars. Take a tour of "fly-over" country before it's too late. To paraphrase Uncle Joe Stalin, "How many electoral votes do think-tanks have?"
The pundits are going to be shocked, shocked, I say over the next year. Watch and learn from me.
By the end of Hillary's second term in 2016, she, and the Democratic Party will have overreached so badly that they will have, for all practical purposes ended the Republic, for good or for ill.
We might get one more President from the two current parties, but they're as useless as an IBM XT. Maybe we can get them a spot in the Smithsonian. I wonder how they'd look stuffed.
Tom
Tom -
In response to your Roe v. Wade thing, the issue is not that traditional precedents are overturned, its that the criteria that made Roe v. Wade so constitutionally poor to begin with has not changed. By this, I do not mean the whole "right to privacy" issue or whatever; Roe v. Wade was an advisory opinion. There was no conflict. It took three years for Roe to get to the SC...the kid was born, there is no conflict. I know the court tried to justify why they did what they di...I didn't buy it. I think it was convoluted. Roe is an advisory opinion which is unconstitutional. There is no fast track to the supreme court, and the odds of another case with comparable facts getting to the supreme court before the baby is born or is terminated is damn near impossible. All of these conservative justices are more than just their position on Roe; if they are strict constructionalists they are not going to want to rule on a Roe case because to do so would be unconstitutional. So I don't see Roe being overturned because of that.
Ok, Prescott, thanks. That explains a lot.
Augur, I'm sorry I got so bitchy. Those guys in the think tanks are the kind of Big L libertarians that we activists hold in utter contempt.
There's an entire group within the libertarian movement who believe that the way to make the changes that this country needs is to get libertarians elected to public office in the first place.
Those of us in the Technoptimistic, Radical Anarchist libertarian wing believe that the solution is not to get elected to the offices, but to abolish the offices.
My personal mentor, Karl Hess, was one of the latter, so I share his contempt for the inside-the-beltway types. He did his best work from his farm in West Virginia.
Unlike the Beltway back-slappers, you could go skinny-dipping in his office while drinking a beer or two.
Tom
Tom, you arrogant Lithuanian fig newton eater, you only responded to the first sentence, and you read a meaning into it that wasn't at all what I was getting at. The vanguard of libertarian thinkers see Paul as more of a cartoon character than a leader, this should matter, if for no other reason, this group moves the media, at least to some extent, moves middle America. Your posts on libertarianism would be more persuasive if they didn't include the political Bullwinkle that is Ron Paul.
There is certainly a disconnect between inside the beltway, and outside the beltway. That's why I limited my comment to the inside the beltway types, but he isn't important enough to them yet for them to bother trying to use their considerable influence on the media to convince the rest of america that Paul is a joke, bc for now, he's at least a joke that makes people think about the GOP taking a different direction.
I hitched my wagon inside the beltway, b/c it's a great place to learn from those with experience and perspective founded in practice rather than mere punditry. The pay isn't bad either. Plus I'm not even 30, I've got time to chance course.
I'll copy the part you didnt respond to below, there is too much money and influence in the GOP to keep it from being outright replaced, instead, it will be reformed from the inside.
"
The beauty of libertarianism here and now, is it gives republicans a way to oppose our dipshit president, without being inconsistent ideologically. They can oppose his spending, and use that as a justification for opposing the war, and also speak against his intrusions on personal freedom, all while maintaining their identity. If a mainstream, "real" candidate, figured this approach out, they would be way ahead of the curve. I almost expected Newt to do so.
The republican party will not dissolve or be broken and fragmented, rather, its message will slowly evolve to be more in line w/ libertarians. It's hard to argue with "dont tax me so much, stop wasting my money, and leave me alone." No one trusts the government - check the almost historically low approval ratings for both parties. People want government to leave them alone.
This could present real problems for democrats, if the republicans can make the agenda about forcing democrats to justify their spending and policy priorities. My guess is that the GOP will make this transition in the next 8 years."
I could see an abortion case getting to the court. Imagine a law that not only banned abortion but mandated some sort of punishment. A violator subject to punishment could appeal and the constitutionality of banning abortion would be on the table.
How much time did you actually spend with your personal mentor Karl Hess, Tom, come on...a little honesty please.
Hey, down boy. I apologized and explained the reasons for getting torqued about the inside-the-beltway types.
You're still not getting it, Augur. No matter what the think-tank boys have in their pipes, Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a possible chance to beating Hillary this year.
By parroting their line, you're settting yourself up to look as ridiculous as they will next year.
If (and I expect when) Paul begins showing his real strength in Mid-america, the beltway folks will attempt to use their media clout to discredit him and by doing so, will actively shatter the 4-part coalition that I so carefully described in my original article.
Your buds are actually the people who, through their ignorance, are going to destroy the Republican party.
The last three paragraphs of your comment are still irrelevant, Augur, because they involve gaining and using political power in Washington. My thesis here is that that entire way of thinking is obsolete. It doesn't matter whatsoever who gains power in Washington because in any future that's not a police state, they'll be out of a job in a generation or less.
In answer to the mentor question, I spent every evening for a month with him on two separate occasions (five years apart) here in CU when Hess was an artist-in-residence at Allen Hall. I also spent my summer vacations from the factory for three consecutive years at his place in West Virginia. We corresponded on a monthly basis, but unfortunately, when I got divorced from my first wife, I lost the letters.
I would consider this to be an accurate analogy--Me: Augur = Karl Hess: Me
Any other questions?
Tom
Kofi-
That is a fair assessment. Either they assess a fine, or maybe go after the doctors. I just meant that a case with COMPARABLE facts to Roe, I don't think will get to the Supreme Court. But, feasibly, with a little creativity, they could get to that case.
Although, a lot of times, lawyers lack some of this creativity. But thats just me.
Correction to my above post--the two occasions that Karl was at Allen Hall were more like nine years apart than five. I just realized that I was thrown off because I lost four or five years out of my memory when I was drunk.
Tom