Dear small government fans of CC

[Night Strike]

Sadly the reform you're talking about is not actually reform of government, but reform of an established political party, with a long history as members of the establishment. You should accept that the Tea Party, and indeed libertarian movements have been so thoroughly co-opted by the establishment that they really can't be seen as independent political movements anymore- they're vocal members of the Republican government.

Why should I accept your statements when they aren't true? The Tea Party people are still actively fighting for a smaller government at ALL levels of government (not just federal), so most of them were definitely NOT co-opted by the establishment. They may be operating in government under the name of being "Republicans", but they are working to make sure they do not govern like the Republicans of the prior decade. And we don't even have a Republican government at the federal level anyway, which makes it hard to govern from even a Republican viewpoint, muchless a Conservative viewpoint. That's why Romney needs to defeat Obama and have a large majority of Tea Party conservatives and libertarians in Congress to push responsible legislation to Romney's desk. There's no way Obama will sign a conservative piece of legislation, but Romney will.

[Symmetry]

Sadly the reform you're talking about is not actually reform of government, but reform of an established political party, with a long history as members of the establishment. You should accept that the Tea Party, and indeed libertarian movements have been so thoroughly co-opted by the establishment that they really can't be seen as independent political movements anymore- they're vocal members of the Republican government.

Why should I accept your statements when they aren't true? The Tea Party people are still actively fighting for a smaller government at ALL levels of government (not just federal), so most of them were definitely NOT co-opted by the establishment. They may be operating in government under the name of being "Republicans", but they are working to make sure they do not govern like the Republicans of the prior decade. And we don't even have a Republican government at the federal level anyway, which makes it hard to govern from even a Republican viewpoint, muchless a Conservative viewpoint. That's why Romney needs to defeat Obama and have a large majority of Tea Party conservatives and libertarians in Congress to push responsible legislation to Romney's desk. There's no way Obama will sign a conservative piece of legislation, but Romney will.

I've never asked you to accept my statements when they aren't true. I've asked you to take a step back from the propaganda you've clearly been fed and take a look around.

You've gotten so caught up in the propaganda of the Republican party in the US that I think you find it incomprehensible that anyone not fully indoctrinated could ever understand. Indeed, that your arguments are merely repetitions of doctrine or affirmations to the already faithful.

The point at which you realise how thoroughly you've been bought and sold will be when you carry the courage of your own convictions and cease to parrot lines from Fox News.

[Night Strike]

How can I parrot Fox News when it has been a while since I've watched Fox News? By the way, how are all conservative points considering parroting or not thinking for yourself but if you speak liberal points, you're considered an independent thinker? It's not propaganda to believe that our government is spending WAY too much money and must be reigned in. It's not propaganda to recognize that too many Republicans have been part of that problem and must also be replaced by fiscally responsible individuals.

[Symmetry]

"Small government fans" should be voting for libertarian Facebook pages.

I think they already do.

[Phatscotty]

you are comin at it all wrong Symmetry. So many facets you are unaware of. You remind me of this guy for some reason...


Ron Paul Republicans (very Libertarian) totally dominated the convention in my state, along with many other states. We control the shiznit now. We make the rules.

We rapes the Republican party of Minnesota, and further pave the way for more Libertarian minded candidates in the future.

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!

[isaiah40]

Most of the Tea Party representatives are NOT following the party line. It's why there was real debate over the debt ceiling and other perpetual governmental spending. Many of them are actually writing budgets and legislation that the establishment is balking at the same as the Democrats. That's precisely why we have to get MORE conservatives into the government, not less of them.

That is why we have to get more constitutionally minded, and voting representatives into office at all levels and get this country back to the foundation that made this country great!

[Phatscotty]

Look at the 2010 election results on a county level.



Grassroots

[BigBallinStalin]

[saxitoxin]

I think Symm and NS both have valid points. NS on the one hand, points out that third parties were intentionally crushed by joint action of the Democrats and Republicans when they kneecapped their competition in the Progressive Party and Silver Republican Party. The legal hurdles to succesfully running as a third party candidate in the US has resigned groups like the Libertarian Party (capital L) and Green Party to little more than book clubs.

Symmetry, however, notes that libertarians (lowercase L) are welcomed into the Republican Party because the realities of machine politics mean an endless succession of compromise and accomodation that leaves a watered down agenda.

The de facto requirement of affiliating with one of two (effectively) government sanctioned political parties as a pre-requisite for participation in the political process is the hallmark of an oligarchy. On the other hand, the US government - though clearly not democratic - is clearly one of the most enduringly stable. What should be more important in a nation with 8,000 nuclear weapons on a hair trigger - popular government or stable government? I am undecided.

Justin Amash seems like a bright, young fellow. Enthusiasm for what he can accomplish should be tempered by the fact that he is one of 500 legislators, instead of one of 1 executives. He also looks like he's 18.

[BigBallinStalin]

POPULAR GOVERNMENT! WOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

That can't be the only distinction though. The currently stable form, as you've described, is also the popular form because the voters are uninformed and lack the incentives to learn more. I don't see the trade-off between stable government and popular government. It's one and the same, currently.

You're also assuming that a Libertarian executive branch would be so unstable that for some reason we'd have to be concerned about the nuclear weapons because...? (sounds like good fiction!).

[saxitoxin]

BBS makes a good point (he FP'ed me so this is in reply to his first response).

I'd be thrilled if SYRZIA won next week's Greek elections. If their inexperienced young leader becomes PM it could be fun and maybe you'd see a bunch of reforms. If he runs the country into the dirt, oh well, it's a relatively insignificant country in southern Europe. No big loss. They'll have new elections, maybe a military coup or two, and eventually crawl back in 20 or 30 years.

If Greece had 8,000 hydrogen bombs, however, there wouldn't be as much room to try on a bunch of different shoes to see which you liked best. All citizens of all countries are stakeholders in the US government, versus other governments whose stakeholders are usually only the nation's citizens themselves. An institutionalized oligarchy may be the best way of ensuring obligations to all stakeholders are met.

[saxitoxin]

Also, I don't know much about him but I don't think Amash ever claimed he was a libertarian. Small government idealism is compatible with libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism, communism and many other ideologies. Amash seems to be a conservative displaying traits of greater ideological purity than his colleagues, but not a libertarian (lowercase L).

Speaking of the Libertarian Party itself, I'm curious why it's least active in states like New York with fusion voting systems where third parties can actually matter without actually electing anyone.

[LFAW]

As a citizen of the United Kingdom but as a keen follower of US politics let me share my two cents.

The choice in November is simple, either choose a an incumbent which got there through populist slogans, broken promises and a youthful outlook on the world, or alternatively they can vote for a businessman who's economic promises could not only stabilize the US economy but could also pave the way for economic recovery in other countries and institutions such as the EU.

As for the debate over Republicanism vs Conservatism and Libertarianism... It is evident that the Republican party is a broad party in terms of ideology and fundamental beliefs. I agree with Night Strike in that more Conservatives would be a good thing due to their small government mentality and thus allowing the small but strong government to be able to better run Foreign policy and International trade.

[saxitoxin]

That can't be the only distinction though. The currently stable form, as you've described, is also the popular form because the voters are uninformed and lack the incentives to learn more. I don't see the trade-off between stable government and popular government. It's one and the same, currently.

Yes, i guess I'll agree with that. In the (roughly paraphrased) words of Robert Heinlein, "Germany during WWII had a popular government. The German people decided, by inaction, the drawbacks of unseating the Nazis were greater than the benefits of keeping them."

You're also assuming that a Libertarian executive branch would be so unstable that for some reason we'd have to be concerned about the nuclear weapons because...? (sounds like good fiction!).

From my casual observations, pretty much no one with respectable credentials or qualifications is actually involved in a U.S. third party, aside from their presidential candidates, and not always them.

As I said, I think the New York system of fusion elections is the best compromise for third parties to work within the framework of the two government-run major parties as influence groups rather than candidate-focused parties (if it existed in more than a few states).