I couldn’t disagree more. Obama and McCain are very similar on the issues. In fact, abortion is the only issue I can think of where they fundamentally disagree with each other. On every other issue, they’re either in total agreement, or they basically agree with each other, but just quibble over the details.

“America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t to-day be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.”

It is not America’s job to protect foreigners from themselves, nor is it to extract the fruits of my labor to pay Vic as a hired killer for the state.

And the argument that isolating ourselves will solve the problem is not based out of historical fact. Last time we did that, fascism rolled across Europe.

The Russians would’ve had to leave eventually from simmering discontent and their own economic collapse. We blew truckloads of taxpayer’s money just to create more chaos in Afghanistan, when the original problem would’ve resolved itself.

Either way, the viewpoint and support of Afghanistan as a military campaign itself is within the mainstream of society.

The platform Ross cited of “strong national defense” is accurate in that they do not shun any and all uses of the military as other groups might believe. Again, most Americans can justify using force when absolutely necessary (even Jimmy Carter attempted to use force on the failed rescue mission).

The military views of the Whigs is debatable, but I think they have many other qualities that appeals to your average mainstream voter.

In the end, I agree with Ross that other party leaders can learn something if they can get beyond themselves.

Lebowitz saying that the Whigs stood for a “strong national defense” also reinforced that idea.

“While some unfamiliar with military culture may stereotype soldiers as mindless conservative grunts, I will vehemently counter that some of my most enlightening and engaging political discussions have been among soldiers. One such discussion related to the history of the historic Whig Party.”

Of course “military culture” was one of the principle organizing features of European fasicist parties. They were largely made up of ex-soldiers form World War I disgusted with post-war liberal culture and determined to make a society based on martial values. Now I’m not saying the Modern Whigs are fascists, but there is a dangerous undercurrent of “I’m a professional soldier and you’re worthless without me,” attitude in some military personnel. I guess it shouldn’t be suprising as we’ve developed a military caste in this country that political organizations would spring up to represent it.

There’s a reason why non-major parties tend towards ideology, because ideology is what motivates people to work for the party and engage in the thankless tasks required to make the party work. This is why a lot of centrist non-major parties fail disappear. The Reform Party, or John Anderson’s party or the Bull Moosers may very well get more votes than the Libertarians, but Libertarians have survived a lot longer than they have.

If that environment sounds familiar, it should.