32 responses so far ↓

• 1 Libertarian Joseph // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:04 am

  well, that sucks

• 2 Donald Raymond Lake // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  The Dems and GOP are two sides of the ‘establishment’ cabal………..

• 3 Erik Geib // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:34 pm

  “The country is a one-party country. Half of it is called Republican and half is called Democrat. It doesn’t make any difference. All the really good ideas belong to the Libertarians.” – Hugh Downs

• 4 Donald Raymond Lake // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:49 pm

  Erik: having grown up in GOP dominated Kansas and Dem dominated ‘bell weather’ Missouri ['right wingers are near terrorists........'], I barely knew that alternative organizations existed. The schools, government and media are WAY FAR complicit in this ‘information curtain’……….

  Having said that, alternative folks are their own worst enemies, ESPECIALLY the Libs. One missed opportunity after an other, almost like there is a platoon of agents provocateur — like the state [California] and national Reform/ Deform Party!

  The Dems and GOP are just laughing and laughing at us!

• 5 Catholic Trotskyist // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:14 am

  Yes, I laugh and laugh and laugh as third parties lose and lose, refusing to acknowledge the differences between Dems and Reps.
  I’m listening to Chris Matthews on Countdown right now, he says he is suspicious of Arlen Spector who just dealt the third party movement another blow by switching parties, he says in order to join a party, you have to “eat it, eat everything”, I’m not like that, I’m a pro-life Democrat, but I still support Obama, although in response I have formed my own party, the Catholic Trotskyist Party, amen.

• 6 a different paul // Apr 29, 2009 at 6:37 am

  Trotskyist – I saw that and was a little surprised how harsh Matthews was toward Spector. Guess there’s some history there.

• 7 NewFederalist // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:20 am

  Matthews was considering running against Specter but decided against it. I guess he might feel like he should have announced! If Toomey were to beat Specter in the GOP primary (which even Specter figured would happen) then Matthews would have had a pretty good shot in the fall. I didn’t see it but my guess is Matthews is just a little pissed at himself for not seeing this coming.

• 8 a different paul // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:34 am

  Oh, gotcha, NewFederalist. I did catch on last night’s show how Matthews was once considering a run, but didn’t realize it was consideration for this next time around. That makes more sense now.

• 9 Green Ferret // Apr 30, 2009 at 6:24 am

  How does Arlen Spector switching from Republican to Democrat demonstrate the difference between those parties?

• 10 a different paul // Apr 30, 2009 at 9:03 am

  I’m not sure it does, Green Ferret. But why do you ask? I doubt if making that point had anything to do with Specter’s motivation.

• 11 libertariangirl // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:55 am

  How does the Constitution Party beat us at anything?
  friggin depressing

• 12 Erik Geib // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:57 am

  On the upside, I’d rather disgruntled Republicans join the CP than the LP. I don’t want any social conservatives in the LP.

• 13 Susan Hogarth // Apr 30, 2009 at 12:03 pm

  On the upside, I’d rather disgruntled Republicans join the CP than the LP. I don’t want any social conservatives in the LP.

  I’d like to see our primary recruiting efforts aimed at identifying and activating *libertarians*. On the other hand, I am delighted to welcome ’social conservatives’ into the LP – as long as they agree that such conservatism must be voluntary. A surprising number actually do!

• 14 robert capozzi // Apr 30, 2009 at 12:37 pm

  susan, you make an excellent distinction.

  I am curious what you mean by identifying and activating Ls. Do you mean “‘Ls” or “L leaners”?

  I say this because you are on record stating that even TAAALists are not “L” in your book. Near as I can tell, only the strictest adherence to NAP qualifies as “true” Ls, in your judgment. Is it your sense that there are significant numbers of strict NAP adherents (including 100% compliance to the plumb line) out there waiting to be IDed and activated?

• 15 Erik Geib // Apr 30, 2009 at 12:37 pm

  Wow. I don’t disagree with what you just said, but it’s amazing to see you make an issue of what I said. I don’t recall saying I didn’t want to do the things you just advocated.

  Since it’s clear that semantics is at least the partial foundation of your logic in doing so, I’d like to point out that to *me*, a social conservative is one who wants to use government (social engineer) to reflect their values upon the populace. I use this term in the political sense. If one is ‘personally’ ‘conservative,’ but recognizes that the government shouldn’t be used to advance this agenda, then yes, they could be identified as a libertarian, so long as they also advocate other libertarian positions such as free market principles, opposition to war, etc.

• 16 libertariangirl // Apr 30, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  RC__I am curious what you mean by identifying and activating Ls. Do you mean “‘Ls” or “L leaners”?

  I know my name isnt Susan but i think its clear what she meant because the word libertarian isnt capitalized.

• 17 Green Ferret // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:32 pm

  a different paul: I was responding to Catholic Trotskyist: “I laugh and laugh and laugh as third parties lose and lose, refusing to acknowledge the differences between Dems and Reps.
  I’m listening to Chris Matthews on Countdown right now, he says he is suspicious of Arlen Spector who just dealt the third party movement another blow by switching parties…”

  My question for CT is: how does Arlen Spector switching parties demonstrate the ‘differences between Dems and Reps’? Doesn’t the fact that Spector can fit plausibly into either party further reinforce that they are two sides of the same coin?

• 18 libertariangirl // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  good point Green Ferret

• 19 a different paul // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  Oh I see Green Ferret. I guess the public answer Specter would give is he doesn’t fit plausibly into the Republican Party anymore. Given the recent track record, a lot of folks from either party might agree.

  Of course the Republicans would say he changed, and the Specter-specific supporters as well as many Democrats would say the GOP changed.

  However, I assume – and assume most others assume – that it was a tactical move to give Specter better odds of re-election. I think he even more or less acknowledged that. It looked like he could still easily win the general election as a Republican, but seemed to have an uphill fight against a primary challenger.

• 20 robert capozzi // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm

  lg, your take is plausible, and I’ll let Susan explain it fully, but in my experience, Susan and some Ls will ONLY use the word “libertarian” (small or big L) to denote 100% plumbline, doctrinal, NAP (theory and application), adherents.

  I’ve been attempting to get more clarity from Susan on her definitions and rationale for QUITE some time, thus far for naught.

  Perhaps she’ll share her answer with the assembled this time.

• 21 a different paul // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:55 pm

  As for whether they are two sides of the same coin, the answer depends on your perspective.

  If you’re looking at the U.S. from far away, it probably seems all the same. When you live in the U.S., you’re more aware of regional differences, etc. I suspect that’s what is beyond your implication they are two sides of the same coin.

  From inside the two parties, they clearly aren’t the same. From as far away as many LPers seem to be, they are.

• 22 a different paul // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:56 pm

  Oops, change ‘beyond’ to ‘behind’ in the previous… sometimes my fingers think for themselves.

• 23 robert capozzi // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:05 pm

  on the implications of Spector, I suspect that Matthews is making a VERY different point. While Ls like to say that R and Ds are “the same,” that’s a function of us being far from the mainstream. IN the mainstream, the schism between moderate and conservative Rs is getting nasty. This is largely an inside the Beltway phenomenon, but the RINOs are feeling homeless these days. Hence, loose talk of a centrist R party has been mounting.

• 24 Erik Geib // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:17 pm

  So what would a ‘centrist R’ party look like? A bunch of pro-war cold warriors who otherwise act like Democrats (think Rockefeller, Nixon, etc.)? This could be an interesting split. The 3 largest constituencies of the GOP splintering… maybe the cold warriors to the centrists, social conservatives to the CP, and fiscal conservatives to the LP? This could also re-align the DNC, as it would likely lose a lot of members to the new ‘centrist’ GOP.

  And before any libertarians on this thread who think the LP caters to the GOP too much get their panties in a bunch… I’m not saying what you’re likely to imply I’m saying. I think there are a lot of libertarian-minded voters who hide in GOP ranks and have been brainwashed into social conservatism and cold warriorism as a part of the coalition-building that has kept the GOP together. If you ask them to vote their wallet first, many of them would gladly put the other issues aside. If they can’t, they could just stay in the ‘centrist’ GOP and cling to false promises of fiscal responsibility.

  That being said, I still think the greatest room for outreach is to the left (if we can just talk some sense into many of them about economics). If the GOP did split as I wish it would (above), I think this would also open the door for the vacuum created in the DNC (as I also said, above) to bolster LP ranks as well. Right now it is to my belief that far too many people identify as ‘Democrats’ because of their opposition to social conservatism or cold warriorism. If you remove those barriers and begin operation in a 5-party ( if the GP can outflank what’s left of the DNC to the left) system, the LP would be gain from both the left and right equally. The above scenario was speaking of GOP drain into the LP, but as I’ve stated, I think we’d get some DNC drain too.

  Oh, to dream a dream.

• 25 robert capozzi // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:49 pm

  eg, INSIDE the mainstream, the centrist Rs tend to be less hawkish than the conservatives. they are ALL hawkish, so this is a matter of emphasis. centrist Rs in tend to be more “liberal” on both social and economic issues.

  This is mostly inside the Beltway stuff, but I happen to believe we Ls *could* exploit the current situation for significant gains in the public square. Instead, we argue about the def. of an L, personal secession, and LNC machinations. There are a lot of disgusted Rs and independents is my sense, and some D voters who are not down with bank bailouts and so forth.

• 26 Erik Geib // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  The centrist Rs I was referring to were the cold warrior types, historically figures like Rockefeller, Nixon, etc. I agree that there are hawks intertwined in the social conservative and fiscal conservative camps, but I think they’d ultimately wind up with the centrist faction if it split along those lines, or be in the minority within the CP (or the CP would turn become pro-war by their influx, one or the other). I don’t know what the current centrists (‘RINOs’) records’ look like on war issues, but I assume they’re similar to ‘centrist’ Dems like Clinton, Kerry, etc. I’m aware that ‘centrist’ Rs are more “liberal” (lol) on social and economic issues, but I think if the GOP split along its 3 primary coalitions, these so-called “liberal” Republicans would likely have the most ‘hawks.’

  :p

  That being said, I agree entirely with your second paragraph.

• 27 Susan Hogarth // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  Wow. I don’t disagree with what you just said, but it’s amazing to see you make an issue of what I said. I don’t recall saying I didn’t want to do the things you just advocated.

  Peace, comrade. I wasn’t ‘making an issue’ so much as using what you said as a launch-point. Thanks for clarinfying your use of the word ‘conservative’.

• 28 robert capozzi // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:19 pm

  eg, I hear you, but RINOs aren’t Rockefeller Rs so much. My sense is that Spector, Snowe, Collins, Graham, Chafee, etc. are somewhat less hawkish than the “center” of the GOP political class. Someone like Gingrich is in the center of that merry band.

  There’s a BIG disconnect between the pols and their voters. Witness the Iraq War, which lost support pretty quickly after WMD weren’t found. My sense is that the support that remains comes mostly from social cons, since most voters are not neocons, which is largely a movement of elites, with a thin rank and file. Personally, I’d guess that the fiscal cons are our biggest potential constituency, but I suspect they don’t know what NAP is and probably like laws against kiddie porn production (as do I).

• 29 Erik Geib // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:41 pm

  When I say ‘centrist’ I meant mainstream ‘centrist,’ not Republican. To my knowledge, I didn’t hear much criticism of the war from Specter, Snowe, Collins, Graham, etc., much as I didn’t hear much criticism from Dems from the mainstream ‘center’ (at least not until it became politically viable [see: Clinton, Hillary]).

  As I’ve said, you could be well correct in your assertion that cold-warriorism permeates in all 3 factions of the GOP, but I’d argue that any of those three ideas (war hawking, social conservatism, fiscal conservatism) could do so in the other factions to some degree or another. For the sake of argument, let’s adjust the calibrations and say “liberal” republicans, “socially conservative” republicans, and “fiscally conservative” republicans, and acknowledge that hawking can occur in all 3. As I said, hawk-like stances would not be tolerated in the LP (hopefully), so ‘fiscally conservative’ hawks would likely find themselves deciding between the “liberal” republicans and the “socially conservative” ones (what, in a 5 party system, would be the CP).

  Foreign policy always tends to cloud the Nolan Chart, and it certainly is clouding this discussion as well – lol.

• 30 robert capozzi // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:31 pm

  eg, FP certainly does cloud things. Some Ls take things to extremes: from no intervention or preemptive acts ever to the coldest of Cold Warriors.

  Blank-slate exercises are grand, but inter-nation matters involving life and death issues are sometimes quite complicated.

  While I’m dovish, I did initially support the concept of the Afghanistan War. For some, that kicks me out of the L camp.

  Oh well…harboring masterminds of 9/11 seems like something that should be responded to.

  A one sentence bromide about “morality” is no substitute for judgment.

• 31 a different paul // Apr 30, 2009 at 10:20 pm

  Robert #28 – actually Specter is quite hawkish. For all the times he’s been a thorn to Republicans, I believe he fully supported the Iraq invasion – and for that matter I believe he fully supported Vietnam.

  I see three camps, with some intertwining.

  One is the pro-defense/pro-law and order folks. This includes Specter and McCain for that matter. This group may be the least influential now within the party because of Iraq fatigue.

  Another is the moral crusaders. Amazingly, Palin seems to be holding her authority here, though Canter is rising.

  A third is the fiscal conservatives. This is what’s left of the old country club Republicans in the Northeast. While this group is currently ‘in’ what with all the tea parties, its also the most antagonistic toward the moral crusaders and currently without a central leader. And that lack of identity means that many assume its identity is identical to Ron Paul supporters.

  There is a battle for the soul of the GOP playing out (and arguably there always is for the soul of every party). I do agree with some of the comments about the possibility of a split. The real danger I see is that the fiscal conservatives have had their expectations soaring in recent weeks. They have the ‘in’ issue. Suddenly its not terrorism or immigration or abortion – its federal deficits – their playing field.

  Those rising expectations are the danger, from the Republican perspective, because the fiscal conservatives are going to be awfully disappointed and bitter when the moral crusaders continue to dominate the party.

• 32 a different paul // Apr 30, 2009 at 10:31 pm

  By the way, I don’t see any of these factions breaking off and joining any of the existing third parties as a whole. Not with the way things are now.

  Sorry guys, but all three could form their own splinter parties, and each of those three would be larger than all the third parties put together. Plus, I suppose within each faction is a mix of lacking awareness of third parties and, among those who are aware of them, a lack of respect for the political abilities of any of them.

  Remember, within each faction are political professionals who have run winning campaigns, and most of them aren’t going to suddenly place their political fortunes under the banner of any party that routinely performs in lower single digits.

Leave a Comment