Which party?
 

So let's say someone is tired of being irrelevant during primary season. Politically he sits near where North-East Republicans did maybe 20 years ago. He dislikes government debt and ruinous wars, believes in the social contract, but also the importance of work and private property. He understands that public private cooperation is a minefield of corruption with the potential to reduce expenditures. He believes in small business and growing the middle-class. He believes that a wall must be rebuilt between religion an state. Which party could be pulled in those directions during primary elections?

If you don't feel the pull of either party, I'd look for the party that seems the least organized, where your vote would have the greatest sway. Around here, that's the Ds. The Rs seem to choose their candidates behind closed doors, but the Ds here are slightly more open to voter input. But your mileage will almost certainly vary where you are.

Both parties are to the right of what you describe, but the Democrats are less so, and moving rightward slower.

I think it was an NPR piece talking about Bernie Sanders. I always expect Bernie's views to be far to the right of mine but he keeps standing up for small farmers and against data collection etc... I guess he's a thoughtful progressive which is an attribute I wouldn't give the current Dem leadership.

My district is solid red. We had a Dem Rep a few years ago but the national leadership turned on him, I think because of his pragmatic position on the show case issue of gun control. Both parties burn me up when it comes to their "differences." They want to keep abortion and guns as get them out to the polls issues instead of working the edges of the problem. If I registered GOP my primary vote could go to a moderate on the off chance one runs, but my district and let's face it, my world is full of tea party nutters. I can't spend a lot of time with folks that would turn the United States into a mid-East style theocracy in the name of liberty.

Recently, imo, Republicans right on the right, and govern more right, while Democrats run on the left, and govern more centrist.

Freudian slip?

I'm in the same boat, Griff. The republicans have had a stranglehold on this county forever. Kids are taught from a young age if they don't register Republican they will embarrass their parents and kill any chance of getting a government job, or anyone at the courthouse/county seat to listen to their problems.

Quite often looking at the ballot for things like school board or a minor office, you see the same name under both parties. WTF? Democrats are way too underfunded to get their position on anything even heard. Want to help that outsider run for office, put a democrat's sign in your yard? It would be a shame if your cousin with the three crippled children and widowed mother, lost his county job. But after all, dynasties must be protected.

My father, a registered Democrat, couldn't get into Fair Acres. I wonder why.:rolleyes:

I don't want to sound biased, but admit it may exist as I have no problem admitting I am a liberal and tend to vote Democratic.

I feel like the Democratic Party, as shitty as they can be, have a bigger tent. There is more room for dissension and varied views while sticking with core values. The GOP is split badly...you have the establishment in DC, some libertarian types, the social conservatives and the Tea Partiers.

And this is what bothers me more: those two parties work together to kill the independent and third party votes, even though they could use them. I know I used to argue that third parties and independents could cause chaos...but the current two-party system has created gridlock. I'm all for trying something different. And I'm not going to just give the Democratic Party my votes. Not that I have always done that...I have supported Republicans that I think are better candidates (for example, Sam Katz against John Street in the Philly Mayor election several years ago). But I'm not going to just go with the Democrats because they are the lesser of two evils...I decided that after the 2012 election.

I'm probably riled up from reading Jim Hightower and liberal/progressive books recently, but I believe that we can all work together more and win together more. I don't need to agree with you on every single thing...but I think we can find common ground and compromises that make things good for both of us.

Um... lemme see...ah... hmm... he didn't say please?
But seriously, that shit goes on constantly, it's woven into the fabric of reality around here. :mad:

Always vote the current party out of power. Make sure to participate in the non-incumbent primary process so you have a say in who win.

There are 2 parties in this country, the professional rulers and the rest of us.

Hi JB. Nice to see you.

Guys, I find so many of my views are moving towards the Libertarians, while others border on fascism. Is it possible to be a Fascist Libertarian? I do know I am not very fond of big government and would like to see more issues handled at the state or local level.

It is very possible to be a fascist Libertarian ("Freedom uber alles") although they would tell you it's merely the good fight.

No, Sarge, you're probably headed towards some variety -- I'm told there are several, but most of them are off my personal radar -- of Right-Libertarian. Nothing whatever to do with fascism, a statist belief-system, regardless of Undertoad, who really should know better.

Hey, I'm Right-Libertarian myself.

There are three main streams of Libertarian philosophy: Right Libertarian (guns, gold, God, and let's repeal stuff and maybe leave the UN -- or export it, because that would do the job too -- no foreign entanglements), Left Libertarian (legal pot, and let's repeal stuff), and Anarcho-Libertarian (if the state is a necessary evil it is still an evil, and no good can possibly come of it; let's repeal LOTS of stuff).

The thing all three have in common is various degrees of reducing the problems within the governing State by reducing the State, period. Certainly less governing apparatus tends to reduce government expenditures on it, and offers less of a chance, let alone temptation, for political parties to vote the Treasury to themselves and their more supportive friends, which is the besetting sin of any democracy: trouble happens any time a bunch of guys figure out they might vote themselves the treasury.

The minimalist government -- not only is that government best which governs least, that government is best that needs to govern least -- that libertarianism prizes is the complete antithesis of the socialist philosophy, which runs to governing very much. This squeezes liberty and innovation down, and without these we cannot live a human life -- and do not gain anything worth having by trading these away.

So I vote against the Socialist Democrats a lot.

The Tea Party folks seem to embody that right libertarian or fascist libertarian viewpoint. Ironically, for people calling themselves libertarian, they are pretty heavy on theocracy and pretty into government enforced morality.

Still looking for a Party...

There's always the Canary Party, Griff. More of a lobby group, but at least it has the word Party in it! :)

Fascist is not Right. Fascist is Left. However much the Left claims Fascist is Right, that doesn't make it so. Left is Big Government, Fascist is Big Government. Left implicitly believes in subsuming the Individual to the State, Fascist the very same, and most examples explicitly at that. Communists (the left wing) may be brainwash-converted to Fascism (as the right wing) and then back, in a span of a few months. And act just the same either condition.

So, you know the next guy who tries to tell you a right-libertarian is a fascist-libertarian, you know he's a liar, a son of a bitch and grandchild of two more, and not to be trusted with custody of a dime. He's battening on your ignorance, and you ought never to give him something to batten on.

As Plato showed all ideas we have are just shadows of reality. This presents real difficulty when we realize that our language is imperfect. I have a one-time libertarian friend who fell into the Tea Party warren. He is comfortable there because of his extreme right wing position in the RC Church. What he doesn't get is that his religiosity is intolerant of others beliefs. It is also clear to me that if the partiers had their way, they'd likely turn on the Catholics in their midst first.

Right now, the progressive left seem to be the only people standing up to corporatism in defense of individuals. This is an unnatural stance for leftists but when libertarians fail to defend the individual from the state sponsored groups (corporations) and government over-reach like common core we are in uncharted territory.

To recruit the naive into extremism, extremist leaders classify everythng in terms of left and right. No left and right exists except in rhetoric. Only extremists and moderates exist. But if that reality is learned, then extremists lose power that recruits the naive and emotional. 'Them' verses 'us'. 'Good' verses 'evil'. 'Black man' verses 'white man'. 'Evil criminal' veses 'god's choosen gun owner'. This rhetoric successfully recruits extremists. Extremists know immediately; need not first learn facts, numbers, and the lessons from history.

Extremists know truth because sound bytes (evil big government, hate justified by personal rights, socialism is same as communism, evil unions, evil jihadists who ironically are brainwashed like evangelicals, etc) prove it. Other libertarians actually see things in terms or number, reasons why, and other concepts only found among the educated. But the more easily brainwashed know libertarian concepts because sound bytes and Rush Limbaught have told them what to believe.

Bottom line returns to one common factor. Extremists are told what to think by their political handlers. What is left may now be right. Then wait to be told details that justify that conclusion. Moderates first learn facts and numbers before making a conclusion.

Griff examples a brainwashed religious extremist. Does he first learn that pedophilia was openly protected by that church? Of the contempt that institution has for women as second class citizens and inferior clerics? In extremist rhetoric, one ignores such 'smoking guns' or recites rhetoric to defuse reality.

Easily recruited extremists are adults who think like children. They 'feel' it is true which proves it is true. Feeling alone is sufficient to know. Thinking through a concept using something more than a soundbyte is unnecessary. Extremists have a conclusion. Then look for facts to justify it.

Feeling does not come from the part of a brain that adults think with. That takes control after the age of 16. Adults learn facts BEFORE obtaining a conclusion. Adults learn that feelings prove nothing. One must think like an adult to become a moderate.

For example, do you plug your computer into a surge protector power strip? Then extremist rhetoric has successfully recruited you. Did you first learn what that power strip does? Or ignore its numbers to blindly know that protector and protection sound alike; therefore must be same? Recruiting one into extremism is that easy.

A power strip protector adjacent to a computer does not protect from destructive surges, can compromise existing protection inside that computer, and sometimes creates house fires. Did you learn these concepts as a moderate? Or just blindly believe extremists rhetoric that feels any protector must be protection? A moderate first learns these layman simple facts. An extremist recommends that protector only because rhetoric (directed only at feelings of a child) is sufficient to prove it necessary.

A moderate would first learn facts that demonstrate why that Monster product is best called a scam.

Why do so many kids take up smoking? Without an operational pre-frontal cortex, children know smoking is good only because they feel. Thinking logically like an adult is not yet possible. Unfortunately, many adults still think like children creating a mass who can easliy be manipulated using 'left verses right' stupidity.

Tw, dear boy, long experience of you has taught me not to take you seriously in Politics. Now if you take you seriously here, then I think less of your thinking than I just had. Elaborated pseudosophistication doesn't cut much ice with me.

Extremism is alive and well.

And you have it, and in spades. I know it, Undertoad knows it, Griff knows it, everybody knows it or can find it out. Don't try to kid anyone other than yourself. You do seem unable to stop doing that. Yes, I believe you are a crank. For the etymology of this usage, look up the German krank.

Blowhardiness is alive and well, too, apparently.

Do you believe in the White Whale?

Is there a Party for that?

My whale wants to party all the time, party all the time, party all the ti-ime.

Once again it all comes back to Whale Penis. Can a church be a party?

I have good breath control and deliver the proper flow; not too hard, not too soft. But, inasmuch as I am on the smart side of things, I do it heartily. The pretentions of the Left are valuable only to the shallow, unrespectable thinker. I know them for the Fascist toxins they are, and advise you to reject them wholly also, that you may prosper the better, on the libertarian side.