Libertarian Librarian

The Republicans brought the thumping upon themselves. If they had been a little more Coburn, and a little less Stevens, maybe they wouldn't have seemed so duplicitous.

And now they select Trent Lott as minority whip (which is a really bad title to go with Sen. Lott, considering his gaffe at Strom Thurmond's birthday party in 2002).

Secure the borders, cut the taxes, control the spending, and intelligently wage the War on Terror; if they do that, then they may have a shot to win back votes in 2008. Even if they are not the ones doing it, but are holding the Democrats’ feet to the fire so that it is accomplished through compromise, then they may redeem themselves.

We'll see what next year brings, but Howard Dean should just sit back, be quiet, and enjoy. The way it looks now, the Republican Party will do his job for him.
 

I agree with you 100% here, Mojo. Definitely need more Coburn and a lot less Stevens. Less Santorum, too (though he's gone, thank goodness).

Lott was a horrific choice. Perhaps the Republican's new party slogan should be "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another", since they clearly don't get it. Or how about, "We're even more clueless than the other guys?"

I'll tell you what though-- if the Republicans could do even two of your four things (preferably the last two), you list I'd be willing to vote for them again. If they actually did all four I would vote for them in an instant-- after I regained consciousness from fainting in shock.
 

Something else that I feel needs to be said, considering the recent elections: Congrats to the Democrats. I may not agree with their platforms, and I may be very concerned about what their expected policies may lead to, but the Democrats won the election. Once again, America will have a peaceful transfer of power. Contentious transfer? Maybe. But it was not a violent overthrow as one may see in other nations. This is what makes America great.

I'll still be biting my nails, I will be sending many letters to my elected officials, and I will be the loyal opposition; but the Democrats are in charge of the legislature, and it is the Legislative Branch of OUR government. I am an American first, and political affiliations and ideologies will always take a backseat to my national identity.
 

I've been thinking about what you said in your post regarding the beliefs of individuals, major party base or otherwise.

The "bases" are the extreme edges of the political spectrum who are VERY unlikely to waver from their believes and perspectives because they are too dearly held, and too tightly interwoven into the very fabric of the "bases" pysche. There's nothing wrong with that, I would place both tc and Mojo into the respective Dem and Repub bases, and they are both good people who are willing to listen to others and admit mistakes. But that does not change their core certainty that the other side has got it precisely backwards. [...]

Most people aren't there. Most people don't want to be there. And that's good for the country because compromise is VITAL to the country's well-being. [...]

If there is one viewpoint that really irks me from both party's bases, it is this: "If you aren't firmly Republican or Democratic, you are a wishy-washy dolt with no core beliefs."

I can see why you'd place me under the Republican banner, and I have no problem with that. I don't adhere to the entire Republican platform, but I tend to agree with the Republicans more than the Democrats. Actually, as of late, with Republican policies not really agreeing with their party platform, I have tended to disagree with the Democrats more than the Republicans.

I am disgruntled with the Republicans, and the only reason why I voted Republican during this election cycle is because I felt that the Republican Party had a better chance than any other political party to defeat the Democrats. I voted Republican to vote against the Democrats. I was concerned with the policies that a Democratic majority would enact, and that prospect seemed worse to me than the stupid policies that I knew that the Republicans would enact. Yep, I voted for the lesser of two evils.

I agree with you that most people may not have a strong tie to any one given political party, but they do have strong beliefs on various topics that they would be very unlikely to waver from. Take, for example, your position on gay marriage. You hold very strongly to your belief that amending the state constitution with a definition of marriage that currently exists in the statutes is writing discrimination into the state constitution. It's not very likely that you would waver from that position.

Your position on gay marriage would tend to put you in the same category on that issue as the majority of the Democratic base. Much like most Americans, though, I'm sure that if you went down the line, issue-by-issue, that you would match-up with the Democratic base on some issues, and the Republican base on other issues.

I don't think that that makes you a "wishy-washy dolt with no core beliefs." You have core beliefs, just no Democratic or Republican party affiliation. Your position to vote for the person who you believe will do the best job, or at the very least to vote the bums out (if they aren't amongst the people who will do the best job), and your many posts championing support for candidates from outside the Democratic or Republican parties, in my opinion, makes you idealistic. Idealistic isn't wishy-washy, and it often takes a lot of backbone to stick to one's principles.

Consider, though, the viewpoint that is espoused in the Chris Satullo piece that you linked to. Satullo suggests that if only that majority of Americans who are not a part of the Democratic and Republican core would just see the wisdom of the Centrists, then this country would be "freed from the stale thinking and papered-over hypocrisies of the Big Two." His viewpoint says to me that if I vote for the lesser evil from amongst the Democratic and Republican candidates, then I am just unable to see beyond the "phony construct" that the Big Two have created to muddle the message of the center. Worse, if I am voting for a Democratic or Republican candidate because I agree with their views or platform, then it isn't "out of insight, conviction or conscience" that I am casting my vote, but rather just my adherence to stale thinking. That viewpoint is not only irksome, but also condescending.

Like it or not, at this stage in American politics, the majority of all state and federal elections (and even most major metropolitan elections) will be won by either a Democrat or a Republican. Even though people such as Satullo may see the recent mid-terms as a win for "America's true majority party," the majority of the winning candidates were either Democrats or Republicans.

There will be times when a candidate for one of the two major parties holds a position that one finds so absolutely backwards that one will need to decide between voting for the other major party candidate in an attempt to keep the major party candidate that one disagrees with out of office, or voting for a candidate outside of the two major parties on principle while hoping that the rest of the electorate votes to keep that major party candidate that one disagrees with out of office.

When one adheres so strongly to such idealism and principle, even if doing so may help to create an outcome that would be contrary to some other of that individual's core beliefs, then it would appear that such an adherence would be just as dearly held, and just as tightly interwoven in the very fabric of that person's psyche, as are the beliefs and perspectives of the Democratic and Republican bases; the flip-side of the same coin, as it were.

Also, keep in mind that voting for the lesser of two evils is often a compromise on a personal level. In that situation you end up voting for a candidate in order to get as much of what you want as possible, not to get a representative for all of your core beliefs. While such a compromise may not be palatable, and while it is certainly not a strategy that we should all aspire to maintaining, it remains more effective in getting the outcome one wants (or avoiding the outcome one doesn't want) than voting to teach incumbents a lesson, voting to shake things up, or voting for a candidate outside of the two major parties.

You're right that moderation is a not a vice and that cooperation is not a sign of weakness. At the same time, however, it is not vice or weakness to choose a candidate who is most inline with your views, has a greater chance at winning, and who will be voice to moderate the power of the politicians who you disagree with. It's too bad if Satullo is correct in writing that "America's true majority party" won the mid-terms, because sadly for that majority party, the Democrats and Republicans will still be the ones defining policy.