...........
First is the following piece from Julia Gorin, a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com, entitled -Party On- Do Libertarians have more fun?...(ed.-answer:well hell yeah we do!!)
It's an interesting piece and although there is the usual generalization of what makes a libertarian, the points made are fundamentally accurate. And the final point which I will post some of is the one that makes the most sense: Libertarians are a good thing for our political climate today.
From the article-
Unlike the Green Party, which can be taken as a more specific and radical offshoot of the Democratic Party ("Democrat squared," as alternative publisher Olga Gardner Galvin describes it), the Libertarian Party offers a little of both major parties. The Libertarians' atheism, together with the hedonism-as-a-virtue outlook they share with Democrats, allows them to laugh with the left at the "Puritanism" of the right. But their ability to view and digest the right's good-sense policies without knee-jerk antagonism enables Libertarians to roll their eyes along with Republicans at the political correctness and do-goodism of the left's compassionate classes.
Politically, the Libertarian world isn't a bad place to be. Libertarians have more credibility with the left than Republicans do, even though their conservative side is callous compared with the charitable Christian right. And they have more credibility with the right than Democrats do, despite being more godless than the left. If Republicans and Democrats are the thesis and antithesis, Libertarians are a synthesis.
Even if this party never puts a candidate into the Oval Office, its ultimate purpose may be to help the two opposing major parties view each other through more sober lenses, and thus help the country arrive at a happy, if gay, marriage.
Read the whole thing, for it is good. I call myself a libertarian, but it is just a label, and there are things that the libertarian "party" and I disagree strongly about. The party itself gets too squishy when it comes to protecting the US, and wouldn't have voted to go after al-qaeda in Afghanistan had they been in power. In fact, the libertarian party would more likely build a wall bordering Canada and Mexico before projecting democracy across the globe. I feel as though the libertarian party isn't realistic enough yet to make a serious dent in today's political climate, but this could change.
It may change sooner than later because one thing that most people of the "independent" strain agree with is that government needs to be less, not more intrusive in today's society. This is what I believe is the primary motivating factor for libertarians- WE DON'T TRUST THIS OR ANY GOVERNMENT. PERIOD. Mankind is inherently corrupt in the sense that the desire to succeed and maintain power will inevitably cause unfair misuse of political, economic and military advantages afforded by the government. Therefore, we should always strive to limit the reach and scope of the government at every opportunity. This is part of the genius of the American Republic. Our founding fathers strove to attain a system that they knew would be manipulated, yet would be self correcting; limiting the ability of any one branch of government from dominating the other. You can make arguments all day long about how this system is still manipulated, and the separation of powers was not deep enough, but in my opinion it's the best mankind has to offer at the present time.
Another reason I think that the libertarians have a shot at more political clout in the future is that many independents who are frustrated now with the democrats are going to be even more so unless they seriously start cleaning house. The following article from PJ O'Rourke in the Weekly Standard highlights the absurd level of condescending elitism that the democrats have reached.
Addressing the audience of tame Democrats, Kerry explained his defeat. "There has been," he said, "a profound and negative change in the relationship of America's media with the American people. . . . If 77 percent of the people who voted for George Bush on Election Day believed weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq--as they did--and 77 percent of the people who voted for him believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11--as they did--then something has happened in the way in which we are talking to each other and who is arbitrating the truth in American politics. . . . When fear is dominating the discussion and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem."
America is not doctrinaire. It's hard for an American politician to come up with an ideological position that is permanently unforgivable. Henry Wallace never quite managed, or George Wallace either. But Kerry's done it. American free speech needs to be submitted to arbitration because Americans aren't smart enough to have a First Amendment, and you can tell this is so, because Americans weren't smart enough to vote for John Kerry.
Read the rest, as PJ uses little actual commentary in the article because, well, with the quotes Kerry supplies, it pretty much fisks itself. If the democrats wish to remain relevant, I suggest that they stop insulting people in this country and start practicing some humility. Somehow, I just don't see that happening.
Ideally the result will be a stronger independent/libertarian-slanted third party which will be able to house the many out there like myself who no longer fit within the traditional confines of the two major parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment