When the wind changes

[Morrigoon]

I've long felt that there was a problem with the current 2 political parties - they're too much alike and neither seems to represent the majority of people voting for them.

Specifically, and on a personal level, I'm having increasing issues with the Republican party. It's been completely hijacked by the nutty far right, and to make matters worse, it's become a "big government" party.

I know for my part, the major factor in my conservativism is my preference for small government, minimal government interference in business and our lives.

I can't swap over to the democrats because, sadly, they're "big government" as well, and economically I disagree with them far too often.

I can't be the only person who feels they're without a representative party. I don't see the religious right letting go of the GOP any time soon. What I DO think is likely, and given recent events, possibly sooner than later, is a major split of the GOP and a new party forming, taking with it many of the "middle grounders" from both parties. People who are economically conservative, and socially liberal - in other words, "small government" advocates.

I keep waiting for a party to emerge that calls for minimum government interference in our lives. One that taxes us as little as possible, and does not tell us how to run our businesses and lives or who we may marry. And is devoid of the nutjobs and anarchists that run the Libertarian party (which, but for them, I would join)

What do you think... is this on the horizon?

[Prudence]

Alas, not likely. R and D are their own industries and not likely to seceed power gracefully.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Who says they'll be given a chance to complain? If a third party gets enough support, they're stuck. I'd be all for a third party of the middle ground. I think most people really are in the middle.

[Prudence]

But that's a mighty uphill battle. You've got years of history, fear of the unknown, stigmatization of newcomers, not to mention general voter apathy.

Local angle: They outlawed our blanket primary system, so now we have to choose a party in the primaries. Apparently many of you have been doing that all along. Those people who do vote want to feel like they're doing some good. Why sign up for the looser independent ballot when you can get the big, fat R or D ballot and really get your vote on?

Further proof -- the plaintiffs in the case outlawing our primary system were the major parties. The AG provided the defense. Political parties v. state and the state lost.

They're already complaining and winning.

[alphabassettgrrl]

The primary elections only choose who runs in the real race, when you can vote for whoever you want.

You're right about voter apathy and fear of the unknown. Then again, we have some small successes sometimes with independant candidates. Jesse Ventura got elected governor of Minnesota as an independant; it can be done, and each time it happens makes the next time more likely. I think people are really upset with both parties at this point. It's all the same game, just a tiny bit of a different focus. Neither party cares about anything other than itself except when it's conveniant.

The people of Minnesota wound up not being very happy with Gov. Jesse but he started out doing a lot of good things and (so it seems) only later did he turn into an actual politician. When he was just a citizen trying to get things done, he seemed to do a pretty good job.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

The primary elections only choose who runs in the real race, when you can vote for whoever you want.

But it's not that simple. In our former blanket primary system, a Democrat could say, "what an attractive Republican candidate that is. Our Democratic candidates for that position are left-wing nutjobs. I respect that particular Republican's moderate and fiscally responnsible approach." And the Democrat could vote for that particular Republican in the primary, giving that Republican a better shot at surviving the primary. Now the Democrat is stuck chosing which left-wing nutjob to vote for.

My limited experience is that blanket primaries offered a way to get to the middle. If a party candidate was too extreme, the moderate members of that party would gravitate toward a moderate candidate on the other party. The moderate candidates needed that influx of support from "the other side" to make it through the primary.

But the parties want "their" candidate to go through. Not the moderate. We tried to set up a "Cajun-style" primary where everyone votes for everyone in the primary and the top two go through to the final vote -- regardless of party. I think we had a voter-passed initiative on that. But the parties got that tossed out in court as well.

Maybe it's the tinfoil hat, but I don't think the primaries are irrelevant. The parties wouldn't be pushing these suits if it weren't in their best interest to keep the party-only primary. Meanwhile, the voters want to pick whomever they want, even at the primary level. The parties have already shown they are willing to work contrary to public will in order to ensure the parties' survival.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I am a registered Libertarian. Don't worry Morrigoon, I'm not offended since I totally agree, it's full of nutjobs.

I used to donate money to them and even attended a local "debate" they put together, but after 9/11 I decided that it was a lost cause. Immediately afterwards everyone gave away their rights without a whimper and was just fine with the creation of more bureaucracy. They want a daddy gov't to take care of them. The Libertarian party doesn't have a chance in that climate.

The recent Katrina events lead me to believe that we are in for a new surge in the size of government...people are scared and want to be taken care of. I find myself even agreeing with some of that.

NPR brought up some good points. There's no way the Republicans can lower taxes or mess with Social Security now that all our cash is being sent to relief. The Democrats have been emboldened by Katrina and as a group are directly criticizing Bush for the first time since 9/11. Bush's approval was at it's worst ever BEFORE Katrina hit due to growing concerns over Iraq and has now dipped even lower. And suddenly polls say people are finally going "oh, huh, maybe this war on terror isn't the most important thing there is."

The Democrats are all set for a rebound. But it's obvious that the news continues to be bad for small-gov't proponents. I predict it'll be a long time before this big gov't surge crests. People only choose freedom when they feel secure. If they feel unsafe they clamor for protection in its myriad forms.

Just my 2 cents

[Morrigoon]

As Ben Franklin put it, people willing to sacrifice small freedoms in exchange for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

As Ben Franklin put it, people willing to sacrifice small freedoms in exchange for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

Preach on, sistah.

I do admit that my own black and white views on freedom vs security have softened in recent years due to my two government jobs. One of them is a school with a 95% Hispanic population, half of which are English learners, many of which are poor with uneducated parents. I can't help but wish we had more resources for them, but of course that's bigger government. It can be tough.

I still am a Libertarian though and haven't voted for a Dem or Rep in many years

[Morrigoon]

I almost didn't vote at all in the last election due to not liking either candidate much. I finally decided to vote for what I percieved to be the (not much) lesser of two evils. Not that my vote in that regard mattered much anyway, being in California.