Interesting editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120300690.html).
Snippet
Why react to the temporary corruption of a party by abandoning it outright? Lindsey's answer is that Republicans are not merely failing to live up to their principles; the principles have altered. The party has been virtually cleaned out of the Northeast; it has suffered setbacks in the Mountain West; it increasingly reflects the values of its stronghold in the South. As a result, it has lost its libertarian tinge and grown more religious and traditionalist.

There has always been a tension between Republican libertarians, who believe that individual choices should be unconstrained by received wisdom, and Republican traditionalists, who believe pretty much the opposite. In their history of the conservative movement, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge recall that Barry Goldwater believed Jerry Falwell deserved "a swift kick in the ass;" and Goldwater's wife, Peggy, helped to found Planned Parenthood in Arizona. But for a long time the two wings of the party could paper over these differences. Christian conservatives and libertarians agreed that misconceived government programs were harming traditional values. Schools forced sex education on children. The tax system and the welfare system penalized marriage.And later in the article an interesting quote:
As Lindsey puts it in his New Republic essay, Republicans want to go home to the United States of the 1950s while Democrats want to work there.

As Lindsey puts it in his New Republic essay, Republicans want to go home to the United States of the 1950s while Democrats want to work there.


I love it, nice quote.

I think the question should be, why are/were Libertarians with the Republicans in the first place?

How did Liberals lose them all? And why?

Jerry Falwell deserved, and still deserves, a 125 grain bullet to the face, not a kick in the ass.

I think the question should be, why are/were Libertarians with the Republicans in the first place?Taxes.

I think the question should be, why are/were Libertarians with the Republicans in the first place?

How did Liberals lose them all? And why?
Coincidentally, the editorial goes into this. :rolleyes:

Because, as I've said before, modern Libertarians are little more than Republicans with even less willingness to pay taxes.

That, or they are anarchists.

I've rarely met a sane reasonable Libertarian, which makes me wonder where is there a party for true liberals? Folks who don't believe in the travesty of laissez faire capitalism and also think that the rights of the social rights of the individual trump the rights of the people in most instances. You know...people who believe in labor, and find the disparity of wealth in the US deplorable and also find the notion of the government spying on US citizens heinous, believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees a personal right, not a state right, thinks laws which attempt thought control are scary, and feels that generally speaking, any law which finds its origin in San Francisco is almost certainly going to be deplorable.

any law which finds its origin in San Francisco is almost certainly going to be deplorable.

:lmao:

y answer is to not be boxed into any party. Such people don't go anywhere. They choose the candidates and policies that best fit their set of values. Sometimes that's a republican, sometimes its an independent.

Sometimes that's a republican, sometimes its an independent.
LOL! Uh what about democrats?

LOL! Uh what about democrats?

The new Democratic party doesn't really stand for any one thing. It's a loose conglomeration of outlier splinter groups that are diverse . . really diverse. You could say if you don't find the stuffy old Republicians or the Liberty above all else Libertarians appealing, you automatically default to the Democrats.

Not saying that the Republicians or Libertarians are monolithic by any means, just that the fractious nature of mankind is more visibly apparent in the Democratic party.

I'm trying to figure out why in the past, the South voted Democratic so much, they used to be called "Dixiecrats", and then suddenly were all Republician voters. The values down here in the southern "flyover" country haven't changed dramatically. The best theory is that the Democratic party changed so radically, the South couldn't support them anymore, so defaulted to the Republician party.

In any case, I lean Libertarian in a lot of goverment spending and size issues. If they had a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning anything, I'd vote for them. But we know what happens to 3rd party candidates. They simply siphon votes off of whichever Republican(Bush Sr./Perot) or Democrat(Gore/Nader) they most closely resemble, causing both to lose to the opposition. Sad, but a true fact of American politics.

If Republicans keep abandoning fiscal conservation and "small government", there may come a future time in which Republicans defect en masse to the Libertarians. I'd be one of them if it happens. Just as long as they promise to abolish the IRS, institute a flat tax, and refuse to pay taxpayer money out to anyone that's not completely incapable of working an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

I'm trying to figure out why in the past, the South voted Democratic so much, they used to be called "Dixiecrats", and then suddenly were all Republician voters. The values down here in the southern "flyover" country haven't changed dramatically. The best theory is that the Democratic party changed so radically, the South couldn't support them anymore, so defaulted to the Republician party.
It was historical. They hated Republicans because Licoln was a Republican. But the civil rights movement really pissed off the Southern Democrats and they started to leave the party because they didn't like all that equal rights crap that was getting shoved down their racist gullets.

Google it!

If Republicans keep abandoning fiscal conservation and "small government"...
They did that 6 years ago!

There's just as much diversity in the Republican camp as there is in the Democratic camp.

This questionaire shows you: http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

It was historical. They hated Republicans because Licoln was a Republican. But the civil rights movement really pissed off the Southern Democrats and they started to leave the party because they didn't like all that equal rights crap that was getting shoved down their racist gullets.


Hmm. Racist Southerners. That's a new one on me. I've never heard that before :rolleyes:

And you left out the part that disproves that theory. You should Google "Boll Weevil Democrats". The South was still solidly represented in the Democratic party by them until 1988, when most had retired or switched to Republican. That's a little bit after the civil rights movement. Like 20 years after. Try again.

Here's the Wiki entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil_%28politics%29

Perhaps you should do some Wikipedia reading too..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_DemocratsAfter World War II, the civil rights movement took hold. A new wave of young, liberal Democrats were changing the face of the party, and Southerners were feeling alienated. However, most still voted loyally for their party. The old conservative stalwarts were trying to resist the changes that were sweeping the nation. With the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was the final straw for many Southern Democrats, who began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal. However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. In fact, until the 1980s, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. Southern Democrats of today are mostly urban liberals, while rural residents tend to be Republicans, although there are a sizable number of conservative Democrats.

A huge portion of Representatives, Senators, and voters who were referred to as Reagan Democrats in the 1980s were conservative Southern Democrats.

And about the "Southern Strategy"In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states.

The phrase, Southern strategy, was coined by Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips. For the years 1948 - 1984, the southern states, traditionally a stronghold for the Democratic Party became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the Presidential elections 1960, 1968 and 1976. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, which critics have argued was intended as a signal of opposition to federal civil rights legislation for blacks. This strategy was largely a success, and the South is now considered a Republican stronghold in national elections.

Recently, the term has been used in a more general sense, in which cultural themes are used in an election — primarily but not exclusively in the American South. In the past, phrases such as "busing" or "law and order" or "states' rights" were used. Today, appeals largely focus on cultural issues such as gay marriage, abortion and religion. Yet, the use of the term, and its meaning and implication, are still hotly disputed.
I think the Southern Strategy is finally biting the GOP in the hind end. It might still serve them well in the South but everyone else is getting fed up. Maybe even the Southerners are figuring out they're being used. They vote for these guys that spout off about gays, abortion, etc and nothing ever changes.

Just as long as they promise to abolish the IRS, institute a flat tax, and refuse to pay taxpayer money out to anyone that's not completely incapable of working an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.If you abolish the IRS, who will be in charge of collecting taxes?

You do realize that simply changing the percentage of tax liability will have absolutely zero effect on the <i>complexity</i> of taxes, don't you? The tax rates take up about two pages of the Internal Revenue Code. The thousands of pages that follow are devoted to answering the real question, how much of the total income you make is taxable. What is "income", what is an "expense", how you calculate "profit", and when you can be taxed. A flat tax will only change the first two pages.

Don't get me wrong, your flat tax idea is stupid for other reasons, but I believe you're clinging to it out of a false sense that it will simplify the tax code.

If Republicans keep abandoning fiscal conservation and "small government", there may come a future time in which Republicans defect en masse to the Libertarians. I'd be one of them if it happens. Just as long as they promise to abolish the IRS, institute a flat tax,

Yes yes, by all means, lets **** the poor even more with this "fair" tax which benefits that 20% of the population who controls 84% of our wealth...at the expense of the other 80% who squabble over the remaining 16% of America's wealth, like rats squabbling over crumbs.

Brilliant idea.


and refuse to pay taxpayer money out to anyone that's not completely incapable of working an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

Perhaps if businesses would actually pay an honest day's pay, for an honest day's work, there would be less people requiring federal assistance. Perhaps if an honest day's pay was enough to support a family on, there would be less people requiring federal assistance. Perhaps if these Coporations run by the same people duping you into believeing a flat tax is anything but a boon for the wealthy at the cost of everyone else, would actually pay taxes instead of using their formidable wealth to weasel out of their sociatal responsibilities, our financial shortfalls would be greater reduced.

Pfah.

Confessions of a Welfare Queen (http://www.reason.com/news/show/29067.html) (Republic welfare queen)
ADM collects welfare because of two cleverly designed special deals. The first is the government’s mandated minimum price for sugar. Because of the price supports, if a soft drink maker wants to buy sugar for its soda, it has to pay 22 cents a pound -- more than twice the world price. So Coca-Cola (and almost everyone else) buys corn sweetener instead. Guess who makes corn sweetener? ADM, of course. Now guess who finances the groups that lobby to keep sugar prices high?

ADM’s second federal feeding trough is the tax break on ethanol. Ethanol is a fuel additive made from corn, kind of like Hamburger Helper for gasoline, except that it’s more expensive, so no one would buy it if government didn’t give companies that use ethanol a special 52-cent-a-gallon tax break. That costs the treasury half a billion dollars a year. ADM produces half the ethanol made in America.

Why does ADM get these special deals? Bribery. OK, it’s not technically bribery -- that would be illegal. ADM just makes "contributions." Through his business and his family, former ADM Chairman Dwayne Andreas gave millions in campaign funds to both Mondale and Reagan, Dukakis and Bush, Dole and Clinton. President Nixon’s secretary, Rosemary Woods, says Andreas himself brought $100,000 in cash to the White House. He even paid tuition for Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s son. Republicans, Democrats -- it doesn’t matter. ADM just gives.

It also flies people around on its corporate jets. When we contacted Andreas to ask for an interview, he arranged to fly us to ADM’s Decatur, Illinois, headquarters in one of ADM’s jets. I’ve seen private jets before, but ADM’s was a step above. A flight attendant served us excellent food on gold-plated china. The camera crew and I loved it. Bet the politicians like it too.

A limo took us to Dwayne Andreas’ office. Once the cameras were rolling, I brought out the questions about "corporate welfare." I foolishly thought I could get him to admit he was a rich guy milking the system. I thought he’d at least act embarrassed about it. Fuggeddaboutit. He was unfazed.

Stossel: Mother Jones [magazine] pictured you as a pig. You’re a pig feeding at the welfare trough.

Andreas: Why should I care?

Stossel: It doesn’t bother you?

Andreas: Not a bit.

I still wonder why he granted the interview. I asked him about his bribes -- I mean, contributions. For example, Andreas gave the Democrats a check for $100,000. A few days later, President Clinton ordered 10 percent of the country to use ethanol.

Stossel: And the purpose of this money wasn’t to influence the president?

Andreas: Certainly not.

Stossel: So why give him the money?

Andreas: Because somebody asked for it.

Because they asked for it? Give me a break.

Ok, probably the democrats are guilty of this too in this particular case.

Well, one thing is for sure, if I ever meet that guy I'm going to ask him for money.

Confessions of a Welfare Queen (http://www.reason.com/news/show/29067.html) (Republic welfare queen)


Ok, probably the democrats are guilty of this too in this particular case.

I don't doubt that there are some Democrats, Republicians, Libertarians, The Green party, Communists, Reformed Communists, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, practicing Jews, Catholics, and Muslims and every other stripe of political or religious creed (except maybe the Amish) that are collectively involved in sucking on the government's teat by getting money for something other than labor and services rendered.

I want to burn it all down and start over.

No one gets anything unless they are physically or mentally incapable of performing work. No subsidies, no grants, no welfare, no paying farmers not to grow crops, or to grow certain crops, no paying people to have kids, or not to have kids.

I watched Chronicles of Riddick again, and would like to modify the Necromunga saying "you keep what you kill" to "you keep what you earn, minus the cost of running the government and defending us."

I realize my vision of the future will never come to pass. And I realize that Aidon somehow thinks it's heartless, cruel, insensitive, and wrong. I obviously disagree. I think it's heartless and cruel to tell people they have to have the government's help to succeed. I think people can do more themselves than the government gives them credit for. But as long as the tempting fruit of government subsidy and largess is there, you'd be foolish not to take it while they are offering it. That's why it has to be removed from consideration. It's fairer than the giant clusterfvck we have in the present tax-n-spend Moebius loop called the US Government, where if you know how to work the system, you can get all kinds of perks.

That's the problem with any subsidy program originally intended for poor individuals. It gets caught up in the bureaucratic loops, and becomes so esoteric that only a select few can ever get what was originally intended, and many that the money was never intended for somehow end up with some of it.

Charities are not immune from this problem, but they are much less likely to have problems like this, because, by law, their accounting practices have to be completely open to review of anyone who asks; it's really hard to funnel money somewhere it shouldn't be in a non-profit charity setup.

Not true of the government. We should immediately take all charity work out of their hands, and the result would be to get more charity to the people that actually need it.

But this is digressing from the main point that up til 1990 give or take, there was still a Southern presence in the Democratic party.. then they went completely wonky.

aybe someday the parties will rebalance and you'll have conservative, moderate and liberal branches that are roughly equal in number within the confines of both the Democratic party and the Republican party.