Post # 1
I’ve been thinking…
I’m a convservative, but I do not identify with the Republican party. I’m a Libertarian. I noticed that most of the conservatives my age I know are Libertarian or do not identify with a particular party; they do not claim “Republican”.
Do you think in the next decade or two that the Republican party may be pushed out of the “2 party system” by another party?
Post # 3
I’m an independent, but my favorite internet cartoon is Toothpaste for Dinner.
Post # 4
Brandiola – Libertarians don’t understand the world? Would you say Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc., don’t understand the world?
The very abbreviated version of I chose Libertarian is because I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I’m for smaller government (which the Republican party claims they are for, but their actions show the contrary) and human rights and freedoms.
Post # 5
@abbyful: I used to classify myself as libertarian, but dont anymore after DH volunteered for a campaign with a libertarian candidate in our district. We went to a Libertarian convention (and met Ron Paul) and the people were SO crazy!
Post # 6
How can you have a small government but yet want human rights and freedom? Who/what will grant these freedoms and rights if there is such a small governemnt, and if it was up to true libertarians no governement, becasue all the power would be with individuals?
I just don’t understand your stance at all.
Post # 7
@Atalanta – I think you are confusing “smaller government” and “libertarian” with “anarchy”.
Libertarians do not want “no government” or even “no taxes”. Lower taxes, yes (and less taxes would be required if government involvement was lessened; note: “lessened”, not “eliminiated”); but for a government to run there must be taxes and elected officials. Libertarians do not want to eliminate laws; there must be laws for order. Libertarians however, do not want the government control people’s personal choices that do not effect others (ex: gay marriage, abortion, dietary choices, etc).
Post # 8
maybe i shouldn’t be answering this question since i’m unabashadely liberal, but i just wanted to chime in from a historial perspective and say that the parties have changed internally in a ton of ways over time, and i’m sure will continue to do so as constituencies and values/norms shift over time. for example, before fdr/the great depression, the parties were almost the opposite of what they are now; hoover, a republican, hugely increased the size of the federal bureaucracy.
also to some of the pps commenting on liberatarianism broadly, i don’t think that’s what abbyful started this thread about; this isn’t a debate about political beliefs, is it? rather the direction on one of the main parties. tons of issues don’t fit evenly into the bipartisan divide, so it’s an interesting question
Post # 9
I sincerely hope this topic stays on track and that people stay respectful of one another, despite differing opinions.
@abbyful: I’m not conservative, but I think what you said about people our age not identifying with the two party system is true in a much more broad sense – very few of my friends are willing to associate themselves with one party or the other (well, here in DC a lot will do so on paper, because that’s the only way to vote in the primaries, which are ultimately a lot more important in a city with such an overwhelming majority in one direction). In my observation, more and more people are focusing on specific issues, and less on broad party alliances.
I’m not a political buff, but it seems to me that the two party system has an underlying assumption that if you think X (not A) then you’ll also think Y and Z (not B and C) – meaning the assumption is that most people should/would agree with a given party on the majority of issues. But I tend to disagree with that. I feel like political issues are too complex to generalize that way, and just because I think A and C does not mean I can’t also think Y, if that makes sense.
I also think most governments need to continually be adapting and changing in order to survive – that’s one of the big strengths in limiting number of terms in office, IMO, because it forces us to change (ideally to grow, haha) every 4 or 8 years.
Anyway, just my two cents. 🙂
Post # 10
I’m not trying to debate, I’m trying to understand. I see that a lot Socially liberal, to me that means that society works all together to help citizens with unemployment, health care, and education.
A Liberatrian governemnt would not be any part of this. The only function of a libertairian governemt is to protect individuals from coercion and violence, the rest is up to the individual.
I guess I’d like to know what’s your definition of socially liberal is?
Post # 11
By “socially liberal”, I do not mean “leftist socialist”. I mean that on civil issues and personal freedoms, my views are more liberal (as in the original definition, not “liberal” as in another term for “the left”).
There’s no way to write down all my political beleifs in a single post, so I’ll try to keep this short and just give a few examples: I beleive government welfare should be reduced (not eliminated, but a “hand up” instead of a “hand out”), and people should be given tax credits for donating to charities. I’m in favor of the voucher system for schools. I’m in favor of health insurance being able to be sold across states lines so insurance companies must compete against each other for the best rates and coverage. I do not beleive in sin-taxes (taxes on sugar, alcohol, etc). I do not beleive in censorship. I do not beleive in huge government bail-outs for private companies and banks. I’m pro-gay-marriage, pro-gun, in favor of legalizing marijuana, etc… to keep the list short, “pro-choice on everything” is a short & sweet way to put it. And I’m against the “nanny state” even in my lifetime I’ve seen being perpetuated more and more by both the left and the right.
While I don’t agree 100% with every little thing the Libertarian party has as an ideal; nobody agrees 100% with everything little thing their political party does. The Libertarian party is the closest fit for my political beleifs.
I could claim “independent”, but I’m tired of constantly voting for the lesser of two evils and I would like to actually be able to have a meaningful vote (right now, unless you vote D or R, your vote is pretty much worthless) for a party I agree with on more than 40% of the issues, rather than a “who do I think will f*** up less?” vote.
Post # 12
Ugh, I hate when people say “fiscally conservative but socially liberal”. All that says to me is ‘I don’t want to be associated with the conservative social policy, but I really don’t want to pay for anything either.’
I think that @Brandiola‘s comic is dead on. Democrats want more social equality and resources and are willing to pay more in taxes to get there. Republicans don’t want to pay for anything, but are also willing to let everyone fend for themselves. I think that people can be ‘moderate’, but saying you’re libertarian is a total cop-out IMO.
Post # 13
As finnaroo pointed out, political parties are always changing. The Democratic and Republican parties stand for completely different things today than they have in the past. Political ideologies are always changing, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the Republican party did gradually change into another political ideology.
Personally, I don’t think we should have a 2-party system. It is ridiculous. George Washington warned us against having only 2 parties in power in his farewell address, and I think he was right. There is absolutely NO way that every single citizen in the United States (even a majority of them) could fit their beliefs into one of two parties. I know I can’t, which is why I am an independent. I have different opinions on every issue; why should I try to fit my views into such a limited scope? Honestly, I’m really sick of having only two parties (honestly, all they do is try to “win” and take down the other, it’s like they’re in high school or something), and I would be really happy if we made more ideologies readily available to the American public.
Post # 14
That makes sense. If i were you I’d refrain from calling myself socially liberal, since social liberalism is a real belief (not verbatim definition each word) that basically believes that the role of the state is to address economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights, which does not seem to match your beliefs, and is confusing to me and it seems like @socalmeli as well.
I think abbyful has expalined herself well, so sometimes its good to read the whole thread. There are not just 2 parties which people fall into and being libertatrian is far from moderate. I don’t see how it is a cop out in any way.
Post # 15
Really there are 2 parties? Could have fooled me!
Post # 16
“Democrats want more social equality and resources and are willing to pay more in taxes to get there. Republicans don’t want to pay for anything, but are also willing to let everyone fend for themselves.”
I don’t think that’s accurate. Both D and R want more government control and bigger government. D tend to be slightly more into the “nanny state” than R, but both are guilty of that as well just on different issues.
It seems more and more the main parties just disagree for the sake of disagreement. I also feel like our politicians are usually out of touch with the average American; especially those that have been in Congress for 40 years; I’m a strong believer in term-limits. 2 terms and you should be out, just like the President. A politician’s goal should be to represent their constituents, not just further their own political career.
“honestly, all they do is try to “win” and take down the other, it’s like they’re in high school or something”
Exactly how I feel!
“Really there are 2 parties? Could have fooled me!”
Right on, Atalanta! D & R are basically the same thing, they just make a stink about a few issues that people feel strongly about, but their core is the same.
But back on track! What do you think the future of the Conservative/Right will be?