If you are like me and believe that the Republican Party can never recover, or even wants to recover, would you consider switching to the Libertarian Party? I like a lot of their positions.

http://www.lp.org/platform

no, and fragmenting the conservative vote is the only thing that would let the socialists stay in power

I agree with you Steve in principle but what is really left of the Republican Party to re-build? Really?

I do believe that over the course of history "Conservative" politics has meant many different things so I'm not truly sure that one could perfectly describe it.

No

I was discussing this very thing ealier today with an old friend before I started sampling Woodford Reserve and Makers Mark. Don't remember now where I left it.

Gay marriage, legalizing drugs, pro abortion (protect the 'right' of the mother to take the life of her child), free immigration. No way in hell. As the book of Judges says "Every man did what was right in his own eyes". They had no rules and God hammered them for it.

We can all be Whigs.

http://modernwhig.org/

jim

I was a member of the Libertarian Party even came close to be the state chair.

The Libertarian Party is NOT conservative. If one looks up the word 'conservative' one would see that to be conservative is to take a caution approach to changes, slow and study, maintain the status quo when and where possible.

There are no conservatives, just radicals and extremists in both the Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian Parties.

So in answer to your question, NO.

Humm, interesting.

The libertarians would stand a better chance if they did not always run crazy people as their candidate.

I like the idea of reorganizing the GOP better though. Get the RINOs out of there, and go with a fresh, conservative face.

"If you are like me and believe that the Republican Party can never recover, or even wants to recover,"

That's exactly what the Obamacrats would like you to believe!

when a party can't articulate what it stands for, and/or has laughably failed to deliver on what it supposedly stands for when they were in power, it's time to re-tool.

The strength of the Republican party is the socially conservative element, but it's also it's biggest liability. Since the R's have blown the whole "fiscally conservative" thing (see "laughable", above), they are hard to take seriously as far as that part of the supposed governing philosophy. . Most of us don't want what amounts to an American Taliban, which is what a hardcore socially conservative party would be, so what's left?

It's a conundrum.

I have Libertarian leanings, but it sure smacks of a wasted vote.

The Republicans BETTER field a legit ticket in 3 years. I can't vote Obama again, and I'd sure prefer to vote FOR someone, not just against...

Jeff, you have hit the crux of it.

Look at the Republican party's record:

Smaller government? Nope.
Fiscally conservative? LOL
Upholding the Constitution and the rule of law? Don;t make me laugh.

Both parties are now all about increasing their power and turning citizens into subjects.

Unfortunately, the two major parties control who appears in debates and on ballots in much of the country. The deck is stacked to maintain the status quo.

Certainly the Libertarian party runs the occasional nut job, but at least it pays lip service to the Constitution, the enumerated powers, and letting individuals run their own life.

I voted for Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik, and I might have voted for Wayne Allyn Root if he had been at the top of the ticket instead of underneath Bob Barr (?!); but I don't think the Libertarian Party will replace the Republican Party.

I think the Republican Party is dead, sure enough, and deservedly so; but the Libertarian Party has some pretty severe issues that have little to do with platform positions. I don't think it is capable of making the transition to being a major party without such a massive overhaul that it'd no longer be recognizable.

No, I think the next few elections are going to be the Democrats' to lose, as the hyenas fight over the corpse of the Republican Party. Of course, that assumes that Obama doesn't kill the Democrat Party the way Baby Bush killed the Republican Party--and he may very well end up doing just that, and surprisingly soon.

It'll be interesting if both the major parties fragment into several factions, none of which is capable of attracting more than 20% of the vote or so...

I'm pretty much with Jeff O. Except the "can't vote Obama again" part.

I didn't vote for him last time but at the rate he's going I may the next. It'll be out of pity if I do. I'm expecting him to be shown for the disgrace that he is by then and I'll be the only one in hundreds of miles. Maybe thousands.

The repubs should be able to prop up any body on stage, even McCain's again, and walk away with a landslide.

I can always hope, can't I?

Well said and I'm in total agreement(of course without the Obama part).

Why not?

The Constitution Party sounds like a better ideological alternative, but they are even more of a long shot than the Libertarians.

with the way the map of red and blue breaks out, the DIXIECRATS should make a come back!!!!!

The States' Rights Democratic Party (commonly known as the Dixiecrats) was a segregationist, socially conservative political party in the United States. The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. It split with the Democratic Party in the mid-20th century determined to protect what they saw as the Southern way of life against an oppressive federal government.

It would be interesting to see the dims and gop split into half a dozen or so parties. They might not get anything done that way and we'd all be better off.

This is pure bullshitt....
The Libertarian party wants to take the control of these issues out of the hands of the oppressive federal government and put it in the states hands where it belongs...

No, No, No & No Friggin way!!!! Read my Lips, " I repeat No Friggin way I will Vote for a Libertarian Canidate!!!!"

The ones I've met are one step away from the Looney Farm. I can't figure if the one step ahead or behind Nobama.

You are wrong.

When George H.W. Bush ran the second time I voted Libertarian. When Bob Dole ran I voted either Libertarian or for Pat Buchanan. Can't remember. I have no problem voting Libertarian, but I'm still a registered Republican so I can try to have some effect on the nominees.

Correct until you said the italicized part. Conservatives don't blindly seek to maintain any status quo. They seek to maintain the tried and true, i.e., those courses which have been approved by long standing tradition, such as marriage being a union of a man and woman, for example. Where those ways have been abandoned, they fight for their restoration, not the preservation of the new status quo.

The Republican party is a joke, unless they would completely revamp their tenants or at least follow through with them. There are very few in that party who practice what they preach. Previous posters have covered what's wrong.

To the question, no I probably wouldn't join the Libertarian party, as I'm not a member of any party anymore. I realized it's all a sham and pointless, so why bother? Yeah, yeah, primary elections. Whatever. FWIW, I voted Libertarian this time around. And I still like Ron Paul.

The fact that the Libertarian party seems to be the only party that actually treats the Constitution as more than a piece of toilet paper, is often enough for me to cast my vote in their favor.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Exactly.

The thought of making their own decisions in life keep many people from becoming libertarians.

They need the big government crutch,...regardless of what form it takes or how much it costs.

Anything is preferrable to being in charge of oneself to those people,...and there's a *lot* of them.

I agree. All the Republican Party needs to do is get back to the basics of conservatism. If they actually pursued some of the aspects of the Libertarian platform like smaller, less intrusive government, there would be no need for the Libertarian Party at all.

Unfortunately, they have watered down their platform or simply haven't agressively pursued their own platform in recent years. If they would just stay true to their own principles and didn't back down on ANYTHING, they would be fine.

Compromise has been a virus that was implanted in the party by moderates and under the guise of political correctness, erroding the core of the platform. I say no compromise or "big tent" bullschitt on anything anymore. Stick to your friggin convictions and real Americans will follow.

Okay I can live with that.

That right there covers about 99% of our nation's current issues.

The Constitution Party is the purist, conservative party there is. Unfortunately, they would need someone who has such amazing carisma as to draw enough people in.

I still believe, practically speaking, the most realistic solution for regaining power is to "unite the clans" against England.

The Republican Party needs to incorperate the best conservative aspects of both the Libertarians' and Constitutionalists' platforms and draw them in as one voting force. As long as conservatives are divided, the liberals will laugh themselves into office in every election.

I am a Constitutionalist, but I voted for Ron Paul. That makes me a terrorist, even though the MSM is courting him now, as he was right throughout the last election, when they blacklisted him from getting any coverage. They aren't laughing now.
Flame away.

Bonehead Idea! We're divided enough right now. Going to a third party is suicide.

The term "conservative" has lost much of its historical etymology over the years. When it was originally coined, the country was vastly devoted to the constitution, liberty, free markets and self accountability. So at the time, maintaining the status quo or "traditional" values made a lot sense, hence the term conservatism.

Unfortunately, as the country has drifted farther away from the core values of our forefathers, the semantically accurate definition of conservatism has lost its meaning because the country has abandone many of the principles for which conservatism was designed to protect.

For those of us who espouse to be conservatives, dare I say, we redefine it to encompass the same concepts for which it was historically originated. We think of conservatism to mean the same as it did for our forefathers even though the country have deviated from those principles.

Problem is, conservatism doesn't have any principles. Instead, it has a seething, teeming mass of inconsistent, conflicting goals, where almost every one is denied by at least some subgroup of people who call themselves conservatives.

For example, one goal is that the government must be small; but another is that it must be big enough to impose democracy on the world. One goal is that individual liberty must be respected; another is that what an individual chooses to put into his own body must be controlled by the State. One goal is that the State should stay out of people's private lives; another is that gay marriage must be prohibited by the State.

Some conservatives think the State should be allowed to torture people; other conservatives don't. Some conservatives think the State should be able to start preemptive wars against nations that pose no threat, as long as their governments are sufficiently undemocratic to be aesthetically displeasing; other conservatives don't.

Given a philosophy as self-contradictory as this, it's impossible to achieve any sort of cohesion without massive compromise. If you insist that only the goals with which you agree be retained, and the goals peculiar to other conservatives be discarded, you'll wind up as a member of a tiny splinter group too small to have any political power at all.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, does have a real principle. Only one, but it is truly a principle, not merely a goal. It's the Non-Aggression Principle, and it goes like this: "No one has the right to initiate force (or fraud) against another." If you can't subscribe to that principle, then you're not a libertarian; if you can, then you are, no matter what else you believe, what culture you belong to, what company you keep, what religion you are, what your race, age, or economic stratum.

The Republican Party supports the War On Drugs not on the basis of any principle, but simply because Republican Party bosses notice that a large number of Americans (at least pretend to) disapprove of drugs of abuse, and calculate that they'll attract more votes by supporting the War On Drugs than by opposing it.

The Libertarian Party, however, has no choice: because it's truly based on principle, it has to oppose the War On Drugs, since arresting somebody for medicating himself is undeniably an initiation of force, which violates the Non-Aggression Principle. Doesn't matter how many votes that position gains or loses the Party; that's the only decision available.

Again, though, the Libertarian Party is very far from being ready for the big time: party of principle or not, it's politically crippled by internal strife and backbiting. Pretty much the entire Party structure would need to be stripped out and replaced with different people who had no history of contention with and resentment of each other; but that's not going to happen.

I would never flame you for voting your conscience. Many of Ron Paul's arguments are strong. To me, the best possible candidate would be some kind of cross between Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan. Smaller, less intrusive government, full fiscal accountability, don't try and save every lost cause in the world, always stay true to America, never appologize for anything, and don't take schitt from anyone.

I'm going to keep backing the republican party. They have their flaws, but of all the party's, they have the best defense against our enemy's. The liberals are almost gay friendly, and the liberalitarians have blinders on; thinking ignoring a threat is the way to handle things.
I have had family that were in harms way in Iraq, and after what I saw and heard from both the libturd party's, I'll go with those most serious about protecting our survival.

That to would be my dream candidate.

Instead, next election we get to choose between Jeb Bush and Mary Poppins.

I would say no and would prefer a return to the older Republican party. The one that wasn't so centered on religion, was actually conservative, and had leaders and not talking heads.

I hear that but it seems social conservatives have become such a big part of the GOP, they've sown their own bed.


Who knows, maybe Jindhal will get the party back on track, although he's not a very inspiring leader.

The Republican party will never be what conservatives want it to be.

Someday in the distant future, after the Democrats lay enough rotten eggs for people again to be disgruntled with them, the Republican party *may* regroup enough to get back into power.

,..but after they do, they'll turn their backs on the people who elected them and start up with the same old nonsense that they always do.

Washington D.C. is actually one big party,...and you'll never be invited as long as it's being thrown by either the Democrats or Republicans.

Fortunately however,...both of the dominant parties have just about pummeled the government into sand.

It'll be rough on the people before it's concluded,...but bitter medicines are the most long lasting.

Afterwards,...our kids will be smarter about government than we were.

They'll also piss on our graves.

Jebus [bleep]...forget it, then.

/grabs another beer and one mor zsinn=am_0n.

If their gubernatorial & LG candidates in the last Idaho election are any indication, this is the party of Bozo the Clown. What a pair of idiots. The party killed itself here.

You might try reading their platform. It says these should be individual rights, outside ANY government. It says nothing about states rights in there areas. It's a party of the Godless.

an example from their platform:
1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

This came from their statement of principles which includes the following:
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual:

About 5 years ago or more T Lee posted a question; should the Libertarians and Constitution Party folks unite together? At the time I thought no, but now I think differently

Ron Paul could have and would have united a multitude of groups that no other person could have; Libertarian, Constitution, and all the Southern Patriot groups. I am a sycophant to no man but I think that would have been a good thing. The leaders of the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party ought to be working on this right now. And other good men ought to be courted into the movement like Duncan Hunter and Roscoe Bartlett and a host of others.

But maybe God in his omnipotent providence has so willed it that we suffer under despots for a season to chasten us for our manifold sins.

Right! Kick out the neocons and the moderates and get back to authentic conservatism. That's the key. Authentic conservatism practically sells itself. Just needs someone who understands it's principles, believes in them, and can communicate them to the public. Reagan was a wet dream (figuratively speaking ) in all three categories.

Never.

Yep, which is exactly what Reagan did. Unfortunately, those who actually control the party machinery hated that sort of Republican. I'm speaking of the old Rockefeller Country Club Republicans in alliance with the neocons and the moderates. They were embarrassed that Reagan was so beloved by the grass roots and couldn't wait to get "their kind" back at the helm. Well we've observed how well that worked. There is only one long term winning formula for the Republicans. Rid itself of these establishment types, keep them from controlling things from behind the scenes, and replace them with Reagan style conservatives.

No flames here. I'm right with you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++


Can you cite some evidence supporting your position that the MSM is now courting Paul?

Go to YouTube and do a search for recent videos of Ron Paul from MSNBC, CNN, FOX, and the like. He's been all over TV news since the election.

Being in the news and courting a candidate are two very different scenarios.

Barak, here are Russell Kirk's ten principles of conservatism. It's not as simple as that offered by the libertarians because it is more based in the realities of human history and human nature, but there they are:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society�whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society�no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention�a word much abused in our time�that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions�why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don�t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke�s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription�that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity�including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man�s petty private rationality.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent�or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: �the ceremony of innocence is drowned.� The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: �Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.� For the institution of several property�that is, private property�has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one�s labor; to be able to see one�s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one�s property to one�s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one�s own�these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction�why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one�s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good�so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone�s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite�these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought. Other principles of equal importance might have been discussed here: the conservative understanding of justice, for one, or the conservative view of education. But such subjects, time running on, I must leave to your private investigation.

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.

Perfectly said.

Libetarianism has some good principles but would end in anarchy in a large highly urban world.

Social conservatives belong in the conservative movement, so long as they are guided by traditional constitutionalism/federalism, i.e., they may pursue their goals in the form of resisting the efforts on the left to use the machinery of government and the courts (particularly at the Federal level) to transform our nation into their image, i.e., to resist the war that's actively being waged against traditional American values and the Christian tradition in particular. That, in fact, is the only battle needed on the culturally conservative front, and most cultural conservatives are already fully aware of it. They do not seek to impose any sort of theocracy on America, as the left accuses. That would not be conservative at all. That would be radical, since America has never been any sort of theocracy. These folks are not radicals. What you are fearing is a figment of the left's imagination.

There's a lot of truth in that, I'm afraid.

Thanks. You posted that to me once before, and I took the time to go through and, for each "principle," demonstrate either that some person or group widely accepted as conservative violated it, or that some person or group widely accepted as non-conservative subscribed to it. If I remember correctly, I also argued that there were several unavoidable internal conflicts and logical inconsistencies between the "principles."

Anyway, I don't have the time to do that again, and I can't immediately find my other response to it, so for the time being I'll just thank you for posting it again, register my continued disagreement with it, and head off to my appointment.

I recall your efforts in that direction.

nope.

"I am a Constitutionalist, but I voted for Ron Paul. That makes me a terrorist, even though the MSM is courting him now, as he was right throughout the last election, when they blacklisted him from getting any coverage. They aren't laughing now.
Flame away."

I'm amazed at how the media blacklisted him and fawned over dingleBarry. Absolutely shameless. They don't even care how blatent and obvious their bias is, nor how many people notice and comment in public.

When the liberals, fully supported by the media, put up their most rabidly left winged, out of touch with reality, freedom hating and America hating communist why didn't the repubs answer with their most conservative? If they'd have just shown some balls I think they'd have had a real race on their hands and some definite lines could have been drawn in the sand for future elections and future generations. The media would have HAD to keep RP center stage and the conservative message would have gotten out there... the REAL one, that is. As it was all we got was propaganda from the left and silence (for the most part)from the right. Propping up McCain turned out to be the most McMickey Mouse effort I think I've ever witnessed. So much so I suspect some sort of behind the scenes agreement was struck before hand which serves as pretty good proof that both parties are bound and determined to destroy this nation, don't give a damn about the people, and want to sweep under the rug all proofs of what this country is supposed to be and once was.

In short, I suspect they were in cohorts with this one.

.

ps.

Another thing.

If RP is so far out there he's not even worth listening to why blacklist him? Seems much better to let him speak, let evereyone hear what he has to say, and let him prove himself a whackjob through and through right in front of God and everybody. Trying to keep the curtain closed on him only makes people suspicious of government's true intentions and angry with media's unfair practices. I believe both the dems and repubs (all of government) are scared to DEATH of real conservatives. So much so they'll label us anything up to and including armed terrorists looking for a fight and will, sometime in the future, attempt to have us silenced and even eliminated.

Lots of people feel this way. If they wanted to lose, they could hardly have done better than push McCain on us.

PS And what screwed up thinking resulted in Republican primaries being open to non-registered Republicans. Correcting this insanity needs to be at the top of our priority list.

If that insanity is corrected (yes, I agree that's what it is) wouldn't ACORN and others just help people register repub until after the primary and then change back for the election? Them yahoos will always come up with a "backdoor" to stick their noses (and other things) into. Especially when they know they'll be rewarded with 5 billion dollars and authority over the US census in return.

Right on Archerhunter!!!

Not if you require proof of being a registered republican for more than two years.

No, I will be a Republican until i die

Absolutely correct...........we'd better all hang together or we'll all hang separately, for sure.

MM

That reminds me of a lot of Democrats who share nothing in common with the ideals espoused by the Dem Party, but remain loyal because their family opposed Abe Lincoln in 1860.

My father was a Republican and my Mother was Democrat and i choose my party long ago and will stay with it . I don't believe in the Democrat party and their views for America . There goals have always been more government power over the people, more taxes, total gun control and more Welfare for the lazy so they can get their votes . Over all i have nothing in common with the Democrat Party.

my parents were always repubs while I was growing up. By the time I got to highschool they were obviously in the minarchist camp and leaned more and more towards libertarianism, especially the more I talked to them about it (and as repubs depart more and more from conservative ideals). Mom still votes repub because she believes it's the only chance to slow the "change" towards slavery but dad has been libertarian party for the last couple-3 elections. Both, however, are rapidly approaching an agreement with me that we'd all probably be better off with no government at all. Nothing but a bunch of liars, the lot of them, who mean not only to do us harm but to control every aspect of our existance. Mom even told me a few weeks ago how amazed she's been since dingleBarry's rise to power that all the [bleep] I've been predicting since I was 16 or 17 is really coming to pass just as I said it would.

Team dingleBarry will push them both over the edge. I can see it coming already. They'll be fully fledged anarchists by 2012.

but I digress... we'll all probably be voting repub no matter how distasteful it may become. Just an effort to slow the destruction. We'll hope and pray things get better but it seems not much else is left... lesser of 2 evils sucks big time!

And in Iowa Lincoln was not an issue but they remain Democrat for the agricultural subsidies and give away programs in the rural areas and to impose heinous social engineering in the cities.

Which god?

There is only one.

Anyone and I mean ANYONE, not either a Republican or a Democrat in my book is better than what we have. MOST of the Republicans (including the quasi liberal/conservative John McCain)are just as crooked and corrupt as their Democratic counterparts. ANY new faces that are not career politicians and actually have the best interest of this country at heart and give a hoot about how we leave it to our children has got to be an improvement. all of these people are in somebody's pocket. they all voted to bailout AIG who just happens to administer the congressional pension fund. COME ON PEOPLE-WAKE UP!!!! if we continue to vote for the status quo time and time again, nothing is going to change. this is an all out assault on the middle class of America. the crazy thing is they still don't get the fact that without us they have no one left who can afford to buy any of their crap! i wonder how many Chevy Malibu's or pickup trucks Trump or Gates or the Buffets of the world can buy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your lucky to be in E. TN. the Republican strong hold of the state. Those counties east of I-75 are great supporters of Repub. ideas and concepts. Those who'll be running for Gov. next year as Repub's will all be from E. TN.

East TN. has always been Repub. even before and during and after the Civil War. That's why it wasn't burned and destroyed by the Union under Lincoln as was the rest of the state. The same reason as the majority of battles for control of the state by the Union took place in Mid. and West Tn.

The area between I-75 & I-65 is based on county by county and race to race regarding being Repub. The majority voted Repub. in the POTUS race and US Sen race. The majority went back to Dem. in the US Rep. and TN. state Rep/Sen. races.

I've seen the slow change in some of these counties from Dem. to Repub. it's still not a majority across the board. In many of these counties the Repub. party, is a party of RHINO's, and an extension of the Dem. party.

The area West of i-65 to the Miss. River is Dem. with the exception of one or two counties.

I vote Libertarian because I don't think Rep's and Dem's are doing anything except lining thier pockets.

besides I'm in NJ and my vote doesn't count anyway,unless it's for a Dem

I voted Constitution Party in the last presidential election. First time in a while I didnt have to hold my nose when I voted.

NO. We are in enough trouble now.

Wanna know a secret? It wouldn't count then either. Same person would win whether you voted or not.

Well, voting Republican--even for a guy who so disgusted the rest of the country that they were willing to tolerate scum like Obama rather than risk electing another Republican--got us into this mess.

You figure continuing to vote Republican will get us out, hey?

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -G. Washington

Is there really anyone on this site that actually thinks the elections are not rigged via electronic voting machines and other kinds of chicanery? I, for one, don't think we will have either party to choose from in a few years anyway. I hope the American people see to it.

That's been my worry for a long time. We need to get rid of all electronic voting machines, and we need to get a handle on voter fraud which seems to be SOP with the Democrats.

Nobody will know whether elections are rigged or not until they start using voting machines based on open architectures and Open Source software.

They need to publish the firmware and the source code on a website, and let random developers download it, examine it, build it, test it, and calculate a hash from the resulting executable. Voting machines need to have dedicated USB ports on them, so that anyone who wants to can plug in a Flash drive when he votes and download a copy of the firmware and execution environment currently running in the voting machine (and be reasonably sure he's getting the real thing rather than a fake image). Then he can take it home and calculate a hash from it, and make sure the hash from the software he got from the website matches the hash from the software he got from the voting machine.

Until ordinary folks can do that, nobody can know whether the voting machines are crooked or not. However, in general, when a politician or a political special interest group knows that nobody can tell whether they're dirty or not, the way to bet is of course that they're dirty.

So yeah, you're probably right.


From your mouth to God's ears.

I've always voted my conscience, whether you believe the same way or not, it's the way I feel good after voting. My thought has always been, you either vote your conscience or you're thowing your vote away. The Libertarian party has been my party for years, and years I know it isn't the party that will win the next election, but it lets anyone in politics know that there is someone that wants things the Libertarian way. If everyone voted Libertarian the Dems would win elections, until the pendulum swung the other way and then the Repubs would win and then the Libertarians.

Nah, I don't agree. Every stage in the vote-counting process that involves a human is an opportunity for fraud, unless it's very carefully watched, and unless the watchers are watched, and unless the watchers of the watchers are watched, and so on.

The only difference with software is that it allows a single human input (the program code) to affect millions of votes rather than just a few dozen or hundred.

But that disadvantage can be turned into an advantage with the proper procedures. If the whole process is computer-driven, and the software is open to inspection by anyone at any time, as laid out above, then you have a situation where there are potentially tens of thousands of watchers watching a single human contribution to the process.

Open machine architecture and Open Source software, along with suitable procedures, could serve to reduce vote fraud to a level far below that of any election conducted without automation.

(Oh...and I can't believe that Democrats are the only ones who commit vote fraud.)

On the other hand, perhaps a steadily increasing cynicism about the integrity of the electoral process might be one of the best things to happen to this country.