...as another libertarian[1] who's a mite uncomfy about the sudden and huge tip in the balance of power in the government. Hot damn, but I didn't expect that. I voted Bush, because I generally find the things I dislike about Bush (social policies--stuff like his stances on gay marriage and abortion and atheism) to be less threatening in terms of passable legislation than the things I dislike about Kerry (economic and foreign policies).
But now, with a majority of the Senate, House, state governorships and the White House in Republican control, I'm really hoping Mr. Bush shows some restraint when he's doing nasty things like legislating his ideas of morality, which the rest of us may or may not share.
Is it a strange idea that, with extremely limited exceptions, I want the least effective government possible? The dual-party system, while annoying me to no end, piles on the wonderful federalistic ideas of checks and balances, happily keeping our government from doing... well, much of anything other than appropriating money and declaring new holidays, since that's all they can really agree on most of the time. It's that fantastic old notion--the government governs best, that governs least--that drove the creation of the original system of checks and balances, and it's the same notion that makes even the legitimate removal of the unintentional ones ominous and scary.
If you'd like to see the polar opposite of my attitude, check out Noah Weiss' free PDF at Change This, The United STATE of America. I bet a hawkish Republican mandate wasn't what he intended when he envisioned a 'unified American voice and policy'. :lol:
[1] Whoopsie. I almost forgot the disclaimer. I'm a small-l libertarian; having been inside the Libertarian Party, even if only in the lowly role of a state press secretary for awhile, I really have no interest being associated with the official party. Reading half-baked, unedited, meandering drivel[2] from the Libertarian Party candidate for Nebraska's second seat in the U.S. House of Representatives makes me want to scream and join a commune. Reading sound bytes from the Libertarian Party presidential candidate that completely miss the salient points of the conversation they are meant to join makes me long for the long chats I used to have with my friend Anna, who was fascinated with--nay, worshipped--Kant. Yea, verily, I do loathe the Libertarian Party proper. Plus, I disagree with most of my small-l libertarian brethren that the war in Iraq was any of the following: not worth fighting, the new Vietnam, making the U.S. less safe, empowering the terrorists, taking our eye off the realy prize.
[2] No, this isn't a double standard. I'm allowed to write half-baked, unedited, meandering drivel, because I'm not running for the ONE OF THE HIGHEST FREAKING OFFICES IN THE STATE OR COUNTRY WITH NO POLITICAL OR MILITARY QUALIFICATIONS WHATSOEVER. Did I mention that the Libertarian Party nominated these guys? There are paths of action here, guys.[3] You can change the system from outside the system, or you can change the system from inside the system. Either way, you need to know a thing or two about the system before you can freaking change it! How about a little crawling before we walk, and walking before we run? Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.
And they wonder why they can't get even 1% of the popular vote.
[3] No, I didn't intend for this to turn into an angry, anti-LP screed. Look who's not running for office.
Hey there. Pretty good roll you got on there. Said a few things that needed to be said for a long time I think. Not a party member of any kind. Decide on things by what hte person for the job should be, not what his political alliance should be. Myself I voted for Bush, the soldiers were in majority for him and since he holds their fate and their faith...well that was my deciding factor. Not overly fond of him or Kerry, prehaps the lesser of two evils. ANyway, keep up the good work.