Why?
“When in our democratic republic, forces of conspiracy, division, and despotism arise, it is the patriotic duty of citizens to act collectively in defense of liberty and justice,” reads the preamble to the full statement, which is expected to be released on Thursday....“I’m still a Republican, but I’m hanging on by the skin of my teeth because how quickly the party has divorced itself from truth and reason,” Mr. Taylor said. “I’m one of those in the group that feels very strongly that if we can’t get the G.O.P. back to a rational party that supports free minds, free markets, and free people, I’m out and a lot of people are coming with me.”
Now, I did recently read about a conspiracy that effected the result (not a typo) of a recent election. However, I gather that many of these same people may have supported -- or even participated in -- that conspiracy, which is described by its members in their interview as 'bipartisan.' I assume that the "forces of conspiracy" they're worried about are the people taking notice of and commenting on the conspiracy, not the actual conspiracy to which the members confessed in a major publication.
So, since many of you are disobedient Republicans of the sort that exasperates these officials, why are you being so ungrateful to your natural mast... er, leadership? Is it free minds that you oppose? Free markets? Free people? Is it your love of despotism?
Maybe I'll join the Pirate Party.
8 comments:
I think one can look at discussions in a democratic polity as being fundamentally in two forms. One is as transactional negotiating between interest groups and the other is a more holistic discussion of what represents the common good. Both occur at the same time, and the balance between them changes as well. I do see in broad themes, however, that the current Democrat philosophy leans far more to transactional politics, at least since FDR and certainly since LBJ. The Republicans have had a significant faction with the transactional view but the party in general has never been comfortable with it, which I think was especially evident in the often clumsy outreach efforts to various minority groups. There appears to be a realignment brewing along these lines.
The Pirate Party does have a certain appeal, especially as I learn more about how government works (or doesn't. Depends on how one defines "work.")
LittleRed1
I've liked the Pirate Party for some time, although I'm not a fan of net neutrality, really.
I'm not entirely a fan of nonviolence, either, but there appears to be significant leeway for different local parties to adopt some or all of the principles.
What the heck is wrong with the idea of a splinter party of the right?
The left has their Democrats AND their Socialist(s), do they not? And the left and FAR-left parties caucus together more or less amicably, electing Speaker and Leader and what not with not much ado.
Why would the right not equally well join forces? Republicans and, let's imagine, a new "Constitutionalist" or "Restoration" or even "Whig&Tory" party? The Whig&Tory elites might hate Trump while the RedNeck Republicans love him, but insofar as votes in Congress for a Speaker or Senate Leader or what have you, -- what is the freakin' problem?
what is the freakin' problem?
An obvious one is your assumption that Conservatives and Republicans have the same monolith imperative as the Progressive-Democratic Party. The core of the Progressive-Democratic Party is the "FAR-left." Conservatives and Republicans--either group--are not at all monolithic.
Eric Hines
The problem is that the Republicans now clamoring to be restored to leadership or they’ll quit are more the allies of the center Dems than of the rest of the Republicans. Of course, the upside might be disempowered socialists; but the downside will be that the little guy doesn’t get a voice anywhere. Corporatist-statists own both big parties.
I'm in the Divine Party. It is more fun here.
Post a Comment