Hollow Major Parties Preside Over a Politics of 'Fear and Loathing'
The Democrats and Republicans seem ripe for replacement. But how and by what?

A year and a bit before a political contest that, we're told, will be yet another "most important election ever," the Colorado Republican Party is broke. So is the Minnesota GOP. Michigan Republicans have some money in the bank after being bust earlier this year. It would be a moment for Democrats to celebrate if they weren't so busy trying to gin up enthusiasm and donations among their own tepid supporters—perhaps enough to fund their efforts in next year's campaigns.
The fact is that America's major parties are hollow shells of their former selves, propped up by a few diehards, a lot of loony personality cultists, and a fair amount of inertia. In most countries, where political parties come and go, you'd assume they'll soon fade away to be replaced by…something. And maybe they will—though by what is unclear.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Weak Parties in Decline
"Around the nation, state Republican party apparatuses — once bastions of competency that helped produce statehouse takeovers — have become shells of their former machines amid infighting and a lack of organization," a team of Politico journalists reported last week. "Current and former officials at the heart of the matter blame twin forces for it: The rise of insurgent pro-Donald Trump activists capturing party leadership posts, combined with the ever-rising influence of super PACs."
Two days later, the publication ran a companion piece for those who like balance in their schadenfreude.
"One of the best online fundraising days for Democrats this year was the day of Joe Biden's campaign launch — but even that day's haul was meager compared to his campaign kickoff four years ago," Politico's Jessica Piper noted. "The lack of grassroots engagement is a warning sign for Biden ahead of a tough election cycle, raising questions about whether the 80-year-old incumbent is exciting the Democratic base the way he will need to win a second term."
The piece noted that online Democratic fundraising still generally exceeds that of the GOP. Democratic committees have also moderately outraised Republican counterparts, according to Ballotpedia. That suggests greater distress on the Republican side—no surprise to observers who've seen state parties taken over by nutty Trumpists like Arizona's Kari Lake, who gifted winnable seats to their opponents.
That said, Democrats have their own state-level organizational problems. Last week, The Economist delved into how Florida's Democrats so thoroughly self-destructed in a state where they were competitive a decade ago and dominant as recently as the 1990s. And earlier this year, The New York Times explained how the Democratic apparatus in the Empire State, which stumbled in last year's election, "operated, for the most part, as a hollowed-out appendage of the governor."
"Hollowed out" is a telling term here, echoing as it does a 2019 analysis of American politics by Johns Hopkins University's Daniel Schlozman and Colgate University's Sam Rosenfeld.
Politics Driven by Loathing of the Other Side
"Today's parties are hollow parties, neither organizationally robust beyond their roles raising money nor meaningfully felt as a real, tangible presence in the lives of voters or in the work of engaged activists. Partisanship is strong even as parties as institutions are weak, top-heavy in Washington, DC, and undermanned at the grassroots," they wrote. "More than any positive affinity or party spirit, fear and loathing of the other side – all too rational thanks to the ideological sorting of the party system – fuels parties and structures politics for most voters."
Hate-driven negative partisanship certainly dominates American politics. Last summer, Pew Research reported that "increasingly, Republicans and Democrats view not just the opposing party but also the people in that party in a negative light.… Today, 72% of Republicans regard Democrats as more immoral, and 63% of Democrats say the same about Republicans."
That kind of animus drives a lot of energy into opposing the "enemy" but not into building an apparatus to support. And support for both of the major parties is unimpressive.
"Forty-two percent of U.S. adults say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, compared with 44% in September. Meanwhile, the 39% of Americans who view the Democratic Party positively is the same as it was in September," according to post-midterm polling by Gallup. "Americans' opinions of the two parties remain considerably less positive than they were in the 1990s and early 2000s, when it was common for majorities of Americans to have a favorable opinion of each party."
As of the end of July, both the Democratic and Republican parties are seen more unfavorably than favorably, according to YouGov polling.
Hollow Parties Leave an Opening for Personality Politics
That hollowness leaves room for something to move in, and in the case of the GOP, that's Donald Trump's cult of personality. Last September, even after some luster had worn off the former president, 33 percent of Republicans said they saw themselves more as a "supporter of Donald Trump" than as a "supporter of the Republican Party." That's down from the 54 percent who said the same thing in 2020, but it leaves a major political party largely dependent on the fortunes of one person, who can generate the enthusiasm that eludes his nominal organization. That's why Trump supporters have been able to seize control of so many party apparatuses and wear them like skinsuits on behalf of their leader.
To a lesser extent, we saw this with former President Barack Obama who "largely shunned the party's traditional fundraising apparatus and instead raised money with his own groups, relying on personal star power. That helped leave the DNC depleted and in debt," according to the Associated Press. Democrats never fully recovered from that personality-driven approach, which foreshadowed Trump's demagoguery. That the GOP is a somewhat worse basket case than its main opponent seems the result of chance.
Room for Something Better—Maybe
In their paper, Schlozman and Rosenfeld put forward a vision of "rejuvenated grassroots parties…that organize consistently and effectively." But they also concede they have no idea of how to get from here to there. They don't even have a model in mind to emulate since "the crisis of political parties extends far beyond American borders…. Under proportional and majoritarian electoral systems alike, parties have grown hollow and lost legitimacy."
Well, it's nice to know we're not alone in our political chaos.
Polling repeatedly finds support for alternatives to Democrats and Republicans, which would seem to leave an opening for third and fourth parties to move in to replace the "hollowed out" shells of the old organizations. But, given the opportunity, voters usually hold their noses and vote for familiar candidates they dislike no matter who else is running. That may change—new organizations that inspire enthusiasm will eventually have an advantage over old ones that inspire nobody. But that's for the future.
For now, we have politics driven by fear and loathing, with cults of personality to liven things up.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,600 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,600 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
But change in, say, ballot access would hurt both parties, so it’s not likely that anything short of a very well funded third party could even get on the ballot in many states. I expect that we’ll have to get to the point where a large percentage of the party faithful on both sides are too disgusted by the party apparatus to support them before anything changes.
The ballot access problem is deadly for the US. There are no possible electoral alternatives. It means the only path to 'reforming' the DeRps is for voter turnout to diminish to the point where an election outcome is no longer seen as indicative of anything. I used to think that might happen with a change in generation but millennials have bought into the tribal dark side stuff.
Maybe there's a possibility for some political party to organize itself around being a modern day version of Tammany Hall. A benevolent association that itself is a form of safety net and networking group for its members. Where election turnout is just something done every couple years not the reason for the parties existence. But this is a Bowling Alone country now not a place for FreeMasons.
Seems to be working a lot better than elsewhere, both in terms of representing the will of the people and in terms of allowing newcomers to achieve electoral success.
In the US, independents occasionally get elected, and representatives actually have the ability to vote the way they choose to, not the way the party machinery tells them to.
You mean a highly corrupt organization that manipulates and pressures people into voting for Democrats?
Pining for domination of the US political system corrupt party machineries and cults... that's you.
Seems to be working a lot better than elsewhere, both in terms of representing the will of the people and in terms of allowing newcomers to achieve electoral success.
What planet are on? Newcomers achieving electoral success? Our pols are geriatrics who have been in office for decades. Average age of the House is 58, Senate 64. The incumbent win rate is 93% and hasn’t been below 88% since the 1960’s. 15% of critters were ‘new’ for this congress. Idk how many naturalized citizens are critters – more than Ilhan Omar but prob not a lot more. Our House is the second LEAST representative legislature in the world – one critter for every 740,000 people. Which also therefore requires that they acquire millions of dollars as a war chest just to enter a race.
Compare to say Germany which is significantly older population. Avg age of their critters is 49. 40% of their legislature is new this session. 8% of their legislature are naturalized citizens – immigrants – which is obviously lower than their peeps (22% naturalized). The district size of the Bundestag is 115,000 – representation we haven’t had since the Civil War. They are apparently competent enough to run a Bundestag with 735 critters. We can't handle that.
You mean a highly corrupt organization that manipulates and pressures people into voting for Democrats?
Tammany started as a way for new immigrants to assimilate, for people to get jobs, to have a safety net when times are tough, to get legal assistance. Long before govt did any of that. So it was a valuable association every day not just on election day.
It’s cute, in an inbred moron kind of way, to believe that we aren’t corrupt now. Or that voting in one’s self-interest is ‘corrupt’. When was the last time you supported a tax increase?
You’ve forgotten Trump already?
You're full of one liners Vulgar Asshole.
How about some data, facts, and reliable links to back them up?
About trump not being a politician for decades? What the fuck?
Yes, let's! "Newcomer" doesn't mean "young people", it means "people new to politics". "Newcomers" to politics cannot enter German parliament. Germany has not had any member of parliament elected as an independent ever. Future parliamentarians are carefully groomed and placed by parties. And they don't represent their district, they are bound by party discipline to do the party's bidding.
I agree: US congressional districts are too large and US members of Congress are too old. Both of those are irrelevant to what we discussed, namely whether people new to politics and independents can enter Congress and can represent the will of the people.
I'm not making some argument about proportional representation. Germany was simply picked because it's big. Here's the same about UK which is a first past the post district-based system. 35% of the UK MP's in this session are new. They each represent a district not a party. A district of 95,000 members in a legislature of 650. Not a district of 750,000 in a legislature of 435. And the House of Commons has 12 political parties - not two. With 15 independents currently - v the zero that you seem to think indicates our systems receptivity to 'new'.
And while you may agree that our district size is too big, it is just more words. Another example of you not holding those political parties accountable. They are the SOLE CAUSE of that problem. That problem is directly aimed at reducing YOUR representation. Which means you are as full of shit as every other DeRp. Fuck you.
No. In fact, you were making an argument about "newcomers in politics", and your argument was wrong.
Among major democracies, the US is one of the best places for political newcomers to enter politics.
You tried to give Germany as a counterexample, but while Germany has younger parliamentarians, they are not political newcomers; to the contrary, they have been groomed to be party faithfuls since they were teenagers.
Your b.s. about congressional district size is a red herring, and I was simply agreeing with you that US districts are too large.
Yes, it was a valuable association, and then it got hijacked by Democrats to gain political power, just like Democrats hijacked labor unions, gay and lesbian organizations, universities, and many other once beneficial social and civil organizations and turned them into political machines. That's what the Democratic party does: it takes over and destroys organizations of civil society and turns them into parts of their party machinery. It achieves that literally through mutual corruption, where Democrats in power funnel public money to the heads of these organizations and then are in return supported by the heads of those organizations.
I think there is plenty of political corruption. You don't?
I don't think that voting in one's self interest is corrupt at all. To the contrary, as I pointed out before, the US political system actually largely gives people what they want.
But Tammany hall was literally corrupt in the sense that politicians used it to gain power and wealth in ways that were unrelated to Tammany hall's service function for immigrants.
Am awful lot of republicans do not support the GOP organization. The same is not true of the democrats, as they are largely a hive mind.
The GOP is only about open borders and war.
Vulgar MadAsshole: Those two ridiculous claims are the stupidest thing I have read since I read something else from a democrat partier.
-“The GOP is only about open borders” WTF??? That would be the Libertarian party, if anything. And maybe not that, now that the Mises Caucus has snuck in and took over.
-“The GOP is only about… WAR” ?????
Who has fingerprints all over 14 wars from the last 24 years? Bitem.
Who voted for Joke Bitem? Democrats.
You Vulgar, are dumb as snot.
"...both sides..."? There is ONLY one side, i.e., one political paradigm, collectivist/authoritarian. Therefore, issues are irrelevant. Personalities are irrelevant. Only a new paradigm is relevant. That would mean the opposite paradigm, anti-authoritarianism, i.e., a voluntary, rights based, reason based, choice based paradigm.
But this would require the death of "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose. The survival of our species depends on it. It's only logical.
Um............................................ Perhaps maybe. Just Maybe......
A GD U.S. Constitutional Party. Ya know the Republican Party platform without all the RINO half-whit socialist supporters. A party of REAL USA patriots instead of treasonous self-serving greedy "I use Gov-Guns against those 'icky' people for my own selfish ends". A party that truly honors and takes pride in their very sworn oath of office and understands what made the USA so great to begin with.
It's not confusing at all. It's all written right there in the very definition of what the USA is (US Constitution) and labelled the Supreme Law of the land. Requiring a 2/3rds State and Congressional adjustment of it.
That it; that's all this nation needs to FIX it's criminal Nazi-building/growing government. FOLLOW THE SUPREME LAW................. The 'people's' law over their government.
Libertarian self-described Republicans or Constitutional Originalist tend to be remotely close to this. Both Pauls, Scalia, Thomas Masse and tends to scale down from there.
The massive failure in the USA parties is the dismissing of WHAT the USA is for socialist greed. The USA cannot exist functionally without being held consistently to what it *IS* defined as.
Make no mistake. Every Socialist and Communist nation ended up with highly partisan parties fighting for that Nazi-Empire SLAVE those 'icky' people POWER. Today the USA is no exception to that historical lesson BECAUSE socialists have invaded and taken over the USA. They literally don't care one hair what the USA is suppose to be in fact they literally despise it and want it completely destroyed.
A while back ISIS proclaimed they would destroy the USA from within. Make no mistake that is exactly what is happening. Not from ISIS though from every UN-Constitutional Progressive Gov-Gun usage implementation by Nazi-Empire building tactics starting clear back in the early 1900s with a "Federal" Reserve (Democratic pitched) and FDR's "New Deal" for the USA (needless to see the "revolution" in that deal) which was struck down by SCOTUS at the time so rightfully so only to have Democrats and their socialist mentality threaten and conquer the SCOTUS upholding the Supreme Law (an act of treason).
And the biggest problem of all is the people and their de-stain for the USA (as per defined). Many have no reason not to go join ISIS or North Korea. Many wanted the USA to be just like Venezuela but only changed their minds after the consequences showed up. These people should not be allowed to get away with conquering the USA and building their dreamboat Nazi-Empire. It is against the Supreme Law and the very definition of what the USA is.
...and what did the USA patriots and founders see that most of today's population is completely self-motivatedly blind of???
That 'government' is nothing but a monopoly of ?legal? gun-force. It's the only item government has that no other entity does. The only tool in its toolbox. And that GUNS don't make SH*T!!!! Guns can either be used to ensure Liberty and Justice for all or they get used to STEAL/CONQUER/CONSUME/DICTATE/ENSLAVE some 'icky' members of society. It's not rocket science. It's just a willful honest (not self-serving and greedy) acknowledgement to what a people's 'government' really is. And since Gov-Guns don't make sh*t there is only so much it can STEAL, conquer and consume before it ends up eating itself (ref; Venezuela) and every other Socialist nation ever founded. It ends up being a zero-sum resources dog-eat-dog w/gov-guns environment.
The *ONLY* asset to humanity at large for a monopoly of gun-force *IS* ensuring everyone has Liberty and Justice. Guns don't make sh*t! It's just as simple as that.
And that is what the founders KNEW and honestly acknowledged as the almighty truth. That is why the Supreme Law was written as it was. Only BS self-serving idiocy gets in the way.
The Democrats and Republicans seem ripe for replacement. But how and by what?
The fucking Uniparty?
You don't think we have that now?
Politics is like pro-wrestling. They put on a show and then have beers with each other after.
And some people like you cheer for the return of Hulk Hogan.
You don’t think we have that now?
I think that's the point KPF is making, although I'd take it a bit further and say that this part how a political realignment takes place. Look how much upheaval there was from the early 1890s through the 1920s as the Populists, Progressives, and Silver Republicans formed splinter movements and then eventually migrated over to the Democrats by the Great Depression (the Silver Republicans to a lesser extent, as most of them, with the exception of some like Henry Teller, decided bi-metalism shouldn't be the primary policy concern as the 1900s evolved).
The political sorting by states we're seeing now is part of that process. Iowa, West Virginia, and Florida are pretty much solid red states now, as Colorado, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are solid blue. It's going to be less about overall quality of life, as opposed whether the state's governing apparatus will specifically pass party social legislation. Economics isn't even going to factor in here anymore, mainly because the fiscal conservatives rarely delivered on their own rhetoric, and so the GOP-dominated states are simply going to use the apparatus the Dems set up for their own purposes.
The smart thing to do at this point would be to just split the states themselves up into smaller ones, and double the number of Representatives so that there’s better proportional representation. It's not going to happen because Congressmen won't want to further dilute their political power, but realistically that's what needs to be done.
I sometimes think the entire country needs to be broken up. However it's been tried and the results weren't pretty.
I sometimes think about how you cower after making your drunken threats to kick my ass. Do you think about that pussy? Or is that what the liquor is for?
National breakups are almost never peaceful, especially among empires. Even the Roman Empire, having ended with something of a whimper in 476, ultimately came about after a couple of CENTURIES of wars, civil conflict, and political upheaval. But it always happens eventually.
There can never be a peaceful breakup. The left's only goal is giving money to people who vote for them, which requires people to take that money from. They know the system doesn't work without controlling those others, that's why they pursue national legislation rather than focusing on the states they control.
Polling repeatedly finds support for alternatives to Democrats and Republicans, which would seem to leave an opening for third and fourth parties to move in to replace the "hollowed out" shells of the old organizations. But, given the opportunity, voters usually hold their noses and vote for familiar candidates they dislike no matter who else is running.
The voters claim they want something different but given the chance the dumb bastards keep voting for politicians. If you want something different, you're going to have to vote for something different. And at this point, nibbling at the edges ain't going to get it.
If you want something different, you’re going to have to vote for something different. And at this point, nibbling at the edges ain’t going to get it.
Exactly. But the biggest issue is that anyone who DOES actually threaten to upset the uniparty apple cart ends up getting destroyed by the uniparty apparatichiks and their allies in the media-industrial complex. We'll probably never know for sure why Ross Perot dropped out when he was leading in the polls, but would it surprise anyone to find out that he was threatened by Bush's spook contacts, and that he later said "fuck it, let them expose whatever they want" and jumped back in later on after he'd lost all his momentum? Or that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp," and the Deep State bureaucratic apparatus went into DEFCON 1 because they thought he was serious about that?
This is why I said a few days ago that a populist like Vivek will be largely ignored unless he becomes a serious threat to actually get the nomination. The media won't care as long as he's a niche candidate, but the hit pieces will start flying if he becomes a threat to Trump's chances. The uniparty desperately wants Trump to run as the GOP candidate because it will be a guaranteed loss. They don't have the same certainty with guys like Vivek or DeSantis who can make those populist overtures.
By comparison, look what happened to Bernie in two straight elections. Leaving aside the fact that he’s a bitch-ass jobber, the DNC deliberately and with prejudice undermined his campaign in TWO STRAIGHT elections. 2020 was even more blatant than 2016, because Clyburn specifically came out and endorsed Biden after Bernie whipped his ass in Nevada. Look how fast the Democrats rallied around Biden after that happened; Buttigieg and Klobuchar almost immediately dropped out despite the fact that they’d at least remained competitive up to that point. The whole purpose was to keep Bernie from getting the nomination.
Not that Bernie wouldn't have been a disaster, but both times were such fucking obvious hatchet jobs that I can't believe the Democrats didn't have a mass exodus of voters over it. It shows how devoted their party members are that they'd get worked like that and still vote for the other guy anyway.
"The uniparty desperately wants Trump to run as the GOP candidate because it will be a guaranteed loss."
This is such a weird position some of you people cling to with zealous blind faith.
Trump has, BY FAR, the best chance of any republican candidate. Just look at all the shit they've pulled to stop him.
But all of a sudden you believe the democrats are now playing 4d chess? That their plan is to completely delegitimize the justice system to... boost him in polls? To give the republican establishment the means they need to disqualify him from the primary?
And I suppose you think the uniparty is scared of establishment Republicans, and especially the Ivy league lawyer who's whole career has been taxpayer funded and entire campaign propped up by establishment donors?
Did DeSantis brainwash you when he was at gitmo?
Trump has, BY FAR, the best chance of any republican candidate. Just look at all the shit they’ve pulled to stop him.
But all of a sudden you believe the democrats are now playing 4d chess?
LOL, they don't need to "play 4d chess." Trump is one of the best campaigners for the Democrats the party's ever had. Democrat voters are specifically motivated to do anything they can to vote against him, and the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP and the spook Deep State will absolutely work with them to make sure he never sets foot in the White House ever again.
If GOP voters want to nominate him, that's fine. But unless he's got some major ballot harvesting operation churning up that no on knows about, he's going to get turned into a post-toastie in 2024. Bank on that shit.
Did DeSantis brainwash you when he was at gitmo?
Shush, tankie.
This is only a problem if you believe that politics is an intrinsically noble pursuit.
But it isn't, and can never be. No noble pursuit can bring harm to another, and all policy unavoidably does so.
I got as far a citing Politico about Republicans.
My only concern at this time is if there will even be a next election.
Why wouldn't there be? Despite all his faults, at least Biden recognizes the Constitution. Can't say the same about Trump.
Despite all his faults, at least Biden recognizes the Constitution
Biden doesn't recognize his reflection in a mirror.
“when somebody’s the president of the United States, the authority is total.” -Trump
“There’s some things that I’m going to be able to do by executive order and I’m not going to hesitate to do it, but what I’m not going to do is … I am not going to violate the Constitution. Executive authority that my progressive friends talk about is way beyond the bounds." -Biden
It is humorous even Biden acknowledges his own "progressive friends" as being the masters of violating the Constitution.
Yet ironically; Where does Biden EVER stand up to his "progressive friends" and NOT violate the US Constitution?
What is not humorous is Trump's assertion of absolute power.
When did he utilize absolute power?
Trump is hardly unique in that assertion, and if somebody is going to be wielding absolute power, I'd prefer Trump to most of the alternatives.
Trump is hardly unique in that assertion…
Prove it. Show me some quotes from other presidents saying their authority is 'total'.
if somebody is going to be wielding absolute power, I’d prefer Trump to most of the alternatives
Trump for Dictator 2024!
No need for quotes... HOW MANY Executive Orders did Biden sign in his first week? How about Obama?...
Democrats aren't the Nazi's either. Just ask them. Even though they completely believe in [Na]tional So[zi]alism. And while Biden and Obama made RECORD SETTING Executive Orders they certainly aren't the Dictator... /s
I have a pen and a phone
say you're going to be dictator and shit on the constitution without saying it
“Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.… That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” -Obama
By the way I resent being put into a position where I'm defending Democrats. I used to reluctantly support Republicans before the cult of personality that is Trump.
Obama's UN-Constitutional DACA order.
Trump's repeal of the UN-Constitutional DACA order.
The real question is why you're here defending blatant lies of the leftards as if they weren't blantant lies. While trying to smear Trump for a quote taken out of context by the blantant lies of the left.
One would think the bottom-line here to be addressed was the massive amount of LIES the left pitches.
Sarc again posts words while ignoring the actual actions. Amazing.
How many examples do you want of Joe or Obama saying they couldn’t do something and then do it anyways?
And you dont defend it. You constantly defend democrats despite censorship, covid, regulations, etc. I can post you stating that. Stop lying fucktard.
Sarc what did Biden say about student loan authority before he did it.
Also why do you focus on words even when they contradict actions?
This is embarrassing for you.
And Trumps statement was in direct relation to ... "he has the power to order states — which have told businesses to close and people to remain at home to limit the spread of the coronavirus — to reopen".
Or in a realistic evaluation; An order to STOP the STATE marshal law over the stupid flu.
You just as well say the Feds never had any authority to end state slavery and frankly they didn't in it's most despicable terms until the 13th Amendment but the Bill of Rights certainly inferred such.
...and you're playing the same game here. No Trump didn't have authority to end State marshal law over the flu but if the Feds have any authority to ensure the Bill of Rights (Individual Rights) throughout the USA the power in more likely than not inferred.
You make a valid point; but a point in the WORST possible light you could ever generate. One that is deceitfully crafted and bears no real resemblance to Trump as a President of the USA. Course that what your kind does. Pimps out words out of context just like cherry-picking words from the Constitution and spinning them on their heads. Typical leftard BS.
And what did Biden and his Democrats try to do as soon as they got elected??? Tried to marshall law the entire nation..........
^^THAT is the difference right there.
Why do all your statements contain the word "you"?
I thought we were talking about Trump and Biden, not me.
WHO tried to sell this BS?
"Biden recognizes the Constitution. Can’t say the same about Trump."
Because the issue here is not what Biden or Trump did or didn't do, but your delusions and lack of understanding of reality.
He literally provided context for your out of context quote retard.
Touchy, touchy. You're the one making the assertion regarding Trump and Biden.
I'm trying to have a conversation about what they said, not about me. Jesus H on rollerblades, that clown makeup is rotting your brain. Before long you're going to be as stupid as JesseAz.
No, you're not happy that people are telling you to look at the actions rather than the words. Remember, actions speak far more loudly and honestly than words. You are claiming that it's a "conversation" being derailed. It's not. You are responding in typical fashion, getting pissy when someone tries to tell you differently.
Words and actions are not the same.
I was talking about words.
Talking about actions is changing the subject.
Do you need me to write it out in crayon?
Words and actions are not the same.
No, they're not the same, which is what I and everyone else here has been telling you. Follow their actions, not their words. It's hardly changing the subject, dipsomaniac.
Dude, I get it.
I'm trying to have a conversation about what has been said publicly. As in outwardly expressed thoughts.
You're covering your ears and shouting "La la la he didn't do anything bad la la la I can't hear you Biden is worse la la la" to avoid that conversation.
Self-awareness is not one of your strengths, is it?
This is especially entertaining considering your white knighting for the king of taking words out of context and ignoring actions.
You're fucking pathetic. You don't know anything about Marbury v. Madison other than it being something you saw after some furious googling, and you certainly couldn't have a conversation about the subject.
If you're not a troll here for the sole purpose of scoring points with other trolls, prove me wrong.
I won't hold my breath.
This is especially entertaining considering your white knighting for the king of taking words out of context and ignoring actions.
Since when did I white knight Lying Jeffy? That's what you seem to do more often than not. How about you take some aspirin for that nasty hangover you seem to have, dipsomaniac, and stop being so bitter and indignant all the while, eh?
Sarc, what has a bigger governmental effect. Words in a speech, or actions they take. You can’t be this damn stupid.
Dictators often say they want to do the best they can for the people. They are still dictators.
You would rather have flowery words thrown at you while locked in a cage than not be locked in a cage. You have become such a joke.
This is especially entertaining considering your white knighting for the king of taking words out of context and ignoring actions.
Literally said in a thread where it was shown Sarc took Trump out of context. LOL. While demanding nobody looks at Biden's actions. HILARIOUS.
For a small moment I thought you might be an intelligent person who I might learn something from. My bad.
And he is correct: he has total authority over the executive branch, which is what he was talking about.
Which tells you with certainty that Biden is going to violate the Constitution, because the man lies about everything.
In fact, this has been a pattern with both Obama and Biden: they say what you want to hear and then do something different, illegal, unconstitutional.
You’re done. Go cower in your piss soaked garbage can, pussy.
I know it's blasphemy to say Biden is better than Trump in any respect, but in this particular matter he is. Trump has no respect for the Constitution. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Never has. He doesn't respect elections either. So in reponse to Ltbf, if anyone were to suspend elections it would be him, not Biden.
A load of pure BS. First and foremost Trump wasn’t a supporter of “socializing” the USA (not just UN-Constitutional but down right treasonous). Something Biden and Democrats have done and do constantly and compulsively. Multiple times Trump yielded State Authority over his own while Biden compulsively “Nationalized” it. Trump cut massive amounts of funding from UN-Constitutional Agencies while Biden compulsively insists on growing the Nazi-Empire.
And in case your entirely full of yourself; Questioning an election concerning Election integrity IS NOT UN-Constitutional you blinded buffoon but you know what is UN-Constitutional????? Democratic Governors changing election laws by executive fiat.
No Trump wasn’t entirely Constitutional all the time. No president has been in over a century or more. But your delusions that a [Na]tional So[zi]alist policy making Biden is somehow more Constitutional than Trump is complete partisan BS.
But your delusions that a [Na]tional So[zi]alist policy making Biden is somehow more Constitutional than Trump is complete partisan BS.
I’m just going by their own words. Trump says the president can do whatever he wants, while Biden acknowledges Constitutional limitations to power.
This isn't about me. It's about them, and what they said.
and ... "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor..." /s
Oh look at that. By your own words YOU lied. Where does Trump say, "the president can do whatever he wants"????? I'm just going by your words. Are you a LIAR by your own words?
Where does Trump say, “the president can do whatever he wants”?????
“when somebody’s the president of the United States, the authority is total.” -Trump
The fuck else does that mean?
As far as the rest of your comment goes, all I can say is that I'm sorry you lack the ability to stay on topic and insist on personal attacks. Enjoy circle jerking with JesseAz and Mother's Lament. Just be sure to wash your hands when you're done.
Do you have the link to the cite?
What is the context?
google.com
IOW, Sarc, you have no cite and no link. Either that, or you're being as lazy as White Mike.
Lick my balls, Juggalo. Just put the quote into google you lazy fuck.
Go hide pussy. Or nut up and make good on your threats.
Does “the president can do whatever he wants” = “when somebody’s the president of the United States, the authority is total.” ???
"I’m just going by their own words." <<<<<--------
Hint; hint --- playing the same stupid game you are.
He was talking about executive authority in the context of a national emergency.
And what matters is what he actually did, not what he said. That is, Trump said a lot of stupid things, and then his lawyers tell him "can't do that" and he doesn't.
Biden has been the opposite: he says the things you want to hear (when he is coherent at all), and then he violates the law or the Constitution anyway.
People attack you personally because you are an evil, lying p.o.s.
People attack you personally because you are an evil, lying p.o.s.
Really. What have I done that was evil and when did I lie? By the way, hyperbole and exaggeration is not lying unless you're a retard. Are you retarded?
The LIE
"Trump has no respect for the Constitution. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Never has."
10 Trump quotes honoring the Constitution as the Supreme Law.
https://www.azquotes.com/author/14823-Donald_Trump/tag/constitution
Since obviously words mean so much more to you than action. It's amazing how much time it took for me to find that. The internet really is a Nazi-Indoctrination hive.
Another quote from Trump: "Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,"
Trump has said some stupid stuff...
Of course; the left hangs their entire world on every/any word and poorly chosen phrase taken completely out of context ever to come out of his mouth added with their own brand of spin, cherry-picking and false narration they can spin-up to "hang the witch".
Because... The only one's really entirely obsessed with Trump is the Left.
Just gotta love how the last sentence is conveniently CUT which is ... "Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"
It's not hard to see the poorly chosen words were meaning that ... Just because you wrote a false and fraud-ed check doesn't mean the bank has to cash it just because the bank has a duty to cash checks.
Of course then there's the Biden Administration and Democrats who just ****DO**** terminate the Constitution daily. As-if that's some sort of big secret. Course they don't pitch it as terminating the Constitution they just pitch it as the "New Deal" which terminates the "Old Deal".
"I’m just going by their own words." You prefer lies to reality. You love the Democrats because they claim to be doing the opposite of what they are really doing.
Try to not be a raging cunt like JesseAz and keep the conversation on the topic, not me.
Still nursing a massive hangover? Take two aspirin and get off the 'net for a while.
White Knighting for JesseAz now I see. That's like pathetic squared.
Commenting on your apparent hangover is not white knighting someone. You'd do better if you looked up the actual definitions rather than shooting from the hip.
Waaa waaa booo hooo I said mean things about your buddy JesseAz so you're going to say I'm hungover. So clever. So original. So... pathetic.
It's your entire demeanor here throughout the morning, intemperate one.
How was he defending me? Is White Knight another term you don't know?
Except you are wrong on every aspect because you're a Biden defending leftist. See the actions and not the words. I dont think you're that much of a retard, but if this is your argument you are.
He doesn’t respect elections either.
To be fair, he learned from watching the Democrats.
Who was it that "pressured" OSHA to issue a vaccine mandate?
I seem to recall it had the initials "JRB".
Politicians have been disrespecting the constitution since before the ink was dry on it. At this point it's major function is protecting the people who want to do an end run around it from the people who want to enforce it. Generally, I regard people who want to go nattering on about the constitution as either naive idiots or malicious grifters.
The only time the constitution gets mentioned is when it's being used to bludgeon the descendants of the people who wrote it.
Trump was the first president in my memory to utter their disdain for the constitution out loud.
Good for him!
No wonder sarc has a hard time trolling this comment, it's actually libertarian and doesn't have TDS, which it appears sarc has conflated in his mind.
It appears his partisan thinking is something along the lines of "if you support trump you can't support the constitution which means you're not libertarian."
Apparently his definition of support trump is notice anything he did that wasn't authoritarian, and by noticing, ruin the narrative that trump is hitler.
(Or whatever people lie to themselves that they think of trump, when clearly they have had their perceptions managed by the pundit class into believing he's as existential a crisis as hitler.)
Which disregards everything that's been ruled "constitutional" within our living memory that is clearly not aligned with libertarian values. In fact if you believe the things that are "constitutional" now are legitimate, you can't be libertarian, as many libertarian exclusive policies, actions, and legislation have all been held to be "constitutional". As WBN noted, this has been going on since the ink was dry. (My personal favorite is the Federal reserve, totally constitutional!)
The constitution is a piece of paper with some libertarian ideas on it, the mainstream presented culture of America is rampantly unlibertarian. Until the individual Americans living in America change their culture away from having their political perceptions managed by mainstream pundits, and think of how to achieve living a good life and what government policies go along with that (libertarianism, duh!) Partisan chicanery like both sides of the TDS coin presented here by Sarc will continue.
Shorter Terran: Look at me! I can read minds!
Well, if I was that accurate in my description of your posts that I actually seemed to read your mind, thank you.
Um, no. Replying to that post would be like replying to something from JesseAz. By the time I was done refuting all the false premises and lies I'd be too exasperated to express my own views, which you'd just ignore anyway. Your post is a great performance piece that scores points with the trolls you seem to admire so much, but does nothing to further any actual conversation. Though I doubt conversation was your goal.
You do have the memory of a drunk. Obama talked about how much easier shit was for aithoritarians in China.
But keep taking the quote out of context while ignoring actions.
LMAO.... That must be a joke.
How many times has the SCOTUS had to block Biden already???
And yet here he is thwarting SCOTUS for student loan armed-theft.
The only think out-doing your delusions is your projection.
"LMAO…. That must be a joke..."
Not an intentional joke; that steaming pile of lefty shit is entirely too stupid to recognize his stupidity.
...
My eyes glaze over when replies to my posts are about me, not the topic.
*yawn*
Go play under a bridge.
Just because someone tells you facts you don't like doesn't make them a troll.
Reminder. Sarc claims he never defends Biden. Bookmarked.
Vaccine mandates, student loans, going after parents, political prosecutions including FACE act, illegal appointments, censorship...
Is that why the left wants to pack the court, that has repeatedly ruled against them? How many times have they ruled against Trump?
I'm just going by their own words. Trump says presidential power has no limits, while Biden acknowledges the Constitution.
Yes. Youre ignoring actions to focus on words. Retards do that.
So far they haven’t taken any action toward doing so.
Really? What constitutional violations is Trump guilty of?
Oh, I don't know. Trying to overturn an election?
Like the Left did in 2016?
Blond acceptance of liberal narratives devoid of seeing Gore do that in 2000 that had to go to the USSC.
Sorry sarc. Youre fucking retarded.
Trying to overturn an election the way Trump did it isn't "unconstitutional".
That explains his legal woes.
Doing something unconstitutional isn’t per se a criminal offense. So, Trump’s legal woes are indeed unrelated to the constitutionality of his actions.
After thinking about it, what Trump did was more impeachable than criminal.
Yet you've been cheering him facing 670 years in prison for months. So you have no principles.
Correct. And therefore, it does not "explain his legal woes": even if his actions had been unconstitutional, criminal indictments would have been the wrong remedy.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1688636885898231808?t=2YDcUzcOEkQiPSoY0uiE1gizmo?
Watch this clip
Pence just accidentally admitted he could have turned the 2020 election over to the House of Representatives but he didn't because he was worried about 'chaos'
That means he admits he knew that he had the legal ability to do that
[Video]
The entire Dem party did this is 2000. Exactly zero left wingers, including sarc, cared one bit. They did it again in 2004, exactly zero left wingers, including sarc, cared one bit. Left wing Dems did this in 2016.
Obama, Dems generally, and the media treated all these efforts as earnest and legitimate concerns. The Dems have claimed every election they lost is illegitimate since at least 1988, 35 years and approaching two generations ago.
Dems have been undermining our elections for decades, intentionally so to drive outrage. Convincing people they've been screwed is how they motivate them do the same in return, hence their mantra "By Any Means Necessary".
Of course sarc doesn't care about any of these examples because he doesn't care about the underlying principle, it's just a convenient tool to attack those he hates. He has literally never applied a standard he judges the right by to himself or his allies. Not one single time.
Nothing more constitution affirming than infiltrating churches with government agents, and gun control.
Despite all his faults, at least Biden recognizes the Constitution.
Again we see that sarc simply asserts whatever supports Dems and attacks the right completely without regard to reality. It's not clear to me what Trump is supposed to have done against the constitution. This is the sort of left wing mythology sarc accepts and internalizes regardless of facts because he's incapable of independent judgment.
But in Biden's case his loan program clearly violated constitutional requirements, and when that was pointed out he responded by threatening to pack the court with far left ideologues thus ending the constitutional separation of powers. But sarc doesn't care about this because in his mind the constitution is irrelevant in and of itself, he only cites it when useful to attack the right.
This didn’t age well about three constitutional violations ago by the Biden Regime.
Libertarian Moment!
+1 After the previous death of the GOP, now both parties are going to die simultaneously! Again!
Three words. The Mises Caucus. Everything said in this article can be said about the people crying over the MC takeover.
Maybe the answer here is for people to vote more. I think a big part of the problem is incumbents who are too concerned with reelection to do their job. So many seats in this country are gerrymandered that the primary is more important that the general election. Primaries are where the extremist come out, left and right. If more people voted in the primaries and voted for more moderate candidates, we would see a more functional government.
You're from California aren't you
half the dem voters voted twice in the last election
...how much more do you want them to vote??
[/hyperbole]
[/hyperbole]
Are you sure?
I’ve come to the point I am so disgusted with political parties I would like to see them outlawed.
They could be replaced with endorsements.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Vote for the person, not the party. We had a POTUS who protected our freedom and pushed for smaller government more than any other in a hundred years, but TDS-addled shits like Tuccille made sure he didn't get another term.
As long as they keep believing the lie that they are throwing thier vote away they will keep voting republicRat. They need to first be taught that voting is a stupid waste of time.
And then what? Turn around and try to convince them that voting is a very important use of time because now it's "my guy" you need to vote for?
Or descend into anarchy as there will be no rule of law as humans have striven for generations to achieve, but instead a return to rule of man again. Goodbye enlightenment, I'm glad I was able to see you in the rearview mirror of history as my culture drives me off a cliff!
Never wasting thier time voting again is fine with me.
Article premise: We need new political parties.
Article conclusion: No one knows how to do that.
In the US system, we get new political parties every year: the D/R change rapidly and radically to track the views and preferences of the American people. And they do so quite well.
No one cared about trannies until the D/R narrative control made it so. I wish that the representatives were actually voting the views of their constituents into legislation, instead they are corrupt and present what they believe you should think about to you. I mean, there are obviously so many mainstream narratives that no one in their personal life cares about and wouldn't ever even think about if the political class didn't make it their issue.
Progressives have been quietly pushing policies like castrating minors, placing pornography into schools, and firing people for using the wrong pronouns.
People care about that because it actually matters in real life.
I said they are corrupt, and separately they control narratives. Sorry if that was unclear. Narratives are a normal part of politics yes, totalitarian narrative control, is not. The real narrative Americans care about is their corruption, so they control narratives around identity politics.
Unless you don’t think the Federal government or D/R system is corrupt. In which case, I don’t know where to begin, as there are so many instances of corruption at this point analysis of it almost yields paralysis.
“As a gay man, I certainly do care about whether Democrats want to go out and castrate people like me. And I certainly do care whether kids are exposed to pornography in school in the name of “LGBTQIA+”.”
I like pears more than apples, and I don’t care what they say they are doing it for, any individual who shows pornography (intentionally for the sophists) to a child should be beaten, and I’ll do the beating. Just as I would ask a police officer to do if he found out. Pathologically kind modern people would be compassionate to the pervert, I have no compassion for the subversion of human values that lead to living a good life.
Edit: Dang it don’t edit your post after you said it NOYB, re-read it first. I’m still leaving my response to it.
Tea party and Trump to replace Republicans vs Bernie and the squad for Democrats. While the Libertarian party isn't factored here, the way that the Mises caucus took over the party is how the change effectively happens. It's more likely that Trump style Republicans take over the party and later rename it to MAGA party. I'd say the Democrat party is further down this path where the fascist globalists have taken over, though they're probably not likely to change the party name to the NSDAP any time soon. They're too effective as is in exercising corrupt power
The premise is that the two major political parties are shells of what they were.
Tuccille was mildly dismissive of the notion we need new political parties to replace them.
Just keep reprinting this article every couple of years, Reason.
Do you ever, ever say anything positive or constructive?
Over 11,000 L.A. workers plan to strike, hoping to ‘shut down’ city
Would anyone notice?
I'd actually laugh my ass off if there ended up being a general strike of some kind in L.A. and it ended up spreading throughout the state. It's their fucking team in charge of everything, and has been for about 15 years now, if you consider Arnold to be a Republican and not simply a liberal who likes tax cuts.
Same thing in Colorado. The people who vote Democrat there, and I'm counting the "independents" who happen to vote Democrat in every election, have no reason to complain about how shitty things are. It's been their fucking team running the show almost exclusively since 2012.
That worked great for the teamsters that used to work for Yellow.
They did get what they wanted.
>>America's major parties are hollow shells of their former selves
the one-party representatives killed the system. and now Feinstein's setting the precedent for Cocaine Mitch to still be GOP leader in 20 years
I actually wouldn't be all that surprised to see Mitch drop dead from an aneurysm at a presser in the next five years. His health is clearly in rapid decline at this point.
And what's happening with Feinstein is just fucking cruel, no matter what party she belongs to. They really need to get these dinosaurs out of office and just accept the decent probability that the Gen-Xers and older Millennials might not have the capability, wisdom, or the tools to keep the country sustainable, thanks to a generation of bread, circuses, and intellectually deficient university systems that placed social grievance over reality.
I wonder why they want to keep Feinstein on.
Are they afraid of whom Gavin Newsom would appoint?
I think it's more about the people around Feinstein who have a vested interest in her staying on, because once she's out, they'll be out, too.
From what I've read, Newsom wants to put in either Barbara Lee or Adam Schiff, but those two don't have much support outside the upper tiers of the party.
It's the staffers who won't let the dinosaurs resign.
Feinstein doesn't even know where she is, but her staff knows they aren't guaranteed to keep their status and power if she resigns.
Ironically, the Tea Party could have formed the basis for a re-energised and vibrant Republican Party - but they got deflected too easily away from policy to "culture".
The Tea Party going over to culture was inevitable. The GOP's failure to engage the left on the cultural front through the 1990s and 2000s was a big reason the neocons got kicked to the curb in 2016.
TARP, which is what actually kicked off the Tea Party movement, was a cultural complaint, not an economic one, because working-class GOP voters were pissed that the big banks got rewarded with a bailout for defrauding the system. It had nothing to do with political party ties and everything to do with the perception of fairness and moral hazard involved in rewarding people who deliberately made criminal acts by misrepresenting the value of their bond portfolios, coupled with the ratings agencies enabling the fraud by giving them AAA ratings on securities that were mostly trash.
Look what happened at the 2008 convention. It was Palin who got the biggest cheers, not McCain, specifically because she spoke to the GOP voters on a cultural basis. It was her speech that galvanized enough voters to keep McCain from getting his ass kicked even more than it ultimately was, and that energy carried forward into the Tea Party movement later on.
The GOP coronating a milquetoast like Romney to be the 2012 nominee, coupled with his pathetic debate performance and refusal to vigorously hit back against Obama was the final straw.
You say that as if there were a distinction between policy and culture.
Our excessive spending, entitlement crisis, ballooning medical costs, loss of individual liberties, failing international competitive, and destruction of the educational system are first and foremost failures of US culture in recent decades.
Well said…. +10000000.
If one doesn’t want to end up in a lawless criminal-gangland then one shouldn’t be humoring criminal actions (“gov-gun armed-theft”) as justice, rights, liberty or charity. There is no magical-oz behind the curtain of ‘government’ that makes criminal acts ethical/just. For every Gov-Gun *entitlement* there will always be a victim because ‘guns’ don’t inherently make sh*t.
The failure culture is the belief that the almighty magical-oz of ‘government’ can make sh*t for them. A criminalistic, greedy, and self-serving path all the way through no matter how much they propagandize it as being just “charity” or the “right thing to do” it is an utter dis-regard for honest justice and a consistent historical mentality that it’s but the ‘icky’ slaves purpose in life to cater to them.
The Net Federal Taxpayer Party
"... they also concede they have no idea of how to get from here to there."
The only way to foster the rise of grassroots parties organized locally to replace the "hollowed out" bipartisans is proportional representation. If Schlozman and Rosenfeld don't know this, then I don't think much of their expertise!
The US winner-take-all voting system results in a two party system. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "replacement". It's possible if unlikely one or both parties will get "replaced" by some other organization, but you will still end up with two parties that are largely hated by most people. That's the nature of politics.
And it's a good system, compared to the others that have been tried. You can have more parties, and parties people feel closer to, but the overall outcomes and decisions end up being worse.
I've always found the assertion that more parties would offer more choices to be ridiculous. Realistically, you still need to form coalitions between competing interests to govern.
The only difference between a 2 party system and a multi-party system is that in the 2 party system you form the coalitions within the parties, and in the multi-party system you form them outside the parties. Either way, you have the same individuals, the same interests and the same compromises.
File this under, "Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.".
The only difference between a 2 party system and a multi-party system is that in the 2 party system you form the coalitions within the parties, and in the multi-party system you form them outside the parties.
I sometimes wonder if a parliamentary system might not be better. In our 2 party system libertarians have no voice at all. The libertarian conundrum is how you get people who don't want power into positions of power so they can dismantle that power. That will never happen in a 2 party system since both sides hate libertarians. If we instead had a parliamentary system voting Libertarian wouldn't be throwing your vote away, because minority parties would still get a seat at the table.
What happens in a parliamentary system is that a dozen parties "get a seat at the table". And then, instead of people making a choice between unpleasant compromises by picking one of two parties, those compromises get made by a bunch of politicians in a backroom, usually not representative of anything the people want.
It is true that small parties have a disproportionate impact in parliamentary systems. But the small parties that most benefit from that are fascists and socialists.
You can look to the history of Europe where those kinds of systems lead, starting with the end of the Weimar republic.
But the small parties that most benefit from that are fascists and socialists.
That is more a statement about culture than political systems. Here in the US we have never been subjects, and until a generation or two ago it was normal to have a healthy distrust for authority.
There are two issues here.
(1) Parliamentary systems are less democratic and less representative of the will of the people because they give a stronger weight to minority views in decision making.
(2) As a matter of culture, the minority views that get disproportionate weight are socialism and fascism. That is true even in the US.
So, parliamentary systems are neither the right thing from a principled point of view, nor are they beneficial to libertarian objectives.
Liberty-minded views simply do not exist in European culture. It's all about asking permission and obeying orders.
They do exist here. For now. So why wouldn't liberty-minded minority views be given disproportionate weight here in the US?
Classical liberalism was, in large part, developed in Europe.
Giving any political minority "disproportionate weight" is hardly representative government.
And, again, if you think that among the many political minorities in the US, libertarians would end up with disproportionately large political influence, you're a fool.
Libertarians have zero voice as it is. Isn't something better than nothing?
Amen!
Libertarians have plenty of voices in both the Democratic and Republican parties, on different issues. In fact, there are probably far more libertarians in either major party than in the LP itself.
The LP is a bunch of losers who confuse party identity with actual policies.
No, you don't have to form permanent coalitions under the United States system of government. Say, for example, that the Libertarians had ten percent of the seats in the House of Representatives. They could vote with one party on the budget and with the other party on Federal regulations. Only in parliamentary governments would you have to form a ruling coalition. You're both wrong about the two party system being superior in any way.
I don’t even know where to start with this.
First, I never said anything about “permanent” coalitions. But the fact remains, in order to pass legislation, you need votes. Whether you get the votes from within your party, or outside of your party is irrelevant. You still need to recruit a sufficient number of votes.
Say, for example, that the Libertarians had ten percent of the seats in the House of Representatives.
Say, for example, the only libertarians in the House of Representatives are representing the Republican party. The number from the Libertarian Party is exactly 0.
So, explain to me how you get your 10 percent Libertarians elected by splitting the Republicans into a Libertarian Party, and a National Conservative Party (who likely outnumber libertarians by about 10 to 1).
I fail to see what this accomplishes for libertarians, other than losing what little representation they have now, and an opportunity to be drubbed by more than 2 parties.
Right! My goal would be to STOP them passing legislation. The few things like the budget process that are necessary should be severely impacted by having a seat at the table! If they're representing the RP then that's a problem for the libertarians who elected them, not a problem per se with the proportional representative system. I would not split the RP into LP and NC and, of course, it's not an either or situation. Proportional representation is accomplished by at-large statewide election of state and federal legislators. If ten percent of the voters in each state vote for libertarian candidates they win ten percent of the seats. And if you fail to see how having ten percent of the representatives benefits libertarians then it's willful blindness, not a problem with the proposal.
And you just gave political parties even more power.
Furthermore, your notion of what the actual outcome of such a change would be in terms of political representation is delusional.
Libertarians don't even make it into a typical typology of US voters, and half of young Americans identify as socialist.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/
It's impossible to give the two political parties currently taking turns with each other more power. Giving other parties more power is a good thing in my opinion. If it's not a good thing in your opinion then I'm not the delusional one here. I could not care less whether your "typology" mentions libertarians or not.
The people who do the typologies know about libertarians, and in one such survey they did identify a libertarian cluster that had appeared, but it soon dissolved. The studies use cluster analysis, a statistical method used to identify multidimensional clusterings of opinion and demographics. They don’t have a hobby horse that they flog, they don’t assume certain poles of ideology. It so happens that no sizable clustering is currently identifiable as libertarian in the USA, but rather than libertarian sentiment is scattered among clusters that those doing the study have given more apt names.
The people who initiated this project decades ago have lamented the ill representation of opinion by the major parties, and have speculated that if other parties form, the likeliest ones would match one of the types they've been finding.
Look, I couldn't care less what political system you want; the US political system isn't going to become multi-party.
I'm simply explaining to you how the US political system actually works: it is designed to deliver outcomes that maximally appeal to the median voter. I consider that a good thing.
You're free to have different preferences, but if you want to indulge those preferences, you'll have to do so by moving to Europe.
Yeah, wouldn't that be a wonderful fantasy land, in which R and D both get 45% and the LP gets the remaining 10% and casts the deciding votes on everything.
But in practice, it won't be the LP that casts the deciding votes, it will be one of the left wing or right wing smaller radical parties, which historically get fewer votes than the centrist parties, but a lot more than any liberal/libertarian party.
This kind of dynamic is bad enough in a parliamentary system and has turned numerous nations totalitarian. It's even worse without the restraint that coalitions impose.
Your assertion is automatically rejected without evidence to support it. The two-party system is horrible and citing horrible parliamentary systems, which ours is not, doesn't help your case. Since it's never been tried in the United States it's certainly worth a try. I don't see how it could be worse than what we have now, but by all means try to explain it to us.
Well, you are free to hold to your foolish beliefs any way you like. It's no wonder libertarianism is doing so poorly.
It is a purely academic discussion anyway, since the US political system isn't going to change in this way.
It is a purely academic discussion anyway, since the US political system isn’t going to change in this way.
True. If there were to be any real structural changes, I'd propose adding another Article to the Constitution. It would create another representative body, and its sole power would be to repeal legislation. As it is there is zero incentive to repeal bad laws. If people ran for office based upon what they would undo, perhaps we could see some real positive change.
Marbury v. Madison.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
The last time the Court stood up to Congress was before the New Deal. FDR cowed them into adopting a policy of deference to Congress, and it hasn't changed since. With Chevron it's only gotten worse.
I miss the days when there were interesting conversations between people learning from each other. It was here that I learned about Bastiat, where I started reading cafehayek, where I learned the difference between positive and negative rights, and so on and so forth. In the old days your comment would have been part of a conversation. Instead it's solely an attempt to score points.
As Trump would say, sad. So sad. So very sad.
Oddly enough you have been given things to learn multiple times and you refuse to do so. So your lamenting is apparently false.
As far as “learning about bastiat” I’ve only seen you ever post his quotes without understanding of his full policy or understand the fact that others have built on the basis of Bastiat who you outright attack such as Ludwig von Mises.
The moot lewser button fixes that. The increasing curve, despite infiltrator planks straight out of a National Lampoon comic, put the LP on the spot. 4M votes rerolling the electoral college dice for 13 States dirteid their drawers. The Kleptocracy is now infiltrating and neutralizing us, but they will have to imitate our real planks to keep from losing. I learned this stuff from Abortion Rights Action League strategists. Like wolves they reduce the number of seats on the team that lets a girl-bullier infiltrate them. Today's Grabbers have to lose the evangelists and the Dems lose the commies or lose their seats. Resetting to the original platform will bring us back the female vote the LNC abdicated in 1980.
amen
I don't think you gain anything by having a body that would repeal legislation, since "legislation" includes repealers.
What I think you want is to mandate a body that can only repeal code, i.e. consolidated statutes. And without further specification, you could still get all sorts of mischief, like repealing the word "not" or stuff like that &emdash; like the state where the governor can veto individual characters in a bill, so "2023-2024" became "2324" by elision of "02" and "-20".
Republican infiltrators rely on if-then prophesy to gull suckers. That'll never work is the reply to anything not in God's Own Platform. When reality refutes, they either deny, claim misquoting or use the Turin Shroud of doublething to wish error away. Libertarians observe experiments. “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” --Richard Feynman
Automatic sunset provisions, as proposed by some Republicans, would be a simple mechanism. The line item veto would also be good. National referenda for the repeal of legislation might also be a reasonable mechanism.
If you propose any of those, progressives will call you a Nazi.
Wrong. It is already changing as more and more states experiment with ranked choice voting and, in some cases, with proportional representation systems. People were saying drugs would never be legalized just a few years ago and they were wrong too.
Semantic quibble. Drugs have been decriminalized, but not make legal. If they were then they would be a regulated product sold by legal businesses that could be taken to court if there was a dispute.
Decriminalization means they don't bust druggies, but they still go after dealers. That does nothing to address overdoses from inconsistent products or gangs killing each other over turf.
Yeah, it's a start. I suppose. But only provides drug warriors an excuse do say "See? That didn't work!"
Several states have made cannabis a regulated product to be sold by legal, licensed businesses that can be taken to court.
But the main point is, there are now more things more people are either allowed to do, or less penalized for doing, with drugs than before.
Egzactly! Just as we take what freedom we can get and then try for more, the looters grab whatever deadly force coercion is available, then ratchet for more coercion. Libertarian spoiler votes offer voters a way out of this, and the looter Kleptocracy's worst fear is that realization may someday dawn...
RCV doesn't result in proportional representation; all it does is give established political parties more power.
There are no proportional systems in the US. There have been some attempts to approximate proportional representation via various complex voting schemes in some local elections, but many cities have abolished them again, and they certainly have not brought about a libertarian moment.
Your comment about drugs is a red herring.
File this under, “Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”.
Yeah, "(always) results in a two party system" is a bit of a misconceptualization if not some "statistically rationalized" stolen bases. It tends to lead to a two-party system modestly more quickly, but it also more rigorously divides power.
Adolph Hitler wasn't appointed Chancellor for lack of other parties to vote for. The election immediately prior to Mussolini's election to PM was an unpopular 3-way split between 3 parties. Lincoln was a 3rd Party candidate. WTA appear to just slow or ossify the 'pendulum' swing between the/any two ends of the political "horseshoe"... maybe. Better guaranteeing that in any political shift, closer to half the population is unified in opposition.
None of which is to say that there should be no 3rd parties, but that 3rd parties aren't an immunization against political polarization or worse.
I disagree with your opinion about overall outcomes and decisions. Since more parties would allow a veto on big spending and regulatory overreach; and since it’s never been tried here in the United States before, I’m willing to try it and find out.
Yeah, because nothing says "democracy" and "will of the people" than to give a 10% communist minority party the power to cast the deciding votes on everything. /sarc
And believe me, it won't be the libertarians casting the deciding votes.
Communism and fascism have never been tried in the United States before! Let's give a try! /sarc
False equivalence. You should be ashamed of your lack of subtlety. Even the communists can produce better propaganda than that!
I drew no "equivalence". I pointed out that (1) adopting any political change with the objective of giving disproportionate political power to some minority viewpoint is contrary to fundamental principles of the US political system, and (2) that trying to do so would likely not empower libertarians but instead empower socialists/communists.
You're welcome to provide rational arguments against either point. So far, you have provided no counterarguments at all.
What I was rejecting was your abuse of the word "disproportionate" in this context. If ten percent of the population has no political power, and you give them ten percent of the political power, it is not disproportionate by any stretch of the imagination. Try again!
The "abuse" of language here is yours: namely assuming that ten percent of the population have no political power under the current political system. In fact, under the current political system, everybody has equal political power, because both parties will choose policy portfolios that take into account every voter and their preferences.
Under the system you imagine, a group of 10% of the electorate with policy preferences not shared by 45% of the population would end up casting the deciding votes on every contentious issue. That is certainly "disproportionate", in a clear mathematical sense.
Your error is that you assume that voters fall into neat categories, that those categories are represented by parties, and that if the category a falls into is not represented, the voter isn't represented. That is an idiotic view of the US political system.
I agree that the problem isn't the process, but rather that the culture has turned away from enlightenment ideas to a lifestyle of complacency. (Or whatever you dislike about the majority of the culture that must be tranquilized in some way by modern times into not questioning the corruption of the federal government.)
It's impossible to get Americans to sign onto something that is doomed to failure to head off a looming, more massive failure. If you offer them a real choice among a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian and a Communist to represent them, with a real chance of actually getting the Representative of their choice, they will vote their own best interests. If you offer them a choice between a Republican who has a chance of winning, a Democrat who has a chance of winning and a Libertarian who has zero chance of winning, you can't blame "culture" for their turning away from your system.
"Republican" and "Democrat" aren't fixed categories; they are whatever collection of policies each party adopts in each election to attract half the electorate.
I give you this, though: the LP is an ideologically fixed group of people, unconcerned with attracting voters, and oblivious to how the US political system works. LP members actually suffer from the delusion that party=ideology.
Isn't it possible that the culture is simply regressing to the mean, as things tend to do? That we've become so free (on an unbounded absolute scale of things) over the centuries, that there's much more room now on the down side than there is toward more freedom, so that's where the pressure is?
No. The Nixon law still uses taxes to subsidize looter candidates, and back-of-the-ballot laws make The Kleptocracy the subsidees. That change was designed to offset LP clout and is exported abroad to keep dictators in power.
The Democrats and Republicans seem ripe for replacement. But how and by what?
Libertarian and Socialist?
Right now we have Socialist and National Socialist, just like 1932 Germany.
HA!
""Disgraced FBI agent Charles McGonigal — who investigated the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Moscow in 2016 — is slated to take a guilty plea in the case accusing him of illegally working for a Russian oligarch.""
https://nypost.com/2023/08/07/ex-fbi-official-slated-to-plead-guilty-in-corruption-case/
Who was using the Russians to interfere with the election?
What the Democrats falsely accuse their enemies and opponents of doing, they themselves tend to be guilty of.
I like the way Hillary says I told you so about Russian referring to her Russian claim during one of the debates. She already had the plan going.
Pick up on the Watergate Bungler trying to change the subject to "Trump wuz crucified"!
When Reasoners present themselves as regretting loathing driven by politics I wonder if they have ever read their own articles. The complete lack of self awareness is so ridiculous it isn’t even outrageous, it’s simply comical.
That's funny coming from someone who reads the headline and then skips to the comments.
I see sarc still reaches conclusions based on his fantasies. But that’s what he has to do since engaging people’s actual comments and positions would not justify his conclusions. And since expressing his hatred for others is his only goal he has to make up whatever he needs to support that conclusion.
Amusingly in the very same thread he whines about missing interesting conversations as if he were not the primary reason why there are none.
Is the decrease in participation in political parties really a bad thing? Seems to me in the USA and elsewhere, the main interest in political parties is by the rent-seeking. Maybe as a society matures, fewer people in it see rent-seeking as a rewarding activity, so they leave it to a few pros.
Pros are for pimps. Real voters prefer real babes. (https://bit.ly/3AunUfM)
CTRF-F "McCain-Feingold". 0 results.
https://twitter.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1688643224502517761?t=8LGSeLZzGhOl5zgfh_8sqQ&s=19
Let’s be generous and say the Inflation Reduction Act only cost $750 billion (it’s gonna cost way more).
18,000 jobs means $41.7 million per job.
[Link]
This fine article reminded me of Hunter Thompson's rearview musings: "So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high water mark — that place where the wave finally broke, and rolled back.” That was how it felt to return to formerly libertarian hippie USA before Nixon was kicked out on his ass. My first vote was for Carter, and God's Own Prohibitionists fired up the Mohammedan Crusades & Bolsheviki hatefests.
Libertariantranslator;
My first presidential vote was for Carter too. He's a good man, with a great mind. The Military Industrial Complex torpedoed him, and that made me Libertarian by the winter of 1981. It's sad that the Libertarian Party is just a fake shadow of what it was only two years ago. Since the Feces Caucus sneak thief takeover; it's run be Republicans that even the Republicans don't want. Now "small L" libertarians though; we're everywhere, and the solution to humanity's problems. The trouble is; "humanity" prefers it's problems.
The libertarian solution to hate v hate is voting. Basically voting originalist LP gets you more repeal for your vote by a factor of 2 dozen. On top of that, races like the Georgia mid-terms, prove LP donations are leveraged to bring leveraged votes. LP donations in Georgia paid ten cents a vote to throw the brainless looters into runoffs. Looter donations spent $32 a single vote to elect Biden; Jo's campaign bought 16 votes per $32. Simple arithmetic shows you get 16*24=384 times more law-changing clout per libertarian dollar donated. There are WAY more non-voters waiting to be tapped than voters. What will happen when they learn arithmetic? See https://bit.ly/3Qv5jbD
Reason claims that:
"We are beginning to phase in a number of changes to the commenting system at Reason.com.......Stay tuned for bigger and better changes coming soon!
HOW ABOUT GETTING RID OF THE SPAM & SPAMMERS IN THE COMMENTS?
Yeah, poll after poll finds that voters want a theoretical alternative.
But when an actual alternative presents itself, the news media call him "a long shot" and his candidacy "quixotic," and the polls show he only has 8% support (since no one has heard of him yet), so he is written off permanently, as if preseason polls should count for anything. And then he's locked out of the debates ("wasn't a serious candidate, didn't hit 15% support").
The only way to break the cycle is for some celebrity billionaire to self-fund a challenge and publicize his platform himself. But Elon wasn't born in the USA, so he can't do it.
The observation that hollow major parties perpetuate a politics of 'fear and loathing' underscores the disillusionment with contemporary political discourse. This critique highlights the emphasis on negative tactics rather than constructive policies. It prompts reflection on the need for genuine leadership that addresses the concerns of the people instead of resorting to divisive strategies. This commentary challenges the status quo, advocating for a more substantive and empathetic approach to political governance. https://pickuplinesbot.com/
Thank you for that input, ChatGPT.
Libertarians don't want "constructive policies", we want fewer policies. If negativity produces that outcome, that's fine by us.
Yes, every voter wants an alternative; specifically, every voter wants their own, different alternative. That's because the median voter hates the Democrat and Republican policies equally; that's what an election system that makes a good compromise between voters ought to look like.
If you add more parties to the table, fringe voters end up having more influence on policies than they ought to, and policies end up being further away from what the median voter prefers.
Yes. We should have one party. With one leader. That is all that is needed to correctly interpret what the median voter wants.
You sure as fuck don’t believe that that second party represents anything. And any third or fourth party is clearly evil. So that leaves one.
Every American should be familiar with George Washington's farewell address. Much of it is a warning against partisan politics. He could well have written it today. Here is a snippet:
"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. "
How 'bout a Men's Party and a Women's Party?
By catering to their extremes, both parties alienate the center. The extremes thrive on fear and hate to polarize people. Of the two, the Wokers are the more loathsome and the Trumpists the more delusional.
https://bit.ly/3fUBy1z April 8, 2021, CityWatch, Hate Money Stalks America, by Richard Lee Abrams