Republican Party seems divided...

[davideinstein]

The GOP is a mess. I seriously don't think they'll ever win another Presidential election.

[AquaMan]

That was the common belief when McGovern failed in 1972. And again when Reagan won the second time. Truth is the reports of their demise are greatly exaggerated. The party is simply evolving slower than the demographics of the nation. If ever there is an opportunity for a third party, it is when these synchronization errors occur. That might kill the party.

[Townsend]

The GOP is a mess. I seriously don't think they'll ever win another Presidential election.

The name will always exist.  GOP, Republican isn't going away.  The party needs to be updated, rebooted and cleared of all viruses and worms.

[Conan71]

The GOP's biggest problem seems to lie in being stodgy on social issues.  When approval of gay marriage has gone from (ripping stats from an article sourced on another post by Townsend) 40% to 53% in a matter of eight years, yet there are far right Republicans still favoring DOMA, it's pretty telling that the GOP isn't following a rapidly evolving change in philosophy.  I know quite a few Christians who have less of a problem with gay marriage when they consider the whole Christian principle of tolerance and it not being their place to stand in judgement.

I personally don't care for abortion, and I find using it as a form of birth control incredibly repugnant. But the GOP can't seem to quit qualifying candidates based on abortion.  If I were at the top of the ticket, I'd simply say, "It's not right for me, but I'm not falling into this decades-old trap on the abortion issue.  It was decided by the courts, and it's remained law for 40 years without being overturned. I'm not a single-issue candidate and I'm not going to be defined by a single issue."

The GOP has only made piecemeal efforts at reaching out to the minority communities and they've also not done a good job of refuting all the "War on (insert group here)" meme.

The numbers prove they are losing supporters like myself whose social views have evolved and softened over the years.

[Townsend]

The numbers prove they are losing supporters like myself whose social views have evolved and softened over the years.

They're not gaining with the younger folks either.

[Hoss]

They're not gaining with the younger folks either.

I've always had a difficult time understanding why most Republicans think that being fiscally conservative also means you MUST be socially conservative.  I'm more of a fiscal conservative, but have ALWAYS leaned left on social issues.

Likewise with Democrats; if I'm socially liberal, why must I always be for the government spending out the wazoo all the time?

There are some of us who align ourselves more and more like this.

[Gaspar]

I've always had a difficult time understanding why most Republicans think that being fiscally conservative also means you MUST be socially conservative.  I'm more of a fiscal conservative, but have ALWAYS leaned left on social issues.

Likewise with Democrats; if I'm socially liberal, why must I always be for the government spending out the wazoo all the time?

There are some of us who align ourselves more and more like this.

Watch out.  That sounds oddly Libertarian. 

[Townsend]

Watch out.  That sounds oddly Libertarian. 

Watch out.  You might say something cringe-worthy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Watch out.  That sounds oddly Libertarian.  

No.  Not at all.  Read some more about libertarian...

http://www.lp.org/

[Hoss]

Watch out.  That sounds oddly Libertarian. 

Difference is: we don't pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist (i.e., excluding revenue increases as a viable method of reducing debt and deficit).

[Gaspar]

Difference is: we don't pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist (i.e., excluding revenue increases as a viable method of reducing debt and deficit).

Actually, though you are very socially liberal, your claim of being fiscally conservative is skeenchy at best. Growth and expansion of government requires capital, and government spending is never static, it is always expansive. The only source of capital is through slavery.

Most of your posts reflect a worshipful stance towards existing and proposed social program growth, and ridicule towards those who point out such growth as dangerous.  It would seem that you are both socially and fiscally liberal. 

Perhaps there is some room for you to evolve though.  I think we could possibly find common ground when it comes to scaling back defense spending.  That seems to be the one common ground between libertarians and liberals and offers a foothold for liberal contemplation of libertarian concepts.

I think the most confusing thing about libertarianism is that it is an individual philosophy based on simple principals.  This gives libertarians the ability to be very different in how they define "their" political philosophy.  In fact there is an old libertarian saying "There may be two libertarians in the world that agree, but I'm not one of them."  The idea is that the party has no power to dictate principal, or talking points, or twist reality to fit process and program.  Libertarians are simply what is considered "classic liberals" long before the progressive and socialist movement found a home under the hood of the liberal machine, classic liberals were exactly what we today call libertarians. 

You could be libertarian, however it would require you to give up some things.  First, you would need to divorce yourself from envy of others.  You would also need to recognize your individuality, as well as that of others, without classifying people into groups to define them.  And, finally, you would need to realize that intensions are not results.  Do those things and it will be very hard for you to worship the actions of government.

I would consider Conan a libertarian, but I am positive we disagree on many things, but the principals of individual freedom are the heart of our similarities and basis for our political philosophy.  No politician, liberal or conservative, offers a basis for the worshipful devotion you see from republicans and democrats when considering their candidates and elected.  Sure, it's entertaining but so very dangerous.

The legacy of Democrats and Republicans approaches: Libertarianism by bankruptcy. – Nick Nuessle

Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders. – The Libertarian Party

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. – L Neil Smith

Republicans don't want anyone having more fun than they do, and the Democrats don't want anyone making more money than they do. Libertarians want you to make money and have fun. – Andre Marrou

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery. – Thomas Jefferson

Americans are so enamoured of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. – Alexis de Tocqueville

Popular suffrage is in itself no guarantee of freedom. People can vote themselves into slavery. – Frank Chodorov

To shackle future generations, with such monstrous debt and liabilities, is tantamount to selling them into tax slavery. – Eric Englund

[Townsend]

Told ya.

[Gaspar]

Told ya.

I would be interested in how you score.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I know we've been through this drill before, but it's alway a good exercise.

[Townsend]

I would be interested in how you score.

Generally I bought them a drink or two and then charmed them.

Out of the market now though.

[Gaspar]

Difference is: we don't pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist (i.e., excluding revenue increases as a viable method of reducing debt and deficit).

What is the cause of the debt?  As the economy expands and contracts, shouldn't government do the same?  Why must government continue to grow when its engine, the private sector, is contracting or stalled?  

My family has a budget.  It changes depending on income, investment and debt.  With the latter being the most important.  The lower the debt the more stable the economy.  It's not a question of macro vs micro.  Debt has the same derivative result.  Grover, as intolerable as I find him, is focused on a singular factor, no matter how much you tax the wealthy, you cannot keep up with the rate of government expansion.  Not even slightly.  The liberal push towards milking the wealthy is based solely on emotion with no consideration for logic or accounting.  

Successful people are easy to hate, because they have more stuff.  Unfortunately, taking all their stuff is not enough to keep up with the expansion of government spending, and will never deliver opportunity to others.  Sorry, but that's probably just going to have to be a hard lesson at this point.