Ronald Reagan switched from Democrat to Republican in 1962. Hillary Clinton was a member of the College Republicans before becoming a Democrat in 1968. Rick Perry switched from Democrat to Republican in 1989. Elizabeth Warren switched from Republican to Democrat in 1996. These examples illustrate the great importance of the political parties as a trustworthy sign of what a politician really believes.
But political parties serve an even more important role: they tell us who we should reflexively hate. Without political parties, voters would be forced to evaluate politicians based on the results of their policies instead mindlessly rooting for their team. Chaos would inevitably ensue.
And don’t get me started about 3rd parties. You shouldn’t vote for them because they won’t get enough votes. Circular logic is fun because circular logic is fun!
This country has a two-party system. It says so right in the Constitution. I think it’s between the part that talks about the separation of church and state and the part that says only people in a well-regulated militia are allowed to have guns.
Here’s how it works: if you vote and your candidate wins, your vote is an implicit agreement to whatever happens next. And if you vote for someone else and they lose, you agree to bound by the decision of the majority by participating in the election. And if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain because the only legitimate form of protest is to vote. So you agree to whatever politicians do whether you vote or not. This is called “consent of the governed.” It’s one of those phrases like “living dead” or “quiet riot” that sounds funny if you think about it too much.
My advice is to only vote for flip-floppers. It’s the safest bet because statistically speaking, you’ll get what you want about half the time.
“what a politician really believes”
I’m going to get elected and get filthy rich on the taxpayer dime?
So this…
+1 John
This one annoys me to no end. Between election years, “Republicans are so useless! They preach small government and reduced spending, but increase both!” Election season comes around, “But, the Democrat might win. Don’t go throwing your vote away on that non main party candidate!” So the main party you identify with is completely useless, but we should vote for their candidates anyway because the other team’s guy might win, which is just guaranteed to be worse. Also, this attitude makes the assumption that your vote actually changes anything. As though the vote will go down Democrat: 49 votes, Republican: 49 votes, 3rd Party: 1 vote. That vote would’ve made all the difference!
I remember hearing a defense of American party politics over British-style coalitions awhile back. Coalition building allows a lot more flexibility to parliamentarians that American congressmen don’t enjoy. The upshot was that, according to the speaker, anyway, we’d be a lot further along the socialist arc but for our political intransigence.
It may have been Hans-Hermann Hoppe who made the case.
That seems backwards to me. Parliamentary systems emphasise party discipline, because the ruling party’s majority in the “senior” House is what *makes* it the ruling party. A maverick MP doesn’t get tut-tutted by the leadership, and then maybe face a primary challenge if they persist – they get kicked right the fuck out of the party. That’s certainly the case in the UK, which is actually nearly as much of a duopoly as the US, but I don’t imagine genuinely multi-party setups are any different – a ruling coalition also rules only so long as it has a majority, so there’s still the same need for party discipline. (And in most parliamentary systems, the opportunity for a Trump-like gatecrasher is limited – there are no primaries to give an outsider a chance, all candidates are selected by the party.)
“That’s certainly the case in the UK, which is actually nearly as much of a duopoly as the US”
Not disagreeing with the overall point but, there is more of a dynamism in UK politics in terms of parties. Labour formed its first government less than a century ago. The original Liberal Party joined with the Social Democrats and then went through a split, etc. So, while there are two blocs the make of those blocs tends to be much more dynamic. Australia has gone through a similar process. Now, whether that’s better or worse, is another question.
There are no primaries as such, but there is politicking within local party groups which can lead to a change in members before an election.
Another thing that seems to be making a difference in New Zealand is using “lists” which is like an at large vote which can see smaller parties get people in parliament.
That said, I think the only thing that would shape up US politics (short of something like the Compromise of 1850) would be a switch to proportional voting.
Oh, you’re absolutely right that the British parties shift around pretty frequently (though so do ours, we just don’t change the names.) But any first-past-the-post system will tend to produce a duopoly *unless* your parties are strongly regional – ie, the SNP, which last time around got ~10% of the seats from ~5% of the vote. (As opposed to UKIP, which got ~10% of the vote yet was lucky to get any seats at all.) The three-way split a few years ago with Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem was a definite aberration.
Some kind of proportional representation – or a mixed proportional/constituency like Germany – would be nice. Certainly, it’s the only way that we’ll actually make a dent politically.
“they get kicked right the fuck out of the party.”
Or get relegated as a ‘backbencher’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbencher
I wish I could dig it up, you’d probably get more out of it than I did. I’m almost certain it was Hoppe speaking at a Mises event. Although I may be confusing it with Hoppe’s defense of monarchy.
There was also a fairly recent book arguing for monarchy over republic but I’m blanking on the title. I know Cato did a book event with the author.
Not recent, but there’s this.
No, it was something else. And not by a recognizable name.
Jerry Pournelle had some essays on the subject and even included some of the concepts on a Constitutionally limited monarchy being superior to a democracy in his Falkenbergs Legion series, especially the 2 Prince of Sparta books
“we’d be a lot further along the socialist arc but for our political intransigence.”
What lies at the end of that rainbow? If only someone had tried it before we would know. Surely then we would dispose of our intransigence.
“I’m an independent. Just because I’d rather be boiled in oil than vote for a Republican, you can’t call me a Democrat.”
I see what you did there…
“The self-Importance of Political Parties”
FTFY
Political parties are a lot like cable TV. You buy a package deal and 90% of the shit in it, is shit that you don’t want, but you have to take it anyway to get the few things that you do want.
So it’s like this, you vote GOP, you get some rhetoric about tax cuts that may or may not happen. But you also get perpetual foreign military entanglements, the war on drugs, and other blends of socon/neocon bullshit.
If you vote Democrat, you get some free shit, or you get to pay for someone else’s free shit, depending on whether you have an income or not. But you also get loony toon identity politics and higher taxes.
The difference is that the Democrats will actually deliver on this stuff. They have no reservations about stealing from someone to give to someone else and taxing you to death in the process. While the GOP will just make some noise and then let Democrats have whatever they want. So in effect, there’s really one one party, not two. So look forward to a glorious future where the state owns everything and might let you have a little of it if you check the right boxes on the 3 pages of gender and race check boxes.
The Democrats are also for foreign military entanglements, the war on drugs, and being moral scolds. Fear-mongering and “for the children” are both quite bipartisan.
The difference I see is that democrats oppose it when it is not one of their own doing it, while republicans can’t even be bothered…
Yeah, but they pretend not to be.
Also, a prediction here. If Trump does not get rid of Jeff Sessions, he will not be reelected. You cannot have some nutcase as AG running around pretending like cannabis prohibition is still a popular idea. Just say NO to Jeff Sessions.
The gun website I frequent had a nice cocksucking piece on Sessions the other day, something about those who oppose him are anti gun. I very calmly explained in the comments that Sessions is a grade A assbag and there is absolutely nothing anti gun about hating him.
Umm, Sessions was just talking about using drugs as an excuse to go after people’s guns.
Oooh please post that link I’d love to rub their nose in that one.
Sessions is awful, but I don’t see him as the deciding issue for Trump voters. A lot of people voted for Trump who either hadn’t voted or hadn’t voted Republican for a very long time. If he fails to follow through on the things that motivated them, like the Wall, tax cuts, repeal Obamacare, etc., they will not turn out for him again and he will lose.
Not because of Sessions, because of what he might do. Cannabis legalization is now supported by 60% or more of Americans. It’s not possible a lot of that 60% did not vote for Trump. If Sessions goes after states with legal weed, people will see it as Trump’s idea. It will identify Trump as being against states rights. Sessions is also against police reform, so if he goes all ape shit on that, there’s another thing. I just do not know what Trump was ever thinking, Sessions is not right in the head.
It depends on where. Here in AZ we had a referendum in November on legalizing weed and it failed. Flyover is even less interested in it than we are.
AZ has been sending McCain to the Senate for 40 years. Nuff said.
We just want to see him drop dead live on C-SPAN. Is that not a noble enough cause?
I’m not sure how many people are actually motivated by that issue, though. Even though 60% of people support it, most of those people are not going to consider it a deal breaker. It’s like abortion, more than 50% of the population considers themselves to be pro-choice, but still an awful lot of pro-life candidates win elections. Even pro-life candidates that support the complete outlawing of abortions (often with exceptions).
I think, for most people, ‘meat and potato’ issues are the primary driver of their vote. If Trump doesn’t boost economic growth, he’s finished.
It also depends on how you phrase questions and polls, e.g. pro-choice. This polls suggests it’s pretty even with both below 50%:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
As usual, Yes Minister explains this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
I just do not know what Trump was ever thinking, Sessions is not right in the head.
Simple. Sessions was an early Trump supporter so he gets a choice place in the cabinet. Trump still operates on a largely political level, he’s not an ideologue, but we’re lucky that some of his picks were selected specifically because of their similar ‘outsider’ nature to the Republican mainstream.
The Democratic Party seems to have descended into a confusing maze of Orwellian doublespeak and the Republican Party can’t seem to stay on message, but neither party’s actions really seem to actually align with their rhetoric very much.
^so much this
There has to be a sort of civil war in the GOP for the libertarian wing to start gaining influence. Sure, the establishment want the status quo. So did the Democrat establishment, but for them it’s too late, the far left have already taken over.
Wasn’t there already a civil war? Isn’t that where Trump came from?
Well, yes. It’s just that people are confused. Rand Paul was the guy we needed. But when the mob gets angry, the outcome is not typically for them to sit down and ponder things and come to a logical conclusion, but to smash store windows and set things on fire. So, Trump.
So, a civil war full of calm, logical people. Right.
Not holding my breath.
Read down to the comments between Just Say’n and myself.
Well, yes. It’s just that people are confused. Rand Paul was the guy we needed.
You are confusing a populist movement with simply being anti-mainstream Republican. Trump supporters may be generally pro-libertarian on specific issues, but the overwhelming ideals that have been espoused do not support an overarching libertarian philosophy. Hell, libertarians have more in common with hardline conservatives like Ben Shapiro than some Trump supporters.
A civil war in the Republican Party would ensure that they’d never win elections again. Buckley cobbled together a fragile conservative coalition of people that hated each other (and still do). Libertarians can either try to find common ground with the nationalists (they both hate neoconservatives, so that’s a start) in the Republican Party or bolt the party and go back to having zero representation. I think the Libertarian wing is already winning, but they’ll never have complete control.
I don’t expect complete control, just more influence. And we’re already seeing the civil war, on the healthcare front. The civil war is to get rid of the Ryans, not to evict the conservatives, though I’d like to see that.
I think the Paul plan is to infiltrate the party and slowly convince conservatives that libertarian principles are actually conservatism. Before they know it, they’re all reading Atlas Shrugged, talking about fractional reserve banking, hanging pictures of Karl Hess in dorm rooms, and complaining about those ‘cosmos’ at Reason.
Genius
Of course. It was the elder Paul’s plan before him. I fully support it. Which is why I will vote GOP if there’s a decent libertarian leaning candidate, but vote LP if there is not.
I see it this way:
The left have already taken over the Democrats. So libertarians take over the GOP and prepare for the ultimate battle between good and evil.
The last epic struggle
By the way, I really don’t think the Paul-Rothbard brand of libertarianism gets enough credit for being the most successful version (if we are talking about winning elected office). The Koch brand definitely gets all the money, but they have been an abysmal failure in comparison.
“The last epic struggle”.
We have had that before, and will again.
No it wouldn’t.
You are assuming that the Democratic coalition is impervious when the reality is that there are several parts of that coalition that have FAR more in common with parts of the Republican coalition than they do with the rest of the Democrats.
For example I could easily see a coalition of Evangelicals, Hispanics and religious blacks forming against progressive culture war bs
Good analogy.
If you vote Democrat, you get some free shit, or you get to pay for someone else’s free shit, depending on whether you have an income or not. But you also get loony toon identity politics and higher taxes.
You forgot the perpetual foreign military entanglements, war on drugs and food and other blends of socon/neocon bullshit.
Canadian healthcare: so good you can’t complain.
You veel love our healthcare, ve promise, or else!
Tell her to come to America. She can work in any city she wants and we pay with real money, not maple leaves.
But TRUMP!
Plenty of Quebec nurses were recruited by American hospitals when the government at the time – the PQ – forced them out to save money. I remember hearing a couple of them who left for Texas and Arizona respectively said they would never come back and loved the working conditions.
Our loss, your gain. Worse, we never really recovered. Still doctor and nursing shortages due that ridiculous policy in the mid-1990s.
Funny about that. We still have nursing shortages too.
Politicians of all stripes got a little, teeny-tiny boner upon hearing about this case.
Not familiar with how Canadian healthcare is organized, but typically in America criticizing your employer, or your employer’s customers (which in health care can include payers), on social media will get you fired, and that’s OK.
Despite only a one-letter difference, “fined” is pretty far from “fired”?
Criticizing Canadian health care is like insulting a Canadian directly in the heart and spitting in their faces.
That’s how retardedly attached they’ve become to it. It literally forms a part of the nationalist ethos.
I can understand if we invented it but not even that.
The SRNA has given Strom until July 1 to pay the $1,000 fine and three years to pay the $25,000, which works out to payments of more than $700 a month. If Strom fails to pay by those times, her nursing licence will be suspended.
That’d be an easy choice for me.
What is the SRNA, is it a union?
Sessions- that guy is so bad I actually wonder if Christie would have been better. One of the absolute worst things about Trump, for me, was knowing he had Giuliani and Christie “advising” him on teh Lawz an Orderz stuff. Some of Trump’s rhetoric made it sound as if he hasn’t actually walked down a street in New York since David Dinkins was mayor.
Christie had become politically toxic to the point of radioactivity by the time Trump was elected. There was no way he would have been confirmed.
I can’t imagine Christie being better than anything. So it was a choice between a fat Joisey obnoxious asshole and a dinosaur who thinks it’s still the 80s?
I mean I know that Sessions was one of the first to jump on the Trump train. And I know that Trump thought he had to reward the guy. But the right thing to do now is wait until the idiot garden gnome does something really stupid and use it as an excuse to fire him and explain to the public that you don’t support the shit he just did and had to fire him.
Some of Trump’s rhetoric made it sound as if he hasn’t actually walked down a street in New York since David Dinkins was mayor.
He probably hasn’t. Leave Trump Tower, get into limo. Get out of limo, walk into 30 Rock. Leave 30 Rock, get into limo. Get out of limo, sneak into Ivanka’s apartment while she sleeps. Cop a few feels, leave apartment, get into limo, etc.
smash store windows and set things on fire. So, Trump.
Trump = Molotov Cocktail!
There’s your Russian connection, right there.
Michael Moore actually said those very words about 3 months before the election.
I certainly didn’t/don’t *want* Christie. But Sessions- fuckin’ hell.
Feckless millennial twerps flip off memorial to victims of communism, because Palestine or something.
This would be upsetting except for the audacious pig-ignorance of these twits, which makes it absurd more than anything. As it stands, I kinda have to laugh. They make it very easy to discredit their movement when you can literally point at how they advertise themselves.
Because FYTW. At least they’re honest about it.
Our education system has failed. Pure and simple.
No, it has achieved the goals of the Marxists in charge of it quite nicely.
I don’t get academia’s support for that. Aren’t they typically the first up against the wall after the revolution?
Remember the definition of insanity? They think it’s gonna be different this time.
It’s because they don’t teach history in school these days. It would take up too much time that needs to be reserved for gender studies and diversity training.
They still teach some “history” in schools, but it’s mostly about the oppression of women and other victim groups and “America bad, mmmkay?”
Oh yeah, the revised history edition. Noble savages and all that.
Punch line: they count women and POCs as “noble savages”, but they aren’t the bigots, nosiree.
An author I met working as a teller did me the kindest favor anyone could have done for a recent high school graduate: he gave me a copy of Paul Johnson’s Modern Times.
could have done for a recent high school graduate
I mean, short of giving me a six-figure job banging models, anyway.
Modern Times is a great book. I first read it in the mid-80s (I believe it was published under a more boring title then, such as “A History of the Modern World from 1900 to the 1980s” or somesuch), but Johnson truly managed to impress upon me (READ: pound into my thick skull) the joy and wonder of what communism had wrought during the 20th Century. A few years after that, the Berlin Wall came down and we had guys like Fukuyama writing books like The End of History and the Last Man.
Books like Modern Times during the 80s really expanded my horizons.
It really is. The deep-dive exposé of social and political trends really sold it for me. The stub on Wikipedia would be a crying shame in terms of word count even if it weren’t written by a commie-apologist shitlib.
You know, you could change that. Open source encyclopedia and all.
It’s true. I’m still reading the Black Book of Communism, and it strikes me as some of the most important historical lessons that the next generation needs to learn. But I went to public school and a public college. They don’t cover that, or even make reference to it. This is what happens when Marxists write your curriculum.
The lesson: don’t send your kids to public school.
I tried to find the Black Book of communism in local bookshop and even chains around my town. The only place I could find it was an Amazon, and if I recall correctly the comment were hilarious
You could try this store, but he owner’s a bit surly.
I hadn’t heard of that show before, thanks. I’ll just file that in my queue.
It’s pretty easy to find the PDF online.
Thanks. I’ll look that up tonight.
A co-worker told me that in his college economics class, the professor was “ranting and raving for the entire period” about how unions and labor laws were the only factors that led to jobs becoming safer and better compensated.
Unions may have had a legitimate function soon after industrialization, but now they’re just a parasitical drain and a scourge.
This is something that you cannot explain to a prog. Nothing is ever too much of something, if they like it. So when the EPA gets swat teams and start busting down your door in the middle of the night to check if you have the low flow shower heads installed, they don’t see a problem, because poisoning our air and water, argle blargle argle.
. . . now they’re just a parasitical drain and a scourge.
Preach it, bro.
No wonder they are flourishing in the public sector.
I guess I was lucky. My economics prof was pretty good. He had this weird obsessive admiration for Alan Greenspan that I never understood. But he was a very free market type.
The one thing I will never forget that he said was when discussing the minimum wage. ‘You don’t want for everyone to get a raise. You want for YOU to get a raise’. He then proceeded to mansplain to the class that if everyone gets a raise, no one really gets one because of price adjustments, etc, etc.
The woman who taught the intro to macro class I took a couple years ago was surprisingly libertarian and very anti-FRB.
Did any snowflakes melt?
TBH it was at a community college and the students there were pretty dull. Which is probably why she got away with it, nobody knew enough to care or cared enough to learn.
I had a lot of classmates like that. There weren’t really any snowflakes back then, thankfully. But there were a group who expected to get high scores just for showing up. I guess they were the old version of the participation trophy crowd.
.. because before unions, staffers at the DVLC regularly lost limbs in the licensing plate mines while grubbing for roots and insects to overcome their malnutrition.
I was lucky enough to have a decent mother who encouraged my bibliomania. As such I read a good deal of history books throughout my entire school career. Then in college my room mate was from a former Soviet Bloc nation. Anyone who tried to tell him how wunderbar communism was got a serious earful.
They really are invincibly ignorant.
Useful idiots was the goal. It’s working as planned.
The Long March through the institutions is paying off nicely.
“I think it’s between the part that talks about the separation of church and state and the part that says only people in a well-regulated militia are allowed to have guns.”
You must have Ginsburg’s copy of the Constitution. Look at all those asterisks in the First Amendment.
Hate speech is not free speech!!11!!!!
“Hey, why is the ‘free exercise of religion’ clause just replaced with the words ‘obey’?”
“Constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulation.” – Hillary Clinton
The Republican Party needs to change its name to Statist Misguided Hypocrite Party, then go fuck itself until its genitals fall off.
The Democratic Party needs to change its name to the Communist Party, then have a big ol’ bleach martini festival.
So, nuke it from orbit?
I’m not going say it…someone else can.
I hate both political parties. One lies all the time and the other doesn’t.
The one you want to be telling you the truth is lying and the one you wish was lying is telling the truth. That about perfectly sums it up.
The Russians hacked our truth.