This is unrelated to this week’s letter — but have you read Matt Klein’s Overshoot Substack? He’s a macroeconomist, and has a fresh and persuasive ‘big picture’ take on today’s inflation and where we are headed. You can hear a recent podcast he did for The New Bazaar for free. John Authers at Bloomberg recommended, and I’m glad he did.
On the surface, I don't know how much a difference it sounds like to say "I want to maximize freedom so that people figure out their best life" versus "I want to maximize freedom so that I can choose to be evil" but even the slightest application in reality shows a whopping gulf.
People can say it's all the same policy regardless of whether the motives are good or evil, but it really isn't.
My problem with Libertarians (and I was intellectually curious about them for a while ( I was good with personal liberty, privacy issues etc)...and for some reason I met a lot of them when I was doing the online dating thing ( don't ask...lol). is that bottom line they were way more idealistic than me, and I am an extreme one...lol...their premise always seemed to be that left to their own devices, everyone will do the right thing...and there will be utopia and normal human traits that are not our good ones ( anger, fear, hate, stubbornness etc) will just disappear, plus they really lost me at taxes are theft and the anarchy thing...lol
There used to be a talk show host in the 90s that I enjoyed listening to. The host was a Libertarian and this was all sort of new to me. Like you...I sort of listened in interest and wonderment about the ideas he espoused that seemed so out of step with most US citizens. Then we had the big hurricane hit Florida and the discussion came up about the law that was implemented that prevented stores from jacking up their prices...and taking advantage of people in an emergency. He argued that this was against free trade as was antithetical to our country's best interest.
To this day...that has been my argument that Capitalism is an ok economy/government but it literally has NO SOUL. The government attempts to be that soul because a pure profit motive will eventually lead to very bad behavior and hurts our country.
FoxNews is a great example of an entity that makes money, has lost its soul and is bad for our country. Their whole business model is designed to provide content that their viewers love, but the problem is that their viewers think it's actually the news and an even handed representation of what is going in the world.
I suppose it's probably for the best that the libertarian party has gone full MAGA. They're utterly irrelevant as a political force except as a potential spoiler, and the more MAGA voters they can peel off Republicans the better. I doubt this is their reason for taking the hard right turn, but like Trump vs. Musk, "let them fight."
Today's Libertarians are in favor of legal pot, prostitution and prejudice, eh?
The 2 major parties tend to define themselves in opposition to each other. What that means for Libertarians I can't fathom. Maybe with Republicans becoming more isolationist, Libertarians believe they should reciprocate by becoming more pro-hate groups.
Regarding the Libertarian fight, I’m reminded of “The Life of Brian” showing the bitter split between the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
Libertarianism is based on the bland truism that everybody likes liberty--like everybody likes money. It fails to take into account trading one liberty for another--e.g. freedom *from* being requiring to take off one's shoes and belt--in order to secure the liberty *to* travel to Europe by plane. I imagine the first social contract was an agreement whereby cave persons shared the standing of night watch so that it was not necessary for all to sleep with one eye open.
I had a libertarian phase. Talking to a friend about it years later he mentioned his own tendencies in that regard, and how it's a lot easier to contemplate when you're young, healthy, and have that notion that survival is something you can readily do regardless of the circumstances around you.
You grow more, and realize that comfortable survival, and sometimes survival itself, is a web of interdependence with others. It's nice to have a hospital when you break your leg, for example.
Some people realize and admit that. What we see with a lot of libertarians (and MAGAs) is that they want the fruits of society but none of the responsibility. Covid was a great example, denouncing mitigation and the health care professionals recommending it, but heading straight to the hospital demanding to be fixed when they went down. (Or even better, demanding quack remedies and blaming the hospitals when people die of their own stupidity.)
I started off as a libertarian. Was an actual dues paying member back in the foolish days of my youth. I came to it through reading science fiction and not having a lot of life experience--as you say, getting older and wiser and more thoughtful (rather than "smart") tends to bring home the actual nature of freedom and of life and interdependence.
As Josh notes, however, not everyone learns that lesson. This seems to be especially true of libertarians that come from or live in privilege. They don't learn the same lessons that the lack of privilege teaches.
Life is always a trade off and the libertarians are correct in that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is the nature of the trades that you make in life that matters, I think--and the libertarian mindset tends to make very short-minded and historically unaware trades. It also fosters a non-cooperative, overly competitive world view that often ends up being toxic when you have 7 billion plus people trying to live on the planet.
Do you think Heinlein was a libertarian? I learned a lot from his books- started very young-but TANSTAAFL always stuck. So did “cast your bread upon the waters”. I also dabbled in Libertarianism, but I am currently homeless in my political beliefs. I also realized a long time ago that the real art of the deal means that no one gets everything they want, and you should be pleased if you got something you wanted- and so did the other guy. I guess that is real life experience. It does not always sit well.
Heinlein described himself as a libertarian, but his actual views were somewhat mixed. He started out on the left and became increasingly conservative over time.
The key thing about Heinlein (and many other speculative fiction writers) is that they are essentially contrarian. They look at an existing situation and ask why this and why not that? What if this? There is a difference between exploring these things in a fictional setting and trying to live them--and there is the danger of confusing the beliefs of the writer (and thinking you actually know their beliefs) with what they are and what they would do in real life.
This is why libertarianism tends to pall as you age. It looks good on paper, but that is really the only place it looks good or works. There si the idealistic striving for certain things--liberty and freedom, but it must (in the end) be coupled with the real questions/issues of how to make it work.
"Insight that only a certain amount of 'living' can usually bring". True in most cases. But with MAGAs and Covid, even when their loved ones die or they wind up in the hospital, they still denied it. The doctors, the hospitals, everyone was lying, except for the crackpots on Fox or with Trump. As many have said, hit 'em with proof of the truth and they still don't accept it. How did so many Americans get so stupid?
For accuracy's sake I suppose I should amend that comment to read "...only a certain amount of living and paying attention can bring". Or something similar. I've been at this living thing for a while now. Wish I knew a lot more than I do, but wouldn't know nearly as much if I hadn't paid at least some attention to what was going on around me along the way. Often find myself thinking these days I wish I'd paid a lot *closer* attention.
As to the number of stupid Americans, well, if you ever come up with an answer on that one, I think a whole lot of people would like to hear it, including me. Especially me.
There has long been a strain of anti-intellectualism in right wing politics.
My father tends to catch a particular thought on a political matter and then obsess with it for a few weeks, and during the GWB's first term, he liked to recite regularly that Bush stated things in black and white terms, and didn't do 'nuance'. (He really liked to lean on the word nuance with a particular contempt.)
Back then in my mid-twenties as a sort of Republican who was beginning to drift away, I nodded along.
But that really stuck with me, because nuance matters. Details matter.
Teaching people to think in simplistic, black and white tropes is politically profitable, but it's terrible for the health of a society that works based on the communal knowledge and inclinations of the public.
Which brings us to a whole other problem that Tim's book highlights quite nicely- what's good for parties and candidates is often terrible for actual governance.
I have a thing about experience. It's not a guaranteed growth, but an opportunity.
You can convert experience into new knowledge, or you can reject it and stick to your existing worldview.
It's natural and easy to do the latter and we really have to work to do the former. We never really know how well we're doing, either, which is why it's important to keep honest people around that will give their own perspectives.
The problem with Libertarianism is libertarians. They always seemed highly susceptible to crackpottery. Though I have some libertarian ideas, I don't hang with libertarians. Just a sixth sense that 'the Jews' will come out at any moment.
I view libertarian beliefs as the salt of politics. You want some to add/ bring out the flavor of your views but too much is overpowering and ruins the whole dish…not to mention is unhealthy.
Wow, I'd wondered why I hadn't heard anything about Libertarians in quite some time. I'd thought they were just suffering from attrition due to the aggressive recruiting of the MAGAhideen "freedom" fighters. Liberty for all as long as they agree with us. What could be more "American" than that. *sigh*
Btw CNN's program tomorrow evening on Steve Bannon sounds like a good one to watch.
Bbtw spotted on Breitbart, clip of Malcolm Nance talking about his new book "They Want to Kill Americans: The Militias, Terrorists, and Deranged Ideology of the Trump Insurgency":
Breitbart: "Malcolm Nance: We Have Only Seen the Start of the ‘Trump Insurgency’"
Whew! Ron! You're gonna' make me shelve the Irish Cream and reach for the hard stuff.
Oh. Wait. Hadn't noticed the time until now. Since Happy Hour usually starts about 4PM around here, I'd have been reaching for it soon enough anyway. Sorry, friend. Didn't mean to cast blame where none is due!!
Love the one on the secessionist poll in red states - considering how much of their income comes from the feds, I'm tempted to say, "Go for it!" The second military bases are pulled out of their tiny counties and towns, the crying will be heard on the moon!
Here's a Saturday morning thought that's light on reason and logic and heavy on the Irish Cream I've been generously dosing my coffee with as I do a little catch-up reading, and therefore inappropriate for this well-reasoned and thoughtful space. But, what the hell...
The Republican Party is irredeemable. The Democratic Party is...well, I don't know what the hell it is these days, and I don't think they do either. I've often wished for a genuine, viable third party as an alternative. And I don't mean the Libertarian Party of Ron Paul or any of the current wackadoodles and miscreants calling the shots there after an apparently fairly simple and easy hostile takeover.
Well, one good turn deserves another...Maybe if enough of us Bulwark / Triad types worked at it a little, we could gather up enough Never Trumper, anti-Trumper, anti-populist, anti-authoritarian pro-democracy and genuine liberal & conservative types who are disaffected enough with the whole darned shootin' match these days to just walk in and take the damned thing over again for ourselves. I've never cast my lot completely with either side of the aisle or the parties found there. But I'd probably be down enough with this one to give it a try. Of course, a little re-branding would be required.
We could run JVL for President. He'd have a ready-made slate of cabinet picks right here, both kitchen and otherwise. But we'd have to find a way of talking him into it. Maybe just do it on a part-time basis, so he'd have time to persue his other interests. I mean, you put a guy in there that's 'always right', what could possibly go wrong, eh?
Anyway, I think it would be a hell of a party, one way or another. And I'd be glad to bring the Irish Cream. Or something more appropriate for gatherings at a later hour.
1. Completely right about the Republican Party. 2. I’m fine with the Democratic Party. Is it more left than I would like? Absolutely but I don’t mind. Most of the ideas / policies they promote that I don’t like, will never happen and more importantly are designed to try and solve a genuine problem. I may not agree with the problem or solution but they care and for the most part try to help people. Can the left be a little annoying, absolutely.
Honestly I’m not looking to create a party with the never trumpers and center left. I like that the Democratic Party is big and crazy and needs to manage its wings because they are so different. Does it look and feel crazy and dysfunctional? Absolutely but I think that is a feature not a bug. As an ex republican I feel like that is what went wrong with the republicans. It’s basically a homogeneous party and thus will always be susceptible to autocrats because it the end, they all can identify with each other.
And good ones too, by my lights. Especially that last about homogeneity, identity and the resultant susceptibility to authoritarian sway because of it. It could happen to the Ds, to be sure. Everyone on both sides is human, and in possession of the flawed nature that comes with being that. But the diversity of the 'natures' in the D's party makes it less likely, I think.
My biggest gripe with the D's as a party currently is they seem to be unable (or unwilling) to 'manage' their various factions well enough to overcome the noise they often make that, because of the hyper partisan nature of the times we now live in, drowns out the more palatable positions of the moderates that may actually be acceptable to 'persuadable voters' if they weren't distracted by all the gloss and hype of the rest. But as noted, I'm not a 'party' guy. And I was never a single-issue voter. Until 2016. And since you guys have had my vote basically by default since then, I don't guess I need to explain what that issue is.
Yes, the left can "be a little annoying". Well, a good bit more than a little to me. A lot, actually. But there's a big difference between being annoying and outright dangerous. And I'd have to say annoying is the better choice.
This is an amazingly smart take. But I thought JVL does not like to be around people, so unless he can run his campaign in his basement, it may be a little hard to pull off. Perhaps Sarah as President and JVL as chief of staff?
I could get behind that! JVL would probably be the ultimate 'gate keeper', though I don't know how he would do the 'keeping' from his basement without a lot of help. Well, we can figure that one out later.
And Sarah at the top of the ticket? I like her. And that's quite an interesting prospect on a whole lot of levels!
Well, according to the MAGAs, the basement worked for Biden! :-) I want to head the Treasury Dept - I have loads of IRS experience under idiot commissioners who had no idea how it worked. :-)
Used to take mine strictly black. Still do on 'workdays' (3 / wk). But it's been mine the rest of the time for some time now...uh, about 6 years and counting, I believe.
I suspect many have this fantasy of the despondent middle coming together to elbow the GOP and Dems aside. It would be nice. But it is a fantasy, alas. Per the article, we have 2 giant party infrastructures in place. As difficult as it would be, it's still likely easier to take over one (or both) of those.
All we'd need is Elon's money for it to work. Yes, all of his money... before he loses everything to twitter for being a duck, ( insert appropriate vowel)
True. Equal parts Irish Cream, frustration and disaffection rolled into that comment. But nothing wrong with a little fantasizing now and again. And it would, as you say, be nice.
Personally, I'd rather take back both the GOP and the Dem party and bring USA back to some semblance of quasi-sanity. We already have two well established parties, shame to see them go to waste! :)
Well, yeah. Me too. (Did I mention the Irish Cream?)
As JVL would probably say, my proposed *solution* is sub-optimal. But I need to laugh once in a while if I don't want to spend most of my time 'crying'. Or pissed off. Or the majority of the time just disaffected.
I don't mind not having a 'political identity'. In fact, I prefer it that way. But not having a real 'choice' is wearing a bit thin these days.
Oh DEFINITELY laughter is the only way any of us will make it through the next decade. YouTube has TROVES of stand ups ... each one better than the next. And then of course, there's Randy Rainbow, a true political comic genius.
Not sure why anyone cares about what the Libertarian Party does or thinks. They have had a half century to make a significant difference in the balance of political power and have not succeeded.
Like all third parties it is an ideological/philosophical vanity project forever trying to distinguish itself from the hopelessly corrupt and inadequate dominant parties.
IF we lived in a parliamentary system THERE might be a rational purpose for third parties but as it is they are simply not serious.
This is unrelated to this week’s letter — but have you read Matt Klein’s Overshoot Substack? He’s a macroeconomist, and has a fresh and persuasive ‘big picture’ take on today’s inflation and where we are headed. You can hear a recent podcast he did for The New Bazaar for free. John Authers at Bloomberg recommended, and I’m glad he did.
On the surface, I don't know how much a difference it sounds like to say "I want to maximize freedom so that people figure out their best life" versus "I want to maximize freedom so that I can choose to be evil" but even the slightest application in reality shows a whopping gulf.
People can say it's all the same policy regardless of whether the motives are good or evil, but it really isn't.
This is actually pretty bad news if you ask me. The Libertarian candidate, Jo Jorgensen, pulled crucial votes from Trump.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/550667-libertarians-elected-biden/
My problem with Libertarians (and I was intellectually curious about them for a while ( I was good with personal liberty, privacy issues etc)...and for some reason I met a lot of them when I was doing the online dating thing ( don't ask...lol). is that bottom line they were way more idealistic than me, and I am an extreme one...lol...their premise always seemed to be that left to their own devices, everyone will do the right thing...and there will be utopia and normal human traits that are not our good ones ( anger, fear, hate, stubbornness etc) will just disappear, plus they really lost me at taxes are theft and the anarchy thing...lol
Plus, they all aren't on the same page...lol
Guess they are now, I guess, if a bad page.
There used to be a talk show host in the 90s that I enjoyed listening to. The host was a Libertarian and this was all sort of new to me. Like you...I sort of listened in interest and wonderment about the ideas he espoused that seemed so out of step with most US citizens. Then we had the big hurricane hit Florida and the discussion came up about the law that was implemented that prevented stores from jacking up their prices...and taking advantage of people in an emergency. He argued that this was against free trade as was antithetical to our country's best interest.
To this day...that has been my argument that Capitalism is an ok economy/government but it literally has NO SOUL. The government attempts to be that soul because a pure profit motive will eventually lead to very bad behavior and hurts our country.
FoxNews is a great example of an entity that makes money, has lost its soul and is bad for our country. Their whole business model is designed to provide content that their viewers love, but the problem is that their viewers think it's actually the news and an even handed representation of what is going in the world.
I suppose it's probably for the best that the libertarian party has gone full MAGA. They're utterly irrelevant as a political force except as a potential spoiler, and the more MAGA voters they can peel off Republicans the better. I doubt this is their reason for taking the hard right turn, but like Trump vs. Musk, "let them fight."
Today's Libertarians are in favor of legal pot, prostitution and prejudice, eh?
The 2 major parties tend to define themselves in opposition to each other. What that means for Libertarians I can't fathom. Maybe with Republicans becoming more isolationist, Libertarians believe they should reciprocate by becoming more pro-hate groups.
Seinfeld rif, so true.
And so-called conservatives are in fact Nazis today
Regarding the Libertarian fight, I’m reminded of “The Life of Brian” showing the bitter split between the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
you are clearly an outstanding human.
Agree!
Libertarianism is based on the bland truism that everybody likes liberty--like everybody likes money. It fails to take into account trading one liberty for another--e.g. freedom *from* being requiring to take off one's shoes and belt--in order to secure the liberty *to* travel to Europe by plane. I imagine the first social contract was an agreement whereby cave persons shared the standing of night watch so that it was not necessary for all to sleep with one eye open.
I had a libertarian phase. Talking to a friend about it years later he mentioned his own tendencies in that regard, and how it's a lot easier to contemplate when you're young, healthy, and have that notion that survival is something you can readily do regardless of the circumstances around you.
You grow more, and realize that comfortable survival, and sometimes survival itself, is a web of interdependence with others. It's nice to have a hospital when you break your leg, for example.
Some people realize and admit that. What we see with a lot of libertarians (and MAGAs) is that they want the fruits of society but none of the responsibility. Covid was a great example, denouncing mitigation and the health care professionals recommending it, but heading straight to the hospital demanding to be fixed when they went down. (Or even better, demanding quack remedies and blaming the hospitals when people die of their own stupidity.)
I started off as a libertarian. Was an actual dues paying member back in the foolish days of my youth. I came to it through reading science fiction and not having a lot of life experience--as you say, getting older and wiser and more thoughtful (rather than "smart") tends to bring home the actual nature of freedom and of life and interdependence.
As Josh notes, however, not everyone learns that lesson. This seems to be especially true of libertarians that come from or live in privilege. They don't learn the same lessons that the lack of privilege teaches.
Life is always a trade off and the libertarians are correct in that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is the nature of the trades that you make in life that matters, I think--and the libertarian mindset tends to make very short-minded and historically unaware trades. It also fosters a non-cooperative, overly competitive world view that often ends up being toxic when you have 7 billion plus people trying to live on the planet.
Do you think Heinlein was a libertarian? I learned a lot from his books- started very young-but TANSTAAFL always stuck. So did “cast your bread upon the waters”. I also dabbled in Libertarianism, but I am currently homeless in my political beliefs. I also realized a long time ago that the real art of the deal means that no one gets everything they want, and you should be pleased if you got something you wanted- and so did the other guy. I guess that is real life experience. It does not always sit well.
Heinlein described himself as a libertarian, but his actual views were somewhat mixed. He started out on the left and became increasingly conservative over time.
The key thing about Heinlein (and many other speculative fiction writers) is that they are essentially contrarian. They look at an existing situation and ask why this and why not that? What if this? There is a difference between exploring these things in a fictional setting and trying to live them--and there is the danger of confusing the beliefs of the writer (and thinking you actually know their beliefs) with what they are and what they would do in real life.
This is why libertarianism tends to pall as you age. It looks good on paper, but that is really the only place it looks good or works. There si the idealistic striving for certain things--liberty and freedom, but it must (in the end) be coupled with the real questions/issues of how to make it work.
Thank you for a very thoughtful answer.
Good take, this. Insight that only a certain amount of 'living' can usually bring.
"Insight that only a certain amount of 'living' can usually bring". True in most cases. But with MAGAs and Covid, even when their loved ones die or they wind up in the hospital, they still denied it. The doctors, the hospitals, everyone was lying, except for the crackpots on Fox or with Trump. As many have said, hit 'em with proof of the truth and they still don't accept it. How did so many Americans get so stupid?
For accuracy's sake I suppose I should amend that comment to read "...only a certain amount of living and paying attention can bring". Or something similar. I've been at this living thing for a while now. Wish I knew a lot more than I do, but wouldn't know nearly as much if I hadn't paid at least some attention to what was going on around me along the way. Often find myself thinking these days I wish I'd paid a lot *closer* attention.
As to the number of stupid Americans, well, if you ever come up with an answer on that one, I think a whole lot of people would like to hear it, including me. Especially me.
There has long been a strain of anti-intellectualism in right wing politics.
My father tends to catch a particular thought on a political matter and then obsess with it for a few weeks, and during the GWB's first term, he liked to recite regularly that Bush stated things in black and white terms, and didn't do 'nuance'. (He really liked to lean on the word nuance with a particular contempt.)
Back then in my mid-twenties as a sort of Republican who was beginning to drift away, I nodded along.
But that really stuck with me, because nuance matters. Details matter.
Teaching people to think in simplistic, black and white tropes is politically profitable, but it's terrible for the health of a society that works based on the communal knowledge and inclinations of the public.
Which brings us to a whole other problem that Tim's book highlights quite nicely- what's good for parties and candidates is often terrible for actual governance.
I have a thing about experience. It's not a guaranteed growth, but an opportunity.
You can convert experience into new knowledge, or you can reject it and stick to your existing worldview.
It's natural and easy to do the latter and we really have to work to do the former. We never really know how well we're doing, either, which is why it's important to keep honest people around that will give their own perspectives.
Agree completely. Well said. Life itself is an opportunity, but no guarantees there either.
Love it when JVL tracks larger trends in politics!
"The party’s core active membership is in the low five figures..." - and yet here we are, talking about them again. Can I ignore them yet?
The problem with Libertarianism is libertarians. They always seemed highly susceptible to crackpottery. Though I have some libertarian ideas, I don't hang with libertarians. Just a sixth sense that 'the Jews' will come out at any moment.
I view libertarian beliefs as the salt of politics. You want some to add/ bring out the flavor of your views but too much is overpowering and ruins the whole dish…not to mention is unhealthy.
Wow, I'd wondered why I hadn't heard anything about Libertarians in quite some time. I'd thought they were just suffering from attrition due to the aggressive recruiting of the MAGAhideen "freedom" fighters. Liberty for all as long as they agree with us. What could be more "American" than that. *sigh*
Btw CNN's program tomorrow evening on Steve Bannon sounds like a good one to watch.
Bbtw spotted on Breitbart, clip of Malcolm Nance talking about his new book "They Want to Kill Americans: The Militias, Terrorists, and Deranged Ideology of the Trump Insurgency":
Breitbart: "Malcolm Nance: We Have Only Seen the Start of the ‘Trump Insurgency’"
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/07/15/malcolm-nance-we-have-only-seen-the-start-of-the-trump-insurgency/
Bbbtw, move along folks, no information warfare from the Putin/MAGA/Orban axis to see here:
1. RT: "Trump voters favor secession for their states – poll"
https://www.rt.com/news/559080-trump-voters-favor-secession-poll/
"Backers of the former president believe they’d be “better off” if GOP-led states split from the US, a Yahoo/YouGov survey has shown"
2. RT: "Ex-White House doctor makes Biden prediction"
https://www.rt.com/news/559078-white-house-doctor-biden-unfit/
"The former White House physician says the US president won’t finish his term as his mind is ‘too far gone’"
3. RT: "Tucker Carlson slams ‘corrupt’ Ukraine"
https://www.rt.com/news/559074-tucker-carlson-ukraine-putin/
"The US should focus its energies on countering China, not Russia, the Fox News host argued"
4. RT: "Anti-Russia sanctions ‘killing’ EU economy – Orban"
https://www.rt.com/business/559029-russia-sanctions-killing-european-economy-orban/
"Hungary’s prime minister says the EU’s response to Moscow was a miscalculation and has severely backfired"
Carry on. :)
The Russian active measure continues.
Whew! Ron! You're gonna' make me shelve the Irish Cream and reach for the hard stuff.
Oh. Wait. Hadn't noticed the time until now. Since Happy Hour usually starts about 4PM around here, I'd have been reaching for it soon enough anyway. Sorry, friend. Didn't mean to cast blame where none is due!!
Love the one on the secessionist poll in red states - considering how much of their income comes from the feds, I'm tempted to say, "Go for it!" The second military bases are pulled out of their tiny counties and towns, the crying will be heard on the moon!
Here's a Saturday morning thought that's light on reason and logic and heavy on the Irish Cream I've been generously dosing my coffee with as I do a little catch-up reading, and therefore inappropriate for this well-reasoned and thoughtful space. But, what the hell...
The Republican Party is irredeemable. The Democratic Party is...well, I don't know what the hell it is these days, and I don't think they do either. I've often wished for a genuine, viable third party as an alternative. And I don't mean the Libertarian Party of Ron Paul or any of the current wackadoodles and miscreants calling the shots there after an apparently fairly simple and easy hostile takeover.
Well, one good turn deserves another...Maybe if enough of us Bulwark / Triad types worked at it a little, we could gather up enough Never Trumper, anti-Trumper, anti-populist, anti-authoritarian pro-democracy and genuine liberal & conservative types who are disaffected enough with the whole darned shootin' match these days to just walk in and take the damned thing over again for ourselves. I've never cast my lot completely with either side of the aisle or the parties found there. But I'd probably be down enough with this one to give it a try. Of course, a little re-branding would be required.
We could run JVL for President. He'd have a ready-made slate of cabinet picks right here, both kitchen and otherwise. But we'd have to find a way of talking him into it. Maybe just do it on a part-time basis, so he'd have time to persue his other interests. I mean, you put a guy in there that's 'always right', what could possibly go wrong, eh?
Anyway, I think it would be a hell of a party, one way or another. And I'd be glad to bring the Irish Cream. Or something more appropriate for gatherings at a later hour.
1. Completely right about the Republican Party. 2. I’m fine with the Democratic Party. Is it more left than I would like? Absolutely but I don’t mind. Most of the ideas / policies they promote that I don’t like, will never happen and more importantly are designed to try and solve a genuine problem. I may not agree with the problem or solution but they care and for the most part try to help people. Can the left be a little annoying, absolutely.
Honestly I’m not looking to create a party with the never trumpers and center left. I like that the Democratic Party is big and crazy and needs to manage its wings because they are so different. Does it look and feel crazy and dysfunctional? Absolutely but I think that is a feature not a bug. As an ex republican I feel like that is what went wrong with the republicans. It’s basically a homogeneous party and thus will always be susceptible to autocrats because it the end, they all can identify with each other.
Just my thoughts though
And good ones too, by my lights. Especially that last about homogeneity, identity and the resultant susceptibility to authoritarian sway because of it. It could happen to the Ds, to be sure. Everyone on both sides is human, and in possession of the flawed nature that comes with being that. But the diversity of the 'natures' in the D's party makes it less likely, I think.
My biggest gripe with the D's as a party currently is they seem to be unable (or unwilling) to 'manage' their various factions well enough to overcome the noise they often make that, because of the hyper partisan nature of the times we now live in, drowns out the more palatable positions of the moderates that may actually be acceptable to 'persuadable voters' if they weren't distracted by all the gloss and hype of the rest. But as noted, I'm not a 'party' guy. And I was never a single-issue voter. Until 2016. And since you guys have had my vote basically by default since then, I don't guess I need to explain what that issue is.
Yes, the left can "be a little annoying". Well, a good bit more than a little to me. A lot, actually. But there's a big difference between being annoying and outright dangerous. And I'd have to say annoying is the better choice.
This is an amazingly smart take. But I thought JVL does not like to be around people, so unless he can run his campaign in his basement, it may be a little hard to pull off. Perhaps Sarah as President and JVL as chief of staff?
I could get behind that! JVL would probably be the ultimate 'gate keeper', though I don't know how he would do the 'keeping' from his basement without a lot of help. Well, we can figure that one out later.
And Sarah at the top of the ticket? I like her. And that's quite an interesting prospect on a whole lot of levels!
Well, according to the MAGAs, the basement worked for Biden! :-) I want to head the Treasury Dept - I have loads of IRS experience under idiot commissioners who had no idea how it worked. :-)
Can't hurt to get your resume to Sarah now... or JVL if he's the CoS? And good luck!
:-)
Irish cream has become my creamer of choice for my morning coffee these days.
Used to take mine strictly black. Still do on 'workdays' (3 / wk). But it's been mine the rest of the time for some time now...uh, about 6 years and counting, I believe.
I suspect many have this fantasy of the despondent middle coming together to elbow the GOP and Dems aside. It would be nice. But it is a fantasy, alas. Per the article, we have 2 giant party infrastructures in place. As difficult as it would be, it's still likely easier to take over one (or both) of those.
All we'd need is Elon's money for it to work. Yes, all of his money... before he loses everything to twitter for being a duck, ( insert appropriate vowel)
True. Equal parts Irish Cream, frustration and disaffection rolled into that comment. But nothing wrong with a little fantasizing now and again. And it would, as you say, be nice.
Personally, I'd rather take back both the GOP and the Dem party and bring USA back to some semblance of quasi-sanity. We already have two well established parties, shame to see them go to waste! :)
Well, yeah. Me too. (Did I mention the Irish Cream?)
As JVL would probably say, my proposed *solution* is sub-optimal. But I need to laugh once in a while if I don't want to spend most of my time 'crying'. Or pissed off. Or the majority of the time just disaffected.
I don't mind not having a 'political identity'. In fact, I prefer it that way. But not having a real 'choice' is wearing a bit thin these days.
Oh DEFINITELY laughter is the only way any of us will make it through the next decade. YouTube has TROVES of stand ups ... each one better than the next. And then of course, there's Randy Rainbow, a true political comic genius.
Not sure why anyone cares about what the Libertarian Party does or thinks. They have had a half century to make a significant difference in the balance of political power and have not succeeded.
Like all third parties it is an ideological/philosophical vanity project forever trying to distinguish itself from the hopelessly corrupt and inadequate dominant parties.
IF we lived in a parliamentary system THERE might be a rational purpose for third parties but as it is they are simply not serious.