Most Dems hate LPs because they think we’re WAY out on the right, and the right usually think we’re nuts because we “steal votes” from them. Neither could be farther from the truth. I find that our anti-state stance is close to classical conservatism (NOT neo-conservatism, which has only grown our govt. beyond control), as well as our anarcho-marketplace (laissez faire) stance. But on the other side, we’re pro-choicers and VERY anti-warfare. The LP essentially began as an economic thing (mostly attributed to Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist), but made its way out into other sectors as well. What ticks me off about most Reps, and one of the core reasons I left that party is due to the blending of religious convictions with political convictions. Mind you, I say I’m pro-choice in a political way, but religiously I don’t condone it. I just don’t think it has to be something that is put on a ballot. The Reps. have no compunction about putting stuff on a ballot that would force their neighbor who may or may not stand for the same morals into conforming to their moral mindset. That’s just icky to me. Anyway, your take on Libertarianism I assume is probably somewhat hostile? Most Dems. I know dislike us without even knowing where we stand on things, but like I said, I find I have more in common with today’s Dems. than I do today’s Reps. For me, the Reps. are totally off the wall and out of line.

And as far as the JBS is concerned, you’d be surprised. For a far-right wing group, they’re very anti-war. I just read a great article from them the other day showing evidence that the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could easily have been avoided and still allowed the US its “victory” over the Japanese. Things of that nature, you know.

I guess I don’t care where “truth” comes from, whether the mouth of a saint or a sinner, so long as it’s the “truth.”

Thanks for the response. I personally would like a system that would allow for a diversity of parties. If anything, it would make American politics a bit less stale.

As for the JBS, I disagree with them on everything. I believe that we have discussed my take on Benson’s politics elsewhere. I should post on libertarianism sometime. That would give us plenty to discuss.

Probably not, but for those of us in the LP, it’s worth the freedom of choice. We know our votes don’t do much (Ron Paul of Texas being the exception, although he changed to Rep. just to be elected, but still a Libertarian at heart). Our voices are mostly there to educate, not to win elections. For us, showing up third or fourth in an election is a good enough message to get some folks scratching their heads saying things like “Who is this party who stole 500 votes in such-and-such county?” Then they sometimes go and educate themselves about it. Most folks in the church, I’ve found, have difficulty divorcing what is political with what is religious, which I think one has to do in order to simultaneously be a Mormon and a Libertarian (or a Democrat, for that matter, seeing as though Libertarians have more in common with Dems. than they do Reps., in my opinion — I’ve been all three).

The Constitution party is now the home of those formerly associated with the American Independent Party which was at one point associated with George Wallace, Ezra Taft Benson, and many sympathetic with the John Birch Society.

I like the JBS, although I don’t endorse it entirely. They’re too pro-life for my tastes. But I do like their take on the UN and the horror of centralized fiat-based banking.

I am may have gone too far in defending Bill Clinton. However, I do not think that Hillary should be held accountable for him and it is not my place to say that she should divorce him.

Above “Doc” mentioned that “anyone who uses a position of authority to seduce an underling is as guilty of coercion as any statutory rapist.” I will not take this one completely, but I think this is what feminists have been saying for years about sex in a patriarchal society.

I am curious about Obama, but I do not think he will be a candidate in 2008. He should not make the same mistake as John Edwards and enter the hunt for the White House to early. He is young and does not need to hurry.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Thanks for the comment. In Chile, I think it will be interesting to compare the Pinochet years with the current left-leaning regime. I am more in line with the social-democrats that are taking charge in Latin American today than I am with Allende or Hugo Chavez. I do think that it is hard to analyze Allende’s experiment since it was terminated prematurely.

I agree that corruption is a major problem. However, poverty (or the lack of development) is related to corruption. Low paid government officials are easily seduced but bribery, etc. An open democratic culture is important for all of these areas.

As for the impact of my liberalism on student evaluations, we will see. If it is a problem, then I may not want to stay.

I sure don’t agree with Bruce Hafen. I don’t care if he is a general authority. If my Bill cheats on me, he’s history.

I never felt good about Colin Powell, although I wanted to. My personal experience, while admittedly limited, told me he’s too wishy-washy for me to support him. Hmm…am I contradicting myself yet again? Oh, well, yet again. I don’t think Republican rejection of Colin Powell was about his race. If anything, I think they’d love for a solidly Republican black man/woman to step forward.

I’m ready for a minority president. Just not Colin Powell or Hilary Clinton. I liked the way Barak Obama handled himself today on Meet The Press. So did Bill.

Of course, I felt that way about Bill Clinton at one time, too. My husband, not so much. So I’m taking his word for it this time.

Blogging has contributed much to my own ideological journey, just the last few years, as I said. In some ways, I’m more conservative, in others, more liberal. It depends on the issue.

Anyway, my political philosophical journey is somewhat similar to yours, though less dramatic and less developed (still staking things out). The only exception would be the “mission effect.” My mission in Chile made me more conservative, if anything. I blamed poverty in Latin America on systemic corruption and cultural apathy rather than the lack of social programs or rampant capitalism. I saw the difference between pre and post Pinochet Chile as evidence that socialism and plunged the country into poverty, and that capitalism rescued it, to an extent. I haven’t revisited these assumptions since moving to the center, but I know the picture is more complicated than how I first saw it.