Free Markets, Free People

The need for more direct action against the GOP establishment

I was reading Da Tech Guy’s musings on why limited government types need to work within the GOP rather than try a third party approach to rid themselves of the GOP establishment. He quotes Rush Limbaugh on what Ronald Reagan managed to do the last time the GOP establishment found themselves threatened:

The real question, in my humble opinion, is that this effort and energy needs to be used, as Ronald Reagan did, to take over the Republican Party, to repopulate it and that’s exactly what Reagan did, he took it away from the Rockefeller blue-blood country club types starting in 1976, took him ’til 1980 to do it.

Worked before, so it should work again, right? I’m skeptical.

First, what did Reagan really accomplish? A few things, sure. Don’t get me wrong – he was the best we’ve seen in my lifetime, but given the competition, that doesn’t mean much.

He got income taxes down from their preposterous progressive wet dream rates of 70%. He stood up to the Soviet Union, and possibly hastened the crumbling of that creaking empire by a few years. He made it respectable, after the raging waves of liberalism in the sixties and seventies, to say that government was more likely to be a problem than a solution for social problems.

And that’s about it.

There was no “taking over the Republican Party” under Reagan. He got a few things done, but as soon as he was out the door, it was back to business as usual for the GOP. 

Reagan was forced or induced by the GOP establishment to take on one of their blue bloods as his VP. Then, after Bush the Elder won what was supposedly a third helping of Reagan, he immediately broke his solemn promise on taxes, passed more social nonsense such as the ADA, and managed to fumble away the popularity and credibility built by Reagan to the point that he was defeated by a smarmy hick used car salesman from Arkansas.

The GOP then proceeded to nominate Bob Dole, Bush the Younger, John McCain, and Mitt Romney as their presidential candidates. GOP establishment stalwarts, every one of them. In some of those cases, the GOP establishment pulled out every trick in the book to drag their preferred choice over the finish line.

Yes, the GOP establishment learned something from the ascent of Reagan. They learned techniques to keep it from ever happening again.

The GOP establishment has made something perfectly clear: they would prefer to lose rather than let people like Reagan threaten their dominance of the party. Even when they get control, as Newt Gingrich managed in 1994, they revert to their ruling class habits and fumble the opportunity away without making any progress in limiting government. In fact, after a few years, and given a cooperative president, they proved they prefer bigger government to smaller. Under Bush, a classic GOP establishment blue blood, the establishment players in the Congress enthusiastically federalized education, passed a whole new social welfare program for seniors, and passed the biggest infringement of free speech seen in my lifetime (thankfully eventually overturned by the Supreme Court).

What motivation do limited government types have to vote for such weasels or give them support of any kind? Not much, and the elections of 2006 and 2008 proved it.

Even after seeing their limited government base re-energize the party and give them back control of the House in 2010, the GOP establishment still didn’t get the message. They worked their butts off to get the “electable” Mitt Romney as their presidential nominee. Having again shown contempt for limited government types, the establishment GOP thus managed to lose against one of the weakest presidential candidates for re-election in history. No one besides Obama has *ever* won re-election with fewer votes than he got the first time, which ought to tell you just how weak he was. But the GOP managed to be even weaker, with a candidate who looked like an android programmed to only say nice things, and never ever raise any of those unpleasant ideas about limiting government. Oh, no, government was just going to be managed better. Just like it was under those managerial types named Bush.

So how do these establishment GOP types keep getting what they want? One big reason is that limited government advocates such as Limbaugh, Da Tech Guy, Charles Krauthammer, Allahpundit over at Hot Air, and about half the denizens of sites such as Free Republic pound the same drum every election. Their basic message is “Yep, we’ve been screwed by these guys more times than we can count, but we still have to support them because the Democrats are worse!TM

OK, message taken – the Democrats are worse. But, as limited government types demonstrated in three of the last four elections, that’s not enough reason to support the GOP establishment. Indeed, in the only exception that the GOP did well (2010), many of the limited government types only turned out because they were supporting someone other than an establishment candidate.

So we’re really four for four in proving that limited government types are fed up on supporting the establishment GOP.

Why on Earth would they not be? What’s the point of investing time, energy, and emotion in an effort to elect someone who will most likely end up being just as subverted by the GOP establishment as Bill Frist, Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake, and Mario Rubio have been?

And even on those occasions where a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul ends up winning and sticks to their guns, they can’t get anything done. After obediently voting for establishment GOP types for leadership positions, they then spend more time fighting the very people they supported instead of fighting Democrats.

The limited government advocates I mentioned above all desperately want to believe that the answer is simply running better primary candidates to beat establishment Republicans, but then supporting the establishment guys who win the rigged game at least nine times out of ten. That’s playing by their rules.  I simply don’t see how that can ever work.

Therefore I’m confident that simply “working within the GOP” isn’t the answer. It’s a fantasy to think that will get us a party in which the leaders will work for limited government. The establishment GOP has decades of experience defeating every such attempt, and they’ve got the entire nomination and campaign financing game rigged in their favor.

Plus, the establishment GOP is willfully blind to the biggest successes the Republicans have had in my lifetime: Reagan, and the turnovers of Congress in 1994 and 2010. All three were fueled by enthusiasm for limited government. If the establishment GOP were simply practical politicians, they would embrace the limited government strategies and philosophies that won those elections.

But by subverting every one of those successes, they proved that they’re not just apathetic to limited government – they’re actively opposed to it. As members of the political class, the only thing they like about their limited government base is the votes provided. They are willing to pretend to embrace limited government principles to get those votes, but that just makes them more dishonest than Democrats, who are at least honest about growing government without end.

I see no reason to give the establishment GOP any quarter whatsoever.

The reluctant backers of the GOP establishment then say, “A third party would be disastrous! The Democrats would dominate for a generation!” I think things are a lot more complex than that.

First, waves of political change tend to happen in unpredictable, non-linear ways. We’re headed for some radical change in the next couple of decades, as we face multiple “what cannot go forever will stop” problems. Plus, a majority of people consider politicians more untrustworthy than the guys offering Three Card Monte on the streets of New York. I think there are plenty of possibilities in that mix to trigger the downfall of a major party.

Second, a third party opens up possibilities that make it more likely to genuinely take back the GOP by kicking out enough establishment Republicans.

The GOP stalwarts would have you think that the only way a third party would work is trying to challenge both the Democrat and the Republican in a large number of races. That would indeed give Democrats a better chance in marginal districts, and help them achieve majorities in Congress. But that’s not the only way to do it.

Many states allow candidates to run under the banner of more than one party. In such places, a candidate backed by a Tea Partyish third party could also run for the GOP nomination.

The message to Republicans would be “Look, I’ve already secured this limited government party’s nomination, and so I’m running. I’d also like to be the Republican nominee, which would mean I have a really good chance to win. But if I’m not the GOP nominee, the conservative/libertarian vote will be split and the Democrat would probably win.”

The GOP establishment would be furious, and as I noted above, they would probably prefer to lose to a Democrat rather than cave to such pressure. I’m not so sure, though, about the typical Republican primary voter. A lot of them are fed up with business-as-usual Republicans, and might be open to someone who shows serious limited government credentials by also running under a party specifically created to advance those principles.

A variation in other states would be to run for the GOP nomination, and make it clear from the beginning that losing that nomination to an establishment Republican will then result in a third party run. Sure, the establishment GOP and media would be shouting “sore loser!” till election day. But they had no problem with an establishment Republican (gentry GOP member Lisa Murkowski) who did exactly that, so why not ignore their hypocritical braying and do it anyway?

Would these kinds of strategies work? Probably in some cases, and not in others. But we can’t solve the current dominance of establishment Republicans by playing by their rules. It’s time to try more hardball strategies.

There is risk in that approach. There’s also risk in the “stick by the GOP because Democrats are worse” route. The limited government energy generated in 2010 has already been reduced to cynicism in many Tea Party supporters, and much of that reduction is due to seeing their goals subverted by candidates they trusted who defected to the establishment GOP side. We’ve seen what happens when the base just gets sick of supporting the establishment Republicans and drops out of the process. We get demagogue Democrats.

I think it’s time for direct confrontation with the GOP establishment. They’ve screwed us long enough. Any game theory expert would tell us it’s time to return the favor.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

47 Responses to The need for more direct action against the GOP establishment

  • One qualification to your facts:  Murkowski ran as a “write-in” GOP candidate, in violation of the Alaska GOP rules.  Good ideas, but of course will require lots of work and a lot of shoe leather and like that to implement successfully.  One additional thought:  in the instance where a candidate is nominated as the “Tea-Partyish” third party candidate and the GOP refuses to allow them to run as a GOP’er, each of those candidates who win their election race will be a nail in the coffin of the “County Club” GOP.

  • Frankly, I “teethed” politically during Reagan.  Thought most of the party was more like him.
    After a donation got we on the “phone for a donation often” list, I demurred from party activities except for the elections.
    It was really painful to awaken about 10 years ago to find out that real Reaganites are a minority in the party.

  • There are certain events that make a deep mark.  One of my deep marks was a quote on some website (I really don’t remember where) by a Progressive commenter who said …

    Can’t we all agree that it all about the spoils

    Well, I certainly could not agree, but for the Establishment GOP, the “spoils” certainly are the nucleus of all politics.
    It is the quest for the spoils that make the Establishment GOP no better than the Democrats.

  • The difference between the Dem Establishment and the current Repub establishment is simply this:

    The Dems want to drive the car off the cliff at 100 mph;
    The Repubs think it’s a better idea to drive the car off the cliff at 75.

    • The Democrat stand for this is –
      ‘It’s cool to be driving and you’re gonna love what’s at the bottom of the cliff!!   Free burgers and fries for everyone!!!!   Yeah!!!!!!!!!”
      the Republican view seems to be…
      “Well, I mean, we’re bound to go over the cliff anyway, meanwhile the Dems let us have some of their fries sometimes.”

  • If you drop a very small amount of corruption into a large beaker of pure water, you have contaminated that water.
    Many years ago, Progressive ideas were dropped into the purer water of American ideals.  They were quite popular, and had both Deemocrat and Republican adherents.  Some of the MOST “progressive” of the Progressives were Republicans.
    That taint has remained, as corruption will tend to do.  SOME of the GOP establishment are easily identified as Progressives, regardless of whatever else they use as their identity.  It is best to identify as CONSERVATIVES, to separate the sheep from the goats.  I are a goat.

    • A better identity separator is STATIST vs. ANTI-STATIST.
      “Progressive”, in the late 19th century, was considered “reactionary” and “totalitarian”, and rightfully so.
      “Conservative” has varied much between the “social” label and “classical liberal”.
      And, yes, much is mere semantics.

  • “they would prefer to lose”

    You could have ended it right there.  The GOP does not want to be in charge.  It’s hard work and they are held accountable.  If the Dems are in charge, they can look and sound virtuous and get all the perks without having to do a damn thing.

    • As a party, that’s true. They don’t really care, or even desire, that their party be in control.

      But as individuals, they will do anything they can think of to win.

      I can’t help psychoanalyzing that a bit. Most strike me as the sort of over-inflated egos that could not accomplish anything of value in the free market. Playing the bigwig in DC is the sweetest gig they’ll ever get and they know it. They would rather satisfy the people who give them their campaign money than the people who voted for them on false, hypocritical promises.

      Some of them (Lindsay Graham comes to mind) are also wimps. They don’t have the principles and spine to stand up the Democrats. They would rather liked by their supposed opponents than stand up to them.

      The Democrats, of course, are fine with this state of affairs. We shouldn’t be.

      • Fighting the press, the culture, schools, the bureaucracy, etc. is like a vendor trying to fight their biggest customer. You only dare fight on the edges lest you be cut off as a vendor. There aren’t any heroes who sell to Office Depot, because you will not win that war – you acquiesce, or surrender. This is because they have far more power than you.
        Look at the IRS stuff…we can’t even get it investigated. The Rosen case…everyone’s forgotten that.
        The Republic is basically over. No third party of Cato is going to rebuild it. Its done.
        Rebuilding it would be really hard work, and voters don’t want that. They want easy answers and cool presidents. Thus we will decline until the money runs out.

  • I think many of you are forgetting that the GOP has to labor hard against the media, the bureaucracy, etc.
    Think about the up-coming budget fights. If the government shut down happens even though the GOP House did pass a bill that would have avoided it, but the Senate never voted on it (thus leaving Obama as clean as clover), does anyone doubt the press and thus the masses will say “GOP shut down government?”
    What if the roles were reversed? You damn well know the media would make it clear that the GOP Senate / President was responsible for not considering the reasonable Democratic offer.
    Thus, even if you get elected with noble intentions you will be forced to play by Dem rules, and thus look Dem.
    And then people wonder why they might like to be a minority power…of course, who would like to be vilified every day?
    I am beyond caring now, because I feel the Democrats have set up a lot of machinery to launder tax payer money to them, to set up tons of interest groups etc that means they will be winning for a long time to come.
    I am just waiting for the market reality to set in and keeping my head down.

    • The question is, why should, say, Ted Cruz, give a rat’s ass if he’s popular in New Hampshire, or New York of with the New York based media, if he’s elected in Texas, by Texans?
      I grant you are probably right in your assessment (my example of Cruz was deliberate, since I can tell you the locals are happy he seems to be doing what WE elected him to do, and he’s NOT popular in New York).
      This falls back to the old saw that “my representatives are okay, it’s YOUR representatives that are bad”.   If the Reps and Senators were paying attention to what the people who actually elected them wanted
      then they wouldn’t be concerned with popularity contests in Michigan when they were elected in North Dakota unless they intended to run for President.    I also concede out of state contribution factor to defeat local politicians does make national popularity somewhat of a factor, but these Republican idiots who worry how they are playing to Los Angeles when they were elected in Dallas are fools.   They will always be disliked by most of the ‘other’ party because they’re Republicans.

  • I sort of disagree that Mitt was the GOP establishment’s guy.  He was someone they would somewhat tolerate because of his politics.  But the establishment picks were first Gingrich and then Santorum.  Both far more establishment GOP than Mitt at least in terms of being in the club.  In fact Gingrich did his best to damage Romney in a scorched earth kind of way.  In ironies of ironies the talking point that Mitt was an establishment GOP’er came out of Gingrich’s camp.  In 2008, the choice of candidates was in some ways worse than 2012.  Mitt was almost looking conservative.  So what do you have, Huckabee running on an anti-Romney platform.   And then Fred Thompson running what some described as an insincere campaign that diluted the conservative end of the swimming pool to help his buddy McCain (and maybe to help keep out the Mormon bastard).  Both of which directly and indirectly hurt Romney and gave the primary to McCain.
    And during 2012 you had establishment GOP figures like Crystal fuming that Romney didn’t have enough insiders.
    The thing I took away from Mitt, is he was a populist.  And if you’re a populist in Mass., you’re going to come off as an establishment republican.  Go national, and I’d expect his positions to shift.  The one thing I did like and was wondering if it would make a difference, is that Romney wasn’t beholding to anyone.  These politicians go to washington with little or no money and become millionaire, true.  But not Romney level wealth.  Romney has the kind of money most of those guys still envied which is why they can all still be bought.  The kind of money you need to buy Romney you can’t hide.  And once you’re elected president, you are a shoe in to run as the incumbent and then you’re politically finished.  So we would have had a politician that couldn’t be controlled by the establishment.
    Yeah, I get that politics were close enough to the rest you’d have a hard time telling them apart sometimes, but he was hardly their first choice and both in 2012 and 2008 he was sabotaged by elements of the GOP establishment in ways that go beyond dirty primary run up ways.

  • I am beyond caring now, because I feel the Democrats … will be winning for a long time to come.

    That’s not an unlikely outcome, I agree. But, given the kind of changes we’re facing due to the meltdown of the blue social model, I don’t think it’s inevitable.

    As looker said, the fact that establishment GOP types are under pressure to conform to ruling class desires doesn’t excuse them. Sure, no want wants to be constantly vilified, but someone with enough confidence in their principles and philosophy should be able to stand up to it.

    We need those who resist the establishment GOP to have a cadre for what happens after the blue model collapse. A squish like John McCain, or even Marco Rubio after enough assimilation by the Beltway collective, would have no clue how to radically transform the federal government, even if circumstances and public opinion opened up the possibility.

    I fully realize the odds of that happening are slim. Historically, such collapses lead to more authoritarianism. But we Americans are an unusual people, and if any society on Earth can buck that trend, it’s us. 

    • Ah well, there’ll always be some version of the Republic of Texas.   It’s in every post collapse novel that was worth a damn to read.

    • If the Democrats hold the minority of seats, they haven’t won, even if they’re the largest block.  At least in theory that’s how it was suppose to be.

      But if the GOP wars with the new party, then that could negate that.  And the 2-party entrenchment in debates and other aspects of campaigning also would hurt it. 

      Parties as they are shouldn’t exist at all.  You can’t stop free assembly, but personally there should be zero money outside the district that is being represented.  That would essentially cease parties as we know them, PAC, etc.  I think it would be for the better. 

      • That made me think and I agree, I’d be happy to limit the ability of people who aren’t represented by a candidate in the elected office to contribute to their campaign.    Too much outside weight can be brought to bear by deep pockets and cause the candidate to feel like they have to pay back people they don’t technically represent.

  • Well said, Billy…well said.  I myself, will never vote for the establishment pick again.  I will only vote for REAL conservatives.

  • they would prefer to lose rather than let people like Reagan threaten their dominance of the party….

    I’d love nothing more than to see them lose every election from here on out, to have their reputations and fortunes ruined, to be humiliated, indicted, imprisoned, or sleeping in a cardboard box.  The trick is getting that to happen to the Democrats as well.
    What lovely dilemmas are created when people put moral questions on the auction block, subject to mob whims.

  • The US has a single member district plurality system, which inevitably makes a two party system likely and sets tremendous odds against third party success, especially if the party is considered more to the extreme (where fewer voters are).  In Presidential politics the electoral college adds to that.  Moreover, this works for both parties.  President Obama’s biggest critics are on the left, and they are furious that he’s governing as a centrist pragmatist.  They hoped that all the stuff about Obama being a socialist or an extremist was correct – they see him as no better than Bush.  Indeed, the far left makes similar arguments against the establishment Democrats.
    THe reality is that most voters are in the center and are turned off by ideological arguments or radical claims that the other side is really bad and only their side is good.  As long as the voters are in the center, that’s where the parties will move to.  Even Reagan governed very pragmatically (I’m sure you’ve seen the bits about how Reagan wouldn’t fit in with the tea party at all).  That’s structural to US politics.  It works very hard against third parties or ideological movements, but does increase stability.  The extremists on each side hate it – as do Green environmentalist types – and it does tend to favor big money and the corporate elite (which both parties court).  But it’s very unlikely to change – not too many people think like you guys at Q and O do, just as not that many think like the Daily Kos.   Most people are pragmatic and looking for problem solvers, not ideologues or political junkies.

    • The US has a single member district plurality system, which inevitably makes a two party system likely … Ok, so I didn’t really read the post. I just skimmed and found out it was about elections, and pasted a couple of paragraphs from my freshman polisci book, along with some generic stuff about pragmatism and how you guys are extremists.

      But that’s not because I have a problem reading and focusing due to partial functional dementia developing in my fifties. I’m the same as I’ve always been. And it’s also not because I’m incapable of responding to the arguments in the post. It’s just a waste of time because you extremists never grant that I’m right. You just call me names. Which means I win the argument. So there.

      Because I’m not either an extremist on the other side. See, I can just mention Daily Kos as extremists on the other side, which proves I’m a pragmatic moderate. And my support for every lefty program ever dreamed up by Obama doesn’t change that. Because he thinks like me. I decree it in the name of quantum spirituality.

      Anyway, this comment is just my opening gambit to reel you guys in and eventually switch this to a discussion of quantum spirituality. I’m very spiritual now, having re-examined my life after my Russian wife kicked me out for being a pretentious know-it-all. And no more “dude, you can’t even keep a Russian bride happy” stuff. I mean it.

      Yes, my spirituality has become a significant and gratifying part of my life, and it’s just because I’m getting pussy for the first time in years. Though I admit that it helps.

      So how about it? Will you accept my gambit, yet again? I can always make you guys dance like puppets on strings, can’t I?

      Oh, sorry, I let my real attitude show there for a while, didn’t I? Let me try again. Don’t you want to engage me as an equal instead of name calling? Here, Charlie Brown, I’m sure you want to kick this football. Really, I’ll hold it steady this time, and respond to all your arguments with deep, chin-pulling consideration. Before I handwave them aside as invalid, of course, and get back to pasting in stuff from my class materials. After all, with you extremists, I have to start with the basics.

      But I’m willing to do it out of the goodness of my heart. Definitely not to talk down to you extremists in a desperate attempt to convince myself that I’m something other than a mediocre professor in a third-rate college who has no more understanding of the real world than the moose standing down there in that field. Stop saying that. It causes the magenta caterpillars with Sarah Palin’s face and ample bosom to get frisky.

    • Most people are pragmatic and looking for problem solvers….

      Most voters are ignorant, short-sighted, and irrational.  Anyone “looking for problem solvers” can look at the record of the federal government since FDR and see not one major problem being solved, but an increasing number of problems created, exacerbated, and metastasized.
      The real answer is that there is not a blueprint to solve problems for everyone.  The more power you fools give to the so-called “problem solvers”, the worse they make things.  Problems will only be solved at the individual or local level, if and when people learn to take responsibility for their own fate, rather than depending upon rulers to do it all.
      The “stability” is a direct course to a monumental debt which will destroy your children’s chances of having a stable lifestyle, and probably even a stable society.
      But keep whistling past the graveyard, yammering on about “ideologues”, “extremists”, and other such irrelevancies.

      • Leftists are masters of hidden assumptions. Their ridiculous “why can’t we just get along” schtick has a bunch of them, in addition to the ones you noted. Among those preposterous assumptions: 

        1. There are obvious solutions to our problems just lying around for politicians to grab, if only those silly ideologues on the right would shut up and play ball.

        2. The people who think government is needed and qualified to manage every detail of society are not ideologues. In other words, the position “markets don’t adjust themselves” (one of Scottie’s favorites) isn’t the least bit ideological.

        3. The people who think government has no business managing their personal affairs and resent their lefty betters telling them what to do are ideologues, and of the worst sort.

        4. Everything can be compromised, and compromising always leads to a good outcome. (This, however, also assumes a certain meaning for the word “compromise”.)

        And, as always with Scott, there is the grand assumption that the people he’s arguing with are ignorant of basic principles of politics – elections, parties, and such – when in reality it’s been shown over and over that we all understand that stuff much better than he does. See for example the perceptive and historically grounded comment by Daedalus Mugged below.

        • Ideological thinkers like to argue via categorization (“leftists” and “right wingers” are such and such”).   That’s almost always fallacious thinking, and a way to dismiss other perspectives with gross assertions.   The position that markets aren’t magic and don’t always self adjust is undeniable empirical FACT.  It is absurd to argue otherwise, the real world is full of evidence (those arguing otherwise usually fall into theory or ideology, which is always based on simplified assumptions about reality).  Democracy is about compromise, our system was set up to avoid extremes or groups being able to impose their view.  That was seen by the founders as safer than making politics about ideological jihad.  So argue all you want, the system is stacked against you.   Also, you need a dose of humility.   Just maybe you’re wrong about things, and maybe you have something to learn from those who think differently.   Ignorance is always fed by a lack of humility.

          • “Ideological thinkers like to argue via categorization (“leftists” and “right wingers” are such and such”).   That’s almost always fallacious thinking, and a way to dismiss other perspectives with gross assertions. ”
            Which came after this statement….
            “not too many people think like you guys at Q and O do”
            And then there’s….
            “Well, Elliot, I think  you’re locked into an ignorant form of ideological thinking – you have more faith than rationality, based on what I see”
            which was preceded by….
            Also, you need a dose of humility. Just maybe you’re wrong about things, and maybe you have something to learn from those who think differently.   Ignorance is always fed by a lack of humility.”
            Ah, to be so blissfully unaware of what one is writing.
            Try a dose of the humility you’re prescribing you idiot.

          • Scottie’s weekend homework – Compare and contrast the meaning of following two statements:

            1. “…markets do not automatically adjust themselves…”

            2. “Markets do not always adjust themselves.”

            Zero points for asserting that these mean essentially the same thing.

            And I must add that your last sentence is the best example of psychological projection I’ve seen in at least two years. So, for bonus credit, please point out any examples of this supposed ignorance you claim with verifiable facts and links not from a leftist opinion source. That is, ignorance means not being acquainted with or being wrong about facts – it has nothing to do with disagreeing with someone else’s opinion, even when they are arguing from authority. So, if we are all as ignorant an you claim, you should be able to back that up with at least one tangible example, citing the fact about which we were wrong or unfamiliar.

          • Ideological thinkers like to argue via categorization (“leftists” and “right wingers” are such and such”).   That’s almost always fallacious thinking, and a way to dismiss other perspectives with gross assertions.

            It’s astounding that you admit that your comments and articles are “almost always fallacious thinking” since you incessantly use the meaningless political spectrum which is an anachronism held over from the French Revolution.
            I’m happy that you implicitly recognize that when I criticize you and others for using those ridiculous terms and focus the discussion on pertinent facts and relevant values, that I’m working–against people like you–to avoid ambiguity, fallacies, baseless assertions, etc..
            Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

          • The position that markets … don’t always self adjust is undeniable empirical FACT

            Self-adjust to what?  To what you or someone thinks they should be?

      • Well, Elliot, I think  you’re locked into an ignorant form of ideological thinking – you have more faith than rationality, based on what I see.  But just as voters have the right to think as they do, you can think as you do.  You can judge them if you want, but I can judge you.  Your judgment has no more merit than anyone else’s.  But I would point out that since FDR we’ve had the longest period of economic growth and prosperity in history, much better than before FDR.   So perhaps I can judge your claims negatively after all 😉

        • “So perhaps I can judge your claims”
          You won’t mind the judging that normally occurs when you comment then, being as you’re in favor of judging and all.   🙂   lol lol, eyes rolling lol.
          Aren’t you hitting the sauce a little early today?   It’s only 11 AM in Mooseville…well, I guess the sun IS over the yardarm in your latitude.

        • …ignorant…ideological …faith….

          The usual, meaningless, inverse-reality buzzwords?  Check.

          …since FDR we’ve had the longest period of economic growth and prosperity….

          Selective metric which: (1) implies that government action is responsible for success, rather than technology, private sector production, post-war global economic advantages, etc., (2) ignores more pertinent data like federal debt, unfunded liabilities, meaningless and symbolic budget cuts, (3) massive shift in the ratio of producers to receivers of government checks, (4) government surveillance, increasing control over minor aspects of the lives of individual Americans, erosion of rights (mainly due to War on Drugs, War on Terror, …), police militarization, (5) shift towards a more lazy, stupid, fat, irrational average citizen, …? Check.
          Do you think your children and grandchildren will benefit from any growth and prosperity, comparable to what we and our parents experienced?

          Washington is on a direct path to bankruptcy, in the same manner as Detroit.  And, you’re happy about it, for some irrational reason.

    • “Obama’s biggest critics are on the left”
      So….we’re….supporters?   over here?

      • Or said another way… there is no honor among thieves. So some far-left nutjobs are claimed to be Obama’s biggest critics, ergo Obama is not a leftist? Erm, that is kind of like the Troyskyites are Stalin’s biggest critics so therefore Stalin is a wise-centrist like Scotty. Me thinks the Professor’s grasp of logic got included in the award to his ex-wife along with the house.

    • Let’s call each other fascists.   You go first Scott.

      • As Wolfgang Pauli said about a young physicist’s paper,  “It is not only not right, it is not even wrong.”

        That’s Scott in a nutshell. He’s so far from reality that I can’t even call him a fascist. That would assume a connection to reality that he lacks.

        • As usual he brought along his favorite mojo word,  “pragmatic”, and waved it around a little.

        • I think the young physicist in question was rumored to be David Bohm… who the Mad Professor here also idolizes for his defunct quantum theories since they enable his quantum spiritual bullcrap. Funny how serendipitous the universe is. Almost quantumly spiritualistic.

  • “A third party would be disastrous!  The Democrats would dominate for a generation!” Only if the GOP lasts a generation.  The transfer from Whig to Republican opposition to the Democrat party created a brief period of enhanced Democrat influence, but it was far shorter than a generation.  It took a crystallizing issue and a preference cascade.  The issue that broke the Whigs was abolition…the opposition to slavery for blacks.  The Democrats were pro-slavery, the Whigs were split, indifferent and ineffective in opposing it.  Preference cascade, Republicans replaced Whigs in short order, and slavery was ended as a legal matter.  Although Democrats struggled to hang on to as much of slavery as possible for another century, and it took buckets of blood from good men.  The tree of liberty was watered thoroughly.I would suggest the current issue is also slavery.    The Democrats are still pro-slavery, except now for all people rather than just African Americans.  They view us as but servants to the state…tax cows to be milked on their gov’t plantation; slaves.  The fruits of our labor is their property, and they graciously allow us to keep some modest portion of it.  Read Keith Ellison’s recent comments if you doubt it.  Once again, the party in opposition to the Democrat support for legal slavery is split, indifferent and ineffective in opposing it.  Will there be a pro-liberty preference cascade?  If there is, it will and must destroy the GOP just as thoroughly as the Whigs.  “Give me liberty, or give me death!” may be in our future as well as our past.  The tree of liberty is more than a little dehydrated; it will either die or be watered.  In Liberty,Daedalus Mugged(Yes, I am afraid enough of state power to use a pseudonym.  Hi NSA!)

  • One think you must realize is that the media has rotted the name of the tea party with the young voters (internet crowd).  Many of them have been brainwashed to believe that Republicans are Evil Incarnate and the Tea Party is just their militant form.  Facts don’t matter.  If you want to do a 3rd party get them on board first. Find common ground with all those that are fed up with the Democrats.  You can do this pretty easy with fact based campaign that young smart IT engineer can understand:
    1: Central control does not work.  P2P is more efficient than old main frame server based networks.  This applies to social and economic issues as well as networks.
    2: All controls/laws should have negative feed back loops.   NSA is spying on us because they have a positive feedback loop.
    3: Power Corrupts.  Small groups of people no matter how noble or educated can be bought by powerful lobbyist no matter if they are democrat or republican, this gives them far too much control authority as well as develops single point failure modes.
    4: Young professional techies are getting screwed by elitist baby boomers.   It isn’t hard to point out Rep and Dem examples.
    This would steal just as many voters away from the Dem’s as from Rep’s.  Start your organizing from high tech left (the Reddit or 4Chan communities).  Then you wouldn’t have to win over the next generation, you will already have them.  Plus when the MSM tries to crush you (and they will) the internet tech kids will fly circles around them.

    • Your last bit about the internet tech kids is bang on.  They may not get excited about taxes etc (yet) but based on a conversation I had just yesterday with my youngest tech website counterpart they are outraged at the idea of data streaming going from a mere civil matter to it becoming a felony issue for example.  Show them their ox is going to be just as gored as everyone else’s if this experiment goes TU and you’ll have them.
      The biggest problem I see is not that they don’t care it’s that they generally don’t know.  Get the abuses to a place on the web where they can see them and it goes a long way.