I don't think that a third party (even one led by Ventura) has a chance in the current political millieu. I agree that the Dems will stoop to any level to achieve and multiply their power. The baby boomers who run the Democratic Party are simply using the same New Left tactics they used to take control of the universities in the late 60s.
I also agree with your roommate's basic distinction between the Reps and the Dems. But I think that the reason for this difference is based on profoundly different assumptions about human nature. The left regards human nature as being socially constructed. They assert that the constants that exist across cultures are mere anomalies (such as the fact that every human culture has a Creation story, and also murder and incest are universally considered wrong). They believe that if our social arrangements were altered, then humanity would be able to be "re-made". For example, LBJ declared war on poverty. The assumption, of course, was that such a fanciful war could be fought effectively and won.
The present-day Democratic Party is still the torchbearer of Modernism. Of course, since the failures of the welfare state are evident (just study Pruitt-Igoe, Cabrini Green, and the Robert Taylor Homes for examples - further examples of the Dems destroying evidence), the left has had to code their language in order to achieve political success. But note that the Dems still do not question the validity of the welfare state. They believe in an abstract humanistic ideal in which downtrodden people are elevated by the intervention of the government. They do not ever consider the damage wreaked by unintended consequences. It is only the nobility of their intentions that matter.
The Reps are pathetically inept at defending their ideological heritage, which is a combination of classical liberalism and federalism. How many Republicans even consider themselves "federalists" or "classical liberals" anymore (as did Goldwater and, to some extent, Reagan)? The official platform of the Republican Party seems to be a smug social conservatism with a few fiscal restraint bones thrown in to appease the libertarians. It's quite a sad state of affairs. Why can't the Republican Party be the party of the self-made man, of the free thinker, of the artist and poet? The Republican Party has become the rear guard. It is cultural dead weight.
I hate to say this, but I think that 50-100 years from now, this will resolve itself in conflict (perhaps violent conflict). What if the 10% richest of the public stopped paying their taxes? And what if they had the means to defend the perimeter and airspace of their gated communities? If you want to see where the current social and political trends are taking us, look to Brazil. Of course, the trends could change. But what would be the efficient cause of such a change? |
