Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (13842)	11/8/1998 6:05:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 67261

RE: Democrats & Vision for the Future To a certain extent, you are right, Michael. Many of us voters out there (Republicans and Independents, as well as Democrats) have found ourselves voting, on many an occasion, for the "lesser of two evils." If you have so much enthusiasm as you seem to have for the Republican Party, and always vote for it without reservations, you are truly fortunate. But both of our major parties are fairly broad coalitions, and as such cannot satisfy all their "natural constituencies" across the board all the time. Very frequently those coalitions are just TOO broad, and the internal divisions really just TOO great, which eventually leads to a major defection from the Party (e.g., the Dixiecrats). I think the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party, for example, was the loss of The Solid South. It thereby rid itself of a hopeless internal contradiction. In addition, there are quite a few real jerks in both parties, as you may have noticed. :-)) And what do you do when a Real Jerk of your own party is running against a Total Jerk of the other party? You can look around and see whether there is a third-party candidate for whom you can cast a protest vote. (That's what I did in the 1996 Presidential election, incidentally.) Of course, everyone will tell you that you are just throwing your vote away. Or you can stay home in disgust, and not vote at all, which is even worse. But most likely, you will hold your nose and vote for the "lesser evil." Finally, I think that James Bowles confronted your questions in precisely the right way, by demonstrating that it is possible for a single individual to support issues that are considered "conservative" -- and at the same time issues that are considered "liberal". (Substitute the Republican/Democratic dichotomy if you prefer.) I would say that is not just possible, but also probable. Now, you describe yourself as a "conservative Libertarian." Personally, I find the Libertarian position to be a bit utopian, and a bit rigid. But it is at least consistent. It opposes government interference/regulation in ALL aspects of life, not just in economic matters. How do you feel about the complete legalization of all drugs, for example? (A plank in the 1996 Libertarian presidential platform.) It sure would save us all that money we are throwing down the black hole of the War on Drugs. When I have a little more time at my disposal, I will be happy to present you with some of my pet issues, which BOTH parties are avoiding right now. But only if you are genuinely interested in what I have to say, not just trying to get me to stick my neck out so that you can chop off my head, metaphorically speaking. :-)) jbe