Fear. It has been the tool of the Big Government Party – particularly its “Republican” wing – for quite a while.
The entire Big Government Party uses it to subdue and subject the American people with great effect. The Democrat half tells us we should fear Republicans because they will throw our sick and infirm out on the street in a blizzard. The Republicans tell us we should fear Democrats because they will allow America’s enemies to destroy it.
Indeed, Georgia’s own Erick Erickson is one chief fearmonger (and warmonger) here. It is typified in his latest post on RedState, where he states
how many Americans are going to die because of Barack Obama’s handling of our national security?
How many Americans are dead because of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan – which President George W Bush (a Republican) started under a Republican controlled Congress, Erick?
Erick then states a lot of revisionist history about the GOP while ignoring the times they did the exact opposite of what he is saying (and every single thing he mentions has at least one instance of the GOP doing exactly the opposite, and this just in the past 50 years). Erick wants us to believe that it is just the GOP “leadership” that is the problem, when it is not. At every step of the way, the GOP grassroots has rabidly cheered their leaders, even when those leaders were growing government at then-unprecedented rates and violating our Constitution on an almost daily basis.
Erick wants us to live in fear of the big, bad Democrats. The problem, for him and the rest of the GOP, is that they are no better. They truly are two sides of the exact same coin. They strive to be our parents, and like parents feeding a baby, they may give us a choice between the pureed peas or pureed carrots, but we WILL wind up eating pureed vegetables.
Me? I’m an adult. I like medium rare steaks, preferably from a restaurant that has a cow pasture out back and an in house butcher. Because I like to make my own choices about what I “eat”, I like there to be more than one choice. That is why even though I have a couple of decently impressive sounding titles with the Libertarian Party, I actively seek to encourage the growth of ALL Parties other than the Big Government Party. I don’t want their to just be a choice between pureed vegetables or medium rare steaks. I want there to be a smorgasbord, where every individual is free to choose their own food.
Contrary to what Erick and his Big Government Party cohorts want us to believe, there are a number of choices out there. Even in Georgia, I know of at least six (maybe seven) “third” parties with some form of presence in the State. Independent Political Report is a great resource for information on “third” parties, and I encourage you to go out and read each Party’s official platform and philosophy. Find out what they believe, and find which one you most agree with.
Then join them. Get active with them. Maybe even run for office with them.
Prove to Erick Erickson and his Big Government Party cohorts that we are Americans, damnit, citizens of the greatest nation on this Earth.
And we have NOTHING to be afraid of.
Disrespect and division. It has been the tool of the Libertarian Party for quite a while.
I was once told by a devout Libertarian that, “Democrats live to expand government quickly; Republicans live to expand it, but not as fast; and Libertarians live to tick people off.”
Indeed, Georgia’s own Jeff Sexton is one chief attack dog here. It is typified in his posts on SWGA Politics, where he attacks Republicans limb from limb and just shrugs off the Democrats. Jeff wants us to disrespect and attack Big, Bad Government Party. The problem, for him and the rest of the Libertarians, is that they only guarantee that the worst of the “Big Government Party” are elected when third parties come into the picture.
Contrary to what Jeff and his Libertarian Party cohorts want us to believe, too many choices in the conservative wing guarantee Democrat dominance. Prove to Jeff Sexton and his Libertarian Party cohorts that we are Americans, damnit, citizens of the greatest nation on this Earth.
And we have NO REASON to be divisive and try to give the liberals complete control of this great place.
Kyle:
When have I EVER cut Democrats any slack? As I said even in this post, they are the SAME as the Republicans – BOTH want to strip freedom and grow government. BOTH seek control, while I seek Freedom. As one “radical” once said: The war is not Left v Right, it is Freedom v Control. Which side are you on?
Contrary to what you might think, Kyle, there are just as many choices on the “left” side of the spectrum (Greens, Socialists, Communists, others) as there are on the “right” (Libertarians, Constitutionals, American Conservatives, others)- and the LP would actually be classified as a “moderate”/”middle ground” party on the traditional left/right spectrum. (Oh, and yes, to my knowledge there IS an official Socialist Party USA, and there was at least at one time a Communist Party USA.)
The only reason you care about this AT ALL is because you want to see the Republican Party collapse. Erick Erickson and I believe that the Republican Party can be restored to its previous greatness. That’s why we fight. That’s why we charge at the establishment every day so that we can make this a better party.
“Previous greatness”??? Every President you’ve had since WWII has actively worked to grow government and restrict Freedom. I’ll grant your sprint/jog analogy from earlier, but they have still worked toward these things.
Previous greatness as in a reference to pre-WWII (excluding Eisenhower & Reagan)…
I really look up to Presidents Harding and Coolidge. These guys were in office during the “Roaring 20′s.” Both were Republicans, both cut taxes, both cut spending, both worked for the people and not for themselves. That’s the previous greatness I’m talking about.
Reagan wasn’t as great as conservatives think he was. Indeed, he was actually pretty dang bad.
Blah, blah. Kyle, I think you misunderstand Jeff’s point here. Rather than simply attacking one party, Jeff holds true to his idealogy and essentially lays out his case for why he disapproves of the typical democratic-republican policies and their painfully divisive banters. He comments on his disagreements of both democratic AND republican policies. He doesn’t just, “[A]ttack Republicans limb from limb,” and “shrug off Democrats.”
Oh, and you’re first comment sends my hyprocrisy meter off the charts. You start by stating how the libertarian party is consumed with disrespect and division, then, you, a vowed member of the GOP, go on to disrespect Jeff and call him the “chief attack dog,” and then you slanderize his positions and say that the only reason he is writing this is because he, “wants to see the Republican Party collapse.” To co-opt a phrase from Abe Lincoln, “If that’s not disrespectful, I don’t know what is!” The point is, don’t acuse somebody of doing something and then do it yourself. It’s not a nice habit to have.
Largely, Kyle, I think you still have a lot to learn. You seem to be well versed in political history and I’m sure you follow current events avidly. However, it is apparent that you are sadly lacking in putting all that knowledge into practice. My advice to you is to continue following politics, but focus more on finding yourself and getting in touch with your idealogy. After that, I have confidence that you’ll be a force to be reckonded with. Good luck searching for yourself!
“It is typified in his posts on SWGA Politics, where he attacks Republicans limb from limb and just shrugs off the Democrats.”
Really Kyle? Is that right? That’s hysterical, because we’ve got others here who accuse us of being a “Republican” site for how vigorously we attack Democrats and their policy here. But we just shrug them off, huh?
The fact is that both use fear, as Jeff has pointed out, to manipulate the electorate into voting for them and maintaining control. A larger base of parties is, ultimately, better for all parties. But the Big Two don’t want that. They want people to believe we are supposed to be a two party system, despite the intention of the Founding Fathers that there be no parties.
As for disrespect, I’ll respect a party when it does something worthy of respect. What respect I had for both Democrats and Republicans is long gone.
Jeff, you’re backing Monds and taking shots at Reagan. Now that’s funny.
Regarding the substance of this post, I think the premise is faulty. Bush didn’t “start” a war in Afghanistan, we were attacked FROM Afghanistan.
Jeff made an earlier post on this issue, discussing what he calls the “Sexton Doctrine,” suggesting we can fight terror-sponsoring/terrorist-harboring regimes on the cheap and from long-distance with cruise missiles and special forces, but that didn’t work under Clinton when he struck Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan with cruise missiles following Al Qaeda’s attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Al Qaeda stayed in Afghanistan, ran its camps quite openly and launched 9/11 from there.
What surprises me about the “Libertarian” position on the terror issue is that for a party that seems to pride itself on the preservation of American liberties, they seem very quiet about the issue of those liberties being bestowed on non-citizen terrorists, who Obama proposes should be tried in civilian courts as U.S. citizens would, with the same rights and privileges you and I are entitled to rather than by military commissions.
Historically, military commissions can trace their constitutional heritage back to George Washington. As recently as WWII, the United States used military commissions to try and execute non-uniformed nazi terrorists and saboteurs landed on our shores who were not subject to the Geneva Convention. This position was upheld by our Supreme Court in the case of “Ex parte Quirin”.
Why those parties most concerned with the preservation of our freedoms would go silent when those same freedoms are perverted and transferred to non-citizens not entitled to them, which at the same time undermines our collective safety is bizarre.
Just an observation, but Clinton’s attacks on Al Queda are a bit different than the response that Jeff typically describes when he and I talk about this (he and I disagree on Afghanistan BTW). Clinton launched attacks that were what was called a “proportional response”. Those historically don’t work in most cases. For example, look at our attack on Libya under Reagan.
We didn’t launch a few missiles. We unleashed Hell. And it generated results.
A few cruise missiles into a couple of terrorist camps were never going to stop Al Queda, but obliterating every Al Queda camp might have done something.
Just something to think about.