TO MY TEA PARTY/LIBERTARIAN FRIENDS: We need to talk seriously for a minute. I want 85-90% of what you want. Mitt Romney is probably at 75-80%. Whomever the eventual Republican nominee turns out to be is likely to agree with you 70-90% of the time. You are making a HUGE mistake when you argue that the two parties are about the same and that you want to go off and form a third party. In an idealistic way, it is attractive to insist on ideological purity and reject anyone who doesnt talk the way you talk and believe everything that you believe. But lets be real. You have about 20% of the electorate on your best year. The last serious third-party candidate was Ross Perot. He got 8.4% of the vote in 1996 and 18.9% in 1992. In 2000, Pat Buchanan got 0.4% of the popular vote. Running as a Libertarian, Ron Paul got 0.47% in 1988. Thankfully, Congressman Paul figured out that he was more influential being a voice within the Republican Party than trying to go outside it. His recent Presidential campaigns within the party had much more impact on the national debate than his 1988 Libertarian campaign did. Trying to go outside the Republican Party or split votes with us is shooting both of us in the foot. Furthermore, the two major parties are NOT about the same. Here are a few of many examples I could cite: 1. Judicial Nominations In District of Columbia v. Heller, a one-vote majority held that the right to keep and bear arms was intended by our founders to be an individual right. The Justices voting in the majority were Scalia (who authored the decision), joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. 3 of the 4 dissenting Justices were appointed by Democrat Presidents. In the 1990s there was a resurgence of States Rights jurisprudence lead by Justice OConnor. The liberal justices on the Court uniformly opposed that. If you want Justices who will interpret the Constitution as intended by its framers, the two major parties are NOT about the same. They are as different as night and day. President Clinton promised to appoint Justices with an expansive view of the Bill of Rights. You know where that has taken us in the past. 2. Appointment of Federal Bureaucrats I have big problems with the whole concept of federal bureaucrats writing rules that extend the law into new areas or creatively re-interpreting it to defeat its original intent. The Republicans do not oppose this with enough fervor. But, when it comes to appointing officials, they are far better than the Democrats at appointing people who favor free markets and economic liberty. I have practiced law before federal agencies. Believe me, Democratic administrations are far more fond of regulation in general than Republican administrations. Every time we have a major national crisis, the Democrats blame it on too much freedom and not enough regulation. President Reagan made de-regulation a central theme of his Presidency and the economy boomed as a result. The two major parties are not about the same on that issue. 3. Tax Policy I agree with the FairTax proposal made famous by Mike Huckabee. I dont think we should tax income at all. Having said that, Republicans are historically far more likely to keep the tax burden lower than the Democrats. These are not small issues--and the major parties are VERY far apart on them. I grant that a Republican President will likely not move as far or as fast to change things as you want. To change anything s/he has to get elected first, and you cant do that with 20% of the vote. Calling everyone who doesnt agree with you on every single issue a RINO does not get you where you want to go. So please stop saying that the two major parties are about the same. It simply isnt true, and its hurting your cause.
Posted on: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:50:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015