Political Parties: Root, Root, Root for the Home Team

I have an operating thesis about mainstream political parties: Ideology is lacking. Mainstream political parties want you to support their parties/candidates regardless of what their views are. There are no longer real platforms that people support, only home teams. Let me give you an example.

I became a Republican in 1994 (when I turned 18) because I believed in the party of limited government & limited taxes. I believed in firebrand idealogues like Newt Gingrich and Joe Scarborough. I didn't believe in all of their social policies, but I certainly didn't believe in the unlimited governement policies of the Clinton administration.

However, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It started rather benignly. Republican congressmen went back on their word about how many terms they would pursue in office. I first noticed it with George Nethercutt (R-Washington). I found it unsettling, but in my "home-team" mentality I speculated that it was better than the alternative.

George W Bush ran and became President on a ticket of limited government and more personal responsibility; fiscal discipline and tax cuts. As his term proceeded and more and more expansive government was created (ostensibly under the rubrick of national security), I began to think about what the conservative party was all about. I started reading writings of "Reagan Republicans" and one of President Reagan's lines stood out markedly to me. I don't have the exact quote, but it went something like, "some people believe that government is the answer to the problem; I believe government is the problem."

I started reading writings from our founders. I read the Declaration of Independence. I purchased a copy of the pocket Constitution. I started understanding the reasons for our declaration of independence from England and I noticed that while many of the reasons we seceded from the English empire were contained within the Democrats platform, they were also being adopted by the Republicans. This is when my radicalization occurred. I decided it was better to be an ideologue than a party to the destruction of our founding principles. I began to listen to the rhetoric of the political parties, such as, "a vote for Nader is a wasted vote."

Now, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't vote for Ralph Nader as I am diametrically opposed to most of what he believes. However, I do respect the man as he is certainly a crusader against the status quo. I also began to ask, "was a vote for Al Gore in 2000 a wasted vote?" After all, he did lose. If you voted for him, was your vote irrelevant? Of course not. Nor is a vote for someone in whom you believe. So I became a Libertarian. Now, there are certainly some interesting characters in the Libertarian party, and I may not be a Libertarian for life, but I did realize that I supported many more of the policies of Michael Badnarik for president than I did for George Bush.

So that was my change. The political parties decry the partisianship, but they love it. They know that the more activist their base, the greater they are to contribute to their causes. Why do you think that politicians make such enormous issues out of things like the tragic life and death of Terri Schiavo. After all, while what happened to her was tragic, it was certainly an issue that families conflict with every day. There is simply no reason that our Federal government should take up the issue and pass legislation upon the outcome of one person. That is expansive government. In the same way, why do you think the Democrats are so loud about the filibuster. These causes rally their bases, create more activists and attract capital. The activites serve to entrench the dividing lines between the parties and establish the permanance of the parties.

Well, enough of my soapbox for now. More later.

B