Splitters

Owen at Boots and Sabers writes about Leaving the Party:

Political parties aren’t corrupt. The people in them are corrupt. Which is why his suggestion that the Libertarian Party is somehow immune to this defficiency of human nature is a bit silly.

Political parties also don’t have philosophies. They are politicial organizations designed to gain and retain power. That’s it. The people within the party determine what policies to enact when those people are in power. That’s why it is important to not just disengage, take your toys, and go home whenever the political party of your choice advances the wrong ideas or the people within the party are corrupt.

I’ve changed my tune on this since January. The Republicans aren’t perfect. They aren’t even particularly good. But they’re light years ahead of the competition and splitting from them only helps the competition at this point.

Comments

  1. I concur. The Republicans have been side tracked by the same money that corrupted the Democrats, but still seem to be the best hope for real change. The Libertarians aren’t even an option as their answer to every tough problem is to give up, be it war in Iraq, drugs, terrorism, international trade, or whatever their answer is always the same. I saw one really bright ray of sunshine lately. In this radio address, Newt Gingrich says we need to quit paying for process and start paying for performance. He gets a big ‘AMEN’ from me. This is what has been destroying our defense industry. We don’t pay more for a company to do a good job, but we sure pay more if they drag out development and provide screwed up products. You’d think anyone with half a brain could see that’s not going to work. So at least one Republican has half a brain or more. It’s a start.

  2. I have also placed a cloths pin on my nose and am standing with the Republicans. (Who, in general, I dislike exactly as much as the Dems.) I’m with them now in the same sense that Leiberman is with the Democrats on stuff *other* than the war. I’ll vote with them when I feel I have to, and this is one of those cases.

  3. Maybe there won’t be a party to leave: General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, ‘I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.’ The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma. William F. Buckley If we would have gone in with enough troops and killed enough people, we could have got the job done. The mistake of Iraq is that we never had the will, nor did we have leaders with the guts to do the job. We do not have a military with the capability to win a war now. A hand full of F-22s is not going to stop the Chinese from taking Taiwan, nor are nukes we clearly don’t have the guts to use, and even if we did use them, so what? You don’t win a war with nukes. You win by breaking the will of the enemy to fight. It is possible to use nukes to that end, but they are not an end of themselves. If we weren’t a nation of pussies now we’d already know that.