I don’t really care for Evangelical activist segment of the party. The anti-science activities really turn me off. But that’s really not the biggest problem.

The best Republicans can say is that Democrats have been nearly as bad. (Despite the claims of stopping pork the Democratic congress is keeping it going and has K-street running just as effectively) If Obama wins one can hope he’d change this but I rather doubt it.

I was initially pleased to see Romney running because he seemed moderate. I have no problem with him changing views on social issues. I’ve done that too (though not in the same direction he did). It’s his timing that makes it suspect.

DPC: I’ll have to check out that Rhinoceros Party.

On the other side George Bush certainly has failed as a fiscal conservative. I’m definitely underwhelmed. Basically if GWB had done the same as Clinton we would be in much better shape.

“We see things not as they are but as we are.” Some truth to it but also some falsity.

Perhaps it is the Mormon in me that is so set with “principles.” I have always been accused of being an idealist. My family always told me I was idealistic to try to get into medicine and now I am here. I have gone to Africa on many a charity mission hoping to “save the world.” I believe in the power of one…after all…the odds were stacked against Jesus.

I have thoroughly enjoyed our posts Clark and John. You guys are very intelligent and insightful. I wish I had asked more questions. I enjoy coming across smart people with different world views…it really is liberating and intellectually enjoyable. I would like to learn about your ideal government structure and world place.

BTW – almost everybody thinks they are a pragmatic realist. The problem is that what is pragmatic depends in large part on your theories about the world around you. The difference between a pragmatist and an idealist is that the idealist doesn’t care about solving problems – only about feeling good about standing up for “principles.”

I completely agree with you that incremental, and most important, positive changes are the most stable. The changes must be positive for lasting change to occur! People need to feel that they are being heard and represented. For those living in South Africa during the 1970s, the vision of what South Africa is today is radically different and better for the majority. My grandparents really struggle with the idea of civil unions for same sex couples but in just two generations, in Europe that is, the human rights that they deserved have finally been given to them. And in the United States, in one generation an almighty positive and people centered government was established compared to others in its time. I think the most important changes need to be positive but gradualism is also important.

Anarchosyndicalism is not, in my mind, unrealistic, although it is based on higher principles then capitalism. But Capitalism cannot carry on in its current form…a system based on greed defies the natural laws and eternal principles of nature. If we are to believe in a literal gathering of Saints to Zion, we will be living The United Order which will be something very similar to my views on Anarchism.

I see totalitarianism as diametrically opposite to anarchosyndicalism not democratic socialism mixed with soft forms of fascism.

Although I say they are narrow on the political spectrum, and they are too me, I again agree that these narrow differences can result in significant changes. And I am excited when Hillary comes to power because we will see the same emphasis on Human Rights as we have seen in Europe. Scotland Yard have started to investigate Tony Blair as a War Criminal as of yesterday…though nothing will come of this I am sure…I look forward to the day when Bush is also investigated for such. So yes I share the same vision with you on human rights but I dont see how the Democrats coming to power will help Chiniese laborers stop being given slave wages and poor working conditions for producing cheap barbie dolls and throw away trainers.

Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that social change, even radical social change is not possible with the result being stability and a positive move towards equality amongst men(Isaiah Berlin’s Positive and Negative Liberty is poignant here). The great men; Mandela, Gandhi, Washington, Cromwell, and to me Chavez all took part in fairly radical positive changes that gave power to the people.(Interestingly the Venezuelans, according to Guiness World Records, are now the happiest people in the world). And doing this over a period of 20 years or so is a fairly short period of time in comparison. And Anarchosyndicalism/Unionism has, in my reading, proved itself in history as a viable social set up though much would still need to be worked out and one should never think that Utopia has been reached. Although now Anarchosyndicalism may seem idealistic…in the future it will be viable…most probably when the oil runs out…if our dont die of global warming.

Stephen: as an anarchosyndalist, your philosophy is diametrically opposed to mine. I am a pragmatic realist. I believe strongly in effective change that can actually happen and will bring into effect particular, doable goals. Looking across history, sweeping, radical changes have rarely been stable, effective changes. More often than not, radical changes lead only to more radical changes. Thus, instead of putting in place some new, more philosophically pure and just system, you generally have merely exchanged stability for radicalism in general. Also, human societies rely on a complex web of historical and traditional practices and institutions that have been tested for their effectiveness. There are too many variables in play for perfect, theoretical, esoteric systems to account for. I personally refuse to be a slave to tradition for tradition’s sake, but before I throw everything overboard, I want to make sure what the parts actually do.

Because of my philosophy, I’m optimistic that a change of administrations in the US will result in what I see as a big change. The current government has contempt for the rule of law (incl. the US Constitution and int’l treaties), and a new government will respect the rule of law. For me, that’s a big deal. However, it is not the same as saying that corporations will be wiped out or capitalism will be replaced with something radical and new. If you are hungry for that kind of change, you need to wait for a collapse of the global economy.

“The answer is yes and yes. Canada and the US allow dual citizenship, so I will be able to vote in both countries. Go Canadian Liberal Party!”

As Canadian to future fellow Canadian, make sure you make an informed choice regarding your future political party affiliation. Although the Liberal Party may be a well-respected, mainstream party, please do not ignore other equally qualified parties such as the Rhinoceros Party, the Canadian Extreme Wrestling Party, and the Communist Party of Canada (the last should not be confused with the hacks in the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), however)

Neconservative ideology is developed from Max Schactman a Trotskyist. It’s political ideologies are perfect for the Military Industrial complex that seeks expansionism and war-racketeering. But unforuntaley this is the type of ideology that will banckrupt America. It also advocates a strong centralized government, something I am strongly opposed to. “A Government is proportionatly violent to the degree of power it holds.” -Chomsky

Leo Strauss, a main mover in neoconservativism,devloped the idea of an ever present and ever pervasive enemy which is something I find repugnant and fills me with vituperation.

I disagree that Neocons were optimistic about the Iraq war.In the clip below, from 1993, Dick Cheney says that the reason they didnt go into Iraq was because it would obviously be a Quagmire and wasnt worth the American lives. Sometimes a pointless war is the perfect war, but there are plenty of perks to the Iraq war for the Military Industrial Complex and the DoD.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk

I was the one who reduced Reagan to “Iran Contra”. I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you that the way foward is to talk with Iran and Cuba, but I think openly. I also propose a removal of sanctions.I also think that America should concede to the desires of, literally, the rest of the world and give the land stolen by Israel back to the Palestinian refugees.

What disgusts me is labeling these states as terrorist entities whilst also selling them weapons….and in our present case…waging an illegal war according to Internaational law…but in Reagan’s administration it was to fuel…again another illegal war…but also involved the distribution of cocaine amongst American civilians by the Neoconservative administration. This sort of Machivellian duplicity sums up, for me, the Neoconservative governments we have seen.

And hence, I hope and agree with John, that they have done tremendous damage to their own cause and are done for if they do not significantly change.

John, reducing Reagan to “Iran-Contra” is hard to even respond to. Certainly that’s his biggest blemish (with arguably South Africa and AIDS as his other two) It was sad since it undermined his stated policies.

Clark, I didn’t reduce Reagan to Iran-Contra. Stephen did.

My feeling is that Reagan was the wrong man at the right time. All of the future trend lines were apparent in the 1970s. US dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The inherent danger the US faced in propping up secular, authoritarian regimes in the Middle East in order secure oil imports and in order promote the short-term policy interests of Israel. The consequential rise in religious fundamentalism in the region and the danger posed by the radicalization of Islam (cf. the fall of the Shah and the founding of the Islamic Republic in Iran). And yet Reagan chose to ignore all of those trend lines and put policies in place to accelerate them so that he could fight the battles of his youth. Instead of looking to the future, he fought the enemy of the past: the paper tiger of Communism that would soon collapse entirely under its own weight, as the failure it was. On top of that, he abandoned fiscal responsibility to do it, and the Republican party has not returned to fiscal discipline since. Only the Democrats occasionally have shown interest in actually doing something about the budget. And so, yes, I think that the signs were clear in Reagan’s time and I think that he couldn’t see them and that he squandered many an opportunity for the country. But his failure to be visionary in no way started nor ended with Iran-Contra.

Meanwhile, I believe that the endless paeans to Reagan are another sign that Republicans today have no ideas left and don’t stand for anything. The only thing that the candidates can say is “Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, 9/11,” because there’s no real ideas.

John, reducing Reagan to “Iran-Contra” is hard to even respond to. Certainly that’s his biggest blemish (with arguably South Africa and AIDS as his other two) It was sad since it undermined his stated policies. However since I do think we ought be speaking with Iran, Cuba and other such nations – even if only behind closed doors and in secret – it’s hard for me to feel too sad.

From my perspective, as an anarchosyndicalist, they do cover a very narrow part of the political spectrum as the economic workings of a country are important to my ideology. Both are now fiscally liberal when in the past Republicans were the fiscally conservative ones…this has changed due to the Neocons and now I would define Democrats as such, even though I would be hard pressed to say they are conservative in their spending.

As a foreigner, the message of equality and liberty that Ron Paul brings to the table is astonishingly refreshing and blindly compelling. Yet, I do not think that his fiscal policy of a Gold Standard could work with Corporate America running the show…another Great Depression would ensue.

You are much more optimistic in your approach to the elections then I am, which could be viewed as quite sad on my part considering I am only 25. I, like Mike Gravel, hold no real hope as long as Corporate America is in charge. I dont really see this changing too much in the next election as Mike Gravel also admits.

I do hope you are right and that the wealthy few will realize their days of fascist fun are coming to an end. But with most of the leaving Republicans likely joining crony financial groups like Carlyle, I have little hope for true change.

Clark…I dont see having another Reagan as a solution, and with his scar of the “Iran-Contra Scandal” I dont see that as a promising future especially now. I must agree with John, and hope with John, that the Trotskyite principled Neocons have irreparably damaged the “Neo-Republican party”. But then again people were probably saying that about Nixon…and I wish that he had.

I actually think that the Republicans could use a heavier dose of Libertarianism and Federalism. While I find real Libertarianism pretty scary the fact Paul’s been getting 10% vote so often ought to be a wakeup call. But Paul isn’t exactly a roaring face for Libertarianism. Why is it that Libertarians seem always to put forth candidates who are so hard to take seriously?

Regarding George Bush, while I’m anything but a fan. (And a big part of me fears Obama will be George Bush styled incompetence version 2.0) However let’s be fair and look at what he faced. A huge recession due to the tech bubble. Then 9/11. Then the Iraq war (which was his fault IMO but something that affected the economy) During this period America actually did pretty well with low unemployment and high growth. Was it perfect? Of course not. But considering the stresses the country was under it was amazing we did as well the last 8 years as we did.

Now does that justify the huge incompetence of Bush? Of course not. Everyone knows Iraq was unnecessary. Katrina was horrible (although hardly only the Federal government’s fault – a large part of the blame rests with Louisiana) The almost criminal incompetence of the first two years of the Iraq war is inexcusable. The the political expediency, cronism, the inability to communicate to the public, the inexplicable choices like Miers nomination, the pork spending, the break down of the Republican congressional leadership, and so forth. Whew. Bush nearly has destroyed the Republican party and the weak field of candidates this year demonstrates it. (Who wants to win the nomination only to have nearly no hope of winning the election?)

I really, really hope the Republican congressional leadership learns their lesson. I doubt they will. We need an other Reagan to save us. And Romney, sadly, isn’t it.

Ron Paul is a totally different animal from Kucinich. Ron Paul may be viciously hated by 90% of Republicans, but he does have the zealous support of the other 10%. Because he is totally anathema to a super-majority of Republicans, he never had any chance of winning their party nomination. However, the zealous nature of support he has garnered is emblematic of the fact that Republicans have lost their way and that the party is in need of serious reform. The fact remains, however, that the “groundswell” you identify is relatively meager nationally. Ron Paul got only 6.27% of the Republican primary vote in Michigan, despite the fact that he has all the money he might need to compete. Ron Paul’s support is primarily drawn from disaffected Republicans and independent libertarians. He has the capacity to mount a 3rd party bid this year, which will help realign the GOP by contributing to its loss. If Ron Paul does run on a 3rd party ticket, he may even win a few % of the US popular vote.

America Inc., is now bankrupt, as you point out, and the Neocons who broke the camel’s back amount to more than a single straw’s worth of the blame. However, the Democratic and Republican establishments are not close on a narrow spectrum — they are very far apart, despite the rhetoric. A Democrat in the White House and big Democratic congressional gains this year will bring about the largest degree of change that a declining empire filled with wealthy, entrenched interests can stomach.

Does America still fear Muslims so much that it will vote to continue this war that is costing us lives of good American people and billions of dollars a year?

Paul & Kucinich are only 3rd tier candidates because we accept them as such by the news media. Lets not forget that Ron Paul has had the highest days donations of anyone so far and the highest level of donations in the GOP from current military troops.

I dont see how the world community, learning from the past 8 years, has much affect on the president of your choosing. By getting a Democrat does it mean that we will still get whipped into subordination…but just not as hard and conspicuously!?

Neoconservativism is scarily close to Marxism for me if you compare its fiscal and national policies with that of the 10 Planks of Marx. I think there is a following of intelligent young people for Ron Paul today, although he is seen as vestigial and disregarded by others, because they realize that their government has been hijacked by, under Roosevelts definition of corporations & states interlinked, soft fascists who no longer care for the people. At the end of the day, we all must realize that Pax Americana is going broke with Citigroup selling another $14 billion dolllars of the country to Chinese and Middle Eastern investors. Paul is ficscally sensible, patriotically sound, and a candidate that can keep the power of America with the American people. Although the economy was better under Clinton then Bush, and I prefer Clinton hands down, it is still on a pathway to ruin…which is not, deep down inside, what I want because I have an affection for the people of your country.

The political spectrum for which Democrats and Republicans, the non-”vistigial” Republicans that is, represent is very narrow and controlled…which is why there is such a groundswell of “people powered” support for Ron Paul, a candidate not bought by Wall Street but by the people. The fact that he doesnt have the funds to compete with these “1st tier” candidates says something about the current state of presidential funding in American politics, in my opinion.

Stephen Wellington: The world will get a Democrat and they’ll be happy about it, because as “nuts” as Democratic foreign policy will be, you now have had 8 years of experience which should illustrate to you how much worse it could be. Meanwhile, you should know that Kucinich and Ron Paul are not real candidates. Kucinich is allowed to participate in early Democratic events as a bone to the leftist wing of the Democratic party. The party doesn’t want to alienate that wing, so it lets him debate, even though his chance of being the nominee is zero. Then, when he fails to get a substantial number of votes, he’s told to go home. Ron Paul represents a totally disregarded and now vestigal wing of the Republican party: Libertarianism. His best role is as a 3rd party spoiler this year, which he could prove very effective at.

Nick L. and Jeff Spector: Is Guiliani even in this race any more? He only got 2.7% of the votes in the Michigan Republican primary, a pathetic 6th place finish for Hizzoner. Obviously, I’d love to see a field-muddling comeback for him, but I say “good luck.”

I have bookmarked it…that was funny.

And the thing is…I totally believed he would say stuff like that, after all he did say:

They[our enemies] never stop thinking of new ways to harm out country…and neither do we.”

Unbelievable…