Yesterday I wrote about how I believe that the GOP is a political dinosaur, due in no small part to its staunch adherence to intolerant social issues; which quite honestly turns more people off than it does attract people to this party. I also talked about how there are some pundits on the Fox News channel that are saying the reason why Mitt Romney didn’t win on election night is because he (Mitt Romney) wasn’t conservative enough (which was the gripe against him all for the past four years). The problem I have with all of the GOP pundits’ reasoning for their election night loss is this one question – wasn’t it the Republican voters who voted for Mitt Romney over a herd of other Republican candidates during the primary season? To the best of my knowledge the only people who can vote in the primaries are those who are registered voters under whichever party is holding those primaries. So, most of the Republican voters chose Mitt Romney to be their Presidential nominee; and they did so over FAR more conservative candidates, like Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachman. So I stand by my belief that if the Republican Party wishes to go down the road to more conservatism – particularly the highly intolerant views of social conservatism – then we can kiss that party good-bye as a major player, particularly in Presidential elections where the entire nation gets to vote, and fewer identify with much of the GOP’s social views.
Last night I tweeted out a link to an article where former Republican Presidential hopeful Herman Cain called for the formation of a third political party, because he no longer believes that either of the two big tent parties are willing to actually address the big, and I mean BIG issues that are facing this country. Sadly (for the GOP) the interviewer, Brian Fischer, seemed to think that what Herman Cain was saying is that we need a more conservative party, because the GOP has become too soft (my words, not his); even though Mr. Cain says in the interview it is the continuance of us wanting to put everyone into some sort of labeled category that only serves to further divide us, and mentioning that their are many Democrats that aren’t too happy with that party either. Below is the video from that interview, it is a little over 12 minutes long, but I think it is worth listening to.
Okay, so now we have someone who has at least a little media, and political cache’ actually calling for a different voice in our political discourse; something that many, many people have recognized long ago; which is why they have and will continue to support one of the already established so called third parties and their candidates – the largest being the Libertarian Party. So my question to Herman Cain, why do we need to create another “third” party when we already have at least two, maybe three of those parties that are well enough established and already have the foundations and framework and support networks in place to grow?
As anyone who has read more than one of my articles already knows, I am a fan, and supporter of the Libertarian Party, simply because it is the party that I can most closely identify with in ideology and its goals. I honestly believe that if more people became more informed as to what this party (the Libertarian Party) stands for, and what it actually means to be a libertarian (small “L”) then a vast majority of those people would realize that it is the party for them. I say that as someone who used to be a registered Republican and grew increasingly dismayed with that party’s stances on a great many, if not all social issues, as well as the fact that those elected under that banner rarely if ever actually practiced fiscal conservatism, or shrank government. I say that as someone who went the whole registered independent route for the better part of a decade. I say that as someone who also thought that the Libertarian Party was the party of radicals. I say that until I actually read up on what it actually means to be a libertarian (again, small “L”); and until I actually met real life, honest to God members of the Libertarian Party, and started asking them questions I had about that party. Now, to concede a point that Herman Cain makes in the above interview, there are no “perfect” parties, and the Libertarian Party is not perfect; but nothing in this world is perfect. I am willing to bet that many of those disenfranchised in both parties, as well as many of the growing numbers who have chosen to become registered independents can and will identify with what it means to be a libertarian (still small “L”) and that the Libertarian Party is not, repeat, NOT a party full of crazy radicals. Of course given the status quo of our country’s government and direction, the notion of smaller, less intrusive government, based on the founding principles of America, then by those standards the concept of liberty is quite radical in comparison.
Below are a series of short videos (3 minutes each) explaining in the simplest of terms what it means to be a libertarian, which should provide a primer for those who might be interested:
I have observed this in my experience of slavery, that whenever my condition was improved, instead of increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans to gain my freedom. I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. (Frederick Douglas)