Interesting and insightful observations, right up to the point where you said "given their hatred of our troops, sympathy for Al Qaida and Zarqawi." That's where you became Ann Coulter. I know a lot, an awful lot, of Democrats. Not one hates our troops. In fact, the dark side of me sometimes wishes that a Coulter or Hannity Republican would accuse me of same to my face so I could knock them down. I love our troops, and believe that they've been let grossly down by the Bush Administration in a variety of ways. Sympathy for Al Qaida and Zarqawi? Puleeease! Find me one person who feels that way. Even if you could find one, and perhaps you could, because there's all kinds of nuts out there, there are far, far fewer of them per capita amongst the Dems than there are of correspondingly extreme lunatics per capita amongst the present-day Repubs. In any case, to characterize all Dems, or even more than a tiny fringe minority of Dems, as such is simply inaccurate and salacious. Personally, given the opportunity, I would have happily occupied Al-Zarqawi's last moments with blinking my urine out of his eyes. I have nothing but loathing towards terrorists, and view them in an even dimmer light than I do our home-grown religious fundamentalists (I also see them as a great example of what comes of unchecked religious fundamentalism when it fully infests the organs of governance).
Most Dems are Dems, like me, not because we think crack whores deserve a free ride and illegals need a place to birth their babies for free, but because Repubs are decidedly heading in the wrong direction. As for their betrayal of you - they betrayed you before you were old enough to vote for one. The building blocks for what the Republican party now is have been in place for a long, long time. Perhaps the planners did not foresee the result we have today, but they wrought that result nonetheless.
I think you are mired in the classic stereotypical view of the Democrats which has been pounded into everyone's heads by the Republicans, the folks whom you have now concluded have let you down. Does this not cause you to question, among other things, their dogma? This is all not to say that your criticism of certain Democrats, and the positions that the Dems have advocated in the past, is incorrect. However, myopia or dogmatic thinking will not serve you. Or me.
Like you, I am without a party to feel passionate about, without a party that represents my interests and concerns. Like you, I concluded that the Repubs had betrayed the core principles of conservatism, which is why I became a Democrat. Changing parties not because of the good of one but because of the evil of the other is not a good thing, but there it is.
So, this seems to leave both you and I without a set of oars. The Republican party is on its way down, and it has a lot further to fall before it hits bottom. And once it hits bottom, it has to stay there for awhile and purge itself before it can begin to rise from the ashes. And a huge purge that will be. The Dems have been bottomed out for a long time, and are in a position to rise from the ashes. However, what is pulling them up from the ashes is not - at this point - the strength of their position, but is instead the vacuum created by the Republican house of cards imploding. In effect, the Democrats are being "sucked" upwards through no good works of their own. Nonetheless, while they may not, and probably will not do it, the Dems are presently in a position to reform themselves, to change their focus, to redefine what they mean. The parties have shifted polarity at various points in our history, and there is no reason why the Dems could not do this now (except for myopia and the unwillingness to openly abandon certain positions). On the other side, the Repubs are completely incapable of doing this now, particularly with any credibility. In 10, 15, 20 years, with a brutal enough purging, perhaps. Otherwise, status quo.
So, it seems like you and I both need a party, and there apparently ain't one that'll have us. What I'd like in a party includes, without limitations, as follows:
A
- view towards smaller federal government, and allowing states to self-determine wherever possible and wherever inherently national interests are not affected.
- Placing national security at the top of the list. Securing our borders, knowing who comes and goes, what they intend to do while they're here, and where they are while they're here. Adopting a realistic immigration policy, enforcing it stringently, and being willing to live with the consequences of doing so. Doing away with the current system of having laws, then not enforcing them at all, and making certain parts of the country suffer disproportionately (i.e., border states).
- Having an military staffed sufficiently in all services to enable it to handle all reasonably foreseeable scenarios, plus an adequate reserve, and giving them what they need to do the job. Promoting the practice of staying on the cutting edge of military technology. Sufficiently staffing the intelligence services to the extent necessary to provide us with accurate on-the-ground intelligence in all nations. Ending the parochial practice of civil and military intelligence agencies not communicating with one another and not sharing intelligence, and instead, striving for full integration.
- Getting religious fundamentalism out of government, and keeping it out. Cutting off the stranglehold of powerful evangelicals. Being willing to revoke a religious organization's tax-exempt status if it becomes (as many are) a PAC for all intents and purposes.
- Promoting the government funding of elections, ending all systems of patronage, and prohibiting to the greatest extent possible the ability of politicians and/or parties to sell out to special interests. Prohibiting industries/groups from influencing national policy for their own gain.
- Ending corporate welfare. Prohibiting the hiring of regulators from regulated industries; prohibiting regulators from accepting employment after their terms in office from the regulated industries. Perhaps prohibiting former government servants from ever lobbying on behalf of foreign governments or interests. Perhaps prohibiting former government servants from ever lobbying for anyone at all for any reason.
- Reforming the personal welfare system to as to discourage crack whores from sitting at home, watching Montel, and spitting out more babies.
- Promoting keeping American business in America. I'm tired of talking to goddamn India every time I call Dell or any other company.
- Reasonably addressing environmental realities. End the current system of making the science of things a political football. End the current practice of government attempting to dictate what is scientific fact.
So, who will offer me this? Certainly not the Repubs. Quite probably (but not certainly) not the Dems. So then, who? I believe that I share most of the above views with a majority of Americans. Why can we not be heard?
