A Pox on Both Their Houses

A friend, a dyed in the wool fiscal-conservative/mostly social-liberal, wrote:

"Funny, a friend and I were having a conversation about her liberal friends and how I'd actually fit in with them. I said that's because socially I'm very liberal and that it shouldn't matter much now anyway, as every conservative is turning out to be gay (I also noted that it's a good thing I'm not homophobic, or I'd be suspect myself). I'm not sure what the hell is going on with the party. To be fair, I think both parties have had there runs. But lately the GOP has gone crazy. I think that they're getting comfortable with their power (the power they HAD, anyway). Little by little, liberties are taken, then rules are broken, then laws are broken, then you're trying to have gay sex in a public restroom. They've "eased" into this, so in their minds it doesn't seem quite so bad."

I responded:

"I think the Republican Party has become a disappointment and an embarrassment to all of us of late. Of the two choices I offered in my little bit of opinion on that article, I personally think its the result of a drunken power spree.

The Republican conservatives have historically been "the loyal opposition". They've stood for fiscal responsibility - a good thing. They've promoted business interests - also a good thing when it's not at the expense of the people of the nation or of the nation itself. They have traditionally been the voice of reason in the face of Democratic liberal enthusiasm for change (which is not always a good thing).

I don't think we can afford to expect too much of the people we put in power. In a democracy, "we the people" are the base of power (not businesses, not politicians, not generals or colonels) and we should dole out that power to our representatives only sparingly. In the face of fear, we have given the Bushite NeoCons way too much latitude and it's important to re-balance the load as soon as possible before we overturn our noble experiment in democracy.

I don't think distancing one's self from the Republican Party needs to mean becoming a liberal. I would sincerely miss your counterpoints if that were the case. I'm certainly a liberal, but that doesn't mean I embrace the Democratic Party ... not by a long shot. (Though reading the blog would probably lead one to believe I'm as much a Democrat as there can possibly be.) I'm an independent - and I think you have the makings of being a good independent, too. You have the power of critical thought and the ability to weigh arguments for or against a proposition in order to make up your own mind.

As an indy, I can vote for the Republicans when they're right (and I was willing to vote for McCain until that revolting picture of him hugging GW and his flip flops on torture - HIM of all people - and on the religious fundamentalist right). I can as easily vote for a Democrat ... when I think they got it right, or against them when I think they have their heads firmly up their arses - which, unfortunately happens all too frequently.

Basically, I'm against those in power because, more often than not, who ever is in power needs the rest of us to keep them honest. They sure can't regulate themselves.

In the end, I think you'd make a fine independent. You've never been the kind of person who'd toe a dogmatic party line when all the evidence points in the opposite direction. The absence of blind faith in self appointed leaders and rigid ideologically driven orthodoxy is one of your endearing qualities and makes me proud of our friendship."