Subject:
|
Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:52:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
920 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I agree with some of the stances that each of the big two take. I agree with
> many of the stances of the LP. I think I agree with some of what the Green
> Party says. Why shouldn't I be able to support (through membership) each of
> those? After all, I am a member of the NRA and the Nature Conservancy (and a
> bunch of others).
But if you were going to run for office, under which party would you do
it? It's fine (and appropriate) for individuals to support such political
groups as are in line with the individual's views, but when one is running
for office (in the current and long-term-forseeable future political setup),
one is generally required to take certain definitive positions. For a
Libertarian to do otherwise (ie: to leave himself all sorts of "yeah-but"
escape clauses) would be to subscribe wholeheartedly to the exact Washington
problems that the LP nominally opposes.
> > It's analogous to a certain former GOP member
> > who's now Independent but still claims to adhere to many/most of the GOP's
> > views. Sounds like fence straddling,
>
> Which is bad why/how?
Maybe not "bad" per se, but it allows the convenience of not having to
take a definitive stance while simultaneously courting constituents from
both political philosophies. It sounds, in short, like playing partisanship
for all it's worth, which again has always seemed in direct opposition to
the tenets of the LP.
> > at the very least Paul must be acknowledged to lack the courage
> > of his convictions, if he either a) turns his back on his true party,
> > or b) runs for another party under false pretenses.
>
> I don't think so. It may be that his convictions are so strong that he feels
> that making them reality is more important than some silly visible
> solidarity. In fact, this is exactly what I think all Libertarians should do.
Some of the more Republican-esque Libertarians might indeed be well
advised to do exactly that, but they would thereby compromise their status
as members of the "Party of Principle," since once again they'd be engaging
in the same DC gamesmanship they reject.
> I think the GOP needs a foil to the loonies of gawd who seem to be running the
> show. Libertarians are the appropriate folks to step in and lead the party.
> As Larry pointed out in the past, Reagan was fairly libertarian and he
> obviously had a place (actually, it seems that Republicans tend to speak his
> name with hushed reverence).
True enough, although part of that stems, I believe from his perceived
role (or simply his timing) in the collapse of the USSR, as well as the fact
that the Republicans need a late-20th century figurehead, and it's not
likely to be Nixon.
> So while RP's behavior might not fit the classic notion of honor, I think your
> questioning his convictions is misplaced.
Yeah, I didn't mean as a direct slur against him--more as a general
question of what does a person gain and lose by moving from party to party.
My apologies to Paul.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
| (...) Well, I admit I am myself ambivalent about this. But consider this... (and know that since I am not Ron Paul I am speculating. But I HAVE pored over his website to see where he stands on stuff) The Republican party makes you sign no oath, and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
| (...) It sounds like you are assuming that politial party membership is by nature mutually exclusive of other party membership. It might be that way by law (I really have no idea) but it shouldn't be. I agree with some of the stances that each of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
