Quoth hrearden: > Thanks for your response. I am curious as to why you believed that the > Democratic Party could be reformed toward a freedom-oriented platform > given that there is little difference as I have noticed in the DNC > platform and the RNC platform. The abortion issue is a major > difference betwixed the two platforms of those parties but very little > else is different in those platforms. They basically say the same > things but in different language. Why did you believe that there would > have been a better chance of reforming the Democratic Party and not > the Republican Party given that the differences between the two > parties are minimally marginal at best?
There's a difference between "difference between the two parties" and "difference between the two platforms." Although many Democratic politicians supported the war on Iraq, a significant element of the Democratic Party's base opposed it, and supported 2004 primary candidates whom they believed substantially shared their opposition. There was no substantial, organized movement within the GOP to unseat George W. Bush and confer the 2004 GOP nomination on another candidate over the war issue. Although many Democratic politicians supported the Patriot Act, a significant element of the Democratic Party's base opposed it, and supported 2004 primary candidates whom they believed substantially shared their opposition. There was no substantial, organized movement within the GOP to unseat George W. Bush and confer the 2004 GOP nomination on another candidate over civil liberties issues. The GOP is in power, and parties in power tend to do what they've been doing, since they perceive it as having _worked_ to put them/keep them in power. The Democratic Party is out of power, and parties out of power have an incentive to change, since they perceive what they've been doing as not having _worked_ to put them/keep them in power. Right now, I'd put pretty long odds onthe Democratic Party reforming itself in a substantially libertarian direction. Long, but not non-existent: Hillary is the front-runner, but there are substantial blocs in support of Russ Feingold and Al Gore, and both those blocs seem to be formed around what is good, rather than what is bad, about the two of them (i.e. Feingold's supporters aren't supporting him because of "campaign finance reform," they're supporting him because he opposes the war and because he was the only US Senator to vote against the Patriot Act; Gore's suporters aren't supporting him because of his environmental positions, they're supporting him because he's been outspoken on the war, the Patriot Act, and the need to limit executive power). I'd also put the odds of getting the LP to start acting like a political party as pretty long. But I wouldn't put those odds as non-existent, either. The main obstacle is getting Libertarians to realize that it is possible to be inclusive without sacrificing one iota of principle. Tom Knapp ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
