Which party are conservatives supposed to support these days?

I am not sure who to support anymore. I support states rights, minimal government intrusion into individual rights (“Government is the problem, not the solution” - Reagan), fiscal responsibility, and all that is classically the conservative agenda.

I’m lost… The repubs have totally abandoned it. The dems are probably more in tune with classic conservatism, but they seem to have abandoned all core beliefs and, well, don’t stand for anything anymore. I guess I’ll have to support the Democrats by default, as a bunch of do-nothing wimps is probably better than intrusive cocksuckers.

This is a ripe time for a third party to lay waste upon the mess these parties have become.

That’s why you just change to the Libertarian platform. It makes the most sense in all honesty. :wink: Yeah, some say we’re a little extreme, but dire situations require dire actions.

Vote none of the above?

Getting enough republicans (or democrats) to do it would probably be the most effective course, without vote switching.

Don’t wait until the first Tuesday in November when it’s an either-or proposition. Get more involved in your local Republican party and try to identify and support candidates in the primaries who better reflect your values.

How long will this last in GQ? IMO…

Fiscal conservatism has been much more part of the democratic party than GOP for 20-odd years. See any graph of deficits over time for evidence

Social conservatism is still thoroughly GOP.

Small government is hard to disentangle. GOP talks more, but does less these days.

Think of your loyalties to our Nation, and vote to benefit your fellow Americans.

Worry about ideologies after the damage done is mended.

There will be other years…if the Nation stands.

Social conservatism may be the stronghold of the GOP, but what about social libertarianism (which is what the OP referenced)? Yes, the Democrats have gun control and business regulation, but the Republicans are the party of legislated morality- anything to do with government intrusion into personal life that isn’t to do with guns will have originated from the Republicans.

Jeez, I’m still trying to figure out which party progressives are supposed to support.

Vote independent. Death to the two party system!


Could go either way - GD or IMHO.

I’m inclined to move this to GD.

So moved.


As if. Deficits are only half the story, anyway. Or maybe a third. One has to look at government revenue and spending separately to get the full picture.

What flurb said. Get more involved with your party and make your voice heard in the primary.
John Corrado
(who has voted against W twice in primaries, and for W twice in general elections)

There’s usually plenty of independent sources around election time that compare and contrast the candidates positions on big topics. Why even care what party they belong to? Just pick the one that’s closer to your views on the issues. Or simply don’t vote if neither candidate comes out significantly closer to your views.

Between the two major parties it’s a hard choice, but it’s probably still the GOP. Democrats are certainly not the party of fiscal discipline. While the GOP is spending way too much money in DC, Democrats want to spend even more. And while they are at it, they want to raise taxes. At least the GOP holds the line on taxes.

As far as individual rights, the Democrats are better now since they are complaining about the civil rights abuses under Bush and support things like gay marriage. A Democrat President, however, will abuse civil rights just as much as Bush has, however. Look at Clinton’s term.

It’s not really a matter of party on most things, it’s a matter of power. No matter who is running things, they are going to be in favor of spending more money and increasing government power at the expense of the individual. The Democrats can claim otherwise because they aren’t in power and they can criticize Bush for doing these things. As soon as they get power, however, things will change (again, see Clinton’s term).

Your best bet is to cast a protest vote for the Libertarian candidates who are running. Sure, they are most likely nuts, but if they get enough votes people may start paying attention to actually limiting government.

Do you have anything specific in mind? I can’t really recall any significant civil rights or personal privacy incursions advocated by the Clinton administration. Little bit of a flap about the so-called assualt weapons and the Brady Act, but that’s about it.

On what do you base that assessment? Government spending has risen not only to record levels but at record *rates of increase * under single-party GOP rule.

Aren’t you forgetting something, guys? If you spend more than you get, you go into debt. Debt has to be paid off eventually. Meanwhile interest on the debt accumulates and has to be paid.

Do you conceptually separate your own personal/family spending from your own personal/family income? Are they unrelated subjects? Come on now.

What examples are you referring to?

There is good reason to believe that. So go with the *lesser * evil, not the greater one.

But then won’t *they * “be in favor of spending more money and increasing government power at the expense of the individual”?

Right. But then if one happens to be president during a time when revenues are especially high, greater spending is made possible. And just because you have a large load of money, doesn’t mean that you’re spending it wisely. Also, what about the case of revenues which are inflated by such dubious means as punitive tariffs and tax rates? That ain’t fiscal responsibility either. That’s why you have to consider how you got the two numbers which are combined to arrive the deficit (or surplus).

Never suggested anything like that. You’ll note that I said the deficit was half, or a third of the whole picture.

On a not-to-exceed basis, I hope you’d agree. Is that what your guys are doing now? Is that what the other guys did?

Are you spending it wisely if you don’t even *have * it? Is that a defense?

It’s a result of the decisions you make on revenue and spending, and should normally be a constraint on them, but it’s not a separate part of the picture.

Don’t vote parties, don’t support parties. Vote people, support candidates. In today’s day and age even local elections have websites and ways to investigate candidates. Political parties were formed to have message machines to allow dissemination of information about candidates. This is unnecessary in the information age. A voter can look at a list of candidates and, for 90%+ of races, get first-hand info about that candidate’s stance on issues. Voting records are online for incumbents, news stories are archived. A few hours of research on each candidate for elections you’re concerned about can yield tons of info. No need to look at party platforms, you can get how a specific candidate feels about a specific issue from FAQ or position statements on their websites.

The only reason to care about parties is because of their influence in determining who gets on the ballot. If you really want to support a candidate you think may not win a primary, then work through the party process to support that candidate. If the next election time comes around and you want to support someone from a different party in a primary, drop the previous affiliation and sign up with another party.

Political parties are one of the worst things about the US election system. The good news is that they’re increasingly becoming irrelevant as communications channels between candidates and the electorate improve through use of the Internet.


Who’re “my guys?” I’ve quite vocal about the Bush administration’s (and the Republican controlled Congress’) profligate disregard for my tax dollars.