I don't consider myself a libertarian necessarily (I'm more of a dual federalist/classical conservative/classical liberal/ probably a thousand other labels), but it's true that if you are interested in adherence to the Constitution, the libertarian party is the best way to go. I have not lost all hope, and am encouraged by the very existence of such people as Badnarik and the success of Ron Paul.
I. Why They're Both Ruining America
What does concern me is that the major two parties have such a monopoly on politics that several critical issues never even get brought up. I strongly believe they are the major reason for this is the political monopoly of the Republicans and Democrats, who argue over trivialities without addressing the big questions--like two men arguing over the best way to commit suicide without stopping to ask if they should. Let me provide you with an example. Republicans rightly opposed the insane omnibus spending bill passed by the Democrats and the expensive pork therein; what every media outlet of which I'm aware failed to emphasize enough was that the Republicans contributed to 40% of the pork in the bill. Consider that they're a minority party, consider their righteous indignation, and turn that over in your mind for a second. The Republicans weren't thinking about their country, they were just using Obama's presidency as leverage to bash the Democrats for something for which the party was not responsible (consider Bush's own non-liberal (I'm talking about real liberalism), non-conservative economic policy). I call bullshit.
The Democrats aren't much better. Bush's Iraq policy has endured much criticism (again, rightfully so), but he was simply practicing principles first made popular by the "liberal" Woodrow Wilson and trumpeted by "liberals" for years to come. Foreign entanglements were a specialty for the Democrats post-WWI...they still are. Republicans simply bought into the program. So whether we bomb the shit out of Iraq and Iran or sign treaties that hold our states and citizens hostage to the whims of the "international community," we are not acting in America's interest. And their focus on such frivolous issues as cigarette smoking and other health "problems" is progressive in nature and patently wasteful, when these sorts of issues are best left to the individual (mind you, the Republicans support the War on Drugs as well). Not to mention the environment.
Warmongering and fascism/corporatism reign supreme in the Republican party, while socialism (now, fascism) and a one-world utopia seem to be the objectives of the Democratic party. Meantime, neither one is practicing fiscal responsibility, both are taxing Americans for whatever cause they deem most fit, and both believe in asserting federal power (be it the executive, congress, or the judiciary). Even the originalist/ loose constructionist dichotomy doesn't work. I consider myself an originalist, and prefer Scalia and Thomas to their colleagues ( no comment yet on Roberts and Alito), but to try to emulate them is to lower one's own standards. Neither one really promotes originalism. One shining example of this is Scalia's concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich [], which outlawed marijuana use in violation of state and individual rights (Thomas gets credit for dissenting here). Meanwhile, the whole flock of "conservative justices" supports a level of executive power that is unrecognizable to real constitutional scholars.
II. Rethinking the Basics
Both parties have their heroes. For the Democrats, it's FDR, who, by executive order, robbed the American citizenry of the gold they rightfully owned and (also by executive order) interned Japanese civilians. The Republicans enthrone Ronald Reagan, who increased the deficit and decreased spending three times less than the Democratic president Bill Clinton. For all intents and purposes, Reagan was a typical twentieth-century president with an atypical ability to articulate conservative principles without actually practicing them. I submit to both parties that they've picked the wrong heroes: to the Democrats, I suggest their own Grover Cleveland, a fiscally responsible president who defended what worked, economically, and promoted a humble foreign policy (Democrats claim to believe in peace--let's see it). To the Republicans, I suggest Calvin Coolidge, who regularly vetoed measures that would increase federal power (Republicans are supposed to like that kind of thing, right?). Neither was perfect--our founders certainly weren't, either, which is why the words of Consitution as ratified through representation ought to be our first priority, and we ought to remember that it was designed to limit government, to keep us from placing too much trust in our leaders. Our standards have gotten so low that we excuse gross violations of Constitutional principle.
It's become something of a cliche to say that both parties are corrupt, but I believe that at their core, both parties do have several redeeming principles which they should tap. Why have Democrats taken after Progressives? Why have Republicans followed suit? I should just re-state my premise: there is probably no greater threat to the Constitution than the two-party system. The War on Drugs, War on Terror, and War on the Citizenry through frivolous taxation are certainly indicative of the corruption and incompetence on the part of both parties' biggest politicians. The America promoted by Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama, and the prominent Democratic and Republican idiots is consistently in direct violation of life, liberty, and property, which governments ought to be protecting. According to every important document written by our founders and John Locke, I don't even think we have a legitimate government anymore.
Discuss.
