A few days ago I launched a reader survey on attitudes to the US Presidential candidates. More than 750 of you took part. Bear in mind that this blog has a 60% Conservative readership, some of the results are quite startling. Here are the results.
1. If you had a vote in the Democratic primaries, which candidate would you support to be the Democratic Candidate for the US Presidency?
Hillary Clinton 23%
Barack Obama 50%
John Edwards 13%
Joe Biden 3%
Dennis Kuchinich 4%
Bill Richardson 5%
Chris Dodd 1%
Mike Gravel 1%
2. If you had a vote in the Republican primaries, which candidate would you support to be the Republican Candidate for the US Presidency?
Rudy Giuliani 41%
Mitt Romney 6%
Mike Huckabee 7%
John McCain 25%
Ron Paul 15%
Tom Tancredo 1%
Fred Thompson 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%
3. If Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Candidate, would she make you more or less likely to vote Democrat?
More 15%
Less 55%
No difference 30%
4. Would it make any difference to your vote if the Republican candidate was a Mormon?
Yes 32%
No 68%
5. If you had a vote in previous American elections, which party would you normally have voted for?
Democrats 47.5%
Republicans 52.5%
6. As things stand at the moment, who would you intend to vote for in November 2008?
Democrats 55.5%
Republicans 45.5%
The results of these last two questions are revelaing as it indicates that British Conservatives are now more willing to consider voting Democrat. Depending on who the two final candidates are, I find myself moving slowly away from the Republican Party - something I never thought would happen. Having said that, I find the big government approach of the Democrats something I could never swallow. The Republicans are slowly but surely being taken over the the dogmatic zealots of the religious right. I refuse to call them the Christian right as there's very little that's christian about them. They are a bunch of narrow minded bigots. The only Republican candidate who's standing up to them is Rudy Giuliani. All the rest are spewing out various forms of bile against women, gays (or homosexualists, as I am sure they like to call them) and anyone else who doesn't conform to their own warped standards. And the sad thing is that it appeals to much of their core electorate - witness Mike Huckabee's rise in Iowa, which is based in large part on his religious attitudes. If anyone bar Giuliani or McCain is chosen as the Republican nominee, I couldn't support them. Bet they're bovvered!
54 comments:
'The only Republican candidate who's standing up to them is Rudy Giuliani. All the rest are spewing out various forms of bile against women, gays (or homosexualists, as I am sure they like to call them) and anyone else who doesn't conform to their own warped standards.'
Links please to examples where Ron Paul has 'spewed' out 'bile' against gays or women.
Or you could just apologise.
4. Would it make any difference to your vote if the Republican candidate was a Moron?
No, I would never have voted for Bush.
I think this probably says more about the changes in US politics than any change over this side of the pond. The GOP seems to have been taken over by the neo-cons and the far-right religious section. As you said, I don't think that too many consverative voters like the big government of the democrats, but that has to be more palatable than the domga of a lot of the current republican party.
Beside which I think there has always been a more liberal strain running though UK politics than in the US, where liberal is seen as a dirty word, and mean 'of the left', where it does have a different meaning over here.
The Republicans have paid purely lip service to the idea of small government and have acted mainly with a complete disregard for fiscal prudence (trying not to sound like GB here). It's odd that in tbe US the left brings the budget defecits under control while the right spends tax dollars with no regard for the future.
I find the big government approach of the Democrats something I could never swallow.
I'm sure you don't need convincing that the party of Bush has exceeded even the Democrats dreams of big government. But if anyone else finds this a controversial statement, they might want to check it the numbers. As to the weirdness of the Christianity, anyone who lives anywhere near central Pennsylvania can attest to its popularity and power. If you thought the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 was ancient history then cop Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005. Dover is a mere 50 miles West of Philadelphia, i.e. it's in the North East, not in the deep South.
Iain, I think you have a narrow view of who the Dems are.
Look at the Blue Dogs? The republicans are like the old euro-sceptic right wing, foam at the mouth Tories we had.
The Dems are the social side of the Tories, as they are progressive, inclusive and look after the many.
You also have to consider that the support network in the US are less than in the UK, so big Gov. as you call it is about protecting those with nothing or very little as opposed to tax breaks for the mega wealthy.
I would sat I am a natural Tory voter, but am a natural democrat too, I see them being the same party at heart, then againm I am a social liberal, and economic free trader.
Ps Ron Paul is superb for the reps.
Since the whole of American politics is way to the right of the British spectrum anyway, it's not surprising that Conservatives find themselves aligned more with the Democrats. The only surprise is that it's taken so long to realise it.
No brainer: British tories are liberals (ie leftists) not Conservatives.
Invariably the democrats will obtain major support, not least from Bush haters, but from people who enjoy the novelty of a female or black president (or as black as they could stomach, considering Obama's luxurious background). Nonetheless is the purpose of democracy to represent the many or the virtuous? As already said, the American Christians are a large voting base.
Personally I would side with Romney if he wern't so ludicrous as to allow personal morality to hamper legislation. As such Ron Paul verily embodies my stance on practically every level, it's just a damn shame that were he nominated the democrats would certainly win. Sadly libterarianism doesn't cut it against demogogic socialized infrastructure and the tax/spend mentality.
British conservatives have traditionally been much closer to the East Coast preppie Rockefeller brand of Republicanism. They have had much less to do with the neo-cons and the bible bashers that create the impetus behind today's Republican party. On the other hand, most Conservatives woul find it hard to take a lot of the high-spending pork barrel politics promoted by the Democrats.
Harry?
Why are you not talking about candidates who have badmouthed heterosexual males? Most of them have except Ron Paul by voting for things like the VAWA and IMBRA laws. Do you think the US Republican Party needs to go feminist? You have had your wish fulfilled, if so, by George Bush. He needed the pro-war feminists on his side so he gave them much of what they have wanted in terms of new laws to regulate men.
The sneaky way they get at men is to label some deadbeat dads and then take away their passports, say that men who date younger adult women want to "control" someone and then say that we all need to lose our anonymity online because a few "sex offenders" are on the loose (released from jail or just labeled by Democrats)...making it too dangerous for men in general to be trusted.
Hetero men have no say in the US Congress anymore. A "conservative" who thinks we are just fine and then says "but our conservative politicians are not pandering enough to the feminists and gays"...might as well vote Democrat.
The results pretty much echo how I voted. If the Republicans choose a God-botherer, I shall offer my services to Democrats Abroad.
All I see there is a bunch of amendment refusing federal spending on laws (RP is against just about ANY federal spending because he's a strict advocate of the constitution.), and calls for laws to be passed at STATE level ( for the same reason).
The rest is strict libertarian fare;
'He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[164] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[165][166] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[165]'
"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[166]
etc etc etc.
It always makes me giggle to hear Peter Hain to talk about 'our sister party, the Democrats', which he seems to do every time he is on Question Time. As Andy notes above, American politics start from a point considerably to the right of our own.
I miss Reagan.
No, no.
American politics is to the left of ours. How could it be otherwise in a country founded on ridiculous leftist ideas like "liberty"? All men are plainly not born equal, as any Tory (in the traditional sense of the term) knows.
The U.S.A. are a revolutionary state. You can tell this because the "right" wing party has the name Republican.
God save King George!
The only principled choice to take Iain is Ron Paul. He's traditionally conservative, against the high spending, authoritarian Neocons, and the big government, meddling Democrats. He wants to devolve power to the state level, where issues such as women, abortion, and gay rights can find a position that suits the local population e.g. Californians could be as supergay as they liked, while people in Georgia could be less so if they wanted. He takes a pro life stance (which being an OB/GYN doctor was probably a revenue loser for him), but doesn't seek to impose that view, which as he said would be decided at the state level.
To be honest, and you may think I'm wildly speculating here, but I can't see any other GOP contender winning it against Obama, maybe Rudy or McCain could scrape over against Hillary, but it's still very doubtful.
Paul on the other hand is the GOP wildcard. He could appeal to the disenchanted, the religous right, the independents, the small gov Dems and actually win against Hillary or Obama. I'd compare the republican party to John Major's Conservatives in '97, or John Howard last month. The 2 million natural tories who didn't vote that year lost us the election, as did the Aussie battlers who left Howard. The Republicans are in the same boat, and it'll take something different to keep them. Sadly none of the mainstream GOP candidates offer anything like that at all.
Paul raised $6 million dollars in one day last Sunday, the highest one day total in American history, and I read that some supporters even rented a blimp for him! This guy has (or has tapped into) the X factor.
"All the rest are spewing out various forms of bile against women, gays"
huh? what Republican candidate are you talking about, because after about 6 months of DAILY listening to Republican talk shows, i've yet to hear any of that.
In fact, the only bile i've heard is the Mormon-bashing from the Christian Right, and Al Sharpton.
The Republicans are just as big government meddlers as the Dems.
They're both anti-free market, anti-liberal (in the original sense) and authoritarian.
Clinton wants power to 'do good' (as she sees it).
Giulliani just wants power and will continue the big government, increasing executive power trend of Bush.
On Ron Paul and homosexuality - his position is that its beyond the power of the Federal Government to legislate on it so, as President, he'd never sign anything which legislates on homosexuality.
I don't know what his personal view is, but what matters is he views sexuality as up to the individual (if his religion says its a sin, fine, but the fed cannot and should not take any position).
It gets more complex when it comes to state legislation - I assume that would go according to the state's constitution...
Huckabee has apparently claimed that kangaroos made it to Australia via Noah's Ark. Anyone who thinks that there is any literal truth in this statement is clearly not fit for office. Or indeed to be given any responsibility of any sort.
The Obama 50% is interesting, since in some caucuses/primaries, it remains a three-way race.
David Brooks, in the New York Times, makes the point that Obama, more than Clinton, has the personal qualities that a President needs.
"Obama does not perceive politics as a series of battles but as a series of systemic problems to be addressed. He pursues liberal ends in gradualist, temperamentally conservative ways. Obama also has powers of observation that may mitigate his own inexperience and the isolating pressures of the White House ... The presidency is a bacterium. It finds the open wounds in the people who hold it. It infects them, and the resulting scandals infect the presidency and the country. The person with the fewest wounds usually does best in the White House, and is best for the country."
Paul believes in individual rights, not the tyranny of group rights, and takes the position that the smaller the government the better it is. These libertarian concepts are neither fashionable nor even comprehended in post-modern, multi-cultural Britain, where even Cameron's Conservatives are prisoners of the deluded notion that government can be a "force for good". But don't be surprised if Ron is in the White House in 2009!
"Politics is no longer left or right, it's authority or freedom."
(Q.- Ian Parker-Joseph)
Question is, do you want the authoritarianism of the big-government democrats or the authoritarianism of the neo-con, religious nutters ?
Some choice !
I echo the position of several other posters. Do check out Ron Paul, a very strict libertarian who openly espouses small government, a withdrawal of US troops from abroad and free market economics. He won't win but he has raised huge amounts, especially from young people. Youtube his name, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
@gregor/tom: I agree Ron Paul is superb and could unite Libertarian Right and Religious Right.
@nick: I beg to differ. Balancing the budget was part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America back in 1994 under which Republicans gained a majority in Congress for the first time in four decades. Following their victory Republicans cut spending and turned a big deficit into a substantial surplus. Initially President Clinton vetoed the Republican efforts to balance the budget, indicating that cutting expenditure went against Democratic beliefs, but then he discovered the virtue of triangulation, so he went on to sign many Republican bills into law. Split government and checks and balances are normally conducive to fiscal discipline, while one party controlling all layers of government is not. That may explain why after their victory in the 2000 elections, Republicans lost their way. For instance, they got it wrong when they passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - but we should not forget that Democrats wanted to go even further. In all those years Democrats persistantly called for more government programs and opposed Social Security privatisation which would have tackled the long term increase in entitlement program expenditure caused by demographic change. So it is fair to say, that ceteris paribus, Republicans are more inclined to cut spending than Democrats.
Judging by the comments Ron Paul should have won the poll.
Is Ian a closet Neo-con?
nick "It's odd that in tbe US the left brings the budget defecits under control .."
It was a Republican congress keeping Clinton under control that did that.
What many in the UK don't realise is that today the Democratic Party is in fact the party of the (very) wealthy urban elites whereas the GOP is supported by small businessmen, entrepreneurs and so on. Dems are also massively supported by the trial lawyers (ambulance chasers like candidate John Edwards), unions and they also patronisingly take the black vote for granted and pander furiously to the "victim" mentality.
Despite all that, they could win IF they select a genuinely appealing candidate, which they (obviously)have had difficulty doing in the last couple of elections.
Scott Redding - "Obama does not perceive politics as a series of battles but as a series of systemic problems to be addressed.
In other words, he's a Jimmy Carteresque minimalist with a drive to interfere. I hate the guy.
Machiavelli - Why do you think Bush is a moron? No one ever answers this question. He has an MA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. No matter what you are sure is the case, the Ivy Leagues do not hand out degrees to people who haven't earned them. (Mr Bush got better grades in his MA than did the even richer Al Gore.)
George Bush won the Governorship of Texas TWICE in a row. The first person in history to have done so. That tells us that the people of Texas were very pleased with his performance the first time round. Before you paint Texans as morons, as well, they invented the oil industry and all the peripheral technology and methodologies. And they are smart enough to know the death penalty works. I don't know what your second language is, but Mr Bush speaks pretty good Spanish. I admit his English is highly individualistic.
And the Bush family is highly political. He grew up in the drawing rooms of DC, not on a ranch. His ranch is for relaxation. Some people have a pool table. Some people have a ranch.
The US political spectrum may be to the right of the European spectrum on some issues: Labour markets are generally more flexible in the US, and government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is lower than in most European countries.
However, on many other issues the US is more to the left than Europe: Think of partial birth abortions which are unlawful in almost every European country. Even the notion of a "right to abortion" is unheard of in most continental European countries. The same is true for the separation of state und religion which is far stricter in the US than in most European countries. In the US, attempts to enhance school choice via school vouchers are regularly struck down by the courts referring to the Establishment Clause, in order to prevent government from financing church schools. Europeans like the idea of governments and churches cooperating and sharing financial resources to run schools, hospitals, social services; in the US, the judicial branch would stop such arrangements. Furthermore, unlike in most European countries, religious education in US state schools is not allowed.
So despite their unusual rhetorics, in various regards the Religious Right is closer to the European mainstream than many commentators acknowledge. Therefore, I would not dismiss them as "bible bashers". When it comes to the life of the unborn, school choice, cooperation of state and church, religious education in state schools, the Religious Right would be glad if America were slightly more European. They want to depart from the judicial activism of the last decades and return to the constitutional framers' original intent who - contemplating Roe versus Wade and the recent reinterpretation of the Establishment Clause - would be turning in their graves. Both Religious Right and Libertarian Right share the desire to elect a president who is likely to appoint the pivotal fifth strict constructionist judge who alongside Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito would tilt the balance of power on the Supreme Court. In doing so the US would become more right-wing and at the same time move closer to Europe.
PS: By the way, most libertarians, such as Ron Paul, supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, because - even if you derive from a property rightist perspective that there is a right to eject, not a right to kill - once the child is in the state of viablity, which certainly is the case in the third trimester, there is no justification to dismember it. That's why libertarian conservatives and religious conservatives joined forces to ban this cruel procedure. The libertarian axiom: Individuals are free to do with their life and their property whatever they choose unless they harm anyone else's life or property!
"The Republicans are slowly but surely being taken over the the dogmatic zealots of the religious right. I refuse to call them the Christian right as there's very little that's christian about them. They are a bunch of narrow minded bigots."
Our American friends will probably laugh at that ,considering that only a Protestant can be our head of state.
As pointed out by commentor "julian a" above me, Huckabee is largely a Christian socialist in the European model. He's a rightwing supporter of big government who would use the government in support of traditionally conservative causes.
Guiliani is actually much the same, if to a lesser extent. Many Americans are sincerely worried about Guiliani over other things though. He has a record of corruption and authoritarianism, along with some very bad crisis decisions hanging over his head. In addition to failing to stand up to the religious right's big government activism it is likely that Guiliani would advance many of the worst elements of the Bush platform even more effectively than Bush himself could.
Ron Paul is the best repudiation of both Huckabee's Christian socialism and Guiliani's fascistic impulses.
Thank you for your time in reading this.
How can you make such blanket allegations? As with the first commenter I'd like links to Ron Paul's "bile". He's the only one from either party I'd consider voting for as he'd take the American government out of the American people's lives and out of the world's lives and let us all just get on with it without some idiotic politician telling us what to do.
Is this Iain Dale or Andrew Sullivan. Good heavens!
Yes, Huckabee is a bit much with the religion thing but you simply don't understand the dynamics of American politics! The secular left has this country's universities and court system by the you-know-whats and is constantly pushing its agenda on the American public. Ever heard of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?
Please, you simply must get out from behind the lens of the British press. Start reading the American press and you'll see why people turn to figures like Huckabee and Romney.
Bush has been the biggest government in US history
Iain, I've been telling you for ages now that the modern Conservative Party has so much in common with the Democrats!
Barack Obama and David Cameron are both good eggs.
The US Republicans are generally ghastly people.
They tend to have horrible small minded bigoted views...
Time for change.
:)
45.5 Republican, 55.5 Democrat. Wow, I suppose your readers are 101% behind America Iain.
I'm not sure today's Conservatives can even be called Tory anyway, which might be a good thing depending upon your point of view.
Meanwhile, here's Top Ten Reasons Why the Media Want a Third Clinton Co-Presidency, good for a laugh even if it's mostly true too.
"The US Republicans are generally ghastly people.
They tend to have horrible small minded bigoted views..."
oh right. Like right wing Repub talk show host Hugh Hewitt who has been bashing fundie Christians and calling them "bigots" for criticising Romneys Mormonism.
A talk show host who has for WEEKS now been emphasising again and again that a person faith is NOT up for discussion when electing a President.
And yet , on the left, I see people like Al Sharpton saying stuff like
"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation."
THATS bigoted. and that's coming from the Dems.
@n. pannbacker: As pointed out by commentor "julian a" above me, Huckabee is largely a Christian socialist in the European model. He's a rightwing supporter of big government who would use the government in support of traditionally conservative causes.
Actually, I did not use the term "Christian socialist". I rather tried to point out that there are many issues that are supported both by the Libertarian Right and the Religious Right: school choice instead of government-run unionised schools; strict constructionism instead of judicial activism; faith based initiatives instead of the welfare state; separation of state and religion as envisaged by the constitutional framers, protecting religious liberty from out-of-control government, instead of the current Supreme Court's reinterpretation, with government infringing on religious liberty.
Huckabee is clearly not a socialist: He cut taxes in Arkansas almost 100 times which is quite an achievement in that overwhelmingly Democratic state - Democrats hold a three-quarter majority in both chambers of the state legislature. He plans to abolish the IRS, the income tax, the inheritance tax, the capital gains tax - apart from Ron Paul the only candidate to do so. He got an A rating from the National Rifle Association and made it clear that the Second Amendment is about allowing individuals to protect themselves against a tyrannical government if necessary. He is quite witty, charming and open-minded; clearly not a bible basher. My first choice remains Ron Paul, but libertarian conservatives should be pleased to support Mike Huckabee as well if he is nominated.
Verity, you are mistaken when you say W was the first Texas governor to win reelection. Quite a few TX Govs were reelected before Before W, TX Govs, including James Allred, Coke Stevenson (featured in Robert Caro's LBJ bio V.2), Price Daniels and John Connolly. BUT you are correct when you say that W was popular with most Texans as Gov which ONE reason he was reelected; but other reason was fact that TX was trending strongly to the Republicans in general in the 1990s.
As matter of fact, Governor of Texas is one of the weakest executives in the world. Can't even issue a pardon without prior approval. (Lucky for Scooter that US Pres has much more scope.)
Iain, think you should have asked the question: "What UK party do you/would you vote for in the next general election?" becase that way you could better analyze the pattern of support/opposition to US parties, candidates, issues.
Re: Ron Paul, he is an EXTREMELY conservative gentleman, way to the right of even most of the wackos who infest this blog! AND some of his positions by definition are/can be hurtful to the core beliefs & personal feelings of others.
BUT the notion that Ron Paul "spews" anything is ignorant slander. RP is personable & mild-mannered, not a ranter or raver or spewer.
Man is a GYNOCOLOGIST for pity's sake; correct me if I'm wrong, ladies, but aren't these docs noted & prized for their soothing manner & (dare I say) gentle touch????
I think most of the UK audience looks at US politics through the prism of the BBC. That organisation will never give the GOP a fair shake.
The Democrats have attached themselves to a nut-case fringe, the sort of people who want to see the USA defeated in Iraq, the US borders un-policed, and the whole tax and spend agenda that has all but buried us over here in Europe.
I wish I was convinced that there was a proper conservative candidate on The GOP side. Where's another Ronnie? I quite like Pete Thompson and Mitt Romney, but it's definitely faut de mieux.
But nevertheless, it's essential that a Republican is elected just to keep the Dem scumbags out.
rush-is-right says "the sort of people who want to see the USA defeated in Iraq"
defeat in Iraq was inevitable from day one - going to war based on lies makes it so.
Game over for the Republicans.
Sea Shanty Irish, what a delusional post. Fantasize on, you silly man. How can anyone take your opinions seriously when you have fevered fantasies about women getting their cancer Pap smears?
What a sleaze. Yuck!
I am an English Conservative and I'm totally repelled by the Republican Party; it is authoritarian and full of religious nut-cases. I think a lot of the British hostility to the Republicans is due to their extreme religiosity and incredulousness that their leader is (let's not mince our words) an idiot. It's not surprising that outside Ulster British politicians usually steer well clear of religion.
He wants to devolve power to the state level, where issues such as women, abortion, and gay rights can find a position that suits the local population
I wonder how Ron Paul can be a consistent libertarian after reading that. So it's not OK for the federal government to oppress you but it's OK if it's done at State level and the people will it. He's sacrificing liberty for federalism and local democracy. For example if a State decided to outlaw sodomy that would be acceptable even though it's a restriction on individual freedom. It's more accurate to call Ron Paul a federalist than a libertarian.
Congressman Ron Paul boasts that he has never voted for a tax increase. Is there any British politician who can say that?
nicholas, you're confusing definitions of libertarians and liberals. Surely the libertarian candidate would allow individual state legislation to represent the majority within each state? It's merely a flex of liberty on behalf of the majority. Invariably we can agree that a utilitarian political system is somewhat more appealing than that of some munificent moral standard.
From your blog you seem to encourage people to support McCain or Guiliani because of their views on homosexuality?
Do you support their views on the "war on terror" as well? Do you approve (as they do) of the patriot act and the department of homeland security?
Presumably you would also be keen to go along with Guiliani's support of a national id card too?
I think the best bet has got to be Ron Paul. His platform will quickly see the dissolution of the American union, as states adopt wildly incompatible laws and minorities (gays in particular) are forced to migrate, while the shrinking of America's already meagre public sector sees large chunks of middle America descend into famine and warlordism. This will leave the way open for the United States of Europe to become the next super-power, with Tony Blair as President.
Contrary to the above's tin-foil ravings, income mobility in America has been soaring over the past 10 years. According to the Wall Street Journal's editorial nearly 58 percent of the poorest income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005. With such high income mobility I rather shun the notion that a middle class are supported by welfarism. Likewise would I shun the notion of one size fits all morality and legislation. But hey, if it works in Europe it'll work in... oh wait.
I think the best bet has got to be Ron Paul. His platform will quickly see the dissolution of the American union, as states adopt wildly incompatible laws and minorities (gays in particular) are forced to migrate, while the shrinking of America's already meagre public sector sees large chunks of middle America descend into famine and warlordism. This will leave the way open for the United States of Europe to become the next super-power, with Tony Blair as President.
Presumably the writer would prefer to maintain the status quo??? One can throw the argument back and say that without significant change we will see middle America descend into famine and warlordism . The subprime collapse is merely the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps America is already slipping into famine and warlordism.
The first stages of famine are already manifesting themselves through the rising food costs and the huge increase in home reposessions.
Warlordism is being facilitated through the patriot act and the department of homeland security creating local and regional "security tzars". Have you ever seen so many police and military on the streets of America?
Are the needs of every state identical? Surely having a "one-size-fits-all" government is potentially more destabilizing than anything else.
Surely the libertarian candidate would allow individual state legislation to represent the majority within each state? It's merely a flex of liberty on behalf of the majority
Well "liberty on behalf of the majority" to me is another way of saying the majority can decide to take away individual's liberty. I don't think individual freedom should be restrained just because 51% want it, they should be inviolable.
Post a Comment