Very interesting!
Like many other people who are Republicans, I continue to ponder and try to figure out what's next for the Republican Party. It seems that many times, we are led by leaders that mostly talk the talk but not the walk. Lip service to those ideals of the Party platform, but refuse to put it into action. Often, they back down instead of fighting for those principles - unwilling to take the heat of the battle, unable to articulate well enough to win debate, and all too willing to not do the work that is necessary.
I sometimes just wonder if somebody just pressed the time delayed self-destruct button and walked away - and that self-destruct is still working in slow motion. Many are casting about - more to the middle (yeah, like that worked out well for the moderate Republicans here in the Northeast), ditch the social conservatives (who make up a lot of the base that will actually do the work) or want to out-bid Democrats for taxpayer bribes (so then, the difference between you and a Democrat is....what again?).
And once in a while I see something worth contemplating. Over at RightWingNews, Bookworm had this to say:
...Contrary to big-government aficionados, who envision libertarianism as a sort of anarchic situation, akin to a perpetual Lord of the Flies world, Murray does not demand that government vanish. Instead, as I've often said here (inspired, no doubt, by Murray's book), he envisions government as an entity that doesn't guarantee prosperity, but that clears the way for individuals to seek that prosperity.
As opposed to what I see today in that politicians want us all to be the same. They decry "income inequality" while forgetting that here in America, financial mobility is still among the best in the world. Part of the American dream is to get rich - it is a powerful signal that is built into the system - work hard, a bit of luck, and you can succeed.
And remember, it is NOT a zero sum game - people get rich when they (or participate in) offer goods and services that other people pay money for VOLUNTARILY.
When you think about this concept, you'll quickly realize that it sounds familiar: it echoes Jefferson's formulation of a free society as one in which the government creates the circumstances under which citizens are guaranteed, not happiness, but the right to pursue happiness.
In this libertarian world, government continues to be responsible for national security; domestic safety (which includes police forces, fire fighters, and guidance and protection during epidemic and endemic diseases); transportation infrastructure; and the assurance that no single group is targeted for discrimination in any of the marketplaces that make up a functional country (business, housing, education, etc.). As to that last, government would be charged with protecting citizens such as women and minorities from discrimination, but it would no longer use its brute force to give them a leg up in the marketplace.
In other words, provide the conditions under which all of us have the chance to succeed - and not penalize those that can nor reward those that refuse.
I realize that what I'm proposing is somewhat revolutionary, since it envisions dismantling large sectors of the federal government. And indeed, after several years of unfettered Democratic rule, there will be even more sectors to dismantle. Nevertheless, it's a template that can bring the largest number of people into the conservative tent because it's basic message is clear and attractive: You need to give just enough money to the government so that it can provide a safe, stable, fair environment that takes care of its weakest members. After that, all the choices are yours.
This will certainly be counter to the growing socialist tendancies in this country that demand, more and more, that wants government to always level the playing field among the players instead of providing a level playing field on which players have the chance to excel.
