TMA68

If you ask the average conservative whether or not a vote for a Republican candidate is a vote for limited government, and thus for less federal spending, in my experience they usually respond with a resounding "yes!" Thus, since the Republicans control both Congress and the White House, that must mean taxpayers no longer need fear runaway federal spending, right? Wrong! Not even the growth-rate of federal spending has decreased under the GOP watch:

http://www.cato.org/research/article...en-030728.html
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-030212.html
http://www.cato.org/research/article...en-030326.html

The question thus arises: if you think the federal government is too large, too intrusive and too costly, and that federeal spending should therefore be decreased (perhaps only moderately, but decreased, nonetheless), who do you vote for on election day -- Democrats or Republicans?

Perhaps this is one of the primary reasons why so many people stay home in disgust, because they realize they are being asked to choose between two different versions of the same thing. They realize that a "choice" between more federal spending and more federal spending is no choice at all, and that the election is therefore a waste of their time, since they'll continue to get the opposite of what they want regardless of who they vote for.

Thoughts?

Todd Altman

Ab_Normal

At least the Democrats are "tax and spend", according to the popular stereotype, while the Republicans seem to have switched to "spend and spend".

I'm a former third-party voter (Libertarian, if you need the details). I quit voting altogether when I moved in 1997; I was so disgusted by the whole thing that I just gave up. Bush's "victory" in 2000 reminded me why I voted (well, and my husband's nagging) so I registered again. This time around, though, I'm leaning Democratic. Even here in Eastern Washington, a hot-bed of government-supported rugged individualism, Libertarian candidates get exactly nowhere. I'd rather spend my time and effort on a candidate who might have a snowball's chance. I'll just comfort myself with the delusion that maybe I can influence the Dems to my point of view.

Pomp

Neither party, obviously, is going to decrease federal spending. There are two factors to keep in mind when evaluating their competing positions on spending:

1) Where does each party want to do its spending? Social programs? Education? Environmental programs? Research grants? Security? Law enforcement? Aid to our allies? Expensive and counterproductive imperial adventures in Iraq?

2) How will each party fund its spending? The current party in power is reducing tax income (primarily by cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans) while increasing spending. Obviously, this is going to lead to underfunding, and new money is going to have to come from somewhere. Where? Most likely, through increased governent debt, a mechanism by which the wealthy, having aoready benefited from tax cuts, are able to lend the government money and then collect interest paid by taxes on the middle class.

TMA68

I've taken a somewhat similar route. On paper I'm a Life Member of the LP, but stopped being active last year, partly because of the excessive right-wing baggage that many of the rank-and-file have brought with them from the Republican Party (I'm particularly disgusted with the embarrassing reluctance with which many have criticized Bush's reckless foreign policy), and partly because of the apparent futility of overcoming the Soviet-style ballot access laws and other exclusionary measures that the two major parties have used to rig the election system in their favor.

For those two reasons, I recently decided to try my luck within the two-party system. Once I made that decision, it was then a question of which of the two major parties to work within. I decided on the Democratic Party, if for no other reason than that it appears to be the lesser of two evils at the moment. One of the biggest problems I have with the GOP in its present form is that rank-and-file Republicans tend to worship Bush with a quasi-religious fervor that would make even Clinton-worshippers blush.

Well, having once been a 3rd-party person yourself, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that, if the candidate you vote for opposes your views, then even if he "wins," in terms of having your views represented, you still lose. That is why if, on election day, it came down to a choice between Bush and Lieberman, I would either vote 3rd party or stay home. During the primary season, however, I do see the logic in working within the two-party structure to get better candidates nominated rather than engaging in a futile effort to overcome the artificial disadvantages that have been imposed on 3rd parties.

As will I.

Todd Altman