A Dem-GOP Split is Preferable to a Bush-Like Palin

The recent election of Scott Brown has two sides. The good side is that it amounted to a rejection of the destructive Obama-Democratic health bill. The bad side is that Brown turned out to be a Progressive. For how long have the Republican rank and file been falling for this? The Democrats produce toxic policies, and in reaction the Republicans support politicians who are committed to maintaining the Democratic policies. This kind of self-destructive stupidity has become so habitual that now a supporter of government sponsored health care in Massachusetts is hailed as a savior.

The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is capable of perpetuation of the Progressive habit. Hence, there is no large-scale voice in America for small government. There is a chance that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction, but I do not see any backbone or leadership that would be necessary to reject the nasty GOP national leadership. The Tea Party's connection to Fox News, an integral part of the current tax-and-spend establishment, is evidence enough. Their applause for bailout supporters like Sarah Pailin also gives pause. Let us hope things can be turned around. I am not convinced.

I think the best that libertarians can do at this point in time is support the GOP at the local level and sit out the presidential election. A split with the Republicans controlling the Senate or hopefully both houses and a Democratic president, especially a joke like Obama, is preferable to the GOP controlling both branches. The chief downside is Democratic access to the Supreme Court. But the author of the New London v. Kelo decision, John Paul Stevens, was a Ford appointee (he goes back to 1975). The decision, which gave government the right to steal homes from private citizens, was passed in a court that was 7 Republican, 2 Democratic. As Mike Heuss wrote of New London v. Kelo:

"The Supreme Court is made up 9 individuals. Of those nine people, all but two are life-long Republicans: Appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. Of the two Democrats on the Supreme Court Ginsburg is typically considered a moderate and so is Stephen Breyer.


"In truth, nationwide, the Republicans have placed more judges in all levels of the federal judiciary. So when I hear a Limbaugh / O'Reilly blowhard scream about activist judges, I recognize the spin and chuckle. They are saying "Maybe if I talk loud enough and label them all liberal, the Democrats will get blamed instead of us."

Thus, I don't think the GOP has made much difference for good at the presidential level. Libertarians might begin to think of the advantages of a GOP-led Senate and a Democratic president. There would be gridlock, hence government would considerably slow down. Partisan squabbling would be much preferable to what Bush did, such as the horrifying prescription drug law.

Gridlock sounds good to me. Better than seeing the national Tea Party played for a bunch of patsies with a Bush-like Palin in the White House. As well, it is more likely that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction at the local level.