Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
More political parties does not mean the government gets more roles or more control. In fact, if a Libertarian were elected, the government would shrink considerably. I'm not sure why you're equating more political parties with more governmental control.
Also, I'm curious about your comment about how the two parties are flexable. I've not seen the republicans adapt in the current political climate, except to head away from a conservative party towards a facist party.
|
Will, a couple of things here - I don't think that it's by any means a fact that a Libertarian elected to the Presidency (or any other national office for that matter) will immediately mean a smaller government. The President just can't fire bureaucrats on a wholesale basis, and it's an incredibly bad idea. First of all, the US government is the largest single employer in the country. Mass layoffs would have a profound economic impact. While I think your general point is on the right track, the realities of the way our government works dictates that there's absolutely no way that what you're trying to pass off as a "fact" could ever come to pass, especially since the President would have to get the consent of Congress to do anything of the sort, and we all know that's by no means assured in the best of times.
As far as the Republicans being flexible, I think the reality is that they weren't flexible enough to avoid the defeat that got handed to them. Inflexible parties don't last long, and the Republicans have 147 (or so) years at adapting to their environment. They started out as the radical party and have certainly changed since then. They'll be back in fighting shape by 2010, if not by 2008. There are a lot of big brains over there