Jesus Christ or John Galt?

[TheEgoist]

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5466

I approve.

[K-Mac]

Me too!

[utabintarbo]

As do I.

Not so sure about Joe Sixpack yet.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

As do I.

Not so sure about Joe Sixpack yet.

Maybe once he starts preferring his sixpack being on his tummy instead of in it.

[JMartins]

I'd love to see a graphic illustration of the "John Galt VS Jesus Christ" battle. This image is perhaps the closest we'll get – the private ghostbusting company utilizing it's scientific equipment to destroy that damn hippie ghost once and for all.

Edited March 20, 2009 by JMartins

[RachelColoredGlasses]

I'm dissatisfied with this piece. It is excellent as far as it goes, and there is no doubt that I lack the skill to even come close to such quality.

But my dissatisfaction is with the polemical implication of the essay. Notice that the only two Republicans mentioned were Bush and Palin, two enemies of the cause. (McCain doesn't count because his name was merely a descriptor to help identify Palin.) What I'd like to see added to pieces like these are names of those who have some hope of achieving what this article hopes for.

If the Republican party has any chance of being turned away from religion toward its capitalist side, someone has to do it, somehow. What the article points out is very true. If the party in the next few years will ostracize or even demonize the religionist element then it could be a powerful force for good. (Wow, I feel like I'm paraphrasing Star Wars!)

But will that consist of bringing the religious members to see their errors? Or will it take adding a new, more secular membership? Are there influential or prominent Republican party members who might be open to rational principles who might also be encouraged to work harder -- strike that -- more efficiently at converting their party?

Jared Seehafer eloquently lays out the problem. But how can the challenge be met, by whom, and through what means?

[Zip]

Perhaps it is time for the US to have three parties. The whole you're on the left or you're on the right right, schism misses the mark.

[D'kian]

Perhaps it is time for the US to have three parties. The whole you're on the left or you're on the right right, schism misses the mark.

The two real parties are supposed to acommodate differing political stances (and then, as the old saying has it, you wake up).

But how do you mean? Do you expect a pro-liberty, pro-individual rights party to emerge?

Around 2004 I thought perhaps the Democratic party would split in two. On one side you'd have the mildly liberal Democrats, on the other the more consistently left-wing elements. I don't think it's likely any more. The more extreme people in the party do realize they ahve to keep a more moderate face if they want to keep on being elected. Therefore they stay in the party.

Likewise many Republicans who'd advocate an even more extreme stand on religion. When they do leave they are Pat Buchanan.

However there's one great thing about having three aprties: gridlock is a lot easier to get. That would favor America, since most new legislation usually just makes things worse.

[Zip]

The two real parties are supposed to acommodate differing political stances (and then, as the old saying has it, you wake up).

But how do you mean? Do you expect a pro-liberty, pro-individual rights party to emerge?

One can hope, and to tell the truth I think this "crisis" is the perfect opportunity for such a party to poach from both The Republicans and the Dems.

Around 2004 I thought perhaps the Democratic party would split in two. On one side you'd have the mildly liberal Democrats, on the other the more consistently left-wing elements. I don't think it's likely any more. The more extreme people in the party do realize they ahve to keep a more moderate face if they want to keep on being elected. Therefore they stay in the party.

Likewise many Republicans who'd advocate an even more extreme stand on religion. When they do leave they are Pat Buchanan.

This is exactly what I would not want. I want a politician that knows the things he says to be right and true (even if just in his world view), I don't want people espousing to be moderate just until they get the reigns of power.

However there's one great thing about having three aprties: gridlock is a lot easier to get. That would favor America, since most new legislation usually just makes things worse.

Three parties would also give the smaller party the ability to be a kingmaker/kingbreaker in the Senate and the House of Representatives (if I understand the American system well enough)

[D'kian]

One can hope, and to tell the truth I think this "crisis" is the perfect opportunity for such a party to poach from both The Republicans and the Dems.

Crisis or not I'm re-thinking the usefulness of an Objectivist Party. Yes, it's too soon and it won't win any elections anywhere anytime in the foreseeable future, but such a party running candidates for local and state offices (federal being too expensive) could inject some very badly needed issues into the debate. For example, when the prescription drug boondoggle was being debated, not one politician asked whether governemnt should get involved in such things at all.

That's the kind of positive effeect such a party could have. it may even win an election or two here and there.

This is exactly what I would not want. I want a politician that knows the things he says to be right and true (even if just in his world view), I don't want people espousing to be moderate just until they get the reigns of power.

Yeah. It's a lot easier to fight people when you know what they stand for.

Three parties would also give the smaller party the ability to be a kingmaker/kingbreaker in the Senate and the House of Representatives (if I understand the American system well enough)

The VP would still be the tie-breaker in the Senate. But the positions of Majority and Minority leaders in both houses would perforce undergo major changes. With three parties (or more), you'd either have to build coalitions in order to attain a majority (meaning more than half), or compromise and allow the post to rotate between the two bigger parties, or between all three. That's a BIG deal because the House and Senate Majority leaders have th epower over who chairs what commitees, which in turn wield disproportionate power.

Changes would also be needed in presidential elections. The current electoral college system won't work with three parties: no candidate would garner a majority of the electoral vote. Switching to popular vote wouldn't be a good idea, and a run-off election merely lenghtens an already long campaign season.

To be honest I don't know what I'd do. I'd be weary of a parliamentary system for electing the president, nor any other remedies like splitting the electoral votes from the third palce candidate pro-rated among the first two. Much less sending the matter to the House.