I really found interesting the analogy between the RNC and socialism as compared to the DNC and democracy, in terms of the individual party politics. I appreciate that the article doesn't evaluate the policies advocated by each party, instead focusing on how the difference in approach currently manifests itself.
I have a hard time taking these media pundits seriously who keep talking about the collapse of the GOP. Romney still got, what?, 48% of the vote. They still (even though due to gerrymandering) own one of the houses of Congress. They aren't dead or even dying. People want to be lied to, and the GOP is more than willing to oblige them.
I don't disagree, but I do think that getting 48% of the vote doesn't equate to the support of 48% of the country, in the sense that it (to me) really means that 48% of people prefer Romney to Obama (or the Republican platform to the Democratic), not that they actively support Romney's positions. The title of the article is overblown quite a bit, but I found the comparison of how each party operates to be particularly interesting.
median age for america is 37.1 the median republican is around 50 the GOP is getting older faster. but people do get more conservative as they age.
I haven't gotten very far into the article, although I will finish it in a minute. What I find entertaining so far is that these two young guys -- who are self-evidently in the young demographic they talk about -- are Republicans. Why not give up a dying battle and join all of the other people your age? It baffles me that anyone that age can still be a Republican, I guess.
A little googling says Bret Jacobson is a libertarian. I'm guessing he's a Republican because they have a snowball's chance of winning elections. I kind of hope there are many more like him. More dissent in the Republican party means the Democrats are at less of a disadvantage for having a more heterogeneous base.
Libertarian has become meaningless in a modern political context it sometimes means socially moderate republican but most of the time it just means republican.
A lot of people who identify as being Libertarian have no idea what it actually means. They take the most common definition that is currently thrown about (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) and apply it to themselves. I would love to hear what they really think about libertarian ideas and literature.
I fall into the left-libertarian/Situationist camp most of the time but I am politically promiscuous when it comes to friendships. I used to be able to find common ground with Right-Libertarians on issues such as racism, war and civil rights. Now a days not so much. Glenn Beck calls himself a libertarian. I am not a fan of classic libertarianism but it is a bit sad when a word completely loses its meaning.
Well, if you picture the two political parties as large ships, I imagine that they are trying to redirect their ship elsewhere. Unfortunately they (being the young Republicans) are not in charge of the ship, the older, upper echelon of Republicans are. I think they find more value in righting the ship than in starting one of their own, or trying to join a new ship with entirely different views (the SS Democrat). Do I agree with their views? No, but I'd much rather discuss and compromise with this young group of Republicans than I would with their predecessors.