> Little "l" libertarianism has always had a tense relationship with the Republican party
It gets even more complicated when you look inside the party. On one hand you have the "Tea Party" Representatives and Senators elected in the last couple of election cycles. Most of them swing towards little "l" libertarianism (at least fiscally if not socially). Recently, the Republican leadership in the House "fired" most of them from their committee assignments because they won't hold "the party line". The current Republican leadership talks a small government game, but isn't very interested in it. It is rhetoric and not action.
If the scale tips into the "Tea Party" favor (lot of interesting primary action), then I can see actual libertarianism (more fiscal than social) having a home, otherwise I expect the 2016 Presidential primary and convention to be epically nasty. The 2012 convention was a screw the local folks type of affair, but I get the feeling the local folks are gearing for 2016.
> But attempting to have a nuanced discussion of politics in this country is as pointless as it is impossible.
My only comfort in this area is that at least some of things that were said by candidates about other candidates in the election of 1800 cannot be said now.
On the other hand, punditry (by both sides) is just as profitable as it ever was as a spectator sport.
note: For those interested in a deeper look at such things. Look at the build up to the 2014 South Dakota Senatorial race. The amount of non-local manipulation reminds me more of national party bosses than a normal primary season. It might be a bit of an indicator of what is to come for both parties.
It gets even more complicated when you look inside the party. On one hand you have the "Tea Party" Representatives and Senators elected in the last couple of election cycles. Most of them swing towards little "l" libertarianism (at least fiscally if not socially). Recently, the Republican leadership in the House "fired" most of them from their committee assignments because they won't hold "the party line". The current Republican leadership talks a small government game, but isn't very interested in it. It is rhetoric and not action.
If the scale tips into the "Tea Party" favor (lot of interesting primary action), then I can see actual libertarianism (more fiscal than social) having a home, otherwise I expect the 2016 Presidential primary and convention to be epically nasty. The 2012 convention was a screw the local folks type of affair, but I get the feeling the local folks are gearing for 2016.
> But attempting to have a nuanced discussion of politics in this country is as pointless as it is impossible.
My only comfort in this area is that at least some of things that were said by candidates about other candidates in the election of 1800 cannot be said now.
On the other hand, punditry (by both sides) is just as profitable as it ever was as a spectator sport.
note: For those interested in a deeper look at such things. Look at the build up to the 2014 South Dakota Senatorial race. The amount of non-local manipulation reminds me more of national party bosses than a normal primary season. It might be a bit of an indicator of what is to come for both parties.