Bo – I know you and Mrs. C. don’t exactly see eye-to-eye, but if I may speak for her for a moment…

I think where she and I mostly align are on social issues. I think we’re on the same page with education and gay marriage. We’re probably not too far off on welfare and affirmative action. She might be liking my health care idea and my energy/environment ideas, although she probably places more emphasis on the environmental benefits than I do.

I bet she even likes my law enforcement and national defense ideas.

I know she doesn’t agree with me on abortion. We’ve talked before about marijuana and prostitution, and I feel safe in saying she’s not with me there. We probably differ quite a bit on the economy part. I bet she’s not too keen on making English the official language in America or my acceptance of torture. I’m not sure about gun control, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she wanted stricter measures.

If I’m wrong at any point here, Mrs. C., my apologies, and, of course, feel free to chime in yourself.

We have differences here and there, but mostly we’re coming from the same area–somewhere between conservative and libertarian. You know that already.

Two general thoughts:

1. The independent vs. party affiliation question is way stickier than it seems. I understand your frustration and what you’re saying in theory, but the bottom line is that we’re likely to have the two-party system we have for the rest of our lives.

Unfortunately, a lot of the time there’s no apparent difference (ca. 2002) or the differences are minimized by absent or ineffective leadership (ca. 2009). But what about when there is a difference? What about the Republicans ca. 1994? ca. 1980? If the reality on the ground is that the Republicans really are killing us 10% more slowly than the Democrats, how much attention and support should they receive, given that big Ds or big Rs are extremely likely to have the White House and congressional majorities for the foreseeable future? Is it reasonable to sacrifice moving in the correct direction, however minimally, for better principles that will never be implemented to any significant degree?

I’m a Libertarian this year. I may be a Republican next year. I struggle with feeling that way, but it’s the best I can do.

2. Beware rhetoric. Our current president is a hard-left ideologue, but gee, he sounds so goshdarn reasonable giving a speech, so he can’t be so bad, right?

Want a local example? The illustrious Mrs. Chili claims here that “there’s a lot of this that works for me” about an agenda that is unambiguously somewhere between conservative and libertarian. On her blog, she’s “come to terms with the fact that a lot of the ideals that I hold are, at least by definition, socialist.”

Those claims cannot be resolved with one another. Or does “a lot” go both hard left and hard right?

“When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley smiley.” – George Carlin

Ever read Carroll Quigley’s, Tragedy and Hope? He promoted using the two party system against the people to obtain world government. He had met with the globalists and was allowed to look at their secret files, and that is what his book is about. The two parties at the top have the same agenda-bigger government, regionalism–communism. Their only difference is their rhetoric. When the people get tired of one party they will vote in favor of the other, believing somehow that their vote will produce change, but the same agenda continues to be followed–and THAT is why nothing important to the people ever gets resolved. We just end up having more troubles. Unfortunately with our connection and subservience to the United Nations and it’s communist policies, the bankers control of our major medias, state departments and congress, we do not have a government of the people, by the people or for the people and won’t until enough voters wake up to this political game and vote third party or choose a candidate that is not controlled (funded) by the special interest groups who control our economy.
When we hear the word “global”we tend to think of it as meaning innovation, but in actuality we are being programmed through hearing that word over and over again to want a global or one world government controlled economically by international bankers under the World bank and UN. Our expanding government is taking us to a place where un-elected bureaucrats create the rules based on what the majority wants, or what they perceive is the best for all rather than what is best for the individual. That is what communism is. The only thing between what we have now and what the elites want to create is our constitution. You see our constitution is the only one like it in existence (ever) because it declares our freedoms as created by God or Creator granted to us. This means that government has no business touching our rights and freedoms briefly described in our founding documents, but certainly not limited to what is written there. All other countries civil or human rights, including the rights written within the UN Charter are government granted rights (privileges) and can be taken away as easily as given by government. That is communism. If we allow our constitution to be taken from us, then we will cease to have the freedoms so many have fought and died for these last 230 years. The only way to protect our rights is to not let government try to take them from us with rules and laws that prevent certain individuals from doing things. Personal responsibility and holding individuals accountable for personal injury or property damage is the only law that is needed. Government can not fix things not related to government. When government gets involved, prices go up. Blame regulations of businesses, money, healthcare, whatever–it is because government is involved in restricting free markets and that is why we have problems in those areas.

I’ll have more to add when I finish reading your post Erik.

Seems as though we’re both looking through the same glass.

Hell, the next book I’m going to read is “Slander” by Ann Coulter, ok?

So, besides abortion (which I already knew you’d disagree with me on), what were the other details you’re not with me on?

Okay, first of all? I’m glad you’ve come to the realization that you’re far more left than you originally thought.

There’s a lot of this that works for me and, aside from a few details (abortion being chief among them), I’m with you.

This?

We need to be teaching our children to think, not memorize.

This thrills me. YES.