What can Libertarians offer the world right now?

The helping of the poor? No.

The helping of the environment? No. Making corporations clean up their sh/t is an invasion of the free market, Libertarians don't want that.

Solving the gun crisis in the United States? Certainly not.

Am I misreading or is that a response to someone else? You seriously want America to become a Christian nation?

Most (if not all) of you are too young to remember the Watergate scandal. Suffice it to say, when Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, the end of the Republican Party was also widely predicted. However, in 1976, Jimmy Carter won narrowly over Gerald Ford, and 4 years later, Ronald Reagan won back the White House.

The rumors of the Republican Party's demise are a bit premature.

There's a difference between a scandal and a serious break on policy issues. The parties are so far apart that if it weren't for the Civil War legacy I think Southern secession would be a real issue again.

Yikes! I corrected myself. I got the options backwards.
Lets hope its the latter

You missed my response to you panicked. Look up a few posts.

I have a feeling good debate won't happen on this political forum...

I didn't miss it, I just haven't responded yet

You make good points all around. I don't consider myself Libertarian, I'm pretty Liberal, but a Libertarian candidate may be a decent compromise between the two big parties. I just think that the current two party system seems to be breaking down. There's so much polarization nowadays. A third party candidate could help to quell that. But you're right about the limitations.

The problem with the current Libertarian party is it's basically become ideologically the same as the Corporate part of the Republican party- I.E.: the Republican Party minus the Religious Right. Anarcho-capitalism is quite appealing to Corporate America and if the Libertarian party ever became a big force, the American consumer would be completely screwed over.

I agree with the libertarian ideology on social issues (such as the government not being allowed to restrict free speech, staying out of the bedroom, etc) but there have to be restrictions on business so that consumers- that is, PEOPLE- can have freedom.

There's also a difference between a temporary incident and a long-term issue. The Republican Party's unpopularity right now is largely premised on the War in Iraq, not some deep policy difference. There are policy differences between the Republican Party and a majority of the nation, but they're not generally substantial enough to have caused the state the Republican Party's in right now.

Given the actual situation here in the US, there is no functional difference. Don't expect huge changes.

No, they're not.
There's a reason I think 2012 will be the big turning point election one way or the other, not 2008.
2008 is entirely about the war, and the Dems basically have it locked up regardless of whatever else happens. The Republican party, meanwhile, will continue to split among the social/economic lines and in 2012 the election will almost solely be about whether Christianity should dominate. If the Republicans win, gay marriage will be banned, church-state separation will be all but eliminated, and so forth. If the Democrats win we have a shot at rebuilding the wall of separation between church and state.

If the Republican party wins in 2012 I'm seriously going to consider leaving the country. I have no desire to live in a nation enslaved to an imaginary being, and that is the inevitable result of Republican control. If the Supreme Court ever tips to their side we're screwed for a long time.

What basis do you have for believing that 2012 will be about religion? I'm really curious. Do you have any basis for believing that "the hegemony of Christianity" is going to become the top issue of 2012, over issues like the economy and the probably-still-occurring War on Terror? Or is it just wistful thinking?

The War on Terror will be settled in 2008. It'll have become a background issue by then, as we'll be out of Iraq. The economy will be an issue, but secondary to the continuing shrill harshness of the Christian Right. They're getting louder and louder, and their defeat in '08 will be portrayed as entirely due to the Iraq issue. Iraq won't be an issue in '12. The economy will be mostly secondary to the various social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) that are primarily religion-centric.

It does not surprise me that the main civil rights issue of the day is one where civil rights conflict with religious beliefs. Pretty much all the other civil rights issues (regarding granting rights to groups- I'm not referring to free speech in general here) have been resolved. America's been on the fence between religion and freedom for a long time, and sooner or later the country is going to come down solidly on one side or the other- eventually the Supreme Court, the Presidency, and Congress will be aligned strongly enough to get it done. The rising pitch of the Right and the current political trends lead me to think it will be sooner- the Iraq war is a deviation from the trend in question, and by 2012 that will likely be a non-issue. I suspect that whichever side America eventually lands on will be all but irreversible.

I not only think that the GOP will survive but it will flourish in the coming years. The conditions are ripe for this. Historically the societies that have relied on religious mythology are those that are undereducated and at the poverty level but the U.S. has been expanding that class for the past two or three decades. In reality there exists little difference between the Dems and Reps and any difference you percieve is by design. The nation is so divided between the two that an underlying hatred for each other has come to exists and that type of division works for the politicians. The last thing the Dems or Reps want is a nation of people united on either side. In times of scandal the repercussions would be devestating for the party in power. As long as the nation is deeply divided those repercussions can be managed. A united nation requires that nation to be informed and knowledgable not just about internal affairs but but have an understanding of the world as a whole. With the dumbing down of America we have created a population that is motivated and steered by ignorance and politicians now wouldn't have it any other way. It's this national ignorance that sets the stage for religous mythology to become the politics of the nation and will become the platform for Dems as well as Reps. In the future both parties will be using "God" as their guiding light and the nation will follow simply because they won't have an intellegent argument for doing otherwise and the nation's deviding line will be established by the two parties different views of what "God" wants. And that division will even more heated than what it is today. Religous mythology has always been the most effective way to keep a population under control so both parties will be strengthened by this. With a population deeply entrenched in mythology, the Republican party will be needed by that population like never before.

The current atheistic backlash against the Religious Right and religion in general (Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc) and the general quantity of atheists I see on the 'net gives me a bit of hope that the next generation or two will mostly reject religious control of their lives. If they don't, we're doomed to fail as a free nation-I for one will flee the country. If they do, we will actually have freedom.

I hope, for all our sakes, that you're wrong.

My simple answer to the question: hopefully not too much longer. Then again i believe that the democratic party is all too similar, and believe we need more diversity in the parties, or more parties that actually play a major role.

Your interpretation of the Republican Party is faulty, which leads to the conclusion that it is in its death throes. The Republican Party isn't the party of the Christian Right, it is the party of the overt racist of the US.

A lot of energy has been expended over the last 50-60 years or so attempting to excise the overtly racist language and racist appeals from the records of those who populate the party.

Folks who are Republicans today used to be Democrats and Dixiecrats.

They switched political affiliations after Roosevelt signed the New Deal legislation primarily supported by Democrats. Blacks were seen as benefiting from the New Deal, and the Dems were thus seen as the party of black people. This was the beginning of the modern Republican Party.

Before the New Deal, the Republican Party had been historically seen as the party of slavery abolition and thus aligned with blacks in that way.

The people populating the Republican party have always lined up against black people. That is the basis for the political party. Nowadays it isn't PC for them to say how they really feel or for the media to expose them. So this ridiculous idea that this is the party of Christians has become popular.

But anyone who knows anything about the US also knows that black people are per capita, the most religious block of folks in the US. So why aren't they Republicans?

The US party structure lines up along racial lines. All other talk is a smokescreen to keep from dealing with the real issue. As long as black people are seen as trying to fight for equality by way of governmental programs like Affirmative Action, there will be a strong and active Republican Party full of folks seeking to end such programs. I promise you that.

I wouldn't say "racist", but "bigot". Otherwise, I think you're mostly right, especially in the south. The "Christian Right" is full of bigotry, now aimed at Gays, Mexicans, and Muslims instead of Blacks.

I agree with your sentiment Josh. But I say racist is the accurate term precisely because while the party is bigoted towards these other groups, that isn't the basis for the party.

Big difference.

The basis for the Republican party cohesion lies in anti-black racism (and increasingly anti-brown racism--but this is only temporary), not bigotry towards gays.

Your basis for this conclusion? Citations?