The Unrepentant Individual

...just hanging around until Dec 21, 2012


February 16, 2006


I’d Like to See This…

Assistant Majority Leader Shadegg?

There is talk on Capitol Hill of fusing Shadegg’s first-principles conservatism and the caucus of like-minded members he represents to the new House leadership team. According to Hill sources, conservatives are looking for a way to incorporate Shadegg into the House leadership structure in an unelected, informal capacity. The term, “Assistant Majority Leader” has been used.

This informal position would be a political winner for the new House leadership team. By elevating Shadegg, leadership would signal to a growing and energetic portion of the caucus that the reform message – and the ideas and proposals contained therein – will not only be listened to, but acted upon.

Certainly, Boehner’s election in itself sends that message. But bringing Shadegg in and giving him a seat at the table is a clear signal to Shadegg’s bloc of conservative supporters that their voice is valuable enough to the new leadership that they deserve a representative in the room for the highest level discussions. Not only would this ingratiate conservatives with the new House leadership team, but it has plenty of upside for leadership as well.

Aside from beefing up the new leadership’s “reform” banner, Shadegg would serve as a valuable conservative temperature gauge. Who knows better how limited government conservatives will react to a piece of legislation than one of their own?

With this sort of talk, one thinks the Republicans may be wising up. It’s been a tough time to be a libertarian over the last few years, because we’ve seen the expansion of government’s scope and budget from the party that supposedly believes in “limited government”. The coalition between libertarians and Republicans over the last 20 years has been a strong component of Republican success. But once the forces of government became aligned, with Republican control of both Congress and the White House, all hell broke loose.

I voted for George Bush in 2004 because I supported his view in the War on Terror, something Kerry certainly didn’t have, and something that Michael Badnarik did not have as well. I voted in 2004 for Republicans for national office, Libertarians for state/local office, because I could not pull the lever for an anti-war candidate.

If we had been in the middle of a peacetime, however, and the choice had come up again, I would have voted for Badnarik, simply as a protest vote, because Bush is the closest thing to a Democrat on domestic policy as you can get without actually switching parties. And the Congress has followed his lead, offering spending bill upon spending bill, racking up deficits out the wazoo.

This could be a strong signal to those of us who believe in limited government that the Republican party is willing to restore our seat at the table, and take us seriously. I think the election of Boehner was a step in the right direction, but giving Shadegg a seat at the table– even if unofficial– will send a very strong signal to those of us desparately hoping all is not lost in the Republican party.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 10:36 pm || Permalink || Comments (2) || Trackback URL || Categories: Uncategorized

2 Comments

  1. Brad, there’s hope yet! Check out today’s blog, it might interest even you.

    Comment by Lucy Stern — February 17, 2006 @ 8:44 am
  2. Brad:

    Always interesting to see a frank and open discussion. Personally, I’m from the middling center of the left, and have rather strong views on government’s place. (Somewhere other than in my business.)

    I read with some interest your plaintive cry about libertarians’ problems with alignment (Republican vs. Democrats). Personally, I think that libertarians are confused, especially about economic issues, as, while some might argue that petit capitalism is benificial for democracy, too much of it leads straight to global corporate hell, as we are seeing under every administration since Eisenhower. (My position.)

    So my take on it is for a strong federal government, throttling corporations with all of its might. Case in point: the recent passage of the corporate-written bankruptcy bill, an example of “free trade” (sic) at its most glorious, with the corporate shill Republicans dogpiling the poor overburdened credit card holder. And I’m not talking about “regulating” banks, I’m talking about outlawing government condoned usury. Or Enron, or the corporatization of the media. “Fair and Balanced” my butt. Further: WTO, IMF. Shipped my buddy’s job off to India the last week, and he has a PhD in IT.

    But I digress.

    You still have problems of where your votes should go, as this administration is totally incompetent (witness the present “investigation” into the katrina mess, and the election of Boehner, a man with the ethics of a wharf rat, and a prime example of a corrupt Republican.)

    You might consider looking into the actual economic performance of this country under Democratic administrations. Easily checkable. Or, take a look at this(PDF): http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf – for a peek at America’s economic future under the Republicans. None too bright. Hell, remember Reagan, who took a prime rate at 3.5% and drove it straight to 15% on home mortages in less than five years?

    Give me a break.

    Comment by g randy primm — February 17, 2006 @ 11:41 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.