Just after the election, I posted about how unsatisfied I’ve become with the Republican party.  I wasn’t happy with the “Compassionate Conservatism” of the Bush years, and I’ve been, well, unimpressed with the party in its role as the “loyal opposition” to the Obama administration.  Basically, the libertarian wing of the party seems to have been eclipsed by the go-along-to-get-along leadership that is heavily influenced with the side of the party that mirrors liberal Democrats in wanting to spend my money and tell me how to live my life, just in different ways.  I don’t see that changing anytime soon, and it’s a big reason for my dissatisfaction.*  Big government Republicans, to me, are as much to blame for the mess we’re in as the big government Democrats.

So I’m considering leaving the party, and to be honest, being registered as “Independent” is looking more and more likely.  Doing this is going to impact my ability to contribute to elections because Kentucky has closed primaries.  I actually agree with that law; I just have to live with not having that ability to voice my wishes.

I’ve considered the third parties, and to be honest, they’re a mess.  I guess the closest one to my political leanings, at least on paper, is the Libertarian Party.  Their platform ties in with my wish that the United States take a good hard look in the mirror and decide which overseas commitments are worth the money and blood, which domestic programs are a waste of money, and which sacred cow will make the tastiest hamburgers.  But to be honest, I look at the history of the party and I’m discouraged.  Guys, until you start fielding presidential candidates that have been big L Libertarians for more than a fortnight, you’re always going to be the NIT of primary races.

I think that a viable third political party would do a lot of good work toward cleaning up and cleaning out our political system.    However, I think the problem I’ve seen with alternate parties is that they all seem to be trying to hit a home run and field a winning presidential candidate without having a lot of people in lower offices already.  Yes, it worked for the Republicans in the 1860 election, but that was a unique situation.  Our country is in a crisis, but the issues we deal with aren’t as easily talked about as “It’s wrong to own other people”.  That’s a lot easier to sell than “We need to stop giving you free stuff”, or “You need to get off the couch and get a job”.

To me, what third parties need to do is build a base, and work toward a viable presidential candidate at some later date.  Get people elected to state legislatures and maybe the House of Representatives.  Work toward putting governors in office, then Senators.  Once people see that you’re not a bunch of fringe wingnuts because you’re the guy they see on the school board or who holds townhall meetings with them as part of their duties as a legislator, they will start to consider pulling the lever for that parties candidates for higher office.  Putting up a presidential candidate every four years just to say you can does nothing much besides spend money and time.  Build a base, then shoot for the moon.

Anyway, I wish the Republicans well, but I think my time with them is over.  If they wake up, reverse the decline that’s been going on for 20 years, and return to trying to limit government and be wise custodians of the people’s money, I’ll consider voting for their candidates.  Until then, I’ll be over here doing my own research and picking the best person for the job when I step into the voting booth.

*I know, I know, Tea Party, Rand Paul, rah rah rah.  Witness the recent removal of fiscally conservative Republicans from key committee positions by Speaker Boehner.  Anyone who challenges the party leadership, in or out of office, is being put in their place so that any deals they make with the Democrats will get through Congress without a hitch.