[tpaine]

"Political change in this country is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Socialism came here slowly, and seduced the electorate bit by bit. It's reversal is going to have to come in the same fashion because Americans almost never vote for truly radical changed."


We had two 'revolutions' in the 20th century, prohibitionism in 1910/20 era, and FDR socialism in the 30's. - Both were radical changes, now obviously failed, and waiting for the next triggering event to topple them.
War, major depression, etc. -- whatever sets the next 'revolution' off, they will be gone practically overnite.
-- Then, the question will be, will some form of fascism, or of constitutional libertarianism prevail?

[XJarhead]

We had two 'revolutions' in the 20th century, prohibitionism in 1910/20 era, and FDR socialism in the 30's. - Both were radical changes, now obviously failed

FDR socialism has not "obviously failed" in the eyes of most Americans. And if you argue for repealing all of it now, you might get 10% support. So you'll make a nice argument, maybe even the correct one, and lose. If you think otherwise, I think you're projecting your political views on a mass electorate that does not share them.

BUT, how about the welfare reform of the mid-90's? A small step, but it helped reinstitute the concept of self-reliance and restoring natural incentives. So maybe the next round further reduces it.

Or how about Bush's idea for starting to privative some aspects of social security? It's not all that you'd want, but it is a step in the libertarian direction. And certainly better than what we'd get if Gore would have been President.

The bottom line is that its easier to win a fight for the direction of the Republican Party than it is to win the fight through having the Libertarian Party itself become a major force.