There are a few reasons I say this:
- the status quo is unsustainable: the national debt is at the credit limit, the federal budget is out of control, and the entitlements are drastically underfunded, while ages are increasing.
- the Democratic Party overplayed its hand nationally in the 111th Congress by failing to revive the economy in a meaningful way (a principal fact underlying 2008 results in the aftermath of the economic tsunami) and squandered its mandate by pursuing a decidedly politically liberal expansionist agenda at a time federal tax receipts were down by as much as 40%. A large percentage of the centrists elected during the 2000's were swept out of power in the 2010 mid-terms, and others have since retired. This is not only happened on the federal level, but at the state/local area as Democrats find themselves with chronic pension funding shortfalls, handcuffed from meaningful reforms because of their ties to labor
- the Republican Party finds that its credibility on fiscal conservatism and regulatory reform was badly damaged during the Bush years, and the Bush era was characterized by weak economic/job growth, and Bush's massive federal interventions during and after the economic tsunami undermined free market principles; we found our military forces overextended, tied down to an obscure region of dubious strategic importance
For me, there has been a shift. I transitioned from a liberal to conservative Democrat in the early 1980's after taking (nonpolitical) economics courses in graduate school. I had always been a fiscal hawk and became increasingly disenchanted with House Democrats over failure of fiscal discipline. I had always held traditional values (including pro-life views); for me the crucial moment was when the Democrats sabotaged the SCOTUS Bork nomination.
I have always been a military hawk based on having grown up as a military brat. Little did I realize that I was starting to question military policy even as I had endorsed John McCain as President. The issues I had were not reflected in conventional Democratic talking points over "fighting the wrong war", unconditional withdrawals, etc: at the same time, I was troubled by Bush's failure to manage post-invasion Iraq, the military brass failure to adapt to changing conditions and tactics (not to mention manpower staffing), and the decision to go to war in the first place. I found it difficult to believe that Hussein could mount a credible military threat against the US under various sanctions and logistics.
I wasn't happy with Obama's leadership either, with the Afghanistan surge decision based on lower staffing/high risk and in essence telegraphing withdrawal without reference to mission success; I think that his terminations of military leaders were based more on pettiness (e.g., officers caught saying the wrong thing about US or Afghan leadership) than performance.
At the same time I was troubled by moral hazards of Obama's domestic policy, I started having the same concerns about moral hazards in foreign policy--and I become even more concerned by Obama's expansion of drone bombing raids, meddling in the affairs of Egypt, Libya and (in a limited sense) Syria. Just as I opposed the spread in federal intervention and meddling on the domestic side, I started seeing scope creep in international intervention. I have been unnerved by the Republicans' (except for Ron Paul) support for much of this, if anything, tossing the Iran chip onto the table.
As I see Ron Paul being marginalized and litmus tests in ideology being applied to candidates to each party, I think the major parties have left us, not the other way. I've been slowly transitioning to the point of view of finding a different way. I have telegraphed my transition in multiple ways: several weeks ago I wrote and published a description of the blog summarizing several key principles; I modified the name and layout of the blog; I've expanded coverage of libertarian issues.
What about the other salient existing parties? The Libertarian Party has positions (e.g., expansion of marriage options) which I think may have unintended consequences. Drug legalization is another one; I favor certain steps towards decriminalization and streamlined reform of relevant laws and penalties. The US Constitution Party is too tied to protectionist trade policies and immigration restrictions.
I propose the concept of a Liberty Conservative Party, one based principally on unalienable rights, classical (economic) liberalism, limited, enumerated government powers, non-interventionist policies, and decentralization or privatization of incidental functions, deference to or empowerment of traditional social institutions and more localized government services. An initial agenda would be based on ensuring the long-term viability of government commitments. I would hope that future elected officials commit to basic pragmatic principles of civility, competence, integrity (direct versus scripted messaging), flexible (but limited, feasible, transparent) policies, and unconditional negotiations. (I would expect such a party to be at least initially allied with the Republican Party.)
