(I've probably edited this post about 6 times or so since its initial conception.  For those of you that managed to catch the original post, it may seem like I've changed my mind.  Well, the original post was an outburst of passion, if you will.  I needed to research a little more, and between that and some time, I've calmed down a little more and re-evalulated some of my statements.  I've realized the choices I talk about about aren't as cut and dry as I would like.  There's no easy answer, and so I've edited this post to reflect that.  I still have some research to do, that's for sure.)

I've come to a decision.  After the 2006 election, I will be sending in my voter registration card and renouncing my membership in the Democratic party.  I'm not sure yet if I'm going to simply be independent, or if I'll affiliate myself with another party.  At first I thought about the Libertarian party (if you saw an early version of this post, you know what I mean), but that was considered in a burst of passion, and reading more closely, I'm not so sure if full commitment to them is wise, since I have reservations about a completely unrestrained free market.  The other option is the Green party, although I need to find out more about their economics first, since they may be a little too socialist in their policies.  And yes, I know that it seems strange that I'm considering two parties that seem at opposite ends of the spectrum, but they agree on enough areas that I haven't completely made up my mind.

To pin me down politically, I'd say that I borrow from both Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism.  I don't believe government should interfere nearly as much as some aspects of social liberalism imply, but I"m not ready for a complete laissez-faire free market either.  I'm in a grey area that borrows what I believe are meaningful aspects of each, essentially subscribing to two general axioms: "Citizens should be free to pursue happiness as long as they don't infringe on another's happiness" and "The government, to a certain extent, has the ability to increase average happiness by enacting protectionary laws that moderately limit the free market gross excesses and its goods and practicies (such as hard, addictive drugs such as heroine) from impinging on each individual's pursuit of happiness."

To get back on topic, why did I have a sudden change of heart?  What made me decide to renounce my registration as a Democrat?  The motivation for me has been slowly building.  I've been investigating the other political parties, but was still undecided on where to turn.  However, recent events have made me realize that there is no real difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.  They're the same damn thing.  They're both in favor of huge government and for limiting personal freedom.  They only differ on hot button issues, and they conveniently never find a solution. 

The Republicans scare me with their foam-mouthed fervor with regards to trying to scare the American public into voting for them this election season.  Notice how often Bush has appeared on television recently, promoting the rhetoric of a terrorist "threat"?  Notice the unspoken, but implied, argument that if a neoconservative government is not elected this year, the sky will fall and the world will end?  I seriously hope I'm not the only person to notice this.

The Democrats, on the other hand, stand for absolutely nothing.  They are, to quote an individual with whom I have lost contact, "a party without a vision."  How can I bring myself to vote for people that base their entire campaign on stating, "I'm not a Republican.  I'm not like that other guy, so vote for me!"  It's just a smear campaign strategy with no alternative offered.  Even if the Democrats win a majority in the House and/or Senate, things won't change much.  Today's Democrats are neoconservatives in selective, socially liberal clothing, and even that is questionable.  Take a damn stand for once!

Two recent events were the last straw.  Those events were:

1.) Bill Frist's underhanded act of attaching the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) to the Port Security Bill.  Remember H.R. 4411, the bill I wrote about in July that would destroy online casinos and poker in America?  Well, Bill Frist, who was dead set and seeing that this piece of legislation was pushed through (for a multitude of selfish and self-righteous reasons), searched for a "must-pass" bill upon which to attach it.  Well, the Port Security Bill was the ticket, and a cut-and-paste later, H.R. 4411 was officially a part of a legislation dealing with port security.  And, amidst this act of pandering to brick-and-mortar casinos, horse racing, state lotteries, and the Religious Right, the Democrats did NOTHING.  They did not vote against the bill, and obviously didn't put up much of a fight to stop this from happening.  Passivity is silent compliance.

2.) The recent TV debates between Rick Santorum and Bob Casey for the PA Senate slot.  Prior to those, I was going to vote for Bob Casey, because I simply do not agree with Santorum's neoconservative social and economic values and he carries a self-righteous air of "moral" superiority that I cannot respect.  I thought Bob Casey would be a more moderate choice, until I watched clips of the debates.  The two men argued like petulant children.  Even more damning was that Casey didn't seem to be offering an alternative to Santorum's platform.  They differ on so few issues that there was only one thing they could do, and that was shout at each other and mudsling.  Had Casey kept his composure and answered with honesty, maybe I would still consider voting for him.  But, now I have no idea if he would be any better.  The attitude of both men during the debate was deplorable.

The above tore it, and I've renounced my membership to the Democratic Party, and I reject the two-party system that currently chokes America.

I'm voting for people based on their principles, regardless of whether or not they have a perceived chance of winning.  People complain that third party candidates won't win, so why vote for them?  It's exactly that type of thinking that allows the current two-party system to push us into national debt, prolong the occupation of Iraq, and restrict the freedoms of American citizens because they have different personal beliefs or orientations.

To digress a bit, why am I now considering the Green Party or the Libertarian Party (instead of being simply independent)?  The following is a short list:

1.) I believe in complete social equality, in that I recognize the rights of all Americans to the pursuit of happiness, regardless of your personal choices.  The libertarian answer to this is that the government has no business legislating morality or intruding on the personal lives of citizens.  This extends to issues such as same-sex marriage (which I have absolutely no problem with), abortion (which nowadays I don't like and could not personally advocate, but people need to make that moral distinction themselves), religion (I'm a recent convert to being a practitioner Zen Buddhism, of course I advocate freedom of religion!  Also I advocate the freedom to express it without having a lawsuit tossed your way.  However, to be fair, it needs to stay the hell out of legislation in all forms), and much more.  Essentially, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of another citizen, you shouldn't have to fear intrusion from the government.

The Green Party has similar views on equality, although it seems like for them it stems from a moral need (which, I have to say, is where my views stem from as well) rather than a distrust of big government.  They don't differ too much here, although I'm not sure if they'll actively legislate to get these ideas across.  I'd prefer that attempts at limiting freedom are actively blocked, rather than clogged with more moral laws being introduced to counteract the current neoconservative brand of moral laws.

2.) After having studied the World War II/Cold War era of American history, I recognized the folly of communism.  It subscribes to utilitarianism, which perverts the value of human life and the ability to realize your own, personal self.  I don't trust a gigantic government having a monopoly on all areas of economics.  I'll admit it, I like the concept of a free market, but within reason.  I sure as hell know I don't like the government being bedfellows with large companies that donate money to political parties after receiving various forms of corporate welfare.  A corporation is not a citizen.  It has no rights.  Only the people within it do.  Furthermore, the current stranglehold that, for example, oil companies hold over America is absolutely ridiculous.  The fact that barely any effort is made to produce affordable alternative fuel vehicles (heck, even the alternative fuel itself) shows how in the pocket we currently are to the oil companies.

Honestly, I haven't studied enough of the Green Party's view on economics and government participation.  I need to read up more at the current moment.

3.) The Iraq Occupation.  First of all, I refuse to call it a "war" anymore, because it's not a war.  The war ended when Baghdad was seized.  It's been an occupation ever since that day.  I am sick of the talk about how Iraq must be "won" or the terrorist threat to America will be greater than ever.  First of all, what must be won?  What's the objective?  Stopping the insurgency?  The insurgency primarily exists because a civil war is breaking out in Iraq.  Let's not mince words here.  We can't hold the hands of the new Iraqi government forever.  Like Israel did, they have to prove that they want to survive.  Our job is done there.  This is also what the Libertarians advocate.

Although I don't believe the LP has the same platform, but I also have moral opposition to war, as my views become increasingly pacifist.  This is where I find agreement with the Green Party.  They never supported the invasion in the first place.  They're the most pacificist of all the political parties, and I respect that morally.  I think war is terrible, period.  Although at some levels I disagree with their platform (on a practical/realist viewpoint, not on a moral viewpoint) that Afghanistan should not have been invaded, I agree with their Iraq platform. 

I don't believe our presence there will make the world any safer now.  What's done is done.  I'm tired of the fear constantly being pumped into our brains, especially when it seems like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Co. are ignoring the advice of the military generals.  There is too much death occurring in Iraq, both on the American side and on the Iraqi side.  Islam has a lot of growing pains to sort through (much like Christianity has already done), and its foolish of us to think we can do that for them.  It's just making it worse.  If another plot surfaces on our soil, then hopefully we'll be able to stop it.  We have current legal procedures for dealing with this (emphasis on the word legal).  But, we can't hope for a 100% safe future.  It's impossible.  What will be, shall be.  I see no point in creating a nation of Chicken Littles, which the Bush Administration in particular seems to advocate.

4.) Then, there's something like illegal immigration.  The Libertarian party doesn't advocate full amnesty for all current illegals, but they don't advocate complete deportation either.  The middle ground instead seems to be to strengthen our border security, but drastically REDUCE the bureaucratic red tape that makes legal immigration so damned difficult.  Essentially, consider the fact that we are dealing with real people here, and not numbers.  They're not invaders, but their presence is having an economic detriment, and their current employment is a form of low-wage slavery, which on a human-rights level, is atrocious.  This can't continue.

The Green party also has some interesting ideas concerning immigration, although here they differ more widely from the LP.  Once again, the principles are arising out of a moral view rather than a "freedom above all else" axiom.  I like the idea of getting rid of racial quotas, and just being fair when it comes to immigration.  They also support getting rid of the bureaucratic mess that plagues the current immigration process.  I don't think I can fully support their idea to provide all current citizens of Canada and Mexico that are in America with border passes, simply because you may be giving people with criminal backgrounds a free pass.  There needs to be a screening process in my view.  On the illegal immigration side, the individuals who have either committed crimes or that have racked up ridiculous hospital bills that they have not paid need to be held accountable for their actions, for example.  For those of us that live on the same continent, movement should not be very difficult, but we need to be careful too.
------
There's more beyond this, but I think I've written enough here.  The essential principle is that as human beings, we have the right to control our own destiny.  The government is present to prevent us from infringing on another person's rights, and I feel that the same must be done for corporations so that they don't become excessively oppressive to society as a whole.  I'm walking a strange line here, probably one that most people won't subscribe to.  However, when I have a clear mind, I'm never one to fully embrace a completely radical ideaology.

So, as of now, I'm not sure what I'm going to do.  The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or simply become an independent?  I need to resolve my views on economics, as they're not as fully formed as my views on social issues.  The Libertarians are quite extreme in their views on the free market, and sometimes it tends towards anarchism.  Whereas, if the Green Party espouses overly socialist views of economy (and it seems like it does, with some statements sounding like a redistribution of wealth), I'm not quite sure I can fully back that either.  What it will come down to is if I can reconcile my differences enough with one of the two parties to feel like I could join it.  However, if it seems too difficult, I'll simply register independent, and pick and choose politicians primarily from those two parties, depending on what their platform becomes.

I do understand that I've been general on some issues here.  It's possible that if I have the time, I will try and touch on them at length in another entry.  For now, I will close with a quote from a bumper-sticker, that, although primarily used for Democratic campaigning, I believe is as equally condemning of their party as well:

"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!"

Later.