For me at least, it’s very difficult under this scenario to suppose that the displeasure with the Obama fiscal policy is in any way misplaced.

The GOP hasn’t been responsible for quite a while; I’d say that they clearly abandoned that in 1994.

US Democrats will fix things up as well as we can, and the GOP will eventually come back. If they continue to blow things in 2001 and do a Palin-Joe the Plumber Epic Fail in 2012, *somebody* will get a clue and purge the whackjobs.

When the torture crowd finishes imploding, it will be the likes of Will, Larison, and John who will be the remnant to build the party on. It will come, just not yet.

It is true that dissidents are essentially powerless, via minimal political representation. However, it is also true that dogmatic partisans are also becoming powerless, if not already so.

I am happy about both of these situations (the third leg – Democratic majority – not so much), because being the competitive free-marketeer that I am, I want to see more tents, not bigger ones. Larison has continuously pointed out that it is the “big tent” bipartisan lovefest that most frequently produces the worst legislation and induces the worst policy decisions. I wholeheartedly concur.

It is a difficult task to take a dissident minority and get it political representation in a big ole democracy – which is why federalism and republican (small r) government must rule the day. However, as long as we have people seeking to maintain political power, they will seek to latch onto to dogma so long as it ensures political victory. Specter only left the GOP once it became untenable for him to keep his Senate seat as a Republican – it has very little to do with his views or the dogma of his party changing.

Yes, there should be some concern that those in the GOP still in power are becoming more rigid and dogmatic, and yes this could be a net negative for the country. I disagree that it is or will be a net negative, because the short-term results of this rigidity is the development of an antagonistic (or is it protagonistic?) political opposition (and, hopefully, culture) more aligned with my personal views.

In fact, I hope more defections are in the future.

John, I have to disagree with you here. One of the most startling – and indeed, welcome – revelations of the past few years has been the emergence of the non-interventionist, pro-civil liberties, anti-statist Right, primarily exposed by Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy but carried on by the blogosphere.

Without the existence of the Tax-cuts & Torture party (or wing of the party), the aforementioned group would have had much more trouble grabbing the spotlight during the recent election cycles. To put it more bluntly: would I be reading Daniel Larision religiously if he wasn’t so damn correct in his analysis (mostly critical) so often? Of course not.

It’s impossible to carve out differences, let alone individuality, in a political culture of homogeneous thought. Additionally, when one feels that adherence to protocol is necessary for one’s own political survival (and the concept of political survival is, itself, a more dire pathogen infecting our polity), protocol wins, which is NEVER a good thing. What we are witnessing is the death of protocol, and the beginning of resistance to deference. I can think of nothing more necessary for the health of our republic.

In any case Bush ran up many trillions of dollars in deficits over the course of his presidency, and it’s not at all clear why the thirteenth digit should matter all that much anyway; shouldn’t the level of outrage bear at least a nearly linear relationship to its supposed source?