Mainstream politics is a cruel game where the best person and best idea often does not win.

The only viable long-term solution to the statist tendency of our society is greater decentralisation of political power so that at least we can have jurisdictional diversity and competition.

Turnbull is disliked not because he is successful, but because he is a wishy-washy, ‘progressive’, Labor-lite politician who thinks he can impose his big government mentality on a party hostile to it, and that’s the same with Barry O’Farrell. Both of them go against the values and principles of the party and both of them are populist. It’s absurd that the parliamentary wing of the party is so bereft of talent and of principle that those two are the federal and state leaders.

Populism is not something to be proud of. It means following the polls over your values, giving cash handouts or whatever because you know it’ll win you votes. It means catering to special interest groups and basing your policy on comments in the Daily Telegraph rather than your principles. I also think you’ve got to take into account the political ignorance and/or apathy of most of the population when you say that populism is a good thing – the $950 payments are an example of a populist policy and not a good one… in fact the whole ‘protecting jobs’ line is because the way it’s been spun is so Keynesian.

I’m not going to touch the Sarah Palin comment because I disagree with so much of what she says. (I’m a Ron Paul supporter, so…)

It is a matter of interpretation but I’ll go ahead before getting you to elaborate on what exactly you consider elite, and why we should be against it. Hell, I’ll do you a favor and respond to two different interpretations of the word. This might show you why its a really good idea to be less vague.

You could mean elite in the sense one would call Wayne Swan elite. He thinks he is infallible, and that his opinion alone trumps any facts, or even reality itself. When you look him up he has the life of a sniveling loser who had to capture any control over reality that he has by force.

Then there is elite as in the producer, little stands in his way, force is a tool he has never needed. He worked and created brilliant products. Wealthy beyond most people’s wildest dreams, he is hated by those like Wayne Swan. People see him as not ‘too focused on his work,’ but ”too focused on his money.’ They don’t consider the source, and instead of helping people in trade like he already does, they demand he helps another vague term like their damnation of him as elite… “The People.”

Here is one of his articles in the series.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle458-20080302-02.html

It seems to me that those in power should be punished for committing crimes against humanity, for committing treason, and for other abuses of power and usurpations. Detaining people without trial and without any form of due process is evil. Torturing prisoners to death is evil. Thus, the USA government is evil.

Sometimes if something is put in an historical context it is easier to understand. Let’s say that Nixon wasn’t allowed to resign, but was put on trial for treason. I believe he committed treason, making war on the United States, and that he committed war crimes – attacking nations without a declaration of war (e.g., Cambodia) and slaughtering civilians both at home and abroad. Suppose he were convicted and executed? Do you think his cronies like Al Haig and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and the slime involved in Iran-Contra and his CIA chief and all the other filth we’ve had to put up with since then would have gotten off scott-free? I don’t. I think they would have been locked up, convicted of sundry crimes. Instead, they were left free to engage in the same crimes, again and again.

I understand what you’re saying. I don’t think a steadfast, puritan view of principles is helpful when you’re playing practical politics. We can leave that kind of thing to political philosophers who don’t need to worry about getting elected. On that point I think we are in agreement. My gripe is with the claim that pragmatism is the core of conservatism.

I don’t necessarily think your Medicare example represents an absolute abandonment of principles. We do need to understand some political realities and build on the progress we make. I would say that the moves to liberalise Medicare that you’ve suggested would be very principled goals.

And I appreciate your vote for the LDP. It may not have done you any immediate good, but votes and support do help, whether someone gets elected or not.