Badgermum posted a Douglas Adams excerpt about the lizards who control the world and how we continue voting for one lizard simply to avoid the other lizard from being elected. It's pretty funny. As I've said before, I don't think the Republican Party cares a whit for evangelical Christians' concerns except to pander to them to keep getting the vote, just as the Democratic Party cares nothing about black people's interests except to pander to keep getting their vote. Therefore I appreciate what Adams is doing here (though he wasn't thinking as much about American society, I don't think).
I do like President Bush, though he has to some extent allowed the factions in control of the party to push him in those ways. Still, even if I were to grant that he's no different from the Democrats with both on the bad side, I don't think I could agree with Badgermum's conclusion. I just can't see the Constitution Party extremists as the answer, and it's not because they're a third party and can't even get enough votes to be recognized in non-backward states. It's because I'm even more opposed to some of their fundamental views (e.g. pretending we're a theocracy) than I am to the Republican tendencies that I don't like.
Update: I went and read the Constitution Party platform more carefully to explain why I don't like this part at all, and I discovered that they're actually much worse than I thought. I thought it was just a tendency to tolerate white supremacism and nationalism in service of selfishness, but it runs much deeper than just tolerating those extremists at the fringes. Some of those values are at the very heart of their platform.
They think the Constitution established a Republic under God. The Constitution never mentions anything about God, and the only time religion is mentioned there's a limit placed on both government and religion. The founders probably all believed in God (though the vast majority of them didn't believe what Christians believe about God). That doesn't mean the Constitution itself says anything about God.
They also minimize the role of government through portraying government as suspicious, contrary to Romans 13's presentation of even anti-Christian political leaders as God-ordained administrators of justice. Their language of restoring biblical foundations for government borders on advocating theonomistic theocracy, which is in principle good if God has indeed called a nation to be set apart as his people. That did happen in the case of Israel, but the Christian church shouldn't ever confuse itself with a political entity, since the new covenant community defines itself as aliens to the world. I don't think that means it's wrong to vote or belong to a party, but I think it means this party is misguided for thinking that they can turn a secular government into a wing of the church.
Written into their party platform is a statement about AIDS and HIV being used by our government as a civil rights issue and how we need instead to see the disease as a public health threat. That's a false dilemma if I've ever seen one. They also have some baby-with-the-bathwater planks, e.g. removing Congressional pay altogether simply because it's too high as things stand. They want to repeal duly authorized amendments to the Constitution simply because they conflict with the Constitution as originally written. That's no argument. There were reasons these amendments were added. Simply stating that it wasn't that way before says nothing about its morality. The Constitution even contains procedures for doing exactly that sort of thing. The kind of purism at work here assumes the founders were infallible and exhaustive.
They define justice so narrowly that the prophets would be horrified. No government caring for the poor or needy is tolerable to these people (though they would allow the government to do exactly that with veterans, another big government program). I think Isaiah and Amos would have some harsh words, given that many of their addresses were against the government and not just against the people or the religious establishment. The same goes for their opposition to allowing the government to oversee justice with regard to medical practices, including anything the FDA does to prevent those in the know from taking advantage of the average consumer and producing poisons as medicines. If they're oppose to illegal drugs, why do they oppose an agency that can declare drugs illegal?
They're strongly opposed to any real cooperation with other nations in using our God-given power to carry out the God-given responsibilities to the rest of the world that come with such power. They frame such selfishness under the title of self-interest. Brushing my teeth is self-interested. Refusing to help someone in need is selfish. Defining it as merely self-interested doesn't change that. They think we should go back on our contract made over 100 years ago to return the Panama Canal to Panamanian ownership, thus breaking our promise to them.
I think the educational system should be reformed, but these people think it should be abolished. They conflate gun registration with prohibiting ownership. There really is some sort of jingoism at work here with their fear of non-Americans. The language of this part of their isolationism assumes immigrants won't work and won't provide for their own living situation and therefore is at best insensitive and perhaps even bordering on mean-spirited ethnocentrism. Then this statement really says something:
"The Constitution Party demands that the federal government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States."
So if, once their moratorium on all immigration ended once government subsidies were ended, a relative of Sam's in Barbados wanted to come to the U.S. but would be old enough to need family care, would the Constitution Party-controlled government deem the person to be financially dependent on U.S. citizens and therefore ineligible to come here? That's nuts. It's a family member. How heartless can you be? They also think we should oppose Puerto Rican statehood, giving no principle for doing so, which makes me suspicious of outright racism, especially given their stance on immigration.
Other items are just impractical and unwise, such as their advocacy of removing all paper and electronic money (coin only) or their desire to stop keeping covert operations secret by requiring an accounting of every dollar spent on covert ops and national security to be publicly available. They want laws (read: big government) preventing companies from requiring to know your social security number. Can't someone just refrain from doing business with someone who requires a social security number? There's no law requiring anyone to do business with such people. They want anyone who has contributed to social security to be able to withdraw all those funds, as if they're there. That would be disastrous!
There are some things I think the Constitution Party gets right that both Democrats and Republicans get wrong (though I think the Democratic Party gets more of them wrong than the Republican Party does). However, I just can't see evaluating this part as better than the Republican Party. As much as I find tendencies in Republican policies and practices that I would disagree with, I don't have such widespread disagreement with its fundamental principles, especially since the dawn of compassionate conservatism, which I think is much closer to the biblical idea of government-administered justice than either the Democratic Party or the Constitution Party.h