That said I'm a bit leery of some aspects of the plan, I can see the need for tax cuts, and most of the spending I'm cool with. I'm 27, no mortage or dependents – self-sufficient and save a good chunk of my income for someone my age, no credit card debt, went to a community college before university so my loans are manageable, etc. I have somewhat mixed feelings on the whole bailout of bankers and auto-workers – I do believe in helping out those the system has failed, less so for those whose greed led them to where they are (though faulty financial advice on mortages etc is a definate grey area for buyers).

So if I'm feeling a little wary (Californian leftist, oh my), yes it is definately something to be aware of.

re: trains – I'm aware of the countries low population density of our country in general + crap city planning makes public transit ouchy, but after living in Hong Kong / etc then coming back to LA where rail lines just stop for no reason and entire major chunks of the city are left out… meh. Driving for 2 hours and still being in LA sucks! I for one would make use of a ~3 hour train ride to SF… hopping into Union Station would be a lot easier than going to LAX and dealing with airport security/boarding/etc.

For weekend trips and camping out of town etc, bring on the cars! But for daily urban life it'd be nice to just do it with bikes/buses/rail and hop on a train to visit friends in SF.

So, I'm not saying that my voice or the voices of other dissenters are being silenced. I'm saying that those voices are being unnecessarily demonized. Again, the majority party has the right to ignore the voices of minority dissenters, but it's disingenuous to then paint those dissenters as obstructionist, etc. They're the minority, they can't obstruct anything!

Finally, for question one, I'm not defending the GOP. They are currently choosing to define themselves through opposition rather than through thoughtful alternatives. I have no dog in that hunt. I'm more interested in my ideological clan, which brings me to question two.

Ideology is inescapable. Dictionary.com defines ideology as “A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.” That's pretty innocuous. Pragmatism, which is a very vogue concept at the moment, is a form of ideology. Belief in the power of the state is form of ideology. Belief in the power of the individual is a form of ideology. A mixture of faith in the state and individuals is a form of ideology. I'm still trying to figure out why ideology is now a pejorative.

What does bother me is that many, not all, are attempting to define one form of ideology (liberal, progressive, or whatever label referring to belief in a more activist government suits you) as correct and not-at-all an ideology and another form of ideology (conservative, libertarian, fusionist, or whatever other label referring to belief in more limited government) as incorrect and dogmatic. Both are ideologies and both are well-intentioned. My beef is with ignoring the fact that both are ideologies and both are well-intentioned. It's difficult to have a robust, productive, and, yes, bipartisan debate when one group is immediately cast as morally wrong.

That's the longer, and hopefully clearer, version of my argument. Sorry if I seemed argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

Do you have some reason to believe otherwise? It seems the sum of your comment is that, because he's ineloquent and relatively uneducated, (and, as Will put it, a “douche”), Santelli could not possibly have a worthwhile point. While I might agree with your characterization, I don't agree with your conclusion.

To your earlier point, Santelli's “unfair” and the trader's cry of “moral hazard” are not without substance. Bastiat's unseen is a real, and unfortunate, threat. Will repeatedly makes these points, and far more eloquently than I could.

This seems as struggling very hard to setup victim mentality, again opposition for the sake of opposition. This does follow what I hear described in the political talk shows, and most internet pundits. However after listening to the president during his speeches, remarks at the fiscal summit and recent interviews, its seems an awfully contrived view. Obama goes out of his way to point out there will be disagreements and that constructive criticism to keep his policies in check is welcome even necessary. There doesn't really seem to be a dominant discourse that wants to shut you up. Rather the dominant discourse wants to hear something of actual practical use from you. I guess just general vague malcontent is what we have so far from GOP leadership at this time.

> Do you genuinely consider your positions unhampered by ideology?
> At least we admit we have ideological inclinations instead …

Again its interesting that ideology seems so inescapable to you. Being a recent immigrant to this country and not having the baggage of this country's political history I consider myself a student instead of an activist in politics. I figured I'd first listen, ask around and observe. This is how I found myself posting here today. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion and I suppose its biased towards “gets things done competently” edge of the political spectrum. Thats as opposed to “doesn't get anything done, wastes money, corrupt etc.”. Republican and Democrat seem so antiquated, like a grade school playground turf war. Thats another reason for my rabble rousing on the internet is to see if there is any solid arguments to keep people in power on their toes pointed towards getting results.

I read your stuff daily, and I was genuinely disappointed that you would take Santelli's rant as _indicative_ of _anything_. I swear, I cannot see the difference between Santelli and Joe the Plumber. Maybe it was the forum, audio for Marketplace Morning instead of your blog, that pressed that choice of topic upon you, but I was truly disappointed. It is not your duty to care about my disappointment, but I read you everyday, so I have a basis to say commenting on Santelli is beneath you.

[The "volcano" bit was unfair. I plead, I did it for the lolz.]

I am a Leftist, but I am rooting for the libertarians in this fight. Arnold Kling's analysis is the only one that rings true (cautiously approaching sound post-Keynesianism from side of the libertarian right: jobs paid for with business profits). So I am disappointed when Kling gets recorded making a hysterical and inopportune sound-bite about “thugs ransacking my house” [why not just lay out the facts before the people who pay the bills, and let _us_ worry about how it makes us feel], and I am disappointed when you hitch a wagon, rhetorically, to the phenomena that is Republican pseudo-populism [Rick Santelli and Joe the Plumber, I guess Sarah Palin too].

How am I supposed to distinguish Rick Santelli from Joe the Plumber? Personally, I am going to ignore this “small flame of populist resentment” because it seems to be fully contained among floor traders and Republican establishment dead-enders.

There are substantive criticisms of the Obama stimulus, namely, that it has zero connection with fostering businesses using profits to hire from an educated work force. Exiting this recession is impossible without businesses using profits to hire from an educated work force. The crudest of Keynesianism will not do it — breaking windows for great success.

So the libertarian response is to embrace the intellectual successor of Joe the Plumber. (Don't plead ignorance of this, I read the same libertarian blogs you do.) Disappointing, considering the stakes. I can point out at least one omission: you didn't follow Bobby Jindal's lead and rail against volcanoes and the volcanistic arts. Perhaps in a follow-up…