I appreciate the fact that you're not insulting my intelligence by denying the existence of the Republican base. The wealthy uppercrust that's been the backbone of the Party for almost 150 years didn't suddenly disappear, nor did they suddenly and inexplicably switch to the Democratic Party. You get points for honesty in trying to defend the antidemocratic notion that the people aren't capable of governing themselves and need the wise hand of the wealthy to guide them.

Utter crap, but at least you're honest about it.

One thing (of many) that baffles me is why you think you'd be any better off under a neofeudal oligarchy than a representative democracy. Unless you weren't kidding when you claimed to be a rich Republican, you'd have zero power under such a regime. You can't be free when somebody else is running your life, no matter whether it's a Socialist committee or an Oligarch in a tuxedo. What's the difference?

I'm flattered you credit me with introducing the prefix "neo" into the discourse, but I must demur. I don't recall just when the term "neoconservative" entered the lexicon, but I assure you that I didn't coin it. I can't claim brilliance for coining "NeoRepublican" to describe the Republican Party controlled by neoconservatives, that was just an obvious derivation.

You accuse me of using the term divisively, to fragment the Republican Party. Apparently you skipped over what I had to say about organizing and acting outside of either party, to refocus their attention on the middle where it properly should be. The Founders not only set up the visible apparatus of government outlined on paper, they were wise enough in the ways of people to set up an implicit social order as well, that arises as a consequence of the visible structure of government: Two wings of extremists, neither one large enough to hold power on its own, beholden to the moderate center for whatever power the center grants them. The number 3 figures everywhere in the grand designs of the Founders. They must have dreamed of three-legged stools each night during the Constitutional Convention.

That balance has been broken in recent years, and I think that that's the fundamental problem we need to address.

You rail that Democrats in power would be just as bad, and again you seem to have overlooked where I said the same thing. The political parties have become a serious problem for our country. That's why a centrist reform movement not tied to either party seems like the right answer to me.

I'm just repeating myself. Is the problem that you think that I'm lying? Do you think that all of this talk of reform is just a subterfuge to install Democrats in power again? You seemed to imply that quite clearly several times. If so I'm disappointed in you, Techie. If nothing else, you should know me well enough by now to know that at a minimum I'd simply be bored by repeating dreary history with a new cast of villains; I'd prefer the novelty of trying something new to break out of that rut. At best, I'm an idealist--haven't you noticed by now?

Perhaps novelty is why I find the idea of an independent reform movement so attractive. Yet, unless I'm very mistaken about the society the Founders constructed, at this point in history, given the situation and the forces at work, the moderate center is the most powerful place to be right now. It's the fulcrum point of American history.

I know you disdain the moderate center, but consider your self interest. The present situation favors extremism, and it's not inherently picky about which flavor of extremism comes to power. That's because the social balance I described earlier has broken, producing a volatile and unstable political order. It could go the other way, Techie. The backlash could have a distinctly leftist flavor. I suggest to you that the bargain that's held for a couple of centuries is a good one, and it's the best deal anybody can expect in a democracy. Take what you've got and be happy, man.