That's only 2 years with no primary challenger, if the political fortunes of the Tea Party wane you can bet he'll see a challenger sooner or later. We're discussing a 6 year span here, career politicians can potentially spend decades in office depending on how little their constituency changes and how happy their constituency is with their voting record. The second part is critical as it's not usual to have a vote by vote explanation that could be used as fodder by either a primary challenger or a challenger from the other party.

Like I said, I admire the guy, especially if his libertarian-ism extends to areas that dovetail with the GOP and Tea Party on social issues like gay marriage or marijuana legalization. Coming out against SOPA was good but you never know if it was authentic or if he just saw which way the political winds were blowing.

The electoral boundaries set based on who was in office in 2010 have a way of sticking around in most areas. I note that in 2012, Democrats won the sum total of House votes 48.8% to 48.5%, while the Republicans retain the House by a significant margin, 232-200 actual Congressmen. The Republicans invested heavily in winning state legislatures before this period, and are now reaping the rewards in gerrymandered districts.

He'll have no challengers as long as his benefactors like what he's doing.

Maybe not in the primaries, but a viable challenger could come from the Democrats. Michigan still went blue in the electoral college for the Presidential vote.

Then again, between gerrymandering and demographic shifts individual districts can become more OR less defensible to incumbents.

Michigan as a whole can go either way, but Justin's district is about as solidly republican as they come. Short of radical redistricting, that's not going to change (edit: I see that the 3rd district did become more balanced in the most recent redistricting, but it's still a pretty solid republican seat).

What does that word even mean anymore? According to his Wikipedia page there's not much redeeming about his social views. I guess you did say Tea Party "libertarian".

That having been said, I admire how he offers his rationale and using Facebook for good.

What isn't "redeeming" about not wanting the government to bother people?

I read the parent comment as being about the social parts of his views, which don't really seem to be about the government refraining from bothering people. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and life as beginning at conception, are both pretty significant (attempted) exercises of the state using its authority to resolve ethical disputes.

This was previously on amashforcongress.com; I found it searching for his views on this issue.

"I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I oppose government efforts to redefine this private, religious institution."

This seems like a safe way of him saying that the government should not have any say in what constitutes a marriage, but that he is personally against it. There's nothing wrong with disliking something, but not wanting to force your will onto others.

If that were actually his legislative agenda, that would be interesting. But I don't see him pushing that in terms of how he votes.

The government already does not interfere with the private, religious aspects of marriage. The Catholic Church can define marriage however it wants, and the state has no say in it, which is why you can't get a same-sex marriage in a Catholic church.

What's being debated is who should be recognized as married for official purposes (5th amendment rights, tax filing, survivor benefits, inheritance in the absence of a will, etc.). On that question, Amash supports the Defense Of Marriage Act, which says that the government should recognize only opposite-sex marriages, and not recognize same-sex marriages. If he opposed DOMA, and instead introduced legislation to abolish all government recognition of marriage, I'd give him kudos for that!

"What's being debated is who should be recognized as married for official purposes"

It shouldn't make a difference whether or not someone is married... you know, equal protection under the law. The solution to things like survivor benefits and the others you mentioned (and you're right, Amash doesn't mention this solution) is to simply have private contracts that people decide upon themselves.

"If he opposed DOMA, and instead introduced legislation to abolish all government recognition of marriage, I'd give him kudos for that!"

Agreed.

Seriously, find a single Tea Party candidate that ACTUALLY has that view on marriage. That IS the view I have on marriage, it is the libertarian view, and there isn't a single Tea Party candidate that supports that view.

The problem generally is that there's more to Libertarianism than fiscal conservatism, and Tea Party interests tend to be just as selectively fiscally conservative as the battered-brand mainstream Republicans once they're placed in power. It' s a gimmick for Republicans who don't want to be called Republicans but be elected by socially conservative Republicans that call themselves Libertarian :p

Agreed -- economic and social freedom should go hand-in-hand.

I couldn't agree more with that assessment.

The Tea Party has nothing to do with civil libertarianism.

true. the tea party movement started on good principles, attracted the right wing rabble, and became the punching bag for left wing morons.

the tea party was started by a bunch of people who were just mad, disconnected and a little dumb... the govt, even tho a lot of them depend on it for the programs they rail against, seemed like a good target. out of control spending is a well tested phrase and 'tea party' has some good symbolism attached. you look at the cross tabs dissecting demographics and against their opinions and you really start to question what exactly they're thinking. would love to see multiple political parties emerge, and i know these people mean well, but their 'movement' is a hypocritical mess.

"the tea party movement started on good principles, attracted the right wing rabble"

The latter was always the plan, the former was as much lip service as offered by every other Republican politician.

I think it split into two parts when some intelligent people were talking about the dangers of Keynesianism and some idiots thought they were talking about Kenyans.

I don't tend to visit the local meet-ups, but the people they apparently run for office (which matter more to me) are the latter sort.

The disappearance of visible intelligence from the right doesn't justify your leftist position (or the implication of it). An unprincipled competent does more evil than a principled incompetent.

you might as well just call us libtards and be done with it.

Eh, it's more interesting than insulting. I'd be sincerely fascinated to know what they would do with the "rabble", and why they believe that the "rabble" wasn't being targeted by these "no waste" but assuredly nonsecular candidates.

Neither does collectivism.

I'm not making any promises here, it'd probably be better if the fiscal AND SOCIAL libertarians worked on their own party than rebranding and being fully digested by the battered Republican or Dem parties. The Dems, to their "credit", don't promise to be civil libertarians either.

"The Dems, to their "credit", don't promise to be civil libertarians either."

Only 1 or 2 republicans are talking about civil liberties but they are being disproportionately effective. Transforming an existing party is the only realistic direction, given the control the 2 parties have over the process. The activist dems are probably silenced by the success of the mainstream dems.

You say that as if any Tea Party candidate has actually espoused anything that truly constitutes limited government. _delirium more or less summed it up. Why don't you actually read his Wikipedia page to see what I'm talking about instead of repeating really boring quips.

You'll note my comment implies that I like actual libertarianism and just not the crap that the Tea Partiers go around calling libertarianism.

Why don't you read more than just his Wikipedia page?

Do you really like actual libertarianism? You know, judging people in categorized groups instead of as individuals isn't very libertarian of you.

"judging people in categorized groups instead of as individuals isn't very libertarian of you"

I think you're conflating Randian philosophy with greater Libertarianism.

>Why don't you read more than just his Wikipedia page?

Because reading it is enough to know that he doesn't fit the bill of a libertarian?

>Do you really like actual libertarianism?

Yes?

>judging people in categorized groups instead of as individuals isn't very libertarian of you.

Haha, what is your point? Make one instead of just trying to find something to argue about. Find me a Tea Party candidate that fits the actual definition of a libertarian and then we can talk.