Term limits, flat taxes, strong national and border defense, strong Second Amendment, and the vote only to people who pay taxes (though, contra Neal Boortz’s position quoted at that link, it should still be one person, one vote). And then if you want to let the government buy your vote (literally: pay you taxpayers’ money so that you then lose your vote), that’s your own funeral.

I used to be against that last, but if we’re really headed into a situation where ever-larger numbers of people will be on the government dole, let them choose between the taxpayers’ money and their ability to vote more of it to themselves. That’s fine.

And as for the name, it’s not much sillier than “whig.”

On second thought, if we allowed only taxpayers to vote, would we need term limits quite so much? If legislators had to run for re-election but didn’t have to bother promising taxpayer handouts to people who couldn’t vote, would we need to limit terms? Feel free to discuss, if anybody’s still reading here.