One of the advantages being non-partisan is that I don't have to strain to support my side. I've promoted Republicans because they at least have a limited government faction, while Democrats don't have a limited government faction and no longer even offer the advantage of non-interventionist foreign policy (if they ever really did) and civil rights.
The current conversation regarding the divide in the GOP between Centrists and Tea Partiers is entertaining from the sidelines. It appears that the David Brooks Center wants to completely sever ties with the Tea Party base. The complaint is that the Tea Party promotes candidates who don't have the political savvy to win. There's also the complaint that these goober Tea Partiers say weird, extreme things about abortion and minorities and gays and such. Apparently, the GOP is stricter than the Democratic Party when it comes to policing their crazies. Maxine Waters can talk about socializing industries with no pushback from leadership, and another Democrat congress person can wonder if a crowded island will tip over and it's ignored -- it was only when Alan Grayson said Dick Cheney had blood dripping from his teeth that Chris Matthews told him that he went too far. When Nancy Pelosi said that enforcement of immigration laws is un-American, I didn't see much handwringing on the Left. When Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Republicans want to drag us back to the Jim Crow days, and that Ryan's budget was a death trap for seniors, it was all overlooked. But, heh, it's a good thing that Republicans want to police the few crazies they have.
The funny thing about the characterizations of the Tea Party GOP is that the Center and the Left claim all TPers crazies, or they at least imply they're all crazies, or goobers or losers, or something negative. Both parties have members who say radical, crazy things -- that's a fact -- but media and most in the political class make a big deal about the few GOP crazies but are basically silent when it comes to the crazy, radical Democrats. The Democratic Party crazies don't seem to hurt the party's ability to get candidates elected, but to hear GOP Centrists talk, the Tea Party has ruined the Republican Party. Rand Paul is supported by the Tea Party, so let's take him as an example.
Paul calls for limits on government power. Paul wants the US to stop intervening willy-nilly overseas. Paul wants the government to cut back on spending. This is the general view of Tea Partiers, although some are more agreeable with foreign interventions. Why are Centrists taking a few crazies on the Right and using these few to define the whole Tea Party movement? The Centrists/Establishment types don't appear to have problems with neocons, but they pillory limited government conservatives. The Centrists say that if Republicans hate government then they can't govern well. The Centrists confuse anti-statism with hatred of government, either purposefully or in ignorance. When someone like Rand Paul dedicates himself to working in government, it's not because he hates government but because he wants government to operate with Constitutional limits. That this desire to operate within Constitutional limits earns the Tea Party disparagement from the GOP establishment reveals a broken GOP.
The Left must snicker to themselves everytime they see some Centrist Republican on MSNBC berating limited government Republicans, amazed at their good fortune that the GOP establishment loves power as much as they do thus are willing to compromise and give Democrats the edge in the battle over the statist system. There's a nascent movement among the public to limit government power, but when politicians get to DC and sell out it makes sticking with the movement and working for change difficult.
As a non-partisan I understand the desire to resist involvement in political battles. I suspect that many people think as I do -- there has to be a way to limit government without playing these political games.