There were many who were challenged by the 2012 campaign by Representative Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign for president. There were unique challenges for both liberals and conservatives as they were forced to confront what they really believe. Now that the campaign is over there is a whole new challenge for libertarians based on the campaign.
His campaign has given new life to the old lie about how libertarians and conservatives have some sort of closeness that excludes liberals and progressives. Because Representative Paul ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party, he somehow demonstrated that libertarians have a home there.
It doesn't matter how poorly Ron Paul was treated through the primary, and how reprehensibly his supporters were treated at the Republican convention. It doesn't matter that Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Paul have nothing in common ideologically, or how much Governor Romney and President Obama do have in common. It doesn't matter how Ron Paul's ideas were kept out of discussion through the whole process from first debate to convention close.
None of that matters. All that matters is that Ron Paul has an "R" after his name. The fact that he ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party is proof of that closeness. Never mind that in order to have a reasonable chance at victory he had to run in some major party - that he ran in a major party proves that there is some special affinity for the major party he ran in.
Since the argument being made is not a logical argument, there is no logical counter-argument. One could point out how much Ron Paul was at odds with his own party. One could point out how he wasn't even given a speaking spot at the convention. One could point out how he had to fight for speaking time at the debates. One could even point out how Romney cheated Paul of his delegates even though Romney didn't need to because his victory was already assured.
This isn't an argument meant to appeal to the intellect. It is an argument meant to appeal to the emotions. There is no counter-argument to be made as a result. Although one can say many good things about the Ron Paul 2012 effort, it also gave new life to the big lie.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Friday, September 28, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Bain Capital
People within the Obama campaign are making comments about Mitt Romney’s involvement with Bain Capital. It is possible that Mitt Romney is much more heavily involved in his company than previously claimed, and that there may be legal grounds to prosecute Mitt Romney for such. Some even comment that the charges may rise to the level of felony.
The question is, if the Obama campaign is confident enough to make these allegations, why is the Obama administration not confident enough to press charges? If there exists sufficient grounds to suspect illegal activity, then there should be sufficient grounds to open an actual investigation into those potential activities.
Of course one could claim that opening up an investigation at this time would be clearly politically motivated. A stronger claim could be made that doing so after the convention, once Mitt Romney is officially the nominee, is politically motivated because to do so then would hamstring the Republican campaign. If an investigation is opened before the primary the Republican Party would have time to recover and potentially select a new candidate.
Another possible interpretation is that those making the claims against Mitt Romney know that sufficient grounds for an investigation do not actually exist, but that the public might become sufficiently convinced that the eventual vote in November can be swayed against him to a degree sufficient that Barack Obama is reelected.
Finally there is a lesser but real chance that there is substance to the accusations, but an actual investigation would not be launched unless it appears that Mitt Romney actually poses a threat to the Obama reelection campaign. Barack Obama won his first office primarily by having his opponents removed from the ballot on technicalities, so this would be in character.
A best case scenario would be if an investigation is launched before the Republican convention, tainting Mitt Romney sufficiently that a new candidate has to be found at the last minute. A sufficiently large number of delegates are either open or stealth supporters of Ron Paul, which would mean he has a very realistic shot at the nomination in that event. Since the Obama campaign is gearing up for a fight with Mitt Romney, this scenario would result in chaos all around. Still, it would be a chaos with a chance of producing a desirable outcome.
The question is, if the Obama campaign is confident enough to make these allegations, why is the Obama administration not confident enough to press charges? If there exists sufficient grounds to suspect illegal activity, then there should be sufficient grounds to open an actual investigation into those potential activities.
Of course one could claim that opening up an investigation at this time would be clearly politically motivated. A stronger claim could be made that doing so after the convention, once Mitt Romney is officially the nominee, is politically motivated because to do so then would hamstring the Republican campaign. If an investigation is opened before the primary the Republican Party would have time to recover and potentially select a new candidate.
Another possible interpretation is that those making the claims against Mitt Romney know that sufficient grounds for an investigation do not actually exist, but that the public might become sufficiently convinced that the eventual vote in November can be swayed against him to a degree sufficient that Barack Obama is reelected.
Finally there is a lesser but real chance that there is substance to the accusations, but an actual investigation would not be launched unless it appears that Mitt Romney actually poses a threat to the Obama reelection campaign. Barack Obama won his first office primarily by having his opponents removed from the ballot on technicalities, so this would be in character.
A best case scenario would be if an investigation is launched before the Republican convention, tainting Mitt Romney sufficiently that a new candidate has to be found at the last minute. A sufficiently large number of delegates are either open or stealth supporters of Ron Paul, which would mean he has a very realistic shot at the nomination in that event. Since the Obama campaign is gearing up for a fight with Mitt Romney, this scenario would result in chaos all around. Still, it would be a chaos with a chance of producing a desirable outcome.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Ron Paul and the Libertarian Dilemma
It does not seem that it should be the case, but the Ron Paul candidacy is actually causing more than a little dissent within libertarian circles. There are more than a few who are not only displeased, but actually oppose his candidacy.
Some, like Classically Liberal Student over at the Classically Liberal Blog do not care for Representative Paul because of an opinion that he is not libertarian enough to warrant support. Although one can disagree with his analysis, it is still a consistent and supportable position to take. And CLS backs up his opinion with very well thought out arguments. This does not mean to say that CLS is a purist, and he has said he is not, it is just that his arguments are that Representative Paul is not sufficiently libertarian on enough issues, and he has taken the time to highlight those issues to present a compelling argument.
But in general it appears that the more radical libertarians are more eager to support Representative Paul, while those in the so-called "reform caucus" seem to be the most opposed to his candidacy. The Facebook group "Stop Ron Paul 2012" which recently became famous for a proposed false flag attack involving members dressing in Klan robes, was founded by a member of the Libertarian Party.
And outside the Libertarian Party, there are others who claim allegiance to the ideas of liberty in a much less radical fashion than the Libertarian Party’s version, such as the Republican Liberty Caucus; after that caucus endorsed Ron Paul the Vice Chair Aaron Bitterman resigned in protest. The Republican Liberty Caucus had been doing nothing for years, but then Ron Paul's 2008 campaign led to an infusion of new and energetic people that revitalized the caucus in spite of the leadership. Then, of course, there is former staffer Eric Dondero who has spent years opposing Ron Paul and claims to be libertarian.
If an argument can be made that Paul isn't libertarian enough for purists, the Reform Caucus should be the most welcoming of Representative Paul. But it seems the radicals are more likely to be friendly to Paul and instead it seems that for more than a few on the reform side he causes them problems. So what about his campaign causes reformers problems? Taking them at their word, he is supposedly an opponent of Israel and isn’t eager enough to use the military to attack Iran.
He takes the most consistently libertarian position possible on foreign affairs; peaceful relations with all, entangling alliances with none. While he doesn't blame the United States for everything, he does blame the United States for the things that the United States is responsible for. He doesn't believe it is the job of the American Tax Payer to pay for the defense of other countries.
Some on the less pure side of the libertarian spectrum have convinced themselves that the job of the United States military is to force people in other countries to be free. The most well known politician with genuine libertarian leanings is, leaving aside any question on purity on other issues, taking the purist radical libertarian position on foreign affairs. He is putting to lie their arguments, exposing their own departures from libertarian thought.
Since he would not give foreign aid to any country, that means he would not give foreign aid to one country in particular. His statements are then taken out of context to show opposition to that one country in particular, and he is called an anti-Semite as a result. His refusal to help any country is portrayed as a hostility to that one country, and then reinterpreted as a support for that country’s enemies.
The arguments used are identical to the arguments these same people oppose when progressives try to accuse libertarians of racism. Exactly like how a progressive starts with "that person disagrees with me" and ends with "that person must be a racist" these anti-Paul libertarians start with "I don't like Ron Paul" and end with "he must be an anti-Semite" or "he must be a racist." The evidence simply doesn't support such a conclusion.
It is pretty obvious what causes progressives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to have to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. It is also pretty obvious what causes conservatives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. The same is true about these libertarians against Ron Paul.
Some, like Classically Liberal Student over at the Classically Liberal Blog do not care for Representative Paul because of an opinion that he is not libertarian enough to warrant support. Although one can disagree with his analysis, it is still a consistent and supportable position to take. And CLS backs up his opinion with very well thought out arguments. This does not mean to say that CLS is a purist, and he has said he is not, it is just that his arguments are that Representative Paul is not sufficiently libertarian on enough issues, and he has taken the time to highlight those issues to present a compelling argument.
But in general it appears that the more radical libertarians are more eager to support Representative Paul, while those in the so-called "reform caucus" seem to be the most opposed to his candidacy. The Facebook group "Stop Ron Paul 2012" which recently became famous for a proposed false flag attack involving members dressing in Klan robes, was founded by a member of the Libertarian Party.
And outside the Libertarian Party, there are others who claim allegiance to the ideas of liberty in a much less radical fashion than the Libertarian Party’s version, such as the Republican Liberty Caucus; after that caucus endorsed Ron Paul the Vice Chair Aaron Bitterman resigned in protest. The Republican Liberty Caucus had been doing nothing for years, but then Ron Paul's 2008 campaign led to an infusion of new and energetic people that revitalized the caucus in spite of the leadership. Then, of course, there is former staffer Eric Dondero who has spent years opposing Ron Paul and claims to be libertarian.
If an argument can be made that Paul isn't libertarian enough for purists, the Reform Caucus should be the most welcoming of Representative Paul. But it seems the radicals are more likely to be friendly to Paul and instead it seems that for more than a few on the reform side he causes them problems. So what about his campaign causes reformers problems? Taking them at their word, he is supposedly an opponent of Israel and isn’t eager enough to use the military to attack Iran.
He takes the most consistently libertarian position possible on foreign affairs; peaceful relations with all, entangling alliances with none. While he doesn't blame the United States for everything, he does blame the United States for the things that the United States is responsible for. He doesn't believe it is the job of the American Tax Payer to pay for the defense of other countries.
Some on the less pure side of the libertarian spectrum have convinced themselves that the job of the United States military is to force people in other countries to be free. The most well known politician with genuine libertarian leanings is, leaving aside any question on purity on other issues, taking the purist radical libertarian position on foreign affairs. He is putting to lie their arguments, exposing their own departures from libertarian thought.
Since he would not give foreign aid to any country, that means he would not give foreign aid to one country in particular. His statements are then taken out of context to show opposition to that one country in particular, and he is called an anti-Semite as a result. His refusal to help any country is portrayed as a hostility to that one country, and then reinterpreted as a support for that country’s enemies.
The arguments used are identical to the arguments these same people oppose when progressives try to accuse libertarians of racism. Exactly like how a progressive starts with "that person disagrees with me" and ends with "that person must be a racist" these anti-Paul libertarians start with "I don't like Ron Paul" and end with "he must be an anti-Semite" or "he must be a racist." The evidence simply doesn't support such a conclusion.
It is pretty obvious what causes progressives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to have to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. It is also pretty obvious what causes conservatives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. The same is true about these libertarians against Ron Paul.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ron Paul and the Conservative Dilemma
If conservatives mean what they say, then Ron Paul would be the ideal candidate for them. He is the only candidate in the Republican presidential race that actually means it when he talks about reducing the reach and scope of government.
According to the Nolan Chart, it is expected that conservatives and libertarians will be divided on social issues, but in this campaign social issues are not at the forefront. The most pressing issues of the day are the ongoing wars and the Greater Depression
The war is big in the Republican Party, of course, and that will make Representative Paul stand out. But when asked about that issue at a recent debate he could have answered "I don't think I’m outside the mainstream. Sixty to seventy percent of this country is tired of these wars. The Republican Party lost control of the congress and the presidency because of support of these wars, and only regained the House because of how bad Obamacare is." It would have used his stand on the wars to good effect.
The economic issue is actually the critical issue to examine. As is demonstrated but not commonly known, conservatives are not interested in laissez faire, in spite of their reputation otherwise. From the first predecessor party, the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton, to today under the Republican Party, the one constant has been an economic ideology of government intervention on behalf of large businesses.
President Bush and Senator McCain both supported the bailouts, while Representative Paul opposed them. The bailouts weren't welfare programs for the poor, as is generally favored by the Democrats, they were welfare programs for the rich as has always been favored by Republicans.
This is the real reason why Republicans dislike his position on other issues, such as the foreign wars and the drug wars. Foreign wars mean lush, lucrative government contracts for munitions manufacture. The drug war means even more lush, lucrative government contracts for police enforcement activities. It isn't about winning either war, it is about the same mercantilism that started under Hamilton but carried to a degree even he would have been appalled at.
If Representative Paul were to become president, the practice of the politically connected becoming wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer would be severely curtailed.
In spite of all the “small government” rhetoric, conservatives never meant a single word of it. Representative Paul does mean it. That presents a dilemma to conservatives, similar to the one presented to progressives - he makes them confront what they really believe, and they do not like finding out what it is they really believe. They blame him for being forced to find out. If a ray of light shines on a pigsty, is it the fault of the ray of light that what we see is so bad? The guilty conscience of a conservative causes them to give the say answer of "yes" that the progressives give as well.
According to the Nolan Chart, it is expected that conservatives and libertarians will be divided on social issues, but in this campaign social issues are not at the forefront. The most pressing issues of the day are the ongoing wars and the Greater Depression
The war is big in the Republican Party, of course, and that will make Representative Paul stand out. But when asked about that issue at a recent debate he could have answered "I don't think I’m outside the mainstream. Sixty to seventy percent of this country is tired of these wars. The Republican Party lost control of the congress and the presidency because of support of these wars, and only regained the House because of how bad Obamacare is." It would have used his stand on the wars to good effect.
The economic issue is actually the critical issue to examine. As is demonstrated but not commonly known, conservatives are not interested in laissez faire, in spite of their reputation otherwise. From the first predecessor party, the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton, to today under the Republican Party, the one constant has been an economic ideology of government intervention on behalf of large businesses.
President Bush and Senator McCain both supported the bailouts, while Representative Paul opposed them. The bailouts weren't welfare programs for the poor, as is generally favored by the Democrats, they were welfare programs for the rich as has always been favored by Republicans.
This is the real reason why Republicans dislike his position on other issues, such as the foreign wars and the drug wars. Foreign wars mean lush, lucrative government contracts for munitions manufacture. The drug war means even more lush, lucrative government contracts for police enforcement activities. It isn't about winning either war, it is about the same mercantilism that started under Hamilton but carried to a degree even he would have been appalled at.
If Representative Paul were to become president, the practice of the politically connected becoming wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer would be severely curtailed.
In spite of all the “small government” rhetoric, conservatives never meant a single word of it. Representative Paul does mean it. That presents a dilemma to conservatives, similar to the one presented to progressives - he makes them confront what they really believe, and they do not like finding out what it is they really believe. They blame him for being forced to find out. If a ray of light shines on a pigsty, is it the fault of the ray of light that what we see is so bad? The guilty conscience of a conservative causes them to give the say answer of "yes" that the progressives give as well.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Why Republicans Must Choose Ron Paul
Every single election, the Republicans make the same sales pitch to independent libertarian voters: this election is so critical, support us in this, and maybe later once the enemy is defeated we can maybe support issues that are important to you.
It is an offer that will never be reciprocated. In the odd even that a Libertarian candidate is the stronger candidate, the Republican Party has no intention of ever supporting that candidate. Although Massachusetts senate races are usually decided by a 2-1 ratio in favor of the Democrat candidate, in 2002 when there was no Republican candidate the Libertarian candidate only received 18% of the vote. There is no evidence of Republican support.
Progressives like to make rhetorical use of the alleged sympathy between libertarians and conservatives, and one of their few offered proofs is Ron Paul and his election to the House of Representatives as a Republican instead of as a Libertarian or Democrat. The treatment of Representative Paul by the Republican Party should be sufficient disproof of that point, but facts do not interfere with that rhetorical usage.
Further disproof of that sympathy is shown by the upcoming Iowa caucus. The Republican Party leadership has come out strongly against Ron Paul winning that caucus, to the point where they have threatened to strip Iowa of their "first in the nation" status if Paul wins, and have even moved the counting over alleged threats from Occupy.
If Representative Paul does win Iowa, the threats are there for the whole Republican establishment to come out and attack him. It is unknown what will happen if Representative Paul manages to pick up a majority of delegates, although it does appear they have a plan in place to discount the effect of all delegates from early states.
If the nomination is actually stolen from Representative Paul, if it is given to Mitt Romney, that would be an absolute proof that the "big tent" ceased to exist years ago and that the whole "Libertarian Republican" meme is nothing but a charade designed to fool libertarians into wasting their votes with Republicans and to give rhetorical ammunition to progressives.
If the Republicans want to keep up the sales pitch to libertarians, they have to allow Representative Paul to win. The alternative is to stop pretending there is a big tent, to stop pretending that there is anything in common between libertarianism and the Republican Party, and to lose the race by losing Ron Paul. If the Republican Party wants a future, they must choose Ron Paul.
It is an offer that will never be reciprocated. In the odd even that a Libertarian candidate is the stronger candidate, the Republican Party has no intention of ever supporting that candidate. Although Massachusetts senate races are usually decided by a 2-1 ratio in favor of the Democrat candidate, in 2002 when there was no Republican candidate the Libertarian candidate only received 18% of the vote. There is no evidence of Republican support.
Progressives like to make rhetorical use of the alleged sympathy between libertarians and conservatives, and one of their few offered proofs is Ron Paul and his election to the House of Representatives as a Republican instead of as a Libertarian or Democrat. The treatment of Representative Paul by the Republican Party should be sufficient disproof of that point, but facts do not interfere with that rhetorical usage.
Further disproof of that sympathy is shown by the upcoming Iowa caucus. The Republican Party leadership has come out strongly against Ron Paul winning that caucus, to the point where they have threatened to strip Iowa of their "first in the nation" status if Paul wins, and have even moved the counting over alleged threats from Occupy.
If Representative Paul does win Iowa, the threats are there for the whole Republican establishment to come out and attack him. It is unknown what will happen if Representative Paul manages to pick up a majority of delegates, although it does appear they have a plan in place to discount the effect of all delegates from early states.
If the nomination is actually stolen from Representative Paul, if it is given to Mitt Romney, that would be an absolute proof that the "big tent" ceased to exist years ago and that the whole "Libertarian Republican" meme is nothing but a charade designed to fool libertarians into wasting their votes with Republicans and to give rhetorical ammunition to progressives.
If the Republicans want to keep up the sales pitch to libertarians, they have to allow Representative Paul to win. The alternative is to stop pretending there is a big tent, to stop pretending that there is anything in common between libertarianism and the Republican Party, and to lose the race by losing Ron Paul. If the Republican Party wants a future, they must choose Ron Paul.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Don't do it Gary
Right now there is intense speculation (in libertarian circles) about Republican Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson and a possible move from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party to seek the presidential nomination.
That would be a bad idea.
Yes, Governor Johnson has reason to feel slighted. The press is giving much more coverage to all the other two-term governor candidates than to Governor Johnson, and he is being snubbed from the debates in spite of having polling numbers similar to other two-term governor candidates. The second debate that he was invited to was to see if the press could get him to attack Representative Ron Paul on who is more libertarian, and when Governor Johnson refused to play that game the press lost all interest.
Governor Johnson entered the race hoping to be the "Ron Paul of 2012" but when Representative Paul entered the race the two had to compete for the same initial slice of support, donations, and votes. While followers of one would generally be content with the other, a choice had to be made factoring in both the credentials of the candidates and the likelihood of making it through the primaries. The public settled on Representative Paul as the one most likely to have an impact in the 2012 race.
But that is not a reason to quit. Representative Paul has indicated that if he does not receive the nomination in 2012 he will retire from politics. If Governor Johnson sticks through with the Republican Party he can go in four years from ignored to a prominent voice, much the way Representative Paul did from 2007 to 2011. He will have shown the determination to pick up where Representative Paul has left off and move forward from there.
However, if he leaves to join the Libertarian Party and seek the presidential nomination there are many problems associated with doing so. The first of such problems is that the Libertarian Party is NOT a dumping ground for disaffected Republicans. The Libertarian Party of Alaska was wise enough to say no to Lisa Murkowski, and the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island was wise enough to say no to Daniel Gordon.
But the Libertarian Party was not wise enough to rebuff conservative Bob Barr, with whom Governor Johnson will be repeatedly compared. This is a comparison that will not go well considering that Governor Johnson's views on war are reported to be not as pure as those of Representative Paul's views. It is true that Governor Johnson initially supported the war in Afghanistan, but does not currently do so. It is also true that Governor Johnson wants to tie United States foreign policy to another country. A foreign policy of non-intervention is core to libertarianism. Given how both the Republican Party (except for Ron Paul) and the Democratic Party are pro-war, being pro-peace is very critical for anyone who would be as much of a spokesperson as the presidential nominee.
And on the issue of peace and war, the person who appears to be doing the most to bring Governor Johnson into the Libertarian Party is pro-war soi disant libertarian spokesperson Wayne Allyn Root, Bob Barr’s former running mate on the libertarian ticket in 2008. Perhaps Governor Johnson doesn’t know just how controversial Wayne Root is within the Libertarian Party, and how much his endorsement can actually hurt Governor Johnson within the party.
Riding on Bob Barr's coattails and being associated with Wayne Root - that is not the way to make a grand entrance into Libertarian Party politics. Doing so after not gaining ground in the Republican Party does damage to the image of the Libertarian Party with all of the false associations the press creates between the two parties. It would be a bad idea, both for Governor Johnson and for the Libertarian Party, for Governor Johnson to seek the Libertarian Party nomination.
That would be a bad idea.
Yes, Governor Johnson has reason to feel slighted. The press is giving much more coverage to all the other two-term governor candidates than to Governor Johnson, and he is being snubbed from the debates in spite of having polling numbers similar to other two-term governor candidates. The second debate that he was invited to was to see if the press could get him to attack Representative Ron Paul on who is more libertarian, and when Governor Johnson refused to play that game the press lost all interest.
Governor Johnson entered the race hoping to be the "Ron Paul of 2012" but when Representative Paul entered the race the two had to compete for the same initial slice of support, donations, and votes. While followers of one would generally be content with the other, a choice had to be made factoring in both the credentials of the candidates and the likelihood of making it through the primaries. The public settled on Representative Paul as the one most likely to have an impact in the 2012 race.
But that is not a reason to quit. Representative Paul has indicated that if he does not receive the nomination in 2012 he will retire from politics. If Governor Johnson sticks through with the Republican Party he can go in four years from ignored to a prominent voice, much the way Representative Paul did from 2007 to 2011. He will have shown the determination to pick up where Representative Paul has left off and move forward from there.
However, if he leaves to join the Libertarian Party and seek the presidential nomination there are many problems associated with doing so. The first of such problems is that the Libertarian Party is NOT a dumping ground for disaffected Republicans. The Libertarian Party of Alaska was wise enough to say no to Lisa Murkowski, and the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island was wise enough to say no to Daniel Gordon.
But the Libertarian Party was not wise enough to rebuff conservative Bob Barr, with whom Governor Johnson will be repeatedly compared. This is a comparison that will not go well considering that Governor Johnson's views on war are reported to be not as pure as those of Representative Paul's views. It is true that Governor Johnson initially supported the war in Afghanistan, but does not currently do so. It is also true that Governor Johnson wants to tie United States foreign policy to another country. A foreign policy of non-intervention is core to libertarianism. Given how both the Republican Party (except for Ron Paul) and the Democratic Party are pro-war, being pro-peace is very critical for anyone who would be as much of a spokesperson as the presidential nominee.
And on the issue of peace and war, the person who appears to be doing the most to bring Governor Johnson into the Libertarian Party is pro-war soi disant libertarian spokesperson Wayne Allyn Root, Bob Barr’s former running mate on the libertarian ticket in 2008. Perhaps Governor Johnson doesn’t know just how controversial Wayne Root is within the Libertarian Party, and how much his endorsement can actually hurt Governor Johnson within the party.
Riding on Bob Barr's coattails and being associated with Wayne Root - that is not the way to make a grand entrance into Libertarian Party politics. Doing so after not gaining ground in the Republican Party does damage to the image of the Libertarian Party with all of the false associations the press creates between the two parties. It would be a bad idea, both for Governor Johnson and for the Libertarian Party, for Governor Johnson to seek the Libertarian Party nomination.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
This is not a victory for Obama
When Senator Obama ran for the presidency he promised, among other things, to end the Iraq war. Upon achieving the office, President Obama made it very clear that he had no intention of keeping that promise. It was the peace vote that formed a very solid vote in his favor, even though Candidate Obama had promised to escalate hostilities in Afghanistan. He did promise to end the occupation of Iraq, and won a Nobel Peace Prize for the achievement of being someone other than George W. Bush.
The final insult to those who vainly supported President Obama in the hope that he might, eventually, possibly keep his Iraq promise was when he declared that all "combat troops" were leaving Iraq, and that the 50,000 remaining troops were "non-combat troops." It was a clear signal that President Obama had absolutely no intention of even pretending to end the occupation of Iraq.
Since then, the Iraqi government has directed the United States government to withdraw all troops.
This puts the United States government in an awkward position. The rhetoric is that the current government of Iraq is legitimate and democratically elected. This legitimate and democratic government voted that the United States military should depart. If the United States government refuses the directive it puts to lie many of the already shallow claims about the Iraq war.
So in spite of not wanting troops to depart, in spite of all his efforts to keep troops in Iraq, President Obama has reluctantly decided to declare victory instead. He is claiming that he worked to keep his campaign promise, when the truth is that the promise was kept in spite of his best efforts otherwise.
The broader implications of this move are yet to be determined, as Iraq is a central launching ground for attacks throughout most of the Middle East and obviously a front in the evitable war with Iran.
Sadly, most of the Republican candidates will likely not only allow the lie by President Obama, but will encourage it. Their rhetoric will be that President Obama withdrew troops too early and is leaving behind a fragile Iraq, so that they may appear to be strong and determined on foreign use of the military. Only one candidate, Ron Paul, has the credentials to actually challenge President Obama on the actual facts of the Iraq withdrawal.
It is a good thing that the Iraq war is finally ending. It is unfortunate that President Obama will get credit for achieving that which he opposed simply because he happened to be in office at the right time.
The final insult to those who vainly supported President Obama in the hope that he might, eventually, possibly keep his Iraq promise was when he declared that all "combat troops" were leaving Iraq, and that the 50,000 remaining troops were "non-combat troops." It was a clear signal that President Obama had absolutely no intention of even pretending to end the occupation of Iraq.
Since then, the Iraqi government has directed the United States government to withdraw all troops.
This puts the United States government in an awkward position. The rhetoric is that the current government of Iraq is legitimate and democratically elected. This legitimate and democratic government voted that the United States military should depart. If the United States government refuses the directive it puts to lie many of the already shallow claims about the Iraq war.
So in spite of not wanting troops to depart, in spite of all his efforts to keep troops in Iraq, President Obama has reluctantly decided to declare victory instead. He is claiming that he worked to keep his campaign promise, when the truth is that the promise was kept in spite of his best efforts otherwise.
The broader implications of this move are yet to be determined, as Iraq is a central launching ground for attacks throughout most of the Middle East and obviously a front in the evitable war with Iran.
Sadly, most of the Republican candidates will likely not only allow the lie by President Obama, but will encourage it. Their rhetoric will be that President Obama withdrew troops too early and is leaving behind a fragile Iraq, so that they may appear to be strong and determined on foreign use of the military. Only one candidate, Ron Paul, has the credentials to actually challenge President Obama on the actual facts of the Iraq withdrawal.
It is a good thing that the Iraq war is finally ending. It is unfortunate that President Obama will get credit for achieving that which he opposed simply because he happened to be in office at the right time.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
The Progressives Did It to Themselves
It is a rather humorous take on Occupy Wall Street - the corporations control the government, so therefore we need more government to control the corporations. It would seem to indicate a flaw in progressive thinking, if the goal of progressivism was to regulate the economy for the benefit of the people.
But a look at history, when liberals and progressives were considered to be something different instead of today's misunderstanding which considers them the same, reveals a different picture of what progressives stand for and why.
When the so-called "Gilded Age" gave way to the "Progressive Era" the succession of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft show the actual motives of the progressives, and why they actually sought to increase government power in spite of claims that it was for the good of the masses.
A significant portion of United States history can be explained by the conflict between the Rockefeller family and the Morgan family, with each family backing political candidates. The goal was to use the government to attack the interests of the other. Theodore Roosevelt was sponsored by, and acted for, the Morgan family. William McKinley and William Howard Taft were candidates of the Rockefeller family.
With all three, the appeal was made to give the government more regulatory powers, while the motive was to use those powers to attack the interests of the other family.
Libertarians and progressives both have a product to sell, and the target audience of both is liberals. Right now progressives are the more successful salesmen. They know how to frame their ideas in terms that appeal to liberals. They are able to frame the issues more successfully, because control for the sake of control isn't a liberal value.
The combination of Occupy Wall Street and Ron Paul preparing to face Barack Obama in the general election has thrown the whole issue of progressivism's true values into sharp relief. It is getting harder and harder for progressives to sell their poisoned product to liberals, and that is why progressives really are more terrified of libertarianism than ever before and so staunchly oppose the candidacy of Ron Paul.
But a look at history, when liberals and progressives were considered to be something different instead of today's misunderstanding which considers them the same, reveals a different picture of what progressives stand for and why.
When the so-called "Gilded Age" gave way to the "Progressive Era" the succession of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft show the actual motives of the progressives, and why they actually sought to increase government power in spite of claims that it was for the good of the masses.
A significant portion of United States history can be explained by the conflict between the Rockefeller family and the Morgan family, with each family backing political candidates. The goal was to use the government to attack the interests of the other. Theodore Roosevelt was sponsored by, and acted for, the Morgan family. William McKinley and William Howard Taft were candidates of the Rockefeller family.
With all three, the appeal was made to give the government more regulatory powers, while the motive was to use those powers to attack the interests of the other family.
Libertarians and progressives both have a product to sell, and the target audience of both is liberals. Right now progressives are the more successful salesmen. They know how to frame their ideas in terms that appeal to liberals. They are able to frame the issues more successfully, because control for the sake of control isn't a liberal value.
The combination of Occupy Wall Street and Ron Paul preparing to face Barack Obama in the general election has thrown the whole issue of progressivism's true values into sharp relief. It is getting harder and harder for progressives to sell their poisoned product to liberals, and that is why progressives really are more terrified of libertarianism than ever before and so staunchly oppose the candidacy of Ron Paul.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
The Democrat Argument for Ron Paul
If one must waste their vote by voting for a major party candidate instead of a third party candidate, there is no law saying that one must do so in an unintelligent manner. It still can pay to be smart and think ahead.
Most people who vote major party do not do that. Comments such as "I hope Bachmann wins because that would mean an easy victory for Obama" are common enough. The problem with such a wish is that it can too easily backfire. People saying such a thing should remember that whoever wins the Republican nomination does stand a good chance of winning the presidency.
It is therefore much smarter to hope that the best person wins the Republican nomination instead of the worst person. And if both parties are having a primary, as happened in 2008, it is better to hope that the best person in each race wins so that no matter which party wins the ultimate winner is better than he would otherwise be.
Although there are plenty of short-sighted reasons for the Democrats to support various candidates, the list of candidates that a Democrat could positively support is much shorter. It comes down to two candidates; Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Which candidate the Democrat should choose depends on whether the Democrat is a liberal or a progressive.
Progressives, if thinking strategically, would prefer Governor Romney. He is typical of a "moderate Republican" in that he supports the worst aspects of both the Republican agenda and the Democrat agenda.
Liberals, on the other hand, have every reason to support Representative Paul. He wants to end the wars in the Middle East. He would achieve the greatest advancement in civil rights since granting minorities the right to vote by ending the war on drugs. Although he is pro life, he would do more for guaranteeing the right to choose by sending the issue back to the states than either Romney or Obama. But most importantly he will end the wars, bring the troops home, and stop wasting money spent on these adventures, money that is currently being taken from the poor through inflation.
Democrats can influence who will be the Republican nominee, and if they honestly assess what they stand for they should admit that Ron Paul actually is the best in the Republican field. An honest answer should be "if we have to have a Republican as President, then it might as well be Ron Paul." For that reason they should help him win instead of participating in the blackout.
Most people who vote major party do not do that. Comments such as "I hope Bachmann wins because that would mean an easy victory for Obama" are common enough. The problem with such a wish is that it can too easily backfire. People saying such a thing should remember that whoever wins the Republican nomination does stand a good chance of winning the presidency.
It is therefore much smarter to hope that the best person wins the Republican nomination instead of the worst person. And if both parties are having a primary, as happened in 2008, it is better to hope that the best person in each race wins so that no matter which party wins the ultimate winner is better than he would otherwise be.
Although there are plenty of short-sighted reasons for the Democrats to support various candidates, the list of candidates that a Democrat could positively support is much shorter. It comes down to two candidates; Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Which candidate the Democrat should choose depends on whether the Democrat is a liberal or a progressive.
Progressives, if thinking strategically, would prefer Governor Romney. He is typical of a "moderate Republican" in that he supports the worst aspects of both the Republican agenda and the Democrat agenda.
Liberals, on the other hand, have every reason to support Representative Paul. He wants to end the wars in the Middle East. He would achieve the greatest advancement in civil rights since granting minorities the right to vote by ending the war on drugs. Although he is pro life, he would do more for guaranteeing the right to choose by sending the issue back to the states than either Romney or Obama. But most importantly he will end the wars, bring the troops home, and stop wasting money spent on these adventures, money that is currently being taken from the poor through inflation.
Democrats can influence who will be the Republican nominee, and if they honestly assess what they stand for they should admit that Ron Paul actually is the best in the Republican field. An honest answer should be "if we have to have a Republican as President, then it might as well be Ron Paul." For that reason they should help him win instead of participating in the blackout.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Ron Paul and the Progressive Dilemma
There have been a series of articles explaining exactly why Ron Paul should appeal to progressives, and counter-arguments by liberals and progressives as to why Ron Paul should not appeal to them.
Given that Ron Paul is not the leading Republican candidate, that the nomination is more likely to go to Mitt Romney, then why is there so much frenzy, both for and against, for Ron Paul?
There are two potential reasons. The first is that it actually is possible that Ron Paul will win the Republican Party nomination. He is the true second place candidate in the primary in spite of being eclipsed by various temporary other "flavor of the month" candidates.
The other reason is, for all the reasons explained by Charlie Davis, he does have reason to appeal to liberals. Charlie Davis uses the word "progressive" but there are reasons why “liberal” would be a better term.
Some people are led by their ideology to choose a political party, and because they are idealists are willing to reject the party when the party strays from what it is supposed to stand for. Some people are led by their party to choose an ideology, and if the party changes they change along with it. For some, ideas come first. For others, power and party come first.
Because of all the reasons detailed by those authors who wrote in favor of Ron Paul, he has some very strong appeal to those who place ideas as their primary motivation. And Barack Obama has very weak appeal to those same people. He could easily enough steal the support of those idealists from the Democratic Party where they are more often found, and therefore away from Barack Obama.
Those who place party first recognize this as a very real threat. Since their primary motivation is victory for their party, they are out to nullify Ron Paul before he becomes an actual threat. And that means convincing independents and Democrats that they have no reason to vote in Republican primaries for him.
- The Progressive Critique of Ron Paul: He Isn't Libertarian Enough
- Why Do Some Progressives Support Ron Paul, Even Though He Is Anti-Woman, Anti-Civil Rights, and Anti-Equality?
- I'll take the reactionary over the murderer, thanks
- 5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution -- 'Cuddly' Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics
- Ron Paul hates women and minorities; Obama just kills and imprisons them
Given that Ron Paul is not the leading Republican candidate, that the nomination is more likely to go to Mitt Romney, then why is there so much frenzy, both for and against, for Ron Paul?
There are two potential reasons. The first is that it actually is possible that Ron Paul will win the Republican Party nomination. He is the true second place candidate in the primary in spite of being eclipsed by various temporary other "flavor of the month" candidates.
The other reason is, for all the reasons explained by Charlie Davis, he does have reason to appeal to liberals. Charlie Davis uses the word "progressive" but there are reasons why “liberal” would be a better term.
Some people are led by their ideology to choose a political party, and because they are idealists are willing to reject the party when the party strays from what it is supposed to stand for. Some people are led by their party to choose an ideology, and if the party changes they change along with it. For some, ideas come first. For others, power and party come first.
Because of all the reasons detailed by those authors who wrote in favor of Ron Paul, he has some very strong appeal to those who place ideas as their primary motivation. And Barack Obama has very weak appeal to those same people. He could easily enough steal the support of those idealists from the Democratic Party where they are more often found, and therefore away from Barack Obama.
Those who place party first recognize this as a very real threat. Since their primary motivation is victory for their party, they are out to nullify Ron Paul before he becomes an actual threat. And that means convincing independents and Democrats that they have no reason to vote in Republican primaries for him.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Analysis of the June 13th Republican Debate
Sorry this is so late, the outside world is rather hectic right now.
Romney's performance was adequate enough to establish that he's still the front runner. He neither gained nor lost ground, and that technically counts as a victory for him.
The debate organizers left out Johnson. He is a former two term governor, like Pawlenty. They included a former two term governor, a former two term senator, and a congresswoman who has just started her third term and hadn't even officially declared yet - she declared AT the debate. Gary Johnson’s inclusion would have provided a nice counterpoint to Ron Paul as happened in the previous debate, with one arguing theory and the other arguing practicality for the same points.
Gingrich did little to advance himself; he won't last long given that his whole staff just quit. He gave some muddled answers about whether he likes or dislikes the Ryan plan. He's the most hawkish candidate, but that's not a huge achievement since the GOP has mellowed just a little on wars.
Cain is starting to give disturbing answers. He really is in favor of having no Muslims on his cabinet unless he knows for sure they are loyal, but insisted he was misquoted on loyalty tests. Then he said he would restructure Social Security they way it was done in Chile. That's a position many libertarians will not appreciate, since free market libertarians are always given broad-brush blame for what monetarists (not libertarians) did there in cooperation with dictator Pinochet. If he continues that answer will come to haunt him..
Bachmann was a surprise. Given what is commonly said of her by political commentators, a viewer could be excused for expecting guttural grunts as her means of communication. Instead she not only used complete sentences, she seems smarter than Palin with whom she is commonly compared.
On gay rights issues there were two big questions.
First, would the candidate interfere if a state passed a law allowing gay marriage, would the candidate support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Some said they would interfere and would support such an amendment. Ron Paul of course said he wouldn't interfere and went even further and said get the government out of marriage.
Second, DADT is going away. Would the candidate overturn the repeal or would the candidate leave it as is. There were several who said they would overturn it. Ron Paul is good with DADT being gone. Two for two, he is better on gay rights than Obama, and that is certain to annoy a few progressives. Bachmann and Pawlenty both came out strongly anti-gay.
Most of the candidates, except Newt and Santorum, have mellowed on the war, making hat tips to Ron Paul on that that. There were also a few hat tips on economic matters such as the bailouts. He is very much the second place candidate against Romney.
Romney's performance was adequate enough to establish that he's still the front runner. He neither gained nor lost ground, and that technically counts as a victory for him.
The debate organizers left out Johnson. He is a former two term governor, like Pawlenty. They included a former two term governor, a former two term senator, and a congresswoman who has just started her third term and hadn't even officially declared yet - she declared AT the debate. Gary Johnson’s inclusion would have provided a nice counterpoint to Ron Paul as happened in the previous debate, with one arguing theory and the other arguing practicality for the same points.
Gingrich did little to advance himself; he won't last long given that his whole staff just quit. He gave some muddled answers about whether he likes or dislikes the Ryan plan. He's the most hawkish candidate, but that's not a huge achievement since the GOP has mellowed just a little on wars.
Cain is starting to give disturbing answers. He really is in favor of having no Muslims on his cabinet unless he knows for sure they are loyal, but insisted he was misquoted on loyalty tests. Then he said he would restructure Social Security they way it was done in Chile. That's a position many libertarians will not appreciate, since free market libertarians are always given broad-brush blame for what monetarists (not libertarians) did there in cooperation with dictator Pinochet. If he continues that answer will come to haunt him..
Bachmann was a surprise. Given what is commonly said of her by political commentators, a viewer could be excused for expecting guttural grunts as her means of communication. Instead she not only used complete sentences, she seems smarter than Palin with whom she is commonly compared.
On gay rights issues there were two big questions.
First, would the candidate interfere if a state passed a law allowing gay marriage, would the candidate support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Some said they would interfere and would support such an amendment. Ron Paul of course said he wouldn't interfere and went even further and said get the government out of marriage.
Second, DADT is going away. Would the candidate overturn the repeal or would the candidate leave it as is. There were several who said they would overturn it. Ron Paul is good with DADT being gone. Two for two, he is better on gay rights than Obama, and that is certain to annoy a few progressives. Bachmann and Pawlenty both came out strongly anti-gay.
Most of the candidates, except Newt and Santorum, have mellowed on the war, making hat tips to Ron Paul on that that. There were also a few hat tips on economic matters such as the bailouts. He is very much the second place candidate against Romney.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Why Rand Paul?
The libertarian opinion of Randall Paul can be stated pretty simply.
Libertarians could be wrong about him; he could actually be more radical than his father, or he could fail to demonstrate the promise he has shown so far. His vote against renewing the USAPATRIOT Act and his proposed $500 billion budget cuts that included the entire Iraq War and the entire Afghanistan War are not anything that libertarians would complain about.
So why then does there appear to be a more extreme reaction to Randall Paul among the liberal punditry? Even Rational Wiki expresses greater skepticism towards Randall Paul than to Ron Paul as evidenced by the tone of their articles.
Part of it could be that Randall Paul has a stronger Tea Party affiliation. While the Tea Party movement was started by Ron Paul, he is no longer a part of it while Randall Paul was elected as a part of that movement. That would give liberals two criticisms against him, libertarianism AND the Tea Party.
But that is not sufficient to explain the hysteria over Randall Paul. The reason they are so hysterical is because he really is a greater threat.
Even though Ron Paul's ideas are rapidly becoming mainstream, he still suffers from the stigma of being considered a kook for so many years by those who tell the public what to think. Randall Paul is too new to have been stigmatized. Moreover, since the Republicans are trying to absorb the Tea Party movement, the Republicans cannot criticize the star candidate of that movement. Since Republicans have to be silent, lest they lose on their effort with regards to the Tea Party, that leaves Democrats to have to bear the entire burden of telling everyone how they should feel about Randall Paul.
Ron Paul is also near the end of his political career. If he does run for president, his age would be a great liability. Randall Paul does not have that problem. He is not only a lot younger, he has already achieved much higher office than his father did. Even if he is more moderate than his father, he's in a position to achieve much more, and to go even father than he has already gone.
Democrats have to do this on their own without Republican help. The ideas of the Pauls are more mainstream than ever. Randall is a Senator poised to go much farther and do much more. Even though he might be more moderate than his father, he is poised to do far more for liberty than his father did. No wonder the left is hysterical.
"So far he appears to be not as good as his father, but still shows lots of promise and is poised to be the best person in the Senate. So far he appears to not be as libertarian as Ron Paul, but is still demonstrating that he has some good solid leanings in that direction for as little time as he has been in the spotlight."
Libertarians could be wrong about him; he could actually be more radical than his father, or he could fail to demonstrate the promise he has shown so far. His vote against renewing the USAPATRIOT Act and his proposed $500 billion budget cuts that included the entire Iraq War and the entire Afghanistan War are not anything that libertarians would complain about.
So why then does there appear to be a more extreme reaction to Randall Paul among the liberal punditry? Even Rational Wiki expresses greater skepticism towards Randall Paul than to Ron Paul as evidenced by the tone of their articles.
Part of it could be that Randall Paul has a stronger Tea Party affiliation. While the Tea Party movement was started by Ron Paul, he is no longer a part of it while Randall Paul was elected as a part of that movement. That would give liberals two criticisms against him, libertarianism AND the Tea Party.
But that is not sufficient to explain the hysteria over Randall Paul. The reason they are so hysterical is because he really is a greater threat.
Even though Ron Paul's ideas are rapidly becoming mainstream, he still suffers from the stigma of being considered a kook for so many years by those who tell the public what to think. Randall Paul is too new to have been stigmatized. Moreover, since the Republicans are trying to absorb the Tea Party movement, the Republicans cannot criticize the star candidate of that movement. Since Republicans have to be silent, lest they lose on their effort with regards to the Tea Party, that leaves Democrats to have to bear the entire burden of telling everyone how they should feel about Randall Paul.
Ron Paul is also near the end of his political career. If he does run for president, his age would be a great liability. Randall Paul does not have that problem. He is not only a lot younger, he has already achieved much higher office than his father did. Even if he is more moderate than his father, he's in a position to achieve much more, and to go even father than he has already gone.
Democrats have to do this on their own without Republican help. The ideas of the Pauls are more mainstream than ever. Randall is a Senator poised to go much farther and do much more. Even though he might be more moderate than his father, he is poised to do far more for liberty than his father did. No wonder the left is hysterical.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Monadnock Valley
One thing that a political party does not want is to be the party in charge during a disaster, especially one that the public considers preventable. An economic downturn is a prime example of this sort of event, where both parties try to take credit for any economic upswing and blame the other for any economic decline.
As bad as the current economic decline has been, something much worse is on the horizon, something that is preventable assuming even a little bit of political courage. Of course, needing a little bit of political courage is exactly why nothing will be done about the bust of Social Security in 2016. So rather than do anything about it, Obama may be playing to lose.
Now it appears that the Republicans may have caught on to that strategy. The Tea Party may have given the Republicans an unexpected victory, which would add yet one more reason for the mainstream Republican Party to dislike the Tea Party movement. But interestingly enough, before the 2010 victory, Republicans were not talking about Sarah Palin as a viable presidential candidate.
This could be an example of "Play to lose will you? Well then, take this: Candidate Palin."
Of course finding political connections between Palin and Soros adds an interesting twist.
But there is one more outcome if the Republicans have also decided to play to lose in 2012. They could pull a Monadnock Valley.
In "The Fountainhead," a con-man hires Howard Roark to build the Monadnock Valley vacation resort. Nobody can figure out what is wrong with the project until it is completed and starts turning a profit. It turned out that the con-man expected to fail and double sold the stock. If the project had failed he would keep the money from the excess stock sail, but since it succeeded he had to pay $2 in dividends for every $1 in profit.
The con-man chose Howard Roark because conventional wisdom said he was the worst architect, but it turned out that conventional wisdom was wrong he was actually the best architect.
The Republicans may wind up picking a “Monadnock candidate" in the 2012 elections. They may pick a candidate who they expect to lose, but will not only win but be able to handle the economic woes afflicting the nation. They wouldn’t handle then in a way that keeps the elite in their privileged positions, but the problems would be taken care of.
Who would be a "Monadnock candidate" if the Republicans did this? It would have to be someone that conventional wisdom considers to be a poor candidate but has the potential to deliver far more than conventional wisdom could ever anticipate. The list is not large, but it includes Representative Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Governor Gary Johnson. Of course, the Democrats probably have their own "Monadnock candidates" but they will probably not run as Obama will likely be the Democrat candidate in 2012.
As bad as the current economic decline has been, something much worse is on the horizon, something that is preventable assuming even a little bit of political courage. Of course, needing a little bit of political courage is exactly why nothing will be done about the bust of Social Security in 2016. So rather than do anything about it, Obama may be playing to lose.
Now it appears that the Republicans may have caught on to that strategy. The Tea Party may have given the Republicans an unexpected victory, which would add yet one more reason for the mainstream Republican Party to dislike the Tea Party movement. But interestingly enough, before the 2010 victory, Republicans were not talking about Sarah Palin as a viable presidential candidate.
This could be an example of "Play to lose will you? Well then, take this: Candidate Palin."
Of course finding political connections between Palin and Soros adds an interesting twist.
But there is one more outcome if the Republicans have also decided to play to lose in 2012. They could pull a Monadnock Valley.
In "The Fountainhead," a con-man hires Howard Roark to build the Monadnock Valley vacation resort. Nobody can figure out what is wrong with the project until it is completed and starts turning a profit. It turned out that the con-man expected to fail and double sold the stock. If the project had failed he would keep the money from the excess stock sail, but since it succeeded he had to pay $2 in dividends for every $1 in profit.
The con-man chose Howard Roark because conventional wisdom said he was the worst architect, but it turned out that conventional wisdom was wrong he was actually the best architect.
The Republicans may wind up picking a “Monadnock candidate" in the 2012 elections. They may pick a candidate who they expect to lose, but will not only win but be able to handle the economic woes afflicting the nation. They wouldn’t handle then in a way that keeps the elite in their privileged positions, but the problems would be taken care of.
Who would be a "Monadnock candidate" if the Republicans did this? It would have to be someone that conventional wisdom considers to be a poor candidate but has the potential to deliver far more than conventional wisdom could ever anticipate. The list is not large, but it includes Representative Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Governor Gary Johnson. Of course, the Democrats probably have their own "Monadnock candidates" but they will probably not run as Obama will likely be the Democrat candidate in 2012.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tea Party Protest History
The first of the modern Tea Party protests took place in 2007. It was a combined event, both a protest against the excessive spending of George W. Bush and a campaign event of presidential candidate Ron Paul. Throughout 2008 more of these combined events occurred.
This is important to remember, because while the current state of the Tea Party movement is such to cause many libertarians and other freedom lovers to be a little cautious of the current Tea Party protests, especially those that emphasize the pseudo-patriotism of the current military misadventures in the Middle East, especially the Tea Party Express AstroTurf movement, the history is still noble.
Currently progressive and liberal critics of the Tea Party movement like to ask the question where the protesters were before February 2009. This is asked in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the protesters by highlighting how they didn’t protest spending under Bush. This allegedly shows that the protests aren’t based on spending but either on partisanship or on alleged (but never proven) racism.
It is true that after the election many people joined the movement who were not in it previously. It is true that many of these late-comers could have their concern described as partisan instead of fiscal, but certainly not all of them. The same can be said about the reduced attendance in anti-war protests since January 2009.
The history of the Tea Party protests is also forgotten by members of the Republican Party trying to absorb the Tea Party protests with false promises of “enemy of my enemy” and “lesser of two evils” who do not want to recall the true origin of the protests. To acknowledge where the protests came from is to acknowledge the dirty secret of Republican fiscal irresponsibility and to lose the audience they wish to capture.
History is inconvenient, and thus forgotten.
This is important to remember, because while the current state of the Tea Party movement is such to cause many libertarians and other freedom lovers to be a little cautious of the current Tea Party protests, especially those that emphasize the pseudo-patriotism of the current military misadventures in the Middle East, especially the Tea Party Express AstroTurf movement, the history is still noble.
Currently progressive and liberal critics of the Tea Party movement like to ask the question where the protesters were before February 2009. This is asked in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the protesters by highlighting how they didn’t protest spending under Bush. This allegedly shows that the protests aren’t based on spending but either on partisanship or on alleged (but never proven) racism.
It is true that after the election many people joined the movement who were not in it previously. It is true that many of these late-comers could have their concern described as partisan instead of fiscal, but certainly not all of them. The same can be said about the reduced attendance in anti-war protests since January 2009.
The history of the Tea Party protests is also forgotten by members of the Republican Party trying to absorb the Tea Party protests with false promises of “enemy of my enemy” and “lesser of two evils” who do not want to recall the true origin of the protests. To acknowledge where the protests came from is to acknowledge the dirty secret of Republican fiscal irresponsibility and to lose the audience they wish to capture.
History is inconvenient, and thus forgotten.
Friday, October 03, 2008
The Party Divide in the Bailout
Now that the bank bailout has been passed it should be obvious to everyone that there are no real differences between the two primary political parties of the United States. Both the presidential candidates voted in favor of the bailout both the times it was presented to the Senate. The voting was not divided along Republican versus Democrat lines. The voting was divided along rank-and-file versus maverick lines.
Those who are not highly regarded by their own parties did not heed the call to vote for the bailout, opting to represent regular Americans instead of their parties and the special interests that control them. These are the Representatives and Senators who seldom get committee assignments and are seldom invited to speak at conventions or other party events.
Those who voted for the bailout represent the mainstreams of both parties, those that follow the line of the party leadership. These are the Representatives and Senators who always get the spotlight and they chose to represent Wall Street instead of Main Street as directed by their financial backers.
The divide isn’t between the parties, it's within the parties. It isn't between Obama and McCain, it is between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on one side and John McCain and Barack Obama on the other.
This was part of the message of the Campaign for Liberty. The parties do not represent the American People, and have not for a very long time. The only politicians who might actually and truly represent the people is if the people vote third party. Of the four that should have been there it is certain that at least one of them would have been an optimal candidate for any American who isn't dedicated to party first and foremost.
The optimal solution is for the maverics of both parties to join the Campaign for Liberty. That is not likely but it would be best for the United States.
Those who are not highly regarded by their own parties did not heed the call to vote for the bailout, opting to represent regular Americans instead of their parties and the special interests that control them. These are the Representatives and Senators who seldom get committee assignments and are seldom invited to speak at conventions or other party events.
Those who voted for the bailout represent the mainstreams of both parties, those that follow the line of the party leadership. These are the Representatives and Senators who always get the spotlight and they chose to represent Wall Street instead of Main Street as directed by their financial backers.
The divide isn’t between the parties, it's within the parties. It isn't between Obama and McCain, it is between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on one side and John McCain and Barack Obama on the other.
This was part of the message of the Campaign for Liberty. The parties do not represent the American People, and have not for a very long time. The only politicians who might actually and truly represent the people is if the people vote third party. Of the four that should have been there it is certain that at least one of them would have been an optimal candidate for any American who isn't dedicated to party first and foremost.
The optimal solution is for the maverics of both parties to join the Campaign for Liberty. That is not likely but it would be best for the United States.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Campaign for Liberty
Ron Paul attempted to get the four leading third party candidates together at a joint press conference. The concept was that there were certain principles that all four were supposed to agree upon, although for different reasons, and most importantly the principle that third parties should be heard.
Unfortunately Bob Barr did not show, snubbing Ron Paul’s effort. If he had been there the message of the Campaign for Liberty would be unmistakable. The candidates that did show also received criticism for doing so. Chuck Baldwin is criticized for sharing a stage with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. Alan Maass of the Socialist Worker newsletter objected to Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader for sharing a stage with Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin supporter are sniping at Barr supporters over who is better fit to carry Ron Paul’s torch into the general election.
That is not the message Ron Paul was trying to send.
The message is not that supporters of one candidate should vote for the other candidates. The message is not that the four invited candidates are equally good. The message is actually pretty clear, and would be more so had Barr done the right thing and attended this joint press conference.
The message is as follows:
Take any average American voter. Take stock of what he wants of the government, what he wants a politician to do. It is more likely that said voter will find one of those four candidates to be in greater agreement than said voter would be with Barack Obama or John McCain. The four candidates on the stage collectively represent the different poles of political opinion in their four different directions than Obama or McCain can hope to.
The message continues:
Third party voters shouldn’t vote against their conscience by supporting a candidate with whom they truly disagree. They should vote for a candidate for whom they truly agree. The obligation third party supporters have towards each other is assistance in getting the candidates on the ballot so that the American people can have a choice. Third party supporters are not required to vote for each others candidates or donate to each others parties. They should assist in every other way.
Given that message, there is no reason at all for supporters of the fourth candidate to fight, beyond the fact that Barr apparently does not fully support the four points:
Unfortunately Bob Barr did not show, snubbing Ron Paul’s effort. If he had been there the message of the Campaign for Liberty would be unmistakable. The candidates that did show also received criticism for doing so. Chuck Baldwin is criticized for sharing a stage with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. Alan Maass of the Socialist Worker newsletter objected to Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader for sharing a stage with Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin supporter are sniping at Barr supporters over who is better fit to carry Ron Paul’s torch into the general election.
That is not the message Ron Paul was trying to send.
The message is not that supporters of one candidate should vote for the other candidates. The message is not that the four invited candidates are equally good. The message is actually pretty clear, and would be more so had Barr done the right thing and attended this joint press conference.
The message is as follows:
Take any average American voter. Take stock of what he wants of the government, what he wants a politician to do. It is more likely that said voter will find one of those four candidates to be in greater agreement than said voter would be with Barack Obama or John McCain. The four candidates on the stage collectively represent the different poles of political opinion in their four different directions than Obama or McCain can hope to.
The message continues:
Third party voters shouldn’t vote against their conscience by supporting a candidate with whom they truly disagree. They should vote for a candidate for whom they truly agree. The obligation third party supporters have towards each other is assistance in getting the candidates on the ballot so that the American people can have a choice. Third party supporters are not required to vote for each others candidates or donate to each others parties. They should assist in every other way.
Given that message, there is no reason at all for supporters of the fourth candidate to fight, beyond the fact that Barr apparently does not fully support the four points:
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
A post-mortem of RonPaul2008
It’s often said by libertarians that if only their message could reach the public it would be accepted, even welcomed, by those who don’t know that there are options beyond the standard two parties. Some say that the libertarian party simply needs better marketing, having the best product but the worst sales team. The apparent elective failure of Ron Paul to secure the Republican Party nomination for President has thrown that into doubt.
Is it appropriate to doubt? Is it truly the case that the product – libertarianism – has been presented and rejected? Arguments could be made either way at this point.
It is undisputed that for the first time since Goldwater there was a candidate that clearly and succinctly desired reduced government in all areas. He averaged about ten percent in the primaries while other candidates soared ahead until the nomination was secured by John McCain whose philosophy is quite antithetical to that of Ron Paul.
The message wasn’t delivered. Even a week before Super Tuesday, I was knocking on doors urging people to vote for Ron Paul, and people were still unfamiliar with him. Those who get their news through the internet were familiar with him. One person I spoke with had no internet connection at all and had never heard of him, after he twice broke fundraising records.
The message wasn’t getting through.
Although included in all but one debate, the time allotments were slanted against him as well, and the choice of questions was manipulated by the moderators. News reports were edited to remove his name before included in newspapers. The evidence is available to anyone who can read the raw stories on the internet.
The one place were Ron Paul was strongest was the internet. The internet was the one place where the message did get through, and it was the one place where he got the bulk of his support.
It is no longer a given that if only the message could get through it would be accepted, but it is not to be rejected yet either.
Is it appropriate to doubt? Is it truly the case that the product – libertarianism – has been presented and rejected? Arguments could be made either way at this point.
It is undisputed that for the first time since Goldwater there was a candidate that clearly and succinctly desired reduced government in all areas. He averaged about ten percent in the primaries while other candidates soared ahead until the nomination was secured by John McCain whose philosophy is quite antithetical to that of Ron Paul.
The message wasn’t delivered. Even a week before Super Tuesday, I was knocking on doors urging people to vote for Ron Paul, and people were still unfamiliar with him. Those who get their news through the internet were familiar with him. One person I spoke with had no internet connection at all and had never heard of him, after he twice broke fundraising records.
The message wasn’t getting through.
Although included in all but one debate, the time allotments were slanted against him as well, and the choice of questions was manipulated by the moderators. News reports were edited to remove his name before included in newspapers. The evidence is available to anyone who can read the raw stories on the internet.
The one place were Ron Paul was strongest was the internet. The internet was the one place where the message did get through, and it was the one place where he got the bulk of his support.
It is no longer a given that if only the message could get through it would be accepted, but it is not to be rejected yet either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)