For several decades Senator John McCain was regarded as the Democrat's favorite Republican. He was widely praised for cooperating with the Democrats on bi-partisan legislation while in the Senate. He was not considered radical or extreme at all, except by libertarians who viewed him as extreme for having the flaws of both Democrats and Republicans in one person.
Then Senator McCain became the Republican presidential nominee. In the course of one month he was regularly regarded and depicted as a radical hard-core right-wing extremist. All of the people who had previous praised him as a model of what a Republican can be and should be forgot everything nice they had ever said about him.
Once the election was over, Senator McCain was "rehabilitated" and is again regarded as a positive example of a Republican. Once President Barack Obama started experiencing problems during his administration it became important to portray Obama has having defeated a much more moderate Republican in order to show he had wider support when he had run.
There is no question about Governor Mitt Romney's conservative credentials. He is approximately as conservative as Senator McCain. It is Governor Romney who introduced Romneycare as the most glaring example among many of how his own beliefs are so far out of line with what Republicans allegedly believe (but quite in line with what they actually believe).
During the Republican presidential primary, it was widely regarded that the Tea Party constituency had no love for Governor Romney, preferring candidates such as Governor Rick Perry or Herman Cain. Now that the primary is essentially over, Governor Romney is being recast.
Looking at the preliminary Democratic campaign material in support of the reelection of President Obama, there is an attempt to associate Governor Romney with the Tea Party, portray him as an opponent of government-run health care, and strangely enough as radically different from President Obama.
The problem is, this rhetoric trying to portray Governor Romney as different from President Obama may work. With many of the United States electorate educated by government schools, and getting their news only from CNN or Fox, the facts matter less and less each year. And with the rhetoric from each side presenting the opponent as different in spite of the facts, this will become yet another in a long line of "most importation election ever" campaigns that will be used to argue that it is now too critical to vote third party.
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Friday, May 04, 2012
The Third Party Game
The Third Party Game refers to all the ways the major parties use or manipulate third parties for their own advantage. The Republicans are far better at it than the Democrats are.
One way that it is played is to make donations to third parties that rival the opposition party. Democrats are still complaining about how Ralph Nader "stole" the 2000 election from Al Gore, but what made that "theft" possible was Republican donations to Nader. It is no secret that many of the donations for Nader's campaign came from Republicans.
If someone were to suggest to a Democrat that a donation be made to, say, the Constitution Party, the response would be shock and horror. "Oh no, they're evil, they want to destroy everything I believe in, I could never donate to them." Republicans didn't donate to Nader in order to advance Nader's agenda, but their donations weren't intended to advance Nader's agenda.
The other way that the Third Party Game is played is to nullify threats. Republicans also are better at this, sending Patrick Buchanan into the Reform Party, Alan Keyes into the Constitution Party, and sending Bob Barr into the Libertarian Party. Patrick Buchanan was able to destroy the Reform Party through an internal civil war. Alan Keyes didn't get the Constitution Party nomination, but did get the ballot line in California and thus lowering the nation-wide totals for their candidate Chuck Baldwin. Bob Barr (who has since endorsed Newt Gingrich) and Wayne Root (who has since endorsed Mitt Romney) alienated a sufficient portion of the Libertarian Party base that many wrote in Ron Paul, and thus lowered the totals for the Libertarian Party as well.
These tactics may be underhanded, but there are no rules saying not to do either of those actions with regards to third parties. What is interesting is that the Democratic Party leadership does such a poor job of doing the same thing. Perhaps it is a lingering sentiment of there being "no enemy to the left" so they cannot bring themselves to label parties such as the Green Party as enemies. Republicans have no such compunctions holding them back. Democrats are quite willing to share a stage at allies with various independent groups of a shared platform; the Republicans did a deliberate take over of the Tea Party when it appeared that a stage might be shared.
It will be interesting to see how the Third Party Game might be shared in the 2012 election cycle.
It is also possible, but somewhat far fetched, to suggest that occasionally Republicans support a party or candidate outside their own party that they would normally squash. This would be done to prevent a different third party from gaining prominence. Although Ross Perot did much to spoil George Bush's chances at re-election, he also gathered up all of the internal dissent that might have gone to more established third parties and catapulted them to prominence. Although John Anderson did not threaten Reagan, he did absorb much of the third party protest vote without even having much to offer in the way of concrete ideas. Perhaps Republicans are willing to throw an election in order to preserve the status quo of two parties interchangeable.
One way that it is played is to make donations to third parties that rival the opposition party. Democrats are still complaining about how Ralph Nader "stole" the 2000 election from Al Gore, but what made that "theft" possible was Republican donations to Nader. It is no secret that many of the donations for Nader's campaign came from Republicans.
If someone were to suggest to a Democrat that a donation be made to, say, the Constitution Party, the response would be shock and horror. "Oh no, they're evil, they want to destroy everything I believe in, I could never donate to them." Republicans didn't donate to Nader in order to advance Nader's agenda, but their donations weren't intended to advance Nader's agenda.
The other way that the Third Party Game is played is to nullify threats. Republicans also are better at this, sending Patrick Buchanan into the Reform Party, Alan Keyes into the Constitution Party, and sending Bob Barr into the Libertarian Party. Patrick Buchanan was able to destroy the Reform Party through an internal civil war. Alan Keyes didn't get the Constitution Party nomination, but did get the ballot line in California and thus lowering the nation-wide totals for their candidate Chuck Baldwin. Bob Barr (who has since endorsed Newt Gingrich) and Wayne Root (who has since endorsed Mitt Romney) alienated a sufficient portion of the Libertarian Party base that many wrote in Ron Paul, and thus lowered the totals for the Libertarian Party as well.
These tactics may be underhanded, but there are no rules saying not to do either of those actions with regards to third parties. What is interesting is that the Democratic Party leadership does such a poor job of doing the same thing. Perhaps it is a lingering sentiment of there being "no enemy to the left" so they cannot bring themselves to label parties such as the Green Party as enemies. Republicans have no such compunctions holding them back. Democrats are quite willing to share a stage at allies with various independent groups of a shared platform; the Republicans did a deliberate take over of the Tea Party when it appeared that a stage might be shared.
It will be interesting to see how the Third Party Game might be shared in the 2012 election cycle.
It is also possible, but somewhat far fetched, to suggest that occasionally Republicans support a party or candidate outside their own party that they would normally squash. This would be done to prevent a different third party from gaining prominence. Although Ross Perot did much to spoil George Bush's chances at re-election, he also gathered up all of the internal dissent that might have gone to more established third parties and catapulted them to prominence. Although John Anderson did not threaten Reagan, he did absorb much of the third party protest vote without even having much to offer in the way of concrete ideas. Perhaps Republicans are willing to throw an election in order to preserve the status quo of two parties interchangeable.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Republicans are Jealous Lovers
After eight years of Bush it is apparent that Republicans love government. This love is on display with the candidacies of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. Not only do Republicans love government, when they get government alone they dim the lights, put on some Barry Manilow, and try desperately to get government's bra off.
The problem is that the government is a fickle mistress and sometimes will dally with her other suitor, the Democrats.
This drives Republicans into a jealous rage, in which they bad-mouth the object of their desire as well as the competitor who has captured her attention. If they cannot have her than nobody should, so they describe in detail how bad she really is. They desire her, or at least lust for her, so they really do not have the words to describe her faults. But they do know someone who is repulsed by her, and they listen to what Libertarians say about her and repeat it as if they mean it.
But they only say those things about her when their mistress is away. They never describe her as an immoral and loose woman when they have her to themselves.
Democrats do not like it when their mistress strays back to another dalliance with the Republicans. But unlike the Republicans they genuinely love her as well as desire her, so when she strays they do not blame her fickleness and they do not badmouth her for leaving. Instead they attack their rival suitor exclusively.
They attack the Republican rival by accusing him of not really loving mistress government, and use his bitter jealous language as proof. The Democrats say that if the Republicans really desired government so much then they wouldn't use such horrible language. It is true that when government is dallying with the Democrats the Republicans do use harsh language, but what the Democrats don’t realize is that the language is the result of a jealous rage. The Democrats then go on to say that since the jealous words prove the Republicans don’t really desire her, they should stop trying to woo her.
It's not that the Republicans don't desire her, it's that they cannot stand sharing her. They never say such horrible things when she is shacking up with them for the night and collecting her pay for doing so, and each time say that they never really meant any of it and they'll never say such horrible things if she will just remain faithful. They'd love nothing more than to spend the rest of their life with government in an exclusive relationship even though they know she doesn't care about them at all and only cares about what she can get out of the relationship.
Libertarians, married to the idea of liberty, simply shake their heads at these two competitors trying to seduce a harlot.
The problem is that the government is a fickle mistress and sometimes will dally with her other suitor, the Democrats.
This drives Republicans into a jealous rage, in which they bad-mouth the object of their desire as well as the competitor who has captured her attention. If they cannot have her than nobody should, so they describe in detail how bad she really is. They desire her, or at least lust for her, so they really do not have the words to describe her faults. But they do know someone who is repulsed by her, and they listen to what Libertarians say about her and repeat it as if they mean it.
But they only say those things about her when their mistress is away. They never describe her as an immoral and loose woman when they have her to themselves.
Democrats do not like it when their mistress strays back to another dalliance with the Republicans. But unlike the Republicans they genuinely love her as well as desire her, so when she strays they do not blame her fickleness and they do not badmouth her for leaving. Instead they attack their rival suitor exclusively.
They attack the Republican rival by accusing him of not really loving mistress government, and use his bitter jealous language as proof. The Democrats say that if the Republicans really desired government so much then they wouldn't use such horrible language. It is true that when government is dallying with the Democrats the Republicans do use harsh language, but what the Democrats don’t realize is that the language is the result of a jealous rage. The Democrats then go on to say that since the jealous words prove the Republicans don’t really desire her, they should stop trying to woo her.
It's not that the Republicans don't desire her, it's that they cannot stand sharing her. They never say such horrible things when she is shacking up with them for the night and collecting her pay for doing so, and each time say that they never really meant any of it and they'll never say such horrible things if she will just remain faithful. They'd love nothing more than to spend the rest of their life with government in an exclusive relationship even though they know she doesn't care about them at all and only cares about what she can get out of the relationship.
Libertarians, married to the idea of liberty, simply shake their heads at these two competitors trying to seduce a harlot.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
The Greater Freedom Movement
After the Libertarian Party Convention there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that Mark Hinkle beat Wayne Root for national chair. The bad news is that on the final ballot Wayne Root received a significant percentage, about 45%, of the final vote. The first is a good sign that the Libertarian Party is moving back in a more libertarian direction, the second is a sign that there is still a great distance to go before the Libertarian Party can be restored.
Wayne Root was supported by the Reform Caucus. The Reform Caucus was founded on a good idea, that the Libertarian Party could attract greater numbers by working with others who are freedom oriented but who are not as purist as the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately it went entirely the wrong direction - the members of the Reform Caucus started steering the Libertarian Party in a much more Republican direction, giving a big boost to Bob Barr and Wayne Root, ultimately resulting in Aaron Star trying to purge purists from the National Committee.
While there were some in the Reform Caucus who had the best of intentions, trying to reshape the Libertarian Party in that direction was entirely the wrong way to collect the energy of the greater freedom movement. Becoming more like one of the two major parties, or moving more towards the center of the Nolan Chart, is not the way to bring together the greater freedom movement.
The way to go isn't to be more like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but to find a way to build alliances with the disaffected of both parties. The way to do that isn't to eliminate what it means to be libertarian, but to encourage the other disaffected fringes to grow and to work with them. It was once pointed out that if Cindy Sheehan's anti-war movement were to join forces with the Tea Party protests it would be a coup for the freedom movement. It has been noticed that the way the parties divided in the bailout separated the mainstreamers of both parties from the mavericks of both parties (with the alleged maverick John McCain a bailout supporter unlike real mavericks Paul and Kucinich).
The greater freedom movement can be considered "libertarian" in the sense used in "Tribesman, Barbarian, Citizen … and Libertarian", but it actually is more diverse than the Libertarian Party Platform could ever be. The Pournelle Chart is a better model in certain respects because it separates the Anarcho-Syndicalists from the Anarcho-Capitalists. It differentiates the Counter-Culture from the Objectivists, while acknowledging that they are both part of the same greater freedom movement that combines the best elements of the Tea Party with the best elements of the Sheehan protests.
The Campaign For Liberty could have been that, by inviting the four leading third candidates on to one stage. It probably still could be, and in doing so is taking the place that should have been taken by the Reform Caucus, and doing it in the way the Reform Caucus should have in the first place. The trick is to acknowledge the differences in the Issues Designed to Divide (abortion being the biggest, and also whether a system without government would be capitalist or syndicalist, but don't budge on the definition of capitalism) instead of fighting over them, and to concentrate on the common foe. That way both purity of ideology can be maintained while making the necessary compromises to work together. Instead of becoming less radical in order to stop scaring voters, the trick is to become more radical by embracing the other, different radicals.
If that is accomplished, then it will be possible for the greater freedom movement to succeed, which will be a victory for the Libertarian Party, both the purists AND the reformers.
Wayne Root was supported by the Reform Caucus. The Reform Caucus was founded on a good idea, that the Libertarian Party could attract greater numbers by working with others who are freedom oriented but who are not as purist as the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately it went entirely the wrong direction - the members of the Reform Caucus started steering the Libertarian Party in a much more Republican direction, giving a big boost to Bob Barr and Wayne Root, ultimately resulting in Aaron Star trying to purge purists from the National Committee.
While there were some in the Reform Caucus who had the best of intentions, trying to reshape the Libertarian Party in that direction was entirely the wrong way to collect the energy of the greater freedom movement. Becoming more like one of the two major parties, or moving more towards the center of the Nolan Chart, is not the way to bring together the greater freedom movement.
The way to go isn't to be more like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but to find a way to build alliances with the disaffected of both parties. The way to do that isn't to eliminate what it means to be libertarian, but to encourage the other disaffected fringes to grow and to work with them. It was once pointed out that if Cindy Sheehan's anti-war movement were to join forces with the Tea Party protests it would be a coup for the freedom movement. It has been noticed that the way the parties divided in the bailout separated the mainstreamers of both parties from the mavericks of both parties (with the alleged maverick John McCain a bailout supporter unlike real mavericks Paul and Kucinich).
The greater freedom movement can be considered "libertarian" in the sense used in "Tribesman, Barbarian, Citizen … and Libertarian", but it actually is more diverse than the Libertarian Party Platform could ever be. The Pournelle Chart is a better model in certain respects because it separates the Anarcho-Syndicalists from the Anarcho-Capitalists. It differentiates the Counter-Culture from the Objectivists, while acknowledging that they are both part of the same greater freedom movement that combines the best elements of the Tea Party with the best elements of the Sheehan protests.
The Campaign For Liberty could have been that, by inviting the four leading third candidates on to one stage. It probably still could be, and in doing so is taking the place that should have been taken by the Reform Caucus, and doing it in the way the Reform Caucus should have in the first place. The trick is to acknowledge the differences in the Issues Designed to Divide (abortion being the biggest, and also whether a system without government would be capitalist or syndicalist, but don't budge on the definition of capitalism) instead of fighting over them, and to concentrate on the common foe. That way both purity of ideology can be maintained while making the necessary compromises to work together. Instead of becoming less radical in order to stop scaring voters, the trick is to become more radical by embracing the other, different radicals.
If that is accomplished, then it will be possible for the greater freedom movement to succeed, which will be a victory for the Libertarian Party, both the purists AND the reformers.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Bush the Socialist, Obama the Fascist
Sometime in the early 1980s the colors used to represent the two primary political parties swapped. For many years the Republicans were represented by the color Blue and the Democrats were represented by the color Red. In a way that made sense, as the Republicans were portrayed as the Blue Bloods, the "aristocracy", while the Democrats were portrayed as the ones soft on Communism.
For reasons unknown the parties switched colors, to the point where few remember that they had the other colors as recently as 1980. Now saying a state is a "Red State" is a way to indicate that it is strongly Republican or conservative.
But events since the year 2000 would lead one to conclude that perhaps the switch in colors is accurate to some extent. Bush is clearly more socialist than Obama, and Obama is clearly more fascist than Bush. It should be noted at this point that there are many purists who insist that "Socialism" can only and ever refer to ownership of the means of production, and that wealth redistribution through other means - such as welfare - doesn't count as socialism. For the sake of argument, wealth redistribution will be referred to as "welfare socialism", and from this point on any reference to "socialism" will actually refer to "welfare socialism."
More than once during the Bush presidency efforts were made to avoid economic problems through bailouts. The interesting point is that more than once Bush had checks made out directly to the people. They were not large checks, about $300 per person, but he ordered them issued directly from the treasury to the public. Keynesian advisors warned against this on the grounds that the money might be wasted on foolish expenditures such as paying off credit cards or paying other bills. That did not deter Bush in his effort to strengthen the ailing economy through efforts aimed at the common man.
While both Bush and Obama gave money directly to failing banks, Obama has only given money to the failing banks and automobile companies. A common Republican quip has been "Where's my bailout?" to show that Obama is only giving money to the wealthiest of the public, not to the common person.
On healthcare the same pattern holds. Bush authorized the largest expansion of Medicare ever, with Perscription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Obama appears ready to jettison the "public option" in favor of mandating that everyone purchase health insurance.
Little wonder there is such discontent between the base and the party leadership in the Republican Party today, that a third party candidate may win the 23rd Congressional District in New York. Likewise the anti-war movement has little to be happy about with Obama, and Fascists are well known for their militancy.
For reasons unknown the parties switched colors, to the point where few remember that they had the other colors as recently as 1980. Now saying a state is a "Red State" is a way to indicate that it is strongly Republican or conservative.
But events since the year 2000 would lead one to conclude that perhaps the switch in colors is accurate to some extent. Bush is clearly more socialist than Obama, and Obama is clearly more fascist than Bush. It should be noted at this point that there are many purists who insist that "Socialism" can only and ever refer to ownership of the means of production, and that wealth redistribution through other means - such as welfare - doesn't count as socialism. For the sake of argument, wealth redistribution will be referred to as "welfare socialism", and from this point on any reference to "socialism" will actually refer to "welfare socialism."
More than once during the Bush presidency efforts were made to avoid economic problems through bailouts. The interesting point is that more than once Bush had checks made out directly to the people. They were not large checks, about $300 per person, but he ordered them issued directly from the treasury to the public. Keynesian advisors warned against this on the grounds that the money might be wasted on foolish expenditures such as paying off credit cards or paying other bills. That did not deter Bush in his effort to strengthen the ailing economy through efforts aimed at the common man.
While both Bush and Obama gave money directly to failing banks, Obama has only given money to the failing banks and automobile companies. A common Republican quip has been "Where's my bailout?" to show that Obama is only giving money to the wealthiest of the public, not to the common person.
On healthcare the same pattern holds. Bush authorized the largest expansion of Medicare ever, with Perscription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Obama appears ready to jettison the "public option" in favor of mandating that everyone purchase health insurance.
Little wonder there is such discontent between the base and the party leadership in the Republican Party today, that a third party candidate may win the 23rd Congressional District in New York. Likewise the anti-war movement has little to be happy about with Obama, and Fascists are well known for their militancy.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
A bold move by the GOP?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has come out publicly in support of gay marriage. Meanwhile President Barack Obama and the rest of the leadership of the Democratic Party have come out in favor of Civil Unions instead. While Obama could single-handedly end "don't ask don't tell" and integrate the military, he refuses to do so.
Could Cheney’s announcement be a ploy to win over the homosexual constituency away from the Democratic Party?
The Democrats love to divide people into categories, because doing so make it appear they have a demographic advantage – given that every group except White Heterosexual Able-bodied Christian Males is considered a constituency of the Democratic Party. This is done to present a case that the Republican Party is dying for demographic reasons and had better embrace all of the Democratic Party’s race baiting policies (known for Orwellian reasons as "Civil Rights") or die as a party because, unlike the “robust” Democratic Party, the Republican Party represents just one demographic.
But in spite of the absurdity and inherent racism of politicking by demographics, there are those who believe it. And those will try to make policy around it.
About the only good thing that can be said about Neoconservatism is that since it originated in the Democratic Party those who follow that belief system have little interest in laws that mandate morality. Neoconservatism is a distinct political ideology from the Religious Right. True, the Neoconservatives want a police state, but they want to police loyalty, not morality. Thus they actually are in a unique position to advocate that the Republican Party change its position on homosexual issues.
How would they do this? It would not be an easy sell. The Religious Right caucus wants nothing to do with homosexuality. While selling them on gays in the military can be done more easily the harder sell would be gay marriage.
Gays in the military can easily be covered under the need for manpower. Endless war is a Neoconservative objective, and the belief that the United States has some divine mandate and the idolatrous way the Religious Right views the government can be tailored to advocate integrated service. Greater manpower is needed to fulfill the divine mission of the United States – or so would the Neoconservatives say when selling this to the Religious Right. The Neoconservatives won't believe it, they view the Religious Right as dupes, but that’s how they would sell it.
But Gay Marriage is the major hurdle. The entire debate would have to be reframed. The Neoconservatives would have to frame it as "monogamy versus promiscuity." Given that the Religious Right believes the only appropriate sexual behavior for homosexuals is either abstinence or conversion to heterosexuality, reframing the debate in this manner would be very difficult.
That doesn’t mean that it cannot be done. It could.
And given that, one state at a time, gay marriage is becoming the norm in this country. Civil Unions, once the progressive position, is now seen as the regressive position. It is also the official position of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party has long taken many of its core constituencies for granted because "who else will they vote for, the Republicans?" If Cheney is indeed making that play for that voting block, the answer to that question would become "yes."
Could Cheney’s announcement be a ploy to win over the homosexual constituency away from the Democratic Party?
The Democrats love to divide people into categories, because doing so make it appear they have a demographic advantage – given that every group except White Heterosexual Able-bodied Christian Males is considered a constituency of the Democratic Party. This is done to present a case that the Republican Party is dying for demographic reasons and had better embrace all of the Democratic Party’s race baiting policies (known for Orwellian reasons as "Civil Rights") or die as a party because, unlike the “robust” Democratic Party, the Republican Party represents just one demographic.
But in spite of the absurdity and inherent racism of politicking by demographics, there are those who believe it. And those will try to make policy around it.
About the only good thing that can be said about Neoconservatism is that since it originated in the Democratic Party those who follow that belief system have little interest in laws that mandate morality. Neoconservatism is a distinct political ideology from the Religious Right. True, the Neoconservatives want a police state, but they want to police loyalty, not morality. Thus they actually are in a unique position to advocate that the Republican Party change its position on homosexual issues.
How would they do this? It would not be an easy sell. The Religious Right caucus wants nothing to do with homosexuality. While selling them on gays in the military can be done more easily the harder sell would be gay marriage.
Gays in the military can easily be covered under the need for manpower. Endless war is a Neoconservative objective, and the belief that the United States has some divine mandate and the idolatrous way the Religious Right views the government can be tailored to advocate integrated service. Greater manpower is needed to fulfill the divine mission of the United States – or so would the Neoconservatives say when selling this to the Religious Right. The Neoconservatives won't believe it, they view the Religious Right as dupes, but that’s how they would sell it.
But Gay Marriage is the major hurdle. The entire debate would have to be reframed. The Neoconservatives would have to frame it as "monogamy versus promiscuity." Given that the Religious Right believes the only appropriate sexual behavior for homosexuals is either abstinence or conversion to heterosexuality, reframing the debate in this manner would be very difficult.
That doesn’t mean that it cannot be done. It could.
And given that, one state at a time, gay marriage is becoming the norm in this country. Civil Unions, once the progressive position, is now seen as the regressive position. It is also the official position of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party has long taken many of its core constituencies for granted because "who else will they vote for, the Republicans?" If Cheney is indeed making that play for that voting block, the answer to that question would become "yes."
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Republicans out of Power
Republicans are never more dangerous to the cause of liberty than when they are out of power. It is when they are out of power that they might actually attract the support of libertarians, even those who do not have a short attention span.
It is well known that Republicans have a habit of stealing libertarian rhetoric. It is also very well known that Republican follow through is abysmal on that for all the rhetoric they steal they never act on it. Everyone - Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian - knows that is true, although occasionally to score points in a debate Democrats will conveniently "forget" that there is no relationship between Republican word and Republican deed in order to try to paint a false association between Libertarians and Republicans.
When Republicans are in power, the divide between word and deed is apparent to all. There was no libertarian support for No Child Left Behind or Perscription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Libertarians never support deficit spending, following the principle that total spending is equivalent to total taxation. Given that principle, when a libertarian calls for tax cuts that libertarian is also calling for spending cuts by necessity. Direct taxes are evil, but still a lesser evil that the indirect taxes of deficit spending or inflation. When a Republican calls for tax cuts that Republican is calling for more of the burden of taxes to be shifted from direct taxation to indirect taxation.
When Republicans are in power, it is very difficult to paint any sort of assocation, whether by a Republican trying to attract libertarian votes or by a Democrat trying to show a flaw in libertarianism by laying at the feet of libertarianism the faults of Republicans.
But when Republicans are out of power not only is there a shortage of direct examples of how Republicans are nothing like libertarians, that is when Republicans increase their rhetoric theft. There was no rhetoric theft when Bush was trying to defend the use of torture, and there was nearly none when he was trying to justify the baseless invasion of two different countries. There was some effort to portray the invasion as a liberation, but all attempts to paint it as such rang rather hollow.
Such an increased level of rhetoric theft coupled with a decrease in manifest counter-examples leads to some undesirable results. Those who are new to the libertarian movement, or overly forgiving of past betrayals, may be swayed to support Republicans due to the rhetoric, a particularly dangerous temptation given that both are opposing Democrats at that time. Due to having a temporary common cause some might be willing to convince themselves that "this time" the Republicans are actually better. That sometimes leads people away from being libertarian as happened during the Bush administration and the War on Terror. The remaining libertarians, seeing some of their own pulled away have to work twice as hard at trying to win people over since they have to replace those leaving while trying to grow the movement. But even the attempt to persuade people to join is hampered because any attempt to persuade people to support libertarianism is met with opposition by some Democrats who feel more free to create the false association between libertarians and Republicans.
It is when Republicans are out of power that libertarians must most strongly resist thinking well of them, and contine to judge Republicans as harshly as they did when Republicans were in power, acknowledging only the small handful that actually are libertarian because their actions match their rhetoric.
It is well known that Republicans have a habit of stealing libertarian rhetoric. It is also very well known that Republican follow through is abysmal on that for all the rhetoric they steal they never act on it. Everyone - Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian - knows that is true, although occasionally to score points in a debate Democrats will conveniently "forget" that there is no relationship between Republican word and Republican deed in order to try to paint a false association between Libertarians and Republicans.
When Republicans are in power, the divide between word and deed is apparent to all. There was no libertarian support for No Child Left Behind or Perscription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Libertarians never support deficit spending, following the principle that total spending is equivalent to total taxation. Given that principle, when a libertarian calls for tax cuts that libertarian is also calling for spending cuts by necessity. Direct taxes are evil, but still a lesser evil that the indirect taxes of deficit spending or inflation. When a Republican calls for tax cuts that Republican is calling for more of the burden of taxes to be shifted from direct taxation to indirect taxation.
When Republicans are in power, it is very difficult to paint any sort of assocation, whether by a Republican trying to attract libertarian votes or by a Democrat trying to show a flaw in libertarianism by laying at the feet of libertarianism the faults of Republicans.
But when Republicans are out of power not only is there a shortage of direct examples of how Republicans are nothing like libertarians, that is when Republicans increase their rhetoric theft. There was no rhetoric theft when Bush was trying to defend the use of torture, and there was nearly none when he was trying to justify the baseless invasion of two different countries. There was some effort to portray the invasion as a liberation, but all attempts to paint it as such rang rather hollow.
Such an increased level of rhetoric theft coupled with a decrease in manifest counter-examples leads to some undesirable results. Those who are new to the libertarian movement, or overly forgiving of past betrayals, may be swayed to support Republicans due to the rhetoric, a particularly dangerous temptation given that both are opposing Democrats at that time. Due to having a temporary common cause some might be willing to convince themselves that "this time" the Republicans are actually better. That sometimes leads people away from being libertarian as happened during the Bush administration and the War on Terror. The remaining libertarians, seeing some of their own pulled away have to work twice as hard at trying to win people over since they have to replace those leaving while trying to grow the movement. But even the attempt to persuade people to join is hampered because any attempt to persuade people to support libertarianism is met with opposition by some Democrats who feel more free to create the false association between libertarians and Republicans.
It is when Republicans are out of power that libertarians must most strongly resist thinking well of them, and contine to judge Republicans as harshly as they did when Republicans were in power, acknowledging only the small handful that actually are libertarian because their actions match their rhetoric.
Friday, February 06, 2009
The State of the State of California
California is in a dire financial condition. The state has a budget deficit of $40 billion, and the state is not supposed to have an unbalanced budget. The only reason taxes haven't gone up to pay for this is due to the work of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association. Propositions sponsored by the HJTA have made it difficult to raise taxes. Any measure that increases taxes must pass with at least 2/3 of the vote. While the Democrats have a permanent majority in the State Assembly and State Senate they are short of the 2/3 necessary to pass tax increases.
The Republicans have, until now, actually stood firm against tax increases. California is already one of the most taxed states in the United States.
At one point the legislature tried to pass a tax increase by simple majority, in defiance of the law. Governor Schwarzenegger appeared as if he was going to sign it until a lawsuit made him back down.
Now negotiations are going on to try to sell a tax increase to Assembly and Senate Republicans, with the promise of a spending cap and a rollback of some environmental regulations.
The unions are furious about the spending cap, and the environmentalists are furious about the regulation rollback. Meanwhile the average Republican is against any further increase in taxes. Constituents from both parties are against this deal for different reasons.
The spending cap is an interesting proposal. It's interesting in that it is indicative of a false deal that Republicans fall for so often it is cause to wonder if they are actually fooled or merely pretend to be so in an effort to appease constituents.
At the federal level, budget balancing deals usually go like this:
The interaction is so regular and so routine it gives serious cause to wonder if the Republicans are actually fooled, or if they hope that by pretending to be fooled they can fool those who vote for them.
A better deal, if the Republicans actually support a balanced budget would be "spending cuts now, and if that's not enough tax hikes later". An even cannier move would be to conveniently forget about the tax hikes when "later" arrives.
The spending cap is just such a proposal. It will be overturned as soon as it is met unless stringent controls are put in place. These controls would need to be stronger than the 2/3 majority needed to raise taxes. It should require at least 75%, and preferably 90%, to overturn the spending cap in the face of an emergency.
Offering that sort of a spending cap will reveal just how genuine the Democrats are in their efforts to balance the budget by more than just raising taxes.
The Republicans have, until now, actually stood firm against tax increases. California is already one of the most taxed states in the United States.
At one point the legislature tried to pass a tax increase by simple majority, in defiance of the law. Governor Schwarzenegger appeared as if he was going to sign it until a lawsuit made him back down.
Now negotiations are going on to try to sell a tax increase to Assembly and Senate Republicans, with the promise of a spending cap and a rollback of some environmental regulations.
The unions are furious about the spending cap, and the environmentalists are furious about the regulation rollback. Meanwhile the average Republican is against any further increase in taxes. Constituents from both parties are against this deal for different reasons.
The spending cap is an interesting proposal. It's interesting in that it is indicative of a false deal that Republicans fall for so often it is cause to wonder if they are actually fooled or merely pretend to be so in an effort to appease constituents.
At the federal level, budget balancing deals usually go like this:
The Democrats propose to increase taxes now and in two years will implement spending cuts. The Republicans agree.
Two years later the Democrats have conveniently forgotten about the promised spending cuts, and any efforts by Republicans to remind them are met with "everything's different now."
The interaction is so regular and so routine it gives serious cause to wonder if the Republicans are actually fooled, or if they hope that by pretending to be fooled they can fool those who vote for them.
A better deal, if the Republicans actually support a balanced budget would be "spending cuts now, and if that's not enough tax hikes later". An even cannier move would be to conveniently forget about the tax hikes when "later" arrives.
The spending cap is just such a proposal. It will be overturned as soon as it is met unless stringent controls are put in place. These controls would need to be stronger than the 2/3 majority needed to raise taxes. It should require at least 75%, and preferably 90%, to overturn the spending cap in the face of an emergency.
Offering that sort of a spending cap will reveal just how genuine the Democrats are in their efforts to balance the budget by more than just raising taxes.
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)