The CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) meeting this week is notable for two names….Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. Glenn Beck the author and radio/television talk show host seems to be a conservative evolving into a libertarian. Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas, who ran for the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2008, has always described himself as a libertarian. He actually ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.
Glenn Beck’s appearance and Ron Paul’s winning of the presidential straw poll with 31% are notable. It makes the point that traditional conservatives are, at least to some degree, rebelling against the Republican Party. And if rebelling is too strong a verb, they are at minimum sending a message that business as usual will not do. This along with the Tea Party movement should bring some alarm to Party officials. While the Republicans will pick up seats in the Senate and House this November, they may not do as well as they could if these disgruntled conservatives think the Republican on the ballot is nothing more than a Democrat lite.
Glenn Beck, in his speech, beat up the Republican Party pretty badly, and with good reason. Based on the response to his talk you’d think that conservatives are actually ready to embrace personal responsibility and limited government. According to Mr. Beck the only true function of government is to “protect us from the bad guys”, to wit; a Justice Department and Defense Department….very libertarian. Call me crazy, I don’t think they are ready to really embrace these notions.
The ones who voted for Ron Paul in the straw poll are concerned about the government debt and the economy more than anything else. I don’t think most of them support his foreign policy; isolationism with the exception of trade. Ann Coulter, for one, likes Ron Paul except for foreign policy. This vote is a message to the party to rethink its domestic policy. Ron Paul would shrink the size of government, abolish or seriously refocus the Federal Reserve and go back to a gold standard. He embraces Austrian Economic theory which is the 180 degree alternative to Keynesian Economics. He would abolish Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid…….SCREEEEETCH. WHAT??? You mean I wouldn’t get MY Social Security?
So, what will be the outcome of all this politically? As a perpetual skeptic I’m not expecting much. Our entire culture, even among conservatives, embraces entitlements to some degree; at least when it comes to them individually. Our biggest entitlements are social security and medicare. Together they represent unfunded liabilities of up to $70T by some estimates. They are, therefore, the lion’s share of our future fiscal problems but I’d be willing to bet that a large majority of Republicans expect to get theirs and will not tolerate much “adjustment”.
But that’s ok too. When the whole system implodes people will learn that life and death go on and the ultimate truth; that they are responsible for their own lives will be learned. And the lessons of our Founders will be re-learned.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Scott Brown and Freedom
I’m encouraged that there may actually be a spark of freedom left in the American psyche. The election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate from the State of Massachusetts is nothing short of amazing. It gives to a Republican the Senate seat that has been held by a Democrat since JFK defeated Henry Cabot Lodge in 1952. In contemporary politics it is at minimum a repudiation of at least some of the policies (ok, one policy, healthcare) of President Obama and the Democratic Party. Republicans will extrapolate for narrow political purposes the implications of this election. But Republicans are more interested in regaining power than in promoting freedom. The broader question is what does this mean for the future of freedom in our country?
I’ll state my conclusion up front, probably not much. In the continuum of America’s decline toward democratic socialism, this is but a blip in the positive direction. The American people are, generally, there are exceptions to be sure, but generally they are more interested in promoting their interests in federal largess at the expense of their fellow citizens. If you doubt that, how many of us would be willing to forgo our social security? That payment is forced extraction from a current tax payer directly to a current recipient. Sure, the government has been taking money from you by force for years, if not decades, but does that negate the amorality of your living at the expense of others? I don’t exempt myself from the dilemma. I hope to not take Social Security when I turn 66. My wife won’t like my decision. It could get dicey.
The Republicans are energized and think they can gain seats in both the Senate and House this year. And they probably will. They may even take control of the Senate or the House which will definitely force the Democrats to move back to the center. The Democrats grand attempt to move the country left will have failed. But that doesn’t mean the electorate has realized the error of their ways and will now embrace freedom, free market capitalism, constitutionally limited government and individual responsibility. No, the only thing this election reveals is that the voters of Massachusetts were concerned that they may get less money back from the federal government than they send. This notion of using government to loot others is explained very well in “The Law”, by Frederick Bastiat. In the section entitled “The Choice before us”, he explained.
This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.
Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.
Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs.
Unfortunately, we’ve made our choice and this election will not change our decision.
I’ll state my conclusion up front, probably not much. In the continuum of America’s decline toward democratic socialism, this is but a blip in the positive direction. The American people are, generally, there are exceptions to be sure, but generally they are more interested in promoting their interests in federal largess at the expense of their fellow citizens. If you doubt that, how many of us would be willing to forgo our social security? That payment is forced extraction from a current tax payer directly to a current recipient. Sure, the government has been taking money from you by force for years, if not decades, but does that negate the amorality of your living at the expense of others? I don’t exempt myself from the dilemma. I hope to not take Social Security when I turn 66. My wife won’t like my decision. It could get dicey.
The Republicans are energized and think they can gain seats in both the Senate and House this year. And they probably will. They may even take control of the Senate or the House which will definitely force the Democrats to move back to the center. The Democrats grand attempt to move the country left will have failed. But that doesn’t mean the electorate has realized the error of their ways and will now embrace freedom, free market capitalism, constitutionally limited government and individual responsibility. No, the only thing this election reveals is that the voters of Massachusetts were concerned that they may get less money back from the federal government than they send. This notion of using government to loot others is explained very well in “The Law”, by Frederick Bastiat. In the section entitled “The Choice before us”, he explained.
This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.
Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.
Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs.
Unfortunately, we’ve made our choice and this election will not change our decision.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
In God we Trust
If I hear another survivor of the earthquake in Haiti thank God for saving them, I'm going to pull out my last few strands of hair. So God decided to save your sorry ass and not the other oh pick a number, say, 50-200 thousand people. Seems to me he could save the whole bunch, I'm mean, damn, He or She is God, for God's sake.
The good Reverend Pat Robertson, who can always be counted on to contribute the most incredible quote, says that Haiti was cursed by God for making a pact with the devil a couple of hundred years ago in exchange for helping them break away from the French. The French? Since when has a country needed God’s help to defeat the freaking French? But I digress. My ‘Ole buddy Pat is the only one making any sense here. There has to be SOME reason why this god forsaken country has been so forsaken by God. Pat is being vilified by Christians and non-Christians alike for his assertion but at least his point of view has some logical consistency. There has to be some reason God would save some and not all. Either that or there is no unified holistic intelligence in the Abrahamic tradition controlling every aspect of life on earth, including earthquakes. Me thinks it’s the latter.
.
The good Reverend Pat Robertson, who can always be counted on to contribute the most incredible quote, says that Haiti was cursed by God for making a pact with the devil a couple of hundred years ago in exchange for helping them break away from the French. The French? Since when has a country needed God’s help to defeat the freaking French? But I digress. My ‘Ole buddy Pat is the only one making any sense here. There has to be SOME reason why this god forsaken country has been so forsaken by God. Pat is being vilified by Christians and non-Christians alike for his assertion but at least his point of view has some logical consistency. There has to be some reason God would save some and not all. Either that or there is no unified holistic intelligence in the Abrahamic tradition controlling every aspect of life on earth, including earthquakes. Me thinks it’s the latter.
.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
From an email to my sister...
I'm actually a recent convert to Mr. Obama policies, if not his politics. The American people are like alcoholics and drug addicts, except they're addicted to government. You have to hit bottom before you realize you have to change your life, or in this case, your beliefs. And no one can convince you to change until you've hit bottom. I'm therefore embracing the policies of the left wholeheartedly. We'll find that bottom sooner rather than later, right about the time we run out of people to pay for all this government. We've been on a long slow spiral down the road to socialism. I say let's take the plunge. The only way the left will admit they're wrong is to let them prove it to themselves. It may take 30 or maybe 100 years or so. But perhaps when people get hungry enough they'll come to realize that they are really responsible for themselves and the classical ideals of liberalism will come back into vogue. And the cycle will begin again.
Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and getting someone else to pay for your life is an everlasting truth and utopia is around the corner. God, I hope so.
Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and getting someone else to pay for your life is an everlasting truth and utopia is around the corner. God, I hope so.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
President Obama and bowing
I gave President Obama a bit of a pass on the bow to the Saudi Prince. I can't be so forgiving regarding the Japanese Emperor. Coming from the culturally sensitive Democratic Party one MUST assume He knows the protocol regarding bowing in that culture; it denotes relative status. An inferior person must bow lower than the superior person. The greater the disparity between the bows the greater the difference in status.
So what to make of this significantly lower bow before the Emperor who is considered descendant from the sun goddess Amaterasu-o-mi-kami. Perhaps the President intended to communicate to the Japanese people and the world that He is NOT a Deity. Did He want to dispel any and all notions such as those promulgated by Evan Thomas that President Obama in an effort to rise above national parochialism ".... is sort of god...."?
Bringing the symbolism back from the realm of mysticism, this gesture also has the effect of communicating that He considers himself inferior to the Emperor. And as the representative of the United States, that it too, by extension, is inferior. I'm sure this is NOT a good idea but it is consistent with the philosophy of the left that eschews the concept of American Exceptionalism, which they are quickly discreating though their domestic and foreign policy prescriptions.
No one knows for sure where these policies will lead. But global politics like any body-politic abhors a vacuum. The result will not be world-wide egalitarianism but the ascendancy of some power or alliance of powers to replace us.
So what to make of this significantly lower bow before the Emperor who is considered descendant from the sun goddess Amaterasu-o-mi-kami. Perhaps the President intended to communicate to the Japanese people and the world that He is NOT a Deity. Did He want to dispel any and all notions such as those promulgated by Evan Thomas that President Obama in an effort to rise above national parochialism ".... is sort of god...."?
Bringing the symbolism back from the realm of mysticism, this gesture also has the effect of communicating that He considers himself inferior to the Emperor. And as the representative of the United States, that it too, by extension, is inferior. I'm sure this is NOT a good idea but it is consistent with the philosophy of the left that eschews the concept of American Exceptionalism, which they are quickly discreating though their domestic and foreign policy prescriptions.
No one knows for sure where these policies will lead. But global politics like any body-politic abhors a vacuum. The result will not be world-wide egalitarianism but the ascendancy of some power or alliance of powers to replace us.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Boy Oh Boy, Maureen Dowd rebuttal
To the Editor:
It’s now official, Ms Dowd has spoken. All the protests against the policies of President Obama and the Democrats is racism. I reject this categorically.
I’ll admit there is an element that is racist. In the crowd on the Mall September 12, 2009 you could pretty much count them. They were carrying “The Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia”, a.k.a. the “Confederate” flag, which, by the way, it wasn’t. It is an over generalization to say they are all racist but for the argument let’s assume they are. I’m sure as a percentage of all flags carried that day it was a very small minority.
There is very legitimate political position in this country that is antithetical to the policy positions of this administration. Why would you not expect it to rise up when this country lurches to left in such a dramatic way? These protests are supported by Republicans, Libertarians, independents and perhaps a few Democrats.
But the problem is larger than policy differences. It more about process. An article by William Schambra in the September issue of National Affairs, “Obama and the Policy Approach”, http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/obama-and-the-policy-approach illustrates the problem. This article reveals the core problem that brought 10’s of thousands to the Mall.
“Progressive reformers throughout the 20th century came to denigrate the wisdom and relevance of the American Constitution, which frustrated centralization and coordination by dispersing governing power across the states and over the branches of government. Once thought essential to American freedom, these institutions now came to be seen as impediments to coherent national governance.”
The problem is not racism. The problem is political hi-jacking of the Constitution. Ok, if you want to “fundamentally transform the country”, do it legally, by amendment to the constitution.
It’s now official, Ms Dowd has spoken. All the protests against the policies of President Obama and the Democrats is racism. I reject this categorically.
I’ll admit there is an element that is racist. In the crowd on the Mall September 12, 2009 you could pretty much count them. They were carrying “The Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia”, a.k.a. the “Confederate” flag, which, by the way, it wasn’t. It is an over generalization to say they are all racist but for the argument let’s assume they are. I’m sure as a percentage of all flags carried that day it was a very small minority.
There is very legitimate political position in this country that is antithetical to the policy positions of this administration. Why would you not expect it to rise up when this country lurches to left in such a dramatic way? These protests are supported by Republicans, Libertarians, independents and perhaps a few Democrats.
But the problem is larger than policy differences. It more about process. An article by William Schambra in the September issue of National Affairs, “Obama and the Policy Approach”, http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/obama-and-the-policy-approach illustrates the problem. This article reveals the core problem that brought 10’s of thousands to the Mall.
“Progressive reformers throughout the 20th century came to denigrate the wisdom and relevance of the American Constitution, which frustrated centralization and coordination by dispersing governing power across the states and over the branches of government. Once thought essential to American freedom, these institutions now came to be seen as impediments to coherent national governance.”
The problem is not racism. The problem is political hi-jacking of the Constitution. Ok, if you want to “fundamentally transform the country”, do it legally, by amendment to the constitution.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Majority Rule on Health Care Reform August 29, 2009
To the Editors,
The NY Times, as expected, endorses the use of the “nuclear option”, the arcane “budget reconciliation” parliamentary rule to push through legislation that will eventually take over 1/7th of the U.S. economy. You’re to be congratulated.
This effort will hopefully result in a revolt at the polls in 2010. I can only hope that the Libertarian Party will take advantage of this and provide a slate of candidates to run against both Democratic and Republican incumbents. Currently the Democrats pose the gravest threat to our Republic, but the last 8 years of Republican rule set the stage. The only way to preserve it is to vote in Libertarians, the only party that truly understands the values of our Founders and our Constitution.
If not, this bill and future bills yet to be passed will surely “transform” this county, as the President promised during the campaign. The people of the United States will then come to understand how bad life can be under leftist dogma. Perhaps then they’ll do something about it.
The NY Times, as expected, endorses the use of the “nuclear option”, the arcane “budget reconciliation” parliamentary rule to push through legislation that will eventually take over 1/7th of the U.S. economy. You’re to be congratulated.
This effort will hopefully result in a revolt at the polls in 2010. I can only hope that the Libertarian Party will take advantage of this and provide a slate of candidates to run against both Democratic and Republican incumbents. Currently the Democrats pose the gravest threat to our Republic, but the last 8 years of Republican rule set the stage. The only way to preserve it is to vote in Libertarians, the only party that truly understands the values of our Founders and our Constitution.
If not, this bill and future bills yet to be passed will surely “transform” this county, as the President promised during the campaign. The people of the United States will then come to understand how bad life can be under leftist dogma. Perhaps then they’ll do something about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
