Unless of course you ask nicely and I agree to let you have it. We are an ownership society after all.
If someone were to boldly demand a right to steal from you face to face, tempers would likely flair. Why then do we allow ourselves to think it any different when the two wolves at the ballot box vote to have sheep for dinner?
So far as I can see, the main difference is that it’s difficult to know who to confront when you are a victim of theft via the voting booth. Government has a habit of nurturing anonymous five finger discounts by turbo charging mans ability to steal without consequence.
Sort of makes Government the perfect parasite, except for one thing. The host in this case has a longer memory than most and has now begun to understand his or her place in the order of things.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Visions and Schisms
Each of the two Old Parties has migrated from its original purposes and ideals into an enterprise that is filled with fissures. The Democrats were a strong coalition of classic liberals, minority groups and labor. The Republicans historic union of small-government proponents, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives is being challenged by the inclusion of the big-government, aggressive foreign policy neo-conservatives. We Libertarians are somewhat different. Our differences, our disagreements are part and parcel of our foundational make-up. We are fervently united in our passion for smaller, Constitutional government, thereby resulting in lower taxes for all Americans. Smaller government inevitably results in more personal freedom as unconstitutional rules, regulations and petty enforcements are discarded. Where we disagree, sometimes loudly, is on those personal freedom issues. Because we all cherish liberty and freedom, we are willing…and eager…to acknowledge our differences and to ultimately ignore them. Our unified desire for a Constitutional government as envisioned by the Founders overrides the petty, picayune, personal preferences that each of us embraces. We understand that personal non-threatening behavior is an individual choice that is of concern to the individual; his/her loved ones, and her/his Maker. As persons we are not capable of infallible judging or unbiased observing, therefore personal freedom should, indeed must, be a vital component of a nation and a party that cherishes freedom and respects individuals.
In the current political environment, we are witnessing significant citizen discontent. Many traditional Democrats are dismayed by the rapid race of their party toward big government progressivism. Republicans, on the other hand, are frustrated by their party’s willingness to aid and abet the growth of massive, intrusive and restrictive government. Most citizens are alarmed by the huge deficits and unrestrained spending that they witness at all levels of government. “Them natives are restless.” So, one would think that the Libertarian party would be the natural landing place for those citizens who are radically discontented with the present state of affairs. So far, we have not seen a mass exodus to libertarianism or a huge increase in the rolls of the Libertarian Party. Why not?
In my view, there are several elements in play that could account for the lack of a major shift of party preferences. The Democrats have historically favored interventionist government, and thus, may be skeptical of the Libertarian goal of a smaller Constitutional one. Republicans, because of the strength of the social conservatives and neo-cons, are resistant to the personal freedom and limited intervention messages. Finally, I believe the two most glaring reasons for their failure to join the Libertarian cause are that Libertarian candidates, as individuals, have not convinced the voters that they are prepared to govern. Incoherent messages, unpolished deliveries and foundationless stridency do not breed confidence in citizens who may be considering a change from a lifetime of voting behavior. Secondly, many of the discombobulated, discontented, disenfranchised and discouraged voters are not as passionate about smaller, Constitutional government as they profess to be. In their hearts of hearts, they would be content to live with the large over-bloated monstrosity that we now have…just no more. So, they will willingly lap up the protestations of slick career politicians who pledge to halt the march toward tyranny. The voters will believe them because they want to. They will ignore the reams of evidence that illustrate the professional class of politicians thrive in a growing state apparatus. The citizens will be deceived once again because they choose to swallow the deceit. As a Libertarian who burns for a smaller Constitutional government, I fear that the citizens who choose to be fooled again will cause my heart to break and my soul to cry.
Comment or email: earl4sos@gmail.com
In the current political environment, we are witnessing significant citizen discontent. Many traditional Democrats are dismayed by the rapid race of their party toward big government progressivism. Republicans, on the other hand, are frustrated by their party’s willingness to aid and abet the growth of massive, intrusive and restrictive government. Most citizens are alarmed by the huge deficits and unrestrained spending that they witness at all levels of government. “Them natives are restless.” So, one would think that the Libertarian party would be the natural landing place for those citizens who are radically discontented with the present state of affairs. So far, we have not seen a mass exodus to libertarianism or a huge increase in the rolls of the Libertarian Party. Why not?
In my view, there are several elements in play that could account for the lack of a major shift of party preferences. The Democrats have historically favored interventionist government, and thus, may be skeptical of the Libertarian goal of a smaller Constitutional one. Republicans, because of the strength of the social conservatives and neo-cons, are resistant to the personal freedom and limited intervention messages. Finally, I believe the two most glaring reasons for their failure to join the Libertarian cause are that Libertarian candidates, as individuals, have not convinced the voters that they are prepared to govern. Incoherent messages, unpolished deliveries and foundationless stridency do not breed confidence in citizens who may be considering a change from a lifetime of voting behavior. Secondly, many of the discombobulated, discontented, disenfranchised and discouraged voters are not as passionate about smaller, Constitutional government as they profess to be. In their hearts of hearts, they would be content to live with the large over-bloated monstrosity that we now have…just no more. So, they will willingly lap up the protestations of slick career politicians who pledge to halt the march toward tyranny. The voters will believe them because they want to. They will ignore the reams of evidence that illustrate the professional class of politicians thrive in a growing state apparatus. The citizens will be deceived once again because they choose to swallow the deceit. As a Libertarian who burns for a smaller Constitutional government, I fear that the citizens who choose to be fooled again will cause my heart to break and my soul to cry.
Comment or email: earl4sos@gmail.com
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Yellow Rose, Yellow Voters
The Texas Republican primary election has been concluded, and what have we learned? The latest numbers that I have seen show Governor Perry with 52% of the vote, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison claiming 31% and Deborah Medina trailing with 17 per cent. Clearly, the Texas results did not indicate that a visceral anti-incumbent mood was the dominant force because Perry already holds the record as the Lone Star State’s longest serving governor. Perhaps the voting in Texas reflects a virulent anti-Washington position because of KBH’s relatively weak finish, but the totals for Medina are the ones that I find most intriguing…and possibly most revealing.
Ms. Medina has been touted as the darling of the Tea Party Movement. Her platform and her pronouncements generally followed a Libertarian vein as she emphasized a smaller Constitutionally-conforming government. She joyfully played the role of the skunk at the picnic and was doing quite well in the pre-election polling until she appeared on the Glenn Beck radio program. Beck’s aggressive attitude with her, his almost-hostile questioning made Medina appear to be unready for leadership. One portion in particular was damaging to her campaign as Beck asked her about her position regarding the 911 Truthers. The Truthers are a fringe element of the society who appears to believe that the United States government was complicit or responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. Beck asked Medina what her position was regarding the 911 Truther movement. She waffled, weaseled and sputtered. Finally, she tossed out the line that she believed that some Truther claims deserved further investigation. Apparently Beck hadn’t taken his meds that morning, and he went semi-ballistic as he denounced her inability or unwillingness to forcefully disavow the Truthers.
Beck’s driving premise for his ostracizing of Medina was that she should have clearly, forcefully and unreservedly separated herself from Truther conspiracies. In a sense, I agree with Beck because to consider that my government may have had ANY input into the 911 murders, is too evil to comprehend. If government involvement were proven, then I would be forced to join in an armed resurrection or to totally withdraw to a place of isolation. For those reasons I reject any half-baked conspiratorial hypotheses that in any way, shape or form suggests the unfathomable. When reviewing the Truthers, it seems reasonable that one should be all in…or all out. Any other position, it seems to me, would result in painful unresolved angst. If one can examine this “issue” unemotionally and objectively, then I would assume that you do not love the United States of America. Just sayin’.
Back to the election: It seems to me that there are three (maybe more) conclusions that can be drawn from the Texas primary.
1.) Except for a small element, the Tea Party/Patriot movement is and always will be Republican. Despite their protestations that they are disturbed by “business as usual,” they will continue to vote for middle of the road Republicans when presented with alternatives.
2.) Medina was a flawed candidate. She allowed Beck to define her, and thus, forfeited her opportunity to garner enough support from the Perry camp to finish second and force a runoff. Of her 17 per cent totals, we do not know how many of her supporters were of the “kook” variety and how many were true freedom-lovers who rejected Perry’s opportunistic populism.
3.) Hutchison’s 31 per cent represents the old base of the Old Party. Name ID and length of service are important to them, and they generally reject finely tuned ideological messages.
There is in Texas a core element of freedom loving voters. On a percentage basis, they are probably much larger than here in Ohio. We have the strong union element that has existed in our political landscape for decades, and unfortunately, such an environment does not encourage independent thought. Our Tea Party/Patriot groups are very active in Ohio, but will, in the final analysis, support unprincipled Republicans because those candidates will master the rhetoric of liberty and continue to support growth in government. So, based on the Texas experiment, what are the realistic expectations for freedom and liberty candidates in Ohio in 2010? Our candidates are hamstrung by a lack of funding and a strong statewide infrastructure for generating votes. We must necessarily campaign as sixty-some individuals who form our campaigns according to our districts, our personal resources, our energy and our commitment. We have no retinue…no cluster of political groupies…to run our errands, drive our cars, design our ads or spread our messages. All we have is a passion for restoring the Constitution as the law of the land. All we desire is for Freedom to once again reign in America. All we need is strength and perseverance.
All we want is a few people who share our passion…who know a few people…who know more people…who know even more people…who know enough people to make a difference in Ohio.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Ms. Medina has been touted as the darling of the Tea Party Movement. Her platform and her pronouncements generally followed a Libertarian vein as she emphasized a smaller Constitutionally-conforming government. She joyfully played the role of the skunk at the picnic and was doing quite well in the pre-election polling until she appeared on the Glenn Beck radio program. Beck’s aggressive attitude with her, his almost-hostile questioning made Medina appear to be unready for leadership. One portion in particular was damaging to her campaign as Beck asked her about her position regarding the 911 Truthers. The Truthers are a fringe element of the society who appears to believe that the United States government was complicit or responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. Beck asked Medina what her position was regarding the 911 Truther movement. She waffled, weaseled and sputtered. Finally, she tossed out the line that she believed that some Truther claims deserved further investigation. Apparently Beck hadn’t taken his meds that morning, and he went semi-ballistic as he denounced her inability or unwillingness to forcefully disavow the Truthers.
Beck’s driving premise for his ostracizing of Medina was that she should have clearly, forcefully and unreservedly separated herself from Truther conspiracies. In a sense, I agree with Beck because to consider that my government may have had ANY input into the 911 murders, is too evil to comprehend. If government involvement were proven, then I would be forced to join in an armed resurrection or to totally withdraw to a place of isolation. For those reasons I reject any half-baked conspiratorial hypotheses that in any way, shape or form suggests the unfathomable. When reviewing the Truthers, it seems reasonable that one should be all in…or all out. Any other position, it seems to me, would result in painful unresolved angst. If one can examine this “issue” unemotionally and objectively, then I would assume that you do not love the United States of America. Just sayin’.
Back to the election: It seems to me that there are three (maybe more) conclusions that can be drawn from the Texas primary.
1.) Except for a small element, the Tea Party/Patriot movement is and always will be Republican. Despite their protestations that they are disturbed by “business as usual,” they will continue to vote for middle of the road Republicans when presented with alternatives.
2.) Medina was a flawed candidate. She allowed Beck to define her, and thus, forfeited her opportunity to garner enough support from the Perry camp to finish second and force a runoff. Of her 17 per cent totals, we do not know how many of her supporters were of the “kook” variety and how many were true freedom-lovers who rejected Perry’s opportunistic populism.
3.) Hutchison’s 31 per cent represents the old base of the Old Party. Name ID and length of service are important to them, and they generally reject finely tuned ideological messages.
There is in Texas a core element of freedom loving voters. On a percentage basis, they are probably much larger than here in Ohio. We have the strong union element that has existed in our political landscape for decades, and unfortunately, such an environment does not encourage independent thought. Our Tea Party/Patriot groups are very active in Ohio, but will, in the final analysis, support unprincipled Republicans because those candidates will master the rhetoric of liberty and continue to support growth in government. So, based on the Texas experiment, what are the realistic expectations for freedom and liberty candidates in Ohio in 2010? Our candidates are hamstrung by a lack of funding and a strong statewide infrastructure for generating votes. We must necessarily campaign as sixty-some individuals who form our campaigns according to our districts, our personal resources, our energy and our commitment. We have no retinue…no cluster of political groupies…to run our errands, drive our cars, design our ads or spread our messages. All we have is a passion for restoring the Constitution as the law of the land. All we desire is for Freedom to once again reign in America. All we need is strength and perseverance.
All we want is a few people who share our passion…who know a few people…who know more people…who know even more people…who know enough people to make a difference in Ohio.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Conspiracy
As each election cycle matures, the discussion of fringe voters becomes more heated. The two Old Parties seek to categorize the other’s base as “fringe.” The GOP tries to isolate the Democrats’ adherents as “leftists, socialists and communists,” while the Democrats identify elements of the Republican base as “Birchers, militia types and conspiracy theorists.” As a member of the largest third party, the Libertarian Party, I agree with both of the Old Parties. The Democrats have been the haven for leftist ideologues for my entire political memory, and the conspiracy theorists have been associating, to some degree, with the GOP as well. Without attempting to be an apologist for the Republicans, I have observed that as the government becomes more dominant in our daily lives, conspiracies flourish. In their hearts people have difficulty understanding that a large soulless government was a result of their electoral neglect. They suspect that some hidden nefarious scheme is responsible for the shrinking of personal liberty in the United States. They may be right, but I believe that the loss of personal freedom has come about because: a.) Democrats desire it; b.) Republicans are indifferent; and c.) conspiracists have been too busy watching for black helicopters to become engaged in the electoral process. But now, as our government seems to become increasing oppressive and decreasingly responsive, some citizens are puzzled by the sense that events are out of control. They seek answers. For some our vexing issues, however, there appear to be no satisfying solutions, therefore the citizen grasps onto whatever may explain the current precarious situation.
Superstition arises when there is a critical lack of certainty. If we have the full facts and knowledge about a situation, it is obvious that our analysis will usually be realistically based. It is the shortage of information and the absence of honest communication that prompt people to snatch onto tiny bits of data and then weave whole-cloth narratives or theories from the fragments. The political world is awash in conspiracies, innuendos, and other imaginative stories. A significant portion of the populace is openly disdainful of the government and governmental responses to their concerns. The credibility chasm has grown to become nearly unbreachable, but will the voters’ anger continue by electing fresh alternative candidates? Or will they continue to elect the same people from the same parties that they have for the past century and a half? Will they foolishly expect different outcomes? The roiling discontent that we are witnessing is a different environment from the norm. It remains to be seen if the voters have the courage …or the intelligence to seek new and better results.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Superstition arises when there is a critical lack of certainty. If we have the full facts and knowledge about a situation, it is obvious that our analysis will usually be realistically based. It is the shortage of information and the absence of honest communication that prompt people to snatch onto tiny bits of data and then weave whole-cloth narratives or theories from the fragments. The political world is awash in conspiracies, innuendos, and other imaginative stories. A significant portion of the populace is openly disdainful of the government and governmental responses to their concerns. The credibility chasm has grown to become nearly unbreachable, but will the voters’ anger continue by electing fresh alternative candidates? Or will they continue to elect the same people from the same parties that they have for the past century and a half? Will they foolishly expect different outcomes? The roiling discontent that we are witnessing is a different environment from the norm. It remains to be seen if the voters have the courage …or the intelligence to seek new and better results.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)