To my Libertarian, Tea Party, 912, We Surround Them, WeByFor and other affiliated and like-minded friends and Patriots:
Let me begin by acknowledging that is has been twenty-eight (28) years since I last ran for public office. I haven’t been totally dormant during that time because I have managed or consulted for a statewide ballot petitioning issue, a Congressional race, three County Commission campaigns, a County Auditor’s contest and various and sundry legislative and local campaigns. In addition, my graduate work was in Political Communication while pursuing my advanced degrees within the Mass Communication discipline. In other words, I have been very involved with the electoral process for the past three decades and longer.
Many of you are engaged in the electoral process in a meaningful way for the very first time. Your energy, your passion and your commitment to good Constitutional government are commendable. There is, however, one area where I believe that your efforts are leading to a significant strategic error and a gross miscalculation. Your primary focus based on your rhetoric and efforts seems to be directed toward the national political scene. Granted, Washington is radically messed up, but I believe that your impact and your effectiveness should be targeted toward the state.
Because I live in Ohio, I will use the Buckeye state as an illustration of why I would re-direct my energies if I were you. In my humble opinion the efforts of liberty loving patriots should be directed towards state legislative races. Why? Twelve (12) active individuals can, through their efforts, make the difference in an Ohio House contest. A dozen committed workers can implement a true “feet on the ground” strategy that can overcome most funding inequities, work EVERY neighborhood and capitalize on every outreach opportunity within the district. It takes 50 House members to control the general Assembly, therefore with roughly six hundred (600) active, engaged and dedicated workers, we/you could exercise true power in the state capitol. Clearly, working with candidates who are welded to a nullification agenda is critical. The candidates MUST be strict Constitutionalists who will not waver. Because they represent smaller districts within the state and because Columbus is reasonably accessible, the people can hold “their feet to the fire.” You might counter by remarking that the legislators do not pay attention to their constituents now, so what would change? Well, the new members would owe their positions to you “new activists.”
Similar numbers would have the same impact in the Ohio Senate races. With 25-30 energized team members, a Senate district would be in play. Seventeen is the controlling number in the upper chamber of the Ohio General Assembly, so roughly 500 freedom warriors could change the course of Ohio’s history. Add the House and Senate districts together, and roughly 1100 dedicated, hard working people could transform Ohio’s and the Nation’s political landscape. The Nation’s? Of course, with an Ohio legislature committed to a Nullification Agenda….and if a few other states follow the same path, then 10 to 11 states who refuse to implement any unconstitutional garbage from the feds would cause federal Nannyism to screech to a halt. What response could we (the states, Ohio) expect from Big Brother? National Guard? Can’t do it because too many of our Guard are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan plus are your friends, neighbors, sons and daughters going to forcibly make you comply with illegal federal law? I don’t think so.
So, what about a statewide campaign (e.g. mine)? Won’t the nullification legislature be hamstrung by statewide officials who do not support their principles? Perhaps, but an effective, winning statewide campaign can be waged with 500-600 active workers, however a statewide nullification supporter can get by with fewer because of the carry-over from the legislative races. You might ask what about those critters who represent our state in Congress? First, I’m inherently suspicious of anyone who lusts to serve there, but they are generally quick to jump in front of a bandwagon when they see it coming. Let’s do the calculus: Twelve to 15 people in 50 house (a dozen or so neighbors, co-workers, churchmembers)districts, plus 25-30 people in 17 senate districts and 500 working for a statewide ticket can transform the political structure in Ohio. Ohio will have 16 Congressional seats for the next election cycle (2012). Fewer than 2,000 extremely active Patriots will be altering Ohio politics and governance for the better. If Ohio were to do a political “180,” isn’t it likely that at least 9 Members of Congress will jump on board. If we concentrate on Congress alone without placing Ohio at the hub of reform, then we will be sending people to that den of corruption with little support. They’ll be hours away by plane and surrounded by the culture that got us into this mess in the first place. Even if we can elect people with 100% Constitutional principles over 3 to 4 election cycles, by the time we have a full contingent of Patriots, the early victors would probably have begun the trail of compromise. Let’s begin the cleansing here.
So, Charlie, you might ask…what about the courts? What if they strike down all of our nullification efforts? My response is “so what?” An apocryphal story attributes this quote to Andrew Jackson referring to the Supreme Court: They have made their decision, now let them enforce it.” The courts have no police or military units. There is precedent in Ohio for ignoring state Supreme Court edicts---remember the school funding fiasco? OK, what about the Rule of Law that is so instrumental for maintaining a civil Republic? In the words of a five year old in the back seat of a car: They did it to me first. The Congress, the Executive, the Judicial branches on the Federal level plus all three branches of the state level have cavalierly ignored the supreme law of the land while stealing our liberty, our labor and our property.
The May 4th Primaries have come and gone. The results for the Champions of Liberty were rather meager. There were some small victories, but generally speaking, our clocks were cleaned. The diffused nature of our activities doomed us to come up short in the electoral lottery for liberty. So what vehicles do we have available now with the General Election a mere 5 months down the road? My suggestion would be to quickly vet the remaining candidates for the General Assembly and statewide office. If a third party candidate who has ballot access meets all the qualifications for Constitutional restoration and nullification, then we should coalesce around those candidates (obviously, I prefer the Libertarian alternatives). NO CANDIDATE WHO REPRESENTS ONE OF THE MAJOR PARTIES SHOULD RECEIVE OUR COORDINATED ACTIVE SUPPORT. Why? Well, if you haven’t learned from the Primary election that Kevin DeWine and those of his careerist ilk are not your friends, then you cannot seriously be considered a reformist. You could be mildly disturbed with the party apparatus, but you would be willing to give them the car keys again to drive you home from the party. I served in office as a Republican legislator in the ‘80’s. I have watched them become “D-lite” politicians who are more interested in their careers than they are with MY state. The only states that they appear to wholeheartedly support is the state of confusion…the state of economic collapse…the state of political misfeasance and malfeasance, and the state of political corruption. If there is no viable third party candidate available in a given district, then a careful thoughtful vetting of the two remaining Old Party partisans should be undertaken with a bias in favor of the candidate who has served the least amount of time in office. Never forget…career politicians lie…often. The existent party apparatus has fought against Liberty candidates, including GOP State Central Committee, in the past—both way back (I remember Goldwater) and as late as this month. They are untrustworthy. All about power and party…not about principle and posterity.
When one has been assaulted, when one’s loved ones have been abused and when one’s treasure has been confiscated by an irresponsible, out-of-control government, then one is duty bound (to God, to one’s family and one’s progeny) to resist with every weapon in the armory. The strategy that I have proposed herein is non-violent, Constitutional and was anticipated by the Founders. Join me as we forge a new vision for Ohio (and all you other states who have the courage to join us) and restore the great documents that were inspired by God and conceived by men—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. If we are citizens who cherish our country, our state, our honor and our legacy, then we must engage in a plan that will work in the short term and endure until the people become lethargic again and the process will have to be repeated. Let us hope and pray that future generations will look to us as inspiring beacons of liberty just as we look to our Founding.
Please accept my apology for being so tardy with this observation. I understand that the disparate groups among you have varying goals and objectives. My intent is not to dictate how you advance the cause of Freedom, but I love my Lord, my wife, my family, my community, my state ….. and my country. I am now more than six decades old (60+ for those in Rio Linda). I am sorry that I have not fulfilled my duty as a leader of my family and as a citizen. My disdain for the political class (career politicians) outweighed my alarm and willingness to do battle again. I do not want the same thing to happen to all of you. I can image that if victory and Constitutional restoration are not accomplished relatively quickly, then your frustration and despair will mirror mine. That cannot be allowed to happen. That must not occur. Our children and grandchildren shall not live in tyranny.
Thank you.
For comments, contact:
Charlie Earl
Libertarian candidate for Ohio Secretary of State
www.earlforohio.com
earl4sos@gmail.com
Monday, May 24, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Minority Rights
When you saw the title of this column, you probably made an assumption about its subject matter. You were wrong. As a third-party candidate for statewide office, I have become painfully aware of the double standard the media use when covering politics. Only rarely are those of us who represent smaller parties or points of view covered by those who engage in “serious” print or broadcast journalism. Frequently when an esteemed member of the Fourth Estate does lower herself/himself to seek our views, they do so with an aire of “gotcha” in place. For example, one so-called writer, editor, bottle washer and copy-machine-fixer of an online news source sought to get my opinion on one of those “when did you stop beating your wife” questions. It involved a member of our party (Libertarian Party of Ohio, www.LPO.org ) who was heavily involved in a protest outside of a congressman’s home following the passage of the Healthcare Travesty. This particular congressman had been a member of the infamous Stupak coalition of pro-life Democrats, but just like his group leader, had caved and voted for the bill on the fraudulent pretense that the President’s executive Order would trump the legislation. Our member is a candidate for the office that is currently held by the lily-livered, cowardly fraud. Our member and his cohorts staged a protest on the sidewalk outside the home of the aforementioned spineless congresscritter. It was legal. It was a valid expression of the First Amendment.
Would I personally protest at a politician’s home rather than his office? No, I would not, but that does not alter the fact that as long as the protesters obeyed the law and remained on the public sidewalk, and did not harm or threaten the person, the property or the family of the congressperson, then they had every RIGHT to do so. Our party is fundamentally based on three primary principles: smaller, Constitutional government; lower taxes resulting from smaller government; and more personal freedom. The writer wanted me to condemn our member for protesting on the sidewalk near the politician’s home because he believed it was tasteless. Maybe it was tasteless, but the First Amendment does not address the issue of taste…particularly when political speech is involved. So, the writer wishes for me to condemn the protester/member and undermine the principles of my party. That I refused to do so automatically slotted me into the category of tasteless rube with no standards of decency. If those two options are the only ones available, then I plead guilty to the latter.
Having studied the elements of victimology for several decades, I understand that if the media were to treat my party as a bona fide minority (which we are until Election Day), then they would provide every imaginable justification for our shortcomings and failures. Instead of being a pesky afterthought when they seek pithy quotes about important matters, we would be at the top of the Rolodex as a protected political minority. I am not insisting that we be given the same level of deference as Jesse Jackson or Michael Moore. Call me anything you want, O’ all-knowing journalist, just call me. Our voice may be tiny, but it is a voice that represents thousands (maybe even millions) of freedom loving people in the Buckeye state. Keep on doing your tired old sound bites and quotes from the old duopoly, but give the champions of liberty a voice…a chance.
If Affirmative Action were in place for the previously stated conundrum, then we would be the first to be sought when something profound or confrontational was needed for the newscast, the column or the article. Personally, I don’t want the affirmative action remedy. I do not mind going last in the quotation roundup. You see, our adversaries are so predictable and non-committal, that its fun to follow them and kick-up some dust. So, minority rights are fine with me. I don’t require special treatment. I merely want treatment.
Comment or email: earl4sos@gmail.com
Would I personally protest at a politician’s home rather than his office? No, I would not, but that does not alter the fact that as long as the protesters obeyed the law and remained on the public sidewalk, and did not harm or threaten the person, the property or the family of the congressperson, then they had every RIGHT to do so. Our party is fundamentally based on three primary principles: smaller, Constitutional government; lower taxes resulting from smaller government; and more personal freedom. The writer wanted me to condemn our member for protesting on the sidewalk near the politician’s home because he believed it was tasteless. Maybe it was tasteless, but the First Amendment does not address the issue of taste…particularly when political speech is involved. So, the writer wishes for me to condemn the protester/member and undermine the principles of my party. That I refused to do so automatically slotted me into the category of tasteless rube with no standards of decency. If those two options are the only ones available, then I plead guilty to the latter.
Having studied the elements of victimology for several decades, I understand that if the media were to treat my party as a bona fide minority (which we are until Election Day), then they would provide every imaginable justification for our shortcomings and failures. Instead of being a pesky afterthought when they seek pithy quotes about important matters, we would be at the top of the Rolodex as a protected political minority. I am not insisting that we be given the same level of deference as Jesse Jackson or Michael Moore. Call me anything you want, O’ all-knowing journalist, just call me. Our voice may be tiny, but it is a voice that represents thousands (maybe even millions) of freedom loving people in the Buckeye state. Keep on doing your tired old sound bites and quotes from the old duopoly, but give the champions of liberty a voice…a chance.
If Affirmative Action were in place for the previously stated conundrum, then we would be the first to be sought when something profound or confrontational was needed for the newscast, the column or the article. Personally, I don’t want the affirmative action remedy. I do not mind going last in the quotation roundup. You see, our adversaries are so predictable and non-committal, that its fun to follow them and kick-up some dust. So, minority rights are fine with me. I don’t require special treatment. I merely want treatment.
Comment or email: earl4sos@gmail.com
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
It's mine and you can't have it.
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.
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.
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
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Dissatisfaction
The current political environment bristles with excitement. As I travel across Ohio meeting with various groups, I am struck by how many people are becoming familiar with the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, and the wisdom of the Founders. Each local organization has its own organizational structure even if it has been patterned after a national model. Each local group has its own emphases and priorities sometimes in accordance with the larger organization, and often in addition to those that are of broader concern. Certainly, the level of activity and the nature of their actions vary widely among the newly-active.
At the risk of engaging in oversimplification, I believe that I can place the members of the Patriot groups, Tea Partiers, Liberty Lobbyists and so forth into four distinct categories: the Discontented; the Dissenters; the Disillusioned; and the Disenfranchised. Not only does each local organization appear to reflect one of these categorical distinctions, but within each local committee, one can find some members who represent the various aspects of the spectrum. The Discontented believe that the political system is generally operating reasonably well, but that on specific issues and certain policy matters, the government (federal, state, or local) has failed to address the concerns of the voters. The Disillusioned suspect that the entire government apparatus at every level has gone haywire, and they fear that it may be too late to restore any level of sanity to our system of self-governing. The Disenfranchised believe that government has become a cudgel of tyranny that is committed to beating the citizenry into submission. The Dissenters represent, in my view, the largest segment of the Patriot movement. They merge their love of country, respect for the Founders and the Documents, with passionate belief that they can ferret out good candidates, support them and restore the nation, state or local community. Generally Dissenters are more optimistic about the future of the Republic than are the other attitudinal categories. In my experience, Dissenters are Republicans who seek to purge the party of RINO’s and liberals. They maintain their allegiance to the GOP while seeking to support candidates who represent the conservative mainstream and the principles associated with conservatism. Some Dissenters have chosen to run for County Central Committee posts in order to assure that the conservative emergence is not short lived.
Many of us who are Libertarian candidates either seek or are offered opportunities to meet with many of the Patriot groups to explain our positions and to engage in informational dialogue with their members. Our assumptions as we encounter the Patriot groups are varied. Some of us go with the idea that all citizens who are disgruntled provide a willing audience for our message of smaller Constitutional government, low taxes and more personal freedom. It is up to us to convince them that Libertarianism is the vehicle for them to express their dissatisfaction. Our anti-tyranny, pro-freedom message should be attractive for the Disenfranchised people. Their angst will find a home in a third party such as ours. The Disillusioned, too, provide an opportunity for Libertarians to acquire some votes and support. They desperately want a new direction of governance that is more citizen oriented—more bottom up.
The Discontented and Dissenters are more problematic for Libertarian candidates. If they have been Democrats and are discouraged with the leftist progressive influence within the party, then they become ripe targets for the Libertarian message. If, on the other hand, the Discontented and Dissenters are within the ranks of the GOP, then their primary focus is to reform and restore the party. A Libertarian candidate who clearly shares their views and their objectives may be considered if he/she is not running for an office that could sway the balance of power between the two old parties. The fact that these four groups are frustrated with the political systems as it presently functions is an advantage for Libertarians, but because this is perceived to be a Republican year due to Democrat overreaching at the federal level, the Discontented and the Dissenters may decide to “stay home,” and thus become more difficult to convince that Libertarianism is in their best interest. Nevertheless, we should engage them all and share our message of liberty.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
At the risk of engaging in oversimplification, I believe that I can place the members of the Patriot groups, Tea Partiers, Liberty Lobbyists and so forth into four distinct categories: the Discontented; the Dissenters; the Disillusioned; and the Disenfranchised. Not only does each local organization appear to reflect one of these categorical distinctions, but within each local committee, one can find some members who represent the various aspects of the spectrum. The Discontented believe that the political system is generally operating reasonably well, but that on specific issues and certain policy matters, the government (federal, state, or local) has failed to address the concerns of the voters. The Disillusioned suspect that the entire government apparatus at every level has gone haywire, and they fear that it may be too late to restore any level of sanity to our system of self-governing. The Disenfranchised believe that government has become a cudgel of tyranny that is committed to beating the citizenry into submission. The Dissenters represent, in my view, the largest segment of the Patriot movement. They merge their love of country, respect for the Founders and the Documents, with passionate belief that they can ferret out good candidates, support them and restore the nation, state or local community. Generally Dissenters are more optimistic about the future of the Republic than are the other attitudinal categories. In my experience, Dissenters are Republicans who seek to purge the party of RINO’s and liberals. They maintain their allegiance to the GOP while seeking to support candidates who represent the conservative mainstream and the principles associated with conservatism. Some Dissenters have chosen to run for County Central Committee posts in order to assure that the conservative emergence is not short lived.
Many of us who are Libertarian candidates either seek or are offered opportunities to meet with many of the Patriot groups to explain our positions and to engage in informational dialogue with their members. Our assumptions as we encounter the Patriot groups are varied. Some of us go with the idea that all citizens who are disgruntled provide a willing audience for our message of smaller Constitutional government, low taxes and more personal freedom. It is up to us to convince them that Libertarianism is the vehicle for them to express their dissatisfaction. Our anti-tyranny, pro-freedom message should be attractive for the Disenfranchised people. Their angst will find a home in a third party such as ours. The Disillusioned, too, provide an opportunity for Libertarians to acquire some votes and support. They desperately want a new direction of governance that is more citizen oriented—more bottom up.
The Discontented and Dissenters are more problematic for Libertarian candidates. If they have been Democrats and are discouraged with the leftist progressive influence within the party, then they become ripe targets for the Libertarian message. If, on the other hand, the Discontented and Dissenters are within the ranks of the GOP, then their primary focus is to reform and restore the party. A Libertarian candidate who clearly shares their views and their objectives may be considered if he/she is not running for an office that could sway the balance of power between the two old parties. The fact that these four groups are frustrated with the political systems as it presently functions is an advantage for Libertarians, but because this is perceived to be a Republican year due to Democrat overreaching at the federal level, the Discontented and the Dissenters may decide to “stay home,” and thus become more difficult to convince that Libertarianism is in their best interest. Nevertheless, we should engage them all and share our message of liberty.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)