'Cause I Said So…

Liberals’ Money Better Spent Elsewhere

Posted in Free Speech, Leftism, Social Media by kevinsoberg on May 25, 2012

[This post is written in response to Michelle Malkin’s call-to-arms, Free Speech Blogburst: Show Solidarity for Targeted Conservative Bloggers ]

I’ve been reading all of the posts and articles concerning the convicted bomber and known con man, Brett Kimberlin, aka “The Speedway Bomber”, who has become since leaving prison a leftist activist/ blogger. (See: Progressives Embrace Convicted Terrorist) Now, it seems Kimberlin is abusing the justice system to harass his critics. (See these links: Summary/Preview of my Post “How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime (And How You Can Help!)”,  Convicted Bomber Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, and Their Campaign of Political Terrorism, and Domestic Terrorist Now Using ‘Lawfare’? Convicted Felon Kimberlin’s 501(c)3 Raised $1.8 Million in Six Years )

After reading all of these articles (and more) three questions came to my mind. The first was “If some idiot tried this crap with me, which lawyer would I call first?” The second was “If someone were foolish enough to threaten me or mine, which would I go for first, pistol or shotgun?” The third was “Don’t liberals have a better way to waste their money?”

A “Swatting”

In addition to being one nasty character, Kimberlin also seems to be screwing his generous donors, such as Barbara Streisand and the Tides Foundation. Kimberlin runs his “non-profit” organizations, Velvet Revolution and Justice Through Music, out of his mother’s home. The web sites of his organizations don’t seem to be very active. So, what are these donors getting for their money? It seems the only thing is an easy lifestyle for Kimberlin, who evades a court ordered payment for damages to the family of one of his victims. (See: Leftist Blogger’s Criminal Past Raises Questions About His Real Intent )

If the purpose of these donations is supposed to be leftist activism, then they may be disappointed. (Looks like the funds may have been misappropriated.) His donors have most definitely not been doing their due diligence. They might just want to change that. I know if I give money, I want results, or at least some evidence of actual activity.

So, if these donors don’t really care about political results, but still feel the need to continue giving away their money, may I make a suggestion? Instead of giving money to this criminal, to underwrite his life of leisure, why not give that money to the truly needy? I say give that money to a homeless shelter, a soup kitchen, a no-kill animal shelter or some other non-political charity. Any or all of these could most definitely use the money.

[Hey, Babs! If you want to give money to someone for political activity, I’ll be more than happy to take it. You’ll get results… just not the kind you like.]

Party of Squishes or Party of Conservatives

Ayn Rand had it right in Atlas Shrugged. Without the willing consent of the hosts, the parasites cannot continue to survive.

In light of the recent election, I’m waiting to see if the GOP will change direction. If they cannot do this in a serous way, then this election is only another speed-bump on Hayek’s “road to serfdom”.

I don’t only mean the GOP changing the country’s direction. No, I mean a change in the GOP’s own direction. Will it actually become the party of the “country class”, or will it continue to remain simply another party of the “ruling class”?

The GOP has been mouthing “country class” values for decades, but has (for the most part) not put these words into action. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and both Bushes, they all believed in big government. It’s not simply that they believed the existing government was too big for them to meaningfully change. No, they bought into the necessity and usefulness of big government. They may have wanted to marginally change its direction and how it operated. They may have wanted to make it less wasteful, more effective, and less costly. However, the premise underlying big government was never really questioned.

Since WWII, only two Republican presidential candidates, Goldwater and Reagan, have been true Conservatives. Can we really call the GOP the “conservative” party when only two of its last ten presidential candidates have been conservative? We can work to elect as many conservative Senators and Congressmen as possible. However, how can we expect them to behave conservatively when most GOP standard bearers are “squishy” moderates?

Many of us have worked hard for decades to elect conservative politicians to help retain those of our freedoms which remain, and to regain those freedoms which we have lost. Our only real hope is for those of us in the “country class” to once and for all take control of the Republican Party from the Establishment. Once we’ve wrested control from them, their only chance for survival within the party is to go along for ride.

Won’t we lose some of the Establishment to the Democrats? Think about it. If that’s the case, then chances are they are already voting with them a lot of the time. In many important ways they’re already gone. If they don’t agree with us most of the time, and find us to be the bigger threat, then let them be on their way. In the larger scheme of things it won’t make much of a difference. The Establishment as an actual percentage of voters is not enough to make the difference in general elections, as long as we bring in the disaffected Independents.

Are these the same Independents the MSM talks about incessantly every election cycle? No, I’m not talking about the pseudo-moderates, who are, for the most part, the least informed among us. How has it become a virtue to have no educated opinion about the elected leadership of your country? No, I would do best to not speak of these pitiful, ignorant sheep watching Oprah and The View. Instead, I’m talking about disaffected, right-of-center citizens, who feel the Republican Party haven’t spoken to or for them, or, worse, believe their votes have been taken for granted in the past.

I’ve recently been reading articles about the successive groups of new voters having come to the GOP beginning in the early 1970’s. According to the pundits, the first was Nixon’s “silent majority”. Next to appear were the “Reagan Democrats”. Then on their heels came the “Christian Right”. Each of these new groups ushered, in turn, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, the Freshman Class of ‘95, and then Bush II. The newest of these groups of voters is supposed to be the “Tea Parties”, which helped the GOP take over the House of Representatives, and most of the States’ legislatures.

The “new voter groups” theory sounds great. However, if you take more than a cursory look at it, you’ll find it to be total nonsense.

Since the death of FDR, Democrats have won seven presidential elections. Of those seven elections, only three times were they won with a majority of the popular vote. Two of these Presidents were Johnson and Carter, both of whom were unable to win re-election. The third President is the current officeholder, Barack Obama. People seem to forget that Clinton won both of his elections with only a plurality of the popular vote totals. Arguably, without Perot’s third-party candidacy, Clinton would not have even been elected the first time.

During this same period, there have been nine Republican presidential victories. Of these nine elections, only two were won with less than a majority of the popular vote. In both of these cases, the Presidents won re-election with an outright majority. These two Presidents were Nixon and G.W. Bush.

So, let us look again at this “new groups” theory. According to this theory, Republicans, who’ve had presidential election majorities most of the time, keep adding to this majority with new groups coming into the fold. I don’t know about you, but the math doesn’t add up for me.

Nixon won re-election in 1972 with 60.7% of the popular vote. That vote would have included his “silent majority”. Where were those voters in 1976 when Ford garnered only 48% of the vote? It wasn’t like Nixon was running again. Ford was untouched by the “Watergate” scandal. If a “new group” had joined the GOP, what happened to them? While the total popular vote did increase by almost 4 million, Ford received approximately 8 million fewer votes than did Nixon four years earlier.

Reagan won election with 50.8% in 1980, and then won re-election with 58.8% of the popular vote in 1984. Not only was Reagan’s ’80 vote a smaller percentage than was Nixon ’72 vote, it was also about 4 million fewer votes. So, we started with Nixon’s 60% including his “silent majority”, and then we supposedly added “Reagan Democrats” and the “Christian Right”. How do we end up back at 58%? Yes, in ’84 Reagan did receive over 7 million more votes than Nixon’s high water mark, but the popular vote had increased by almost 14 million. I thought these were “new groups”. How does this theory explain Bush only getting 53% of the vote in 1988, and his then getting 37% in 1992? Bush’s ‘88 vote was just 1.7 million more than Nixon’s ’72 vote, and his ’92 vote was even lower than Ford’s vote in ‘76, while the total popular vote had increased by almost 22 million.

Another problem with this theory is the Clinton years. Two years after Clinton’s election, the GOP took control of both Houses of Congress. Yet two years later, Clinton was able to win re-election, albeit with less than a majority of the vote. However, the GOP maintained control of Congress until after G.W. Bush’s second mid-term elections, with the exception of the Senate during the first two years of his first term (thank you, Jim Jeffords).

Now, just two years after President Obama won the presidency with 53% of the popular vote, the Republicans have again taken control of the House of Representatives with a historically large majority. Why have the American people changed their minds so dramatically in just two short years? Have the GOP, indeed, brought over a new voting block, the “Tea Parties”, consisting of voters dissatisfied with the President? I don’t think so.

Unfortunately for the pundits, the “new groups” theory rest on three assumptions. First, one has to believe that all citizens of voting age already vote. Next, one must believe all of these voters are well-informed of and have a good understanding of the American political system and political philosophy. Finally, one has to believe the default position for most voters is Democrat. However, we all know three of these things are patently not true.

We know all citizens of voting age are not registered to vote. We know less than 70% of those who are registered voted in the most recent presidential election. Anyone who has been to an American public high school knows how little is actually taught about our systems of elections, Constitutional processes, political philosophies or the histories of our political parties. We also know that both major parties have about 30% of registered voters each. So, why is the question always framed in a way that seems to assume the Democrats are the majority party? “Where are these Republican voters coming from?” Indeed?

Let us look back over the last eight congressional election cycles. During this sixteen year period, both parties have had the presidency for eight of the years. In the Senate, Democrats had control for six years, while Republicans had majorities for ten years. In the House, Democrats have had control for only four years, while the Republicans have had control for twelve of the years. The next two years will see a change to only equal years of control in the Senate. So, if we call the House, as did the Framers, that chamber of the legislative branch closest to the people, then it could be considered the tie breaker. The country is marginally more Republican than Democrat.

Let’s look at this question another way. Consistently for about twenty years, people have identified themselves in opinion polls as conservative, moderate, or liberal, by 40%, 40% and 20%, respectively. Now, the Republican Party has sold itself to be the “conservative” party, while selling the Democrats as the “liberal” party. Not that the Democrats identify themselves that way. Most Democrat politicians run away from that characterization, choosing instead to be called “progressives”, “moderates”, or by some other undefined term.

The dirty little secret is… neither of them is coming clean with the people. In reality, the Republican Party is the moderate-right party, while the Democrats are the liberal party. It’s not a matter of how they market themselves, but of who actually runs the parties and the legislation they promote. Do we judge somebody by their actions or their intent? It has to be by their actions, because there is no way to know what’s in a man’s soul.

If the GOP were actually the conservative party, then the national party leadership would be conservative, as would be its legislation agenda. They would be conservative enough to hold on to the 40% of the population who call themselves conservative, while reaching out to those moderates who are right-leaning, just enough to get slightly over one-quarter of them. Instead, it has a party leadership which promotes legislation to the moderate 40%, and then reaches out to the conservative 40% just enough to win elections. Its outreach to conservatives is done in two different but complimentary ways: promising to be more conservative, and (if that doesn’t work) fear-mongering about the Left. A truly conservative party would never do things like introduce new or expand existing government programs, offer amnesty to illegal aliens, or allow itself to become the tax collector for the welfare state.

The Democrats are different, but use similar tactics. They claim to be the party of the center, while being run by the Hard Left. They constantly market themselves to the “mushy” middle. They use ill-defined terms like “fairness” and “equality”. They are always talking about giving a “helping hand” to those “less fortunate” than ourselves. They use all the feel-good language of the day. However, they never talk about the costs, in Property and in Liberty, of all this “generosity”. The majority of their leadership comes from super-safe, ultra-liberal enclaves, which all but guarantees their re-election to office in perpetuity. They constantly push and prod the political system to advance their statist agenda, all the while talking of “moderation”, “compromise” and “bi-partisanship”. Would a truly moderate party seek to gather all power and resources into a centralized state?

So, taking a critical eye to the proposed “new groups” theory regarding Republican Party expansion over the past few decades one would have to declare it “hooey”. It begs many more questions than it offers solutions. Why the sudden surge, then quick recession, in the wake of Nixon? Why was Reagan/Bush able to have three terms, but never come close to a majority in the House? How was Clinton able to gain re-election, even after the “Gingrich Revolution”? How were Republicans able to gain and keep Congress through Clinton, then to lose it outright during Bush’s second term? How was the GOP able to regain the House, come close in the Senate, and devastate the Democrats at the state-level just two years after having “it” handed to them by Obama, Pelosi and Reid?

The “new groups” theory fails because it is based on the idea that the Republican Party itself had any involvement in its own good fortunes. It’s a great idea to sell, if you’re in the politics business. “I, too, can get you voters. Here’s the magic formula.” If that were the case, then the GOP would have gotten 60+% of the vote even after Nixon. The only control the GOP seems to have over its fate is in making the wrong decisions, often at the most inopportune moments. You see, the Republicans, through their own hubris, lose almost as many voters as they gain, over any given period of time.

The GOP gains voters at times of perceived “crisis” to these peoples’ way of life. However, the GOP can’t keep large numbers of these new voters for the long-term because they continually disappoint the new arrivals. Inevitably, a new crisis occurs and the cavalry (or its successors), composed of the productive, middle-classes, ride out to the rescue. They don’t come in rescue of the GOP, but to rescue the nation. The GOP’s short-term success is just a by-product of these good citizens’ desire to defend their families and selves from an overreaching state.

These different groups of voters coming to the GOP are not permanent additions, like water pumped into a holding-tank. These voters are more like waves crashing on a beach. It’s repeating cycles of the same water, over and over. It washes up and then pulls away, driven by the political tides and winds. They become energized, act, and then becoming dispirited and disillusioned, finally pull away. Then a new crisis occurs beginning the cycle anew. The waves don’t accumulate, though larger ones have been known to wash over the dunes and collect in pools behind them.

The “Tea Party” movement is just the most recent of these citizen waves. It is potentially the strongest of these waves in several generations. It must wash over the political leadership in Washington and undermine the dunes of centralized authority. It must not simply slip back into the sea, its energy wasted on the beach. They cannot, as in the past, just elect new people and then go back to their lives, hoping these guys will do as promised. We’ve seen what’s happened too often.

The power of Washington is intoxicating liquor, which once imbibed proves too difficult for many to resist. We need to be the ones to call their tab and send them home if they get too drunk on it. No one is more dangerous than a politician behind the wheel of government, drunk on their own power. None is safe in his path.

In addition to my “crisis wave” theory to explain sudden volte-faces in the political fortunes of Washington, I have a “general theory” of American popular politics. It’s is, “In the aggregate, most people in most states will elect the more ‘convincingly conservative’ candidate (and/or party, in the case of a nationalized legislative election), unless they have good reason to distrust their authenticity. In the absence of a perceived degree of difference, the voters will default to a contest of personalities. For the purposes of this theory ‘conservative’ is defined as a generalized belief in traditionalism, national defense and free-enterprise, not the more specific ‘Movement Conservatism’.” If you apply this theory, not as a Monday morning quarterback, using the information the average voter would have had at the time of the election, you can see why some elections went the way they did.

In ’48, Dewey was a liberal “me-too” Republican with no point of difference. In ’52 and ’56, Stevenson was a “pointy-headed intellectual” and Ike was a successful, military leader. In ’60, the platforms were nearly indistinguishable, and so it was Dick or Jack by likability. ’64, here we have an outlier because the self-styled conservative lost, but other issues at play, like assassination (exceptions prove the rule, right?). In ’68, Nixon seen as conservative to Humphrey (plus Chicago Convention didn’t help matters). In ’72, Nixon was seen as way more conservative than McGovern. In ’76, the Rockefeller Republican Ford versus professed born-again Christian, Southern Democrat Governor (in the wake of Watergate, to boot) was a no-contest. ’80, Reagan beats Carter. ’84, Reagan really beats Mondale. ’88, Reagan’s successor beats Massachusetts Governor. ’92, incumbent no longer seen as conservative loses to moderate Southern Democrat Governor (trust issues and degree of difference). In ’96, Clinton had been pulled to the right while Dole ran as a moderate (no degree of difference, default to personalities). In ’00, “soft” conservative, Southern Governor defeats moderate Southern, Senator/Vice-President (most people in most states, electoral college). In ’04, sitting war-time President beats Northeast, Democrat Senator. In ’08, moderate-sounding, well-spoken, young Senator defeats historically moderate-sounding, grouchy, old Senator (remember that MSM didn’t report any appreciably negative stories, his politics were not well examined, while McCain ran to the left giving people nothing to go on but personalities).

My theory explains sixteen of the seventeen most recent elections. Take of it what you will. It does a lot better job of analyzing these past elections than any other on I’ve heard. In examining any problem, I tend to use Occam’s razor. It just seems to cut through all the unnecessarily complicated ideas. Think about it. Look at the ’00 race objectively, most people thought of Gore as the “New Democrat” Vice-President of a popular sitting President. He spoke better. He had answers to every question. He was involved in “reinventing’ government. He was all in to the internet and the environment, when people still believed that global-warming jazz. Everything being even, he should have won that race. I think Bush actually made the race closer by his use of that “compassionate” conservative rhetoric. It lessened the degree of difference between Gore and himself. Stark contrasts show better.

In discussing these ideas with others, I keep being told that the demographic trends of the country are against us. Don’t listen to the ‘demographic’ argument. Politics is not biological. Keep this in mind. Before Buckley revitalized the Conservative movement, most of the population had been reared under Hoover, FDR and Ike with their unwavering belief in big government intervention. WFB had not yet been born the last time a conservative, Coolidge, was in the White House. Even so, the movement came back. What it took to start was one twenty-three year old man writing about his experiences at Yale.

The long-term problem has been that each wave thought they could simply elect someone and then disengage and go back to their life. This is the ‘long war’ and it must be treated as such. Every day, every election, both primary and general, must be used to reinforce our insistence that government exists for our purposes, not the other way around. Politicians must learn to do as we say or they will find themselves unemployed. If necessary, we must create wave after wave of politicians, elected and then defeated, until we finally get to those who actually follow the Constitution.

The market is a great indicator of what people want. Just as we cannot fault a manufacturer for producing a frivolous product which people want, we cannot fault the politician who does whatever it takes to get re-elected. What we can do is change the market indicators. Manufacturers make new products or change existing ones to meet consumer demands, or risk losing business to competitors. Politicians must be made to understand that the only way for them to get re-elected is to change their product, or risk another politician getting our vote.

In this case the desired product is Constitutional government. Will we ever get what we want?

Love of Markets Not Always Love of Big Business

Posted in Business, Capitalism, Free Markets, Free Trade, Government, Leftism, Morality, Politicians, Politics by kevinsoberg on March 27, 2010

It is widely purported, by those on the Left and fellow-travelers in the major media, that when the “free market” and “capitalism” are defended, “big business” is actually being discussed. This is not necessarily the case. Most would expect me to say emphatically that it is not the case, but I believe in telling the truth. Like other words and phrases, the “free market”, “capitalism” and “big business” have had their meaning distorted. There are those more interested in furthering their own aims than they are the truth. In this case, these deceivers fall into two groups: those opposed to free markets, and those opposed to capitalism.

Many on the Right tend use “free markets” and “capitalism” interchangeably because one is thought to be essential for the other. They are wrong to do so. Capitalism is a system that primarily uses the “profit motive” to distribute goods and services throughout an economy. The idea of the “free market” is the belief that an individual has the right to conduct trade with any other individual without government interference. Now there are other economic systems which allow profits, but only capitalism can truly be married to “free markets.” However, capitalism can exist without “free markets.”

All economic systems produce goods and services. People must be fed, sheltered and clothed. These can be done either by individuals or by collective enterprises. The bigger the economy and the more complex the products produced, the larger these enterprises must become. Economies of scale and concentration of expertise are required for large-scale enterprises to supply those things necessary for a growing, progressing human population, regardless of system. In most economic systems these enterprises are called “big businesses“.

Now, who are those opposed to free markets? You may be surprised to find some of the biggest opponents are businesses. Seems counterintuitive doesn’t it? How can any business be against an open market? Well, the purpose of any business is to maximize shareholder value. If a business can do this by restricting competition, then that is what it will do, if possible. The managers of a business are not ideological, their priority is profit maximization. People in business believe in the profit motive; therefore, capitalism; just not necessarily the free market.

Another group opposed to free markets is politicians. Politicians in all parties seek ways to get, hold and expand their power. One method for this is to restrict markets. These restrictions are alterable in any number of ways and their expansion or adjustments are opportunities for influence peddling to interested persons. All those affected by the restrictions, positively or negatively, have a reason to seek the favor of politicians. These politicians can get campaign donations, under-the-table deals, promises of future jobs, etc. and most important to them, their ass kissed.

Politicians live to have people need them so that they can exert power over them. “Big Business” is the perfect foil for the politician. These businesses can be extorted for favors while simultaneously used as scapegoats for all that is wrong with the economy (national or local), with employment, with financial markets, with health care, with transportation, with energy policy, with the environment, etc. This behavior leads to further attempts by these businesses to influence the politician, sometimes preemptively, against stop targeting them.

Microsoft is the perfect example of this phenomenon. In 1990s, Microsoft had the vast majority of the PC operating system software market, but had almost no presence in Washington, DC. However, its competitors began spending money on lobbying efforts in DC in an attempt to get the government to turn its attention to this financial giant. As a result, Microsoft was targeted by the US government for anti-trust violations. In addition to having their product market restricted, Microsoft began spending vast sums on lobbyist and now has a large, permanent presence in DC to prevent future attacks on its business. The only winners were the politicians and their campaign contributors.

Another example is Altria (formerly Phillip Morris Companies Inc), the owner of the tobacco company Phillip Morris USA (PM), which manufactures the Marlboro brand of cigarettes. Marlboro is the largest selling brand of cigarettes in the US, resulting in PM being the biggest tobacco company. In the ‘90s PM began lobbying the US government for the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to take control of the regulation of the tobacco industry. Tobacco and alcohol manufacturers were purposely excluded from the Pure Food and Drug Act (1908) which established the FDA. PM wanted the FDA to regulate tobacco, because it knew the resulting limitations on product marketing would help prevent competitors from eating into their market share and boost their profits. PM spent $101 million on lobbying from 1998 to 2004. President Obama signed the law changing regulatory authority in 2009. Once again, the winners were politicians and their contributors.

Those who believe in Free Market Capitalism have neither a love nor hate for “big business”. We have a love for freedom and for the consumer. Businesses exist to produce things consumers want at a profit. The consumers are protected by the competition of an open market, which prevents any one company from permanently monopolizing that market. Government should act as a disinterested third-party. It should police the market only for anti-competitive business practices resulting in actual damages to consumers. It should not prop up inferior competitors, or target companies whose only crime is being successful. Unnecessary government interference has a detrimental effect on the market and the consumers.

Finally, there are people on the Left who do not believe Capitalism is a “moral” economic system. They protest against the meetings of the World Trade Organization and G-10. They hope to turn public opinion against the system by “exposing” the worst abuses of “big business”. They have every right to do so, and, inadvertently, their exposes can actually strengthen the market. Most are too ignorant to realize free market capitalism is premised upon “perfect knowledge” and the more we learn of how some companies operate the better for the market. So, keep it up guys. Just tell the complete truth more often. OK?

Shameless Hypocrisy

Posted in Democrats, Government, Health Care Reform, Leftism, Morality, Politics by kevinsoberg on March 18, 2010

I’ve had a thought percolating for quite a while now. However, it wasn’t until the passing of Ted Kennedy that it finally gelled into a thesis. Here it goes: “Shameless hypocrisy is a hallmark of the Left.” I don’t know if it’s ever been said straight out like this (If it has, please let me know. I want to give attribution.). I’m not saying I’m the first to point out the Left’s hypocrisy. The evidence is everywhere, and each of us can name countless examples.

I’m not the first to say how completely shameless their phoniness has been. Like a mountain on the landscape, it’s a permanent presence. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a hypocritical politician, activist, theoretician or philosophy on the Left. First and foremost, what kind of political theory believes giving “power to the people” means taking away the individual’s economic, medical, educational, philosophic decision-making powers? It is the height of hypocrisy, and brazenly so.

Hell, the life of Ted Kennedy was a parade of shameless hypocrisy. A man, who “championed the poor,” born to and living amongst privilege. A man whose vast financial holdings were in tax sheltered investments, yet who railed against the rich and called for increased taxes. A man who cared for “the people,” yet allowed a woman to die, unaided in his own car. A man, who preached about our responsibility to our fellow-man, yet took no responsibility for how his actions affected others. The leading proponent of “health care reform” was the creator of the hated HMO. Well, you get the point.

I’m not saying hypocrisy is unique to the Left. Hypocrites exist on both sides of the political spectrum. However, on the Right they are savaged when discovered. Ended careers litter the political highway as a testament to our impatience for them. Only on the Left are hypocrites honored and promoted.

Who are the Left’s heroes? Bill Clinton — the man was somehow a serial philanderer and a promoter “women’s rights.” Hilary Clinton — the model “woman of the Left” who rode her husband’s coattails to power while allowing him to disrespect and dishonor her. President Obama — a “racial healer” who attended a racist’s church for 20 years. Al Gore — the “environmental savior” who personally consumes more energy than a small town. How many of the Left’s leaders have gone to elite universities, avoided taxes, become rich while in office or as a result of connections made while in office, sent their kids to private schools, shook down corporations for sweetheart deals or campaign contributions, used the “unfair” US healthcare system to extend their lives, and left a carbon footprint the size of the Jolly Green Giant?

Yet, who are the Left’s “bogeymen” on the Right? Ronald Reagan — attacked as an “amiable dunce,” “just acting,” or “asleep at the wheel,” but somehow freed hundreds of millions of people and brought the world back from the brink of Armageddon. George W. Bush — an “inarticulate idiot” who freed tens of millions of people, including the half of these populations who were basically treated as chattel, women. Sarah Palin — another “brainless twit,” a woman who rose from obscurity to become the governor of her state through her own actions and under her own terms, and a true “feminist.”

However, it’s not just that the Left allows their politicians to remain in office once the hypocrisy is discovered. No, the Left uses hypocrisy as a political tool, and does so shamelessly. It can be seen as simple expediency: Do whatever is necessary to advance your side’s pursuit of power. However, what does that say about your ideology if all principles can be pushed aside in the accumulation of power? “What have you gained if you’ve lost your soul?” Their arguments reflect no guiding principles save the pursuit of power for its own sake.

Try having a consistent constitutional argument with a leftist. They claim unenumerated rights are discernible within the document, but deny those rights clearly enumerated. They favor federalizing constitutional rights, or demand states’ rights, whichever is convenient and necessary at the moment to expand government power. They purport that the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate almost all activity within the states, but that the federal government can’t regulate medical marijuana within a state. They will argue that the only way to assure non-discrimination is to mandate discrimination. They claim the “right to bear arms” and the “takings clause” to be only in regard to the federal government, while their favored rights are enforced down to the local level (i.e. the freedom of religion equals a ban on public religious ceremonies).

The only continuing threads in leftist thought are the accumulation of government power (federal preferred, but state/local will suffice) and the undermining of the civil society (the public arena outside government purview). Unfortunately, one ultimately precedes the other. Historically, the reduction of a community’s religiosity and family centeredness leads to an expansion in government to fill the vacuum left in those areas of society. Chicken or egg?

Leftist politicians could not get in political office in America without the aid of shameless hypocrisy. The Left couldn’t gain power if its true creed were known. “Give us ever more power over your life. You don’t know, and can never know, how to properly take care of yourself. Let us make those decisions for you. Some things are too important for you to decide.” It’s not exactly a winning slogan. Without unapologetic lies and obfuscation, what do they really have? All that remains is a never-ending drive for further government control.

Tagged with: , ,

We Had Best Be Careful

An anti-leftist, anti-big government wave of popular opinion began rolling early last year. It has been growing steadily ever since. There seem to be no signs of it slowing down. Unless there is an abrupt change in the public mood sometime during the summer the Democrats in Congress are going to get thumped, big time come November. The Democrats are in for considerable losses in the House and the Senate. These predictions are assuming Republicans are able to block so-called “Health Care Reform.”

The Democrat leadership seems determined to get its health care plan passed. It doesn’t matter to these “leaders” that the people are opposed to it, with opinion growing only more against them. The way it is looking, they can only get their plan passed by going “all in” and forcing their members to vote in favor. If that happens, particularly if they use undemocratic tactics (i.e. faux reconciliation, the “Slaughter” rule), then all bets are off. We may see a change in control of one or even both Houses of Congress before this is all said and done.

So, using the most conservative predictions of the November elections, Republicans will winnow down the Democrat majorities in both Houses to a bare minimum. What contingencies are in place for being in a close-to-parity minority? The Democrat leaders may be completely unchastened by their losses and continue pushing forward with their present agenda. Most of these leaders are from unbelievably secure districts. They have used (or entertained using) undemocratic tactics in the past to pass legislation. What will we do? How will we forward our agenda?

If the most optimistic predictions for this fall’s results are realized, the GOP will gain narrow majorities in the House and the Senate. Sure, the majority can easily move measures through the House, but passage in both chambers is necessary to go to the President. Sixty votes are required in the Senate to get a floor vote on non-budgetary legislation, and reconciliation will have to be done. Assuming Republicans are able to get legislation passed, the President must still sign it. Do you think he will have any compunction against vetoing bills which repeal his agenda items?  What’s the plan? Is anybody even working on one?

The “mainstream” media has of course been less than “fair and accurate” in its coverage of the growth in conservative/ populist opinion, the self-described “Tea Party” movement. Just get ready for the barrage of media reporting about the “Do Nothing” Congress. Big media already has a built-in statist bias. Additionally, reporters in D.C. are there to cover the news which means “action.” If nothing is moving forward, then there is no action. Something has to be reported to justify their existence. The story then becomes about what isn’t being done. It’s already been written – Young, Idealistic Leader Opposes Reactionary Forces.

We’ve lived through this before in ’95 after the Republicans took control of Congress. The big difference this time is the man in the White House. There is no denying Bill Clinton’s left-of-center pedigree; however, he was a politician in the worst sense of the word, one who’s biggest worry was being re-elected to office. Clinton could read the political winds and saw his best course was best to tack to the right. He may have fought for certain of his programs and against some of the Republicans, but he always followed the polls when push came to shove, such as eventually signing welfare reform.

We’re dealing with a completely different political animal this time. President Obama may have run as a moderate, but he has shown no signs of moderation during his time in office. As examples, where Clinton dropped health care and compromised on gays in the military, Obama has pushed forward with both in the face of growing opposition. I don’t think we can expect Obama to accept a little thing like an election as a reason to change his priorities. He will go forward with his agenda and undermine Republican initiatives at every opportunity, and the “old” media will be with him every step of the way, singing his praises.

So, the right-of-center coalition, which represents the views of the majority of Americans, goes into November and beyond knowing how the story will be played. As usual, we will be portrayed as against the poor, minorities, children, women, aged, sick, et al. We will have a President and a media opposed to everything we propose. We will have a movement whose agenda will be stymied and efforts will be impotent. We will be in the worst of possible worlds, except we will have stopped the worst of his plans.

The media will try to take advantage of one of the American people’s strangest habits, the practice of tearing down those we’ve built up, and its converse. Obama’s acolytes will begin to rehabilitate his reputation by blaming all that went wrong during his first two years on the Democrats in Congress. His fingerprints are nowhere on any of the health care legislation or anything else done in Congress. If you’ve noticed, he has assiduously distanced himself from all the machinations of Reid and Pelosi. Like Carter, and unlike Clinton, he has stood back in the White House and let all of the legislative activity and horse-trading take place on Capitol Hill.

We need to be prepared for this eventuality. We need strategies in place to counter the full court press of the pro-Obama media. Every news story must carry our message. Every Obama press event must have its opposite from us. Our leaders must be everywhere. Our take on events must be publicized. We have to get our word out.

The moderates in the Party must be steeled against the seductive influences of the media to cooperate with the Administration. They must know that any sliding into the mushy middle will result in a primary challenge from their right. Many of them will have already been replaced (Lord willing), but some will have made it through. They have only survived thus far by pulling right. They have to know there is no going back.

Once the immediate danger of further socialization of the economy is past, we will begin to lose the feelings of fear and urgency which have motivated many of those newly active in the movement. Like all those new to politics they will begin to feel frustration and anger with the slow pace of change in the direction of government. They will feel used and tricked, as have many in the past, if those they have supported fall back into the old, comfortable habits of Washington. The mistakes made by Republicans during the Bush years, whether they see it that way or not, cannot be repeated without risking an additional four years, at least, of a Democrat running the Executive branch of government.

Some of you may think I’m getting a bit ahead of where we are. What am I doing raising these kind of concerns with the elections over six months away? Then you are the exact ones to whom I am speaking. How do you propose to keep a fractious movement of populists, libertarians, conservatives, and anti-socialists together beyond this fall? Don’t you realize Obama, the Left, and fellow travelers in the media are not about to roll over even in the face of defeat? Look at their behavior now? Think it’s going to be any better in six months?

These questions and others need to be considered. Plans must be made. For over a year now, we’ve been flying by the seats of our pants. Yeah, we’ve had protests, meetings and convocations. We’ve done polling, blogging and tweeting. Beyond just winning elections, how much thought has been given to actual governance? The future is almost here. Will we be ready?

Talking to Lefties Can Be a Chore

Posted in Government, History, Leftism, Politics, Social Media by kevinsoberg on March 9, 2010

One can quickly grow weary attempting political discussion with those on the political left who continually spout meaningless, or definitionally “fluid,” words in my direction when describing the political landscape. This isn’t Edwardian England. So, when I say Socialism, I’m not speaking of Fabianism, unless I’m specifically discussing Fabian socialism (but why would I?). In everyday life, these fine distinctions, like those between corporatism and syndicalism, are pointless and a distraction.

When someone uses the word “anarchism,” they are most probably using the dictionary meaning, “lack of a formal ruling authority.” However, a leftist may be speaking of any one of a number of proto-socialist political movements which have existed, off and on, to bring down the “existing order,” whatever that happens to be, or have been. They seek to replace current society with an individualistic form of communalism. It’s all very Rousseauan, natural man in voluntary associations without private property. This usage of the word is much too broad, ill-defined, and, of course, completely fantastical.

What else would you expect from the left? They insist on having an endless number of names for the slightest variations of political philosophy. To them the political divisions are found in the minutia. It’s not the ultimate outcome that matters most. It’s about methods.

The left gets all wound up over ‘how’ the power is accumulated, and the good intentions of the organizers. They don’t seem to realize the result is the same, the accumulation of power by the state. List off the ideologies: communalism, syndicalism, corporatism, fascism, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc. The ultimate result of all of these “different” ideologies is the concentration of power in the government to the detriment of individual liberties.

If I say I’m opposed to socialism, I’ll hear from innumerable assholes with too much free time and unnecessary educations. They will hector me to death talking about the U.S. system and its mixed economy. They will “educate” me on the level of government involvement of which I must be ignorant. I’m obviously an idiot who doesn’t realize Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, et al is socialism.

Hey, Einstein, I know all of this and I’m saying, “I’M AGAINST SOCIALISM! OK?” I know all your little knit-picky arguments. I’ve been to college. Hey, I even have degrees. Do I think I will ever see the day where government stops picking winners and losers, or transferring income from those who produce to those who don’t? Hell no! It ain’t ever going to happen. But it should.

Unless you’re a Political Scientist, or just weird like me and enjoy this crap, these fine distinctions are nothing more than static. The true debate is over the possible outcomes, not intentions, theories or methodologies. It doesn’t matter who is “nicer,” smarter” or “better.” The only important question is: “Are we to be Free or Slaves?”

If I’m traveling to Lisbon, but I arrive in Madrid, the trip was messed up, regardless of the good intentions of the travel agent. Well, somehow I’ve ended up in Stockholm. Can I have my money back? Please?