Friends of Ron Paul in Japan

A great place for Ron Paul fans to hang out

Nov 11
Leave a Comment

Courtesy of Jeffrey A. Tucker Of course, the ezine which was started as a blog by

the man who used to be Ron Paul’s chief of staff

Or as the Gadsen Flag would put it…join or die!

Posted in Libertarianism, Political Forcasting, Ron Paul
Tags: ,

I confess! I’m glad that Obama won!

Nov 06
Leave a Comment

Confessions of a Ron Paul supporter and Chuck Baldwin voter

Yes there are several good reasons to celebrate an Obama win…if not quite an Obama presidency:

1. Skin deep but not entirely superficial, he will be America’s first black president.  True, as a libertarian I think it would be better not to have a presidency…or at least a very weak one such as under the Articles of Confederation.  But if we have one, it should be open to people of all colors.  Congratulations Mr. Obama!

2. The intelligent and diligent Obama campaign has rid America (at least temporarily) of two of the most obnoxious icons of the political class: Hilary Clinton and Mad Jack McCain.  Unfortunately this election cycle has also raised up the rather idiotic Ms. Palin.  Oh well, two steps forward one step back.  Congratulations anyway Mr. Obama and staff!

3. To the extent that this election was a referendum on the Bush presidency, providence and the American people evidently used the Obama campaign as an instrument to shame the man who used emergencies and executive powers to shread the Constitution and erect a right-wing socialist state.  True, Obama’s presidency may turn out to be a left-wing version thereof but the precedent was initially set by Bush.

4. Obama is an ideologue.  What, you say, this is supposed to be a good thing!?  Well of course, not if he leads us into far left kookoo land.  But what if he changes his ideology, as idealists are know to do.  (As indeed, this writer been know to do in the past.)  Keep in mind that members of the political class in general and presidents in particular are notorious for doing exactly the opposite of what their voters gave them a mandate to do.  Socialism will only be continued and deepened if reality cooperates…which Austrian economics predicts it won’t.  Historical note:  Half of Eugen Bohm-Bawerk’s students followed him into free market economics, the others became what was known as the “Austro-marxist” school.  Idealists cross the line all the time and I suspect that Mr. Obama has an old textbook packed away somewhere with the title “Karl Marx and the Close of His System” by Eugen Bohm-Bawerk.  Marxist professors in Eastern and upper Midwestern universities often assign it to their students to refute its refutation of socialism.

Mr. Obama, can you refute the refutation of the refutation?  I know that sounds rather heroic, but after all they’re calling you a hero these days.  And if that is a little too abstract consider this: Jimmy Carter, that most “leftist” of presidents, actually reduced government more than any president since WWII, including Regan.

Posted in America, Libertarianism, US Election 2008, constitutionalism
Tags: , , , ,

Surprise Sweep by Chuck Baldwin Very Unlikely! (You heard it first here)

Nov 03
Leave a Comment

The Superiority of Voting For Principle Over Not Voting at All

As I have said in comments on several other blogs, I felt the that the most principled vote for libertarians and paleoconservatives in 2008 was for Chuck Baldwin.  Many in these philosophical camps have advocating not exercising the franchise, faced with the choice of a left-socialist and a right-socialist.  However not voting, which leaves no trace, doesn’t suffice to register a protest.  It will be interesting to see what the total votes of third parties will come out to in the next couple of days.  A high vote would express a dissastisfaction with the present two party system.  On the other hand a non-vote could be interpreted as either apathy or protest, an ambiguity which of course the supporters of the system would interpret to their advantage.

As much as I respect the persons and positions of the non-vote strategists, this is likely to be a bad year for them.  This campaign has generated tremendous energy, particularly among the Obama side, but also among the Republican base after the nomination of Sarah  Palin as McCain’s running mate.  Hopes that a mounting historical trend of nonparticipation in the electoral process would delegitimate the political system are likely to be dashed in the immediate future.

About Baldwin I have no regrets.  The Constitution party is a half-baked idea who’s time has yet to come, and probably never will as long at it is run by factuous amatures.  But Baldwin addressed issues with dignity and using the rhetorical conventions which were once the halmark of the American republic.  Even on those issues where I disagree with him he has argued with logical coherence…never pandering to his audience, but rather trying to evoke in them a renewed committment to higher principles.   In short, a political strategy which is guaranteed to result in defeat, since it over-, rather than underestimates the intelligence and morality of the electorate.  John McCain has persued the opposite strategy…and he is going down in defeat anyway…taking his honor with him.

For that reason I don’t consider my vote for the Baldwin/Castle ticket wasted…quite the opposite!

Posted in America, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarianism, US Election 2008, constitutionalism, political polls
Tags: , , ,

Why the Libertarian “remnant” must support Chuck Baldwin at all costs!

Oct 22
Leave a Comment

The “remnant”

It seems as if everybody is a “libertarian” these days.  Have you ever smoked pot…you’re a libertarian.   Do you want to pay less taxes?  You’re a libertarian.  Do you think that after bailing out the financial class to the tune of 700 billion (which they maintain is necessary to avoid a crash) some inquiries should be made as to the propriety of golden parachutes?  Congratulations, you’re a libertarian!

Libertarinanism is mainstream today.  Ask Bob Barr…who thinks the US military should get out of Iraq…but not necessarily Pakistan or Colombia.  Ask Tyler Cowen who thinks government should be allowed to expand at or less than the rate of growth of GNP.  (With negative growth, that may be a proposal for drastic reduction in the near future!)  Ask Joe the Plumber!  And these are the good guys!

In contrast, a bad guy would, I suppose, be Alan Greenspan who masqueraded as both an economist and a libertarian on the strength of his personal relationship (not as tight as Nathaniel Brandon’s, but good enough) with Ayn Rand.  Thank you Mr. Greenspan for almost single handedly destroying the American economy!  No, we don’t expect you to know anything about the Austrian bussiness cycle theory…because you never studied Austrian economics.  But you are a self described classical liberal aka “libertarian”…can you define that?

The oracle replies, “Yes, a classical liberal is someone who, at least at heart, thinks  that it is best for the banks to maintain low interest rates.”

Thank you, we are astounded and illuminated, to the extent that we have no reply….except….

True Libertainism

(Or classical liberalism, if you will) is the belief that there is a natural law which superceeds any law promulgated by a parliament, congress, or diet.  If a legislative body passes a law which, say, permits anyone to murder someone with red hair, then, according to a libertarian, that  law is immediately void.  It is not voided by judicial review.  The extra-natural law edict is a dead letter and of no force.

The principle of obedience to natural law is, I humbly submit, of more fundamental importance than low interest rates, or even the principle on loans!

The mainstream libertarians are for the most part utilitarians, tinkering with the notion of limiting a government which has long since gone beyond any sane limit in terms of expenditure, infringement of civil rights, or executive centralization.  Only a small “remnant”, to use the phrase of Albert J. Nock, has the historical perspective to realized that the natural law justification of the state has long since been violated.

The Man and the Party

The closest thing to a libertarian party in existence today is the Constitution Party, which is fielding the Baldwin/Castle ticket in this season’s presidential contest.  There is a certain amount of odium attached to this party from the perspective of libertarians.  It is rumored that it is a stalking horse for theocrats.  But hold your Savanarolas a minute and take a look at the facts.

Yes, at one time there was a “theocrat problem” in the Constitution party.  There was a point at which an extremist wing was trying to purge the party of all but Protestant fundamenalists.  These people lost and they lost big.  Today the Baldwin/Castle ticket is canvasing the support of all people of good will…Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Jew….Righteous Atheist….anybody!

Like Thomas Aquinas seven hundred years earlier, Chuck Baldwin recognizes the existence of two layers of truth, natural and revealed.   Whether god is a unity or a trinity, what direction to pray in, and the number of divine commandments, if any, are theological questions which can only be answered within the context of particular faith communities.  However the existence of natural law, the inviolability of the person and property of one’s neighbor, is a manifest truth which doesn’t require faith in a theological sense.  It is this principle of natural law, not any sectarian confession, which the Baldwin campaign stands for.

All the other parties are pushing utilitarian theories in accordance with the class interests which they represent.  So what do you want…low interest rates, high interest rates….or are you acutally interested in in truth and justice?  If the latter you are one of the “remnant” who will be voting for Chuck Baldwin this season.

You may not be voting for a winner, but to borrow another phrase from Albert J. Nock, you’ll be “Doing the right thing!”

Posted in Libertarianism, US Election 2008, constitutionalism
Tags: , , , , ,

Can Secularists vote for Chuck Baldwin? You bet’cha!

Oct 09
Leave a Comment

WWJD vs. WWHLMD

I was hoping to hear more from Chuck Baldwin, who was scheduled for an interview on the Gary Baumgarten show, but the Constitution Party candidate for the American presidency failed to appear, creating a minor “snubgate” on Baumgarten’s air time.  Recall that I, like many Ron Paul enthusiasts, am supporting the candidacy of Rev. Baldwin in part because of the shoddy treatment given to  Dr. Paul by another third party candidate.  No, I am not switching back to Bob Barr of the Libertarian party, but I am saddened that Rev. Baldwin was not able to get the kind of exposure which the rough and tumble of an open on-line mike would have provided.  I believe that he would have acquitted himself well…but then of course I can only speculate.

In the absence of Rev. Baldwin, the show was reduced to a generalized discussion of the prospects of third parties in American politics.  The only way that Mr. Baumgarden could maintain a focus for discussion was by invoking discussion of the more odiously theocratic points of the Constitution party’s preamble.  At that point the die was cast, and the tone of the discussion became increasingly critical, or at least dismissive of the Baldwin candidacy.

Personally I think a secularist can vote for Chuck Baldwin in good conscience, if by a secularist we mean someone who believes in the separation of church and state.  It is true that the platform of the Constitution party has definite theocratic overtones, but (as was pointed out on the show) Rev. Baldwin is using the Constitution party as a vehicle for his candidacy, and independents or members of other parties (such as myself) are voting for the man, not the party platform.  So the question becomes: what kind of man is this?

That is one reason why Baldwin’s no-show was so disappointing…I think he would have represented himself much better than a mechanical interpretation of his party’s platform.  None the less, Chuck Baldwin has written extensively on a wide variety of topics, and there is nothing difficult about getting a well rounded acquaintance with his views, which are posted on many Internet venues, including, but not limited to, that of the Constitution party, the Baldwin/Castle campaign, and the home site of the Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola FL.

At the outset there is much material which would not sit well with anyone who is not a fundamentalist protestant Christian.  For example, it emerges that Rev. Baldwin was closely mentored by the famous (or infamous, depending on one’s point of view) Rev. Jerry Falwell in his formative years, being a member of the first graduating class from Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg VA.

Personally, I could never have voted for Jerry Falwell if he had decided to run for President of the United States of America.  Theological questions by themselves would have made me skeptical of him.  But the proper question here is not WWJD (What would Jesus do?)…because if you wait to vote for a politician who is in 100% of agreement with one’s theological and moral beliefs one is likely to forfeit the franchise entirely!  For better or worse, modern democracies work on the principle of theological compromise.  We who believe in religion find ourselves in the position of the monarchists during the French 3rd Republic.  They could never agree among themselves which king to restore…the prince of Bourbon, of Orleans, or of the Bonapartists.  In the end they had to admit: “a republic divides us least!”

Likewise, even those of us who put religion at the center of our personal life find out sooner or later that “a secular republic divides us least.”  In the political sphere we can’t afford to think in terms of what a perfect man would choose to create a perfect society.  We have to lower our sights and contemplate what a flawed man, albeit a flawed man who wanted to live in reasonable harmony and cooperation with others, would choose.  I can’t think of anyone more flawed, more secular or more tolerant than H.L.Mencken…and if we go off the political gold standard of theocracy and regroup around the silver standard of a libertarian commonwealth, such as Menken might have approved of…then we will be doing well, since the realistic alternative is the fiat standard by which a dictatorship of social engineering and radical egalitarianism will gradually install itself.  We would do well to ask ourselves WWHLMD: What Would H.L.Mencken do?

While it is quite impossible to imagine H.L. Mencken as a Jerry Falwell enthusiast, Chuck Baldwin and his mentor are very distinct people.  Granted, the difference in their style of thinking is so nuanced that most secularists will have neither the patience or the inclination to discover it.  It would be like asking people who have no interest in Christian theology to explain the difference between Augustine and Aquinas…yet as with the ancient doctors of religion, these modern preachers harbor some very fundamental differences, albeit the latter being partially dependent on the former.  It would seem that Baldwin, in contrast to the snap-judgements which some evangelical pastors, notably Falwell, have occasionally confounded with the certitude of faith, has deliberated long and hard (he would probably say prayerfully) on the question of what a just political society would look like…and this reflection has brought him an authentic appreciation of what might be called “liberalism” in the sense that Hayek, or Mencken, might have used the term.  Needless to say, “liberalism” is not a term which Baldwin uses, for his views have nothing to do with either the social liberalism of the Democrats, or the lifestyle libertarianism of those who have usurped the term.  But the essentials are all there: peace in foreign relations and minimal government at home.  This is an abbreviated version of the Ron Paul program…and by extension something which a latter day H.L. Mencken could embrace.

But what about all that odious theocratic stuff in the party platform?  First of all, we ought to recognize by now that party platforms are more often  honored in the breach than upheld as guides to policy.   It is the man, not the document, which should be our concern.  None the less, we can re-frame that concern by asking if an evangelical pastor, once launched on the stage of national politics, can be anything else but a demagogue.  Certainly Falwell came across as a demagogue to his antagonists.  However Baldwin has evolved beyond Falwell’s rhetoric of public accusation, and has honed the fine art of enunciating moral principles in irenic and reasoned tones.  When a pastor enters politics, whatever his views on the establishment of religion might be, he dooms himself if he fails to understand the separation of his church pulpit from public fora.  There must be two ways of speaking, one of which must remain strictly confined to the congregation and the denomination to which he ministers.  From the evidence that I have seen so far, it appears that Baldwin has mastered the art of reasoned public discourse, a mastery which is certainly superior to John McCain’s, and rivals even that of the supposedly flawless Obama.  Again, it would have been interesting to hear Baldwin’s response to the rough and tumble online at the Baumgarten show, if only to verify the  Baptist preacher’s facility at turning the rhetorical cheek.

Like all virtues, the Rev. Baldwin’s (at least hitherto) irenicism comes with a price tag.  We are now at turning point in American history, one at which the art of populist demagoguery is likely to experience a grand revival.  I would love to hear Chuck Baldwin torch the beneficiaries of the 700 billion dollar bailout in the same hellfire and brimstone accents that he uses when he denounces the rich elites in his church.  Moreover, a lot can happen in the month before the election, and we may still see this champion of the Lord, slingshot in hand, march out to challenge the Goliaths which now have this nation in their loathsome grips.

If that should happen, I would hope that our gentle secularists will not take fright.  After all, it is certainly true that Rev. Baldwin is a kind of “extremist” and there are all sorts of excuses for not giving him one’s fullest support.  Why, according to our latter-day follower of Mencken, should I support Baldwin who I agree with only 60% of the time, when I could support Barr who I agree with 90% of the time?  Why indeed, except to put a premium on solidity and constancy, since Barr’s convictions may change tomorrow while Baldwin is a solid, and perchance as stubborn, as a rock.

So what would H.L. Mencken do in 2008?  Of course I don’t know.  Perhaps he wouldn’t vote at all, which is a legitimate reaction to the political realities of this election where our choices have been so dictated and circumscribed.  But I wouldn’t put it past him to vote for a southern evangelical populist, someone akin to his great courtroom charactature of William Jennings Bryan.   I suspect this could happen, not just because Mencken was an eccentric, and eccentrics take delight in doing the unexpected, but because we are now in the odd situation where a candidate fielded by a nominally theocratic party offers a platform which is closer to the original program of Menckenian libertarianism than any other ticket, including, disgracefully enough, the Libertarian party itself.

Jesus and Mencken voting for the same ticket?  Will miracles never cease?  I’ll bet’cha Chuck Baldwin thinks they won’t!

Posted in Libertarianism, Ron Paul, US Election 2008, constitutionalism
Tags: , , , ,

It’s Pitchfork Time!

Oct 04
Leave a Comment

A Scholar and a Gentleman goes Ballistic  “American Gothic” in Response the Sellout

Yes, the House has capitulated to the new, improved, pork laced version of the bailout bill.  Proving, with Euclidean clarity, that the American political system no longer represents the people but is beholden to the financial elites  (plus some other elites, oil, military…the list goes on.)

Economist and scholar Thomas DiLorenzo, writing on the Lew Rockwell blog has expressed a reaction that goes a tad beyond his usual mild (guffaw) scholarly rebuffs of the federal state:

“I just returned from Home Depot where I bought the biggest pitchfork that they had.  I’m soaking some rags with kerosine, to be wrapped around a broom handle and then set on fire.  Then I’m heading down to the Baltimore-Washington parkway to D.C..   I’m hoping a large crowd will follow my example.”

Unfortunately I live far from the Baltimore-Washington D.C. parkway…but if the weather is as nice there as it is here today it would be a wonderful time to go for a stroll!

Posted in Libertarianism, constitutionalism
Tags: , , , ,

A Post-Paul Manifesto

Mar 14
Leave a Comment

These days, in lieu of a presidential race, many Paulistas are putting their energies into other venues.  This is one clear statement which is being circulated at present:

To:  U.S. Congress


We the People of the United States of America; have repeatedly been witness to continuous violations of our rights and freedoms guaranteed by The United States Constitution. Article 6 of the Constitution states that said Constitution “shall be the Supreme Law of the land”, yet this is repeatedly disregarded and/or ignored by the legislative and Executive branches of our Government. This once great republic and her Constitution has been usurped by power and greed for the benefit of a few and the detriment of many. The Constitution was written to avoid the pitfalls of autocracy (absolute government by one person) and democracy (mob rule, one vote system); it was written for a confederated republic, which is a three vote system designed to check tyranny.

Our elected representatives, have ignored the will of the people who they were sent to represent. Our letters, faxes, e-mails and phone calls have fallen on deaf ears. We retain the power to have and elect representative government and “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government…” (Dec. 7/4/1776)

It has been decreed and is explicitly stated, as follows that:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” (Marbury vs. Madison. 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, (1803)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491.)

“An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” (Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442)

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, entail much more than a piece of paper. The document’s intentions and meanings are clearly put forth in the Annals of Congress, The Congressional Globe and the Congressional Record, by our founding fathers.

We the People demand that the Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights be strictly adhered to by those we elect to Federal Office. We remind you that the citizens of this republic are your employers and any continued abrogation and usurpation of the protections and guaranteed rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights will result in your dismissal.

Sincerely,

 

Friends of Ron Paul in Japan et al…

Posted in Libertarianism, constitutionalism
Tags: , , ,

Joel Skousen on how the Ron Paul revolution was sidelined by poltical and media insiders

Feb 24
Leave a Comment

Joel Skousen has an interesting column in his e-journal about the degree of vindictiveness against Ron Paul, not just nationally but even locally in Texas where there is an ongoing effort to oust him from his Congressional seat.

Skousen’s article appears in World Affairs Brief, February 22, 2008. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World…and is reproduced here via Jeff Fenski’s “One can happen” blog:

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs BriefSUDDENLY THE MEDIA IS INTERESTED IN RON PAUL–AT LEAST IN HIS DEFEAT

[Skousen notes that NPR radio listeners complained]… “You didn’t give Ron Paul the time of day during his active campaign for President and now you do a major story on him because he has a primary challenge to his Congressional race. It seems like you are only interested in his defeat!”

Yes, the establishment has put up a neo-con “conservative” to challenge Rep. Paul for his Congressional seat: turn-coat Chris Peden who used to speak highly of Ron Paul. Thomas Woods provides some interesting background on how this challenge came to be.

“On January 12, 2007, a Texas city councilman named Chris Peden told the Galveston Daily News, ‘I have an immense amount of respect for Ron Paul. Politics has a way of forcing people to go against their core principles for political gain. That has never been the case for Ron Paul.’ In case you don’t know, Chris Peden is now Ron Paul’s congressional challenger in the Republican primary in Texas’ 14th District.”

Here’s Peden giving his best neocon spiel: “I think Islamo-Fascist terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks; the incumbent thinks America’s Middle East policies were responsible for the attacks. The terrorists ‘wish to destroy our way of life because they abhor freedom, democracy, and liberty.’ We should continue to encourage democracy around the world ‘even if it takes the remainder of the century.’” Of course, Peden fails to point out where America is going to get all the money and manpower to tilt at these windmills for the next century. As the Comptroller General of the US David Walker recently told Glenn Beck, “this nation is bankrupt.” Sadly, Walker is now being forced out for being so forthright with the truth.

But the real story behind the story of Chris Peden is the influence of a high level Republican shill in Texas: Kathy Haigler. Again, the research comes from Thomas Woods of LewRockwell.com

“There’s also an interesting story behind Kathy Haigler, the lady that Peden quotes all over his website. Peden has gone out of his way to make it appear like she’s some sort of a constituent or representative of the 14th District. She isn’t. Kathy actually lives in neighboring Congressional District 22, an entire county removed from Ron Paul’s district. Her representative is Democrat Nick Lampson, and she is currently the campaign manager for a Republican opponent of Lampson in the CD 22 primary named Robert Talton.

“Kathy has also had a personal agenda against the libertarian wing of the Republican Party for years, which explains her strong animosity to Paul. You probably read about the Tom DeLay fiasco in 2006, when the courts prevented the Republican Party from naming a successor. The court ruling basically barred the Republican Party from putting a new nominee on the ballot after DeLay resigned, leaving them with the option of either backing Libertarian Party nominee Bob Smither or launching a certain-to-fail write-in campaign.

“In the days that followed the court ruling there was a serious discussion among Republican Party insiders about endorsing Smither if he would agree to caucus with the GOP and vote for a Republican speaker… Smither was open to the plan and immediately agreed to caucus with the GOP if elected, and to cast his votes under the
guidance of our very own Ron Paul.

“Then enter Kathy Haigler. She caught wind of the effort to recruit Smither, and for whatever reason – her hatred of libertarianism, her wish to be a ‘player,’ her own overstated sense of self-importance – she began personally working the entire State Republican Executive Committee membership list to trash Smither. She accused him of being an anti-family values social liberal (ironic because Smither is a Christian homeschooler who heads up a missing children recovery charity), she implied that he was pro-abortion (he wasn’t), she accused his Republican backers (including Patterson) of deviating from the ‘party platform’ that she herself has apparently never read.

“Needless to say, Haigler’s smear campaign against Smither worked. Smither attempted to go to the meeting of the State Republican Party [but] was barred at the door largely at Haigler’s instigation. Haigler rallied the group behind a dingbat Houston City Councilwoman named Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, whose brief congressional career as the placeholder for the last month in Tom DeLay’s term was a spectacular embarrassment to the entire state of Texas.”

The end result of Haigler’s machinations was the loss of the District in the next election to a Democrat. Woods asks, “What happened to make Peden go from an admirer to an opponent — and not just an opponent, but one who is running a vicious and dishonest smear campaign against the very man he so recently praised? I have no idea.”

I do. Haigler appears to me to be a party hack directed by the national party bosses to sabotage any political threat from the constitutional conservatives in that area of Texas. They went looking for someone to oppose Paul and promised lots of support. Hopefully the conservative Democrats and Republicans of the 14th District which have supported Paul in the past will be repulsed by this neocon propaganda and support Paul again. In any case, Ron needs your support since he cannot use his Presidential campaign funds for his Congressional primary contest. Go to http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com to contribute.

One of the pluses of this campaign has been the political education of the American people with regard to bias in the media. This goes even beyond Ron Paul, and its most interesting manifestation of late is the New York Times scandal mongering of John McCain (the demonstration of who’s unsuitability for office certainly doesn’t require nitpicking into past peccadilloes). People are bound to wonder, sooner or later, why the Times, at a time when the Vicki Isemann story was already brewing in their editorial offices, chose to endorse McCain for the Republican nomination. Can you say “manipulation”?

Posted in Libertarianism, Ron Paul, US Election 2008
Tags: , ,

In the aftermath of the Early Primaries and the Eve of Super Tuesday: Where do we go from here?

Feb 02
Leave a Comment

“Friends of Ron Paul” has been away from the keyboard for a while engaged in a variety time consuming tasks at the day job, including being a full-time administrator of Confucian scholarly examinations.  But we have kept our eyes on the early primaries, and the prospects of a Ron Paul Presidency.

In all candor, we are not pleased.  10, 6, 4, 3…  Is that the Fibbonaci series in reverse?  No, it’s the percentage of the Ron Paul vote in the  Republican primaries and caucuses of the Midwest, East, and South.  Well, there was that 15% in Nevada…but let’s face it, that’s the place where even the most conservative people turn into high-rollers.  He should have done better.  See my post on “The New Hamsters” regarding various hytheses as to why the Ron Paul revolution hasn’t spread further from its determined and heroic hard core.

So where to we go from here?  Well, there are still a few credible Paulistas who can smell the fresh cut grass of the White House lawn, I wish them well…and I want some of whatever it is they are smoking!  The plausibility of this kind of scenario hinges on the prospect of all the other candidates droping out until only Paul and the front-runner are left standing, with Paul finally coming into his rightful share of media publicity.  Even a three person race is no good, since it only takes two to tango and we all know what happened to Edwards.  But would even a two person race before the Republican national convention generate publicity for the good doctor.  Knowing the mainstream media as we do, isn’t it far more likely that they would simply annoint the front-runner and set up more encounters between him and the Democrats, skipping any intra-Republican politicking?

So what about the third party gambit.  First of all, Dr. No has said “no” to that one from the start and his wishes should be honnored.   But of course, if it is down to two neo-conservative/neo-liberal big-spending, executive expanding, warmongers, no self-respecting Paulist could vote for either party…so the third party gambit is an option to be held in reserve.

Fortunately there is another posibility which is quite plausable.  This is the prospect of a hung convention more or less evenly ballanced between a McCain and a Romney block. In this case a third force could play the role of a kingmaker.  Unfortunately Huckabee would like to play that role, shutting out Paul again.  It all depends on how the mathematics sum up after Super Tuesday.  If Huckabee’s votes when factored in to those of the weaker candidate (of course he gains less clout supporting the stronger candidate) still fall short of the winning number by a margin less than the strength of the Paul block, then Paul becomes the kingmaker.  This doesn’t mean that Paul himself would become president…it just means that he would have an indefinate amount of time to educate the Republicans holed up in the Twin Cities as to how they could win a national election using honest and ethical means.  It could actually result in an attractive Republican candidate…say Hagel of Nebraska, or Olympia Snow of Maine…the latter being the perfect antidote to Hillary!

But all of this is speculation, if not quite “idle” speculation.  Now its crunch time for Paulists campaigning in the remaining states.  Afterwards we’ll have to see how the numbers turned out on Super Tuesday.  Until then anyone interested in mathematical games would do better with the Fibbonaci series.

Posted in Libertarianism, Republican party, Ron Paul, US Election 2008, constitutionalism
Tags: , , ,

Year of the Rat pt. 2: The New Hamsters

Jan 10
Leave a Comment

Rats!

There are four possible ways of reacting to Ron Paul’s fifth place, 7.68 % showing in New Hampshire:

#1: congRATulations!  We’ve done it!  We’ve gone from 0.00%, to 7.68% (by way of Iowa’s 10.00%, but let’s not scrutinize the details…).  Why, even Newton’s infinitesimals can’t do justice to that rate of acceleration!

I’m afraid this is just the kind of delusional thinking that became institutionalized in the Libertarian Party.  We don’t expect to win, we just enjoy the process…after all, who wants to be a Major Party when you can party, party, party!  Let’s unbend and lower those expectations.

#2: the election fraud rat:  Paul was projected to win 14% in the last poll prior to the primary.  He came out with half of that…and people in townships where he registered zero votes are claiming to have voted for him.  Is this following up in the grand Republican tradition of Katherine Harris in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?  My guess is as good as yours.  The problem is that computer voting on machines with software written in proprietary computer code is about as non-transparent as it gets.  It might be a good investment in what is still called “democracy” to invest in a recount (one estimate I have heard is that this would cost between sixty and seventy thousand dollars, described as “chump change” in relation of Ron Paul’s campaign chest.  However it would be best to keep one’s expectations down about recouping Paul votes…nobody knows anything for sure, but it would be good for the process to have a check just on principle.

#3 the mouse that should have roared but didn’t:  According to this thesis, it was all the fault of the campaign staff…they were holding back when they should have gone all out.  Of course this is the word from the kibitzers on the ground…to which the staff will no doubt take exception.  I wasn’t there, but common sense dictates that a grass roots movement such as the Paul Revolution runs on momentum and psychology.  If these are sustained, then the money can be replenished…but it doesn’t necessarily work the other way around.  I would have gone all out in New Hampshire, knowing that it was an essential stepping stone towards a potential climax in South Carolina, Florida, and Super Tuesday.

However there is plenty of blame to go around, and I think the rank and file as well as the campaign staff got caught up in an oddly monetarist kind of illusion.  Ron was supposed to be winning because he had the most contributions.  Any Austrian economist could point out the fallacy here: seeing a unit of account as an objective measure of anything is totally delusive.  For example, if the good doctor had all the money in the world but never spent it on campaign advertising etc., it would be as good as naught.  Quite apart from allegations of penny pinching or misallocation on the part of the staff, Paulists in general have succumbed to a kind of feel-good, self congratulatory faith that bursting the contribution thermometer would ensure Dr. Paul’s nomination.  It doesn’t work that way.  The money is necessary but not sufficient.

#4, The New Hamsters:  This thesis maintains that the  people who voted in the New Hampshire primaries were so stupid that they can no longer discharge the basic functions of citizenship, that is, staying on top of issues and sifting truth from error, decency from deceit.   I would like to say that this is implausible, but unfortunately I can’t.   This is rather scary when one proceeds to the conclusion that New Hampshire, the erstwhile “live free or die” state, might be a fair (or even flattering) sample of the general American electorate.

It would be bad enough if the leading candidates were not a woman dedicated to maintaining the status quo and a man dedicated to making it even worse.  When one compares surveys of voter attitudes on issues with with candidate preference the conclusions are totally bizarre.  McCain is preferred by Republicans against the war, presumably on the strength of his stand against torture…which he subsequently abandoned.  But in fact McCain is the most hawkish of all the Republican candidates, including Guillani.  What are these people thinking about?

A cynic would say they aren’t thinking at all…but of course any psychologist, or for that matter someone who has tried Zen meditation, would know that was impossible.  They are thinking endlessly about the kind of facts which fill the tabloids on sale at grocery check out counters…the success of which has now been imitated by main stream media.  They want drama, they want emotion, even to the point of emotional break down.  They don’t want intellectual consistency in their elected leaders, rather intellectual inconsistency is better because there is always the entertaining factor of surprise involved.   Since we are dealing with primates rather than rodents, the spinning tread-wheel is intangible, but no less real for that.  Our New Hamsters are on that wheel of fire described anciently by the apostle James and more recently by the late Johnny Cash.  This frenzy feeding off emotion is what, according to utterly respectable reports, catapulted Hillary over Obama.

But in the specter of McCain the New Hamsters may have gotten more than they bargained for.  It is one thing to vicariously enjoy the momentary madness of Beach Boy tune burlesqued to advocate a nuclear attack on another nation, it is another thing to stare into the abyss for real.  The New Hamsters feeding off of the emotions of sick personalities is merely disgusting when directed at such unfortunates as Brittany Spheres, when it toys with the idea of putting the nuclear arsenal in the hands of a real-life Manchurian candidate, the wheel of fire is burning dangerously hot indeed!

If the whole world had gone mad, we could relax and enjoy it with the aplomb of Nero’s courtiers during the fire of 68BC.   But the lucid argumentation of Dr. Paul is there to remind us that there is such a thing as reason and one’s words and actions may be held accountable against its standard.  It should hardly be surprising that this sanity finds itself in the minority at the present time.  Researchers in higher mathematics don’t deduce their proofs in the expectation that the generality of humankind will follow along any time soon.  Although it shouldn’t be quite that difficult with noninterventionism, sound money, and property rights…we are clearly in a long slog to turn the New Hamsters back into responsible citizens.

Libertarians and paleoconservatives are beset by their own illusions, not the least of which is the hope that (against their own principles) their programs will receive spontaneous democratic acclaim.  I remember that in the 1980s many libertarians expected Alaska to turn into some sort of free republic…only to find out that the state was dominated by the complex and often incestuous politics of trade unions, public lands, and native claims.   As Bob Dylan sang in his ugliest voice:

You have many contacts, among the lumber jacks…

That is, wish-fulfilling dreams of some land where a  rugged individualism prevails against improbable odds.   Just how improbable was demonstrated again this week when we had to say good-by to “live free or die” and hello to the New Hamsters.  For as Dylan continued in dolorous tones:

Something is going on here, but you don’t know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?

So which lesson shall we draw from this post-New Hampshire rats’ gallery?  As Dylan so conveniently neglected to point out, our task is to find out…then pick up the pieces and keep fighting.

Posted in Libertarianism, Ron Paul, US Election 2008
Tags: , , ,
Next Page »