With Two Shooting Wars still Roiling and the Economy Tanking, Media Managed Politics Has Ceased to be Amusing
In some quarters the last Obama/McCain debate is being called the worst in history. It was certainly the most boring. Even the much ballyhooed Biden/Palen event was little more than an exercise in damage control and image management by tacit agreement.
The yokels who constitute the Republican base are finally wising up to the fact that this election is a joke, and seem willing to blame anyone but themselves. They demand “tough talk” from McCain, and even get it from his accessorized pit bull on occasion, but they know not whereof they speak. All that these Republican wowsers are asking for is more ad hominum attacks against Obama, nothing substantive. How could they demand anything substantive when the fight for substance was already lost during the Republican primary. It never occurs to them to ask for anything ideological, because they are (to borrow an epithet from the Randians) totally “concrete-bound.”
Think of that for a minute! With the biggest financial crisis since 1933 on our hands, the only thing that the Republican base can agree on is Obama’s connection with Ayers! Now, I’m not minimizing what Obama’s past association with Ayers and others of a more or less leftist-to-communist ilk indicates about the basic ideological preferences of the man who is almost certain to be the next president of the United States. But there is nothing to be done about it at this point, and furthermore Obama long ago decided that “Paris is worth a mass” switching from radical leftist to Fabian socialist…a move that allowed him to buddy up to the financial elite.
But more importantly, we’re not in Kansas anymore Dorothy! The way the economy is going an increasing number of Americans are going to be attracted, rather than repelled, by Obama’s lurid radical past. Its pitchfork time and radical populism is on the agenda again. The tragedy is that when America lurches left, as it is almost sure to do, it will be through a combination of fiat and stealth…not reasoned political discourse and decision.
There will be no injustice if Obama trounces McCain in November. Obama has worked harder for the job as well as having a better temperament for it. The tragedy is the the political process has been short-circuited by a combination of party bosses and media moguls. In the Democratic and Republican primaries, whenever it seemed as if there might be some substantive discussion of issues, these were quickly sidetracked by matters of style and personality. Obama certainly does have a kind of agenda, but he was able to triumph only by keeping nine-tenths of it (like the proverbial iceberg) out of sight. Democrats, awed by his youth and his race, were not inclined to question him on specifics.
McCain, on the other hand, never had any specifics to offer in the first place. He has always been a military man, who’s fit into the mufti of politics is as painful to watch as his stiff walk in a business suit. No doubt the Keating five episode soured him on any deep cognitive involvement with questions of economics. So during the era which lasted from 9/11/01 to last month he hunkered down in his comfort zone as a loyal representative of the military-industrial complex. That has all changed now, to such an extent that one begins to wonder if he even wants the office that he is running for any more. I know that sounds incredible, but numerous slips of the tongue and body language would seem to indicate it. To an ardent Black Republican supporter he replies “You are more likely to be rewarded in heaven than on earth.” True of us all hopefully…but hardly the sort of thing that anyone in their right mind would say stumping for the highest office of the land! But then of course, its never been entirely clear that McCain is in his right mind…which is all the more reason why those who nominated him as the Republican candidate richly deserve an Obama landslide.
So has it come to that? Will the anger and fear among the American electorate be channeled into the creation of a United Socialist States of America? If we are to have demagoguery, can’t we at least get a clash of visions and a choice before going under? Are there any minor party contenders who could make a break for it when the Republican party implodes? And make no mistake about it, at this moment the Republican party is every bit as sound as Wall Street…perhaps more so.
One interesting phenomena is that recent polls have shown that when minor parties are factored in they take more votes away from McCain than Obama. This even applies to Nader for some reason, although I am not sure that it applies to the Greens. Of course there is Bob Barr, who might take enough votes away from McCain to swing Georgia to Obama, much in the way that minor party candidates are already eroding McCain’s support in Florida.
Of course eroding McCain’s support as a protest move is one thing, providing a viable alternative is something else again. As I have mentioned previously, Chuck Baldwin has the true voice of a populist…and if Chuck were to unleash the kind of rhetoric in a national forum that he usually reserves for kerygmatics people would be stunned into the realization that they had another William Jennings Bryan on their hands. So far this hasn’t happened, partially due to obstacles set up by the MSM, and (this is just a strong suspicion on my part) perhaps due to the fact that the amateurish and divided Constitution party hasn’t been able to put together the kind of human and financial resources which are necessary to sustain a serious run for national office.
So the choice for anyone who wants to see some sort of alternative is to act now and come out with strong support for their favored third party. Either that or pull the covers over your head and not get out of bed until Inauguration day.
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!
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!
From Snubgate to Substance…Free at Last!
After a long hiatus Friends of Ron Paul in Japan is bloging again.
A major reason for the hiatus was that Ron Paul slowly withdrew from the race, sending mixed signals to his supporters as to what he was recommending as the next move for friends of liberty and peace. Although there were plenty of Ron Paul sponsored or approved events and activities, non of these really made up for the lack of a clear endorsement. That has all changed now: Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin’s candidacy for president, albeit in his usual understated and gentle way.
The endorsement actually came about as the result of a two step process. Indeed, in lieu of a specific chain of events the endorsement, such as it is, might never have come about at all. From the beginning, Dr. Paul was bound by his own high sense of honor and understanding of friendship to be noncommittal, since, on the one hand, he has been a past Libertarian party candidate and still remains friendly with elements of the party which nominated Bob Barr, and on the other hand has a high regard for many of the principles espoused by Chuck Baldwin, the nominee of the Constitution party.
To solve this moral dilemma (note:the very notion of a moral dilemma is a rare thing among anyone involved in the political process these days!) Dr. Paul decided he would give a generic endorsement to any and all third party movements. To this end he gathered all the remotely viable candidates, left and right, for an interview, establishing a kind of concordat of solidarity against the monopoly of the two major parties. The Constitution, Green, and Naderite candidates were all present…and of course Bob Barr had been invited as well.
What ensued has now been called “snubgate” by critics of Bob Barr. On the very day of the meeting Barr went back on his previous commitment to attend. In Bob Barr’s view, all minor candidates might be equal, but some were more equal than others…the “some” in this case being those fielded by the Libertarian party. True, there is evidence that the LP is the biggest frog in the rather small pool of minor party competition, but there are at least two mitigating factors. First, the LP itself was, in the eyes of many of its founders, never intended to “sieze the power of government” but only permitted to exist (in the eyes of its anarchist wing at least) to further the political education of the electorate. Second, Bob Barr himself seems to be a libertarian (small initial) more out of opportunity than conviction.
If so, he lost a golden opportunity when he refused to show up at Ron Paul’s press conference for minor party candidates. If my reading of Ron Paul’s motivations is correct, the good doctor was trying to be more than fair to a man who, from the begining, was only his second choice for an endorsement. But snubgate freed the Republican representative from Lake Jackson to go beyond rejecting Sen. McCain, and beyond even a vague expression of solidarity with minor partys. He had done his best to conciliate the Libertarian candidate, and the conciliation had been rejected in as rude a fashion as could be imagined.
He was free to say…”I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin.”
I suspect that Ron Paul was intending to vote for the Constitution party candidate in any event, but that had planned to keep his preference moot…knowing that revealing his vote would have the force of an endorsement. Of course, knowing that telling your vote has the force of an endorsement, and then telling your vote anyway constitutes an endorsement.
Partly, although not entirely, on the strength of Dr. Paul’s endorsement, I have decided for Baldwin/Castle in 2008. Further blogs in this space during the coming month will be dedicated to explaining why, among the remaining choices left on the ballot, the Baldwin/Castle ticket offers the best option for advocates of peace and freedom.
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…
…even if he did, he’s unlikely to move into the White House. On the other hand, he’s unlikely to loose his Congressional seat. So is the Paulista movement back to square one? Abosolutely not! Here are my meditations on “what it has all been about…
Ron Paul as Prophet
Those who fancy themselves part of what Albert J. Nock called “the remnant” i.e., the die hard advocates of natural rights and civilized vlues, may sense, as this winter campaign stretches on and the spring of victory seems to receed, a feeling that it has all been in vain. Indeed, it would have been in vain if either we or our candidate had embarked on a campaign for political plunder, rather than what I prefer to call “prophetic prophecy”….
you should be able to read the rest of the article on Lew Rockwell ezine:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sunwall6.html
in which I generally nix presidency in favor of prophecy…unless, of course RP wins the Texas GOP primary big , in which case I will gladly retract!
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”?
“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.
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.
Just the truth ma’am, just the truth…
…brought to you by the leading international English language newspaper
A friend of mine, and hopefully a soon-to-be “Friend of Ron Paul in Japan” alerted me to the editorial at the following address:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0102/p01s08-uspo.html
what is good is that it constitutes an exposition rather than an editorial in the strict sense. No, the Christian Science Monitor has not come out and endorsed Dr. Paul, they just stick to the facts about his family life, intellectual history, and political policies. That’s enough, since Congressman Paul’s background speaks for itself…and all it needs is an objective presentation. Good work CSM….you’re way ahead of the rest of the MSM, but hopefully not for long!
« Previous Page —
Next Page »
