Tuesday night, RINOs in the seven states that held primary elections were anxiously looking over their shoulders as the footsteps of the TEA Party and its candidates gain on them. There is good reason for their fear. They are guilty of treason, and they know it. While the accusation is a very serious charge, the facts support its legitimacy. Both the party, itself, and many of the politicians running under its banner have abandoned fundamental points of the Republican Party Platform. Parties issue platforms for good reason. A platform promotes a coherent political ideology. It gives the voters something concrete on which to base their decisions, particularly when voting a straight ticket or when information on a particular candidate is scarce.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee had decided as of Tuesday night not to support O'Donnell. This is a grave mistake that could end up being the death knell of the Republican Party as a major force in national politics. The blatant hypocrisy of this decision is staggering. For decades, Rockefeller-Republicans, pseudo-conservative pundits, and the NRC have lectured those of us who are Reagan-Republicans to "hold our nose" and demonstrate our party loyalty by voting for the "lesser of two evils". Now that it is the "big-tent" Republicans' turn to reciprocate, we limited-government types are finding out just how big that tent really is.
Ultimately, it boils down to the same issues I raised in a previous blog "Wasted Votes and Lessons Learned". The lesser of two evils is still evil, and big government from the Republicans is still big government. The whole point of democratic institutions, chief among these being regular elections, is to offer citizens a choice. When the choice is limited to slightly different flavors of the same outcome (e.g. bigger government and higher deficits), what difference is there between us and a single-party system (i.e. communism)? The GOP had better proceed with caution, lest it find itself in the same position as the Whig Party it replaced a century and a half ago.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Is Slavery Bad?
Is slavery bad? The answer to that question would, on its face, seem obvious. Nearly anyone in modern western civilization would, if asked directly, be vehemently opposed to slavery. In fact, if you were to openly accuse most random individuals of supporting slavery, you would be viciously rebutted.
Let us look at this rationally, however, and see if the premises that slavery is bad and that most people oppose it hold any water. The first thing we must do is define slavery as a practice and an institution. Slavery may be defined as "the state of one bound in servitude as the property of" another, or "the state of a person who is a chattel of another." (For the linguistically challenged, "chattel" is defined as legally-held, movable property. Google it.) Wikipedia describes it by stating that "Slavery (in the past, also called serfdom or thralldom) is a system in which people are the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages." Slavery can also be defined as "forced labor" according to Anti-Slavery International. So, in a nutshell, a slave is one who is either the property of another, or one who is forced to labor involuntarily on behalf of another.
There are many on both sides of the American (and European) political spectrum who openly support the principle of slavery without possessing the intestinal fortitude to name it as such. Conservatives like to pass or lobby for laws prohibiting the possession or use of drugs or alcohol, or prohibiting various forms of sexual activity (prostitution, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.) among consenting adults, or even prohibiting suicide (assisted or otherwise). When they do so, conservatives are, in effect, telling you that they, and not you, have the right of ownership over your body and may dictate what goes into your body, how you may employ it, or whether you may dispose of it. The same is true for liberals who want to outlaw tobacco use, eating fatty foods, or using salt, or who want to mandate helmet usage for various recreational activities, or who want to outlaw risky activities altogether. Assuming that you are not a minor child, a criminal, or mentally incompetent, who, besides you, has a right to tell you what you may put in your body or how you may enjoy your leisure time?
You can not argue the "societal burden" regarding health issues. First, it is a non sequitur. What "right" is there to be saved from your own poor choices? A unilateral decision by the government to provide some level of health services does not imply that there is any corresponding mandate upon an individual to behave rationally, responsibly, or cautiously. Second, the "societal burden" is little more than a different form of socially justified enslavement. Why do my bad decisions confer any obligation upon you? Furthermore, the crime issues related to drug usage are a non sequitur as well. Robbing a convenience store is a crime, regardless of whether the money is to purchase food, rent, or drugs. Murder is murder regardless of whether the motive was to eliminate a romantic rival or to protect drug turf. Driving under the influence is a crime regardless of whether the intoxicating chemical was legal (i.e. alcohol) or illegal (e.g. THC). A man who smokes a joint in the privacy of his own living room, goes to bed, and wakes up sober (which the vast majority of drug users do) harms no one.
Now, the ethically-challenged Charlie Rangel has taken the practice of slavery (i.e. involuntary servitude) to a new level with his ‘Universal National Service Act’. Now any American may enjoy the privilege (or maybe the "right", as we redefine "rights") to be forced into serving the agendas of the party in power. Yes, this is the same Charlie Rangel who said "The challenges African-Americans are facing today are rooted in the system of slavery." Apparently, as an African-American, Charlie has been enlightened as to the benefits of involuntary servitude.
John Locke argued in his Second Treatise of Government that since a man has the right of possession of his own person or body, he also has a right to whatever is produced by the labor of his body. It was the principles of Locke that guided the Thomas Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence. These principles were further enshrined generally in the principles of limited government, and specifically in the Bill of Rights. Yes, we are all aware of the Founders' hypocrisy. Even the Founders themselves were aware of it. Most, including those who owned slaves, however, grudgingly accepted the institution as a temporary evil with an eye toward its eventual elimination.
So I ask, once again, that you consider the question, "is slavery a bad thing?" I have made up my own mind on the matter. You, however, will have to answer that question for yourself. But if you do decide in favor, at least have the integrity to call it what it is.
Let us look at this rationally, however, and see if the premises that slavery is bad and that most people oppose it hold any water. The first thing we must do is define slavery as a practice and an institution. Slavery may be defined as "the state of one bound in servitude as the property of" another, or "the state of a person who is a chattel of another." (For the linguistically challenged, "chattel" is defined as legally-held, movable property. Google it.) Wikipedia describes it by stating that "Slavery (in the past, also called serfdom or thralldom) is a system in which people are the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages." Slavery can also be defined as "forced labor" according to Anti-Slavery International. So, in a nutshell, a slave is one who is either the property of another, or one who is forced to labor involuntarily on behalf of another.
There are many on both sides of the American (and European) political spectrum who openly support the principle of slavery without possessing the intestinal fortitude to name it as such. Conservatives like to pass or lobby for laws prohibiting the possession or use of drugs or alcohol, or prohibiting various forms of sexual activity (prostitution, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.) among consenting adults, or even prohibiting suicide (assisted or otherwise). When they do so, conservatives are, in effect, telling you that they, and not you, have the right of ownership over your body and may dictate what goes into your body, how you may employ it, or whether you may dispose of it. The same is true for liberals who want to outlaw tobacco use, eating fatty foods, or using salt, or who want to mandate helmet usage for various recreational activities, or who want to outlaw risky activities altogether. Assuming that you are not a minor child, a criminal, or mentally incompetent, who, besides you, has a right to tell you what you may put in your body or how you may enjoy your leisure time?
You can not argue the "societal burden" regarding health issues. First, it is a non sequitur. What "right" is there to be saved from your own poor choices? A unilateral decision by the government to provide some level of health services does not imply that there is any corresponding mandate upon an individual to behave rationally, responsibly, or cautiously. Second, the "societal burden" is little more than a different form of socially justified enslavement. Why do my bad decisions confer any obligation upon you? Furthermore, the crime issues related to drug usage are a non sequitur as well. Robbing a convenience store is a crime, regardless of whether the money is to purchase food, rent, or drugs. Murder is murder regardless of whether the motive was to eliminate a romantic rival or to protect drug turf. Driving under the influence is a crime regardless of whether the intoxicating chemical was legal (i.e. alcohol) or illegal (e.g. THC). A man who smokes a joint in the privacy of his own living room, goes to bed, and wakes up sober (which the vast majority of drug users do) harms no one.
Now, the ethically-challenged Charlie Rangel has taken the practice of slavery (i.e. involuntary servitude) to a new level with his ‘Universal National Service Act’. Now any American may enjoy the privilege (or maybe the "right", as we redefine "rights") to be forced into serving the agendas of the party in power. Yes, this is the same Charlie Rangel who said "The challenges African-Americans are facing today are rooted in the system of slavery." Apparently, as an African-American, Charlie has been enlightened as to the benefits of involuntary servitude.
John Locke argued in his Second Treatise of Government that since a man has the right of possession of his own person or body, he also has a right to whatever is produced by the labor of his body. It was the principles of Locke that guided the Thomas Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence. These principles were further enshrined generally in the principles of limited government, and specifically in the Bill of Rights. Yes, we are all aware of the Founders' hypocrisy. Even the Founders themselves were aware of it. Most, including those who owned slaves, however, grudgingly accepted the institution as a temporary evil with an eye toward its eventual elimination.
So I ask, once again, that you consider the question, "is slavery a bad thing?" I have made up my own mind on the matter. You, however, will have to answer that question for yourself. But if you do decide in favor, at least have the integrity to call it what it is.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Speaking Truth to (Black) Power
The latest flap over the Mark Williams satirical blog post* is endemic of the level of absolute absurdity to which the race-baiting has reached. The opening act of this theater of the absurd was initiated when NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous issued his resolution to ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party. “We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism & anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement,” stated Jealous. Considering the anti-white and anti-Semitic quotes of black leaders like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, should we equate all blacks with Nazis? (Louis might not mind that so much.) Has Jealous tried to distance himself and the NAACP from these race-baiting hate-mongers? Furthermore, it is absolutely appalling that Jealous' accusations against the TEA Party lack so much as a single shred of evidence. This is, however, typical of the way in which the race card is played.
Act Two opened with freshman Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), who is the only Democrat to have received a TEA Party endorsement. Minnick wrote a letter to TEA Party Express co-chairwoman Amy Kremer in which he stated, "The reprehensible blog post by your spokesman was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Tea Party movement." This is exactly the sort of statement that would be condemned as racist if redirected. Imagine if a Republican had stated, "The reprehensible resolution by NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Civil Rights movement." Because crime is higher in black neighborhoods, should we associate all blacks with criminal behavior?
The response of the TEA Party Federation in Act Three was extremely disappointing. While it is indisputable that racism should never be tolerated, there are other issues that should take precedence here. The first issue is that, as TEA Partiers, our primary focus should be on individual liberty. We should be defending those same individual liberties, to include the right of free expression, that our Founders secured for us. That the right of free expression is enshrined in the First Amendment, along with religious liberty and the right to petition government, should be a glaringly obvious indication of its importance.
Mr. Williams' piece was satire. Satire has a long and well-established tradition of discussing issues which often could not be addressed directly without the risk of offending the powers that be. Satire encompasses some of the most famous art and literature in the Western tradition. Beaumarchais' Marriage of Figaro (made into an opera buffa by Mozart and Da Ponte), Voltaire's Candide, and Swift's Gulliver's Travels are all outstanding examples of satire. While Mr. Williams' attempt fails to rise to the level of finesse of these classic works, it is, nonetheless, satire. If poor artistic ability is grounds for removal from the TEA Party, I am afraid we shall be forced to excommunicate many additional members.
There are those who will argue that the piece was offensive. My response to that argument is "so what?" Where, in the U.S. Constitution or any other document, is anyone guaranteed the right to be free from offense? If that were the case, there is a long list of individuals who owe me reparation for offense. I am offended by all species of leftists, whether Marxist, Socialist, Nazi, Communist, Progressive, or otherwise, who would steal my earnings, sell out my liberty, and violate and destroy my country (when there are plenty of other socialist countries in the world to which they could relocate) in order to provide cradle-to-grave welfare for a sloth. I am offended every time I am called a racist, when the leftist making the accusation can not explain how I can be a racist and still support politicians like Alan Keyes and J. C. Watts. I am offended every time I am slandered as being "unenlightened" for not supporting socialist programs, a "misogynist" or a "rapist" merely for having been born a male, a "homophobe" merely for having been born straight, a "jingoist" for feeling more loyalty to my country than to the rest of the world, a "xenophobe" for believing the values (like the inherent worth of the individual) of Western Civilization are superior to the values (like the primacy of the collective) of non-western cultures, or any of numerous other disparaging appellations for "bitterly clinging to my guns".
Conversely, the First Amendment actually protects offensive material. Now I am sure there is a constitutional scholar out there that will say, "ah, yes, but it only protects free speech against restraint by the government, not by private groups or individuals." While I do agree with that argument, I would offer the rebuttal that it is hard to take the moral high ground in defense of a principle like free speech (or the rest of the Bill of Rights), when you are unwilling to defend that principle within your own home. I find it deeply disturbing that the TEA Party would abandon a fundamental liberty in favor of political correctness.
The second issue is that it has always been my understanding that the TEA parties were "grass roots" movements. Who died and left the Federation in charge? Did I just inadvertently wander in to a modern, PC episode of Star Trek? Was there a vote held on whether or not to kick Mark Williams out of the TEA Party? Does this mean he has to turn in his communicator and phaser? I never got a vote. Having no say in the direction of the party is a prime reason I left the Republican Party. (Yes, I am fully aware that the TEA Party is not a political party in the conventional sense. That is not the point.)
By strange coincidence, a different Mr. Williams also issued a stinging condemnation of black Americans. While more direct and less satirical than the first example, the second editorial lambasted blacks on the exact same points: the contempt of individual liberty and the entitlement mentality. If the words are true and the criticism is valid coming from a black man, how can it be argued that they are any less valid and true coming from a white man?
Regardless of how you feel about racism or issues of race, the fact remains that a lopsided monologue on the issue of race that is grotesquely biased in either direction is far worse that allowing all parties to speak their minds freely and openly, regardless of the level of offensiveness. Much of the criticism leveled against blacks and other minorities (or any group, for that matter) is, in fact, valid. To argue that no criticism is permissible is to defend the absurd belief that all members of a given minority are absolutely perfect while only whites are flawed. What needs to be understood is that such unbalanced attitudes do not serve anyone's, or any race's, interests. Furthermore, either those of us who support the TEA Parties stand for principled liberty, or we stand for nothing more than another agenda. I, for one, refuse to support any political movement whose positions reflect nothing more than a case of 'whose ox is gored'.
*This post has since been removed from Mark Williams blog.
Act Two opened with freshman Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), who is the only Democrat to have received a TEA Party endorsement. Minnick wrote a letter to TEA Party Express co-chairwoman Amy Kremer in which he stated, "The reprehensible blog post by your spokesman was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Tea Party movement." This is exactly the sort of statement that would be condemned as racist if redirected. Imagine if a Republican had stated, "The reprehensible resolution by NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Civil Rights movement." Because crime is higher in black neighborhoods, should we associate all blacks with criminal behavior?
The response of the TEA Party Federation in Act Three was extremely disappointing. While it is indisputable that racism should never be tolerated, there are other issues that should take precedence here. The first issue is that, as TEA Partiers, our primary focus should be on individual liberty. We should be defending those same individual liberties, to include the right of free expression, that our Founders secured for us. That the right of free expression is enshrined in the First Amendment, along with religious liberty and the right to petition government, should be a glaringly obvious indication of its importance.
Mr. Williams' piece was satire. Satire has a long and well-established tradition of discussing issues which often could not be addressed directly without the risk of offending the powers that be. Satire encompasses some of the most famous art and literature in the Western tradition. Beaumarchais' Marriage of Figaro (made into an opera buffa by Mozart and Da Ponte), Voltaire's Candide, and Swift's Gulliver's Travels are all outstanding examples of satire. While Mr. Williams' attempt fails to rise to the level of finesse of these classic works, it is, nonetheless, satire. If poor artistic ability is grounds for removal from the TEA Party, I am afraid we shall be forced to excommunicate many additional members.
There are those who will argue that the piece was offensive. My response to that argument is "so what?" Where, in the U.S. Constitution or any other document, is anyone guaranteed the right to be free from offense? If that were the case, there is a long list of individuals who owe me reparation for offense. I am offended by all species of leftists, whether Marxist, Socialist, Nazi, Communist, Progressive, or otherwise, who would steal my earnings, sell out my liberty, and violate and destroy my country (when there are plenty of other socialist countries in the world to which they could relocate) in order to provide cradle-to-grave welfare for a sloth. I am offended every time I am called a racist, when the leftist making the accusation can not explain how I can be a racist and still support politicians like Alan Keyes and J. C. Watts. I am offended every time I am slandered as being "unenlightened" for not supporting socialist programs, a "misogynist" or a "rapist" merely for having been born a male, a "homophobe" merely for having been born straight, a "jingoist" for feeling more loyalty to my country than to the rest of the world, a "xenophobe" for believing the values (like the inherent worth of the individual) of Western Civilization are superior to the values (like the primacy of the collective) of non-western cultures, or any of numerous other disparaging appellations for "bitterly clinging to my guns".
Conversely, the First Amendment actually protects offensive material. Now I am sure there is a constitutional scholar out there that will say, "ah, yes, but it only protects free speech against restraint by the government, not by private groups or individuals." While I do agree with that argument, I would offer the rebuttal that it is hard to take the moral high ground in defense of a principle like free speech (or the rest of the Bill of Rights), when you are unwilling to defend that principle within your own home. I find it deeply disturbing that the TEA Party would abandon a fundamental liberty in favor of political correctness.
The second issue is that it has always been my understanding that the TEA parties were "grass roots" movements. Who died and left the Federation in charge? Did I just inadvertently wander in to a modern, PC episode of Star Trek? Was there a vote held on whether or not to kick Mark Williams out of the TEA Party? Does this mean he has to turn in his communicator and phaser? I never got a vote. Having no say in the direction of the party is a prime reason I left the Republican Party. (Yes, I am fully aware that the TEA Party is not a political party in the conventional sense. That is not the point.)
By strange coincidence, a different Mr. Williams also issued a stinging condemnation of black Americans. While more direct and less satirical than the first example, the second editorial lambasted blacks on the exact same points: the contempt of individual liberty and the entitlement mentality. If the words are true and the criticism is valid coming from a black man, how can it be argued that they are any less valid and true coming from a white man?
Regardless of how you feel about racism or issues of race, the fact remains that a lopsided monologue on the issue of race that is grotesquely biased in either direction is far worse that allowing all parties to speak their minds freely and openly, regardless of the level of offensiveness. Much of the criticism leveled against blacks and other minorities (or any group, for that matter) is, in fact, valid. To argue that no criticism is permissible is to defend the absurd belief that all members of a given minority are absolutely perfect while only whites are flawed. What needs to be understood is that such unbalanced attitudes do not serve anyone's, or any race's, interests. Furthermore, either those of us who support the TEA Parties stand for principled liberty, or we stand for nothing more than another agenda. I, for one, refuse to support any political movement whose positions reflect nothing more than a case of 'whose ox is gored'.
*This post has since been removed from Mark Williams blog.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Fall of the Republic
Our nation is in dire straits due to the endemic low caliber of the individuals we choose to represent us. The problem is that politics is a self-selecting system. If you want to succeed in politics, you must be willing to compromise everything, including your principles and values. If you are an individual who refuses to compromise on your principles and values (even though you may be willing to compromise on public policy matters) you will be virtually unelectable, and even if you do manage to get elected, you will be virtually powerless in the legislature since the only way you can ever get things done is to "play ball".
The fault lies with we common people. While we "commoners" are the last remaining bastion of courage, we are also the source of the corruption. We have allowed ourselves to buy into the leftist lies that government can solve all our wants and that our fellow citizens are legally obligated to provide for our needs. We have become the plebeians of ancient Rome who have sold out the Republic that was our birthright in exchange for the bread of an overbearing welfare state, the circuses of professional sports and reality television, and the rule of an imperial president. We ape the values of the jaundiced elites who sneer at "archaic" concepts like courage, fortitude, sacrifice, honor, and integrity. From a purview of the nightly news, reality television, and shock radio, it would appear that there is now little, if anything, that is beneath our dignity. How is it possible for us to choose individuals of quality when our own standards of conduct have become so debased?
The truly sad part is that since the courage of the statesman has failed us, I believe that we are rapidly approaching the point where we will be forced to depend upon the courage of the warrior. The common man of courage and integrity lacks influence in the halls of power. His principled vote to preserve the Republic is derided as "mean spirited" and overwhelmed by the selfish votes of his peers who form the entitlement peasantry. His letters to his representatives in the legislature begging them to do their Constitutional duty are replied to with polite and subtle scorn or are ignored entirely. The common man of courage and principle is being placed in a perilous position. Thanks to the selfish ignorance and apathy of his fellow citizens, the ballot box has failed him. Thanks to a sycophantic media and an arrogant government, the soap box has failed him. Thanks to a peremptory judiciary (along with the sheep-like compliance of a jury of his "peers"), the jury box has failed him. He is approaching a Rubicon in history where the only alternatives will be submissive acquiescence to the descent into so-called "benevolent" totalitarianism or to exercise the final option of the cartridge box. And all the bloodshed that will ensue could have been avoided had we stuck to the "outdated" principles of courage and honor.
The fault lies with we common people. While we "commoners" are the last remaining bastion of courage, we are also the source of the corruption. We have allowed ourselves to buy into the leftist lies that government can solve all our wants and that our fellow citizens are legally obligated to provide for our needs. We have become the plebeians of ancient Rome who have sold out the Republic that was our birthright in exchange for the bread of an overbearing welfare state, the circuses of professional sports and reality television, and the rule of an imperial president. We ape the values of the jaundiced elites who sneer at "archaic" concepts like courage, fortitude, sacrifice, honor, and integrity. From a purview of the nightly news, reality television, and shock radio, it would appear that there is now little, if anything, that is beneath our dignity. How is it possible for us to choose individuals of quality when our own standards of conduct have become so debased?
The truly sad part is that since the courage of the statesman has failed us, I believe that we are rapidly approaching the point where we will be forced to depend upon the courage of the warrior. The common man of courage and integrity lacks influence in the halls of power. His principled vote to preserve the Republic is derided as "mean spirited" and overwhelmed by the selfish votes of his peers who form the entitlement peasantry. His letters to his representatives in the legislature begging them to do their Constitutional duty are replied to with polite and subtle scorn or are ignored entirely. The common man of courage and principle is being placed in a perilous position. Thanks to the selfish ignorance and apathy of his fellow citizens, the ballot box has failed him. Thanks to a sycophantic media and an arrogant government, the soap box has failed him. Thanks to a peremptory judiciary (along with the sheep-like compliance of a jury of his "peers"), the jury box has failed him. He is approaching a Rubicon in history where the only alternatives will be submissive acquiescence to the descent into so-called "benevolent" totalitarianism or to exercise the final option of the cartridge box. And all the bloodshed that will ensue could have been avoided had we stuck to the "outdated" principles of courage and honor.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
“Reasonable” Gun Control Has Nothing to Do with Reason
You often hear leftists of various stripes clamoring for more gun control. When those who value their rights resist such predations, the leftists respond that they only want “reasonable” gun control. There is, however, no such thing as “reasonable” controls on guns beyond prohibiting the unsupervised possession and use by the incompetent and untrustworthy.
Gun control is not about controlling guns. A gun is an inanimate object. As such, it is neither good, nor evil. It simply is. You can take a gun, load it, place it on a table in a room full of people, and it will not kill anyone without being picked up and used by some other one. Conversely, if that some other one sincerely wishes to kill anyone (in general or in particular), and no firearm is available, that person will merely find some other more primitive method to accomplish his ends. One of the reasons that progressives have such a problem with this distinction is that moral or ethical relativism has warped their simple liberal minds to the point where they are no longer capable of making a rational distinction between that which is good, that which is evil, and that which is neither. It is far easier to pat yourself on the back for being “non-judgmental” when you refuse to label malicious actions or predatory people as “evil”, and instead, apply the label of evil to an inanimate hunk of metal and wood.
Gun control is not about controlling crime. In the first place, only the most patently naïve could ever be so foolish as to sincerely believe that a sociopath who will disregard a prohibition on murder (which carries the most severe penalty of any crime in our society) will inexplicably obey a prohibition on the possession or criminal use of a firearm. People who talk about enacting prohibitions in order to ‘get firearms off the streets and out of the hands of criminals’ are either cynically dishonest or criminally insane. We see evidence of the real-world effects of gun prohibition on a regular basis. While the vast majority of the 50 states permit some form of concealed-carry by their citizens, unopposed mass public shootings still take place. If you look at the details of such mass shootings, you will note that they most often take place where lawful gun possession is prohibited. And when mass shootings do occur in “gun-free” zones, the victim count is invariably higher. The state of Virginia allows concealed carry, except on college campuses like Virginia Tech. And the state of Illinois’ complete prohibition of any type of carry (concealed or open) anywhere in the state obviously did not deter the shooter at the NIU campus. And soldiers are prohibited from carrying loaded guns on military posts for self-defense. That did not, however, prevent a soldier-turned-terrorist from committing mass-murder with a handgun he was prohibited from having. This pattern of attacks in victim-disarmament zones will never change because the criminal will always have the advantage in being able to choose the time and place of the crime. The victim does not get a say in when, where, and how he or she will be murdered.
In the second place, to ban guns because some people (most notably, a very small minority) misuse them is patently absurd. Why not ban sports cars because some people speed? Or why not ban all automobiles because some people drive while intoxicated? Because some people are thieves, maybe we should lock up everybody. The logic of the preceding suggestions is no different than the rationale for gun control.
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ---Jeff Snyder
If progressives were sincere in their desire to reduce the number of violent crimes that involve the use of guns, they would support any approach that has been proven to achieve that result. Incarceration is logically supportable, simply from the fact that if a criminal is locked up, he is incapable of preying upon civilized society. (Of course, it goes without saying that he can still victimize his fellow inmates, but it is highly unlikely he will be able to obtain a firearm to further his goals.) However, with their endemic inability to objectively differentiate between good and evil, liberals find that locking up predatory felons for long periods of time is excessively cruel and unjust.
Gun control is about controlling the citizenry. Logically, this can be its only rational purpose. By definition, only the law-abiding actually abide by the law. Therefore, the legislators passed a law restricting the possession or use of a firearm under one of the three following premises: either 1) they passed it assuming it will be disobeyed by everyone, or 2) they passed it expecting it to be obeyed by everyone, or 3) they passed it knowing it would be obeyed only by the law-abiding and ignored by the criminals. The first assumption would be an exercise in folly, since to pass a law that no one obeys undermines respect for the law and the legitimacy of government. For the government to willingly and knowingly engage in such blatantly self-destructive behavior is very unlikely. The second expectation would also be equally foolish since it would require nothing short of inspired wisdom and divine intervention to compose a law so perfect in its from and function as to immediately inspire even the most incorrigible miscreants with the necessity of unwavering compliance. It is only the third assumption which is even remotely realistic in its expectations. In fact, original gun-control laws were enacted in order to keep blacks and other minorities in check.
The prohibition on practical self-defense accomplishes several progressive goals. First, it serves to make the average citizen fully dependent upon the state for protection, particularly when the criminal is faster, stronger, or numerically superior. This is particularly true for potential victims that are elderly, infirm, or weaker than their attacker. Second, it makes leftists feel good about themselves for sticking up for the downtrodden and misunderstood criminal element which they view as merely victims of an unjust society. If you think this is not true, ask yourself why leftists (particularly so-called ‘feminists’) express less outrage at the idea of a woman being violently raped and murdered than they do at the idea that that female might actually use a handgun to kill her rapist. And, last, but not least, it allows the agents of an ever larger, less representative, and more oppressive government advance their agenda without fear of reprisal or armed resistance. If you think this last statement sounds paranoid, please review some of the actions of the thugs in blue in post-Katrina New Orleans.
The words of those who founded this nation illustrate a true understanding of the place of the citizen in the political spectrum. “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” By modern progressive standards, these are the words of a dangerous radical. The man who spoke those words is obviously the kind of right-wing lunatic who would go to war against his own long-established government and even kill the agents of that government. That radical was George Washington, and those words were delivered in a speech he gave on January 7, 1790, as reported a week later in the “Boston Independent Chronicle”. Note that when he gave the speech, he was the government, serving as the President of the United States from 1789 to 1797. Had he uttered such words today, Mr. Washington would find himself on one or more DHS lists.
Washington’s words hit at the heart of the matter. The real reason for the right to keep and bear arms is defense of the person and liberty of the individual against all who would pose a threat, particularly the government. The history of the last 100 years is a history of people being killed by their own governments. The greatest threat to your life and your liberty comes from your own government. In nearly every single case (as the chart in the previous link illustrates) before being exterminated, the population was disarmed by being forced to register their guns. It is endemic of the leftist tendency to talk out of both sides of their mouths that liberals refer to such statements as "right-wing paranoia". Progressives do not believe in American exceptionalism (labeling such a belief as xenophobic or jingoistic), and they even denounce America as "evil," "racist," and "oppressive," yet they also claim (when the right to bear arms is mentioned as a measure to stop a genocidal government) that "it could never happen here."
That defense against the government is a primary reason for the right to bear arms is further proven by the endless clamoring to ban so-called “assault-weapons”. Semiautomatic rifles (i.e. “assault weapons”) have been around and available to the general public for over a century. In fact, prior to the 1934 National Firearms Act, even full-automatic weapons (i.e. machineguns) were completely unregulated by the government. Today, most states still allow private citizens to own and shoot machineguns, so long as all Federal NFA rules are obeyed. So why doesn’t the government see privately owned machineguns as a threat? It is because private machineguns are very rare due to being extremely heavily regulated and almost prohibitively expensive, with prices running into the tens of thousands of dollars or more. Semiautomatic firearms, by contrast, are far more affordable and are very popular with collectors, hunters, and shooters, yet they can still be highly effective in a paramilitary application, even against more advanced weaponry.
Regardless of whether it manifests itself as a registration scheme or as an outright ban on certain types of guns, the fact remains that "gun-control" = "citizen-control". So, if you want “reasonable” gun control, the question you have to ask yourself is “how much arbitrary government control over your life is ‘reasonable’?”
Gun control is not about controlling guns. A gun is an inanimate object. As such, it is neither good, nor evil. It simply is. You can take a gun, load it, place it on a table in a room full of people, and it will not kill anyone without being picked up and used by some other one. Conversely, if that some other one sincerely wishes to kill anyone (in general or in particular), and no firearm is available, that person will merely find some other more primitive method to accomplish his ends. One of the reasons that progressives have such a problem with this distinction is that moral or ethical relativism has warped their simple liberal minds to the point where they are no longer capable of making a rational distinction between that which is good, that which is evil, and that which is neither. It is far easier to pat yourself on the back for being “non-judgmental” when you refuse to label malicious actions or predatory people as “evil”, and instead, apply the label of evil to an inanimate hunk of metal and wood.
Gun control is not about controlling crime. In the first place, only the most patently naïve could ever be so foolish as to sincerely believe that a sociopath who will disregard a prohibition on murder (which carries the most severe penalty of any crime in our society) will inexplicably obey a prohibition on the possession or criminal use of a firearm. People who talk about enacting prohibitions in order to ‘get firearms off the streets and out of the hands of criminals’ are either cynically dishonest or criminally insane. We see evidence of the real-world effects of gun prohibition on a regular basis. While the vast majority of the 50 states permit some form of concealed-carry by their citizens, unopposed mass public shootings still take place. If you look at the details of such mass shootings, you will note that they most often take place where lawful gun possession is prohibited. And when mass shootings do occur in “gun-free” zones, the victim count is invariably higher. The state of Virginia allows concealed carry, except on college campuses like Virginia Tech. And the state of Illinois’ complete prohibition of any type of carry (concealed or open) anywhere in the state obviously did not deter the shooter at the NIU campus. And soldiers are prohibited from carrying loaded guns on military posts for self-defense. That did not, however, prevent a soldier-turned-terrorist from committing mass-murder with a handgun he was prohibited from having. This pattern of attacks in victim-disarmament zones will never change because the criminal will always have the advantage in being able to choose the time and place of the crime. The victim does not get a say in when, where, and how he or she will be murdered.
In the second place, to ban guns because some people (most notably, a very small minority) misuse them is patently absurd. Why not ban sports cars because some people speed? Or why not ban all automobiles because some people drive while intoxicated? Because some people are thieves, maybe we should lock up everybody. The logic of the preceding suggestions is no different than the rationale for gun control.
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ---Jeff Snyder
If progressives were sincere in their desire to reduce the number of violent crimes that involve the use of guns, they would support any approach that has been proven to achieve that result. Incarceration is logically supportable, simply from the fact that if a criminal is locked up, he is incapable of preying upon civilized society. (Of course, it goes without saying that he can still victimize his fellow inmates, but it is highly unlikely he will be able to obtain a firearm to further his goals.) However, with their endemic inability to objectively differentiate between good and evil, liberals find that locking up predatory felons for long periods of time is excessively cruel and unjust.
Gun control is about controlling the citizenry. Logically, this can be its only rational purpose. By definition, only the law-abiding actually abide by the law. Therefore, the legislators passed a law restricting the possession or use of a firearm under one of the three following premises: either 1) they passed it assuming it will be disobeyed by everyone, or 2) they passed it expecting it to be obeyed by everyone, or 3) they passed it knowing it would be obeyed only by the law-abiding and ignored by the criminals. The first assumption would be an exercise in folly, since to pass a law that no one obeys undermines respect for the law and the legitimacy of government. For the government to willingly and knowingly engage in such blatantly self-destructive behavior is very unlikely. The second expectation would also be equally foolish since it would require nothing short of inspired wisdom and divine intervention to compose a law so perfect in its from and function as to immediately inspire even the most incorrigible miscreants with the necessity of unwavering compliance. It is only the third assumption which is even remotely realistic in its expectations. In fact, original gun-control laws were enacted in order to keep blacks and other minorities in check.
The prohibition on practical self-defense accomplishes several progressive goals. First, it serves to make the average citizen fully dependent upon the state for protection, particularly when the criminal is faster, stronger, or numerically superior. This is particularly true for potential victims that are elderly, infirm, or weaker than their attacker. Second, it makes leftists feel good about themselves for sticking up for the downtrodden and misunderstood criminal element which they view as merely victims of an unjust society. If you think this is not true, ask yourself why leftists (particularly so-called ‘feminists’) express less outrage at the idea of a woman being violently raped and murdered than they do at the idea that that female might actually use a handgun to kill her rapist. And, last, but not least, it allows the agents of an ever larger, less representative, and more oppressive government advance their agenda without fear of reprisal or armed resistance. If you think this last statement sounds paranoid, please review some of the actions of the thugs in blue in post-Katrina New Orleans.
The words of those who founded this nation illustrate a true understanding of the place of the citizen in the political spectrum. “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” By modern progressive standards, these are the words of a dangerous radical. The man who spoke those words is obviously the kind of right-wing lunatic who would go to war against his own long-established government and even kill the agents of that government. That radical was George Washington, and those words were delivered in a speech he gave on January 7, 1790, as reported a week later in the “Boston Independent Chronicle”. Note that when he gave the speech, he was the government, serving as the President of the United States from 1789 to 1797. Had he uttered such words today, Mr. Washington would find himself on one or more DHS lists.
Washington’s words hit at the heart of the matter. The real reason for the right to keep and bear arms is defense of the person and liberty of the individual against all who would pose a threat, particularly the government. The history of the last 100 years is a history of people being killed by their own governments. The greatest threat to your life and your liberty comes from your own government. In nearly every single case (as the chart in the previous link illustrates) before being exterminated, the population was disarmed by being forced to register their guns. It is endemic of the leftist tendency to talk out of both sides of their mouths that liberals refer to such statements as "right-wing paranoia". Progressives do not believe in American exceptionalism (labeling such a belief as xenophobic or jingoistic), and they even denounce America as "evil," "racist," and "oppressive," yet they also claim (when the right to bear arms is mentioned as a measure to stop a genocidal government) that "it could never happen here."
That defense against the government is a primary reason for the right to bear arms is further proven by the endless clamoring to ban so-called “assault-weapons”. Semiautomatic rifles (i.e. “assault weapons”) have been around and available to the general public for over a century. In fact, prior to the 1934 National Firearms Act, even full-automatic weapons (i.e. machineguns) were completely unregulated by the government. Today, most states still allow private citizens to own and shoot machineguns, so long as all Federal NFA rules are obeyed. So why doesn’t the government see privately owned machineguns as a threat? It is because private machineguns are very rare due to being extremely heavily regulated and almost prohibitively expensive, with prices running into the tens of thousands of dollars or more. Semiautomatic firearms, by contrast, are far more affordable and are very popular with collectors, hunters, and shooters, yet they can still be highly effective in a paramilitary application, even against more advanced weaponry.
Regardless of whether it manifests itself as a registration scheme or as an outright ban on certain types of guns, the fact remains that "gun-control" = "citizen-control". So, if you want “reasonable” gun control, the question you have to ask yourself is “how much arbitrary government control over your life is ‘reasonable’?”
Friday, June 4, 2010
If You Want to Criminalize "Hate Speech" Begin by Outlawing Liberal "Opinions"
One of the most egregious examples of the hostility toward liberty by those on the left is the desire to criminalize so-called ‘hate speech’. Here, in the "Land of the Free," such attempts at prior restraint based upon content are generally most successful on college campuses, and places like California that are bastions of leftist/progressivist ideology.
This attempted criminalization of 'hate speech' is amusing in terms of its blatant hypocrisy. Attempts to outlaw hate speech nearly always come from the left, yet it is also well documented that the most flagrant use of hate speech emanates from the left. Before we go further, however, I think it would be eminently helpful to define hate speech. In the interests of objectivity, let us agree that hate speech is “speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, or bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.” Bigoted can be defined as "blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others". That being said, when was the last time you heard a mainstream personality on the right seriously engage in ‘hate speech’?
We hear such disparaging speech from the left all the time. Whether it emanates from has-been celebrities like Janeane Garofalo, Rosie O'Donnell, Danny Glover, or Sean Penn in one of their frequent and famous tirades slandering the same fans that used to pay their salaries, or supposedly ‘mainstream’ media personalities like Contessa Brewer tarring conservatives with the accusation of racism or CNN anchor Anderson Cooper saying “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging,” the leftists in front of the cameras seem to have no sense of professionalism or decorum. If Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh had made statements on the air that were even a fraction so offensive, the liberal media would have been up in arms calling for the FCC to shut down their programs. Even the Leftist-in-Chief Obama is not immune to slanderous commentary against his own citizens by calling them “teabaggers” or complaining how “they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment”. When was the last time you heard of a Republican president (or presidential candidate) making such a disparaging and contemptuous statement?
Such ad hominem attacks go beyond accusations of racism or perverse sexual activity. These attacks accuse the non-left-leaning of being “intolerant,” “hateful,” “mean-spirited,” “homophobic,” “xenophobic,” “misogynistic,” “greedy,” “unpatriotic,” or some variation of “backward,” “ignorant,” or “unenlightened.” When you have the Speaker of the House accusing her own constituents of being “unpatriotic” for supporting traditional American values (e.g. free markets, limited government, self-sufficiency, etc.), language has been turned on its head. Far worse, however, is the frequency with which such leftist opinions encourage, condone, or sanction violence against those with whom the progressives disagree. To say that President Bush should be tried for war crimes, while harsh, is a legitimate statement of opinion. When Air America Radio personality Randi Rhodes repeatedly suggests that the answer is to assassinate the POTUS, the opinion has crossed the line to border on the criminal. When illegal aliens threaten to murder whites unless they are granted amnesty, the speech has become intolerable and is no longer protected. When SEIU union members verbally threaten and physically intimidate peaceful protesters over disagreements regarding public policy, the union needs to be disbanded.
Even supposedly apolitical institutions like the Miss USA competition are not immune to the virulence of leftist slander. Perez Hilton a Miss USA judge and gossip blogger, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean about her stance on same-sex marriage. He then proceeded to call her a "stupid b***h" in a video tirade he aired on his blog due to his rabid dislike of her answer to the question that he, himself, asked. To say you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is to simply state an opinion. To answer honestly when asked a question is merely courteous. To engage in such name-calling (particularly because you did not like the answer you received) is churlish. Strangely enough, the silence of the feminists on this issue was deafening. As it was when Playboy published Guy Cimbalo's enlightening article about conservative women he would like to rape. Apparently "all men are mysogynists and rapists" unless they are leftists and actually admit to wanting to abuse and rape women. Also, apparently, strong women are a good thing unless they fail to toe the leftist/progressive line.
Even supposedly apolitical institutions like the Miss USA competition are not immune to the virulence of leftist slander. Perez Hilton a Miss USA judge and gossip blogger, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean about her stance on same-sex marriage. He then proceeded to call her a "stupid b***h" in a video tirade he aired on his blog due to his rabid dislike of her answer to the question that he, himself, asked. To say you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is to simply state an opinion. To answer honestly when asked a question is merely courteous. To engage in such name-calling (particularly because you did not like the answer you received) is churlish. Strangely enough, the silence of the feminists on this issue was deafening. As it was when Playboy published Guy Cimbalo's enlightening article about conservative women he would like to rape. Apparently "all men are mysogynists and rapists" unless they are leftists and actually admit to wanting to abuse and rape women. Also, apparently, strong women are a good thing unless they fail to toe the leftist/progressive line.
The most recent case of hate speech from the left is from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), who has accused supporters of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law of having “ties to white supremacy groups.” According to Sanchez "It's been documented. It's not mainstream politics," in spite of the fact that the law has majority support both within Arizona and within the United States as a whole. How is 60% favorable support “not mainstream”?
To expect people to obey the law (when it has been legitimately enacted and is constitutionally valid) is reasonable. To label people as racist for holding such expectations is beyond absurd. Ms. Sanchez's behaviour is irresponsible, unprofessional, unconscionable, and completely in keeping with the finest traditions of the left. I can not help but wonder whether Ms. Sanchez expects the public to abide by the laws she passes in her role as a U.S. Representative. If so, I find her unmitigated hypocrisy appalling. If not, I can only wonder what she sees as being her role and purpose as a legislator.
To expect people to obey the law (when it has been legitimately enacted and is constitutionally valid) is reasonable. To label people as racist for holding such expectations is beyond absurd. Ms. Sanchez's behaviour is irresponsible, unprofessional, unconscionable, and completely in keeping with the finest traditions of the left. I can not help but wonder whether Ms. Sanchez expects the public to abide by the laws she passes in her role as a U.S. Representative. If so, I find her unmitigated hypocrisy appalling. If not, I can only wonder what she sees as being her role and purpose as a legislator.
If you look at the issue objectively, you will see that the left really does not have a problem with speech that is ‘hateful’ or malicious. What the left really has a problem with is speech that supports policies or conveys information with which they disagree. The combination of banning speech that the left finds disagreeable along with vicious ad hominem attacks against political opponents allows the left to dominate the political discourse by silencing the opposition. By monopolizing the realm of ideas, the left can control the direction of public policy. The problem is that we have allowed the political left to dominate the language of political discourse. By “we”, I mean all decent people who are more interested in finding substantive solutions to problems than we are in advancing a particular political agenda.
We have stronger arguments than the leftists, and we have the facts on our side. When we say “concealed-carry laws save lives, and we have the statistics to prove it,” leftists say “you are a paranoid, gun-toting redneck.” When we say “bilingual education keeps immigrants poor by making it harder for them to assimilate into our society and economy,” leftists respond with “you are a xenophobic racist.” When we say “actual global temperatures have been cooling over the last few years,” leftists parrot “you are a global-warming denier.” Such responses are juvenile and idiotic (notice I said 'responses', not 'people'). The only way we can fail to win such debates is by allowing ourselves to be shamed or cowed into silence by such slanderous accusations.
When leftists call us names, we need to fight back by forcing them to address the issues. When we say “the Federal healthcare mandate is unconstitutional,” and the leftists reply with “you are racists,” we need to ignore the accusation and force them to prove us wrong on the issues. Take back our language and rejoin the political discourse. It does not matter if you are black or white, male or female, straight or gay. Stick to the issues and stick to the facts, and whatever you do, DO NOT allow the left to cow you into silence, no matter what.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Wasted Votes and Lessons Learned
Numerous so-called "conservative" pundits have repeatedly bemoaned the fact that many conservative voters at the grass-roots level have "abandoned" the Republican Party. Let's get one thing straight here: conservatives did not abandon the Republican Party. The Republican Party abandoned conservatives. We were the Party of Ronald Reagan, not John McCain. We support lower taxes and less government involvement in our lives. We are single-issue voters, and the issue is freedom.
The Republicans talk about wanting a "big tent". The problem is, they are going about it the wrong way. Most sincere conservatives are never going to vote for a liberal, regardless of the label he applies to himself or the party to which he adheres. Most Democrats are never going to vote for a Republican, no matter how far left of center he travels. The fact is, the Republican tent has never been bigger than it was during the Reagan years. Ronald Reagan delivered a message of freedom, self-reliance, and hope that resonated with voters from both parties and all across the political spectrum. Reagan is the man who said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" He knew the wisest foreign policy was to let other people fight for their own freedom, while we supported them from the sidelines (Nicaragua, Afghanistan). He knew to speak unambiguously, even boldly, and to call out evil when he recognized it. He took his office seriously, yet was both great enough and humble enough to laugh at himself.
After Reagan, we had Bush the Elder. He ignored the lessons of the Reagan era, and engaged in tax increases and an expansion of government with such policies as the 'War on Drugs', new regulations, conflicts in Panama and Iraq, expanded peace-keeping operations, and other trappings of his 'New World Order'. After eight years of further government expansion and encroachment under the Clinton administration, we tried handing the reins back to the GOP, in spite of the disappointment over the lack of follow-through by the Republican congress on their promises in the "Contract With America". Eight years of Bush, the Younger saw some of the greatest expansion of the Federal government since the New Deal with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It also increased the degree of governmental encroachment of civil liberties with the "Patriot Act", and left us fighting expensive conflicts on two fronts. The problem we have encountered is that rather than demanding good candidates who represent our values, many voters have opted to settle for whatever lukewarm mediocrity the Party has decided to place in front of us. Some of the best candidates, in terms of small-government/free-market/pro-civil-liberty/rule-of-law values, have been marginalized, slighted, and ignored. This was particularly true in the last primary.
This begs the question: where is a liberty-loving, small-government voter to go? If the Republican Party wants the votes of Reagan Republicans (a.k.a. libertarians and true conservatives), the Republican Party must represent the values espoused by Ronald Reagan. This is pretty-much non-negotiable. The difference between a Rockefeller Republican and a Democrat is so small as to be meaningless. In fact, there are many who, like me, believe that the United States has evolved into what is basically a one-party system. Voting in an election implies that you sanction and agree to abide by the results of that election, and that you recognize the legitimacy of the winners to make policy. When the only menu choices available are "Big Government - Option D" and "Big Government - Option R", what reason is there for a true conservative (a.k.a. a "classical" liberal) or libertarian to go to the polls? What meaningful difference is there between the Democans and the Republicrats? True liberty-lovers will not vote for big government, higher taxes, and increased regulation of everything except our borders. If the Republiclowns do not want to represent conservatives and libertarians, then conservatives and libertarians will find someone who does. For some voters, the motivation may be nothing more than an act of voting their conscience. For others it may be an attempt to teach the Party a lesson.
In a recent editorial, Laura Hollis asked how that lesson was working out for those of us who refused to toe the party line. I would have to answer that it is, in fact, working out quite well for us. This last presidential election was between two liberal Democrats, one of whom called himself a Republican. On one ticket, we had a big-government, liberal, Democratic senator, with a big-government, liberal, Democratic senator running-mate. On the other ticket, we had a big-government, liberal, Democratic-wannabe senator, with a small-government, conservative, Republican executive running-mate. Small-government voters saw through the Republican Party smokescreen. If you do not think John McCain was a Democrat (or at least a big-government statist), you really need to look at his record in the Senate. He crossed the aisle so many times, his staffers started wearing orange, reflective vests and carrying little, hand-held stop-signs. Electing a good lieutenant in the hopes that the chief executive meets an untimely end is a poor political strategy, unless you happen to live in Ancient Rome.
Had McCain been elected, we would have had four years of a mediocre, bland, left-wing RINO administration. This would have done far more harm to our Republic in the long run as the Republicans in the Congress would have marched in lock-step with the big-government, statist agenda of the POTUS for no other reason than his party affiliation. With Obama in power, there is a lot more foot-dragging in the advance of big government. Not only is there opposition from the usual suspects in the GOP, but several blue-dog Democrats have joined the resistance as well.
More importantly, the rapid push of a statist or socialist agenda by the Obamunists has had the added benefit of actually alerting the frog in the pot. Just look at the level of grass-roots opposition that arisen in the blogs, Tea Parties, and town hall meetings. Americans are rediscovering their love of liberty and limited government, and limited-government politics are enjoying a new-found popularity. We are living the first Chinese curse (and I am doing my best to realize the second curse as well).
Furthermore, the lesson of history clearly demonstrates that the Republican Party can be replaced. When the party was founded in 1854, it was a fringe party made up largely of single-issue voters and focused almost exclusively on the issue of slavery. However, when Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency in 1860, it replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties in the United States. Today, small-government-advocates are interested in many issues like minimizing business regulations, ending the 'War on Drugs', getting the US out of foreign conflicts, preventing further socialist encroachment into the private sector, minimizing or eliminating counter-productive gun restrictions, and so forth. If all Reagan Republicans, libertarians, Constitutionalists, Tenthers, opponents of the Patriot Act, opponents of Obamunist health care, Tea Partiers, and others could find a small-government party to stand behind, and then stand behind that party, they would be unstoppable. As a result, the Republicans, like their predecessors the Whigs, would fade into the dustbin of history.
Ultimately, however, the question is, how should you vote? The "wasted vote" argument is a non-sequitur. Is a vote for a RINO who stands diametrically opposed to everything in which you believe (e.g. secure borders, free-speech, smaller government, gun-ownership, etc.) any less a wasted vote than voting for a third-party candidate who supports your beliefs and values? If anything, I would argue that voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is a wasted vote because it is still a vote for evil. Which of your freedoms is the least important to you? It is like making a conscious decision as to which finger you would prefer to smash with the hammer you are swinging. It is just such voting that has gotten us into our current mess. I would argue that your vote is only wasted if you love liberty and still insist on voting for one of the two major parties.
The Republicans talk about wanting a "big tent". The problem is, they are going about it the wrong way. Most sincere conservatives are never going to vote for a liberal, regardless of the label he applies to himself or the party to which he adheres. Most Democrats are never going to vote for a Republican, no matter how far left of center he travels. The fact is, the Republican tent has never been bigger than it was during the Reagan years. Ronald Reagan delivered a message of freedom, self-reliance, and hope that resonated with voters from both parties and all across the political spectrum. Reagan is the man who said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" He knew the wisest foreign policy was to let other people fight for their own freedom, while we supported them from the sidelines (Nicaragua, Afghanistan). He knew to speak unambiguously, even boldly, and to call out evil when he recognized it. He took his office seriously, yet was both great enough and humble enough to laugh at himself.
After Reagan, we had Bush the Elder. He ignored the lessons of the Reagan era, and engaged in tax increases and an expansion of government with such policies as the 'War on Drugs', new regulations, conflicts in Panama and Iraq, expanded peace-keeping operations, and other trappings of his 'New World Order'. After eight years of further government expansion and encroachment under the Clinton administration, we tried handing the reins back to the GOP, in spite of the disappointment over the lack of follow-through by the Republican congress on their promises in the "Contract With America". Eight years of Bush, the Younger saw some of the greatest expansion of the Federal government since the New Deal with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It also increased the degree of governmental encroachment of civil liberties with the "Patriot Act", and left us fighting expensive conflicts on two fronts. The problem we have encountered is that rather than demanding good candidates who represent our values, many voters have opted to settle for whatever lukewarm mediocrity the Party has decided to place in front of us. Some of the best candidates, in terms of small-government/free-market/pro-civil-liberty/rule-of-law values, have been marginalized, slighted, and ignored. This was particularly true in the last primary.
This begs the question: where is a liberty-loving, small-government voter to go? If the Republican Party wants the votes of Reagan Republicans (a.k.a. libertarians and true conservatives), the Republican Party must represent the values espoused by Ronald Reagan. This is pretty-much non-negotiable. The difference between a Rockefeller Republican and a Democrat is so small as to be meaningless. In fact, there are many who, like me, believe that the United States has evolved into what is basically a one-party system. Voting in an election implies that you sanction and agree to abide by the results of that election, and that you recognize the legitimacy of the winners to make policy. When the only menu choices available are "Big Government - Option D" and "Big Government - Option R", what reason is there for a true conservative (a.k.a. a "classical" liberal) or libertarian to go to the polls? What meaningful difference is there between the Democans and the Republicrats? True liberty-lovers will not vote for big government, higher taxes, and increased regulation of everything except our borders. If the Republiclowns do not want to represent conservatives and libertarians, then conservatives and libertarians will find someone who does. For some voters, the motivation may be nothing more than an act of voting their conscience. For others it may be an attempt to teach the Party a lesson.
In a recent editorial, Laura Hollis asked how that lesson was working out for those of us who refused to toe the party line. I would have to answer that it is, in fact, working out quite well for us. This last presidential election was between two liberal Democrats, one of whom called himself a Republican. On one ticket, we had a big-government, liberal, Democratic senator, with a big-government, liberal, Democratic senator running-mate. On the other ticket, we had a big-government, liberal, Democratic-wannabe senator, with a small-government, conservative, Republican executive running-mate. Small-government voters saw through the Republican Party smokescreen. If you do not think John McCain was a Democrat (or at least a big-government statist), you really need to look at his record in the Senate. He crossed the aisle so many times, his staffers started wearing orange, reflective vests and carrying little, hand-held stop-signs. Electing a good lieutenant in the hopes that the chief executive meets an untimely end is a poor political strategy, unless you happen to live in Ancient Rome.
Had McCain been elected, we would have had four years of a mediocre, bland, left-wing RINO administration. This would have done far more harm to our Republic in the long run as the Republicans in the Congress would have marched in lock-step with the big-government, statist agenda of the POTUS for no other reason than his party affiliation. With Obama in power, there is a lot more foot-dragging in the advance of big government. Not only is there opposition from the usual suspects in the GOP, but several blue-dog Democrats have joined the resistance as well.
More importantly, the rapid push of a statist or socialist agenda by the Obamunists has had the added benefit of actually alerting the frog in the pot. Just look at the level of grass-roots opposition that arisen in the blogs, Tea Parties, and town hall meetings. Americans are rediscovering their love of liberty and limited government, and limited-government politics are enjoying a new-found popularity. We are living the first Chinese curse (and I am doing my best to realize the second curse as well).
Furthermore, the lesson of history clearly demonstrates that the Republican Party can be replaced. When the party was founded in 1854, it was a fringe party made up largely of single-issue voters and focused almost exclusively on the issue of slavery. However, when Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency in 1860, it replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties in the United States. Today, small-government-advocates are interested in many issues like minimizing business regulations, ending the 'War on Drugs', getting the US out of foreign conflicts, preventing further socialist encroachment into the private sector, minimizing or eliminating counter-productive gun restrictions, and so forth. If all Reagan Republicans, libertarians, Constitutionalists, Tenthers, opponents of the Patriot Act, opponents of Obamunist health care, Tea Partiers, and others could find a small-government party to stand behind, and then stand behind that party, they would be unstoppable. As a result, the Republicans, like their predecessors the Whigs, would fade into the dustbin of history.
Ultimately, however, the question is, how should you vote? The "wasted vote" argument is a non-sequitur. Is a vote for a RINO who stands diametrically opposed to everything in which you believe (e.g. secure borders, free-speech, smaller government, gun-ownership, etc.) any less a wasted vote than voting for a third-party candidate who supports your beliefs and values? If anything, I would argue that voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is a wasted vote because it is still a vote for evil. Which of your freedoms is the least important to you? It is like making a conscious decision as to which finger you would prefer to smash with the hammer you are swinging. It is just such voting that has gotten us into our current mess. I would argue that your vote is only wasted if you love liberty and still insist on voting for one of the two major parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)