Politicians: It’s time to swat some flies!
Today Conservatives tend to be libertarian on most economic issues, and true liberals tend to be libertarian on most social issues. Libertarians call for a foreign policy of peace as described by Thomas Jefferson: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” Neither party on Capitol Hill, for decades, act from the Libertarians value on foreign policy, peace and darn it limited government.
We haven’t discovered if a Republican-Libertarian would be true to their convictions if elected the Grand Poo-bah of the nation. I think the time has come to find out.
Most people I know hate politics with good reasons. We dislike politics in the workplace and among friends. It seems the only people who like politics is the professional politician (lobbying firms and lawyers). Unfortunately it is a necessary institution and one that for good or bad reason we are stuck with. President George Washington warned us . . .
I apologize that this is a overly lengthy commentary. It represents what was on my mind and I have never been able to control the thoughts in my head unless I jot them down. This is me jotting a brain dump.
It is a little history accompanied by my on thoughts.
(If a reader finds that I have inadvertently misstated a historical fact please add clarity)
We all, I suppose, have heard “But everything is political, isn’t it?” From The Chronicle of Higher Education, Stanley Smith puts it this way, “But everything is political, isn’t it? The question is insistent, it always comes back, in part because there is more than a little truth to the assertion it presupposes. Everything is political in the sense that any action we take or are decision we make and conclusion we reach rests on assumptions, norms, and values not everyone would affirm. That is, everything we do is rooted in a contestable point of origin; and since the realm of the contestable is the realm of politics, everything is political.”
If we accept that ‘everything is political then it follows that partisanship and obstruction can be said to be normal.
The Founders of our Constitutional government understood and accepted that man is imperfect. In the imperfect then man is prone to act out of his own self-interest and others interest if that brings self gain and immense rewards. Without checks and balances and plain out right obstruction we stand no chance to check bad behaviors of men.
Today the politics as practiced on Capitol Hill are very muddy. Politics on the hill is so much a murky soup that we the people have no reasonable way to see what is at the bottom. Straight truth from the professional politician “ain’t going to happen”.
The checks and balance that the Founders understood to be crucial in a Constitutional government are breaking down. The checks and balances they envisioned went further than the three branches of government they include the ballot box and states rights. It also includes the right of redress from governments propensity to gather undo itself overreaching power. The people have the right of insurrection/rebellion against government behavior.
America has not experienced a heart felt rebellion since the anti Vietnam war protests.
Thomas Jefferson said to James Madison “ I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions indeed generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” Today we need a proper rebellion, a bona fide insurrection.
I view obstructionism on Capitol Hill in two ways. First if heartfelt, it is a rebellion that is waged for we the people. Two if the obstructionism is waged for special interests, those not for we the people or good of country, it is despicable, unethical and immoral. The behavior crosses or butts against the line of law. More often the result will be actions that is unconstitutional.
Today the American people are up in arms about partisan politics on Capitol Hill. In the historical partisanship politics has always dominated American political arena granted at varying degrees. If there is a one party majority is that party less partisan? Of course not. The definition of partisan is “a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.”
In present day, when the average Joe/Jane talk about partisanship on Capitol Hill the “partisanship problem” is directed at the conservatives. The Democrats have been very effective at making partisanship a dirty word to lock and load their agenda. Conservatives are branded in the most negative sense as obstructionist.
Some act as though partisan politics is of such a magnitude today that the bickering on the Hill dwarfs times in past history.
The duel that occurred between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr occurred as a result of intense partisanship and obstruction. The outcome was the death of Hamilton and Burrs personal political career came to an end.
I can think of no other time except during the Lincoln presidency when the Civil War was in full swing, the Southern Democrats having exited the Union leaving an uncontrolled reining party rule, partisan politics from an opposing party was virtually non existent. Oh I am sure that from time to time there existed some in Lincoln’s own party in Congress who disagreed with Abe but Lincoln was a heavy handed ruler and like our current President Obama it was ‘his way or the highway’. Lincoln won the election of 1860 with 40% of the vote. Clearly he did not enjoy a mandate from the people.
I am not up-to-speed on the Roosevelt years (on my list) but it seems he enjoyed a majority in both houses of Congress (5-1 in the Senate, 4-1 in the House) that makes it safe to state his reign was a one party rule, and not unlike Lincoln a heavy handed rule. Roosevelt guided us through the war in Europe admirably his social re-engineering projects have left a lasting toll on American society.
Many Americans unaware of our nations history swallows the tainted gruel of evil “Republican” partisanship and obstructionism fed to them by the partisan Democrats, their partisan pundits on entertainment news shows as if they are hungry partisan pigs in a pen waiting for another bucket full.
Bipartisanship comes into play only when a benefit is realized by both parties. Politics equals great power and wealth for those who master its craft. When bipartisanship exist on today’s Capitol Hill that does not mean we the people come out as winners.
One party rule, no matter which party is in power, means danger for the Republic. One party rule lends itself to a totalitarian government. When all three branches of government are disproportionately loaded then civil restraint does not exist. If we the people or a State do not stand, there is absolutely no restraint.
The question is a totalitarian government or a government that represents the wishes of its people? Maximum liberty or minimum government? The two questions are perhaps the most important of our time,
The nation is as divided on the issue of the political concept of popular sovreignty as it was before the Civil War. Liberty, freedom and the right to privacy in the personal are now history unless we the people are willing to fight to return them. Totalitarianism or freedom?
The Presidency was never meant to have the enormous power the office has been awarded. The power that has been transferred to the Executive will grow and no matter what party is in power the powers may never be relinquished. The only hope left is to give a liberty loving committed constitutional candidate a chance to water down that power.
The Constitution has no words contained in the document that supports the notion of political parties. However the two party system emerged roughly in 1787 as Federalist and the Anti-Federalist formed divergent points of views.
Looking back in history from the get go the Federalist were dominate. The Anti-Federalist being virtually their only opposition and I am beholding to their efforts for without them there would be no Bill of Rights and no restraint would be in play to lay controls on Hamilton’s dream of what could be no less than a type of monarchy. Occasional rebellions did occur against Federalist policies.
It wasn’t until 1800 that Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party came into power and enjoyed somewhat the same power as the Federalist held. Power however was not across all three branches. The Federalist still enjoyed an advantage in the Supreme Court. Justice John Marshall enraged President Jefferson so intently that he called for Justice Marshall’s impeachment. The House obliged with their approval but the Senate acquitted. Checks and balances are crucial.
President Lincoln was said to have a warrant issued for the arrest of Supreme Court Justice Taney. Taney ruled that constitutionally Lincoln did not have the power to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War, that power resided only in Congress. Justice Taney feared for his life. Lincoln must have had a moment of clarity and the Chief Justice was never arrested. Lincoln enjoyed a one party rule restrained only slightly by the third branch of government, the Copperheads and sporadic dissent from States of the North and riots such as the New York City Draft Riots in the summer of 1863.
Given the ideology of today ‘s Democratic-Progressive Party it seems almost inconceivable that the Democrats of early historical times were by and large pro slavery and it was the Republican who were anti institution of slavery. Neither group were for amalgamation of the negro into white society. The word racism did not come into vogue until the 1930’s.
Lincoln was a Whig longer than he was a Republican. The simple definition of the Whig Party is – a former political party in the United States; formed in 1834 in opposition to the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party advocated a loose interpretation of the Constitution and emphasized order and stability within society. Republicans emphasized States’ rights and strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Neither party strictly adhered to their respective parties core values.
The Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association made an argument that “The Whigs advocated an expansive federal government—but it was a government that would seek to promote a general liberal, middle-class national welfare norms of Protestant morality and underwriting the expansion of industrial capitalism by means of government-funded transportation projects (to connect people and markets), high protective tariffs for American manufacturing, and a national banking system to regulate and standardize the American economy. Howe’s Whigs [Daniel Walker Howe] were the embodiment of Horatio Alger, of upward striving, of the triumph of reason over passion, of the positive liberal state, and the counterparts of Disraeli’s [Benjamin Disraeli] “one nation” conservatism”.
One of my favorite quotes of Disraeli is “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
Another writing from the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association they had this to say about the Whigs, “The three most important components of that political culture were the Whig commitment to “improvement” (including both self-transformation as well as national economic improvement), to morality and duty rather than equality and rights, and to national unity rather than local diversity.” This explains a lot to me about the man called Abe Lincoln.
Cornell University political scientist Clinton Rossiter said of Abraham Lincoln “that he exerted so much power in his presidency it was likened to a “constitutional dictatorship”. Dictatorship in the sense that Lincoln sometimes went beyond the bounds of the laws and the written Constitution at that time of national crisis.” I contend that without a ‘national crisis’ Lincoln would have acted the same.
Another good example of a tyrannical Lincoln Presidency was when Lincoln having a fondness for a General Burnside sent him into Ohio territory. The General instituted General Order 38.
From the Ohio Central History portal they write:
The Order stated:
“The habit of declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed in this department. Persons committing such offenses will be at once arrested with a view of being tried . . .or sent beyond our lines into the lines of their friends. It must be understood that treason, expressed or implied, will not be tolerated in this department.
Burnside also declared that, in certain cases, violations of General Order No. 38 could result in death.
Most Peace Democrats in Ohio, [also known as the Copperheads] objected to General Order No. 38. Clement Vallandigham, the best known Peace Democrat in the state, helped organize a rally for the Democratic Party at Mount Vernon, Ohio, on May 1, 1863. Peace Democrats Vallandigham, Samuel Cox, and George Pendleton all delivered speeches denouncing General Order No. 38. Vallandigham was so opposed to the order that he allegedly said that he “despised it, spit upon it, trampled it under his feet.” He also supposedly encouraged his fellow Peace Democrats to openly resist Burnside. Vallandigham went on to chastise President Abraham Lincoln for not seeking a peaceable and immediate end to the Civil War and for allowing General Burnside to thwart citizen rights under a free government.
In attendance at the Mount Vernon rally were two army officers under Burnside’s command. They reported to Burnside that Vallandigham had violated General Order No. 38. The general ordered his immediate arrest. On May 5, 1863, a company of soldiers arrested Vallandigham at his home in Dayton and brought him to Cincinnati to stand trial.
Burnside charged Vallandigham with the following crimes:
Publicly expressing, in violation of General Orders No. 38, from Head-quarters Department of Ohio, sympathy for those in arms against the Government of the United States, and declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion.
A military tribunal heard the case, and Vallandigham offered no serious defense against the charges. He contended that military courts had no jurisdiction over his case. The tribunal found Vallandigham guilty and sentenced him to remain in a United States prison for the remainder of the war.
As a result of the decision, authorities were required to send Vallandigham to federal prison.
President Lincoln feared that Peace Democrats across the Union might rise up to prevent Vallandigham’s detention. The president commuted Vallandigham’s sentence to exile in the Confederacy. On May 25, Burnside sent Vallandigham into Confederate lines.”
I feel I must point out that Vallandigham was a two term duly elected Congressman to the United States House of Representatives. Editors and journalist found themselves oppressed by Order 38. Lincoln took no action to shutdown Order 38.
Can you imagine if Order 38 had been issued during the Vietnam war protests and protesters punishment was to inject them into North Vietnam?
The point I am trying to convey here is that when opposing partisanship and obstructionist does not exist in a substantial way a totalitarian leader emerges. Nazi like thugs such as General Burnside will take unto themselves, to extremes, a one party dominated rule.
Again in may thinking it is not desirable no matter which party is in power not to have partisanship and obstruction.
The ruling political parties of the early period morphed into new parties. The Federalist Party to the Whigs and the then the Whigs and American Party (also known as the Know-Nothings Party) to the new Republican Party. Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party moved to just Democrats during the years of the Jacksonian-Democrats.
The name “Democrat” wasn’t adopted until the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson when the party became identified with a growing populist movement in the young nation.
The Jacksonian-Democrats 1824-1860 are credited as the foundation for the ‘modern’ Democratic Party. Many disagreeing with Jackson’s Democrats fled to the Whigs.
From Democratic Party history “When Andrew Jackson ran for president in 1828, his opponents tried to label him a “jackass” for his populist views and his slogan, “Let the people rule.” Jackson, however, picked up on their name calling and turned it to his own advantage by using the donkey on his campaign posters. During his presidency, the donkey was used to represent Jackson’s stubbornness when he vetoed re-chartering the National Bank.”
From the Spartacus Dictionary “the Free Soil Party was formed in August 1848 at Buffalo, New York, a meeting of anti-slavery members of the then collapsing Whig Party and the Liberty Party established the Free Soil Party. The new party opposed the extension of slavery into the western territories. The main slogan of the party was “free soil, free speech, free labour, and free men”.
Martin Van Buren ran unsuccessfully for office as a Free Soiler. He later ran successfully as a Democrat. He was said to be the architect of Jacksonian-Democratic Party.
From the Wisconsin Historical Society: Wisconsin and the Republican Party the essay states, “In July of 1854, a convention was held in Madison to organize a new party. The members resolved, “That we accept this issue [freedom or slavery], forced upon us by the slave power, and in the defense of freedom will cooperate and be known as Republicans.”.
The Wisconsin Republican Party was dominated by former Whigs, yet they played down their backgrounds to concentrate solely on the issue of slavery — the one issue on which they knew all Republicans could agree.
When the 1854 election returns were in, Wisconsin Republicans had captured one of the two U.S. Senate seats, two of the three U.S. House of Representatives seats, a majority of the state assembly seats, and a large number of local offices. The next year, Wisconsin elected a Republican governor.”
By 1861 the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln was elected.
My goodness think what could be possible today if the Republican Party could come together and embrace the Libertarian in a common message of “Minimum government, Maximum Liberty”. I can imagine defections from the Democratic Party base that would embrace the “Maximum Liberty” message.
By 1861 the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln was elected.
The Dixiecrat Party was formed in 1948 from defections from the Democratic Party they were, to me, a sorta bastardization of the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party and the Republican Party.
The Libertarian Party came into view around 1971. The Libertarian Party is made up mostly of former conservatives who object to the Republican Party’s penchant for militarism and its use of government to entrench powerful interests and shield them from market forces.
Following the trail of political parties is challenging (I hope I got it right) and enlightening. I also wish for the reader that you as I have seen the motivations why parties morphed and often adopted another parties values. Motivations at the minimal was survival for political power.
The values of each of the two powerful parties has changed over time. Democrats should now be called the Progressive Party. The Republican party of today, in my opinion, should now call themselves Republican-Libertarian in an effort to return to a true Constitutional minimal government with maximum liberty.
The underlying theme I take away from my exercise besides some heartfelt ideological differences the most overriding lies in power and personal aspirations for political office which translates to power. The power has at its underpinning greed for self interest and special interest.
Think about it Lincoln needed a party affiliation to run against his arch rival the powerful Democrat Stephen Douglas. Lincoln understanding that the Whig party was a dead on arrival founded the new Republican Party in Illinois. By then the efforts made by others to spread the message of the new Republican Party in the Northeast made possible Lincolns aspiration for the Presidency to be realized. While Lincoln is said to be opposed to the institution of slavery he was far of field in supporting the amalgamation of the negro into mainstream America.
The fact Lincoln is called the ‘Great Emancipator’ is spin at best. I am one who believes if men of goodwill and of character the Civil War could have been avoided. Even men like Thomas Jefferson, a founding father and a slaveholder, believed emancipation of the institution of slaves would occur overtime, it was inevitable. There were States in the North that were in the process of emancipating slaves.
The Civil War by recent reported number conclusions cost near 1.5 million deaths. The Reconstruction Era left devastating riffs in American society. Many linger to this day. There existed absolutely no concrete plans either for repatriation of negro’s to a foreign homeland nor one to integrate the former slave into American society. If emancipation had been allowed to occur overtime integration fully into white society may have occurred without the scars we are reminded of in present day. Just my thoughts.
Once the Nebraska-Kansas Act 1854 was enacted it broke the Missouri Compromise 1820 and subsequent Compromises. The Civil War was guaranteed. What was really behind the Nebraska-Kansas Act 1854? Power and special interest for the realization of monetary gains.
The belief in states-rights was, to me, secondary to the power broker political elites goals. Yes states rights was supported by the Constitution but the right was used only to hold on to wealth by the political elite wealthy. State rights were taken to heart by most of the less powerful or non powerful whites within states. If not why would poor whites being mostly sharecropper farmers of the political elites fight for the Confederacy? Yes the sharecropper was free to walk around but they too were chained to the politically powerful wealthy landowner in the South.
As Disraeli said “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
One might think that the corruption before, during and after the Civil War would have been a lesson taken to heart. History was ignored. The professional politician is liken to a fly drawn to a fresh cow pie — the politician is drawn to corruption, power and money.
Politics as practiced by the politicians is not frankly about noble goals for country or even close to a moral high ground for benefit of the masses. It is about concentration of wealth which ensures power.
Don’t get me wrong in miss interrupting my last statement. Free enterprise is crucial.
The key is a balanced government, balanced business goals and a heck of a dose of personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility is not a concept that is only to be embraced by we the people but must be one that thrives within government and the business community as well.
We must re-educate America to a definition of Personal Responsibility — for a starter we might use the following: There is only one person responsible for your life and the choices you make and that person is the one you see in the mirror in the morning when you wake up. Don’t blame God, your boss, your parents, your former teachers, your coach, your co-workers, your race, gender, the other political party or your dog. Not sure who the original author was of this statement if I did I would give the appropriate credit.
In addition to the responsibility taken for all you do it is crucial to reaffirm the infamous quote of President Kennedy “ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
Embodied in Kennedy’s statement is “what the politician can do for country”. This carries immense responsibility in the moral and ethical sense. Most politicians are lacking a moral compass and thus safely said to be bankrupt in the ethical.
Let’s be honest and recognize that re-engineering societies views is a practice of the political parties to realize stingy power and monetary gain for those in the shadows who are to benefit. The re-engineering is antithetical to the “overall good” of the masses.
In present day America there are a plethora of kinks thrown in the cogwheels of government both from the domestic and the foreign. Those influences place a stranglehold on achieving a healthy balance in government and healthy life for the masses.
President George Washington “was aware that other governments viewed political parties as destructive because of the temptation to manifest and retain power, but also because they would often seek to extract revenge on political opponents.
He also saw the dangers in sectionalism (North vs. South) and warned that political factions gaining enough power could seek to obstruct the execution of the laws that were created by Congress and could prevent the three branches from properly performing their duties as outlined in the Constitution.
President Washington expresses genuine concern in that “the alternate domination” of one political party over another, thereby allowing one party to enjoy temporary power over the government that would use it to obtain revenge on the other.
He [Washington] felt that this tendency toward atrocities directed at the party out of power “…is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.”1
In President Washington’s Farewell address [said to be authored by Alexander Hamilton] he warned “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” [This is certainly even more true today.]
The power of men nestled among the shelter of a party the power is intoxicating and most often the good of the masses and of country is only a fleeting thought. Men of goodwill, embracing a stellar moral compass and impeccable ethics are thrown under the bus. They are rendered powerless and thus disappeared. These good people are eaten by the pack of political wolves.
Imagine if there was a continued one party rule, enjoying a majority in Congress, what the outcome might be. It would result in a totalitarian rule. Man being imperfect gravitates to totalitarianism.
In Obama’s first term, while enjoying a one party rule, we witnessed the despotic revenge directed at the Republican Party. The Democrats goal could only be rightfully acknowledged as one to destruct the very foundation of the Republican Party. More insidious is that it places its one mans ideology/agenda above all others and that includes main street. The result is that it moves our country ever closer to a totalitarian rule. A rule embodied in a single individuals agenda and/or those of men hidden in the shadows.
When I read the Libertarian Party Platform – 2012 I honestly can not understand the problem most conservatives would have in moving towards a consolidated Republican-Libertarian Party.
In reading blogs it’s clear that for some conservatives that foreign policy is an issue. However the same conservatives will express a disdain for the foreign policy of inserting the USA in all other nations affairs and in recent times also being the world’s police force.
Maintaining military superiority to be feared by all other nations is desirable but it is a completely different animal than using its force to be the bullies embodied in a worlds police.
Placing clear restraints on foreign aid is one that Libertarians embrace. I do not view an Amash, Cruz or Paul as fellow’s lightweight on maintaining military superiority. I do view them as tough on issues as they relate to foreign policy and involvement in other nations affairs. Many conservatives share my view.
From where I sit the old line cold war hawks of the Republican Party and for that matter of the Democrat Party seem not to understand the power of maintaining a strong military to be feared by all other nations yet not invoking its use to bully and flex muscle to control bad characters or civil wars in another nation.
This in no way is the meaning of exceptional-ism. Foreign aid is used in an attempt to purchase friends. What makes America exceptional is the free enterprise system. The exceptional-ism is lost when the use of government intervention either by force of war, meddling in another’s nations internal affairs or using a world police force to end bad characters that are thwarting the goals of business.
Using foreign aid wisely, in my way thinking, would place America in better stead as an exceptional nation.
If you hand out dollars without a ‘you must earn component’ no respect will ever be returned to the United States. This only serves to continue to sow seeds of hatred which will, and is currently, directed at our America.
Obama and the Progressive-Democrats are totally stained with regards to foreign policy. Obama has been more than willing to use the tools of the military in a world police game. Virtually no restrictions associated with foreign aid. Good outcomes are non existent with respect to both cases.
Republicans are strong on personal responsibility and share with Libertarians as well that the decisions one makes have consequence and the individual is responsible for their choices in the good and bad.
No matter which of the two party politician belongs owning bad policy is not a desirable political move. Blame and spin time.
It seems that the abortion issue is perhaps the biggest bug-a-boo. The Libertarian platform states “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” The key here is government should exclude itself from the “culture of abortion” and should not through extending monetary subsidies afford the institutions survival. No law will prevent abortions from occurring.
Going back to the notion of balance — balance with both Republican and Libertarians in one consolidated party named Republican-Libertarian may well be we the peoples last chance to save this Republic short of a World War III.
On crime and justice the Libertarians statement may give some pause. However if we look at this honestly the pickle we find ourselves in today is not due to the embodiment of Libertarian views it is the opposite.
On immigration the Libertarian needs to be more clear. We have seen the Republican-Libertarian Rand Paul adding clarity in recent years. At the same time witness Republicans bail from sanity on the issue (McCain, Rubio, Flake, Graham to name a few). We do not need Comprehensive Immigration Reforms. At best tweaking here and there and enforcement of the laws we now have would ‘get her done’. Follow the money and more clarity is revealed. A stance using moral high ground as a reason is absolutely a false assertion.
The danger we face today is if we find no way to reign in the progressive movement and yes even Republicans in Congress all hope to restore balance to the Republic is lost.
Today the Obama supporters, the elite of them, are concerned about erosion of privacy, liberty, freedom and the heavy hand of government in all aspects of their lives. Some are connecting the dots. Those Democrats are ripe for the picking.
I am incapable of understanding that we the people are allowing fundamental liberty, the right to exercise free speech and a right to privacy in the personal to slip away.
Elections in 2014 will be critical to Republicans gaining more seats in the Senate and not losing a number of seats in the House. All understand this.
For winning back the Presidency in 2016 a platform of liberty and one that embraces the “best” of the Libertarians platform will go a long way to ensure success. The Republican candidate needs to focus her/his campaign on minimum government, maximum freedom.
If a Republican who has embraced a platform of liberty and Constitutional government and is elected her or his feet must be held to the fire to deliver.
Both political races mentioned above will be ones riddled with bullshit and the rode for every candidate will be laced with explosive devices. The progressive press will be poised to bounce at every turn if it is a Republican misstep and explain away the progressives misspoken words.
Which brings me to make a suggestion that the Republicans hire a fresh crop of pundits. Republicans need to bring forth a crop of younger, well informed and educated people with impeccable credentials. The current ones I am tired of listening to and the progressive just dismisses. Young blood is what we need to get their attention.
In my humble mind “balance” within the Republican party is crucial. Without this balance there will not be a chance in hell of getting even a modicum of balance in D.C. and a far greater risk is losing the Republican Party altogether to a one party rule. Failure is not an option.
It could never be possible to have a majority of women/men of goodwill who would put country and America’s children before self in the halls of Congress but it must remain our goal.
The one thing I am completely convinced of is that American society has changed and it has been altered significantly more negatively than positive in recent decades. However, we do as a society have many more good people than really bad characters. Good peoples do disagree along ideological differences; however with a more balanced government difference along ideological lines would be more manageable.
If one looks at California’s state government it is ruled by one party. They still refer to themselves as the Democratic Party but clearly it has morphed into a true Progressive Party that by its actions promotes a “true democracy”. California will implode from the weight of this “true democracy”.
The clue it seems to me is to figure out, at this juncture, how to move more peoples towards conservative (and yes Libertarian) values. I would accept just right of center move and in my most desperate moments of despair the middle becomes acceptable.
In embracing a more Republican-Libertarian Party I don’t view it as giving up our core principles. Some within the community of conservatives will most likely view it as selling out. I wish to think of it as a buy-in to save this Republic. The far far right nut jobs would foam at the mouth and as well the far far left nut jobs.
Society changes over time like it or not. We will fail miserably and assuredly if we do not make an attempt to embrace that which we fear.
We must find and elect political candidates who hold the basic principles this country was founded on and can teach the overwhelming majority that live among us their value.
To accomplish some success would be to scare the bejeezus out of those who have enjoyed their seats in Congress far too long and replace them with a new crop that hold “the basic principles this country was founded”. The new House of Representative crop have been a good start.
Stating the most obvious many of the patriots we desire will be found among the Republican-Libertarian. Like it or not I think it is fact.
It is past time to come together and remove the stinkers that are metastasizing on the Hill.