"What we do not know, we do not appreciate. What we do not appreciate, we do not defend. And what we do not defend, we lose." (PA State Representative Sam Rohrer, on his colleagues' appalling lack of interest in even reading the Constitution.)
"There is some good news: we are not in session, so for the moment you are safe!" (PA State Senator Mike Folmer, when asked to give a brief update on current issues in the Senate.)
Friday, December 19, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Thanks, Xman!
I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to "xpressive1515" for a beautiful illustration of the problems I've been addressing in my last two posts. When I said that many Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, are incapable of critical thinking, and that most conservatives are "inexcusably myopic" in their views on the sanctity of life, I didn't expect to have my statements underscored by such a pointed object lesson.
This individual disliked my assessment of the moral questions raised by the killing of non-combatants in war. They began charitably enough, noting that I am a product of the "extremely liberal" northeast. Unfortunately, I can claim no such excuse for the unconventional opinions expressed here. I am actually the product, by the grace of God, of a west coast navy pilot with excellent critical thinking skills and a southern preacher's daughter with a passion for history. They conspired to instill in us a love of learning, and encouraged us to study God's word and grapple with the difficult questions raised by our studies rather than simply trying to clone themselves. My grandfather was the only member of his gun crew to survive Okinawa. I have ancestors who fought in WWI, both sides of the War Between the States, the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War, and the French and Indian War. I am married to the granddaughter of, not one, but two navy captains. I live in an extremely conservative area, one of the heaviest Republican concentrations in the country. I am actually a Republican myself. In short, the explanation offered for my inability to reconcile the concept of justice with the killing of civilians is insufficient. I must accept full responsibility for my opinions.
The aforementioned charity, besides being misplaced, was remarkably short-lived. This individual began by taking issue with the concept of "innocent civilians," stating a biblical principle dealing with man's relationship to God and arrogating that principle to the question of man to man relationships. They further developed this fallacy by stating that "justice sometimes requires the killing of one's enemies to right wrongs" and invoking the bombing of Hiroshima, Hanoi and Iraqi and Afghan villages as examples. No attempt was made to demonstrate the assertion, so naturally, I asked what connection, if any, existed. Specifically, I inquired as to "the connection between justice as you understand it and the preventable deaths of non-combatants who have no control over the political, strategic or tactical actions of their nation's military?"
At this point, our xpressive friend had four options: (1) - attempt to demonstrate the justice of the actions in question; (2) - revise the history of the actions themselves (a common technique known as lying); (3) - try to redefine the concept of justice to reconcile the two; or (4) - ignore the question altogether. Quite honestly, I expected the first - or at the very least I hoped for it.
Instead, our friend offered an eight point rebuttal that consisted of transparent fallacies and other minor irrelevancies, none of which brought any new or old information to bear on the question. As an explanation or defense of the author's opinion it is unworthy of attention, but taken as an example of a decrepit state of mind that is all too common, it may be worth a cursory examination.
Passing over the first item for lack of words with which to answer it, we come to a sarcastic expression of regret that our military was not informed of the injustice of wiping out two entire Japanese cities to avoid the necessity of an invasion. Actually there were Americans who spoke out against our adoption of the Nazi method of air warfare at the time. The military leaders who made that decision justified it on strategic grounds, for the obvious reason that it could be justified on no other. I personally reject the notion that the only options were a wholesale slaughter of civilians or a long and bloody invasion. The bomb could have been used against the Japanese fleet or against land based military assets. Negotiations could have been opened with the Japanese with a real likelihood of success, considering the fact that their backs were to the wall. Since neither of these alternative steps were taken, we will never know whether our choices were really as limited as indicated. Regardless, bombing non-combatants to bring one's enemies to the table is morally indistinguishable from killing a murderer's family members to help bring him to justice.
The third item misquotes my assertion that Vietnam posed no credible threat to Americans, presumably because our friend was unable to dispute the actual statement. It is much easier to make one's opponent say what one wishes he had said and then attack the straw man than to go to the trouble of inventing historical details out of thin air. Items four and six allege similarities between my position and those of Carter and Obama, more evidence that the author didn't bother to read my previous posts to understand the perspective that so grated on his nerves.
Item five bothered me, I confess. The invocation of "the spirit of '76" brings the methodical revision of our history into sharp focus. The spirit of '76 was a passion for freedom and a grim determination to protect one's liberties, family, neighbors and homeland at all costs. Professional soldiers invading a foreign nation unprovoked have nothing in common with those farmers and tradesmen who stood together on their own soil to defend their homes and repel an invader.
And then, the coup de grace! I am a suspected North Korean who may have received assistance with voting from ACORN. How will I ever hold up my head again in cyberspace after that brilliant rebuttal?
Actually, the mere fact that xpressive1515 hit "submit" on that comment should be enough to shame him or her into hiding for a while. While I don't expect that to occur, I hope this display of foolishness will serve to prompt more thoughtful consideration of the fundamental question here by those who possess the requisite cognitive skills. I have many good friends who disagree with me, and all of them could have done a better job of defending their position. But none of them are able to address the real reason that conservatism is dying. Until Americans begin to associate conservatives with intellectual honesty and consistency again, they will not recognize true conservative thought as superior to liberal emotionalism, because what passes for conservative thought today is mostly parrotted, euphemistic party-speak.
This individual disliked my assessment of the moral questions raised by the killing of non-combatants in war. They began charitably enough, noting that I am a product of the "extremely liberal" northeast. Unfortunately, I can claim no such excuse for the unconventional opinions expressed here. I am actually the product, by the grace of God, of a west coast navy pilot with excellent critical thinking skills and a southern preacher's daughter with a passion for history. They conspired to instill in us a love of learning, and encouraged us to study God's word and grapple with the difficult questions raised by our studies rather than simply trying to clone themselves. My grandfather was the only member of his gun crew to survive Okinawa. I have ancestors who fought in WWI, both sides of the War Between the States, the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War, and the French and Indian War. I am married to the granddaughter of, not one, but two navy captains. I live in an extremely conservative area, one of the heaviest Republican concentrations in the country. I am actually a Republican myself. In short, the explanation offered for my inability to reconcile the concept of justice with the killing of civilians is insufficient. I must accept full responsibility for my opinions.
The aforementioned charity, besides being misplaced, was remarkably short-lived. This individual began by taking issue with the concept of "innocent civilians," stating a biblical principle dealing with man's relationship to God and arrogating that principle to the question of man to man relationships. They further developed this fallacy by stating that "justice sometimes requires the killing of one's enemies to right wrongs" and invoking the bombing of Hiroshima, Hanoi and Iraqi and Afghan villages as examples. No attempt was made to demonstrate the assertion, so naturally, I asked what connection, if any, existed. Specifically, I inquired as to "the connection between justice as you understand it and the preventable deaths of non-combatants who have no control over the political, strategic or tactical actions of their nation's military?"
At this point, our xpressive friend had four options: (1) - attempt to demonstrate the justice of the actions in question; (2) - revise the history of the actions themselves (a common technique known as lying); (3) - try to redefine the concept of justice to reconcile the two; or (4) - ignore the question altogether. Quite honestly, I expected the first - or at the very least I hoped for it.
Instead, our friend offered an eight point rebuttal that consisted of transparent fallacies and other minor irrelevancies, none of which brought any new or old information to bear on the question. As an explanation or defense of the author's opinion it is unworthy of attention, but taken as an example of a decrepit state of mind that is all too common, it may be worth a cursory examination.
Passing over the first item for lack of words with which to answer it, we come to a sarcastic expression of regret that our military was not informed of the injustice of wiping out two entire Japanese cities to avoid the necessity of an invasion. Actually there were Americans who spoke out against our adoption of the Nazi method of air warfare at the time. The military leaders who made that decision justified it on strategic grounds, for the obvious reason that it could be justified on no other. I personally reject the notion that the only options were a wholesale slaughter of civilians or a long and bloody invasion. The bomb could have been used against the Japanese fleet or against land based military assets. Negotiations could have been opened with the Japanese with a real likelihood of success, considering the fact that their backs were to the wall. Since neither of these alternative steps were taken, we will never know whether our choices were really as limited as indicated. Regardless, bombing non-combatants to bring one's enemies to the table is morally indistinguishable from killing a murderer's family members to help bring him to justice.
The third item misquotes my assertion that Vietnam posed no credible threat to Americans, presumably because our friend was unable to dispute the actual statement. It is much easier to make one's opponent say what one wishes he had said and then attack the straw man than to go to the trouble of inventing historical details out of thin air. Items four and six allege similarities between my position and those of Carter and Obama, more evidence that the author didn't bother to read my previous posts to understand the perspective that so grated on his nerves.
Item five bothered me, I confess. The invocation of "the spirit of '76" brings the methodical revision of our history into sharp focus. The spirit of '76 was a passion for freedom and a grim determination to protect one's liberties, family, neighbors and homeland at all costs. Professional soldiers invading a foreign nation unprovoked have nothing in common with those farmers and tradesmen who stood together on their own soil to defend their homes and repel an invader.
And then, the coup de grace! I am a suspected North Korean who may have received assistance with voting from ACORN. How will I ever hold up my head again in cyberspace after that brilliant rebuttal?
Actually, the mere fact that xpressive1515 hit "submit" on that comment should be enough to shame him or her into hiding for a while. While I don't expect that to occur, I hope this display of foolishness will serve to prompt more thoughtful consideration of the fundamental question here by those who possess the requisite cognitive skills. I have many good friends who disagree with me, and all of them could have done a better job of defending their position. But none of them are able to address the real reason that conservatism is dying. Until Americans begin to associate conservatives with intellectual honesty and consistency again, they will not recognize true conservative thought as superior to liberal emotionalism, because what passes for conservative thought today is mostly parrotted, euphemistic party-speak.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Civilian Casualties
In my last post I accused John McCain of having "almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent." I qualified that statement as follows: "I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility."
Needless to say, this accusation didn't sit well with many readers. I anticipated some reaction, hence my reference to conservatives being "inexcusably myopic" on the issue of the sanctity of innocent human life. But in general, the criticism was thoughtful enough to prompt me to reconsider whether my statement was defensible, or at least to explain it further.
I based the accusation on the fact that John McCain was shot down over Hanoi (hardly a military target) during his 23rd mission as part of Operation Rolling Thunder. Estimates I've seen of civilian deaths from Operation Rolling Thunder range from 52,000 to over 150,000. Granted, I don't know what specific targets McCain bombed. In his own memoir, however, he states that he was shot down over "the heart of Hanoi" as he completed his bombing run. Perhaps there was some legitimate military target in "the heart of Hanoi" - but I doubt it.
I responded to one friend as follows: "My own dad bristled at that paragraph, and asserted that I didn't understand the nature of the war or the real targets of the bombing. Since I wasn't even alive at the time, I'm not inclined to argue the point. The fact is, however, that our modern military paradigm is more like that of Napoleon Bonaparte than the Just War doctrine Christians historically held to. Our massive nuclear arsenal is largely targeted at cities, not military targets (or so we're led to believe). If I charged John McCain personally with wrongs that are the fault of our larger foreign policy, it is because he has largely supported that foreign policy, and aspires to be the next "decider" without addressing the immorality of the direction it has taken us. I apologize to anyone, veteran or otherwise, who was offended by the accusation leveled at McCain, but I stand by my belief that one cannot be an advocate of preemptive, aggressive war, or any war merely for the protection of so-called "economic interests" and make a legitimate claim to being pro-life."
Even nominally christian nations like France, Germany and England historically recognized that purposely attacking unarmed civilians was dishonorable and unjustifiable. We look back with horror on military crimes like the Glencoe massacre or the sacking of the Palatinate. Future generations will judge us no differently.
Needless to say, this accusation didn't sit well with many readers. I anticipated some reaction, hence my reference to conservatives being "inexcusably myopic" on the issue of the sanctity of innocent human life. But in general, the criticism was thoughtful enough to prompt me to reconsider whether my statement was defensible, or at least to explain it further.
I based the accusation on the fact that John McCain was shot down over Hanoi (hardly a military target) during his 23rd mission as part of Operation Rolling Thunder. Estimates I've seen of civilian deaths from Operation Rolling Thunder range from 52,000 to over 150,000. Granted, I don't know what specific targets McCain bombed. In his own memoir, however, he states that he was shot down over "the heart of Hanoi" as he completed his bombing run. Perhaps there was some legitimate military target in "the heart of Hanoi" - but I doubt it.
I responded to one friend as follows: "My own dad bristled at that paragraph, and asserted that I didn't understand the nature of the war or the real targets of the bombing. Since I wasn't even alive at the time, I'm not inclined to argue the point. The fact is, however, that our modern military paradigm is more like that of Napoleon Bonaparte than the Just War doctrine Christians historically held to. Our massive nuclear arsenal is largely targeted at cities, not military targets (or so we're led to believe). If I charged John McCain personally with wrongs that are the fault of our larger foreign policy, it is because he has largely supported that foreign policy, and aspires to be the next "decider" without addressing the immorality of the direction it has taken us. I apologize to anyone, veteran or otherwise, who was offended by the accusation leveled at McCain, but I stand by my belief that one cannot be an advocate of preemptive, aggressive war, or any war merely for the protection of so-called "economic interests" and make a legitimate claim to being pro-life."
Even nominally christian nations like France, Germany and England historically recognized that purposely attacking unarmed civilians was dishonorable and unjustifiable. We look back with horror on military crimes like the Glencoe massacre or the sacking of the Palatinate. Future generations will judge us no differently.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
In Defense Of The Write In Vote
As a Christian, libertarian constitutionalist, I find myself in an interesting position this election season. Faced with two Presidential candidates who seem to be running on nearly the same platform, a write-in vote seems to be the only sensible option. However, everyone I talk to wants to convince me that to write in a presidential candidate is to abandon my civic duty and hand America over to “them.” Opinions differ as to who “they” are, but generally “they” are whomever one wishes to blame for the undeniable problems facing us all as Americans. After discussing this perception with nearly every person I encountered this week, the urge to defend myself has become irresistible.
In historical terms, perhaps the most significant aspect of this election will be the unprecedented willingness of the American people to accept whatever is set before them as genuine, no matter how demonstrably false it may be. From the remarkable conversion of a former governor of Massachusetts (remarkable at least for its timing, if nothing else) to the inspiring lies of “a Chicago thug”, Americans have shown a gullibility that is unrivaled in western history. Half a century of dumbed-down education, coupled with purposeful indoctrination and mind-numbing entertainment, has left many Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, unable to think critically about even the most transparent fabrications and blatant contradictions.
Friday morning, while quietly working at a barn near Coatesville, I encountered a raving individual who warned of the attacks America will suffer when we are deprived of George Bush’s guiding hand. When I reminded her that the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor occurred on Bush’s watch, she launched into a tirade on the ruin Obama would bring to this country, ending with a vow never to wear an Islamic head-scarf. I quietly assured her that it was unlikely she would be forced to wear a veil under an Obama administration, and that I had no intention of voting for Mr. Obama, to which she replied, “Yea right. You’re such a liberal, of course you’ll vote for Obama – don’t give me that!” I had to laugh, because it was the first time in my life that I’ve been called a liberal. But the worldview she demonstrated is no laughing matter. She did not know me, and nothing about my comment bore any relationship to the size or scope of government; in other words, what I said was neither liberal nor conservative, it was a simple statement of fact. But she had evidently been programmed to make judgments about what liberals and conservatives believe without having the slightest clue what the terms mean.
Three hours later, in another barn, the client’s husband walked in with a large zoning regulations book under his arm. I was wearing a Ron Paul shirt, as usual; he had a McCain sign in his front yard. In answer to my greeting, he asked if I was ready for “share-the-wealth” Obama, adding that Obama would probably take ninety-five percent of everyone’s land and give it to squatters, because “property rights don’t matter” to him. He then turned to his wife to show her the zoning regulation their neighbor was in violation of. Apparently they live in a “Rural Conservation District” where no new buildings are permitted, with the exception of farm-related structures under twenty-five feet in height. His scoff-law neighbor was constructing a barn that exceeded the height limitations, and he was on his way to file a complaint. He apparently never considered whether a significant moral distinction could be made between taking one’s property outright on one hand, and simply denying them the use of it on the other.
As an active Ron Paul supporter I’ve had the opportunity to work with people of vastly different political persuasions over the past year. Dr. Paul’s simple message of smaller, less intrusive government across the board appeals to Americans from all backgrounds, and for many reasons. I know social conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to do more than talk about ending the abortion holocaust. I know fiscal conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to address the federal government’s real spending problems (guns and butter) instead of simply spouting one-liners about the bridge to nowhere. I know anarchists who supported him because he wanted to end the massive, corrupt money-laundering institution known as the DEA. I know liberals who supported him because he was willing to face the reality of a nine trillion dollar national debt and call the real culprits out. Ron Paul made a tremendous effort to educate his supporters on the essential principles of individual liberty and free-market capitalism. I believe he achieved a great deal in that regard. However, now that the primary is over, there are still a few confused folks among us. One fellow Paulite recently informed me that I must vote for Obama, because a third party vote is really a vote for McCain and an endorsement of the last eight years of aggressive war and massive deficit spending. Another urged me to vote for McCain, because a third party vote is really a vote for Obama and a Marxist America.
I have news for both of them: elections aren’t lotteries and the object is not to pick a winner. Democratic elections only work when the voters choose candidates that represent their views. Always voting for the lesser of two evils is essentially the same as always playing defense – there’s only one possible outcome. The choices get worse every time.
I believe a good government is one that (a) protects the citizens from outside threats, (b) punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts and (c) otherwise leaves people alone to do as they choose. On Friday last week, Rush Limbaugh gave a similar definition for conservatism. Essentially he stated that true conservatives want a small state that defends the citizens and nothing more. Rush, if that is a conservative I’ll start calling myself a conservative again – but what in the name of sanity does that definition have in common with the Republican Party’s recent record, or the current GOP platform and ticket?
My wife and I discussed this subject with a couple from church last week. They defended Bush and other election-year conservatives because “they’re under so much pressure, you know. The media is so liberal, the schools are so liberal, the career bureaucrats in Washington are so corrupt – they’d really like to do more for us but their hands are tied.” Nonsense. Pressure comes with the job. If you can’t handle it resign so we can elect someone who can. Liberal media coverage occurs because there are dedicated big-government liberals in the media. If conservatives would expend one fourth of the hot air they waste complaining about liberal bias on a cogent argument for less government, addressed to the American people instead of to the choir, things might change for the better. We just had six years of a Republican administration with a GOP-controlled Congress and a 7-2 Republican appointed Supreme Court. They could have abolished the DoE; instead they increased its budget by over fifty percent. They could have fired half of the bureaucrats in Washington; instead they hired thousands more. Their hands were tied by greed and cowardice (mostly greed), not by liberals.
I’d like to vote for a candidate who will put pressure on the statists for a change. Bush promised to do just that, but instead he has collaborated with them on every domestic policy issue except gun control. Even there he’s done absolutely nothing but maintain the Clinton status quo. We don’t need a president who will “reach out” to big government statists. We need a president who will use his office to further true conservative principles: one who will fire bureaucrats, disband unconstitutional agencies, secure our own borders for a change, and be honest with the American people about the seventy trillion dollars in promised entitlements they aren’t going to get.
We had such a candidate in the primary election. His emphatic rejection by the Republican Party is sufficient proof that they have no inclination to give more than lip service to true conservative principles. But just to underscore that point, they chose instead a candidate who has never even pretended to be conservative until this election. That the man who brought us the infamous McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act should be allowed to call himself a conservative now speaks volumes about his party’s lack of sincerity.
Over the last two weeks I’ve received no less than a dozen mailings from the Republican Party. Only two of them even refer to McCain. The other ten assure me that Barack Obama is not who I think he is. (I still think he is who I think he is … but that’s neither here nor there.) Of the two that refer to McCain, one spoke of his military service and his time as a POW. The other, which I received yesterday, features a full color photo of McCain and Hillary Clinton, side by side, beaming at each other. On the back is a ringing (hollow, that is) endorsement of Ms. Clinton by Senator Joe Biden, and inside is the following message from McCain:
“Senator Hillary Clinton blazed a trail for future generations of women. She fought for working families, and she heard your voices… Most importantly, Senator Clinton knows how to reach across the aisle to solve problems. Both she and John McCain have shown the American people results, not pretty words… I share Senator Clinton’s goal of promoting women to more important roles throughout our government. By the end of my first term, I promise you will see a dramatic increase in the presence of women in every part of the government.”
Now friends, if John McCain wants my vote this isn’t exactly the way to go about securing it. I don’t like the idea of a friend of Ms. Clinton in the Oval Office, or any other office, for that matter. The notion that Ms. Clinton has done any favors for working Americans is an insult to Americanism. The idea that she and John McCain want to solve my problems isn’t encouraging, and the thought of a dramatic increase in anything related to government doesn’t appeal to me either.
Most McCain supporters I talk to are really anti-Obama activists who feel that they must support his opponent to prevent his election. They fall generally into two camps: some fear Obama’s Islamic connections and others fear his Marxist rhetoric. Neither group recognizes that they are pawns in a game of international chess. We have been slowly implementing Marxism in this country for seventy years, regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House. In 1936 Albert Nock made this observation regarding the Republican response to Roosevelt’s election:
“In the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer-Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself. This … is now being further demonstrated by the derisible haste that the leaders of the official opposition are making towards what they call "reorganization" of their party. One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State power are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that "reorganization" of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is in itself quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, not much has changed. And in spite of the rhetoric, neither Obama/Biden nor McCain/Palin represent the possibility of change. Certainly Obama is a socialist. But the reason neither McCain nor Palin have had the courage to say so is because they are too. Listening to Governor Palin may be refreshing in many ways, but she is the chief executive of the most socialist state in the union. And John McCain, in addition to supporting numerous socialist government programs (including the recent financial bailout/earmark bill) has advocated socialism in speeches and debates even during this campaign.
The final argument usually advanced is Obama’s cold-blooded disregard for human life, as evidenced by his positions on abortion. This happens to be one area where conservatives are inexcusably myopic, and consequently the area where I am most likely to make them very angry. I concede that Obama’s disregard for human life is greater than many animals. I cannot imagine how anyone could support a candidate who holds to such a despicable ideology. But innocent human life is threatened in many places besides the abortion clinic. Uncomfortable as the thought may be, John McCain has almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent. The circumstances are mitigating, it is true. But I have never understood how conservatives can wax eloquent about the unborn while stoically defending the intentional slaughter of civilians during wartime. I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility.
If you are still reading this post I’m honored, to say the least. I understand to some extent why most of you will choose to vote for John McCain, but I firmly believe that God will turn this election where He chooses. My responsibility is to vote in a way that honors Him. Based on that conviction, I will be writing in Ron Paul. If Obama wins, we will have what we deserve, and conservatives will be forced to deal with the massive executive branch they have built falling into the hands of an unprincipled liberal. If McCain wins, we will still have what we deserve, and conservatives will have the opportunity to see their own candidate sell them out repeatedly. Perhaps they will be treated to more Clinton-style scandal, a la Republican this time. Either way, I’ll be able to sleep at night, something that all this writing is currently preventing.
In historical terms, perhaps the most significant aspect of this election will be the unprecedented willingness of the American people to accept whatever is set before them as genuine, no matter how demonstrably false it may be. From the remarkable conversion of a former governor of Massachusetts (remarkable at least for its timing, if nothing else) to the inspiring lies of “a Chicago thug”, Americans have shown a gullibility that is unrivaled in western history. Half a century of dumbed-down education, coupled with purposeful indoctrination and mind-numbing entertainment, has left many Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, unable to think critically about even the most transparent fabrications and blatant contradictions.
Friday morning, while quietly working at a barn near Coatesville, I encountered a raving individual who warned of the attacks America will suffer when we are deprived of George Bush’s guiding hand. When I reminded her that the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor occurred on Bush’s watch, she launched into a tirade on the ruin Obama would bring to this country, ending with a vow never to wear an Islamic head-scarf. I quietly assured her that it was unlikely she would be forced to wear a veil under an Obama administration, and that I had no intention of voting for Mr. Obama, to which she replied, “Yea right. You’re such a liberal, of course you’ll vote for Obama – don’t give me that!” I had to laugh, because it was the first time in my life that I’ve been called a liberal. But the worldview she demonstrated is no laughing matter. She did not know me, and nothing about my comment bore any relationship to the size or scope of government; in other words, what I said was neither liberal nor conservative, it was a simple statement of fact. But she had evidently been programmed to make judgments about what liberals and conservatives believe without having the slightest clue what the terms mean.
Three hours later, in another barn, the client’s husband walked in with a large zoning regulations book under his arm. I was wearing a Ron Paul shirt, as usual; he had a McCain sign in his front yard. In answer to my greeting, he asked if I was ready for “share-the-wealth” Obama, adding that Obama would probably take ninety-five percent of everyone’s land and give it to squatters, because “property rights don’t matter” to him. He then turned to his wife to show her the zoning regulation their neighbor was in violation of. Apparently they live in a “Rural Conservation District” where no new buildings are permitted, with the exception of farm-related structures under twenty-five feet in height. His scoff-law neighbor was constructing a barn that exceeded the height limitations, and he was on his way to file a complaint. He apparently never considered whether a significant moral distinction could be made between taking one’s property outright on one hand, and simply denying them the use of it on the other.
As an active Ron Paul supporter I’ve had the opportunity to work with people of vastly different political persuasions over the past year. Dr. Paul’s simple message of smaller, less intrusive government across the board appeals to Americans from all backgrounds, and for many reasons. I know social conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to do more than talk about ending the abortion holocaust. I know fiscal conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to address the federal government’s real spending problems (guns and butter) instead of simply spouting one-liners about the bridge to nowhere. I know anarchists who supported him because he wanted to end the massive, corrupt money-laundering institution known as the DEA. I know liberals who supported him because he was willing to face the reality of a nine trillion dollar national debt and call the real culprits out. Ron Paul made a tremendous effort to educate his supporters on the essential principles of individual liberty and free-market capitalism. I believe he achieved a great deal in that regard. However, now that the primary is over, there are still a few confused folks among us. One fellow Paulite recently informed me that I must vote for Obama, because a third party vote is really a vote for McCain and an endorsement of the last eight years of aggressive war and massive deficit spending. Another urged me to vote for McCain, because a third party vote is really a vote for Obama and a Marxist America.
I have news for both of them: elections aren’t lotteries and the object is not to pick a winner. Democratic elections only work when the voters choose candidates that represent their views. Always voting for the lesser of two evils is essentially the same as always playing defense – there’s only one possible outcome. The choices get worse every time.
I believe a good government is one that (a) protects the citizens from outside threats, (b) punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts and (c) otherwise leaves people alone to do as they choose. On Friday last week, Rush Limbaugh gave a similar definition for conservatism. Essentially he stated that true conservatives want a small state that defends the citizens and nothing more. Rush, if that is a conservative I’ll start calling myself a conservative again – but what in the name of sanity does that definition have in common with the Republican Party’s recent record, or the current GOP platform and ticket?
My wife and I discussed this subject with a couple from church last week. They defended Bush and other election-year conservatives because “they’re under so much pressure, you know. The media is so liberal, the schools are so liberal, the career bureaucrats in Washington are so corrupt – they’d really like to do more for us but their hands are tied.” Nonsense. Pressure comes with the job. If you can’t handle it resign so we can elect someone who can. Liberal media coverage occurs because there are dedicated big-government liberals in the media. If conservatives would expend one fourth of the hot air they waste complaining about liberal bias on a cogent argument for less government, addressed to the American people instead of to the choir, things might change for the better. We just had six years of a Republican administration with a GOP-controlled Congress and a 7-2 Republican appointed Supreme Court. They could have abolished the DoE; instead they increased its budget by over fifty percent. They could have fired half of the bureaucrats in Washington; instead they hired thousands more. Their hands were tied by greed and cowardice (mostly greed), not by liberals.
I’d like to vote for a candidate who will put pressure on the statists for a change. Bush promised to do just that, but instead he has collaborated with them on every domestic policy issue except gun control. Even there he’s done absolutely nothing but maintain the Clinton status quo. We don’t need a president who will “reach out” to big government statists. We need a president who will use his office to further true conservative principles: one who will fire bureaucrats, disband unconstitutional agencies, secure our own borders for a change, and be honest with the American people about the seventy trillion dollars in promised entitlements they aren’t going to get.
We had such a candidate in the primary election. His emphatic rejection by the Republican Party is sufficient proof that they have no inclination to give more than lip service to true conservative principles. But just to underscore that point, they chose instead a candidate who has never even pretended to be conservative until this election. That the man who brought us the infamous McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act should be allowed to call himself a conservative now speaks volumes about his party’s lack of sincerity.
Over the last two weeks I’ve received no less than a dozen mailings from the Republican Party. Only two of them even refer to McCain. The other ten assure me that Barack Obama is not who I think he is. (I still think he is who I think he is … but that’s neither here nor there.) Of the two that refer to McCain, one spoke of his military service and his time as a POW. The other, which I received yesterday, features a full color photo of McCain and Hillary Clinton, side by side, beaming at each other. On the back is a ringing (hollow, that is) endorsement of Ms. Clinton by Senator Joe Biden, and inside is the following message from McCain:
“Senator Hillary Clinton blazed a trail for future generations of women. She fought for working families, and she heard your voices… Most importantly, Senator Clinton knows how to reach across the aisle to solve problems. Both she and John McCain have shown the American people results, not pretty words… I share Senator Clinton’s goal of promoting women to more important roles throughout our government. By the end of my first term, I promise you will see a dramatic increase in the presence of women in every part of the government.”
Now friends, if John McCain wants my vote this isn’t exactly the way to go about securing it. I don’t like the idea of a friend of Ms. Clinton in the Oval Office, or any other office, for that matter. The notion that Ms. Clinton has done any favors for working Americans is an insult to Americanism. The idea that she and John McCain want to solve my problems isn’t encouraging, and the thought of a dramatic increase in anything related to government doesn’t appeal to me either.
Most McCain supporters I talk to are really anti-Obama activists who feel that they must support his opponent to prevent his election. They fall generally into two camps: some fear Obama’s Islamic connections and others fear his Marxist rhetoric. Neither group recognizes that they are pawns in a game of international chess. We have been slowly implementing Marxism in this country for seventy years, regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House. In 1936 Albert Nock made this observation regarding the Republican response to Roosevelt’s election:
“In the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer-Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself. This … is now being further demonstrated by the derisible haste that the leaders of the official opposition are making towards what they call "reorganization" of their party. One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State power are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that "reorganization" of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is in itself quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, not much has changed. And in spite of the rhetoric, neither Obama/Biden nor McCain/Palin represent the possibility of change. Certainly Obama is a socialist. But the reason neither McCain nor Palin have had the courage to say so is because they are too. Listening to Governor Palin may be refreshing in many ways, but she is the chief executive of the most socialist state in the union. And John McCain, in addition to supporting numerous socialist government programs (including the recent financial bailout/earmark bill) has advocated socialism in speeches and debates even during this campaign.
The final argument usually advanced is Obama’s cold-blooded disregard for human life, as evidenced by his positions on abortion. This happens to be one area where conservatives are inexcusably myopic, and consequently the area where I am most likely to make them very angry. I concede that Obama’s disregard for human life is greater than many animals. I cannot imagine how anyone could support a candidate who holds to such a despicable ideology. But innocent human life is threatened in many places besides the abortion clinic. Uncomfortable as the thought may be, John McCain has almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent. The circumstances are mitigating, it is true. But I have never understood how conservatives can wax eloquent about the unborn while stoically defending the intentional slaughter of civilians during wartime. I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility.
If you are still reading this post I’m honored, to say the least. I understand to some extent why most of you will choose to vote for John McCain, but I firmly believe that God will turn this election where He chooses. My responsibility is to vote in a way that honors Him. Based on that conviction, I will be writing in Ron Paul. If Obama wins, we will have what we deserve, and conservatives will be forced to deal with the massive executive branch they have built falling into the hands of an unprincipled liberal. If McCain wins, we will still have what we deserve, and conservatives will have the opportunity to see their own candidate sell them out repeatedly. Perhaps they will be treated to more Clinton-style scandal, a la Republican this time. Either way, I’ll be able to sleep at night, something that all this writing is currently preventing.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Duh.
Ladies and Gentlemen - from National Public Radio - the mindless quote of the month!
In a story on the "positive" effects of the economic stimulus checks we've been receiving, the reporter had this word of caution: "But some economists are concerned that the infusion of cash will only be temporary."
Mmhmm. They just might have a point.
Public education at work again, friends.
In a story on the "positive" effects of the economic stimulus checks we've been receiving, the reporter had this word of caution: "But some economists are concerned that the infusion of cash will only be temporary."
Mmhmm. They just might have a point.
Public education at work again, friends.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Answering John Murphy
A little background - John Murphy is an independent candidate for Congress running against Joe Pitts here in PA. He sought the support of our Ron Paul group, based on his opposition to the Iraq war, his support for "civil liberties" and his hope to do something about the national debt. He seemed very confused at the groups lack of enthusiasm, and has been urging us ad nauseum to quit holding to "19th century ideology" and vote for him because he has an MBA, likes to "solve problems" and is running an "issues-driven" campaign. He sent the following list of questions (in blue, below) to several of us, presumably hoping to change our minds. The black text is my response.
John,
I don’t have much time but I’ll do my best.
Who or what precisely do you see as the enemy -- internal -- of the United States or, as some of the folks put it, "the Republic"?
Any influential entity who rejects our founders’ understanding of individual rights, and/or who works to undermine the constitutional framework of our government, is the enemy. There have always been politicians who fit that description, but we are now at a crisis point where a large minority, if not a majority, of participating citizens have been thoroughly indoctrinated with collectivist/statist propaganda. That is where groups like ours come in. We are here to educate, inform, and encourage others to start washing their own brains.
Why is small government better than medium or large government?
Because humans are basically self-centered and seek to meet their own needs/wants/desires with the least possible effort. In a true free market (where government punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts, defends the citizens against outside threats and otherwise leaves them alone) this tendency of human nature improves efficiency and productivity. But when government moves beyond those boundaries, opportunities are created for those who exercise the legislative powers to satisfy their own needs through the political means rather than the economic means; or in other words, to exploit the physical or mental labor of others rather than using their own labor productively. The Law by Frederic Bastiat (Nicole recommended it already) is the best treatise ever written on this subject – and it isn’t long. If you promise to read it, email me your address and I’ll mail you a copy tomorrow. Really.
Why shouldn't we be more concerned about the relationship of corporate America with our government rather than the relationship of individual Americans with our government?
Corporations are not inherently dangerous – in a true free market such as we defined above they are no threat at all to a nation. The danger comes when government forms an improper relationship with any economic force, whether individual or corporate, and begins to legislate, adjudicate or enforce in a manner that favors that individual or corporation over others. The reason we see corporatism as a larger threat is because corporations, by their nature, generally have much greater incentives to offer politicians in exchange for favorable interference in the market.
If there were only three possible values that we could hold: freedom, equality and justice and we were forced to eliminate two of them what would be your rationale for getting rid of those two?
You pose a false dilemma. True freedom, equality and justice are inseparable. Freedom is the absence of coercive force in the life, actions and decisions of an individual. Creative equality is the basis for asserting that freedom, and justice protects the first two by punishing violations of them. These values appear to be in conflict only when they are improperly defined (e.g. financial or conditional equality substituted for legal equality).
Do you make a distinction between personal freedom and civil liberty? If so how do you distinguish between the two?
Not dogmatically - I think they are closely related. The term “civil” liberty may be inaccurate because it usually implies that liberty is the gift of government rather than inherent in the individual. But if by civil liberty you mean a society where individual liberty is respected and protected by government, then I would say civil liberty is the legal aspect of personal freedom.
Given that our Constitution was written by the landed aristocracy as a means of protecting their property from those Americans who were less unfortunate. ("The people who own the country ought to govern it" said founding father John Jay while Alexander Hamilton said that a permanent check over the populace should be exercised by "the rich and the well-born".) Isn't it time that we had a new constitution whereby we got rid of tyrannical elements like the Senate and the electoral College? (Four senators from North Dakota and South Dakota representing approximately 500,000 Americans can outvote two Senators from California representing 36 million Americans.)
Hamilton did not represent the majority of the founders by any stretch of the imagination. Neither the Senate nor the Electoral College were “tyrannical features” as they were originally designed. Senators weren’t supposed to be representing the people. The purpose of the Senate was to be the voice of the States in the limited federal government, and the House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people. The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified April 8, 1913, defeated that purpose and helped lay the groundwork for the silent coup d’etat begun the same year. The Electoral College has been rendered worse than useless by the modern party system, but originally it was a brilliant effort to guard against the sort of demagoguery that had destroyed earlier democracies like Athens. I can’t take time here to go into that in detail.
If Thomas Jefferson hadn't been as incompetent a president as he was a governor he would have scrapped the 1789 Constitution and called for another Constitutional convention whereby anti-democratic elements would be eliminated. What do you think of a statement like that?
Partially true but irrelevant.
From my point of view I see the infringement of special interests -- the US corporations and outside organizations like the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) -- as the greatest threat to our republic because roughly 57,000 Americans along with AIPAC are responsible for 95% of the campaign finances of both major political parties (AIPAC alone provides 60% of the funding of the Democrat party and 25% of the funding of the Republican Party this will keep us in near constant war in the Middle East). Consequently both old parties aim to serve the interests only of those people who finance their campaigns. What do you think about that statement?
True – but the root problem isn’t the fact that campaigns are funded by the wealthy; rather it is the fact that we the people have allowed our public servants to work for those financiers instead of us. If government were restricted to its constitutional limits there would be very little incentive for corporate and special interest donors to contribute to political campaigns.
As a political scientist I can tell you that studies performed by researchers specializing in voting behavior indicate that fewer than 25% of voters are “rational voters”. Most "rational citizens" are so "rational" that they have determined that voting is futile and stay home. The people who are motivated enough to constitute the majority of the people that show up to vote are so motivated precisely because they are irrational and/or single-issue voters (love Jesus, hate gays, love Israel, love guns, hate foreigners -- whatever it is that floats their boats). What do you think about that conclusion?
We know it to be true – not because we’re political scientists but because we’ve been talking to those voters. I would respectfully suggest that question #4 indicates the problem of irrationality may be closer to home than you realize. Be that as it may, I agree with your conclusion.
Because we disagree on some issues like health care and education does that mean we cannot work together to solve mutual problems?
Not at all. But we’ve got to agree on the problem to be solved. The message we’ve all been trying to send you is that we have come together precisely because we are sick and tired of “issues-driven, problem-solving” politics. We are looking for statesmen who understand the core principles of freedom, because we are convinced that government will never solve our problems. Too many honest but naive politicians have been sent to Washington with a mandate to get the government off of our backs, only to be swept up in the tide of philanthropic tyranny and add their personal issues to the already out-of-control list of “problems” to be “solved” through more government interference. Enough is enough. We’d like to solve our own problems for a change, starting with the problem of big government. It appears that you are looking to become part of that problem, which is why I can’t support you.
Regards,
Patrick G. Kocher
John,
I don’t have much time but I’ll do my best.
Who or what precisely do you see as the enemy -- internal -- of the United States or, as some of the folks put it, "the Republic"?
Any influential entity who rejects our founders’ understanding of individual rights, and/or who works to undermine the constitutional framework of our government, is the enemy. There have always been politicians who fit that description, but we are now at a crisis point where a large minority, if not a majority, of participating citizens have been thoroughly indoctrinated with collectivist/statist propaganda. That is where groups like ours come in. We are here to educate, inform, and encourage others to start washing their own brains.
Why is small government better than medium or large government?
Because humans are basically self-centered and seek to meet their own needs/wants/desires with the least possible effort. In a true free market (where government punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts, defends the citizens against outside threats and otherwise leaves them alone) this tendency of human nature improves efficiency and productivity. But when government moves beyond those boundaries, opportunities are created for those who exercise the legislative powers to satisfy their own needs through the political means rather than the economic means; or in other words, to exploit the physical or mental labor of others rather than using their own labor productively. The Law by Frederic Bastiat (Nicole recommended it already) is the best treatise ever written on this subject – and it isn’t long. If you promise to read it, email me your address and I’ll mail you a copy tomorrow. Really.
Why shouldn't we be more concerned about the relationship of corporate America with our government rather than the relationship of individual Americans with our government?
Corporations are not inherently dangerous – in a true free market such as we defined above they are no threat at all to a nation. The danger comes when government forms an improper relationship with any economic force, whether individual or corporate, and begins to legislate, adjudicate or enforce in a manner that favors that individual or corporation over others. The reason we see corporatism as a larger threat is because corporations, by their nature, generally have much greater incentives to offer politicians in exchange for favorable interference in the market.
If there were only three possible values that we could hold: freedom, equality and justice and we were forced to eliminate two of them what would be your rationale for getting rid of those two?
You pose a false dilemma. True freedom, equality and justice are inseparable. Freedom is the absence of coercive force in the life, actions and decisions of an individual. Creative equality is the basis for asserting that freedom, and justice protects the first two by punishing violations of them. These values appear to be in conflict only when they are improperly defined (e.g. financial or conditional equality substituted for legal equality).
Do you make a distinction between personal freedom and civil liberty? If so how do you distinguish between the two?
Not dogmatically - I think they are closely related. The term “civil” liberty may be inaccurate because it usually implies that liberty is the gift of government rather than inherent in the individual. But if by civil liberty you mean a society where individual liberty is respected and protected by government, then I would say civil liberty is the legal aspect of personal freedom.
Given that our Constitution was written by the landed aristocracy as a means of protecting their property from those Americans who were less unfortunate. ("The people who own the country ought to govern it" said founding father John Jay while Alexander Hamilton said that a permanent check over the populace should be exercised by "the rich and the well-born".) Isn't it time that we had a new constitution whereby we got rid of tyrannical elements like the Senate and the electoral College? (Four senators from North Dakota and South Dakota representing approximately 500,000 Americans can outvote two Senators from California representing 36 million Americans.)
Hamilton did not represent the majority of the founders by any stretch of the imagination. Neither the Senate nor the Electoral College were “tyrannical features” as they were originally designed. Senators weren’t supposed to be representing the people. The purpose of the Senate was to be the voice of the States in the limited federal government, and the House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people. The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified April 8, 1913, defeated that purpose and helped lay the groundwork for the silent coup d’etat begun the same year. The Electoral College has been rendered worse than useless by the modern party system, but originally it was a brilliant effort to guard against the sort of demagoguery that had destroyed earlier democracies like Athens. I can’t take time here to go into that in detail.
If Thomas Jefferson hadn't been as incompetent a president as he was a governor he would have scrapped the 1789 Constitution and called for another Constitutional convention whereby anti-democratic elements would be eliminated. What do you think of a statement like that?
Partially true but irrelevant.
From my point of view I see the infringement of special interests -- the US corporations and outside organizations like the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) -- as the greatest threat to our republic because roughly 57,000 Americans along with AIPAC are responsible for 95% of the campaign finances of both major political parties (AIPAC alone provides 60% of the funding of the Democrat party and 25% of the funding of the Republican Party this will keep us in near constant war in the Middle East). Consequently both old parties aim to serve the interests only of those people who finance their campaigns. What do you think about that statement?
True – but the root problem isn’t the fact that campaigns are funded by the wealthy; rather it is the fact that we the people have allowed our public servants to work for those financiers instead of us. If government were restricted to its constitutional limits there would be very little incentive for corporate and special interest donors to contribute to political campaigns.
As a political scientist I can tell you that studies performed by researchers specializing in voting behavior indicate that fewer than 25% of voters are “rational voters”. Most "rational citizens" are so "rational" that they have determined that voting is futile and stay home. The people who are motivated enough to constitute the majority of the people that show up to vote are so motivated precisely because they are irrational and/or single-issue voters (love Jesus, hate gays, love Israel, love guns, hate foreigners -- whatever it is that floats their boats). What do you think about that conclusion?
We know it to be true – not because we’re political scientists but because we’ve been talking to those voters. I would respectfully suggest that question #4 indicates the problem of irrationality may be closer to home than you realize. Be that as it may, I agree with your conclusion.
Because we disagree on some issues like health care and education does that mean we cannot work together to solve mutual problems?
Not at all. But we’ve got to agree on the problem to be solved. The message we’ve all been trying to send you is that we have come together precisely because we are sick and tired of “issues-driven, problem-solving” politics. We are looking for statesmen who understand the core principles of freedom, because we are convinced that government will never solve our problems. Too many honest but naive politicians have been sent to Washington with a mandate to get the government off of our backs, only to be swept up in the tide of philanthropic tyranny and add their personal issues to the already out-of-control list of “problems” to be “solved” through more government interference. Enough is enough. We’d like to solve our own problems for a change, starting with the problem of big government. It appears that you are looking to become part of that problem, which is why I can’t support you.
Regards,
Patrick G. Kocher
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
You Can Fool All The People Some Of The Time...
Last week my wife and I had the pleasure of joining over 400 others outside the PA Supreme Court in Harrisburg to show support for Diane Goslin, CPM. Diane has assisted women in delivering babies for 25 years in south-central PA. She had the dubious distinction of being selected by the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs as a test case for their ongoing push to control every aspect of childbirth and women's health in PA. Since Americans long ago ceded control over "medicine" to the State, it needed only the redefinition of pregnancy as a disease and childbirth as a medical procedure to assert control over midwives and the mothers they serve.
But my reason for writing about the trip has nothing to do with midwifery. As we were leaving the Capitol, we were treated to a highly entertaining spectacle that was too good not to share. In front of a row of fountains a gentleman who appeared to be taking lessons in motivational speech stood at a podium with the distinguished banner of the PAGOP. Behind him about 15 assemblymen and senators stood in a semi-circle, mechanically clapping their hands and smiling artificially at a large array of TV cameras. Between the actors and the cameras stood about 50 chairs, of which 47 were unoccupied. The remaining three held news reporters, busily scratching on note pads whenever a particularly quotable breath of hot air chanced to escape the overwrought dignitary.
I couldn't resist stopping to listen - indeed it took some little self-control not to volunteer my own thoughts to such a receptive audience. It seemed that these gentlemen had been tasked with the responsibility of formulating an official response to the current hemorrhage of voters from the Republican Party. The solutions they had devised were now being communicated to the eager grassroots volunteers represented by the 47 empty chairs. They appeared to be immune to the shame and consternation one would expect from less brazen actors on finding themselves in an empty auditorium. One after another, they were introduced, stepped forward, cordially shook the moderator's hand, and expressed in their own simple way how excited they were to be Republicans in this election season.
I forgot to mention that behind the cameras, a group of overstuffed aides with flourescent light exposure syndrome stood waiting for the bosses to finish their charade. Each of them appeared to be memorizing the herringbone pattern of the suit in front of him, though some of them were probably just sleeping on their feet. As I watched and wondered, a pushy camera-woman prodded them to life and requested that they take up new positions in front of the camera, saying by way of explanation: "I need it to look like there's people here!"
I regret to say that I failed to conceal the combination of merriment and disdain evoked by this spectacle, and although the speaker pretended not to notice me, our initial eye contact seemed a little disconcerting to him.
Everyone needs a good laugh now and then.
P.S. I mentioned the above incident to my Dad, with the rhetorical question: "Who do they think they're kidding?" His response: "Everyone."
Maybe it isn't so funny after all.
But my reason for writing about the trip has nothing to do with midwifery. As we were leaving the Capitol, we were treated to a highly entertaining spectacle that was too good not to share. In front of a row of fountains a gentleman who appeared to be taking lessons in motivational speech stood at a podium with the distinguished banner of the PAGOP. Behind him about 15 assemblymen and senators stood in a semi-circle, mechanically clapping their hands and smiling artificially at a large array of TV cameras. Between the actors and the cameras stood about 50 chairs, of which 47 were unoccupied. The remaining three held news reporters, busily scratching on note pads whenever a particularly quotable breath of hot air chanced to escape the overwrought dignitary.
I couldn't resist stopping to listen - indeed it took some little self-control not to volunteer my own thoughts to such a receptive audience. It seemed that these gentlemen had been tasked with the responsibility of formulating an official response to the current hemorrhage of voters from the Republican Party. The solutions they had devised were now being communicated to the eager grassroots volunteers represented by the 47 empty chairs. They appeared to be immune to the shame and consternation one would expect from less brazen actors on finding themselves in an empty auditorium. One after another, they were introduced, stepped forward, cordially shook the moderator's hand, and expressed in their own simple way how excited they were to be Republicans in this election season.
I forgot to mention that behind the cameras, a group of overstuffed aides with flourescent light exposure syndrome stood waiting for the bosses to finish their charade. Each of them appeared to be memorizing the herringbone pattern of the suit in front of him, though some of them were probably just sleeping on their feet. As I watched and wondered, a pushy camera-woman prodded them to life and requested that they take up new positions in front of the camera, saying by way of explanation: "I need it to look like there's people here!"
I regret to say that I failed to conceal the combination of merriment and disdain evoked by this spectacle, and although the speaker pretended not to notice me, our initial eye contact seemed a little disconcerting to him.
Everyone needs a good laugh now and then.
P.S. I mentioned the above incident to my Dad, with the rhetorical question: "Who do they think they're kidding?" His response: "Everyone."
Maybe it isn't so funny after all.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Join the Club!
This feels good!
Am I nuts? Perhaps. But there’s nothing like a little skirmishing to whet one’s appetite for the big fight. And I have to admit, I found listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh today rather satisfying. (That doesn’t regularly occur.) Please don’t misunderstand; I recognize the tragedy unfolding as the GOP commits suicide. But in the process, “we” have been vindicated.
For many years, constitutionalists like me have been described by a broad range of more or less vile adjectives. The ultimate crime “we” are accused of is reckless abandonment of the Republican Party. “We” have been charged (accurately) with slighting conventional wisdom, which demands of all conservatives an unflinching loyalty to the elephant lest we be kicked to death by the ass. In the past year, as “we” have formed under the banner of the first constitutionalist presidential candidate many of us have ever seen, these complaints have merged into one incessant whine, “You’re helping to elect Hillary!!!!!!!” Imagine! To abandon the Republican pachyderm in his hour of greatest need - when he has become so accustomed to being led about by public opinion polls that he no longer knows how to lead himself; when, having abandoned every principle he once represented, and wasted his strength in attempting circus tricks for the entertainment of the world, he cowers in fear of a well-deserved beating from his braying opponent - how could “we” be so thoughtless? Aren’t “we” team players?
The answer, of course, is no. We’ve never been team players. In fact, we don’t even get the point of the game. We don’t comprehend the vast gulf that allegedly lies between HillaryCare and MittCare. We don’t see the moral distinction between liberals stealing from us to feed and/or bomb third world countries and neo-cons stealing from our children for the same purpose. We fail to appreciate the generosity of leaders who reduce their annual frontal attack on our wealth by 2% while they inflate the money supply by 10%. We still believe our Constitution is the greatest form of government ever, and we don’t see why a few camel jockeys should scare us into abandoning freedoms that were bought and paid for with the best blood of millions of Americans. We are sick and tired of fiscal policies that make as much economic sense as shooting a cow for her milk, and we don’t really care whether the milk is wanted to perpetuate the welfare state or the warfare state.
In our defense, we haven’t actually abandoned the GOP; we’ve simply stuck to our principles and supported the one candidate who has spent his political career behaving like a Republican. But when the camp followers, office seekers and other assorted herd animals ask what we will do should November present us with a choice between Senator Mitt Huckabee and Ms. Clinton, the words “write-in” have always evoked a torrent of reproachful exclamations. Until this week.
In a few short days, I’ve watched “loyal” Huckabee supporters jump ship and endorse either McCain or Romney. I’ve heard talk show hosts frantically endorsing anyone but McCain. I’ve heard prestigious social conservatives like Dr. Dobson announce their intent to write in (gasp!) a candidate should McCain be the GOP nominee. But the final nail in the coffin was Ann Coulter’s brazen threat to endorse Ms. Clinton over the Senator from Arizona.
I can respect Dr. Dobson’s position (though I fail to note any meaningful difference between McCain and the candidates he would support) and I appreciate his unintentional vindication of my own convictions. I have difficulty respecting the ex-Hucklings, but their actions were predictable considering their prior condemnation of Congressman Paul’s supporters. But Ann Coulter’s words are a chilling proof of the absolute emptiness of the shell that was once the conservative movement.
We have said for years that the lesser of two evils was still evil; that merely slowing the growth of government was not enough; that buying into the old “two steps forward, one step back” approach to government expansion was unworthy of a free people. We’ve doggedly pointed out the failures of conservative leaders to anticipate the end result of repeated compromise. And we have consistently refused to cast a vote for a known crook, regardless of party affiliation. For our pains we have been derided and marginalized to the point of denial by the mainstream of the GOP. Now, at last, a conservative icon has provided us with a caricature of the danger we’ve been warning everyone about.
So to Ann Coulter and anyone who may sympathize with her, I have this to say: if your moral compass permits you to compare two socialist, big-government, anti-family candidates and endorse one because “she is more conservative than he is,” go right ahead; but forgive those of us who mentally place you in the Benedict Arnold category. You have lost all claim to our respect. When conservatives are willing to openly embrace either John McCain or Hillary Clinton over Congressman Ron Paul just so they can vote for a winner, conservatism has indeed lost all meaning. We may as well bury it and go back to being Americans.
And to Dr. Dobson: welcome. :)
Am I nuts? Perhaps. But there’s nothing like a little skirmishing to whet one’s appetite for the big fight. And I have to admit, I found listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh today rather satisfying. (That doesn’t regularly occur.) Please don’t misunderstand; I recognize the tragedy unfolding as the GOP commits suicide. But in the process, “we” have been vindicated.
For many years, constitutionalists like me have been described by a broad range of more or less vile adjectives. The ultimate crime “we” are accused of is reckless abandonment of the Republican Party. “We” have been charged (accurately) with slighting conventional wisdom, which demands of all conservatives an unflinching loyalty to the elephant lest we be kicked to death by the ass. In the past year, as “we” have formed under the banner of the first constitutionalist presidential candidate many of us have ever seen, these complaints have merged into one incessant whine, “You’re helping to elect Hillary!!!!!!!” Imagine! To abandon the Republican pachyderm in his hour of greatest need - when he has become so accustomed to being led about by public opinion polls that he no longer knows how to lead himself; when, having abandoned every principle he once represented, and wasted his strength in attempting circus tricks for the entertainment of the world, he cowers in fear of a well-deserved beating from his braying opponent - how could “we” be so thoughtless? Aren’t “we” team players?
The answer, of course, is no. We’ve never been team players. In fact, we don’t even get the point of the game. We don’t comprehend the vast gulf that allegedly lies between HillaryCare and MittCare. We don’t see the moral distinction between liberals stealing from us to feed and/or bomb third world countries and neo-cons stealing from our children for the same purpose. We fail to appreciate the generosity of leaders who reduce their annual frontal attack on our wealth by 2% while they inflate the money supply by 10%. We still believe our Constitution is the greatest form of government ever, and we don’t see why a few camel jockeys should scare us into abandoning freedoms that were bought and paid for with the best blood of millions of Americans. We are sick and tired of fiscal policies that make as much economic sense as shooting a cow for her milk, and we don’t really care whether the milk is wanted to perpetuate the welfare state or the warfare state.
In our defense, we haven’t actually abandoned the GOP; we’ve simply stuck to our principles and supported the one candidate who has spent his political career behaving like a Republican. But when the camp followers, office seekers and other assorted herd animals ask what we will do should November present us with a choice between Senator Mitt Huckabee and Ms. Clinton, the words “write-in” have always evoked a torrent of reproachful exclamations. Until this week.
In a few short days, I’ve watched “loyal” Huckabee supporters jump ship and endorse either McCain or Romney. I’ve heard talk show hosts frantically endorsing anyone but McCain. I’ve heard prestigious social conservatives like Dr. Dobson announce their intent to write in (gasp!) a candidate should McCain be the GOP nominee. But the final nail in the coffin was Ann Coulter’s brazen threat to endorse Ms. Clinton over the Senator from Arizona.
I can respect Dr. Dobson’s position (though I fail to note any meaningful difference between McCain and the candidates he would support) and I appreciate his unintentional vindication of my own convictions. I have difficulty respecting the ex-Hucklings, but their actions were predictable considering their prior condemnation of Congressman Paul’s supporters. But Ann Coulter’s words are a chilling proof of the absolute emptiness of the shell that was once the conservative movement.
We have said for years that the lesser of two evils was still evil; that merely slowing the growth of government was not enough; that buying into the old “two steps forward, one step back” approach to government expansion was unworthy of a free people. We’ve doggedly pointed out the failures of conservative leaders to anticipate the end result of repeated compromise. And we have consistently refused to cast a vote for a known crook, regardless of party affiliation. For our pains we have been derided and marginalized to the point of denial by the mainstream of the GOP. Now, at last, a conservative icon has provided us with a caricature of the danger we’ve been warning everyone about.
So to Ann Coulter and anyone who may sympathize with her, I have this to say: if your moral compass permits you to compare two socialist, big-government, anti-family candidates and endorse one because “she is more conservative than he is,” go right ahead; but forgive those of us who mentally place you in the Benedict Arnold category. You have lost all claim to our respect. When conservatives are willing to openly embrace either John McCain or Hillary Clinton over Congressman Ron Paul just so they can vote for a winner, conservatism has indeed lost all meaning. We may as well bury it and go back to being Americans.
And to Dr. Dobson: welcome. :)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Conspiracy Theory 101.1
I’ve intended to write a post about conspiracy theories for over a year. Writing time is scarce these days, between work, EMT class, homeschooling and political activism – but working on Ron Paul’s campaign has brought this issue into focus more times than I care to acknowledge. Two months ago I finally caved in to intense peer pressure and agreed to watch a pile of DVDs that would supposedly offer irrefutable proof that our government directly perpetrated the attacks on 9/11/01. Having heard second-hand many of the arguments put forward by Mssrs. Jones, Avery, etc., I fully expected to find these “powerful presentations” less than convincing. However, I was unprepared for … well, I’m getting ahead of myself.
Before I offer my thoughts on 9/11, it might be useful to consider the concept of conspiracies in general. In general, I find that folks tend to fall into two categories: those who believe conspiracies are everywhere, and those who refuse to believe they exist at all. Both of these positions result in an unrealistic perspective on life.
In one form or another, conspiracies form a critical part of the political history of every powerful nation that has ever existed. From ancient Israel, Persia, Greece and Rome to Spain, the Netherlands, France and England, on to Russia, Germany, Japan and yes, the United States of America, every nation that has played a major role in world affairs has been subjected to the attention of those who stand to gain or lose through manipulation of those affairs. I could provide specific instances from the histories of each of these nations, where the events in question appear very different to the bird’s-eye view of historians than they would have appeared to contemporary observers. So to assume that the political landscape of the only superpower in the world today is free from the influence of secret outside forces is to believe a fairy tale.
Even within the memories of many who read this, our own country has seen numerous conspiracies come to light. Some are on a small scale; some on a large scale. Some, like the Watergate scandal, run afoul of government interests and are exposed by the justice system; others, like the murder of President Diem during the Vietnam War, involve the interests of the government and consequently are shielded from legal exposure. Some, like the 1953 overthrow of Iranian PM Mohammed Mossadegh, are resolved with time and more information; while others, like the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC, remain a mystery, with little known except that the “official” explanation is false. In short, conspiracies do play, indeed are playing, a significant role in the politics and events we experience from day to day.
The question one needs to ask, then, is this: how do we know when we are seeing the effects of such plots? Unfortunately, the abject ignorance of history that characterizes Americans today leaves many of us without the intellectual tools needed to answer that question with reasonable accuracy. Add to the mix Americans’ widespread distrust of the government and the media, and one result is that those who realize they are being lied to tend to assume that a direct, causative relationship exists between the liar and the events in question. So, for example, when the President claims that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11, those who perceive the emptiness of that claim conclude that the President must be hiding something (which he is), so he must be the guilty party (oops - non sequitur). Actually, the President’s false claims could be related to a number of factors, most likely his pathological urge to overthrow Hussein with or without a reason.
The other combination that tends to fuel conspiracy theories is when a powerful organization or individual benefits from a major event. To continue with the 9/11 illustration, the reasoning runs like this: the terror attacks created a climate of fear perfectly suited to the implementation of police state measures and the repression of individual liberty (true); the government took full advantage of this climate to implement such policies (also true); therefore the government must have arranged the attacks (again, non sequitur). While the administration certainly took advantage of the situation, it would have required only minimal understanding of American foreign policy and the principle of blowback to realize that an Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. was bound to occur in the near future.
Coming soon: how to test a "conspiracy theory" for probability.
Before I offer my thoughts on 9/11, it might be useful to consider the concept of conspiracies in general. In general, I find that folks tend to fall into two categories: those who believe conspiracies are everywhere, and those who refuse to believe they exist at all. Both of these positions result in an unrealistic perspective on life.
In one form or another, conspiracies form a critical part of the political history of every powerful nation that has ever existed. From ancient Israel, Persia, Greece and Rome to Spain, the Netherlands, France and England, on to Russia, Germany, Japan and yes, the United States of America, every nation that has played a major role in world affairs has been subjected to the attention of those who stand to gain or lose through manipulation of those affairs. I could provide specific instances from the histories of each of these nations, where the events in question appear very different to the bird’s-eye view of historians than they would have appeared to contemporary observers. So to assume that the political landscape of the only superpower in the world today is free from the influence of secret outside forces is to believe a fairy tale.
Even within the memories of many who read this, our own country has seen numerous conspiracies come to light. Some are on a small scale; some on a large scale. Some, like the Watergate scandal, run afoul of government interests and are exposed by the justice system; others, like the murder of President Diem during the Vietnam War, involve the interests of the government and consequently are shielded from legal exposure. Some, like the 1953 overthrow of Iranian PM Mohammed Mossadegh, are resolved with time and more information; while others, like the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC, remain a mystery, with little known except that the “official” explanation is false. In short, conspiracies do play, indeed are playing, a significant role in the politics and events we experience from day to day.
The question one needs to ask, then, is this: how do we know when we are seeing the effects of such plots? Unfortunately, the abject ignorance of history that characterizes Americans today leaves many of us without the intellectual tools needed to answer that question with reasonable accuracy. Add to the mix Americans’ widespread distrust of the government and the media, and one result is that those who realize they are being lied to tend to assume that a direct, causative relationship exists between the liar and the events in question. So, for example, when the President claims that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11, those who perceive the emptiness of that claim conclude that the President must be hiding something (which he is), so he must be the guilty party (oops - non sequitur). Actually, the President’s false claims could be related to a number of factors, most likely his pathological urge to overthrow Hussein with or without a reason.
The other combination that tends to fuel conspiracy theories is when a powerful organization or individual benefits from a major event. To continue with the 9/11 illustration, the reasoning runs like this: the terror attacks created a climate of fear perfectly suited to the implementation of police state measures and the repression of individual liberty (true); the government took full advantage of this climate to implement such policies (also true); therefore the government must have arranged the attacks (again, non sequitur). While the administration certainly took advantage of the situation, it would have required only minimal understanding of American foreign policy and the principle of blowback to realize that an Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. was bound to occur in the near future.
Coming soon: how to test a "conspiracy theory" for probability.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Hello, GOP ...
I sent this letter to a slew of editors, but no one was willing to publish it. So ... I will!
_________________________________________
In Thursday’s republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron questioned Dr. Ron Paul’s electability, implying that his positions were incompatible with those of the Republican Party. As a Republican voter, I agree with Ron Paul that our party has lost its way. The current GOP platform would be unrecognizable to the republicans of Reagan’s day. Even so, many of the sentiments in this pitiable mutation of conservative principles sound oddly similar to those defended by Congressman Paul. Consider the following quote: “As tagging and tracking citizens is inconsistent with American freedom, we oppose the creation of a national identification card or system.”
Really? Paul is the only GOP presidential candidate who opposes the REAL ID program; or in other words, he is the only candidate whose position on this issue is consistent with his party’s platform.
How about this astute observation regarding foreign aid: “Development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery.” That sounds like a quote from the Doctor’s weekly column. Why do the other republican candidates unite in deriding Ron Paul for statements like this?
Here’s an interesting quote: “As Republicans, we trust people to make decisions about how to spend, save, and invest their own money. We want individuals to own and control their income... making their own choices and directing their own future. …the problem is not that the American people are taxed too little but that the federal government spends too much.” Paul is the only candidate who has called for allowing young Americans like me to completely opt out of the Social Security System. Why are the other candidates so reluctant to agree?
The platform has this to say about education: “We recognize that under the American Constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation.” So why do the other candidates and the media laugh when Ron Paul says what every involved parent knows: that the federal Department of Education is wasteful and unconstitutional?
Earlier this week Jay Leno asked Dr. Paul why Fox News has consistently tried to marginalize and exclude him, noting that after all, he was a Republican. Paul responded, “Yes, but – they’re not!” I think he is absolutely right. If Carl Cameron would focus less on polls and more on principles, he would likely conclude that, electable or no, Ron Paul is the only real Republican candidate.
_________________________________________
In Thursday’s republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron questioned Dr. Ron Paul’s electability, implying that his positions were incompatible with those of the Republican Party. As a Republican voter, I agree with Ron Paul that our party has lost its way. The current GOP platform would be unrecognizable to the republicans of Reagan’s day. Even so, many of the sentiments in this pitiable mutation of conservative principles sound oddly similar to those defended by Congressman Paul. Consider the following quote: “As tagging and tracking citizens is inconsistent with American freedom, we oppose the creation of a national identification card or system.”
Really? Paul is the only GOP presidential candidate who opposes the REAL ID program; or in other words, he is the only candidate whose position on this issue is consistent with his party’s platform.
How about this astute observation regarding foreign aid: “Development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery.” That sounds like a quote from the Doctor’s weekly column. Why do the other republican candidates unite in deriding Ron Paul for statements like this?
Here’s an interesting quote: “As Republicans, we trust people to make decisions about how to spend, save, and invest their own money. We want individuals to own and control their income... making their own choices and directing their own future. …the problem is not that the American people are taxed too little but that the federal government spends too much.” Paul is the only candidate who has called for allowing young Americans like me to completely opt out of the Social Security System. Why are the other candidates so reluctant to agree?
The platform has this to say about education: “We recognize that under the American Constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation.” So why do the other candidates and the media laugh when Ron Paul says what every involved parent knows: that the federal Department of Education is wasteful and unconstitutional?
Earlier this week Jay Leno asked Dr. Paul why Fox News has consistently tried to marginalize and exclude him, noting that after all, he was a Republican. Paul responded, “Yes, but – they’re not!” I think he is absolutely right. If Carl Cameron would focus less on polls and more on principles, he would likely conclude that, electable or no, Ron Paul is the only real Republican candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)