The light began to shine ever so faintly in 2004. Its luminance increased with every misstep by the Republicans in Congress until the summer of 2009 when I couldn’t take it any more. The coup de grace was when Senator Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate Minority was not going to blast and filibuster the massive healthcare takeover, but, instead, were going to introduce a series of amendments that improved the bill “on the margins.” I….was…livid. “Fight the SOB, you cowardly lizard,” I remember screaming at my radio. Thus began my thorough self-analysis. For my entire political life I had been a conservative Republican. I believe in a merciful, loving and righteous God whose Son came to Earth to die for my sinful nature thereby placing me under the mantle of grace if I would repent and accept His lordship. I believe that life is precious and begins at the instant of conception. A strong military deterrence is a critical component of my USA-based worldview. I believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are inspired and are the bedrocks of our Constitutional republic. I believe that these two documents are sufficient unto themselves and require no enhancements (aside from lawful amendments) by institutions or persons who are themselves imperfect. I fear a government that grows beyond its Constitutional mandate for it has no heart, no mind and no soul. Because of its amoral foundation, such a government has no internal mechanism for restraining its growth, its power, and its abusive behavior. Only when good people with lofty intentions strictly adhere to Constitutional limits can our nation reach its highest level of achievement….whether political or economic.
So, I was a conservative Republican whose very principles and deeply held beliefs were being challenged, ignored and violated by members of my own party on a daily basis. Without exaggeration, I can state that at least once per day since my August epiphany, I have discovered an element of Republican neglect, compromise or perfidy. When my eyes were covered with scales, I did not see. It grieves me to possess this painful awareness. Many of my dearest friends and colleagues are serving in government and are tripping forward unaware that their eyes are clouded. They’re merely governing. Cutting deals when necessary. Compromising when it’s politically desirable. Attempting to navigate the legislative minefield without triggering massive voter discontent. Yeah, yeah I believe in the Constitution, they affirm, and then abuse it with their next vote.
It was important for me to find a political nesting place that had few rules, but one that would zealously honor them. Smaller Constitutional government, lower taxes as a result of smaller government, and more personal freedom works for me. A smaller less-intrusive government will by its very definition result in more personal freedom for citizens. Preserve, protect and defend persons and property plus the enforcement of voluntary contracts should be the only portfolio of a Constitutional government. Anything else involves using government power to coerce other people or to take their property. Theft and tyranny are always theft and tyranny…even when benignly implemented by the state. My dear old friends have forgotten the lessons of history. I mourn their straying from the path of honest and faithful self government. I love them. I respect many of them, but I cannot follow their path to disintegration. I must follow my own.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Yellow Rose, Yellow Voters
The Texas Republican primary election has been concluded, and what have we learned? The latest numbers that I have seen show Governor Perry with 52% of the vote, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison claiming 31% and Deborah Medina trailing with 17 per cent. Clearly, the Texas results did not indicate that a visceral anti-incumbent mood was the dominant force because Perry already holds the record as the Lone Star State’s longest serving governor. Perhaps the voting in Texas reflects a virulent anti-Washington position because of KBH’s relatively weak finish, but the totals for Medina are the ones that I find most intriguing…and possibly most revealing.
Ms. Medina has been touted as the darling of the Tea Party Movement. Her platform and her pronouncements generally followed a Libertarian vein as she emphasized a smaller Constitutionally-conforming government. She joyfully played the role of the skunk at the picnic and was doing quite well in the pre-election polling until she appeared on the Glenn Beck radio program. Beck’s aggressive attitude with her, his almost-hostile questioning made Medina appear to be unready for leadership. One portion in particular was damaging to her campaign as Beck asked her about her position regarding the 911 Truthers. The Truthers are a fringe element of the society who appears to believe that the United States government was complicit or responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. Beck asked Medina what her position was regarding the 911 Truther movement. She waffled, weaseled and sputtered. Finally, she tossed out the line that she believed that some Truther claims deserved further investigation. Apparently Beck hadn’t taken his meds that morning, and he went semi-ballistic as he denounced her inability or unwillingness to forcefully disavow the Truthers.
Beck’s driving premise for his ostracizing of Medina was that she should have clearly, forcefully and unreservedly separated herself from Truther conspiracies. In a sense, I agree with Beck because to consider that my government may have had ANY input into the 911 murders, is too evil to comprehend. If government involvement were proven, then I would be forced to join in an armed resurrection or to totally withdraw to a place of isolation. For those reasons I reject any half-baked conspiratorial hypotheses that in any way, shape or form suggests the unfathomable. When reviewing the Truthers, it seems reasonable that one should be all in…or all out. Any other position, it seems to me, would result in painful unresolved angst. If one can examine this “issue” unemotionally and objectively, then I would assume that you do not love the United States of America. Just sayin’.
Back to the election: It seems to me that there are three (maybe more) conclusions that can be drawn from the Texas primary.
1.) Except for a small element, the Tea Party/Patriot movement is and always will be Republican. Despite their protestations that they are disturbed by “business as usual,” they will continue to vote for middle of the road Republicans when presented with alternatives.
2.) Medina was a flawed candidate. She allowed Beck to define her, and thus, forfeited her opportunity to garner enough support from the Perry camp to finish second and force a runoff. Of her 17 per cent totals, we do not know how many of her supporters were of the “kook” variety and how many were true freedom-lovers who rejected Perry’s opportunistic populism.
3.) Hutchison’s 31 per cent represents the old base of the Old Party. Name ID and length of service are important to them, and they generally reject finely tuned ideological messages.
There is in Texas a core element of freedom loving voters. On a percentage basis, they are probably much larger than here in Ohio. We have the strong union element that has existed in our political landscape for decades, and unfortunately, such an environment does not encourage independent thought. Our Tea Party/Patriot groups are very active in Ohio, but will, in the final analysis, support unprincipled Republicans because those candidates will master the rhetoric of liberty and continue to support growth in government. So, based on the Texas experiment, what are the realistic expectations for freedom and liberty candidates in Ohio in 2010? Our candidates are hamstrung by a lack of funding and a strong statewide infrastructure for generating votes. We must necessarily campaign as sixty-some individuals who form our campaigns according to our districts, our personal resources, our energy and our commitment. We have no retinue…no cluster of political groupies…to run our errands, drive our cars, design our ads or spread our messages. All we have is a passion for restoring the Constitution as the law of the land. All we desire is for Freedom to once again reign in America. All we need is strength and perseverance.
All we want is a few people who share our passion…who know a few people…who know more people…who know even more people…who know enough people to make a difference in Ohio.
Comments or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Ms. Medina has been touted as the darling of the Tea Party Movement. Her platform and her pronouncements generally followed a Libertarian vein as she emphasized a smaller Constitutionally-conforming government. She joyfully played the role of the skunk at the picnic and was doing quite well in the pre-election polling until she appeared on the Glenn Beck radio program. Beck’s aggressive attitude with her, his almost-hostile questioning made Medina appear to be unready for leadership. One portion in particular was damaging to her campaign as Beck asked her about her position regarding the 911 Truthers. The Truthers are a fringe element of the society who appears to believe that the United States government was complicit or responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. Beck asked Medina what her position was regarding the 911 Truther movement. She waffled, weaseled and sputtered. Finally, she tossed out the line that she believed that some Truther claims deserved further investigation. Apparently Beck hadn’t taken his meds that morning, and he went semi-ballistic as he denounced her inability or unwillingness to forcefully disavow the Truthers.
Beck’s driving premise for his ostracizing of Medina was that she should have clearly, forcefully and unreservedly separated herself from Truther conspiracies. In a sense, I agree with Beck because to consider that my government may have had ANY input into the 911 murders, is too evil to comprehend. If government involvement were proven, then I would be forced to join in an armed resurrection or to totally withdraw to a place of isolation. For those reasons I reject any half-baked conspiratorial hypotheses that in any way, shape or form suggests the unfathomable. When reviewing the Truthers, it seems reasonable that one should be all in…or all out. Any other position, it seems to me, would result in painful unresolved angst. If one can examine this “issue” unemotionally and objectively, then I would assume that you do not love the United States of America. Just sayin’.
Back to the election: It seems to me that there are three (maybe more) conclusions that can be drawn from the Texas primary.
1.) Except for a small element, the Tea Party/Patriot movement is and always will be Republican. Despite their protestations that they are disturbed by “business as usual,” they will continue to vote for middle of the road Republicans when presented with alternatives.
2.) Medina was a flawed candidate. She allowed Beck to define her, and thus, forfeited her opportunity to garner enough support from the Perry camp to finish second and force a runoff. Of her 17 per cent totals, we do not know how many of her supporters were of the “kook” variety and how many were true freedom-lovers who rejected Perry’s opportunistic populism.
3.) Hutchison’s 31 per cent represents the old base of the Old Party. Name ID and length of service are important to them, and they generally reject finely tuned ideological messages.
There is in Texas a core element of freedom loving voters. On a percentage basis, they are probably much larger than here in Ohio. We have the strong union element that has existed in our political landscape for decades, and unfortunately, such an environment does not encourage independent thought. Our Tea Party/Patriot groups are very active in Ohio, but will, in the final analysis, support unprincipled Republicans because those candidates will master the rhetoric of liberty and continue to support growth in government. So, based on the Texas experiment, what are the realistic expectations for freedom and liberty candidates in Ohio in 2010? Our candidates are hamstrung by a lack of funding and a strong statewide infrastructure for generating votes. We must necessarily campaign as sixty-some individuals who form our campaigns according to our districts, our personal resources, our energy and our commitment. We have no retinue…no cluster of political groupies…to run our errands, drive our cars, design our ads or spread our messages. All we have is a passion for restoring the Constitution as the law of the land. All we desire is for Freedom to once again reign in America. All we need is strength and perseverance.
All we want is a few people who share our passion…who know a few people…who know more people…who know even more people…who know enough people to make a difference in Ohio.
Comments or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Conspiracy
As each election cycle matures, the discussion of fringe voters becomes more heated. The two Old Parties seek to categorize the other’s base as “fringe.” The GOP tries to isolate the Democrats’ adherents as “leftists, socialists and communists,” while the Democrats identify elements of the Republican base as “Birchers, militia types and conspiracy theorists.” As a member of the largest third party, the Libertarian Party, I agree with both of the Old Parties. The Democrats have been the haven for leftist ideologues for my entire political memory, and the conspiracy theorists have been associating, to some degree, with the GOP as well. Without attempting to be an apologist for the Republicans, I have observed that as the government becomes more dominant in our daily lives, conspiracies flourish. In their hearts people have difficulty understanding that a large soulless government was a result of their electoral neglect. They suspect that some hidden nefarious scheme is responsible for the shrinking of personal liberty in the United States. They may be right, but I believe that the loss of personal freedom has come about because: a.) Democrats desire it; b.) Republicans are indifferent; and c.) conspiracists have been too busy watching for black helicopters to become engaged in the electoral process. But now, as our government seems to become increasing oppressive and decreasingly responsive, some citizens are puzzled by the sense that events are out of control. They seek answers. For some our vexing issues, however, there appear to be no satisfying solutions, therefore the citizen grasps onto whatever may explain the current precarious situation.
Superstition arises when there is a critical lack of certainty. If we have the full facts and knowledge about a situation, it is obvious that our analysis will usually be realistically based. It is the shortage of information and the absence of honest communication that prompt people to snatch onto tiny bits of data and then weave whole-cloth narratives or theories from the fragments. The political world is awash in conspiracies, innuendos, and other imaginative stories. A significant portion of the populace is openly disdainful of the government and governmental responses to their concerns. The credibility chasm has grown to become nearly unbreachable, but will the voters’ anger continue by electing fresh alternative candidates? Or will they continue to elect the same people from the same parties that they have for the past century and a half? Will they foolishly expect different outcomes? The roiling discontent that we are witnessing is a different environment from the norm. It remains to be seen if the voters have the courage …or the intelligence to seek new and better results.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Superstition arises when there is a critical lack of certainty. If we have the full facts and knowledge about a situation, it is obvious that our analysis will usually be realistically based. It is the shortage of information and the absence of honest communication that prompt people to snatch onto tiny bits of data and then weave whole-cloth narratives or theories from the fragments. The political world is awash in conspiracies, innuendos, and other imaginative stories. A significant portion of the populace is openly disdainful of the government and governmental responses to their concerns. The credibility chasm has grown to become nearly unbreachable, but will the voters’ anger continue by electing fresh alternative candidates? Or will they continue to elect the same people from the same parties that they have for the past century and a half? Will they foolishly expect different outcomes? The roiling discontent that we are witnessing is a different environment from the norm. It remains to be seen if the voters have the courage …or the intelligence to seek new and better results.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
