Visions and Schisms

Each of the two Old Parties has migrated from its original purposes and ideals into an enterprise that is filled with fissures. The Democrats were a strong coalition of classic liberals, minority groups and labor. The Republicans historic union of small-government proponents, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives is being challenged by the inclusion of the big-government, aggressive foreign policy neo-conservatives. We Libertarians are somewhat different. Our differences, our disagreements are part and parcel of our foundational make-up. We are fervently united in our passion for smaller, Constitutional government, thereby resulting in lower taxes for all Americans. Smaller government inevitably results in more personal freedom as unconstitutional rules, regulations and petty enforcements are discarded. Where we disagree, sometimes loudly, is on those personal freedom issues. Because we all cherish liberty and freedom, we are willing…and eager…to acknowledge our differences and to ultimately ignore them. Our unified desire for a Constitutional government as envisioned by the Founders overrides the petty, picayune, personal preferences that each of us embraces. We understand that personal non-threatening behavior is an individual choice that is of concern to the individual; his/her loved ones, and her/his Maker. As persons we are not capable of infallible judging or unbiased observing, therefore personal freedom should, indeed must, be a vital component of a nation and a party that cherishes freedom and respects individuals.


In the current political environment, we are witnessing significant citizen discontent. Many traditional Democrats are dismayed by the rapid race of their party toward big government progressivism. Republicans, on the other hand, are frustrated by their party’s willingness to aid and abet the growth of massive, intrusive and restrictive government. Most citizens are alarmed by the huge deficits and unrestrained spending that they witness at all levels of government. “Them natives are restless.” So, one would think that the Libertarian party would be the natural landing place for those citizens who are radically discontented with the present state of affairs. So far, we have not seen a mass exodus to libertarianism or a huge increase in the rolls of the Libertarian Party. Why not?

In my view, there are several elements in play that could account for the lack of a major shift of party preferences. The Democrats have historically favored interventionist government, and thus, may be skeptical of the Libertarian goal of a smaller Constitutional one. Republicans, because of the strength of the social conservatives and neo-cons, are resistant to the personal freedom and limited intervention messages. Finally, I believe the two most glaring reasons for their failure to join the Libertarian cause are that Libertarian candidates, as individuals, have not convinced the voters that they are prepared to govern. Incoherent messages, unpolished deliveries and foundationless stridency do not breed confidence in citizens who may be considering a change from a lifetime of voting behavior. Secondly, many of the discombobulated, discontented, disenfranchised and discouraged voters are not as passionate about smaller, Constitutional government as they profess to be. In their hearts of hearts, they would be content to live with the large over-bloated monstrosity that we now have…just no more. So, they will willingly lap up the protestations of slick career politicians who pledge to halt the march toward tyranny. The voters will believe them because they want to. They will ignore the reams of evidence that illustrate the professional class of politicians thrive in a growing state apparatus. The citizens will be deceived once again because they choose to swallow the deceit. As a Libertarian who burns for a smaller Constitutional government, I fear that the citizens who choose to be fooled again will cause my heart to break and my soul to cry.

Comment or email: earl4sos@gmail.com

Animal House ...and Senate.

Critters are special. I’ve always loved them even when they didn’t love me. When I was a toddler, a cranky old dog bit me under both eyes. Sixty-three years later the scars remain, but I apparently wasn’t traumatized by the incident because I continued to approach unfamiliar dogs while my mother watched with horror. I have always believed that an animal will react in a manner appropriate to the attitude of the human who approaches it. Today’s column is a discussion about animals of a different sort…political animals.


Because most of us are familiar with the stereotypical attributes of various animals, I have created a taxonomy of political types with members of the animal kingdom as identifiers. The five classifications are: Weasels, wolves, vultures, chickens and tigers.

Weasels are easy. They sneak around and try to ingratiate themselves with whomever seems dominate. They’ll drop you like a hot poker if they perceive that someone else offers them a greater reward. Weasels are 100 per cent self-serving opportunists and are unreliable.

Wolves are opportunists also, but are much more aggressive and assertive than weasels. They lust for power and the acclaim that accompanies it. A wolf will use whatever means available to achieve his/her objective. Wolves are especially dangerous when cooperating with other wolves… a pack of wolves is deadly.

Vultures hover above the fray. They enjoy watching the weasels’ attempts to manipulate and relish the spectacle of the wolves destroying their prey. The vultures swoop on the carrion after the wolves have finished their task and consume their fill from the bits and pieces that remain. Vultures are always late to the cause because they circle overhead while waiting for a winner to prevail, then they get on board and enjoy the left-over fruits of victory.

Chickens cannot take stands because metaphorically speaking, they have no spines. Chickens are notoriously cowardly and will not commit to any position that may cause someone to oppose them. Chickens, therefore, prefer the vague and avoid the specific.

Unfortunately there are not enough tigers in Congress for us to design a true definition of them. They are so rare that the Dodo bird is much more common in the halls of the U.S. Capitol than is the tiger. In my imagination the tiger would be a fierce defender of the republic as it was designed. In addition, the tiger would be unstoppably aggressive when he/she detected a threat to freedom. The wolves would be wary. The weasels would remain in hiding. The vultures would never land, and the chickens would become McNuggets if the tigers were on the prowl.

I love tigers. Wish we had some.

Comment or email:  cnpearl@woh.rr.com