A Party of One

In a former life I was a conservative Republican, and in my current role I am a Libertarian. Frankly though, as a passionate proponent of individual liberty, neither old party (or any of the others) suits me ideally. As a free-thinking individual, I am a “party of one.” There are aspects of the Republican credo that I find acceptable although with a few exceptions their elected officials do not follow through on them. The Libertarian philosophy most closely represents my own view, but like any other party, they are highly critical of non-conformity within their ranks. I guess that’s a sign that the LP is “growing up”…. becoming a “real” party. Although the LP still holds the numero uno position with me for affiliation purposes, I am indifferent about the emphasis of some members on the so-called “social issues” just as I am not influenced by social conservative positions. True liberty….individually observed….doesn’t have “social issue” positions.

For those of you who are prepared to stone me or burn my house let me emphasize that I am personally pro-life from conception to natural death, heterosexual, a practicing believer of marital fidelity and a vigorous supporter of faith-based messages in the marketplace. I do not, however, want the state (government) to enforce my positions on others because I understand the fickle relationship between government and the power of enforcement. Whoever holds the power will use it in a heavy-handed fashion to promote their world view and ideology. I do not want my personal liberty and choices to be at the mercy of a majority of unthinking, uninformed and easily-persuadable voters. If I valued the judgment of sheep, I would be a shepherd.

In addition if someone follows a belief system at odds with my own, as long as they do not attempt to force me to accept theirs or to be politically correct when discussing their choices, go ahead, do your own thing. It’s between them and God as long as they do not try to coerce me into accepting, endorsing or providing special protections for them and their choices. The way I view it is that life is a series of contracts…between God and me, between my spouse and me, between my family and me and my circle of acquaintances and me. Some provisions of the contracts are formal, written and witnessed. Others are less formal but understood by the parties involved.

My party of one recognizes the uniqueness of me as an individual. Certainly I share beliefs, philosophies, principles and priorities with others, but not all of those positions with everyone with whom I often agree. We may have subtle differences, or we may vociferously disagree about one major matter or another even if we are in perfect harmony on others. The defining point is that I will not allow a “party” or a “faction,” as our Founders and Framers describe them, design the parameters of my preferences. If the party shares my view, then I applaud it. If it does not, then I oppose it. The party cannot be my sole identity when it is nothing more than a collection of citizens who “generally” support somewhat similar stances … except for when they don’t or when the party routinely violates its own positions. If the candidate of any party represents my views, I will consider supporting her….assuming I find her trustworthy and believable. My consideration is the principles espoused and supported by the candidate…not the label affixed behind his name. And certainly not this one…..

http://youtu.be/QO7VUklDlQw

The principle of liberty is my compass for determining where my allegiances will lie. Lovely rhetoric colored with patriotic jingoism does not sway me. Those who speak of “smaller government” do not convince me. Someone who pledges to do “want the people want” does not impress me. If the people are misled or desire something that is clearly unconstitutional, should our elected officials discard their scruples and their oaths of office to encourage the folly? Not in my world.    

Political parties are not relevant for me anymore. Indeed, the party label may provide a starting point for determining where the loyalties of a particular candidate may lie, but they are not necessarily definitive. For example there are many Blue Dog Democrats that I would prefer over several big government Republicans. Many independent voters claim to “vote for the candidate, not the party.” I guess that I have slipped into that mindset too. The people I support must have individual liberty as their primary criterion for serving. They must honor, respect and obey The Constitution of the United States. Mere lip service will not win my vote or my favor. In fact I despise and loathe career politicians who claim to be small-government constitutionalists but violate that principle rather often. I despise them more than I do the big government types who covet my freedom, my wealth and my property because I know what they want, and I can take measures to counteract them. The politicians who claim to be sympathetic to my priorities and violate them again and again are worthy of contempt.

One advantage with being a party of one is that I’m not concerned with Red States or Blue States. The Electoral College is interesting but not captivating. Liberty, sweet liberty, is the primary impetus for my action and attention. Liberty…first, foremost and forever.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Split Decisions

Pundits have characterized current social and political discourse as “polarizing.” They claim that individuals and groups with varying positions have “dug in” and are stubbornly promoting their positions and not allowing for civil disagreement or “progress” on vexing issues. They seem to believe that every problem has a solution and every disagreement can be settled by consensus. My difficulty with that observation is that their “solutions” and their “answers” usually involve the growth of government…..locally, statewide or nationally. For example if my point of view is that the problem under consideration is not a constitutional requirement for government, my position is absolute…..any other solution must include government. So if I seek “common ground” with my opponents, I am in essence denying my original principle of no government involvement.

Put another way….if your position is “zero” on a scale and your foe is at “100” on the scale, any movement by YOU is a surrender of principle. A movement by your opponent is still a partial victory for him, and with the inevitable sliding and growing of government the ultimate rating will be greater than 100. Yet, if you or I refuse to violate our principles, we are ostracized for holding fast to our polarizing positions. Aside from whom our daughters choose to marry, most other highly contentious debates and disagreements are centered on the role of government in our lives.

National Healthcare

Our most recent national debate over the role of the federal government in our personal healthcare is nearly a century old. It impacts every region, every interest group and every person in our country. Some of us who rightly, I believe and know, resist extending government’s reach into our health and well-being are thought to be intransigent and uncompassionate because we appear to be denying quality healthcare for the less fortunate. At the present time our governments already control roughly half of the healthcare spending in the United States. The “poor” as defined by the government’s own statistics represent 25% or fewer of the population. It should be clear that if the poor are underserved with healthcare, the government is failing to properly use the resources they have already confiscated from taxpayers. Why then would any reasonable person be willing risk the integrity of the healthcare system by giving them more power and additional resources? Yet, those who want more government control and those of us who believe governments exercise too much already are polarizing the issue. We are asked to find a common ground (somewhere between 50% and 100%) so that the nation can move forward. I believe the best common ground is less than 10% involvement for government….just enough for battlefield medics and military hospitals. There is no common ground. Statists, big government socialist advocates must be defeated…..or we shall lose. There is no common ground.

EPA Overreaching

Though they may seem to be a national issue, the practices of Richard Nixon’s rogue agency EPA are very regional or local with their negative impact. Along with other bloated agencies the EPA has come very close to placing a stranglehold on the commerce of the United States of America, but it has done so by intruding into one business, one community or one property at a time. In addition its broad scale interventions into the marketplace have placed burdens on our producers that severely limit our global competitive stature. So therefore, if the EPA continually expands its portfolio and control over our lives and our abilities to earn productive wages, where is the common ground if someone seeks to limit my capacity for living and producing? The local nature of most egregious EPA actions allows it to run rampant over our freedom. The “not in my backyard” attitude of too many citizens gives the EPA license to run roughshod over my liberty, and as long as they are not directly or negatively impacted, they allow it…..perhaps even applaud it. There is no middle ground between my stance for freedom and the EPA desire to control my life. There is no middle ground.

When liberty or freedom are at stake….particularly mine and yours if you care about it…….there can be no middle ground. Almost free is not free. In fact I would argue that when government is the controlling agent, “almost free” means that before too long you will be noticeably less free as government increases its power. There is no middle ground. There is liberty, and there is tyranny. Oh yes, we can at times voluntarily subordinate our own desires for the common good….but to yield them to government means that our freedoms will never be returned to us. Polarization is absolutely necessary when freedom is in jeopardy and government control is the alternative. My greatest frustration with the Republican Party has been is willingness to trade away my freedom despite its stated philosophy and numerous party platforms. It has been eager to sacrifice my personal liberty so that the GOP can share power with Democrats, socialists and progressives. I find that position repulsive and unacceptable because there is no middle ground. I will not stand there, and I shall not seek it. It is here for liberty I stand….. first, foremost and forever.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

    

Fake Right, Go Left

In football a “counter play” is one where the offense feints as if it is running the ball to one side but actually hands it to a running back that goes to the other or counter side. The defensive players are fooled into reacting for the wrong point of attack thus leaving them out of position and vulnerable at the real location of the offense’s focus. It’s just like politics in America….too many feints, fakes and wrong-way moves while the citizens play defense. In their public pronouncements and campaign material during a primary, Democrat politicians often conjure up the socialist nirvana for their multiple constituencies. When they take office after bribing the voters with candy and promises, they bust their guts to implement their domestic policy dreams and continue the foreign policy of the Republicans.

The GOP, on the other hand, generally finds its candidates in the primaries running much further right than their natural inclinations or political history would suggest. After securing the nomination, the typical Republican makes an abrupt move to the indefinable “middle” in an attempt to win the favor of “independent voters.” It’s as if their model of the electorate looked something like this:

LEFT-----------------------------IND.------------------------------Right

In reality, voter attitudes and preferences follow this model more closely:

LEFT—ind—ind—ind—ind—IND—ind—ind—ind—ind—RIGHT

The so-called independent voters represent a continuum across the artificial spectrum of voter preferences and “leanings.” The tendency toward increased collectivism in our country tends to cluster nonpartisans into the great amorphous middle rather than understanding that many self-identified independent voters may find that their attitudes and beliefs are “right” on some issues, “left” on others and indifferent about the remainder. It follows, therefore, that the anointed “conservative” does not have to veer sharply to the center (which by the way has been moving leftward for the past 100 years) to secure a majority or decisive plurality of votes. So…why do it?

The answer is simple. Most career Republican politicians are centrists (meaning slightly left) or statists. They BELIEVE in big government solutions for nearly every problem faced by humankind. They want to be the Candy Man who delivers the magical elixir to the miserable people. They want to be known as the problem solver who banished the pain from the downtrodden and consequently earns a bronze statue in the capitol city that is a resting and roosting place for pigeons.

http://youtu.be/zRf1Ad_Txsg

Please remember that most politicians are not demolition experts. They want to “fix” things while becoming beloved statesmen. Candidates who compete as ones who would severely curtail and reduce government are branded as “unrealistic,” “radical,” and “extreme.” In essence, despite public outcries for smaller government, those who propose such actions are summarily marginalized and defeated by others who use “counter plays” to deceive the voters. My sense is that many of the voters are not truly deceived. They are fearful of the heavy burden of doing what must be done to save our Republic. So they pretend to be fooled and play along with the big government statists. In their minds…many Americans are constitutionalists, but in their guts and their hearts they willingly accept the statist dream. Self delusion is risky, but when it negatively impacts an entire nation and our progeny, it is dangerous.

Having observed voter behavior for decades (I did my graduate school research in influences on “voter choices.”), I am convinced that most ignorance is self-imposed, and voter rhetoric is often at odds with a voters internalized attitudes. I had hoped that the burgeoning Tea Party-Liberty movement would reconcile the disconnection between beliefs and behavior, but so far, the impact has been minimal. Certainly some new leaders have risen to forge a new pathway for citizens to match their actions with their mindsets, but the numbers are too few and their understanding of constitutional limits is at odds with their preferences for government involvement. They do talk a good game, but when a favored government policy is shown to be starkly unconstitutional, they resort to personal preferences rather than constitutional principles as their guiding compass.

So, while we may be distressed by career politicians who fake right, then go left, we should recognize that our astute public servants are copying the motives and desires of their constituents. Just as the priest or the pastor cannot secure our personal salvation, our politicians cannot restore our Republic as long as voters are not firmly and adamantly rooted and committed to constitutional governance. Talk right, desire left is the unspoken internal mantra of too many citizens. We cannot hold our politicians accountable if we ourselves are unwilling to toe the line and walk the walk. I’ve been laughed at and derided for my support of Ron Paul because of his “wacky” foreign policy. But if the pseudo-constitutionalists among us were truly devoted to the restoration of that document, we would march in the streets …. insisting that Congress declare war before launching troops into harm’s way. THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. I have absolutely no doubt that Dr. Paul would use the full power of the U.S. military if the Congress authorized it through a declaration of war. If we find that requirement too difficult, then I suggest that a constitutional amendment is in order.   

Along with many of my fellow citizens, I deplore the fact that our Constitution has become a prop for politicians who give it mere lip service. Our domestic affairs are a shambles because we have blatantly ignored the wisdom of the Founders and the Framers and so too are our foreign affairs. It’s time for all of us to play it straight with no more right fakes and left runs.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

   

The Base and the "Bots"

Many of you readers already know that I am a “reformed” Republican. For 42 years I was an active member of the GOP. I served on the County Central Committee, as a campaign chairman for several candidates and as an elected State Representative in the Ohio General Assembly. My first memorable political activity was as a six-year old handing out “I Like Ike” buttons in front of Groman’s Market in Tiffin, Ohio. Dwight D. Eisenhower gained the 1952 Presidential nomination by defeating an Ohioan, Senator Robert Taft. As a youth, I was proud to claim the former General as my President, but as I have matured---both chronologically and politically—I find that Senator Taft, Mr. Republican, more closely represented the values and principles that I hold dear.

My discouragement with the drift of the Republican Party caused me to suspend my activism for a couple of years until I discovered and researched the principles and goals of the Libertarian Party. If you would do a “Google Search” for Senator Taft, Mister Republican, you would note that he was fighting the Eastern Establishment in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s for the soul of the GOP. He lost. Following his death in 1953 there was no one with the stature and the credibility to carry the torch for the founding principles of the Republican Party. The “Establishment” took and held control with some blips up until and including today. Constitutionalists are not welcomed in the present-day GOP. Small government advocates are patronized. The party is committed to Big Government and power sharing with their colleagues, the statist Democrats. It is an unholy alliance between two groups of crony capitalists who are absolutely committed to increasing government influence and control over our lives.

Robert Taft vigorously opposed the New Deal and its massive expansion of federal power. Senator Taft sought to curb the power of labor unions. He was a major proponent of an anti-interventionist foreign and military policy. He attacked deficit spending, high farm subsidies, government bureaucracy, the National Labor Relations Board and government health insurance. Senator Taft believed in a strong defense that served to protect the United States….not to be deployed all over the world as the Big Brother/Big Bully of the planet. In short Mr. Republican was a Libertarian. The Republican Party left him behind as it became more global, more intrusive and less principled. The current crop of Establishment sell-outs refer to the legions of conservative GOP voters as “the base.” Apparently they view the base as something to stand on when reaching high for statist power. They must be thrilled because time after time despite their being treated shabbily; the base falls in line like happy sheeple and continues the status quo. Yesiree, they can count on their cowardly base to save their seats of power every time.

The base is those who reside on the bottom of the power pyramid. I left the base in 2004, and this year I chose to become a “Bot.” My greatest concern as an American is our liberty. Every new law, rule or regulation passed by Establishment Republicans and Socialist Democrats erodes my freedom and limits my opportunities. Senator Taft has passed on, but Dr. and Congressman Ron Paul carries the torch for him. I am now a “Paulbot.” The clones and apologists for the status quo establishment Big Government GOP laugh at us, deride us, call us names and try to dismiss us. But we persist. Is Ron Paul the perfect messenger for a theme of liberty? No, he is not. If I were his communication director, I would frequently cringe when his candor trumps his political instincts. He is the best we have on the scene for saving our nation from the ruling class elites who will destroy us.

Fortunately….I’m not totally without ammo in this attempt to save our Republic from certain collapse. If the Establishment succeeds in nominating their anointed preference, then Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket is the next logical choice. Anyone who chooses between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama faces a Hobson’s Choice because they represent the same outcome with only a matter of degrees in difference. I refuse to willingly and actively promote the destruction of our nation. “But Charlie,” you might say,” you’ll split the vote and Obama will win.” Perhaps….but if either Obama or Romney wins, our people lose. I refuse to surrender now….or ever. I would rather go down with honor than to “lose by winning.” I will not be taken for granted and stomped on like the reliable “base.” I am a “Bot.” Deal with it. And if we win and liberty survives, you can thank me and others like me who will never be debased by lying career politicians. Liberty….first, foremost and forever.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com