Paying for Parties

Quick! How many of you are aware that the two old parties’ quadrennial conventions are subsidized by taxpayers? For you more conservative followers of the GOP are you now all-a-tingle knowing that your (borrowed) taxes were used, in part, for John McCain’s grand RINO march across the stage in St. Paul while fiscally responsible and possibly lamenting Democrats all pooled tax dollars for Barrack Obama’s triumphant grand eloquence before the pillars in Denver? How do you feel now…knowing you helped pay for both huge events? How can it be in a country that is so broke and nearly bankrupt, we subsidize the two political parties who have controlled the electoral and governing apparatus for 150 years? This travesty is compounded by the fact that that one third of the voters identify themselves as Republicans, one third as Democrats and the final third is split between minor parties and independents. So, why subsidize a grand march and booze-ridden blowout for a party or any entity that represents a mere third of the voters? Also, the presidential nominees for both parties have usually been chosen via the primary and caucus process prior to the convention’s opening. The gripping national interest in the convention outcome is nonexistent….so, again, why should the taxpayers pay?

As a Libertarian, I am double-minded about this fiasco. If Big Brother is going to throw worthless cash around to benefit the national political system, some of those dollars should flow into the convention coffers of those of us who actually believe in the Constitution. But…my Libertarian principles prevent me from crying “for my fair share” because I truly desire Constitutional government, equity in government services and fiscal responsibility. This isn’t just about my political preferences, however, because so many voters self-categorize themselves as “independent.”  Independents have no convention, no nominating process and no structure for snookering the American people. Why can’t they have a huge party with the funny hats, rivers of lobbyist-provided booze and legions of hospitality suites… all provided by the taxpayers hard-earned money? You may not share my alarm and disgust that the two-party oligarchy dips into the public trough for their every four-year party parties, but the practice is not small “d” democrat nor small “r” republican. One party despotic states use the government’s resources to maintain power and crush opposition. The difference here in the United States is merely one of tone…not of practice. The two old parties and their buddy-buddy system have corrupted our government to the point that they believe they are entitled to do the Watsui, drink the Dom Perignon, and munch on broiled salmon at your expense.

Each of the fossilized controlling parties received $18 million dollars for their 4-day bashes. In the grand scheme of government waste 18 million is but mist in a bucket, but the principle of forcing United States taxpayers to underwrite a partisan convention, smacks of Soviet-style rule wherein one could not participate in the electoral process unless one belonged to “THE” party. In our case all taxpayers are required under penalty of law to shell out the fruit of their labor for ideologies, personalities and policies with which they may diametrically disagree. This is a free country, right?

This practice might not be so egregious if some semblance of equity were involved for those voters who object to the ruling duopoly. Just the opposite is true in many cases. For example the two old party career politicians have erected barriers and hurdles that make it nearly impossible for other representative parties to have ballot access. They claim these parties do not have much support ergo they haven’t earned a reasonable standard for ballot qualification. Clearly, our exalted careerist rulers are masters of circular reasoning: Minor parties cannot gain traction without appearing on the ballot, and they must have traction to meet the excessively restrictive criteria established by the duopolistic goons. The 156 years that the two ruling elites have held absolute power is not enough time. They need more time…just like Obama says does. The century and a half of deal-making, compromising and collusion have given us an ungovernable monstrosity in the halls of power.

If defunding sweetheart deals for the two tyrannical parties and allowing dissenters access to the process has an impact, what would it be? For one, some small savings would be achieved, and second, perhaps the career ruling elites may be forced to be more accountable because of their third-party challengers. Historically republicans run to the right in primaries then backtrack to the “mushy middle” for the general election. Democrats do the opposite, but the compromisers meet in the middle without very little distinction between them. Third-party candidates from the left and the right would encourage the two old party careerists to be more honest about their positions for fear of losing votes to a minor party. It’s time for the oligarchic duopoly to remove the pacifiers from their mouths, the tax-funded benefits from their party coffers, and the deal-making abuse of the people and our liberty. We have anti-trust laws, but they have exempted themselves. It’s standard operating procedure….sadly.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Honey Pot

What’s your weak link? Which little delicacy do you find irresistible? Before I was diagnosed with diabetes, my weakness was Oreos and milk. I’d be in my chair, reading and dipping, until all the cookies were gone (yes, I know what the icing in the cookie is made from). Achilles had the spot on his heel that made him vulnerable, and Charlie Sheen apparently has a number of vulnerabilities. The purpose for this discussion of weakness or sweet spots is that they are more illustrative of a person’s behavior than their self-proclaimed strengths. The soft spots for most politicians, particularly Republicans, are that they want to be liked and they do not want to appear to be “unreasonable.” The weak link for Democrats is that they absolutely adore demographic groups and will do anything to help their favored bundles of people. Democrats fear individualists, but they do love the individual heart-wrenching anecdote.

One of the primary arts of war and sports is to discover your opponent’s weakness and exploit it. Democrats do an excellent job of making Republicans defensive about their positions and philosophy. Republicans, on the other hand, seem obsessed with not wanting Democrats to ridicule them. What they seem to not understand is that the Democrats laugh at them and chortle at their weakness. It is also rather illustrative that some people will not do the right thing because someone may make fun of them for doing so. That’s why so many people of faith fail to take a stand when their faith is being mocked. The Apostle Peter had the same issue.

Others are afraid to take a stand for what is right because they fear being “blamed” for it. Boehner and the House GOP find themselves in such a situation in the budget battle. They do not want to be “blamed” for shutting down the government in order to achieve a tiny measure of fiscal responsibility. These dim bulbs don’t understand that any cuts they propose will be labeled as “draconian” and “extreme.” Why not, then, do the right thing by suggesting real cuts that lead to a path of fiscal solvency and take the heat. The GOP will be blamed no matter what they do. Why not do the right thing …for once? At this point in our nation’s history for career politicians to assume that the “old way” of doing things will mollify us, is ill advised and wrong. Perhaps their political instincts are correct in the sense that the dependent class will be angry with them, but the producer class will be livid. If they pander to the dependents in order to avoid the heat, then if or when the national economy fails, everyone will blame them.

Courage has its own reward. The knowledge that one did the right thing in the face of hostile opposition generates its own self-satisfaction. When the goal is greater than the will to achieve it, then the soft spot or weak link must be abandoned if there is to be any hope of achieving the goal. Controlling blood glucose levels and maintaining the targeted weight requires severely restricting my Oreo intake. If Republicans sincerely care about our country and our progeny, then they will stop trying to be liked and concentrate on being right. Republicans should commit to doing the responsible thing by drastically reducing government as they attempt to pull us back from the precipice. If they do not do the responsible thing, then they will be responsible……for allowing the mess to occur on their watch.

Democrats are like Pooh Bear because their hands are always in the honey pot. They refuse to accept that honey is a finite commodity, and they might not have any in the out years. Because of their infantile behavior and actions, they cannot be trusted to take their hands out of the jar. The Republicans must act like adults if the country is to be saved. Can they act responsibly, and do they love our country enough to do what is necessary?

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

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

Dissatisfaction

The current political environment bristles with excitement. As I travel across Ohio meeting with various groups, I am struck by how many people are becoming familiar with the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, and the wisdom of the Founders. Each local organization has its own organizational structure even if it has been patterned after a national model. Each local group has its own emphases and priorities sometimes in accordance with the larger organization, and often in addition to those that are of broader concern. Certainly, the level of activity and the nature of their actions vary widely among the newly-active.


At the risk of engaging in oversimplification, I believe that I can place the members of the Patriot groups, Tea Partiers, Liberty Lobbyists and so forth into four distinct categories: the Discontented; the Dissenters; the Disillusioned; and the Disenfranchised. Not only does each local organization appear to reflect one of these categorical distinctions, but within each local committee, one can find some members who represent the various aspects of the spectrum. The Discontented believe that the political system is generally operating reasonably well, but that on specific issues and certain policy matters, the government (federal, state, or local) has failed to address the concerns of the voters. The Disillusioned suspect that the entire government apparatus at every level has gone haywire, and they fear that it may be too late to restore any level of sanity to our system of self-governing. The Disenfranchised believe that government has become a cudgel of tyranny that is committed to beating the citizenry into submission. The Dissenters represent, in my view, the largest segment of the Patriot movement. They merge their love of country, respect for the Founders and the Documents, with passionate belief that they can ferret out good candidates, support them and restore the nation, state or local community. Generally Dissenters are more optimistic about the future of the Republic than are the other attitudinal categories. In my experience, Dissenters are Republicans who seek to purge the party of RINO’s and liberals. They maintain their allegiance to the GOP while seeking to support candidates who represent the conservative mainstream and the principles associated with conservatism. Some Dissenters have chosen to run for County Central Committee posts in order to assure that the conservative emergence is not short lived.

Many of us who are Libertarian candidates either seek or are offered opportunities to meet with many of the Patriot groups to explain our positions and to engage in informational dialogue with their members. Our assumptions as we encounter the Patriot groups are varied. Some of us go with the idea that all citizens who are disgruntled provide a willing audience for our message of smaller Constitutional government, low taxes and more personal freedom. It is up to us to convince them that Libertarianism is the vehicle for them to express their dissatisfaction. Our anti-tyranny, pro-freedom message should be attractive for the Disenfranchised people. Their angst will find a home in a third party such as ours. The Disillusioned, too, provide an opportunity for Libertarians to acquire some votes and support. They desperately want a new direction of governance that is more citizen oriented—more bottom up.

The Discontented and Dissenters are more problematic for Libertarian candidates. If they have been Democrats and are discouraged with the leftist progressive influence within the party, then they become ripe targets for the Libertarian message. If, on the other hand, the Discontented and Dissenters are within the ranks of the GOP, then their primary focus is to reform and restore the party. A Libertarian candidate who clearly shares their views and their objectives may be considered if he/she is not running for an office that could sway the balance of power between the two old parties. The fact that these four groups are frustrated with the political systems as it presently functions is an advantage for Libertarians, but because this is perceived to be a Republican year due to Democrat overreaching at the federal level, the Discontented and the Dissenters may decide to “stay home,” and thus become more difficult to convince that Libertarianism is in their best interest. Nevertheless, we should engage them all and share our message of liberty.

Comment or email:  cnpearl@woh.rr.com

Party 3.0

With the advent of the “Tea Party” movement there is evidence of angst within certain political circles. Recently I have noted conservative bloggers and commentators warning that an effort to form a third party would be disastrous for the Republic. They argue that a movement coalescing into a party as a result of massive discontent with “politics as usual” would inevitably lead to an electoral victory for the progressive statists because the Constitutionalist/ Conservative majority would be divided. Perhaps.


As I approach my sixty-fourth birthday, I can count the scars and see the scorch marks all over my body as a result of my life-long reliance on Republican PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS to do the right thing…respect the limits of the Constitution. To expect ANY professional politician to honor the limits of Constitutional governance is, in my view, misplaced, naïve and stupid. Too often in the past four decades or so, I have witnessed political newcomers rail against the encroachment of big unresponsive government, only to watch them become more comfortable and, in fact, enable the incremental growth of government and its power over us. They transform from hard-charging challengers into defenders of the status quo. Their rhetoric changes from promoting the principle for the reduction of government influence to “I’ve offered amendments to minimize the damage.” They become (literally and figuratively) fat and comfortable as they pursue their lifetime careers from local to state to national arenas while proclaiming their devotion to limited government. They vote to put levies on the ballot so that “the people can get involved,” when in reality they have conspired with their cohorts to increase spending, and they do not have the courage to stop the spending or oppose the levy. The longer they seek office the smaller their reservoir of courage becomes. Their job-preservation instincts overwhelm their notions of servant hood. They plead, they beg, they grovel, and they barter for your votes so that they can “continue the fight for fiscal integrity.” Meanwhile, the budget grows faster than the GDP. Public employee unions become more rigidly embedded in the system. Taxes and fees are necessarily increased to finance the profligacy of our beloved guardians of Constitutional government.

With the socialist/progressive element of American politics, I know what I am getting. They’ll lie and misrepresent their intentions, and distort the outcomes of their ludicrous policies and actions. They’ll promise Nirvana and deliver nothing. They’ll confiscate my property and severely circumscribe my freedom. They’ll demean me, denounce me and, perhaps, destroy me. But I know who they are. I can resist them and fight them for every inch of Liberty’s turf. My “friends,” on the other hand will lull me into subservience with sweet utterances such as “rights, low taxes, common sense, and spending cuts” as they become complicit in the inexorable growth of the big “Nanny” state. It was a Republican who initiated the EPA and OSHA. It was a Republican who enacted wage and price controls. It was a Republican who started the massive federal land grab to set aside millions of acres and remove them from private development. It was a Republican who proposed a massive unfunded expansion of Medicare and increased the federal role in public education. I know who my enemies are, but it’s my friends who have betrayed me…time and time again. Screw it. Screw them. I would rather go down fighting, kicking and screaming…and be right. I will no longer be led and misled by PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS who artfully claim to be my friends. I will be betrayed no more. I am now a Libertarian, and I want my country back!

Comment or email:  cnpearl@woh.rr.com

A Life's tale.

This is a story about the lives of four people: Fred, Florence, Farley and Francis. Any resemblance to persons, alive or dead, is purely accidental and coincidental. These four characters lived on the same street in a small village in Middle America. They were of similar ages, incomes and education, but their lifestyles and priorities were different. Those differences are the basis for our story.


Some people thought that Fred was a clever lad, but others found him unexciting and dull. Some people thought that Fred had the potential to do great things, but others believed him to be a heartless stick-in-the-mud who needed constant supervision and guidance. Some thought that Fred was a kind and compassionate soul who would risk all to help others, and the others surmised that Fred’s vision of compassion was much too limited. Some believed that Fred was a solid, reliable member of the village, but others thought that he lacked vision and idealism.

There were some interesting dynamics at work on that pleasant little street in that quiet little village. Some of Fred’s extended family was very close to Farley’s family while some others had developed long-standing relationships with Florence’s kin. At times, during family gatherings, the kith and kin of Fred’s would discuss their preferences for either Farley’s group or Florence’s. Sometimes the discussions would become heated as each member of the family-at-large would defend his or her allegiance to either the Florence or Farley group.

As a child Fred would often play with Farley and his cousins. He would return home after playtime bloodied and broke as Farley and his family would cheat, beg for mercy, and cheat again. Farley’s family was a fun loving bunch who often broke the rules and lacked self discipline. Farley, himself, epitomized the tribe’s culture. Sometimes he extorted Fred’s lunch money when they were at school. He was a habitual liar and frequently cheated in school. Nevertheless Fred would play with him or defend him at school because they had been neighbors for a long time.

When she was a little girl, Florence was very pretty. As she matured, she became beautiful. Fred was enraptured by her bright eyes and her lovely face. In his dreams at night he pictured her as his constant companion in a mystical future. Whenever Fred became discouraged, Florence would say the words that would rekindle his hope. If Fred and Farley had a disagreement, then Florence would soothe Fred by taking his side. Florence always seemed to have just the right words for Fred whenever he faced a vexing problem. As the time for the 8th grade dance drew near, Fred screwed up his courage and asked Florence to be his date. She said yes. Fred was overjoyed, and as the big night drew near, his excitement began to crescendo. Beautifully dressed and coiffed Florence was the epitome of junior high elegance. Fred was in awe of his young date and all her promise. Later that evening Florence excused herself to go to the ladies room as Fred patiently waited at their table. After what seemed to be an inordinate amount of time, Fred began to search for his missing dream date. He saw her (play dramatic organ music here). She was in the cloakroom…passionately embracing Farley. Fred spun around and left the school…running home as the tears cascaded from his eyes. Later that evening Florence stopped by Fred’s house and apologized profusely. He forgave her, but her intermittent infidelities with Farley continued through high school. Finally Fred faced the final reality and moved on without Florence, the girl of his dreams.

Meanwhile, Francis grew through her early years. Her gangly movement freckles and braces all faded away, and a stunning elegant woman appeared. She was confident and self assured, and Fred was astounded when they met while both were home from college. He asked her out. She accepted. Fred discovered that Francis had simple tastes and unbending principles. She encouraged Fred to achieve his full potential. When he was with Francis, Fred felt as if he were complete. She was always loyal…always faithful. They were married…and were fruitful and multiplied. THE END

Endnote: Fiction writers are often asked if their stories are autobiographical. Well, yes this story is conceptually mine, but not in facts or details. Fred represents me and every other citizen of the United States. Farley is the standard bearer for the Democrats, liberals and progressives. Florence is the symbol of the GOP, and Francis is the representative for the Libertarian Party. For me, this has been a life long journey. I’ve had family members who were strident D’s and diehard R’s. For many years I was a Republican…filled with hope and anticipation. Too often, however, I found them in the closet with Farley (the D’s). Now, I’ve joined with Francis. Keep it simple, keep it solid, and follow the principles…works for me.

As always, your comments are welcome or email:   cnpearl@woh.rr.com