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

Let the Light Shine

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

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

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

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

On the Road

Here’s Willie:


 www.youtube.com/? watch v=1TD_pSeNelU

So, that’s my life for the coming nine and one-half months. Last night was the second notable appearance of the campaign as I traveled to Sidney, Ohio in Shelby County to meet with the Sidney Shelby County Liberty Group. Approximately 75 people were on hand to hear a representative from the county Democratic Party, the county GOP and moi’. We were each given fifteen minutes to address the audience, and then the microphones were available for questions and answers. It was a great give-and-take opportunity with some really wonderful, nice people. If I could spend the remaining time in this campaign in similar venues, with equally gracious hosts, and surrounded by concerned, curious citizens like those at the Dorothy Love facility, then whatever the outcome of the election, I will have considered my campaign successful. Obviously, I want to win. One does not commit a year of one’s life and significant personal resources to merely “show up.” Still, the message is paramount. Too many professional politicians dilute the message and make the elections about them. The message echoes the principles: smaller Constitutionally-based government, lower taxes as a result of smaller government, and more personal freedom for every individual.

It’s rather easy to become distracted from the primary during the course of a campaign. As one travels to various communities throughout the state, one discovers that each of them has burning local issues that have captured the attention of the locals. Some seek affirmation of their point of view when the statewide candidate comes calling, thus diverting the discussion from the candidate’s message to one involving local disputes. As a responsible candidate who seeks to be of service to constituents or potential constituents, one is sorely tempted to offer an opinion. Bad idea. The source may be biased or misinformed, and certainly the candidate will lack the requisite knowledge for making an informed judgment. As a candidate, I must constantly, consistently and covertly remind myself to stay on message. The principles of Constitutional government, lower taxes and more personal freedom trump chicken farm zoning, school board shenanigans, and County Commissioner malfeasance. They are important critical issues for those who must face them, but I must stay focused on the big picture. If I, and those who believe as I do, fail, then those other local problems will not matter. Big Brother will make those decisions for them…for us.

Comments or email:  cnpearl@woh.rr.com