► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Libertarianism’

« Older Entries

Barry Goldwater’s ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ Chapter 3. State’s Rights

by coldwarrior ( 80 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barry Goldwater, History, Libertarianism, Open thread, Politics, The Constitution at September 24th, 2013 - 12:00 pm

Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of A Conservative Chapter 2 is here.

Now on to Chapter 3, State’s Rights.  (The book was ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell Jr., brother-in-law of William F. Buckley.[1] Bozell and Buckley had been members of Yale’s debate team.)

The good Senator comes right out of the gate and blasts both parties, the Democrats AND Republicans for failing miserably to control the size of Fedgov. Both were guilty then, both are guilty now. The Democrats are at least honest and don’t pay lip service to State’s Rights like the GOP does. Even when the GOP ran the show in the 2000’s Fedzilla still grew. They couldn’t even kill the Ethanol subsidy! We burn our own food in our gas tanks! And the federal deficit doubled, libetries were taken away for ‘security’, more shackles of slavery placed on every American. I expect this kind of behavior from the Democrats, and now I expect it from the Republicans as well.

Goldwater explains how we got in this mess (again he is prescient in this  1960 book). We know how its done too. Fedzilla takes money in taxes from citizens,  skims a good percentage of it in the Washington DC money laundering racket, and then sends it back to the states with strings attached.  The mob does this as well, its called loan sharking and usually gets a RICO arrest and plenty of jail time when the perp is found guilty. In this case the perp is both sides, the GOP quit playing cop against the organized criminal gang of the Democrat Party. I have ZERO confidence in the current leadership of the GOP and am disgusted by what they did last time they were in power. The deficit was doubled and our liberties taken away by the Patriot Act and the creation of these over reaching ‘security’ agencies.

The amazing thing is that most people simply don’t understand that they are being robbed at gunpoint in this scheme. Fedzilla with the coercive force of the state demands money from you so they can take a percentage of it for themselves and then send the money back to the states with demands and strings attached. Every dollar they take from a state’s citizen goes to empower DC not the local capital. This has got to stop or we will lose our liberties at an ever faster pace. This message is being taken to the public now though with some of the rising stars of the GOP; much to the chagrin of the old guard at GOP HQ who are not amused! We have to educate people on this shell game. It is one way to preserve what few liberties we have left.

Goldwater argues that most people see through the DC money laundering and know that Fedzilla money does not come for free. I am not so sure that this is the case in 2013. Do a majority of voters understand the Racket? Do they care? I believe that this is one thing that must be explained by the libertarians and Fiscons ad nauseaum. Make it hit home, explain it and explain it again. Explain that the alternative is that the local State should be returned to its set of rights and responsibilities AT THE COST OF power concentrated in DC.  States Rights is one place where there is a Zero Sum Game. the money has to stay in the State because the State will know better how to spend the money because it will be locally driven. 50 Laboratories working on individual solutions right for their situation is far better than 1 Lab creating Fedzilla! What works in one State might not work in another. Or, a State may come up with something that the others can use.  The solutions worked at the local State level don’t take rights and liberties away from the other 49. Fedzilla solutions do.

The local state politicians refuse to vote ‘no’ on this type of shell game. They think that they are doing their constituents a favor by getting money from DC! They actually doom these citizens to more links in the shackles. This is indirect coercion but coercion none the less. It is in fact blackmail. Accept the funds and the demands and the ever expanding fedgov or lose power. If the states would get together and stand firm, they could easily break the DC money laundering racket.

Fedzilla also coerces the State by threatening to step in if DC thinks that the State should act on something. This is where the 10th Amendment comes in. The 10th recognizes the State’s jurisdiction in given areas. The State can either act or not as it sees fit. With these rights come responsibilities. The State politician is directly beholden to the citizenry in a very real sense.  Usually, everyone knows how to get a hold of their State representative pronto. He usually lives right down the street and has an office near the voter. In my case, he is a driver and 4 wood away and gets an earful from us quite often. The bureaucrat in DC doing the bidding of busybody politicians is unreachable. He is a faceless cog insulated from the wrath of the voters, he doesn’t care what you think. Your opinion and vote does not impact him in almost all cases.

“Nothing could so far advance the cause of freedom as for State officials throughout the land to assert their rightful claims to lost State power, and for the Federal Government to withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the Constitution reserved to the States.” -Barry Goldwater

Tags: ,
Posted in Academia, Barry Goldwater, History, Libertarianism, Open thread, Politics, The Constitution | 80 Comments »

Barry Goldwater’s ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ Chapter 1

by coldwarrior ( 98 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barry Goldwater, Economy, History, Politics at August 21st, 2013 - 3:00 pm

Good Day everyone. I am going to start to break down Barry Goldwater’s ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ , written in 1960, by chapter. There is no doubt that this book should be read by everyone who calls themselves a ‘Conservative’. Will Goldwater’s definition of conservative match up with today’s conservatives? Where would Goldwater fit in today’s political continuum?

This is the 3d or 4th time that I have read his book. First time was 30 years a go or so. His views and ideas struck me as something obvious.  They still do, they make perfect sense, yet somehow he (as well as William F Buckley) have fallen out of the ‘conservative’ pantheon for many on this side of the aisle. Please purchase the book and read it. You can find a digital copy at Amazon for cheap.

The book was ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell Jr., brother-in-law of William F. Buckley.[1] Bozell and Buckley had been members of Yale’s debate team. They had co-authored the controversial book, McCarthy and His Enemies, in 1955. Bozell had been Goldwater’s speechwriter in the 1950s, and was familiar with many of his ideals. The first edition, 1960, is 123 pages in length and was published in the United States. The book covers such topics as education, labor unions and policies, civil rights, agricultural policy and farm subsidies, social welfare programs, and income taxation. The book is considered to be a significant statement of politically and economically American conservative ideas which were to gain influence during the following decades.[1]

Goldwater begins by arguing that conservatism is not a mechanistic economic only philosophy but one that is in fact comprehensive in scope and application and should never be apologized for nor modified with labels as ‘progressive conservative’ or ‘conservative with a heart’. ‘Compassionate Conservative’ certainly falls in the no-no with the rest of modifiers that are aimed to distance one from actual conservatism yet let that candidate somehow still claim to in fact be a conservative. And sadly, many on our side willing take the bait.

First, He goes on to explain that conservatism is not an economic theory but has economic  implications. Socialism/liberalism ‘subordinates all other considerations to man’s material well being. It is conservatism that puts material things in their proper place’ within a proper human society where the economics is in a subordinate role. He argues though that man is in fact an economic animal with spiritual needs and desires, needs and desires to be free.  Liberals fight against Nature by attempting to harness society’s economic and political forces in a collective effort ; to control them in the name of ‘progress’. This fails because, as he argues, the nature of man is not in a controlled collective but one who is free of the yoke of tyranny.

Second, that each man is unique argues the conservative. All men are the same argues the liberal. ‘Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and , accordingly , makes provisions for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with nature’. Man assigned and consigned to  an ‘undifferentiated mass’ is doomed to slavery. Personal Liberty, the government off of your back without the ever smaller box of compliance in which we live is the only way to prevent the slavery that comes with too large a government; slavery of the spirit comes when your personal liberties and freedoms are taken away or even eroded over time, economic slavery comes with debt and taxes from too large a government.

The conservative will know that the economic and the spiritual are permanently intertwined. If you are enslaved politically, you are not economically free. If you are dependent on the state, your freedom is an illusion.

Third, an outside force cannot direct man’s development in the spiritual and economic  realm. Every man is responsible for his own development. He must make the choices that define his life; a free man is free to live without interference from government or liberals for that matter. Goldwater was prescient here. Look at the size and scope of American government since the first printing of his book!

Conservatives never regard man as a pawn of another man nor part of a collective. The conservative throughout history has been at odds with both the autocrat and the mob rule so called ‘democratic’ Jacobins. ‘The conscience of a conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being’. This means big government/big spenders on the left and right as well as anyone who would attempt to control man either by collective action or by making him an economic slave through taxes and debt.

He finished the chapter by explaining that the goal of a conservative is to achieve the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order. This is the classic Hobbes v Locke discussion and is one that will never end and sways back and forth as the political pendulum moves.  The way to achieve the goal is to preserve and extend freedoms, always ask ‘are we maximizing freedoms?’

 

*up next, Chapter 2 ‘The Perils of Power’

 

Rand Paul on Goldwater

Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention

The transcript of the 1964 RNC speech

Tags: , ,
Posted in Academia, Barry Goldwater, Economy, History, Politics | 98 Comments »

New Breed of Urban Republicans rising

by Phantom Ace ( 124 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Republican Party, The Political Right at April 23rd, 2013 - 2:30 pm

Although they never dominated Urban areas, there was a time Republicans were competitive in them. Republican Presidential candidates like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Reagan used to get a high percentage of the Urban vote. With the GOP’s strength in suburbs, this allowed the party to go 7-3 in Presidential elections from 1952 to 1988. Then under Poppy Bush and later Pig Vomit (Karl Rove), the GOP decided to abandon Urban Areas and focus on only rural areas. The results have been electorally disastrous and the Democrats now have a lock of 240 electoral votes.

As we know from political history things do not stay static. A new generation of pragmatic Libertarian leaning Republicans are now appearing in Urban areas. They distance themselves from the negative image of the national GOP and focus on issues that Urban voters can relate with.

A decade ago, Democrats made a concerted effort to bring rural and exurban voters back into the party’s fold. Today, Republicans are struggling with the opposite problem — how to win over voters from America’s booming cities.

National Republicans have given remarkably little thought to how to reverse their decline in urban areas, even as they have grappled with how to be more inclusive and diverse

But there are stirrings of a renewed effort by a handful of GOP candidates and activists to edge the party into being more competitive in America’s cities. They see their efforts as a necessity for the party’s long-term competitiveness given the rapid growth of America’s urban centers.

“Half the battle is showing up,” Patrick Mara, a GOP candidate for Washington, D.C., Council, told POLITICO, arguing that urban Republicans need to step up and run even in jurisdictions that aren’t necessarily friendly turf to the party.

[….]

“One of the biggest challenges is when something happens on TV with one of the national Republicans,” Mara said with a note of exasperation. “You sometimes get blamed for that even though you have nothing to do with it.”

[….]

His party affiliation — if not necessarily his platform — has become a major campaign issue. The website PatrickMaraIsARepublican.com aims to remind voters that Mara backed Mitt Romney, John McCain and other national GOP figures.

[….]

“We are missing an opportunity,” Homan said. “The case for cities is really about following the population growth and the trends. With cities growing faster than suburbs, you have more people who are living in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas.”

Homan’s prescriptions for a revitalized urban party include firing up local GOP voters and organizations and outreach to the new class of young professionals increasingly choosing cities over suburbs and to minority voters. She points to Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Paul Ryan’s recent speeches to urban audiences — even if those voters voiced their strong disagreements.

And Homan says that urban Republicans need to educate fellow conservatives about the specific issues cities face, such as public transportation and crime.

“I don’t feel that it’s urban versus nonurban,” she said.

If the Republican Party is ever going to be able to compete at the Presidential level against the Democrats they must develop an Urban arm. There was a time the GOP was a broad based diverse party. But in recent decades the Corrupt Consultant Class led by Pig Vomit (Karl Rove) has narrowed the GOP to just rural voters and have created an anti-Urban mentality in the Party. They have manipulated Republican base voters into hating anything Urban and agreeing to write off those voters. 

 Claiming that Urbanites will never vote Republican has become a self fulfilling prophecy. Once you attack and dismiss a whole segment of voters, they are lost. The GOP has an uphill battle after 2 decades of anti-Urban rhetoric but things can change. If Republicans start competing for Urban voters, after a few cycles, these voters will realize they have other options besides the Democrats. Talking to people and making them feel welcome is a first step in winning their votes. Until the GOP develops a coherent Urban strategy, the Democrats will keep their lock on the White House.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Conservatism, Republican Party, The Political Right | 124 Comments »

2012 is not 1980 and what the Republican Party should do to adapt

by Phantom Ace ( 87 Comments › )
Filed under Anarcho-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Conservatism, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Progressives, Republican Party, Tea Parties, The Political Right at July 26th, 2012 - 8:00 am

Many Conservatives think this is 1980 all over again. I wish that was true, but I don’t think it is. Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan. He’s an Establishment Rockefeller Liberal Republican. He’s not charismatic and doesn’t unite the Right like Ronald Reagan does. Obama is nothing like Jimmy Carter. He has not faced a primary challenge. He is a charismatic demagogue who has a hold on a large segment of America. He is a symbol and a has the popular culture supporting him in a way Carter never had.  Too many Americans have their emotions invested in him, like he’s some god-king Pharoah from ancient Egypt.

America has also changed since 1980. There are more single people because of economic conditions and lifestyle choices. More Americans are dependent on the government. The Left has complete control over the popular culture due to the GOP’s dumb culture war they started in 1992. The suburbs, which were the bastions of the coalition that elected Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan have been in Democratic hands since 92, although the GOP made inroads in 2010.  There are different factors at play that should make Republicans on guard and not think this is 1980 all over again.

Republicans relish the tempting thought of history repeating itself: an incumbent Democratic president, widely perceived as a disappointment or a failure, heads into an election with seven out of every ten Americans believing the “country is in deep and serious trouble.” After dismissing his Republican challenger as an unserious joke, the hubristic incumbent loses the popular vote by a wide margin and the Electoral College by a landslide.

And just think, Republicans have been comparing Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter since 2008.

While Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is sure to enjoy the comparisons of this year’s presidential election with the one 32 years ago, Republicans shouldn’t fool themselves about the difficulty of the task before them. While it’s possible that Romney could win big, any serious examination of this race should recognize several enormous changes that have taken place in our national political environment in the past three decades, shifts that work against a repeat of Reagan’s rout of Carter.

[….]

So if the racial demographic change amounts to only a small shift in favor of the Democrats, what societal trend has helped them? The declining number of married Americans. In 1980, about 65 percent of all American adults were married; today that figure is 51 percent. Among married Americans, Obama’s job approval is a low 38 percent; among those not married, it is 54 percent.

Campaign messaging such as the Obama camp’s “Julia” ad indicates that the Democrats understand that single Americans, particularly single women, make up one of the most important groups of voters for their campaigns to mobilize. If being unmarried makes you more receptive to the Democratic party’s message, then Obama and his allies enjoy a bigger pool of persuadable voters than their counterparts did in 1980.

This is a different country than in 1980. The Democrats have realized this and instead of fighting, they have embraced it and used it to their advantage. Starting in the early 90’s Republicans have been fighting a losing culture war against trends that are outside the control of government. The result is whole swaths of voters and areas of the country that view Republicans in a negative light. Conservatives need to adapt to the times.

What The Republican Party should do.

 

It may be too late for this election but one of the reasons I am getting active in the GOP is try to change Republican culture. Family values are great and should always be part of Conservatism and the Republican message. But the Right needs to reach out to single people as well. This is where Libertarianism can come in. The core of Libertarianism is freedom and Capitalism. Most singles are attracted to images of money and greed. The GOP should run Libertarians (Not the Paulian types) and have commercials showing people with Lexuses and Yachts. At the end of the ads a voice should say: “vote Republican and you too may have this one day!” Have another commercial of a candidate vacationing in the Bahamas at a beach bar and say “If you vote for me I will help create conditions so that you can have the opportunity to make money and have a great time!” Take this Lexus commercial below.

Watch this video on YouTube.

Imagine a Republican campaign ad using this imagery. That would send a powerful message. Vote Republican so that the economic conditions give you the opportunity to drive a car like this or go to cool parties. This would attract many people who normally may not give the GOP a look.

Attracting married voters don’t need to contradict attracting single voters who are motivated by greed and a good time. In fact, both can complement each other. Family Value voters and money oriented single voters both can be sold on fiscal responsibility and economic freedom. A sound budget and good economy means families can plan for the future. It also means good job opportunities for single voters, which in turn means they will have money for nice cars and great vacations. In short the GOP should have a one two punch of Family Values Conservatism for families and Libertarianism for single people.

If the Republicans haven’t followed this 2 front approach, this could not be a repeat of 1980. It would be the Republican version of 1932 and the Democratic Party would be looking at a 20 year lockout of the White House, 80 House seats and 20 Senators.

I do think Obama will be defeated, but I don’t think it will be a slam dunk like many Conservatives think. We are dealing with a cultural phenomenon 20 years or more in the making. We are up against a symbol. Let’s not take this election for granted! Let’s do all we can to end the Pharaonic Regime!

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Anarcho-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Conservatism, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Progressives, Republican Party, Tea Parties, The Political Right | 87 Comments »

« Older Entries