I know both of my readers will be glad to hear that the blog is coming back, this Wednesday.
The blog will have a new style, namely, shorter entries. I will start with a series that identifies the areas where Libertarians and Republicans differ, and try to suggest how we can work together without trampling on each other's beliefs.
Our real enemies are the Dems, and we need to work together to destroy them, or end up living in Comrade Clinton's Happy Camps.
Be back tomorrow, with the first entry in "The Issues that Divide Us."
-Matt
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The New Style
I am going to shift from long-form essays to more frequent, but less deep posts. Occasionally, I will post another long-form essay like I have in the past, when I have one that I feel is really ready for consumption.
I want to thank the people that are still checking in regularly, all three of you. Your patience will be rewarded with much more material.
I want to thank the people that are still checking in regularly, all three of you. Your patience will be rewarded with much more material.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
McCain's Potential to Unify the Republicans
In an earlier post, I advocated voting Hillary Clinton for President in 2008. I did this because John McCain stands for everything I oppose. Except for Iraq, I disagree with him on everything, and I believe he will be a disaster for the Republican Party. Furthermore, I did this because Republicans have a serious backbone problem, and quite frequently fail to stand up to Republican presidents when they are clearly in-the-wrong. I know Republicans will stand up to Mrs. Bill Clinton.
I despise Sen. McCain. I think he is wrong on every question except the war in Iraq. However, I plan to vote for McCain in 2008.
What changed my mind? Was it Iraq? Neither Hillary or Obama is dumb enough to want to be the Democrat who lost the war in Iraq. They've said so, themselves. Was it judges? Given his past words and deeds on the issue, I don't believe he'll appoint any judges that agree with us.
I want to see him in office because he will unify Republicans against him.
We need to see Republicans retake or make real gains in the House and the Senate. Furthermore, we need to get ourselves ready for the fight ahead. If McCain wins, we have to be ready to monitor every bill and to write our Congresspeople and Senators on a weekly basis to urge them to oppose McCain's leftist policies, and filibuster his proposals if necessary. So, a few thoughts on the operation:
1.) Congressional staff tend to stack and ignore postcards and form-letters. Make sure your letter is unique.
2.) Write early. With the post-anthrax/ricin security measures in place, it takes quite some time to actually get mail to your representatives.
3.) Write with passion, but not with threats. Obviously, threatening your Representative's life is illegal, I am referring to threats that you will never vote for them again, that you will switch parties or never donate money again. Write your entire letter in a calm, rational tone and avoid profanity. When these threats are made in a letter with an emotional tone, the staff does not believe them. If they are made too-frequently, they will ignore it entirely. Save it for big issues, like global warming and amnesty. When you do make the threat, make it sound like you are reluctant to make the threat.
4.) Hand-write your letter. I know, in an age of computers, this is stupid. However, congressional staff still take letters that are hand-written more seriously than letters that are typed on a computer. Why? Because it's Congress. If they weren't dangerous lunatics, they would have real jobs. Make sure you write legibly, and if possible, print rather than use cursive.
5.) Include a complete return-address. Without a return-address, they can't respond. If they have to respond, they have to dwell on your letter longer. When there are thousands of responses they need to make, this can overwhelm them quickly, and they are just as likely to urge their candidate to fold to avoid more mail as everybody else.
Please, vote this November. Please, vote McCain. Please, please, get ready for the biggest intra-Party brawl we have ever seen. It will be rough, but it will force the Republicans to finally grow a backbone.
I despise Sen. McCain. I think he is wrong on every question except the war in Iraq. However, I plan to vote for McCain in 2008.
What changed my mind? Was it Iraq? Neither Hillary or Obama is dumb enough to want to be the Democrat who lost the war in Iraq. They've said so, themselves. Was it judges? Given his past words and deeds on the issue, I don't believe he'll appoint any judges that agree with us.
I want to see him in office because he will unify Republicans against him.
We need to see Republicans retake or make real gains in the House and the Senate. Furthermore, we need to get ourselves ready for the fight ahead. If McCain wins, we have to be ready to monitor every bill and to write our Congresspeople and Senators on a weekly basis to urge them to oppose McCain's leftist policies, and filibuster his proposals if necessary. So, a few thoughts on the operation:
1.) Congressional staff tend to stack and ignore postcards and form-letters. Make sure your letter is unique.
2.) Write early. With the post-anthrax/ricin security measures in place, it takes quite some time to actually get mail to your representatives.
3.) Write with passion, but not with threats. Obviously, threatening your Representative's life is illegal, I am referring to threats that you will never vote for them again, that you will switch parties or never donate money again. Write your entire letter in a calm, rational tone and avoid profanity. When these threats are made in a letter with an emotional tone, the staff does not believe them. If they are made too-frequently, they will ignore it entirely. Save it for big issues, like global warming and amnesty. When you do make the threat, make it sound like you are reluctant to make the threat.
4.) Hand-write your letter. I know, in an age of computers, this is stupid. However, congressional staff still take letters that are hand-written more seriously than letters that are typed on a computer. Why? Because it's Congress. If they weren't dangerous lunatics, they would have real jobs. Make sure you write legibly, and if possible, print rather than use cursive.
5.) Include a complete return-address. Without a return-address, they can't respond. If they have to respond, they have to dwell on your letter longer. When there are thousands of responses they need to make, this can overwhelm them quickly, and they are just as likely to urge their candidate to fold to avoid more mail as everybody else.
Please, vote this November. Please, vote McCain. Please, please, get ready for the biggest intra-Party brawl we have ever seen. It will be rough, but it will force the Republicans to finally grow a backbone.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Free Trade Cures Poverty: Unless You're a Democrat
Imagine that you are a poor child living in some Third World hellhole. If you haven't been sold in to slavery, prostitution, or kidnapped and forced to serve as a child soldier, chances are that you make a living in the fields or digging through city dumps for bits of metal. You probably live on less than $2 a day. (See Chart) Your family is just barely able to eat, and starvation is never more than a few days away. Since you have to work to eat, you couldn't go to school even if there was one. Your best chance at a decent life is probably joining a gang or the army, if you can tell the difference between the two. Education is not even a possibility. Your future is pretty-much hopeless.
Suddenly, a company from the United States decides to open a factory in your city. What to do? True, the hours are long. True, the wages are not what an American union member would expect. However, the hours are shorter and the money better than scrounging for metal in the dump or breaking your back in the fields. If they weren't better jobs than the ones people already held, why would they switch? In fact, these jobs offer the opportunity of a substantially higher-than-average wages to the workers who get them. In other words, they offer security against starvation, they offer the possibility of a better life where no possibility previously existed.
Now, imagine that the company in the United States faces protests from well-meaning liberals who oppose "sweatshops," like these idiots. They rant and rave about "the children" and how the Western Imperialists are exploiting the poor brown-peoples of the Third World, and demand the companies either abandon their sweatshops or pay their workers what their Western counterparts would receive.
Why did the American company want to locate a factory in your area in the first place? Certainly not because of stability. Why risk bombed buildings, riots, inflation and government takeovers in the Third World if you have to pay the same wages as you do in America? The single most-popular reason for any company to relocate abroad is for reduced labor costs. If the people in the Third World cannot offer their labor services cheaply, then they have no way of attracting jobs to their countries.
In other words, the anti-"sweatshop" protesters are condemning the Third World to poverty and starvation in the name of saving it from poverty and starvation. What's worse, the anti-sweatshop campaign has expanded to become the idea of "fair-trade." Fair Trade is the idea that buyers in the West should not only purchase products from impoverished nations, but pay more than the market price for it, make sure the producers are unionized, pay for the producer's education and the development of their homelands. Not surprisingly, the main backers of "fair-trade" are unions in the West. After all, when the cost of manufacturing here at home is the same as manufacturing in Ecuador, nobody will manufacture products in Ecuador, and the unions gain massive numbers of new members.
This movement will fail, fundamentally because the products are far-too-expensive. Take the example of Just Garments, a Salvadoran company founded specifically to serve the "fair-trade" market in 2003, which closed it's doors in 2007 because of a lack of sales. Liberals love to protest "corporate greed" and "exploitation," because it gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling of moral superiority. Unfortunately for the residents of El Salvador, they don't seem very warm and fuzzy about the prices they have to pay to see their demands met.
Unions overwhelmingly give their money (97% for AFSCME and the AFL-CIO,) to Democrats. It shows in the current Democrat Presidential candidates' positions on trade, with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed to NAFTA and CAFTA.
Libertarians and Republicans are both unquestionably on the side of free trade. The Democrats, on the other hand, demand "fair-trade" and protectionism. I've discussed the similarities between Libertarians and Republicans on economic issues before, but I want to emphasize it for a reason: Our ideological enemies are diametrically opposed to everything we believe about capitalism, property rights, free-markets and free-trade. Pick any economic (rather than social,) issue and there is absolutely no agreement between Libertarians and Democrats. Democrats don't share our belief in the value of trade, and the value of the free-market.
Economic freedom is more important, in my mind, than most of the areas where Republicans and Libertarians differ: Drugs, prostitution, abortion, etc. You will have to decide for yourself if you agree, but realize that if you vote for the Libertarian Party this November because of policy differences on crack or hookers you might be electing by default people who have no faith in free-markets, and an endless belief in the power of government.
UPDATE: Hot of the presses from the Drudge Report, Starbucks' stock price is tanking in the face of cheaper competitors. Hmmm... could it be because of multiple price increases in the wake of adopting
"fair-trade" coffee?
Suddenly, a company from the United States decides to open a factory in your city. What to do? True, the hours are long. True, the wages are not what an American union member would expect. However, the hours are shorter and the money better than scrounging for metal in the dump or breaking your back in the fields. If they weren't better jobs than the ones people already held, why would they switch? In fact, these jobs offer the opportunity of a substantially higher-than-average wages to the workers who get them. In other words, they offer security against starvation, they offer the possibility of a better life where no possibility previously existed.
Now, imagine that the company in the United States faces protests from well-meaning liberals who oppose "sweatshops," like these idiots. They rant and rave about "the children" and how the Western Imperialists are exploiting the poor brown-peoples of the Third World, and demand the companies either abandon their sweatshops or pay their workers what their Western counterparts would receive.
Why did the American company want to locate a factory in your area in the first place? Certainly not because of stability. Why risk bombed buildings, riots, inflation and government takeovers in the Third World if you have to pay the same wages as you do in America? The single most-popular reason for any company to relocate abroad is for reduced labor costs. If the people in the Third World cannot offer their labor services cheaply, then they have no way of attracting jobs to their countries.
In other words, the anti-"sweatshop" protesters are condemning the Third World to poverty and starvation in the name of saving it from poverty and starvation. What's worse, the anti-sweatshop campaign has expanded to become the idea of "fair-trade." Fair Trade is the idea that buyers in the West should not only purchase products from impoverished nations, but pay more than the market price for it, make sure the producers are unionized, pay for the producer's education and the development of their homelands. Not surprisingly, the main backers of "fair-trade" are unions in the West. After all, when the cost of manufacturing here at home is the same as manufacturing in Ecuador, nobody will manufacture products in Ecuador, and the unions gain massive numbers of new members.
This movement will fail, fundamentally because the products are far-too-expensive. Take the example of Just Garments, a Salvadoran company founded specifically to serve the "fair-trade" market in 2003, which closed it's doors in 2007 because of a lack of sales. Liberals love to protest "corporate greed" and "exploitation," because it gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling of moral superiority. Unfortunately for the residents of El Salvador, they don't seem very warm and fuzzy about the prices they have to pay to see their demands met.
Unions overwhelmingly give their money (97% for AFSCME and the AFL-CIO,) to Democrats. It shows in the current Democrat Presidential candidates' positions on trade, with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed to NAFTA and CAFTA.
Libertarians and Republicans are both unquestionably on the side of free trade. The Democrats, on the other hand, demand "fair-trade" and protectionism. I've discussed the similarities between Libertarians and Republicans on economic issues before, but I want to emphasize it for a reason: Our ideological enemies are diametrically opposed to everything we believe about capitalism, property rights, free-markets and free-trade. Pick any economic (rather than social,) issue and there is absolutely no agreement between Libertarians and Democrats. Democrats don't share our belief in the value of trade, and the value of the free-market.
Economic freedom is more important, in my mind, than most of the areas where Republicans and Libertarians differ: Drugs, prostitution, abortion, etc. You will have to decide for yourself if you agree, but realize that if you vote for the Libertarian Party this November because of policy differences on crack or hookers you might be electing by default people who have no faith in free-markets, and an endless belief in the power of government.
UPDATE: Hot of the presses from the Drudge Report, Starbucks' stock price is tanking in the face of cheaper competitors. Hmmm... could it be because of multiple price increases in the wake of adopting
"fair-trade" coffee?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The political spectrum: Line or circle?
My earlier post about the composition of Democrat voters seems to have attracted a lot of email and argument, primarily because I use the straight-line political spectrum (shown below) to illustrate my point:
<================================+===============================>
Democrat...............................Centrist............................Republican
This spectrum, as I point out in the post, is totally useless. Moving to the left does not win Republicans elections, making a clear and distinct case for conservative policies does. Democrats can win using this strategy, but only because moving to the right makes them look less like socialists.
A more disturbing criticism of this straight-line political spectrum is that the spectrum should be a circle. The idea is that when you move too-far in either direction, you arrive at dictatorship.
This idea is total nonsense. Conservative philosophy suggests that the government should stay out of our lives unless we are hurting someone else without that person's consent. It also suggests that we should be armed and ready to overthrow our government if it becomes tyrannical. Liberals argue that the government should be used to redistribute wealth involuntarily, that the government should be used to force an end to discrimination through law, and that the government can ignore laws of supply and demand and pass rent control laws and declare "gun-free zones" and that these silly ideas will work. Which one of these ideas brings us closer to fascism? Limited government or the mystical state?
The only vague similarity between fascism and conservatism is that conservatives believe in the defense of their country. Carrying conservative ideas to their extreme results in more freedom, not less.
What we need is a Statism index. At one end you will find Republicans, anarchists and libertarians. At the other, you will find John McCain, Democrats, communists and fascists.
<================================+===============================>
Democrat...............................Centrist............................Republican
This spectrum, as I point out in the post, is totally useless. Moving to the left does not win Republicans elections, making a clear and distinct case for conservative policies does. Democrats can win using this strategy, but only because moving to the right makes them look less like socialists.
A more disturbing criticism of this straight-line political spectrum is that the spectrum should be a circle. The idea is that when you move too-far in either direction, you arrive at dictatorship.
This idea is total nonsense. Conservative philosophy suggests that the government should stay out of our lives unless we are hurting someone else without that person's consent. It also suggests that we should be armed and ready to overthrow our government if it becomes tyrannical. Liberals argue that the government should be used to redistribute wealth involuntarily, that the government should be used to force an end to discrimination through law, and that the government can ignore laws of supply and demand and pass rent control laws and declare "gun-free zones" and that these silly ideas will work. Which one of these ideas brings us closer to fascism? Limited government or the mystical state?
The only vague similarity between fascism and conservatism is that conservatives believe in the defense of their country. Carrying conservative ideas to their extreme results in more freedom, not less.
What we need is a Statism index. At one end you will find Republicans, anarchists and libertarians. At the other, you will find John McCain, Democrats, communists and fascists.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Islamofascism and Isolationism
Isolationism is the doctrine that if we leave our enemies alone, they will have no reason to interfere with us, and will leave us alone. Isolationism can work. However, it can only work under very specific circumstances. First, we have to have sufficient firepower to beat any potential enemy. Second, we have to display sufficient willpower to use it. Third, our enemies have to have a rational fear of the consequences of our weapons being used against them and their countries.
The first point is not in doubt when we discuss the United States. We could nuke any country on Earth in to oblivion dozens of times over. We have the most powerful military in the world by far, and could invade and conquer almost any nation we chose if we were so inclined. Thankfully, we are not. I'll steal a line from Colin Powell: "We have sent men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States throughout the world in the past century to put down oppression... And did we ask for any land? No. The only land we asked for was enough land to bury our dead.."
Firepower is useless for the purposes of deterrence if your enemies believe that you lack the will to use it. Osama bin Laden himself came to believe this after the Black Hawk Down episode in Somalia, and said as much on Frontline: "[O]our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press... After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them." In other words, running away has consequences on the way people perceive us. Somalia was a minor intervention, where we had little to no interest in interfering, and invested very little pride and prestige. Iraq, on the other hand, is a big deal. If we run away, after all of these years, what will the OBL's of the world think? Just keep fighting for a few years, my fellow mujahadeen, and the infidels will run! They do not have the stamina for casualties...
This cannot be allowed to happen if the American military is going to maintain any sort of credibility as a threat in the eyes of our enemies. If isolationist sentiments win, and we run from Iraq, neither enemies nor allies will fear or respect us for decades. We will be the new French.
The third, and perhaps most important factor, is that the enemy has to have a rational fear of the consequences if we unleash our firepower on their country/group. In other words: Our enemies have to want to live. The Soviet Union never attacked us with atom bombs primarily because it's leaders wanted to live, and because they knew that they would be the leaders of a pile of slag at the end of a nuclear exchange. Al Qaeda suicide bombers are motivated by something different: They want to die as martyrs, and believe that they are fulfilling a religious duty by blowing up innocent civilians. Moreover, they tend not to worry if their fellow Muslims are killed in response because they too will go on to be honored in Heaven as martyrs.
How do you deter somebody who does not fear their death or the death of others? You don't. You stop them beforehand, by pursuing the people who fund, train and equip them.
Of course, isolationists regularly suggest that the reason Islamofascists are mad at the United States is because we are over in their part of the world interfering with their countries. This is total nonsense. As Daniel Pipes noted in this post, the terrorists from bin Laden to the man who slaughtered Theo van Gogh have made their goals and motivations clear: They want to restore the caliphate, and submit the world to the rule of Islam. Those who do not submit will be killed.
There is no negotiation with people who follow this sort of ideology. What do we offer? We let them kill half of us and leave the rest of us alone? Islamofascism is driven by a religious obligation to convert the world, and kill those who refuse. Furthermore, they don't care if they or anybody else die in the process. They will not leave us alone until we are either dead or praying to Allah.
Knowing that they will continue to pursue us, we have to recognize a few realities if we decide to retreat inside the walls of Fortress America. If we retreat, we cede the initiative to the terrorists. We let them train and plot in private, and decide when and how to strike. We will have to prepare everywhere to stop them, and add layer upon layer of security to our daily lives. Expect regular pat-downs, metal detectors and bag searches at every bus and train station. Expect a rectal probe before you get on a plane. Expect more confiscations of eyeglass screwdrivers and fuzzy handcuffs.
If you are a Libertarian because you want to see liberty expand, ask yourself: How can liberty expand in an environment like that? How can a nation that is no-longer feared across the globe, and still pursued by its enemies here at home ever hope to increase freedom in the face of constant danger from an enemy that will not let us run away? In my mind, it can't. The only logical answer is to pursue the terrorists abroad, destroy their safe-havens, freeze their bank accounts, listen to their phone calls, assassinate their leaders and bomb their training camps to dust.
The first point is not in doubt when we discuss the United States. We could nuke any country on Earth in to oblivion dozens of times over. We have the most powerful military in the world by far, and could invade and conquer almost any nation we chose if we were so inclined. Thankfully, we are not. I'll steal a line from Colin Powell: "We have sent men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States throughout the world in the past century to put down oppression... And did we ask for any land? No. The only land we asked for was enough land to bury our dead.."
Firepower is useless for the purposes of deterrence if your enemies believe that you lack the will to use it. Osama bin Laden himself came to believe this after the Black Hawk Down episode in Somalia, and said as much on Frontline: "[O]our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press... After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them." In other words, running away has consequences on the way people perceive us. Somalia was a minor intervention, where we had little to no interest in interfering, and invested very little pride and prestige. Iraq, on the other hand, is a big deal. If we run away, after all of these years, what will the OBL's of the world think? Just keep fighting for a few years, my fellow mujahadeen, and the infidels will run! They do not have the stamina for casualties...
This cannot be allowed to happen if the American military is going to maintain any sort of credibility as a threat in the eyes of our enemies. If isolationist sentiments win, and we run from Iraq, neither enemies nor allies will fear or respect us for decades. We will be the new French.
The third, and perhaps most important factor, is that the enemy has to have a rational fear of the consequences if we unleash our firepower on their country/group. In other words: Our enemies have to want to live. The Soviet Union never attacked us with atom bombs primarily because it's leaders wanted to live, and because they knew that they would be the leaders of a pile of slag at the end of a nuclear exchange. Al Qaeda suicide bombers are motivated by something different: They want to die as martyrs, and believe that they are fulfilling a religious duty by blowing up innocent civilians. Moreover, they tend not to worry if their fellow Muslims are killed in response because they too will go on to be honored in Heaven as martyrs.
How do you deter somebody who does not fear their death or the death of others? You don't. You stop them beforehand, by pursuing the people who fund, train and equip them.
Of course, isolationists regularly suggest that the reason Islamofascists are mad at the United States is because we are over in their part of the world interfering with their countries. This is total nonsense. As Daniel Pipes noted in this post, the terrorists from bin Laden to the man who slaughtered Theo van Gogh have made their goals and motivations clear: They want to restore the caliphate, and submit the world to the rule of Islam. Those who do not submit will be killed.
There is no negotiation with people who follow this sort of ideology. What do we offer? We let them kill half of us and leave the rest of us alone? Islamofascism is driven by a religious obligation to convert the world, and kill those who refuse. Furthermore, they don't care if they or anybody else die in the process. They will not leave us alone until we are either dead or praying to Allah.
Knowing that they will continue to pursue us, we have to recognize a few realities if we decide to retreat inside the walls of Fortress America. If we retreat, we cede the initiative to the terrorists. We let them train and plot in private, and decide when and how to strike. We will have to prepare everywhere to stop them, and add layer upon layer of security to our daily lives. Expect regular pat-downs, metal detectors and bag searches at every bus and train station. Expect a rectal probe before you get on a plane. Expect more confiscations of eyeglass screwdrivers and fuzzy handcuffs.
If you are a Libertarian because you want to see liberty expand, ask yourself: How can liberty expand in an environment like that? How can a nation that is no-longer feared across the globe, and still pursued by its enemies here at home ever hope to increase freedom in the face of constant danger from an enemy that will not let us run away? In my mind, it can't. The only logical answer is to pursue the terrorists abroad, destroy their safe-havens, freeze their bank accounts, listen to their phone calls, assassinate their leaders and bomb their training camps to dust.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Libertarian's Chance
The all-but-official nomination of Sen. John McCain as the Republican candidate for the presidency has created an unrivaled opportunity for the Libertarian Party, assuming that Libertarians are willing to nominate somebody who believes in a strong national defense.
Conservative Republicans are stuck with a nominee who might as well be a Democrat, as I wrote in my last post. McCain is so unpopular with conservatives that CPAC had to ask registrants not to boo the presumptive nominee. He is so unpopular with Rush Limbaugh that he has suggested that he might not be able to support him, and said specifically that he thinks that McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican party. Other talk-show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt have said much the same thing. Ann Coulter has said that she would work to see Hillary Clinton elected rather than John McCain. Zogby polling data from Supper-di-duper Tuesday show that 8/10 conservative Republicans voted for somebody other than McCain.
In my experience, many of those Republicans who support McCain use 'he can win' as the justification for their vote, rather than 'I support him because of _________." A victory is hollow if it means that the opposite of everything you believe in will be implemented by the winner. A base that is so alienated that it is either holding its nose or getting ready to defect will not turn out on election day. The Republicans should have learned this lesson in 2006, as a base battered by the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, a president that refuses to mount even an elementary defense of his own policies in Iraq and at home, and a congress that was only outspent by F.D.R. and L.B.J. decided to stay home.
These disaffected people are almost all big supporters of limited government, strict constructionist judges and a strong national defense. The Libertarian Party, as currently constituted, can provide two out of three of these. With the nomination of a candidate that supports the defense of the United States, rather than impractical isolationism, the Libertarian Party could get the disaffected conservative voter.
In previous posts, I have suggested that voting for a third party never works. I don't think it will work here, either. However, if the Libertarians ran a pro-war candidate, it would clear up one of the biggest questions that stands in the way of sending a message: What does a vote for the Libertarian Party mean? Voting Libertarian, particularly in a time of war, sends a mixed message. Are you voting Libertarian because you are an isolationist? Are you voting Libertarian because you want abortion legal? Are you voting Libertarian because you want a real reduction in the size of government? Running a pro-war Libertarian would clear up the confusion, and point clearly in the direction of limited government. Given McCain's questionable stances on abortion and judges, the abortion issue would be nullified. Voting Libertarian would send a clear and obvious message to the Republicans that you want to see government shrink, rather than regulate carbon emissions and free speech, while refusing to enforce immigration laws.
Finally, I would urge the Libertarian Party to consider what this influx of new voters would mean for their electoral future. The 2005 Pew Research Center Study, Beyond Red vs. Blue, indicates that conservative voters (called "Enterprisers,") make up 10% of regular voters. Libertarian voters accounted for 0.32% of the national vote count in 2004. If Libertarians could capture a little less than one Enterpriser in 30, they could DOUBLE their percentage of the vote.
DOUBLE. With 1/30th of the Enterpriser vote. The number of Republicans out there who are unwilling to support McCain is more like one-in-ten.
The Libertarians face a choice: Abandon isolationism, and become a real political force, or keep it and remain in the backwaters of American politics.
Carpe diem, Libertarians...
Conservative Republicans are stuck with a nominee who might as well be a Democrat, as I wrote in my last post. McCain is so unpopular with conservatives that CPAC had to ask registrants not to boo the presumptive nominee. He is so unpopular with Rush Limbaugh that he has suggested that he might not be able to support him, and said specifically that he thinks that McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican party. Other talk-show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt have said much the same thing. Ann Coulter has said that she would work to see Hillary Clinton elected rather than John McCain. Zogby polling data from Supper-di-duper Tuesday show that 8/10 conservative Republicans voted for somebody other than McCain.
In my experience, many of those Republicans who support McCain use 'he can win' as the justification for their vote, rather than 'I support him because of _________." A victory is hollow if it means that the opposite of everything you believe in will be implemented by the winner. A base that is so alienated that it is either holding its nose or getting ready to defect will not turn out on election day. The Republicans should have learned this lesson in 2006, as a base battered by the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, a president that refuses to mount even an elementary defense of his own policies in Iraq and at home, and a congress that was only outspent by F.D.R. and L.B.J. decided to stay home.
These disaffected people are almost all big supporters of limited government, strict constructionist judges and a strong national defense. The Libertarian Party, as currently constituted, can provide two out of three of these. With the nomination of a candidate that supports the defense of the United States, rather than impractical isolationism, the Libertarian Party could get the disaffected conservative voter.
In previous posts, I have suggested that voting for a third party never works. I don't think it will work here, either. However, if the Libertarians ran a pro-war candidate, it would clear up one of the biggest questions that stands in the way of sending a message: What does a vote for the Libertarian Party mean? Voting Libertarian, particularly in a time of war, sends a mixed message. Are you voting Libertarian because you are an isolationist? Are you voting Libertarian because you want abortion legal? Are you voting Libertarian because you want a real reduction in the size of government? Running a pro-war Libertarian would clear up the confusion, and point clearly in the direction of limited government. Given McCain's questionable stances on abortion and judges, the abortion issue would be nullified. Voting Libertarian would send a clear and obvious message to the Republicans that you want to see government shrink, rather than regulate carbon emissions and free speech, while refusing to enforce immigration laws.
Finally, I would urge the Libertarian Party to consider what this influx of new voters would mean for their electoral future. The 2005 Pew Research Center Study, Beyond Red vs. Blue, indicates that conservative voters (called "Enterprisers,") make up 10% of regular voters. Libertarian voters accounted for 0.32% of the national vote count in 2004. If Libertarians could capture a little less than one Enterpriser in 30, they could DOUBLE their percentage of the vote.
DOUBLE. With 1/30th of the Enterpriser vote. The number of Republicans out there who are unwilling to support McCain is more like one-in-ten.
The Libertarians face a choice: Abandon isolationism, and become a real political force, or keep it and remain in the backwaters of American politics.
Carpe diem, Libertarians...
Monday, February 4, 2008
Vote Hillary '08: If McCain Wins
John McCain believes in amnesty, and will not rule out amnesty in the event that he is elected. He claims that he will build "the goddamn fence" at the border, but is heading an effort to avoid funding it. He believes that government should regulate every corner of our economy by capping carbon emissions. He joined liberals in giving the government the authority to regulate political speech. He led the Gang of Fourteen, demanding that Republicans nominate judges that do not wear their conservatism on their sleeves. He opposes organizations run to produce a profit rather than for the purpose of patriotism. He opposes tax cuts that target those that actually pay taxes. He considers evangelical leaders to be "agents of intolerance," and accuses them of turning religion in to business. Finally, McCain opposes and supports oil independence and ANWR in apparently equal measure.
Aside from these minor disagreements, he considers himself a Reagan Republican. This, after a paragraph greener than Al Gore. (Kudos, to my Dad for that line...)
In my previous posts, I have strongly urged libertarians and Libertarians alike not to vote for a third party and to examine the values of both parties, and ask which party values individual responsibility and freedom. Both of these posts assume that the candidate for the Republican Party actually represents a Republican.
John McCain does not. He is a Democrat who somehow ended up with an 'R' after his name. He is diametrically opposed to everything that a classic liberal values and believes. In the event that today's election produces a McCain nomination, I would strongly urge all libertarian Republicans and Libertarians in general to either vote Libertarian or for the Democrats.
Why? If McCain is nominated, there is no Republican nominee. However, Republicans will inevitably get the blame for whatever nonsense McCain pulls. If Hillary is elected, the Democrats get the blame, and there is still the possibility of a Reagan in 2012.
The Republican Party is, for the foreseeable future, the only viable political coalition that can get our ideas implemented. By the time McCain is done wreaking his havoc, that Party will revert to the permanent underdog status it enjoyed from 1938-1980. America cannot afford another 42 years of socialism. Vote Hillary, or vote Libertarian. Either option is better than letting this madman get anywhere near the White House.
Aside from these minor disagreements, he considers himself a Reagan Republican. This, after a paragraph greener than Al Gore. (Kudos, to my Dad for that line...)
In my previous posts, I have strongly urged libertarians and Libertarians alike not to vote for a third party and to examine the values of both parties, and ask which party values individual responsibility and freedom. Both of these posts assume that the candidate for the Republican Party actually represents a Republican.
John McCain does not. He is a Democrat who somehow ended up with an 'R' after his name. He is diametrically opposed to everything that a classic liberal values and believes. In the event that today's election produces a McCain nomination, I would strongly urge all libertarian Republicans and Libertarians in general to either vote Libertarian or for the Democrats.
Why? If McCain is nominated, there is no Republican nominee. However, Republicans will inevitably get the blame for whatever nonsense McCain pulls. If Hillary is elected, the Democrats get the blame, and there is still the possibility of a Reagan in 2012.
The Republican Party is, for the foreseeable future, the only viable political coalition that can get our ideas implemented. By the time McCain is done wreaking his havoc, that Party will revert to the permanent underdog status it enjoyed from 1938-1980. America cannot afford another 42 years of socialism. Vote Hillary, or vote Libertarian. Either option is better than letting this madman get anywhere near the White House.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
What will voting for a third party accomplish?
When voters feel disenfranchised by the Big Two, they tend to either stay home or vote for a third party. A lot of libertarians became Libertarians because they got tired of Republican moralizing and Democrat socialism. However, this behavior is counterproductive. Voting Libertarian almost never results in electing a candidate, or a workable majority in any legislative body. Voting Libertarian does not send a message. Perhaps most damagingly, voting Libertarian generally benefits the left. If libertarians and Libertarians want their voices heard, they need to pick a party, and vote en masse.
How have the Libertarians fared in elections? Libertarians have had some success in the past at the level of state legislatures, getting 12 of their members elected, but there are not currently any Libertarian state legislators serving. Most of the Libertarian candidates in office were either appointed to their positions, or were elected to nonpartisan offices. The largest number of Libertarians that have even held public office was 311, after the 2002 elections. However, these numbers obscure some important facts: Libertarians have never elected a Congressperson, Senator or President. More important, perhaps, is the fact that outside of a few small towns, Libertarians do not hold electoral majorities anywhere in the country.
Libertarians who run as Republicans have been elected, but none who run as candidates for the Libertarian Party. In fact, the Republicans have an official Republican Liberty Caucus (or get the condensed version here.) The big names in the RLC include Ron Paul, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake and, prior to his resignation, Mark Foley. These guys get elected because they are running within an established party that agrees with them on almost everything.
How about sending a message with your vote for the Libertarians that you are tired of the same old left-right tug of war and want something different? It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work. As I mentioned in an earlier post, both political parties view the political "middle" as the ground where votes can be found. Consider these numbers, and you will see why:
Now, think about where the three third party candidates fit on the political spectrum that frames the thinking of party leadership. Badnarik would probably be placed on the right side of the spectrum, whereas Nader and Cobb would go on the left. In order to capture the votes of Libertarians, Republicans would have to make a real lunge to the right, and actually stick to their belief in limited government. In order to capture Greens and Nader voters, Democrats would have to lunge left. In the process, both parties would have to abandon the political "middle," which makes up approximately 30% of voters. Why would any Republican in his right mind lurch to the right to capture a portion of .38% of the voting public when they can shift left, and vie for a large portion of that 30%?
As I stated in the previous post, I think the idea that Republicans can gather more votes by going mushy and moving left is absurd, but it really is how party leaders think. So far as the RNC is concerned, a Libertarian voter is simply not worth pursuing because it will lose them far more voters in the middle.
Moreover, voting Libertarian sends an ambiguous message, especially in a time of war. Are you voting Libertarian because you are opposed to Iraq, because you want drugs legalized, or because you want to vote for somebody who really believes in limited government? If you want to send a message, write a letter. Voting Libertarian does not send a message that can be interpreted with any certainty, so it might as well be encrypted.
Finally, ask yourself what will happen if you vote Libertarian in a close race? Consider these results from Florida in 2000:
According to the FEC's Official Election Results.
537 votes decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush. That number amounts to 0.009% of the total votes cast in Florida. Had the weather been slightly different, had phone banks gone down in a precinct or two, had a few more polling places had difficulties with ballots or machines, the entire election could have gone a different way. Now take a look at the various third party candidates, and you will see why the Dems were so furious with Nader after the 2000 election. Had those 97,421 votes gone to Gore, he would have been elected overwhelmingly. The votes cast by Libertarians for Harry Browne could have given George W. Bush a similar, if smaller, lead.
The Libertarian candidate for President will not be elected any time soon. Knowing this, are you still content to cast your ballot for a person you know will lose, and do so overwhelmingly? Would it be better to cast a vote on a sure loser, or to vote for the party that agrees with you more often than not?
I will only ask the questions, the answers are for you to provide. However, I would urge you to review this post before you do so.
UPDATE: Apparently, the Libertarians held 600 appointed and elected positions in government as of 2003. I think this is new material for their 'History' page, but I may have simply missed it when I wrote the post. Either way, I got it wrong, and I apologize to both of my readers.
How have the Libertarians fared in elections? Libertarians have had some success in the past at the level of state legislatures, getting 12 of their members elected, but there are not currently any Libertarian state legislators serving. Most of the Libertarian candidates in office were either appointed to their positions, or were elected to nonpartisan offices. The largest number of Libertarians that have even held public office was 311, after the 2002 elections. However, these numbers obscure some important facts: Libertarians have never elected a Congressperson, Senator or President. More important, perhaps, is the fact that outside of a few small towns, Libertarians do not hold electoral majorities anywhere in the country.
Libertarians who run as Republicans have been elected, but none who run as candidates for the Libertarian Party. In fact, the Republicans have an official Republican Liberty Caucus (or get the condensed version here.) The big names in the RLC include Ron Paul, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake and, prior to his resignation, Mark Foley. These guys get elected because they are running within an established party that agrees with them on almost everything.
How about sending a message with your vote for the Libertarians that you are tired of the same old left-right tug of war and want something different? It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work. As I mentioned in an earlier post, both political parties view the political "middle" as the ground where votes can be found. Consider these numbers, and you will see why:
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % of Total |
| George W. Bush | Republican | 62,040,610 | 50.73 |
| John F. Kerry | Democrat | 59,028,444 | 40.27 |
| Ralph Nader | Independent | 465,650 | 0.38 |
| Michael Badnarik | Libertarian | 397,265 | 0.32 |
| David Cobb | Green | 119,859 | 0.096 |
Now, think about where the three third party candidates fit on the political spectrum that frames the thinking of party leadership. Badnarik would probably be placed on the right side of the spectrum, whereas Nader and Cobb would go on the left. In order to capture the votes of Libertarians, Republicans would have to make a real lunge to the right, and actually stick to their belief in limited government. In order to capture Greens and Nader voters, Democrats would have to lunge left. In the process, both parties would have to abandon the political "middle," which makes up approximately 30% of voters. Why would any Republican in his right mind lurch to the right to capture a portion of .38% of the voting public when they can shift left, and vie for a large portion of that 30%?
As I stated in the previous post, I think the idea that Republicans can gather more votes by going mushy and moving left is absurd, but it really is how party leaders think. So far as the RNC is concerned, a Libertarian voter is simply not worth pursuing because it will lose them far more voters in the middle.
Moreover, voting Libertarian sends an ambiguous message, especially in a time of war. Are you voting Libertarian because you are opposed to Iraq, because you want drugs legalized, or because you want to vote for somebody who really believes in limited government? If you want to send a message, write a letter. Voting Libertarian does not send a message that can be interpreted with any certainty, so it might as well be encrypted.
Finally, ask yourself what will happen if you vote Libertarian in a close race? Consider these results from Florida in 2000:
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % of Total |
| George W. Bush | Republican | 2,912,790 | 48.847 |
| Algore | Democrat | 2,912,253 | 48.838 |
| Ralph Nader | Green | 97,421 | 1.634 |
| Pat Buchannan | Reform | 17,484 | 0.293 |
| Harry Browne | Libertarian | 16,415 | 0.275 |
537 votes decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush. That number amounts to 0.009% of the total votes cast in Florida. Had the weather been slightly different, had phone banks gone down in a precinct or two, had a few more polling places had difficulties with ballots or machines, the entire election could have gone a different way. Now take a look at the various third party candidates, and you will see why the Dems were so furious with Nader after the 2000 election. Had those 97,421 votes gone to Gore, he would have been elected overwhelmingly. The votes cast by Libertarians for Harry Browne could have given George W. Bush a similar, if smaller, lead.
The Libertarian candidate for President will not be elected any time soon. Knowing this, are you still content to cast your ballot for a person you know will lose, and do so overwhelmingly? Would it be better to cast a vote on a sure loser, or to vote for the party that agrees with you more often than not?
I will only ask the questions, the answers are for you to provide. However, I would urge you to review this post before you do so.
UPDATE: Apparently, the Libertarians held 600 appointed and elected positions in government as of 2003. I think this is new material for their 'History' page, but I may have simply missed it when I wrote the post. Either way, I got it wrong, and I apologize to both of my readers.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Two questions to ask yourself before voting
When libertarians cast their ballot this November, I would urge them to ask themselves two questions: Who shares my view of the world? Will voting for a third party candidate send a message, or risk electing somebody who is totally antithetical to my beliefs? This blog entry will deal with the first question. My next entry will deal with the second.
The Pew Research Center conducted a study of the electorate in 2005, and the results show real differences in the ways that Democrats and Republicans view the world. The study divided each group in to three separate subgroups (the actual descriptions from the study can be found here):
Democrats:
------------------------
1) Liberals (19% of Registered Voters): The hardcore lefties. Liberal on social issues, want to raise taxes and expand government until we can't poop without a permit.
2) Conservative Democrats (15% of Registered Voters): FDR Democrats. Conservative on social issues, generally favor welfare.
3) Disadvantaged Democrats (10% of Registered Voters): Poor Democrats. Very anti-business, very pro-welfare.
Republicans
------------------------
1) Enterprisers (10% of Registered Voters): Free trade, low taxes, small government, strong foreign policy.
2) Social Conservatives (13% of registered Voters): Conservative on social issues and welfare, otherwise moderate.
3) Pro-Government Conservatives (10% of Registered Voters): Poor republicans. Religious, tend to support more government help for the needy.
And now, a few comparisons:
A minimum of 65% of all Democrat groups wants government-run health care. A maximum of 65% of Pro-Government Republicans wants Hillarycare on the right. Only one-fifth of Enterprisers want to see government-run health care. (Here) Given that the health sector accounts for around 1/8 of our economy, the desire to nationalize it (de facto, if not de jure,) says a lot about what the Democrat Party thinks about the private sector.
This anti-private sector trend continues in the area of welfare. All Democrat groups favor a large expansion of the welfare state in several areas. Amongst Republicans, both Enterprisers and Social Conservatives are strongly opposed to more spending on the poor, and Pro-Government conservatives are in favor of more spending. (Here) These statistics support the findings of Arthur Brooks, in his book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism that discovered that conservatives from every income class gave more money than liberals to charities, and worked more hours as a volunteer. Republicans clearly have more faith in the ability of private charity to solve problems than they do in government intervention.
Quite possibly the most important statistics come from the comparison of two very similar groups, the Disadvantaged Democrats and the Pro-Government Conservatives. Both are largely poor, Only 14% of Disadvantaged Democrats believe that people can get ahead in life through hard work, and only 44% believe that everyone has the power to succeed. 76% of Pro-Government Conservatives believe that hard work will let you get ahead, and 86% believe that everybody can succeed. Pro-Government Conservatives believe that they can get ahead in life through their own efforts. Disadvantaged Democrats do not.
The responses of the Democrats clearly demonstrate that they have little faith in the ability of the private sector to solve problems without government intervention, and that they do not believe that individuals can determine their own future. Republicans, across the board, not only believe in the individual and the private sector: They put their money where their mouths are.
For a moment, leave aside the questions of abortion, gay marriage and foreign affairs and ask yourself: Which party really believes in the individual and the private sector? Which side shares my most fundamental values?
The Pew Research Center conducted a study of the electorate in 2005, and the results show real differences in the ways that Democrats and Republicans view the world. The study divided each group in to three separate subgroups (the actual descriptions from the study can be found here):
Democrats:
------------------------
1) Liberals (19% of Registered Voters): The hardcore lefties. Liberal on social issues, want to raise taxes and expand government until we can't poop without a permit.
2) Conservative Democrats (15% of Registered Voters): FDR Democrats. Conservative on social issues, generally favor welfare.
3) Disadvantaged Democrats (10% of Registered Voters): Poor Democrats. Very anti-business, very pro-welfare.
Republicans
------------------------
1) Enterprisers (10% of Registered Voters): Free trade, low taxes, small government, strong foreign policy.
2) Social Conservatives (13% of registered Voters): Conservative on social issues and welfare, otherwise moderate.
3) Pro-Government Conservatives (10% of Registered Voters): Poor republicans. Religious, tend to support more government help for the needy.
And now, a few comparisons:
A minimum of 65% of all Democrat groups wants government-run health care. A maximum of 65% of Pro-Government Republicans wants Hillarycare on the right. Only one-fifth of Enterprisers want to see government-run health care. (Here) Given that the health sector accounts for around 1/8 of our economy, the desire to nationalize it (de facto, if not de jure,) says a lot about what the Democrat Party thinks about the private sector.
This anti-private sector trend continues in the area of welfare. All Democrat groups favor a large expansion of the welfare state in several areas. Amongst Republicans, both Enterprisers and Social Conservatives are strongly opposed to more spending on the poor, and Pro-Government conservatives are in favor of more spending. (Here) These statistics support the findings of Arthur Brooks, in his book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism that discovered that conservatives from every income class gave more money than liberals to charities, and worked more hours as a volunteer. Republicans clearly have more faith in the ability of private charity to solve problems than they do in government intervention.
Quite possibly the most important statistics come from the comparison of two very similar groups, the Disadvantaged Democrats and the Pro-Government Conservatives. Both are largely poor, Only 14% of Disadvantaged Democrats believe that people can get ahead in life through hard work, and only 44% believe that everyone has the power to succeed. 76% of Pro-Government Conservatives believe that hard work will let you get ahead, and 86% believe that everybody can succeed. Pro-Government Conservatives believe that they can get ahead in life through their own efforts. Disadvantaged Democrats do not.
The responses of the Democrats clearly demonstrate that they have little faith in the ability of the private sector to solve problems without government intervention, and that they do not believe that individuals can determine their own future. Republicans, across the board, not only believe in the individual and the private sector: They put their money where their mouths are.
For a moment, leave aside the questions of abortion, gay marriage and foreign affairs and ask yourself: Which party really believes in the individual and the private sector? Which side shares my most fundamental values?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Fred Thompson: We barely knew ye.
When I heard Fred Thompson might get in to the race, I almost had to change my shorts.
Fred Thompson was a man who had a uniformly conservative voting record that spanned his whole time in office. With the sole exception of his vote for McCain-Feingold, Thompson was essentially the perfect candidate. He had experience speaking in the Senate, as well as his acting experience, and I was sure that if anybody could make the case for conservative policies, it was Fred.
Unfortunately, Fred Thompson ran a lackluster campaign, and put all of his eggs in one basket: South Carolina. His speeches were uninspiring, and his campaign ads were full of empty rhetoric. His debate performances improved towards the end, but most were so halfhearted that he probably turned more people off with them than he won.
I have seen Fred Thompson give a good speech. I know he can do it. Why he did not do so during the campaign, I cannot say.
Were I conspiracy-minded, I would suggest that he was a spoiler for McCain, intended to draw support from Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in the key early contests. However, I honestly can't bring myself to accuse Sen. Thompson of doing this. He's a good man, and given that his record is almost diametrically opposed to McCain's, I can't imagine that Fred would want to see him elected.
Que sera sera. Good luck, Senator, in whatever you pursue next.
Looking to the future, good luck Governor Romney! You are now the last conservative standing. I suppose I would turn out to vote if Rudy gets the nomination, but McCain or Huckabee? Not a chance. In the event that either one of those two R.I.N.O.'s gets the nod, I will be interested to see how many conservatives feel the same way...
Fred Thompson was a man who had a uniformly conservative voting record that spanned his whole time in office. With the sole exception of his vote for McCain-Feingold, Thompson was essentially the perfect candidate. He had experience speaking in the Senate, as well as his acting experience, and I was sure that if anybody could make the case for conservative policies, it was Fred.
Unfortunately, Fred Thompson ran a lackluster campaign, and put all of his eggs in one basket: South Carolina. His speeches were uninspiring, and his campaign ads were full of empty rhetoric. His debate performances improved towards the end, but most were so halfhearted that he probably turned more people off with them than he won.
I have seen Fred Thompson give a good speech. I know he can do it. Why he did not do so during the campaign, I cannot say.
Were I conspiracy-minded, I would suggest that he was a spoiler for McCain, intended to draw support from Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in the key early contests. However, I honestly can't bring myself to accuse Sen. Thompson of doing this. He's a good man, and given that his record is almost diametrically opposed to McCain's, I can't imagine that Fred would want to see him elected.
Que sera sera. Good luck, Senator, in whatever you pursue next.
Looking to the future, good luck Governor Romney! You are now the last conservative standing. I suppose I would turn out to vote if Rudy gets the nomination, but McCain or Huckabee? Not a chance. In the event that either one of those two R.I.N.O.'s gets the nod, I will be interested to see how many conservatives feel the same way...
Monday, January 21, 2008
Who votes for the Democrats, and what impact does it have on Republican strategy?
The diagram that we all learn in Political Science 101 for the "political spectrum" in America goes something like this:
<================================+===============================>
Democrat...............................Centrist............................Republican
Pretty simple, right? It also makes election strategies simple: Move to the wings for primaries, move to the center for the general. Moreover, by moving your party as a whole to the center, you can get more votes!
However, when Republicans move to the center, it never works. Why not? The diagram suggests that moving the Republican Party to a centrist or center-left position on the spectrum ought to grab Republicans all sorts of extra votes. Yet, when Republicans have moved to the left (2006 rings a bell,) they lose, dramatically. When Republicans move to the right, as Ronald Reagan did, they win huge victories. Republicans that want to move the party to the left on questions like spending and social concerns are missing the point: Democrats will never vote for Diet Democrats, and Centrists will never vote for somebody who stands for nothing.
In order to help my fellow Republicans understand why Democrats vote the way they vote, and what can be done to steal some of these voters, I humbly offer this analysis of the four different groups of Democrats:
1) The Welfare Royalty: Welfare Kings and Queens vote for the candidate who will give them the most government money with the fewest strings attached. I include Social Security/Medicare voters, Trial Lawyers, union members and leaders, and anybody who gets an AFDC check in this category. Each one of these groups relies on Democrats for their meal ticket, at the moment, and will not abandon them until somebody offers them more money.
Why can't Republicans get the Welfare Royalty vote? If you don't have to worry about the calories (i.e. your taxes being raised,) then why drink Diet Generic Cola when they can have Generic Cola Classic? Unless Republicans abandon all spending restraint, and embark on a decades-long binge, they will never convince Welfare Royalty to vote for them. In the meantime, the base will grumble about the monetary wisdom of intoxicated sailors every time they see the budget figures, and justifiably stay home on election day.
2) The Special Privilege Separatists: The Special Privilege Separatists could be women, minorities, illegal immigrants, etc. They are members of groups that want special treatment from the government. Affirmative Action is probably the best example. It is a privileged status afforded to blacks because bad things were done to their ancestors. Illegal aliens suggest that our government is oppressive and racist because it occasionally deports people who are here illegally. Illegal aliens demand amnesty for coming here illegally, living here illegally, emptying the welfare purses nationwide, shutting down hospital emergency rooms with their demands for medical care, and for stealing Social Security Numbers and screwing up the credit of millions of people. Young women demand the right to kill unborn children so that they can avoid the inconvenience of adopting them out.
Republicans tend to believe in ideas like equality before the law, and the rule of law. Why would a working woman or a black man vote for a Party that has pledged to take away their special privileges? Why would an illegal alien vote for a Party that (might,) enforce the law and deport them? Republicans cannot get the votes from Special Privilege Separatists until there is a widespread recognition that these special privileges may not be deserved, may provoke resentment, and lead to these groups being perceived as "tokens" and unqualified for the positions they hold. We cannot grab this group immediately, but we can certainly oppose amnesty and avoid importing millions of new Democrats from Mexico.
3) The Compassion Fascists: Compassion Fascists are people who vote Democrat because of the warm, fuzzy feeling they get for doing so. Another important reason for their vote is the warm, fuzzy feeling they get from others. They perceive the Democrat Party as the Party of compassion, the Party that cares about the poor, minorities, and the environment. They parrot what they read in the New York Times and what they hear from Chris Matthews to win approval as an enlightened cosmopolitan from their fellow cocktail party attendees. Their affiliation with the Democrat Party has nothing to do with rational thought or evaluation of their positions, it is an emotional reaction to the way Democrats are perceived, and a burning desire to find acceptance.
So why do I call them Compassion Fascists? They know their beliefs are illogical and contradictory. They know that they don't live their own lives by the principles and values that the Democrats express, but they have to be able to ignore this fact to continue getting those looks of approval at the cocktail parties! Therefore, they crush whoever spouts reality at them. They club them down with implications of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, dishonesty, murderousness, lack of moral right, etc. They use spokespeople that cannot be criticized, so that they will not be called stupid for making stupid suggestions (like the 9-11 widows, or Michael J. Fox.) They dance around questions like Madonna with a pole. They hurl food, or yell their opponents down. They shoot up the local Republican headquarters, slash tires, and hurl bricks. I have not even begun to discuss Liberal peace activists or environmentalists. (I debated with myself for a full two hours: What do I link to for these lunatics? There are so many options, I was paralyzed. I decided to continue ahead with this one, because it so effectively displays the total lack of thought on the part of these particular mental patients, and because I had other things to do.)
The only practical difference between the Nazi Brownshirts and these Democrat thugs is that these thugs are not official.
Can Republicans get these votes? It will require a public relations campaign on a scale that dwarfs the movement I suggested against the Special Privilege Separatists, and it will not be quick. These people need the approval of others, so they will need a conservative intelligentsia to join for this strategy to work. This strategy also requires massive PR campaigns to highlight facets of Islamofascism like the Saudi woman who was gang-raped and sentenced to 90 lashes for being with a man who was not her husband, the stoning to death of gays and adulterous women in Iran, or the recent "honor killings" in Texas. It can be done, but it has to be done via emotional appeals, not via logical argument.
4) FDR Democrats: FDR Democrats vote for Democrats because their parents voted for Democrats, and so did their grandparents, and so on. These people tend to believe that the Democrat Party is the Party of FDR, and not of George Soros, the DailyKos and MoveOn.Org. Their association with the Democrat Party is based on a picture of that Party as it once existed, not as it currently exists.
Any of these voters who pay even scant attention to the news have already noted the loony tilt their Party has acquired. They are ready to head for the hills, but they do not currently have anywhere to go. Republicans consistently fail to make the case for their policies, and to live up to their promises. These people do occasionally vote Republican for President, but only when their candidate is so obviously insane that they need to find refuge, or when there is a Republican out there making the case for conservatism. We can win these folks if we can convince them that the Democrat Party has changed from what they believe it to be. If this is combined with somebody who is not afraid to make the case for what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for, we can sweep these people in to the Party.
***********************
Finally, there are the Centrists. Centrists are generally driven by gut feelings. Note that this is not the warm, fuzzy feeling of the Compassion Fascists. It is an instinctive impression of the people involved. When somebody displays clear leadership abilities, and can make a case for what they believe, the Centrists tend to pile in to voting booths to cast a ballot for them. All that is required to get the Centrist vote is to nominate somebody who doesn't retreat every time they are attacked, and can lay out a consistent philosophy that they will follow in office.
When Republican move to the left to gather votes from the middle, they will fail. They will alienate their own base, while managing to confuse Centrists and present a less-than-convincing pitch to the FDR Democrats. What Republicans need to do to win is to present a clear, consistent case for their ideas. We learned in 2006 what happens when our Party ignores the base and goes after moderates, we should not repeat this lesson in 2008 if we want to see a non-socialist elected.
<================================+===============================>
Democrat...............................Centrist............................Republican
Pretty simple, right? It also makes election strategies simple: Move to the wings for primaries, move to the center for the general. Moreover, by moving your party as a whole to the center, you can get more votes!
However, when Republicans move to the center, it never works. Why not? The diagram suggests that moving the Republican Party to a centrist or center-left position on the spectrum ought to grab Republicans all sorts of extra votes. Yet, when Republicans have moved to the left (2006 rings a bell,) they lose, dramatically. When Republicans move to the right, as Ronald Reagan did, they win huge victories. Republicans that want to move the party to the left on questions like spending and social concerns are missing the point: Democrats will never vote for Diet Democrats, and Centrists will never vote for somebody who stands for nothing.
In order to help my fellow Republicans understand why Democrats vote the way they vote, and what can be done to steal some of these voters, I humbly offer this analysis of the four different groups of Democrats:
1) The Welfare Royalty: Welfare Kings and Queens vote for the candidate who will give them the most government money with the fewest strings attached. I include Social Security/Medicare voters, Trial Lawyers, union members and leaders, and anybody who gets an AFDC check in this category. Each one of these groups relies on Democrats for their meal ticket, at the moment, and will not abandon them until somebody offers them more money.
Why can't Republicans get the Welfare Royalty vote? If you don't have to worry about the calories (i.e. your taxes being raised,) then why drink Diet Generic Cola when they can have Generic Cola Classic? Unless Republicans abandon all spending restraint, and embark on a decades-long binge, they will never convince Welfare Royalty to vote for them. In the meantime, the base will grumble about the monetary wisdom of intoxicated sailors every time they see the budget figures, and justifiably stay home on election day.
2) The Special Privilege Separatists: The Special Privilege Separatists could be women, minorities, illegal immigrants, etc. They are members of groups that want special treatment from the government. Affirmative Action is probably the best example. It is a privileged status afforded to blacks because bad things were done to their ancestors. Illegal aliens suggest that our government is oppressive and racist because it occasionally deports people who are here illegally. Illegal aliens demand amnesty for coming here illegally, living here illegally, emptying the welfare purses nationwide, shutting down hospital emergency rooms with their demands for medical care, and for stealing Social Security Numbers and screwing up the credit of millions of people. Young women demand the right to kill unborn children so that they can avoid the inconvenience of adopting them out.
Republicans tend to believe in ideas like equality before the law, and the rule of law. Why would a working woman or a black man vote for a Party that has pledged to take away their special privileges? Why would an illegal alien vote for a Party that (might,) enforce the law and deport them? Republicans cannot get the votes from Special Privilege Separatists until there is a widespread recognition that these special privileges may not be deserved, may provoke resentment, and lead to these groups being perceived as "tokens" and unqualified for the positions they hold. We cannot grab this group immediately, but we can certainly oppose amnesty and avoid importing millions of new Democrats from Mexico.
3) The Compassion Fascists: Compassion Fascists are people who vote Democrat because of the warm, fuzzy feeling they get for doing so. Another important reason for their vote is the warm, fuzzy feeling they get from others. They perceive the Democrat Party as the Party of compassion, the Party that cares about the poor, minorities, and the environment. They parrot what they read in the New York Times and what they hear from Chris Matthews to win approval as an enlightened cosmopolitan from their fellow cocktail party attendees. Their affiliation with the Democrat Party has nothing to do with rational thought or evaluation of their positions, it is an emotional reaction to the way Democrats are perceived, and a burning desire to find acceptance.
So why do I call them Compassion Fascists? They know their beliefs are illogical and contradictory. They know that they don't live their own lives by the principles and values that the Democrats express, but they have to be able to ignore this fact to continue getting those looks of approval at the cocktail parties! Therefore, they crush whoever spouts reality at them. They club them down with implications of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, dishonesty, murderousness, lack of moral right, etc. They use spokespeople that cannot be criticized, so that they will not be called stupid for making stupid suggestions (like the 9-11 widows, or Michael J. Fox.) They dance around questions like Madonna with a pole. They hurl food, or yell their opponents down. They shoot up the local Republican headquarters, slash tires, and hurl bricks. I have not even begun to discuss Liberal peace activists or environmentalists. (I debated with myself for a full two hours: What do I link to for these lunatics? There are so many options, I was paralyzed. I decided to continue ahead with this one, because it so effectively displays the total lack of thought on the part of these particular mental patients, and because I had other things to do.)
The only practical difference between the Nazi Brownshirts and these Democrat thugs is that these thugs are not official.
Can Republicans get these votes? It will require a public relations campaign on a scale that dwarfs the movement I suggested against the Special Privilege Separatists, and it will not be quick. These people need the approval of others, so they will need a conservative intelligentsia to join for this strategy to work. This strategy also requires massive PR campaigns to highlight facets of Islamofascism like the Saudi woman who was gang-raped and sentenced to 90 lashes for being with a man who was not her husband, the stoning to death of gays and adulterous women in Iran, or the recent "honor killings" in Texas. It can be done, but it has to be done via emotional appeals, not via logical argument.
4) FDR Democrats: FDR Democrats vote for Democrats because their parents voted for Democrats, and so did their grandparents, and so on. These people tend to believe that the Democrat Party is the Party of FDR, and not of George Soros, the DailyKos and MoveOn.Org. Their association with the Democrat Party is based on a picture of that Party as it once existed, not as it currently exists.
Any of these voters who pay even scant attention to the news have already noted the loony tilt their Party has acquired. They are ready to head for the hills, but they do not currently have anywhere to go. Republicans consistently fail to make the case for their policies, and to live up to their promises. These people do occasionally vote Republican for President, but only when their candidate is so obviously insane that they need to find refuge, or when there is a Republican out there making the case for conservatism. We can win these folks if we can convince them that the Democrat Party has changed from what they believe it to be. If this is combined with somebody who is not afraid to make the case for what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for, we can sweep these people in to the Party.
***********************
Finally, there are the Centrists. Centrists are generally driven by gut feelings. Note that this is not the warm, fuzzy feeling of the Compassion Fascists. It is an instinctive impression of the people involved. When somebody displays clear leadership abilities, and can make a case for what they believe, the Centrists tend to pile in to voting booths to cast a ballot for them. All that is required to get the Centrist vote is to nominate somebody who doesn't retreat every time they are attacked, and can lay out a consistent philosophy that they will follow in office.
When Republican move to the left to gather votes from the middle, they will fail. They will alienate their own base, while managing to confuse Centrists and present a less-than-convincing pitch to the FDR Democrats. What Republicans need to do to win is to present a clear, consistent case for their ideas. We learned in 2006 what happens when our Party ignores the base and goes after moderates, we should not repeat this lesson in 2008 if we want to see a non-socialist elected.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Who amongst us has never wanted to fling poo at his enemies?
Interesting article from January 10th, on Tech Central Station, written by Lee Harris.
Mr. Harris does an excellent job posing an important question: Why have other scientific revolutions that challenged some point of religion been accepted everywhere outside of the Flat Earth Society within a short time period, while evolution has not?
Mr. Harris comes to the conclusion that a visceral dislike for monkeys is to blame for the rejection of evolution, and that this visceral dislike stems from the revelation that they are very much like we would be if we were stripped of civilization. As Mr. Harris puts it:
"... the basis of this revulsion is none other than "the civilizing process" that has been instilled into us from infancy. The civilizing process has taught us never to throw our feces at other people, not even in jest. It has taught us not to snatch food from other people, not even when they are much weaker than we. It has taught us not to play with our genitals in front of other people, not even when we are very bored. It has taught us not to mount the posterior of other people, not even when they have cute butts.
... It is by refusing to accept our embarrassing kinship with primates that men have been able to create societies that prohibit precisely the kind of monkey business that civilized men and women invariably find so revolting and disgusting. Thou shalt not act like a monkey—this is the essence of all the higher religions, and the summation of all ethical systems."
I have to hand it to him, Mr. Harris makes an excellent point. Apes are a reminder that, while we are we are capable of much more than they ever will be, we are capable of reverting as well.
Unfortunately, there is an entire political movement in this country dedicated to eliminating the consequences of behaving like monkeys. We call it liberalism.
Consider the number of conservative speakers on college campuses who have had food hurled at them by angry liberals. Food is only a brief passage through the digestive tract away from fecal matter, and no different in its message when hurled. Like with monkeys, food throwers are motivated by an emotional instinct to lash-out, not by a rational desire to disprove the speaker's arguments by means of a witty torte. The most disturbing aspect of this is not the pie-throwing, but the fact that Liberal prosecutors in most of these towns dropped the charges against the assailants.
We could also talk about sex, since the Liberals do so frequently. Medical professionals at the Mayo Clinic suggest beginning to teach kids about sex when they are toddlers or preschoolers. Barack Obama stresses the need for age-appropriate Sex Ed for kindergarteners. Exactly what qualifies as "age-appropriate" for a five year-old is hard for me to understand, and apparently Barack had some trouble, as well, since he has refused to elaborate beyond the need for "study." Perhaps he meant discussions of anal sex, oral sex and "fisting" (I will let you figure it out from the context...) like these Massachusetts activists did. Maybe he thought we should teach kindergarteners about masturbation, like Jocelyn Elders? Doubtless, he meant more along the lines of this precious (but poorly transferred and edited,) moment from Kindergarten Cop.
Sex Ed trains children to avoid the consequences of sex, without ever asking whether they should be having it in the first place. Putting a condom on a banana is a time-honored tradition of the Sex Ed teacher. Thus fortified, the banana can engage in all of the casual sex it wants without any trouble! But of course, there are those times when a condom breaks, so the Libs advocate passing out birth-control to 11 year-olds. If a girl as young as ten years-old still manages to get pregnant, the U.N. seems to think it is time to head to the Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion. (Remember: It's not a potential new life you have created. It's a non-viable tissue mass, like cancer!) If our hypothetical ten year-old mother decides to keep the baby, the government has over 900 programs to keep her comfortable.
Kids are exposed to sex on a daily basis on TV and in the movies, and much of this sex is casual and meaningless. This constant exposure has the effect of creating a patina of social legitimacy. Combined with the easy availability of birth control and abortion, does anybody wonder we see as many kids mounting every cute behind they see?
We could talk about the massive failure of our public schools to teach children trained in basic history, math and science, leaving a generation of children incapable of applying rational thought to a problem. We could talk about the interest-group politics that seem to define the Left in America that sounds more like tribalism than civil rights. We could talk about the juvenile justice system, and how it treats criminal miscreants below the age of eighteen as gently as possible, and in doing so, never teaches these kids that there are consequences for breaking the law. Liberalism seems designed to produce a generation of children that have no idea that they are not supposed to fling food or feces at people they do not like. It is designed to produce a generation of kids who have such freedom from moral restraints on sex and the capability to avoid its consequences that they will hop on whatever willing behind they find. It is designed to produce an ignorant bunch of dolts who cannot even recognize a specious argument, or separate emotion from fact. It is designed to produce monkeys.
Mr. Harris does an excellent job posing an important question: Why have other scientific revolutions that challenged some point of religion been accepted everywhere outside of the Flat Earth Society within a short time period, while evolution has not?
Mr. Harris comes to the conclusion that a visceral dislike for monkeys is to blame for the rejection of evolution, and that this visceral dislike stems from the revelation that they are very much like we would be if we were stripped of civilization. As Mr. Harris puts it:
"... the basis of this revulsion is none other than "the civilizing process" that has been instilled into us from infancy. The civilizing process has taught us never to throw our feces at other people, not even in jest. It has taught us not to snatch food from other people, not even when they are much weaker than we. It has taught us not to play with our genitals in front of other people, not even when we are very bored. It has taught us not to mount the posterior of other people, not even when they have cute butts.
... It is by refusing to accept our embarrassing kinship with primates that men have been able to create societies that prohibit precisely the kind of monkey business that civilized men and women invariably find so revolting and disgusting. Thou shalt not act like a monkey—this is the essence of all the higher religions, and the summation of all ethical systems."
I have to hand it to him, Mr. Harris makes an excellent point. Apes are a reminder that, while we are we are capable of much more than they ever will be, we are capable of reverting as well.
Unfortunately, there is an entire political movement in this country dedicated to eliminating the consequences of behaving like monkeys. We call it liberalism.
Consider the number of conservative speakers on college campuses who have had food hurled at them by angry liberals. Food is only a brief passage through the digestive tract away from fecal matter, and no different in its message when hurled. Like with monkeys, food throwers are motivated by an emotional instinct to lash-out, not by a rational desire to disprove the speaker's arguments by means of a witty torte. The most disturbing aspect of this is not the pie-throwing, but the fact that Liberal prosecutors in most of these towns dropped the charges against the assailants.
We could also talk about sex, since the Liberals do so frequently. Medical professionals at the Mayo Clinic suggest beginning to teach kids about sex when they are toddlers or preschoolers. Barack Obama stresses the need for age-appropriate Sex Ed for kindergarteners. Exactly what qualifies as "age-appropriate" for a five year-old is hard for me to understand, and apparently Barack had some trouble, as well, since he has refused to elaborate beyond the need for "study." Perhaps he meant discussions of anal sex, oral sex and "fisting" (I will let you figure it out from the context...) like these Massachusetts activists did. Maybe he thought we should teach kindergarteners about masturbation, like Jocelyn Elders? Doubtless, he meant more along the lines of this precious (but poorly transferred and edited,) moment from Kindergarten Cop.
Sex Ed trains children to avoid the consequences of sex, without ever asking whether they should be having it in the first place. Putting a condom on a banana is a time-honored tradition of the Sex Ed teacher. Thus fortified, the banana can engage in all of the casual sex it wants without any trouble! But of course, there are those times when a condom breaks, so the Libs advocate passing out birth-control to 11 year-olds. If a girl as young as ten years-old still manages to get pregnant, the U.N. seems to think it is time to head to the Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion. (Remember: It's not a potential new life you have created. It's a non-viable tissue mass, like cancer!) If our hypothetical ten year-old mother decides to keep the baby, the government has over 900 programs to keep her comfortable.
Kids are exposed to sex on a daily basis on TV and in the movies, and much of this sex is casual and meaningless. This constant exposure has the effect of creating a patina of social legitimacy. Combined with the easy availability of birth control and abortion, does anybody wonder we see as many kids mounting every cute behind they see?
We could talk about the massive failure of our public schools to teach children trained in basic history, math and science, leaving a generation of children incapable of applying rational thought to a problem. We could talk about the interest-group politics that seem to define the Left in America that sounds more like tribalism than civil rights. We could talk about the juvenile justice system, and how it treats criminal miscreants below the age of eighteen as gently as possible, and in doing so, never teaches these kids that there are consequences for breaking the law. Liberalism seems designed to produce a generation of children that have no idea that they are not supposed to fling food or feces at people they do not like. It is designed to produce a generation of kids who have such freedom from moral restraints on sex and the capability to avoid its consequences that they will hop on whatever willing behind they find. It is designed to produce an ignorant bunch of dolts who cannot even recognize a specious argument, or separate emotion from fact. It is designed to produce monkeys.
Why Libertarian?
I have been a Republican since I turned fourteen. What convinced me? A trip to the DMV for my Learner's Permit, followed by a trip to the insurance office to add my name to the policy. Every time I step in to that dark and depressing DMV office, I am more convinced that it was designed by the Marquis de Sade as a test of stamina. How soul-sucking can you get? Row after row of identical chairs, ponderous manuals filled with the legal minutiae of driving, half of the office's union employees sitting around and eating their lunches as the lines back out of the office and around the block. Your only hope to avoid a slow-descent in to feeble-mindedness and drooling is to manage to nap in line without falling over. When you do get up to the front of the line, your hopes build: Am I done? Could it be?!
No, you are not. You now get to chat with Surly Employee #1. SE1 is a union worker, who knows that she is paid by the hour, not by the speed and efficiency with which she does her work. She knows that you have no other option if you want to renew your license, so she does not care if you are enjoying your visit. When she finally stops chatting with her co-worker, she will bestow upon you the same look that Kings used to bestow upon people asking them for a loan from the Royal Bank. You are a nuisance, a pebble in her shoe. Her only concern is sending you where you need to go so that you will leave her presence, and she can get back to her chat. After forking over to Caesar what is Caesars (the license fee,) you will be given a gift: paperwork.
Those who manage to haul the stack of papers from the counter to their seat in one of those endless rows of identical chairs without a hernia are strong, indeed. They may be strong enough to make it through answering three, even four duplicative sets of questions that they already answered for SE1. If you finish the paperwork, you now face the wait. Re-check your paperwork all you want - you will run through it all in a minute, maybe two. You need to wait for the one person capable of operating the camera to get back from lunch. This person, having just eaten, will probably need a half-hour siesta to decompress and ready themselves for their grueling day of pressing a button. If they have not yet gone to lunch, the wait might be longer - after all, they are weak from the hunger that builds up after a full two or three hours of pressing a button. It make take them twenty, thirty minutes just to review your paperwork and tell you to stand in front of a screen.
Once before the screen, the photographer will wait for the worst possible moment to take your picture. For some people, they have their face scrunched-up as they prepare to sneeze. For me, it is the "shiny moment," where my face is at just the right angle so that the light is glinting off of my nose, and I look as oily as an Alaskan beach after the Exxon Valdeez has passed. Either that, or the "guaranteed felon" picture. This is the sort of picture that makes any police officer who sees it certain that the subject is a homicidal maniac who should be shot on sight (probably with an extra Y chromosome, too...)
After all of this, you are given a piece of plastic with your name on it, that is so easy to fake that any illegal immigrant can obtain one in fifteen minutes at a Home Depot.
This is government at work - employees guaranteed union wages who have no motivation to make your life any easier, and cannot be fired for incompetence or a refusal to actually do their jobs without months of hearings and depositions.
Insurance companies, on the other hand, know that they need to hustle to keep customers. There is rarely, if ever a line when you walk in to the well-lit, comfortable atmosphere in an insurance office. Chances are, there is water or even coffee available. Surly Employee #1 would be fired in a few hours at this office, because she might hurt business. The people who are left recognize that pleasing customers is what keeps their office open and operating, so they go the extra mile to make sure you are happy with your experience. Everything will be made as easy and pleasant as possible for you, because you have the option of going elsewhere.
Hyperbole aside, whom would you rather deal with for renewing your driver's license? The insurance company, or the DMV? Who would you trust to ensure safer roads? The people paid by the hour who cannot be fired for anything short of shooting-up the office, or the people who lose money when you have an accident?
When government steps in, you get all of the problems Liberals love to discuss with monopolies, and one additional problem: The government doesn't ever have to worry about competition, because they have guns that they can legally use against you if you try to compete. Would you want the idiots who designed the DMV to put the same union-mandated breaks and incentive structures in place for health care? If your child had leukemia, would you rather trust them to a private clinic, or to the Surly Employees of the DMV?
Many of the people in the Republican Party seem to have abandoned the idea of personal responsibility in favor of the idea of an "efficient" welfare state. They have forgotten that government can only move at the speed of legislation, that it is only as flexible as the union rules that bind the hands of managers will allow, and that no degree of regulatory oversight can produce the efficiency or the motivation to satisfy customers produced by a person risking their money for a profit.
Government should be the agent of last resort, for any purpose but administering the law, and trouncing our enemies abroad, because it will inevitably lag-behind the private sector, no matter what we ask it to do.
Everybody who has to visit the DMV knows this - why did the Republicans forget? More on this tomorrow.
No, you are not. You now get to chat with Surly Employee #1. SE1 is a union worker, who knows that she is paid by the hour, not by the speed and efficiency with which she does her work. She knows that you have no other option if you want to renew your license, so she does not care if you are enjoying your visit. When she finally stops chatting with her co-worker, she will bestow upon you the same look that Kings used to bestow upon people asking them for a loan from the Royal Bank. You are a nuisance, a pebble in her shoe. Her only concern is sending you where you need to go so that you will leave her presence, and she can get back to her chat. After forking over to Caesar what is Caesars (the license fee,) you will be given a gift: paperwork.
Those who manage to haul the stack of papers from the counter to their seat in one of those endless rows of identical chairs without a hernia are strong, indeed. They may be strong enough to make it through answering three, even four duplicative sets of questions that they already answered for SE1. If you finish the paperwork, you now face the wait. Re-check your paperwork all you want - you will run through it all in a minute, maybe two. You need to wait for the one person capable of operating the camera to get back from lunch. This person, having just eaten, will probably need a half-hour siesta to decompress and ready themselves for their grueling day of pressing a button. If they have not yet gone to lunch, the wait might be longer - after all, they are weak from the hunger that builds up after a full two or three hours of pressing a button. It make take them twenty, thirty minutes just to review your paperwork and tell you to stand in front of a screen.
Once before the screen, the photographer will wait for the worst possible moment to take your picture. For some people, they have their face scrunched-up as they prepare to sneeze. For me, it is the "shiny moment," where my face is at just the right angle so that the light is glinting off of my nose, and I look as oily as an Alaskan beach after the Exxon Valdeez has passed. Either that, or the "guaranteed felon" picture. This is the sort of picture that makes any police officer who sees it certain that the subject is a homicidal maniac who should be shot on sight (probably with an extra Y chromosome, too...)
After all of this, you are given a piece of plastic with your name on it, that is so easy to fake that any illegal immigrant can obtain one in fifteen minutes at a Home Depot.
This is government at work - employees guaranteed union wages who have no motivation to make your life any easier, and cannot be fired for incompetence or a refusal to actually do their jobs without months of hearings and depositions.
Insurance companies, on the other hand, know that they need to hustle to keep customers. There is rarely, if ever a line when you walk in to the well-lit, comfortable atmosphere in an insurance office. Chances are, there is water or even coffee available. Surly Employee #1 would be fired in a few hours at this office, because she might hurt business. The people who are left recognize that pleasing customers is what keeps their office open and operating, so they go the extra mile to make sure you are happy with your experience. Everything will be made as easy and pleasant as possible for you, because you have the option of going elsewhere.
Hyperbole aside, whom would you rather deal with for renewing your driver's license? The insurance company, or the DMV? Who would you trust to ensure safer roads? The people paid by the hour who cannot be fired for anything short of shooting-up the office, or the people who lose money when you have an accident?
When government steps in, you get all of the problems Liberals love to discuss with monopolies, and one additional problem: The government doesn't ever have to worry about competition, because they have guns that they can legally use against you if you try to compete. Would you want the idiots who designed the DMV to put the same union-mandated breaks and incentive structures in place for health care? If your child had leukemia, would you rather trust them to a private clinic, or to the Surly Employees of the DMV?
Many of the people in the Republican Party seem to have abandoned the idea of personal responsibility in favor of the idea of an "efficient" welfare state. They have forgotten that government can only move at the speed of legislation, that it is only as flexible as the union rules that bind the hands of managers will allow, and that no degree of regulatory oversight can produce the efficiency or the motivation to satisfy customers produced by a person risking their money for a profit.
Government should be the agent of last resort, for any purpose but administering the law, and trouncing our enemies abroad, because it will inevitably lag-behind the private sector, no matter what we ask it to do.
Everybody who has to visit the DMV knows this - why did the Republicans forget? More on this tomorrow.
Why XYY?
Some of you may remember Al Gore and his comments about "Extra-Y-Chromosome Conservatives" during the 2000 Campaign, or Maureen Dowd's inept attempt to repeat his phrase. He was referring to a condition where a boy is born with an extra Y chromosome, causing increased stature and frequent learning disabilities.
He wasn't accusing conservatives of having a learning disability, but of being testosterone-fueled criminals. He was talking about a British study from the mid-1960's that found that men with the extra Y chromosome were slightly overrepresented in mental hospitals, and suggested that they were a bunch of violent crooks. A team of Scots later discovered that the Brits were totally wrong, but the damage had been done. The XYY mutation was forever associated with aggression and criminality.
Algore was trying to paint conservatives as a bunch of violent lunatics because we believe insane things like "the military is a necessary institution," or that "people who are executed generally do not kill again."
Pacifists seem to believe that all of the peoples of the world really just want to live-and-let-live. The 20th Century examples of the Nazis and Communism did not shake the confidence of the pacifists that there philosophy is still correct, despite a few mishaps, and they are determined to keep trying it with the Islamofascists.
When we are attacked by others, the pacifists generally make the same excuse: We were asking for it. Mike Tyson used this excuse when he was on trial for rape: "She was wearing a short skirt, so she was asking for it." The pacifist international-version of the Mike Tyson Rape Excuse goes like this: "They are poor, non-white, and they are angry that we do not share our wealth with them, so we were asking for it." They generally keep quiet when people point out that the United States is the main source of income for most Islamic nations, or that Osama was a billionaire and Ayman al-Zawahiri was a rich doctor.
Pacifism and isolationism fail every time they are tried, but the pacifists never seem to change their minds. So thanks, Algore. I'd rather be learning-disabled than incapable of learning from history.
He wasn't accusing conservatives of having a learning disability, but of being testosterone-fueled criminals. He was talking about a British study from the mid-1960's that found that men with the extra Y chromosome were slightly overrepresented in mental hospitals, and suggested that they were a bunch of violent crooks. A team of Scots later discovered that the Brits were totally wrong, but the damage had been done. The XYY mutation was forever associated with aggression and criminality.
Algore was trying to paint conservatives as a bunch of violent lunatics because we believe insane things like "the military is a necessary institution," or that "people who are executed generally do not kill again."
Pacifists seem to believe that all of the peoples of the world really just want to live-and-let-live. The 20th Century examples of the Nazis and Communism did not shake the confidence of the pacifists that there philosophy is still correct, despite a few mishaps, and they are determined to keep trying it with the Islamofascists.
When we are attacked by others, the pacifists generally make the same excuse: We were asking for it. Mike Tyson used this excuse when he was on trial for rape: "She was wearing a short skirt, so she was asking for it." The pacifist international-version of the Mike Tyson Rape Excuse goes like this: "They are poor, non-white, and they are angry that we do not share our wealth with them, so we were asking for it." They generally keep quiet when people point out that the United States is the main source of income for most Islamic nations, or that Osama was a billionaire and Ayman al-Zawahiri was a rich doctor.
Pacifism and isolationism fail every time they are tried, but the pacifists never seem to change their minds. So thanks, Algore. I'd rather be learning-disabled than incapable of learning from history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)