Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The Republican Problem

Recs

34

October 08, 2012 – Comments (20)

As always, offering my unique perspective on the interesting and the irrelevant alike.

Scoring the Presidential Debate

Establishment 1
Everyone Else 0

Word around town is that Romney wiped the floor on Mister Teleprompter.  RedState.com bloggers must have wet themselves with delight.  I avoided this chirade the way Jacksonville's Wide Receivers avoid the End Zone.  (Likewise, the way I avoid Jax WR's in every fantasy draft).  But I did catch some of the (low)lights from various sources.  I am not impressed.  The challenger went out of his way to tell anyone listening (the State bureaucracy) that he has no intention of upsetting the status quo.  Instead we are treated to the ridiculously superficial prospect of a cut in PBS subsidies.  Oh yeah, that'll get the house in order!  I'm surprised gold futures didn't plummet on the news of this impending fiscal austerity plan.  To heighten the stupidity, the Left protested (you can always count on the Left to take a really stupid idea, and then make it even more stupid.)  Hey, if Big Bird needs a subsidy (he doesn't), maybe it's not really that popular (it is.)  Get it?  Good programming doesn't need a subsidy.  This isn't 1933.  

Now that this idiotic sideshow is behind us, Obama wil bounce back.  Count on it.  Say what you will about the guy, he's a fighter.  For better or worse, depending on your gold exposure.  But this is a nice lead in to understanding the real reason that Republicans always fail to stem the tide of big government.

Defending the Status Quo is a Flawed Strategy

The great Murray N. Rothbard, simply put the most original and brilliant political and economic philosopher I have ever read, pinned down the Republican problem brilliantly in his book Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature:

"For well over a century, the Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and "idealism" on its side; the conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to the "impracticality" of its ideals. A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid "in theory," but that it cannot "work" in practical life. What the conservatives failed to see is that while short-run gains can indeed be made by appealing to the impracticality of radical departures from the status quo, that by conceding the ethical and the "ideal" to the Left they were doomed to long-run defeat. For if one side is granted ethics and the "ideal" from the start, then that side will be able to effect gradual but sure changes in its own direction; and as these changes accumulate, the stigma of "impracticality" becomes less and less directly relevant. The conservative opposition, having staked its all on the seemingly firm ground of the "practical" (that is, the status quo) is doomed to lose as the status quo moves further in the left direction." - Rothbard, 1974 http://mises.org/daily/3071

My Republican friends, do you see what has happened here?  As the status quo gets nudged towards ever expanding government powers, what is "practical" and "unpractical" shift as well, making liberty seem less practical and welfarism as the most practical.  Hence, today you see a Republican Party that views free markets and liberty as some crazy idea of a cranky old Texas Congressman. Heck, even cutting PBS subsidies is viewed as unpractical today by most Republicans (which is why Romney is politically foolish to even mention it.)  The status quo is the biggest and most powerful federal government the world has ever seen.  (Admittedly, not the most tyrannical, yet.)

In other words, because the Establishment Republican line has been to defend the status quo, it has slowly caused the Republican voting base to move Left as well, pretty much without their conscience approval or understanding.  It is so bad today that anyone who champions liberty is considered the unelectable crazy kook.  You think it's just Ron Paul that gets this treatment?  Keep your eyes open, my friends.

Solution: Kill The Party

The Republican Party cannot be saved.  We've witnessed in 2012 how the Elite reacts to usurping of their political processes. They lie, cheat, steal, and change the rules.  In 2016 it will be even more difficult for a non-hack to get momentum during the delegate process.  If you think otherwise, you weren't watching when Ron Paul started dominating the primaries.

Even if you're not a libertarian, just a small government conservative that wants to reverse the never ending rise of welfarism (and how I wish you would start taking a look at the damaging effects of militarism, but I guess I can't have everything), you should root for Republicans to lose every election.  Why do you want to spend the rest of your life depending policies and politicians that you know have no connection to the ideology you support?  Wouldn't you rather these hacks lose, that the party be purged and relegated to the dustbin of history?  At least if that happens, you might have a shot at a decent new Party rising up to take its place.  The current status quo rule gives you no hope.

"And the answer is neither the president nor I are proposing any changes for any current retirees or near retirees, either to Social Security or Medicare. So if you’re 60 or around 60 or older, you don’t need to listen any further." - Mitt Romney, 2012 first Presidential Debate.

David in Liberty

20 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 09, 2012 at 12:36 AM, thomgonz (< 20) wrote:

But David, Obama is a Socialist Muslim baby killer, why do you hate babies so much?

 

Gonzo

Report this comment
#2) On October 09, 2012 at 12:49 AM, thomgonz (< 20) wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/FGh3H.jpg   Even if this pic is satire, that's really how people feel. Makes me sad.

Report this comment
#3) On October 09, 2012 at 9:12 AM, drgroup (68.89) wrote:

"Defending the Status Quo is a Flawed Strategy"

I must have seen a different debate. The only status quo I saw,(obama) was being aviserated by Romney. obama did not know what hit him, because Romney was speaking a foreign language that obama could not understand. The language is called fiscal conservatism spoken in the dialect of miltitary defense spending increases. And trying to convince a marxist that all could be accomplished thru reducing the tax base and cut government regulations was like trying to explain nuclear physics to a grasshopper. I don't see any status quo here...  

Report this comment
#4) On October 09, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Louebsch (< 20) wrote:

LOL @drgroup

Please explain to me how Romney's fiscal plan is going to be different than Obama's fiscal plan. At what point will true spending actually be cut. I don't mean cuts to future increases in the budget. I mean actual spending cuts as in spending less money next year than we did this year.

Clearly, you want to increase military spending. I have come to the realization that there is no military defense anymore, it's just military business. In order to increase military business you need to fire weapons  at a foreign country on a regular basis. So after you propose that we attack iran and kill millions of innocent cilivians to improve our economy, which country do we attack next? How about Syria? how about Egypt or Libya? Maybe China and Russia want a war when we decide to attack Iran. Then we could increase military spending til the cows come home.

Just fyi the face of war is changing. The conventional bombs and bullets wars are being subdued. The new wars are being fought in the banks and online. The CIA even knows this. They are flooding iran with fake money. This is an act of war!

Could you imagine if someone were to try to print and distribute fake money in the US? The outrage the people would have! ....oh wait, well maybe if that someone weren't the US Federal Reserve there would be outrage. 

Another thing that bothers me about Romney supporters. And I'm not an Obama supporter, I agree that he is very flawed, but here's the thing about Romney. I have no idea what he stands for. He changes his mind every 3 days. So how can you trust him to be in the white house? He is clearly lying to everyone just to get in. Then what will we have? How do we know he won't be worse than Obama? Because the GOP told you so? Last time I checked they weren't exactly the most moral group, i.e. cheaters, theives, and lyers. I guess that's where Romney learned the tricks of the trade.

Ok one last thing, at what point would you begin to think for yourself instead of trusting the GOP? If the GOP told you that if you jumped off a bridge, Obama would be immediately removed from the white house. Would you do it?

The argument of anyone but Obama only works when that person you want everyone to vote for is actually different than Obama. This is Romney's biggest problem and why he can't get more support. He is the same guy only white and supported by the GOP.

Report this comment
#5) On October 09, 2012 at 10:45 AM, wodeqian (81.86) wrote:

Our political parties make it really hard to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  If only Ron Paul could let marriage and abortion go (the state ratifies a contractual union between two people, the church is what decides marriage and if you can find a preacher go for it) I would be jumping up and down for joy.

But sadly even the small government folks out there get all up in arms how the state needs to defend this or that value when it touches on their personal beliefs. Any reliance on the State to defend your personal beliefs is a step towards tyranny and towards more spending to get everyone in line.  Enough leave the social issues out of the federal government for a moment a decide what the hell we actually want from a federal govenment in concept and then maybe pick up the specifics again.

Report this comment
#6) On October 09, 2012 at 11:49 AM, whereaminow (23.71) wrote:

The word I was looking for is impractical.

I was tired last night...

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#7) On October 09, 2012 at 12:01 PM, thomgonz (< 20) wrote:

 "The language is called fiscal conservatism spoken in the dialect of military defense spending increases."

We spend 711 BILLION dollars a year on the military, and that's what is just reported. There are some expenditures that don't get put into that group.  If we add up the next 5 countries, China, Russia, UK, France, and Japan, COMBINED they spend ~390 Billion, or almost half of what we do. Of the 22 aircraft carriers in the world, we have 11 of them, with another 12 coming into commission in 2015. If you include the light carriers (Wasp and Tarawa class) we have another 9! So tell me where we need to increase this spending at? 

So let me make sure I have your broken glass theory correct? We have a budget issue, and your method of fixing it, is to spend more money on something that already has too much money? Mathematically how does that work? 

The military does not have to be efficient, or care about producing a product or working within a budget. They literally make sure they spend their entire budget by the end of the year, that way next year they get the same or more. I've seen shops buy 10+ 60 inch plasma TV's just so they use all their budget at the end of the year. They already had 48 inch TV's, but they needed to spend the money. Read Smedley Butler's War is a Racket and then come say we need to spend more.

I don't get it, GOP "Conservatives" care so much about being anti-abortion, until that kid turns 18. Then f' 'em ship them overseas and let them get blown up. You GOP chicken-hawks get hard by murdering kids around the world, just not when they are fetuses. Bottom line, f' you GOP idiots and thanks for teaming up with the rest of the politicians to screw our country over. I just don't understand if you guys really believe this crap, are nefarious and want to murder brown people, or are just so dumb you don't know better.  

 @Drgroup, are you evil or just that stupid? 

Report this comment
#8) On October 09, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Melaschasm (52.63) wrote:

#7)  While I agree that military spending should be cut, it is an important function of the government.  We live in a world where governments want to kill us and take stuff.

I personally would like to start by removing almost all our troops from Western Europe.  Our bases in Eastern Europe and Turkey are more usefully located, and help provide stability to countries that have very big an legitimate concerns about Russia.

As our current wars wind down, we should be able to reduce our full time military, and spend less on replacing equipment that is being used in combat.  That being said, military spending doesn't matter much in the long run because Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare are growing much faster than military spending, and will represent the vast majority of all US spending in a couple decades.

While I am willing to assume that you truly believe that the USA could unilaterally disarm and not face any harm, I know that you are completely wrong.  Regarding Iran getting nukes, it is a tough question.  On the one hand it is likely that the spread of nukes will result in at least one more being used on a large population center.  On the other hand, it might be easier to develop systems to protect the USA, than to prevent the use of  nuclear bombs in other countries.  Why should it be up to the USA to prevent a nuclear war between Iran and Saudi Arabia? 

Report this comment
#9) On October 09, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Turfscape (38.06) wrote:

You all fail to understand that we'll use those savings from cutting PBS funding to pay for the expanded Navy! And we NEED that bigger Navy because...well, you know...pirates and stuff, I guess.

Report this comment
#10) On October 09, 2012 at 3:46 PM, ChrisGraley (29.81) wrote:

Here's the real Republican problem, no Republican is going to split the Republican vote and allow a Democrat in charge. Same prob for the Dems. So both sides will pretend to agree with tenants that they know are wrong just because they are afraid of the other side getting any power. The only hope both sides have to retain  power is your fear of the other guy.

A change has to happen by erosion and public apathy. If we keep getting elections with the public forced to choose from the least worst, it will eventually happen.

A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote that you are tired of repeating stupid and regretting it later.

Report this comment
#11) On October 09, 2012 at 11:15 PM, HuellHowser (< 20) wrote:

First off.  Great read.  I thoroughly enjoyed it. 

Conservatives have always had this problem.  By their very nature they will always be slow and reluctant to change.  But I think one of the points you’re making or at least how I interpreted it is just because you’re a Conservative it doesn’t mean you have to be a Republican and if the Conservatives took back their votes and their power the Republicans would cease to exist.  The interesting question to me is what would take its place.  Would it be the God-fearing, gun loving, Ted Nugent types, or the libertarian, intellectual, Ron Paul types?     

The latter would be my preference. 

The question in my mind is what it would take to make that happen.  If you look at any third party that’s been even moderately successful in this country they’re usually born out of a single event or issue, pushed along by a charismatic salesman.  Anti-Masons, born out of the disappearance of William Morgan, Nullifer party, was a reaction to tariffs, Progressive party, aside from a whizzing contest between Roosevelt and Taft really came from anti-trust laws, Prohibition party, well I’m not sure what that was all about but…you get the point. 

I wish I could say that, that tipping point was upon us and a new party was coming soon.  However in all honesty I don’t think we’re close to it and the powers that be continue to make sure of it.  Citizens united anyone?  But I suppose that’s another discussion for another day, perhaps over a glass of feckin irish…but we’d probably just end up talking about basketball. 

 

Report this comment
#12) On October 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM, rfaramir (29.34) wrote:

wodegian,

"hard to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative"

Properly defined, these are the same. As usually defined, they are incompatible, no matter your wishes.

If by socially liberal, you mean you love liberty to do with your own body and possessions as you wish (including giving to the poor), this has to imply a fiscally conservative government. This is because a ruling mob with guns is very dangerous to your liberty. When it takes your money (taxes), it leaves you with less to be generous with, AND when it spends that money, it hires people who dictate limitations on your life (bureaucrats). Whereas, when it spends less (is fiscally conservative), it threatens your liberties less.

If by socially liberal, you mean hiring a mob with guns to take other people's money and give it to bureaucratically-defined "needy" persons, this takes money to accomplish and is not fiscally conservative. It's also not nice. Do what you wish with your own money. I won't stop you from funding with your own money soup kitchens, orphanages, scholarships for pick-your-disability, and charity for the sick-but-poor to get medicine. That's called being generous, which is one shade of meaning of 'liberal' (as in "liberal with your money"). Taking by force other people's money to pay bureaucrats to be 'generous' with it removes all morality from the process, which, unfortunately is what most people mean by 'liberal'.

Report this comment
#13) On October 10, 2012 at 4:22 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

On the one hand, I'm glad that Romney is going to lose, because I can point to blog posts I made a year ago where I told conservatives that the only GOP candidate who had a chance of beating Obama was Ron Paul.  An Obama blowout would provide proof that the GOP cannot win by continuing to nominate big-government progressives whose platform is "I'm not quite as much of a socialist as Obama.

 On the other hand, you can bet that as soon as the polls close, the MSM is going to start running stories about how Romney only lost because he was too conservative.  They'll blame the tea party.  They'll blame Paul Ryan (did you hear, he's like the exact same thing as Ayn Rand?).  They'll blame the 3% of us who vote for Gary Johnson.  And, if 2008 was any indication, Republicans will believe them.  Maybe in their desire to placate the media and be less "extreme" the GOP will nominate Hillary in 2016...

Report this comment
#14) On October 10, 2012 at 4:41 PM, AFMS (71.34) wrote:

Defense spending should never be reducedOur symbol of a once strong eagle is being reduced to "big bird" thanks to liberals (free spirited,anti-christian,anti-american,racist,occupy wall street losers,etc..) My money can go towards national defense not towards supporters of communism.  You can be a democrat thats fine but there's no excuse to allow this obama person to remain the president. 

Report this comment
#15) On October 10, 2012 at 11:44 PM, HuellHowser (< 20) wrote:

AFMS - "Defense spending should never be reduced"

Do you realize that nearly every modern President with the exception of Dubya would disagree with you?  Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, and Bush senior all had years in which defense spending was cut in some way. 

We can argue how and where our military should be used and how large it needs to be to be effective.  That's legitimate but to say defense spending should never be reduced...I can't believe you honestly think that. 

I dont know if you're a baseball fan but I think we should be more like the Oakland A's and less like the Yankees if you know what I mean. 

Report this comment
#16) On October 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM, awallejr (81.39) wrote:

dont know if you're a baseball fan but I think we should be more like the Oakland A's and less like the Yankees if you know what I mean.

Ok now you drew me in. Cardinals all the way baby.  I was in the 4th grade living in Queens, NY and walking home from school (yes we did that back then) and a bunch of 6th graders asked me who do you want to win the World Series the Yankees or the Cardinals, answer wrong and we beat the crap out of you.  I had no clue who was who but liking birds and thinking I had a 50/50 shot (not realizing that it was NY where I lived) I said "cardinals?"  They said "good man" and let me go.  I then watched Bob Gibson beat the Yankees and was a fan ever since. Talk about loyalty;p

Report this comment
#17) On October 11, 2012 at 2:42 AM, awallejr (81.39) wrote:

Well realizing I lived in NY, but not realizing it was the NY Yankeees ;p

Report this comment
#18) On October 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM, drgroup (68.89) wrote:

Louebsch: Are you living in a parrelel univerise? Obama has added over 5 trillion dollars in debt to our lives. This action has not reduced unemployment or stimulated economic growth. Obama has dumped billions into phony green industry companies that went bancrupt weeks after they received the taxpayer funded money.  Obama gave our tax dollars to a goofy car company in Finland(or one of those insignificant Scandnavian countries). Have you overlooked the devistating affect that obamacare will have on this economy when completely implemented? While we are discussing the obvious, have you also overlooked the crippleing affect obamas' policies have had on the coal and oil industries?The list goes on and on. How can you have missed all of this? Are you blinded by skin color? If you can't see these fiscal disasters created by obama, then by your own words regarding the military you can't comprehend any issues with increased miltary spending.(the military does not spend all of its funding on misseles to fire into other countries. But it is nice to know we can.)

thomgonz: Wow, how to start with your confused mind? I don't believe in aboration, but in your case I could have been persuaded to make an exception.

smartmuffin: One reason you better prey that Romney wins is outlined in obamas' executive order #13603 and the fine print of the obamacare. Educate yourself to the facts regarding this man....

Report this comment
#19) On October 18, 2012 at 5:16 AM, talotu (< 20) wrote:

I blame the Tea Party for making sure the Republican party will last a few years longer. Staying truer to ideals and spitting at the RNC money would have meant a longer road to prominence, but might have given us a legitimate fiscally conservative party by 2016 or 2020.

Now I fear we are doomed to have that happen the hard way, where crony capitialism ends up in a trainwreck sometime in the next 20-40 years.

 

Report this comment
#20) On October 24, 2012 at 10:09 AM, wodeqian (81.86) wrote:

 rfaramir - To be clear in my post the two biggies I'm defining as socially libeal are abortion and gay marriage. Both of those get into right to chose for me (It does get tricky when there is alos the right of a physician to chose not to do abortions and in smaller towns that can effectively cut off a person's ability to get an abortion but for now I'll leave that off the table).

 The areas where it gets trickier are what do we want from a federal government? Highways? National Parks? Defense? Some sort of Social Safety net (if so at what level and how to implement)? All of these take money to do and if we can as a nation agree that we want them and recognize their value then we can talk about how to pay for them so that we don't view giving to the federal government as extortion because they have the most guns.  I don't see myself as a victim paying as I face down the barrel of a gun, but I also want to make sure I get good value for my money.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement