Partisans Come to the aid of your Parties

Democrats and Republicans have dedicated partisans that believe in their party's' platform. This is common and even correct. By my reading the Republicans are poised to make a comeback this fall. Whether that includes winning back either house of Congress is too early to say. They can also sabotage their own future by then, but that is the way it looks now.

My personal belief is that both parties are populated by leaders that are clueless and destructive. Most of the reason for the rebirth of the Republicans is the stupidity and arrogance of the Democrats. Democrats will sink themselves at some point. If it is not this year it can't be far away. My biggest reason for this is they don't have anyone in their party telling them when they are wrong. The Republican Party is known by some as the stupid party. Their resurgence has little to do with things they have done, but mostly over reach by the Democrats.

For the years leading up the 2006 Democrat victories the partisans in the Republican Party were telling them that they were spending too much money, and they had lost sight of what their party platform was. Today the Democratic leadership is made up of left wing activists (Pelosi, Reid, etc). Their members are telling them that they are on the wrong course and they are ignoring it. As a country we need both parties to be listening to their party members. They have come to believe for good reason that they will pay no price for not listening to their members. Until leadership gets voted out they simply won't listen. Just changing the party in power also won't help. The leadership will just become a minority party instead of a majority party. The leadership will still be safe. It will be the first and second term members that get thrown out. Only by throwing out the entrenched leaders of both parties will anything change.

So now which party has the members effectively telling them the correct things? I believe it is the Republicans. Talk radio plays a big part of that. Throughout the immigration debate Talk radio hosts were telling them daily they were alienating their voters. The voices ranged from reasonable and reflective to extreme and nasty. This will always be the case. Right now Democrats are telling their leaders they are on the wrong track by staying home from the ballot box. They are listening to the extreme leftists such as George Soros and Keith Olbermann. They are not listening to the independents and moderate Democrats. They do that at their own peril. This fall will tell a lot about that. It sounds like the Democratic leadership is determined not to moderate. If that is true even a growing economy won't be enough to save them. The voters are in a particularly impatient mood right now which makes them motivated to vote. If that continues to the fall they won't have a good election. It could still change. If the economy continues to improve and unemployment comes down they may buy themselves some time. Even if that does happen though I believe the time will come when both parties will have to pay the price. The longer both Parties do whatever they want the closer that day will be.

I am somewhat in between on this. If I had to classify myself I am a libertarian. Yes that is a small 'l' libertarian. I think most people in the Libertarian party are not serious thinkers. That leaves me with no real party to align with. I tend to vote Republican but rarely feel good about it. With that reason I am rooting for the Republicans to get serious about small government principles and truly putting out policies that reflect that, BUT I am not holding my breath.

Don't get stuck on Socialism

Definition of Socialism: The economic system whereby the means of production are owned and controlled by the government.

Lots of conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians are getting killed in the press because they continue to call Obama and company socialists. They have to stop. One reason is that it isn't productive and the biggest reason is that I don't believe it is accurate. I don't believe President Obama or Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton, or Rahm Emmanuel are socialists. The media will continue to hammer them every time they make the charge. They hammer them for good reason, the vast majority of them agree with Obama on most things. They simply ask themselves do I want to see the government own all businesses? The answer is always a resounding no!! That does not mean that they don't want the government to control business to a great degree. They do that by levying taxes and instituting regulation.

Jonah Goldberg uses a term that I believe is true of a great many politicians and not just left wing ones. That term is Corporatism. The leaders at any one time know that can't control all business, but they believe if they work with the biggest leaders in any industry they get input from the industry. That is what lobbyists do. This is their very function. The biggest of the big tell the people in Congress and the President how much regulation and tax they will accept without a major fight. The businesses also benefit from this because they know their smaller competitors cannot absorb this. In essence what happens is the businesses run interference for the government by being a bogey man to slay and the government runs interference for the businesses keeping excessive competition (as if it were possible to have too much competition) out of the market place and thereby keeping the large entities secure. After all the sausage making of government is done they all get to go to cocktail parties together and sneer at those little people who want to start small businesses or live their lives without the guidance of them and their billiance.

There are socialists who are not corporatist. Dennis Kucinich comes to mind. I believe if he had to opportunity he would implement full socialism tomorrow he would. This also explains why outside of his intelligentsia district in Cleveland he has no visible support. He doesn't need it, the only people he needs to please are his district.

The people on the right have to shy away from the word socialism and call it what it is: Corporatism and give the credit to Jonah Goldberg. This term should be part of our political lexicon. The people of the right should spend time explaining this term to the masses because as they get that message out the average person who follows politics will understand the process a little better.

Both parties are going to spend this election year trying to court the tea party groups, the 9-12 groups and they disaffected voters. This is a good thing, but unless we voters are willing to demand results from the people they put in nothing will change. Scott Brown is riding high in Massachusetts but the people of his state have to hold him to a standard. If he falls prey to the double headed monster of the party chiefs and the lobbyists he must go back home after one term. Also leaders must fall! Both parties are glad to let their moderates get replaced after one of two terms knowing that they will not lose their places. The leaders of both parties have to be replaced often. Only then do you drain the swamp. Then and only then do you get them to care about what the voters say. In this next election Harry Reid has made himself vulnerable. I say good! They next time the Republicans get power their leaders will need changed not long after, because they also will start legislating to increase their power, not to enhance the people's power. Vote them out!! Only then can we return power to the voters.

On Altruism and Christianity

This is a tough issue for me. I am mostly a fiscal libertarian. I am somewhat of a rare breed there because I am also a committed Christian. Many libertarians are atheists. The esteemed author of Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand spoke wrote eloquently against altruism.

The Christian church as a whole is involved very heavily in altruism. Food banks, homeless shelters, missions of all sorts. I believe in all of these endeavors. The conflict comes from the blurring of altruism that has occurred since the explosion of government. Everything that the government sells is sold on the basis of altruism. Giving people a hand who are down on their luck has been the selling point of every government giveaway plan from the beginning of time. In stage one thinking I believe in helping people down on their luck. I personally give to the Salvation Army, a local mission in Akron (near where I live), and of course tithing to my church. The United Methodist church is very active in mission work and disaster relief. All of those things I believe in.

To my way of thinking when altruism gets beyond emergency, or survival relief it can become a strait jacket. We see it every day. The natural spirit of man is to succeed. We get our esteem from succeeding. Even when we fail we build the character and the knowledge that is needed to succeed in the future. When we attempt to take away failure we take away the experiences that people need to succeed in the future.

Life is a balancing act. Too much of a good thing leads to too little of another. When we attempt to take away the events of failure we take away the experience which helps us learn to adapt. The most obvious example I can think of is teenage pregnancy. In past days there was a stigma against this. There is no doubt that sometimes these young women were treated very unfairly. I never want to go back to these days, but the stigma taught most young women not to do this. There is a reason for this: It is difficult for the young women and not beneficial for the children. The stigma kept them from making a mistake in many cases. Today as soon as a young woman gets pregnant the government swoops in to educate her in the many ways that the state will help her along the way. We do this under the guise of making sure the children do not suffer. The children don't have to suffer, they can be adopted by people who are ready for the task who either choose not to get pregnant or simply cannot. In today's society though, why would the woman choose adoption? The state is poised to give her support in many ways to have the child. In many cases (certainly not all) the young women simply are not ready for the responsibility of raising a child. She simply has no incentive to choose adoption. She may suffer a little, but mostly the children suffer from not having a dad. Additionally they grow up in a world where the state is at least partially the bread winner of the family. They don't learn independence, they don't learn to take care of themselves because they don't need to.

To use a different example let's look at something less substantive but no less parallel. A couple of weeks back my wife and I took the kids bowling. Every lane now has bumpers. They are great for little kids. They can get a decent score when they aren't big enough to have great control of the ball. The problem is they never stop using them. I looked around I saw teenagers using them as a crutch, I saw adults banking balls off them to get spares. Of course bowling skills are not vital to life but if you are going to bowl, why not have real results and not the bumper related crutch? The people who want to improve simply cannot use them. Life however is not always that clear.

Now, back to Christianity. Can we claim to care for the souls of people and contribute to the dumbing down of people's accomplishments? When we provide altruism beyond disaster or survival, we teach people that they don't need to excel, they don't need to succeed, they don't need to feed the part of their soul that depends on success and failure. You can say that those people don't need to receive that support, they can choose not to. I disagree. If it is there for the taking most people simply won't turn it down. The ones that do are much better for doing so, but most people simply won't. My bottom line is it simply is not compassionate to continue to block people from learning from setbacks. Setbacks are not failure, they are a roadmap to future success.

Of Harry Reid and race

The political world has gone gaga for the discussion of race and Harry Reid. We have President Obama forgiving him, we have Attorney General quoting his longtime dedication to social justice. Social Justice seems to be the phrase that must have been in the talking points because most of the outpouring of support for Reid includes the phrase.

In case you have been on the moon and missed it during the campaign last year Senator Reid is said to have said that then Senator Obama could win because he is light skinned and doesn't speak with a Negro dialect unless he wants to. This exchange is quoted in the upcoming book
Game Change by Mark Halperin.

My particular opinion is that it is not racist in any way (other than a stupid choice of using the word negro). Actually I believe that it is remarkably consistent to what I have observed of Harry Reid and a good portion of the leftists in our country. To me it shows complete contempt not for President Obama but for the American voters. In the world of Harry Reid the reason we haven't had a black president before 2008 is because we are racist and only now can tolerate a black man as long as he isn't too black. The man is a condescending boob. The only candidates we have had previously were race hucksters who have made a living cashing in on a history of race offenses that while the history is real and detestable, Sharpton and Jackson's actions do nothing to help the lives of real black people today.

He also shows me that he thinks of blacks the same way he thinks of women, Hispanics and union workers. They are all mascots to be used to sell his big government collectivist view of the world. You need to sell health care? Bring out some pathetic examples of people without insurance and if they are minority all the better. The American people are compassionate. We will buy central control if you just show us starving, unhealthy people that you can blame on some group they already hate (like insurance companies, drug companies or just rich people). Need to sell union control, just show how minorities are discriminated against in the job market. It doesn't even have to be true, it just has to lead people to think they are.

Harry Reid is one of the people destroying the country, but I don't think racism is one of his ills. Demagoguery, bigotry of low expectations, nakedly pursuing power? Yes, but not racism.