Ron Paul Winning CPAC: Real vs. Ideal

Almost everyone who follows politics knows that at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference libertarian-republican (if you can put those two words together) Representative from Texas, Ron Paul, won the straw poll. CNN has it here:

“The results of the Washington Times CPAC straw poll of presidential candidates are in, and the winner is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, with 30 percent of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the runner-up with 23 percent.

There were 3,742 ballots cast in the annual survey, which is a chance for devotees to name their pick for president in 2012. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they were generally satisfied with the field of potential candidates and 43 percent said they wished the GOP had a better field of potential candidates. For those surveyed, the size of the federal government was the most important issue to them.”

In a lot of ways the above straw poll shows the state of the Republican party. The debate between the ideal and the real.

The Mitt Romney’s of the Republican party are going to argue that the Ron Paul’s of the party even with their good ideas are not electable, we should settle on someone like Mitt Romney, which they consider the real. The Ron Paul’s of the party will say that we should not settle for the ideal. So who wins?

Neither of them will ever win. This is what “Republicans” have such a hard time accepting. The system, which is our laws and policies, will never elect anyone who is for limited government. It just simply can’t happen. The current system rewards those that dole out to special interests and punishes those that stand for ideals. It doesn’t matter whether your limited government candidate is a Ken doll from a liberal state or a squirrelly off the cuff texan, he who will be elected will have to have friends in high places to do so.

Why is it the Republican party cannot accept this? Think about the majority of Republican party members. They usually hold one, if not all of these characteristics:

  • Loves the Constitution
  • Loves the American Flag
  • Loves the Founding Fathers

Now, there is nothing wrong with loving these three things. But like a good love, they will break your heart. And the Republican party refuses to get over it. The founding fathers were great visionaries and they created a government that they would hope would stay limited. They did the best they could do and they should be honored for that. But that does not help us sustain a limited government.

Next is the Constitution and this is the real big one for conservatives. How many times have we heard “only if they followed the Constitution”? I know I have heard it a million times myself. But for some reason conservatives and the Republican party are okay with saying that. It’s as meaningless as a police chief throwing up his hands and saying “only if they followed the law.”

What we need to look at is why is it that the Constitution is not followed? And under what system would we have a more effective society? Is there an alternative?

Advertisements

Should the GOP Run Toward the “Middle”? By Jack Hunter

Today’s article of the day comes from Campaign for Liberty:

When Republican Sen. Arlen Specter defected to the Democratic Party recently, politicians and pundits everywhere heralded the move as another sign that the GOP was “too conservative.” Said liberal Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, “If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle.”

Presumably “the middle,” a pasture that so many Democrats, liberal Republicans, and others believe the GOP should now graze, is a place free of “reckless” government-slashing rhetoric. These critics believe Obama is president, the Democrats are in power, and Republicans who refuse to “change” with the rest of the country will face inevitable defeat for the foreseeable future. The Republican Party is simply “too conservative,” they say. Nothing could be more untrue.

What exactly did voters reject in 2008 that makes for such a dark future for conservatives? A government-slashing Congress? A president that cracked down on illegal immigration? A Christian right, gun zealot? No, they rejected George W. Bush, a big government, amnesty-proposing president, who was occasionally socially conservative in his rhetoric, but rarely in practice. Between the war and spending, America soured on Bush for reasons that had nothing to do with conservatism.

Does anyone really believe voters are now enamored with Barack Obama because they despise conservatism and love liberalism? Americans aren’t that ideological. After 100 days in office, Obama’s popularity remains high, with a significant majority in a recent Gallup poll saying he is doing a good job. But when the same poll asks “what is the worst thing Barack Obama has done since he became president?,” the number one answer is “stimulus spending,” the president’s most ambitious and most defining piece of legislation to date.

If the GOP must move to the middle to win elections, exactly what do Republicans gain by backing massive spending increases which even those who support Obama are uncomfortable with? Why is becoming more like the Democrats considered the path to GOP success? What’s the point of even having a Republican Party?

The GOP would do well to flee from the consensus middle and take a hard right on the top issues that continue to concern Americans across the political spectrum — out-of-control spending, outrageous debt, and our ever-expanding federal government. In other words, the Republican Party should actually become the party of small government it has always pretended to be.

But not everyone agrees, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham. According to The New York Times, “Graham scoffed at the notion that the party was suffering because it was not conservative enough. ‘Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough? This is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted.”

Graham is right. The Republican brand is tainted — by Bush Republicans like Graham.

While the 18-to-34-year-olds came out in force for Obama, the most conservative Republican presidential candidate in the last election ran a campaign defined in large part by its youth support. As usual, the old, white, Christian Republican base dutifully gravitated to conventional, Bush Republicans like McCain, but the government-slashing radical Ron Paul drew support from young and old; Republicans, Democrats, and independents; whites, blacks and Hispanics; Christians and non-believers. The much discussed, increasingly shrinking GOP is the party of lukewarm, establishment men like Graham, McCain, and Bush — not fiery conservatives like Ron Paul.

But those who believe the GOP must move to the middle are right about one thing: Thundering on and on about abortion, gay marriage, and family values at the national level is political suicide, precisely because too many Americans who might be attracted to a limited government message would be repulsed by any politician they perceive as wanting to dictate their personal lives.

Once again, Paul’s example is the best solution. This pro-life, conservative Christian believes states should decide social issues free of federal interference. Gay newlyweds in Vermont would have nothing to fear from a staunchly libertarian GOP. And neither would conservative Christians in South Carolina, who would gain more from a smaller, less intrusive government than the type of pro-Christian, big government the religious right typically supports. In any move to the middle, Republicans are more likely to find a graveyard instead of salvation. The GOP will never out-Obama, Obama.

However, it is not clear that voters are prepared to accept big government as the long-term American way. If a majority ever decides to reject it, they will require a GOP far removed from the current, middle-of-the-road consensus of both parties. And only a Republican Party that eventually opposes big government — and is not a part of it — will stand fit to put it out of its misery.

Published in: on May 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Ron Paul’s Economic Theories Winning GOP Converts by David Weigal

Today’s article of the day comes from the Washington Independent:

From time to time, a few members of Congress—as many as 10, sometimes fewer—gather with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to eat lunch and hear from an author or expert whose opinion he thinks is worth promoting. They grab something to eat off of a deli plate. They take notes. They loosen up and ask questions.

“It’s not all that easy for the other members to get here,” Paul said in an interview with TWI, sitting just outside of his office before heading back to Texas for a few days. “It’s just that there’s so much competition. Once they get here and they get going, they all seem to enjoy it.”

A funny thing has started happening to Paul since his long-shot presidential campaign ended quietly in the summer of 2008. More Republicans have started listening to him. There are the media requests from Fox Business Channel and talk radio, where he’s given airtime to inveigh on sound money and macroeconomics. There is HR 1207 , the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, a bill that would launch an audit of the Federal Reserve System, and which has attracted 112 co-sponsors. When Paul introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act just two years ago, no other members of Congress signed on.

And then there are the luncheons. The off-the-record talks have brought in speakers such as ex-CIA counterterrorism expert Michael Scheuer, libertarian investigative reporter James Bovard, iconoclastic terrorism scholar Robert Pape, and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Perhaps the most influential guest has been Thomas Woods, a conservative scholar whose previous books include “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” and “Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush,” and whose current book “Meltdown” has inspired Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to question Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner about economic fundamentals.

Paul’s unexpected and sudden clout with his fellow Republicans — even some of Paul’s staff have been surprised with the momentum of his “Audit the Fed” bill — come as the GOP engages in a tortured internal dialogue about its future. Since January, no small number of new coalitions have formed between current members of Congress, former advisors to President George W. Bush, and perennial party leaders such as former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) and former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.). Few of those conservatives, however, have spent much time criticizing the very foundations of America’s modern economic system and worrying about a 1929-style crash. Few of them had a drawer stuffed with off-brand economic ideas and forgotten libertarian texts, ready to explain what needed to be done. Ron Paul did, and as a result the ideas that made the Republican establishment irate enough to bounce him from a few primary debates are more popular than ever. (more…)

Tea Party Crasher

beeler

~PCCapitalist

Rush vs. Steele

matson

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on March 7, 2009 at 2:31 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Hamilton versus Jefferson

This was originally posted on RedVirginia:

When you hear most people trace back the two parties today to the founding fathers you get Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat and Alexander Hamilton was a Republican. This is completely wrong. Thomas Jefferson was worried about a strong central government and wanted states to have most of the rights. Alexander Hamilton was the complete opposite and supported tariffs.

Lets take a look, quote from Thomas Jefferson:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

quote from Alexander Hamilton:

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

Sure, Hamilton’s quote doesn’t seem less radical than Jefferson’s but that is because the left in America at that time was like a moderate Democrat. Our country was founded by people who were afraid of government. That fear is only held by a small few. Those who have gotten comfortable and dependent on the state. They could not imagine a world with little or no government. Many even call for an increase in the size of the government to help these people who have no “reason and justice.”

Thomas Jefferson was and is a Libertarian-Conservative while Hamilton was a Moderate-Democrat. This is just one of many misconceptions about history that a good Conservative should be aware of. The spectrum has changed and we are regulated every day. As I have mentioned before Conservatives and Libertarians have been push overs to the Great Society and New Deal ideals. This is where it should stop. We are seeing a slow in our countries growth and it is not to be blamed on capitalism. It is the fault of government regulation. Regulation in almost all shapes and forms will decrease growth.

Conservatives: Read up on Thomas Jefferson, there is a lot to learn from a man who was constantly worried about big government.

Liberals: Read up on Alexander Hamilton, who realized big government was a problem but was trying to run big government without the problems. Liberals today deny the effects of certain things like the minimum wage and other regulations. That is for another post at another time.

Sometimes you have to know where you come from to understand where you are going. The Republican Party is going the wrong way and if we could correctly identify where we came from then maybe we could steer back on track.

~BarryAUH2O

Favorite Cartoon of 2008: Conservative V.P. Please

conservativevpplease1

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on January 3, 2009 at 3:05 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Reason or Faith Republicans

When focusing on the current discussion of fiscal conservatism and how much we should deviate or not at all. John Lewis joins the debate but more from a libertarian individualist standpoint. I have been arguing for a while that is it very hard to say that it is okay to regulate someone’s bedroom but not there wallet. The same line of thinking can be used in both instances. Here are a few of John Lewis’ points courtesy of Capitalism Magazine:

“The reason for the Republicans’ defeat is this simple fact: Over the past fifty years, they have ceased to be Republican in anything other than name. For two generations, Republican leaders have abandoned reason, individual rights, and freedom—the founding values of the American republic—in favor of religion, tradition, and “family values.” The Republicans’ tendency to coin terms such as “compassionate conservatism,” “neoconservatism,” and “big-government conservatism” is a consequence of their adherence to the sacrificial morality of religion, which, logically, demands an ever-widening welfare state.

Republicans want to be moral, which is a lofty goal, but under pressure of commandments to be selfless, they cannot defend the heart of free enterprise: the selfish pursuit of profit. Many Republicans admire successful businessmen for their productive success but grant them moral credit only when they give away their fortunes.

Because the Republicans’ embrace of altruism has rendered them unable to defend the profit motive, they have abandoned capitalism and accepted the legitimacy of every government program that redistributes money to those in need. The welfare state is the direct application of the morality of self-sacrifice to the realm of politics.”

Do you agree that religion and socialism go hand in hand in there rhetoric? I could definitely see this as true. The rest of this article is worth reading and is much to long to put on here. So should the parties be individualism versus collectivism instead of moral/free market versus profane/market interventionism? Is this why the free market policies are being diluted?

I think this very likely. You could imagine to keep their people happy they would often trade. Gay marriage for higher corporate regulations or something to that effect. That is the way politics work and the platform of individualism does not get you elected.

The rest is here.

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on December 10, 2008 at 11:44 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , ,

The Republican Party Post-Election

keefe

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on November 8, 2008 at 2:06 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

Did McCain ever win his Republican base?

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on October 25, 2008 at 1:36 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,