Left Meets Right

Conservative Democrats

Anyone who may know a little political history might already know that the Democratic Party was once the party of classical liberalism, that is, laissez-faire government. That changed slowly beginning in the late 19th Century with the popularity of socialistic policies. The new liberal/quasi-socialist movement reached its most notable height during the FDR administration with its New Deal. Since then, the Democratic Party has for the most part been the party of centralised socio-economic planning.

The shift in terminologies coincided with the opposition to the New Deal through what became known as the consevative movement within the Republican Party. Now, it was the Republicans who embraced laissez-faire. Of course, this movement wasn’t universal within the party. Many continued in the Teddy Roosevelt/Wilsonian tradition of foreign intervention and some limited central planning. This is the wing from which the Bushes come. This, arguably, is also the chief cause of dissatisfaction with the GOP among traditional conservatives. 

Sean Scallon writing for American Chronicle writes:

A former conservative Republican state senator in Wisconsin has come up with a ingenious way to help elect more conservatives to the Wisconsin State Legislature.

Run them as Democrats.

With the unpopularity of the Republican Party at an all time high and after years of futility trying to elect Republicans candidates in heavily Democratic districts, former state senator Tom Reynolds of Milwaukee has started an organization called “Clean Sweep Wisconsin” which intends to run and support a slate of conservative candidates against incumbent Democratic state Assembly and Senate members in the fall open primary.

This is tactic may or may not work, depending on voter turnout of course. But it does indicate that there’s a growing faction within the Democratic Party that may very well in time become a de facto political party on its own and may satisfy the need that many voters have for a new party:

Conservative Democrats. Continue reading.

Radio Forum w/ Conservative Democrat, Bob Conley

Jack Hunter, the ‘Southern Avenger’ hosted a radio forum with the conservative Democratic US Senate candidate Bob Conley who will face Senator Lindsey Graham this fall:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Misconceptions About Libertarianism

Conversations lately have prompted me to explore explanations of libertarianism targeted towards conservative-minded folks such as myself. The best resource on the matter I could find is, of course, Murray Rothbard. He addressed this very issue in 1979. Here are some excerpts from Myth and Truth About Libertarianism:

Libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America today. Before judging and evaluating libertarianism, it is vitally important to find out precisely what that doctrine is, and, more particularly, what it is not. It is especially important to clear up a number of misconceptions about libertarianism that are held by most people, and particularly by conservatives. . . .

Libertarians are methodological and political individualists, to be sure. They believe that only individuals think, value, act, and choose. They believe that each individual has the right to own his own body, free of coercive interference. But no individualist denies that people are influencing each other all the time in their goals, values, pursuits and occupations. . . .

No individualist or libertarian denies that people influence each other all the time, and surely there is nothing wrong with this inevitable process. What libertarians are opposed to is not voluntary persuasion, but the coercive imposition of values by the use of force and police power. Libertarians are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory pseudo-“cooperation” imposed by the state.

. . . libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. . . .

Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest political end” – not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values. . . .

It is furthermore particularly grotesque to place the guardianship of morality in the hands of the state apparatus – that is, none other than the organization of policemen, guards, and soldiers. Placing the state in charge of moral principles is equivalent to putting the proverbial fox in charge of the chicken coop.

 

 

Conley to Face Graham

US Senate primary recount: Conley to face Graham

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Bob Conley, a Democratic newcomer to South Carolina politics, will take on Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham in November after a recount Monday gave Conley a narrow victory over a primary opponent. [the rest]

 

Conservative. Libertarian. Bob Barr ’08.

‘The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. . . . libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.’ 

– Ronald Reagan, 1975.

Several weeks ago Bob Barr was nominated to be the presidential candidate for the Libertarian party. Like any reasonable citizen should, but rarely does, I decided to look over the candidate before jumping on any bandwagon.

I started thinking, When we campaign for, support and vote for a candidate, what are we doing? What are our goals, and what are our priorities for the next four years?

For me, it’s the economy, personal liberty, border security, sensible foreign policy, and educational freedom. Each of these issues have two solutions available: more centralised government intervention and less centralised government intervention (the latter beneficial; the former detrimental).

From both Obama and McCain you can expect more of the same regarding economic central planning. As Reagan once said, ‘Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.’

Here is Bob Barr’s position on ‘the root of all problems,’ big government and big spending:

Government spending at all levels is out of control. Most Americans understand the problem of “earmarks,” . . . But while earmarks are an outrageous abuse of the taxpayer’s money, they account for a very small percentage of federal spending. Over the past decade, total government spending (state, local and federal) has increased from $2.9 trillion to an astonishing $5.1 trillion in 2008. . . . The federal government must take the lead in making significant cuts in spending. . . . Cutting spending would allow America to implement real tax reform. . . . One of the best approaches would be to adopt some form of a consumption tax, like a national sales tax, replacing the Internal Revenue Service and all federal income taxes as well as payroll taxes. . . . We also must repeal the 16th amendment, which authorizes Congress to levy an income tax.

This can only happen if we renew our understanding of what the role of government ought to be.

The United States was created for the purpose of securing the liberties of its people. . . . The nation’s founders drafted the Constitution to sharply limit the federal government’s powers. . . . Unfortunately, in recent years government at all levels has shown growing disrespect for the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment that protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. . . . America’s elected officials at all levels must renew their respect for the law and work to protect the rights of individuals. The place to start is restoring the writ of Habeas Corpus, which protects against unlawful detention, and thus stands at the core of individual liberty. Article 1 of the Constitution provides that this right shall not be suspended without clear and necessary cause, such as during an invasion. . . . Government limits individual actions and choices, from the way in which we educate our children to the food that we eat, from the type of light bulbs that illuminate our living rooms to the benefits that we receive for working. It is time to again trust individuals to make their own decisions. . . . All Americans should be free to decide what is best for themselves and their families.

While restoring our individual freedoms is foremost in restoring Constitutionality within the borders of the 50 States, the blatant disregard for sovereignty affects all these areas in a profoundly counterproductive way.

Bob Barr proposes that:

we must be aggressive in securing our borders while at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity. Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer.

While some see the situation on the southern borders as an invasion that needs to be dealt with defensively, we are spending billions of dollars abroad in military intervention in foreign nations. Much like Ron Paul, the Old Right and the Founders, Bob Barr supports a sensible foreign and defense policy:

Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world’s police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation. The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.

The only choice for president this November is as clear as the Liberty Bell. No longer can this free American throw away his vote for ‘spoilers’ like Obama or McCain who no longer support legitimate and Constitutional government, but embrace the remnant of 20th century central planning and socio-economic engineering. For those of us who love freedom and abhor tyranny, we have no other option but to vote Bob Barr for president.

The above quotes are from BobBarr2008.com (emphases mine).

Throw-away Votes

When it comes to presidential politics, I often wonder at my elders (anyone beyond their 30’s). How are they not jaded? I mean, I’ve only been a voter for 16 years, and I’m reaching that point now.

This is what we’ve been given: a Republican and a Democrat, and that’s it. We’re told, ‘never vote for a “third party” candidate or you’ll be throwing away your vote or, even worse, you’ll be voting for the other guy.’

What if they’re both ‘the other guy’?

Then we’re told we must therefore, ‘vote for the “lesser of two evils”.’

Again, that’s no good. I suppose if I were to apply this concept to reality, I could come up with one example. How about this?

Should I commit adultery or theft? Well, one could land me in jail and hurt someone economically while the other could land me in civil court and hurt others emotionally. Neither of them sound like good ideas. So it is with the upcoming presidential election.

This year I don’t see how any vote is NOT a ‘throw away’ vote. A vote for either the old liberal McCain or the new liberal Obama is a vote to throw away the very foundation of the Constitutional compact we call the United States of America.

What do I mean by ‘liberal’? Liberalism is the new/old name for the ‘progressive’ philosophy that dates at least back to Woodrow Wilson where the Constitution is viewed as a sort of living, breathing document that sets forth guidelines (suggestions) rather than the compact that defines and sets limitations on the federal government. This philosophy of governance also embraces economic planning usually manifesting in one of the many cousins of Marxism, mainly corporatism. That’s what I’m talking about when I refer to someone as a liberal, and how I differentiate between that and a conservative. They have no respect for our Constitution unless it’s lip service to get elected or to drum up support for a bill.

Here is where relative terms become even more confusing.

The most predominant ‘third party’ is that of the Libertarian Party. For years I’ve had many reservations about the party. There was a time when I thought that the LP was the party of either libertinism or total anarchy. While there is some reason to draw those conclusions, I’m more enamoured by the party’s conservatism.

Let me begin addressing this by addressing Kirk’s 10 principles of conservatism:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it; human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity, not slavishly, for he recognizes room for improvement in all things human, but humbly, for he recognizes also that wisdom grows slowly through ages, and because he prefers the devil he knows to the devil he doesn’t know.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription [“that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary”]. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity — or kind intentions.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems…. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectibility…. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster…. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention and prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order…. The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism…. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some…are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions…. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society…. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression…. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

The only significant difference between the conservative and the libertarian is primarily the role of government. The conservative (or more accurately, neoconservative) seems to permit government to be the authority in this ‘enduring moral order’ making themselves the same as liberals in this respect. There seems to be very little difference in their approaches to social engineering. As a Christian, I have no doubt that there are in reality enduring moral principles. In that respect I am conservative, but when it comes to arbitration apart from the Church or other entities, I have to side with the libertarians for the most part.

Of course, these are all just philosophies and are subject to the laws of supply and demand. The supply of good ideas must be in demand. Otherwise there’s nobody buying it, and we’re just going to have to put up with whatever’s given us. The idea is to increase supply.

What supply are we being offered this coming presidential election? Personally, I’d prefer the products sit on the shelf until they go on clearance and eventually back to the warehouse.

The Libertarian Party has yet to offer us a presidential nominee. This will become apparent by Memorial Day. Many in the media believe it may be Bob Barr who is hoping to scoop up Ron Paul’s support.

Barr, who served in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, was best known for his leading role in the 1998 impeachment effort against President Bill Clinton; he was one of the most conservative members on Capitol Hill. But in 2006 Barr exited his party and became a Libertarian, strongly criticizing President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq and the government’s infringement on social liberties. – Newsweek

Whoever the nominee is, will he or she be the next president? No.

That doesn’t matter in the short term. What matters is that We the People do our job and vote for who we truly feel we need in that office no matter the results. In my view, to vote for who you think would be the ‘lesser of two evils’ is a ‘throw-away vote’.

Don’t throw away yours.

 

The Republican Party: For Conservatives?

 

I recall a time when I thought I had to be a Republican. They were the only party that claimed to be the voice of those of us who follow the wise advice of our founders and don’t trust our government. Glenn Greenwald has a new book out about the subject: Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. Here is an excerpt from an excerpt:

Ever since Ronald Reagan famously declared in his 1980 inaugural address that “government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem,” Republicans have masqueraded as the party of limited government. Its leaders reflexively pledge to keep government off the backs of regular, hardworking Americans. Homage is paid to the wisdom and insight of the American people, which, Republicans endlessly insist, is far superior to the judgment of government officials.

This political battle cry is, in reality, grounded in a populist cultural argument – namely, that the Republican Party takes the side of ordinary Americans against the faceless, power-hungry, freedom-abridging Washington bureaucrat. In this rendition of America’s culture war, which pits normal folks against D.C. politicians, right-wing leaders are on our side, doing everything in their power to keep government out of our lives.

-The Republican Dictatorship

This explains one of the many reasons why many professed Conservatives who once embraced the party are now realising that the GOP is not the party of Conservatism, and I’m wondering if it ever really was.

Read this piece by Southern apologist and retired history professor Clyde Wilson: The Republican Charade: Lincoln and His Party.

Many of us who supported Ron Paul in his bid for the presidency and who support his movement to change the GOP from within need to realise the importance of our task. Ultimately, it’s not about partisan politics or even zealous devotion to an ideology, but about doing what’s right.

What is the right thing to do this election? I can’t say for sure. I know we need to voice our concerns with as much authenticity and gallantry as is possible.

‘These are times that try men’s souls.’ – Thomas Paine.

 

 

This Election: New Liberal vs Old Liberal

There are some people you kinda like, but before admitting that to others, you have to wave the banner of DISCLAIMER. For me, Ann Coulter is one of those people. I like her style and humour, and sometimes I actually agree with what she writes.

Her latest piece, One Down, Two to Go, is mainly about saying ‘good riddance’ to the Clintons. In it she compares Bill to ‘the creepy guy who graduated last year but still hangs around the high school cafeteria chatting up sophomores,’ and refers to the post-2000 Al Gore as ‘a deranged conspiracy theorist who believes the Earth is in serious peril from cow flatulence.’ LOL. It’s only funny because it’s true.

Yet, at the same time, these are serious matters. The realms of politics and media are comparable only to Mos Eisley from Star Wars: ‘You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.’

Ann has a clever sense of word-play, and points out the reality that in this upcoming presidential election ‘that we are now left with two dangerous choices for president — a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy.’ [emphasis mine]

I’ve extracted from Ann’s column a key concept for this election cycle: New Liberal (Obama) vs Old Liberal (McCain).

Unlike Ann, though, I don’t think of Islamic Terrorism as some monolithic threat like the Soviet Union that can only be dealt with by taking over Middle Eastern countries. Ann, to oppose a war path paved with false assumptions and lies does not a liberal make.

I’m often perplexed by the neoconservative concept of less government. They fail to see that perpetual war is a big government program. Having troops in over 120 countries around the world is costly and unnecessary. I’m sorry, Mr McCain, I don’t feel insecure enough to support a 100-years-war in Iraq (and Iran too; it seems).

McCain is not a liberal in disguise. He’s a liberal outright. He has opposed tax cuts at least twice in the last 8 years. He tagged his name on the anti-First Amendment legislation, McCain-Feingold. He sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. On Second Amendment (true national security) issues alone, he is one of the premier liberals receiving an F rating from Gun Owners of America. 

Bush’s failures are the unholy trinity of Iraq war, open borders, and a foreign trade policy that has devalued the dollar. McCain has ever been the champion of all three. We can expect the amplification of all these in a McCain administration.

For those of us who champion Constitutional Conservatism and national sovereignty, who do we vote for? A better question would be, ‘Should we vote at all?’ Take a good look at what we have: ‘Old Liberal’ McCain vs ‘New Liberal’ Obama. The latter was rated ‘most liberal Senator in 2007‘ by National Journal. 

For now I guess I have to go into the media’s ‘Undecided’ category.