The Trump Inside Their Head

I don't post much any more. That's mostly because there are far better people who blog, who are much more facile in the use of language. That being said, I have a pretty good idea what Democrats keep losing in the past 4 special elections. 

When someone lives inside your head, you'll always have problems. Trump lives inside all the talking heads of the Left. He owns them. Until they have a message beyond "The Resistance" (as if they were like the French "resisting" the Germans) he will continue to own them. "We're not Trump" didn't work in 2016, its not working now and it won't work in 2018 or 2020. Until they can come up with a coherent message, and economic plan that doesn't showcase Socialism (just look hard @ Venezuela now, and what is happening in Illinois) they will continue to fail. Americans rejected Obama's sub 2% annual economic growth by voting against Hillary. Untl they can do more than scream like spoiled brats "its not fair Hillary lost", or "the Russians did it" they will continue to lose, by ever growing margins.

When you toss in the ever worsening tantrums of "children" in our universities, you begin to see what is happening. The Democratic Party in general and Leftist Liberals in particular have gone completely off the rails. They've done a 180 degree reversal of what Classical Liberalism used to be.

Unless they get a grip on reality, Middle America will continue to kick them to the curb. Right now, the Democratic Party is maginal. Their only majorities are in metropolitan areas, and both coasts. They are in danger of becoming irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Thats not good as our system of government NEEDS two effective parties to work.

An Email...On Political Parties

A good friend of mine emailed me this:  

In my humble opinion... before I am accused of being party biased, the only difference between the two parties is how they waste your hard earned dollars and what part of the constitution they don't mind treading on. They both stink.

Sadly, I had to agree.  For the most part, the GOP, at least for the past 10 years has been "DemLite"...and for 20 years before that, utterly blinded by social issues...instead of keeping their eye on what is important.  In my humble opinion, that would be keeping a lid on the size of government and government spending.

Recently, we hit rock bottom.  But, in the course of it all...not once have we taken a penny of government money.  Non one red cent.  Every avenue of assistance that we have used, has come from private sources.  It took a little work, and putting aside any shred of pride we had left...but we were able to NOT suck off of Uncle Sam's hind tit.  Now if I can't do this...why can't others?

Government isn't the source of all assistance.  For the first 300 years that there have been "Americans", per se, we didn't look to the government for hand outs.  We did what we had to do, and depended upon ourselves and our neighbors if we needed help.  What happened to America that we lost that standard of self reliance...?  What happened to America that we've come to see the government as being the source of help?  When did we lose sight of that vision?

Government does nothing efficiently.  Nothing at all...except waste money by the bucket full.  How in the hell did we become dependent upon a government that takes from those who do...and gives to those who won't?  Once upon a time, it was said that our "republican experiment" would last only as long as "We The People" didn't vote ourselves priviledges...has that day come to pass?

A Tea Party Challenge

How can a 3rd party realistically challenge the two entrenched major parties? There is no easy solution. However, there many ways of achieving that goal, but they will require a lot of money, almost as much time, and a great deal of effort. It's been done several times before here in the United States. Our political system was originally envisioned with no parties, since the founders thought that this was a fundamental flaw with the English Parliamentary system.

There the parties were the Whigs (progressives), and the Tories (Conservatives). In England, too there has been an evolution of parties. The Whigs eventually wheezed to and disolved, only to be succeeded by the 19th Century's Liberal party. That party lost steam and gave way to the Labour party. All the while, the Tories have risen and fallen, but have remained remarkably consistent.

During the presidency of George Washington, two parties began to coalesce around Alexander Hamilton (who eventually took the names of the Federalists) and Thomas Jefferson/James Madison. The Jefferson/Madison party was originally called the Republican (and Democratic-Republican by their opponents) and then eventually just the Democratic party after the collapse of the D-R party in 1824. After that there were 2 wings, one centred upon Andrew Jackson (R, later called D), and the other on Henry Clay (D SC).

At the time, the Democrats favoured a rural economy centred on small family farms and a "states rights" decentralized government. While the Federalists tended to be much more mercantilist, or business oriented and favoured a strong central government. Thus the adversarial relationship between the early parties. If you think that today's media is biased, they are, but they still report actual facts howsoever slanted. But 200 years ago, newspapers were a bit more creative in what they reported about politicians from the party they opposed...some of it was even true. In 1816, the Federalist party basically collapsed and didn't offer a presidential candidate in the 1820 election. The D/R party lasted a couple of years longer, but splintered in 1824. Eventually it revived as the Democratic Party in the 1840's.

Now, what does this have to do with the rise of a modern "3rd" party? Well, all the political parties that have risen throughout our history have started locally. Thus, to make a new, "3rd" party viable, this proposed party must begin working at the local level before all else. That means developing a viable party platform, finding people who are like minded and then banding together and working on local issues. The phrase "all politics are local" isn't a recent invention. Then, this proposed party must begin to elect members to local offices such as city and country commissioners.

The 2nd step in this process must be recruiting and then electing members of this nascent party to state offices, such as representatives/delegates and state senators. This is a huge step. I mean a really huge step. By starting locally, and then building upon that local system, you build not just good will, but also party loyalists who will work toward a larger goal.

This is the mistake that the Perot organization made from the start. His group tried to capture first the presidency instead of organizing at the local level first. Only after the 1992 election, did he try and build a local party system. Organizing a new political party is a difficult task, but also an expensive one. Politics is all about money. Taking it from those who have it...and then wasting it in the most ridiculous manner possible.

The 3rd step must be getting party members elected to the US House of Representative and Senate. This is nearly as great a step as the 2nd, but if getting members elected to state houses occurs, then capturing governorships isn't out of the question at this step either. Statewide offices are very important to building the new party. If several different states are captured at this step, then the next is possible. Only after a this step, should this proposed party actually have a candidate run for national office. Of course at this point, having members in the state houses as well as Congress would make this step inevitable.

Now, the Tea Party movement has started organizing locally, though they are also sponsoring a national convention in the near future. That's why I believe this movement has the ability to evolve into a viable alternative to the existing major parties. Despite how they are painted in the major media, most people who profess to the solidifying ideology of this nascent party, they aren't far right wing 'nuts'. Most are much more moderate in their viewpoint. It's only fiscally that they are conservative.

Therefore, this movement has the distinct possibility to become the long wished for "moderate" party. This will be possible as the moderates of BOTH existing major parties are being driven from their respective folds as they move to the left and right. That has caused the huge rise in independent voters that comprise roughly 50-60% of the electorate.

Is this possible? Yes it is. A member of the GOP has switched to independent in the Tennessee 8th Congressional District, his name is Donn Janes. He is the first to do so...he has adopted the party name of Independent/Tea Party candidate...he almost certainly won't be the last.

The Difference Between the Left And Right

I was reading the comments in a blog early this morning. I in one of them I discovered a profound a thought as any I've seen lately. It is simplicity itself...the fundamental difference between the two major political parties in the United States of America is this: Economic Policy. They both spring from the era known as the enlightenment, though they have very different lineages.

The modern political Left's ancestry comes from the French enlightenment, while the Right descends from the Scottish enlightenment. Liberals highest goal it supremacy of the government over every aspect of life. To put it plainly, they want to "give you someone else's fish, so that you might eat for today." While the Right, on the other hand, desires to empower the individual..."teach you how to fish, so you may eat for a lifetime." These beliefs have some very profound connotations so far as civic responsibilities and obligations are concerned. Try reading from Hayek, von Mises or Bastiat for further information.

While both of these political beliefs profess to be the "correct way to live and govern", either can have its deadly extremes. On the left, socialist and communist governments in the last century directly or indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. National Socialism is in fact left wing movement. The full name is National Socialist Workers Party, im der deutche: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei isn't the name a conservative movement would take. Try reading an excellent essay by John J. Ray, Ph.D. "Hitler Was A Socialist" for a much fuller description. Other members of this elite went even further than Adolf Hitler would have dreamed, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot all made significant contributions to the body count. This isn't meant to imply that the Right doesn't have its own distinguished members of the butchers list. Kaiser Wilhelm Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albrecht von Hollenzollern (Wilhelm II of Germany), Tsar Nicholas II Romanov as well as Agusto Pinochet have a place on this list, but I digress.

What those on the right believe is that by limiting the scope of governmental power and intrusion upon the populace to within that given by the frame work of the US Constitution, and by using the market, many problems can be solved both efficiently and economically. This is simplistic in the extreme, but we're not going into detail here. What the Left believes is that government can solve many if not all problems much more effectively than can an open market. By mandating what is permitted and what is prohibited government can better allocated goods and services better than any other system.

Both viewpoints have their adherents, and which side you choose to abide with is your choice alone. I do urge you not to choose blindly or because "my father/mother was a XXXXX", but an educated choice, because an educated electorate is the heart of democracy. One last thought...be respectful of those who believe differently than yourself. Don't hurl insults merely because "they" have different views, different isn't good, nor is it bad...it's merely different.