60% anti-Left Revolution

The term "revolution" is thrown around too easily. My title refers to what I predict will happen as the Left becomes more radical and "revolutionary". Our country was founded on Revolution -- we fought the tyranny of the British Monarchy and established America. Many on the Left justify their current tactics by relating these tactics to the violent American Revolution. What does the progressive Left want to establish in place of our current system of government? It's not really clear. We know that social justice is a goal, but what all it entails hasn't been laid out.

I also believe our current system of government needs to be restructured, but bringing down the current system through "revolution" will not happen, and replacing the current system with more central control to implement the progressive agenda is not the answer. I have no problem with the Left wanting to change the current system, but I do have problems with their methods and the goals they've expressed. If leaders on the Left aren't careful, they're going to get some gullible people hurt, and they're going to lose support. I suspect that about 25% of the adult population solidly support leftist goals. So far the Left has been active enough, and enough liberals, moderates and independents have bought the welfare/interventionist State narrative, to affect change and achieve many of the goals -- Obamacare being the crowning achievement, even though it doesn't go far enough to satisfy the Left. Obamacare is a first step to nationalized healthcare. Another industry the Left is fighting to nationalize is the energy industry, and it will also be achieved in steps starting with more stringent regulation -- if not nationalize, then the left plans to effectively control the industry which is the same as nationalization. Energy companies will likely leave the US as profits are squeezed out of the industry and subsidies are protested as cronyism -- as energy companies leave the US, the Left will make the nationalization case -- an industry too big and important to fail, plus, the need for clean energy can only be entrusted to an enlightened State management, so they will say.

If Obama wins a second term and Democrats make gains in congress in 2012, we'll see a concerted push for "investment" in education, infrastructure and energy. The Democrats are presently setting Republicans up to make the first move on entitlements, so that Democrats can scare the public regarding their Medicare, SS and Medicaid promises. If the public is frightened, the Democrats will win, and the progressive agenda will go forward. The question is whether the ideas of the Tea Party were real and widespread or superficial and limited in scope. If the Information Age is having the effect I think it's having, independent voters will be turned off by union tactics and stories like Glenn Beck reported regarding Stephen Lerner and his plan to bring down the US.

Although most of the main media outlets aren't reporting on the negative stories regarding unions and Leftist organizations, new media is making more ground to get these stories covered -- it's just not certain what effect the new media will have on independents as 2012 approaches. It's been my belief that many eligible voters who haven't voted before, or voted sporadically, will come out to vote in 2012 in great numbers. I also believe that at least 60% of those voters will be anti-Left and blame the Democrats for the radical activity on the Left, and that they will associate the progressive agenda with humongous debt and high unemployment. The economic issue will be the most important issue, but people will also associate radical behavior and rhetoric with the poor economy.

If Democrats aren't careful, they will also be negatively associated with the bog-down and no-win situation in Afghanistan and the Libya invasion, especially if the Libya situation deteriorates, which it seems is inevitable. I believe the Democrats are underestimating the war-weariness in America, and the changing attitude regarding intervention in foreign affairs. Democrats have cynically assumed if they look strong on foreign affairs and militarily that the patriotic yahoos will respect them, but Democrats are making a mess of foreign relations. This Libya operation appears to have been decided at a bar after a few shots of bourbon. Americans, for the most part, appear ready to pull in and mind our own business, which is business, not more war. America has had enough war.

The Republican candidate who can articulate a plan to free up the market and create jobs, cut spending and reform entitlements, promote liberty including civil liberty, call for a national effort of private assistance organizations to start taking pressure off the welfare state, get out of the Mid-East and make a plan to close European and Eastern bases, create an excellent, right's-respecting home defense, repeal Obamacare and replace it with free market healthcare, cut out burdensome energy regulations which make us dependent on Mid-East oil, and promise not to legislate morality, will easily defeat Obama and stop the progressive onslaught for years to come, thus stabilizing the market and allowing recovery and hiring to take place. 

Is that too much to ask for?

Libertarian evolution

Yes, I know, I'm tired, too, of posts about the influence of libertarianism when hardly anyone really knows what it means, but this is about libertarian ideas not self-identifying libertarians.

The current anger at Wall Street which has enabled the congress to gain more control over the finance industry is, I believe, simply a partly formulated libertarian resistance to unearned power and coercion. I say "partly formulated" because I don't believe that the relationship between government and large corporations is fully realized and acknowledged, but the anger at connections of power is well targeted.

Rather than focus on Wall Street, and bankers in general, if the resistance was fully formulated in a clear understanding, people would see that statism lies at the root of the problem.

The idea of the protected and politically connected rich and powerful as anathema to the American dream is an old idea which has taken different forms, and one used masterfully by liberals to demonize country club conservatives. I think most liberals sincerely and rightfully resist this type of oppressive power, but I think they fail to make the government connection, especially when Democrats are in power. Liberals have fallen for the idea of benevolent government and have missed the growth of statism, as both political parties have divided and conquered the public in the service of status quo protection.

Conservatives, unconnected from insider political power have fallen for the idea of Republicans as defenders of the Constitution and limited government, and orderly government as the protectors of law and order and national security. Conservatives who rebel against the current direction of liberal statism are called anti-government extremists. It's all a game that's slowly coming to an end as the damaging consequences of statism, either in the form of rights-violating security/law enforcement measures or in the form of heavy handed business/economic regulation, are too much to ignore by conseratives or liberals.

There's a slowly evolving public recognition that government has to be limited, and that individual rights have to be protected -- thus the growth of true independents, people who are distrustful of, and unrepresented by, both parties. As I've written before, the politically active voters from either party have become a 25% majority. 25% of eligible voters can elect either a Republican controlled government or a Democrat controlled goverment, because half of the eligible voters don't vote.

If my guess is right, voter turnout will be historically high this year and in 2012. We'll probably have a divided government going into 2011, and if I'm correct, there'll be pressure for government to govern in a more limited fashion because of the unconsciously-libertarian influence coming from the independents. I predict this will be the beginning of a change in direction and the beginning of the end for statism. America became lazy, too trusting of government, and too apathetic because of a sense of powerlessness, but the internet and protest movements have given the public confidence in its ability to create change. We might be a pluralistic country which is culturally changing, but the blood of basically libertarian principles still runs in our veins, even if these principles aren't clearly identified with libertarianism proper -- it's a mixture of limted government conservativism and classical liberalism, sort of the Hamilton/Jefferson mixture of the beginning, sans the failed and thoroughly discredited socialist and authoritarian influences beginning at the turn of the 20th century. It's a common sense mixture, uniquely American -- not to say we're superior beings blessed by God to rule and protect the universe, just a unique country that can do pretty well when we work together and build rather than destroy -- when we make our way rather than weakly submit to power.

The libertarian mob

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/?pagination=false

A few months back I warned of an attack on libertarians as limited govenment proponents become more visual and influential. The statist mindset can't allow libertarian influence to undermine the common perception that a strong State is vital in complex and dangerous times.

We're likely to hear more calls for an active, interventionist State as crisis after crisis unfolds and the liklihood of global financial disaster looms -- as Hillary said, it'll be a national security concern. Libertarians will be framed as immature, selfish buffoons who can't possibly do on their own what only experts are prepared to achieve. The modern world, according to the statists, is so complex that only State power can handle the myriad demands to protect society and prevent the strong from eating the weak.

This has always been the justificaion of the Masters ever since the more mobile and warlike hunters stopped killing farmers and raping their women in order to protect and enslave them to achieve power, control and enrichment. The statists fail to recognize the consequences caused by intervention and the precarious condition of the nations who've turned against classically liberal, free market principles.

I also wrote in that blog post that both the Democrats and the Republicans would eventually turn on libertarianism -- Republicans will insist it's conservatives leading the way and that they aren't proposing libertarianism, for God's sake, why that would be suicide -- no, they're only proposing more restraints on the State, that's all. If both parties succeed once again in marginalizing libertarianism, we'll have maintained the status quo -- won't that be lovely? 

Listening closely to Republicans

As I watch the news shows and listen closely to the Republicans I hear duplicity, playing it two ways. On one hand, the Republican politicians are flirting with the tea partiers, and on the other hand they are inching toward the middle -- the middle which used to be the left -- John Kennedy, if alive today, would be criticized  by moderate Republicans for being too much like the tea partiers-- well, it's not that bad, but close.

Modern statism pushes politicians to the middle -- they are totally dependent on the State and the system. The Republicans can criticize the stimulus package, but the nature of statism pushes them to grab the money with no less alacrity than the Democrats.

The Republicans can criticize the Democrats' healthcare plan, but statism pushes them to come up with a plan of their own, to compromise and pass something, anything, just something.

The Republicans can excoriate the Democrats for "cap and tax", but statism insists they be good little players in the environmentalist's game of saving the planet by shackling industry.

If the Republicans want to own the future in the new realm of political service, they need to get a voice and plan to start the long, arduous process of limiting government, cutting spending, un-shackling the  market and putting America back to work.

This is no time or environment for weak-kneed, middling, duplicitous, manipulative politicians concerned only with power and making a profession out of politics.

For God's sake, Republicans, stop with the stale, mechanical, political speech, full of cliches and talking points! Speak with intelligence and depth! Talk about the flaws of the parties and government in general then lay out a vision for the future. Learn what free markets are all about, then full-throatedly defend policies which free the market and empower the private sector. Tell people we'll all have to sacrifice for freedom, but we can turn it around and get on with real progress.

If the Republicans can understand the vision and articulate it, people will respond. Hell, if the Democrats could understand the vision of freedom, the private sector and true progress, the people would respond.

I'm sick of weak, dishonest, centrist politicians -- we need strong, honest men and women to go to Washington DC, stop the growth of power and intervention and return America to free market principles. And you can't accuse me of talking in cliches -- I've laid out what I believe on this blog, over and over and over. Now, I'd like to hear what Republican and Democrat representatives really believe -- enough with the double-talk!

I just had to get that off my chest -- too much time spent at FrumForum. I won't link to it, because they don't allow commenters links to their blogs. Just know if you go there, don't drink what they're drinking, it makes you squish and talk out of both sides of your mouth at once.

No one wants a limited government

Well, I wouldn't say no one, but you know what I mean -- you read it in comments when a debate is going on about regulation and limited government -- someone will say "Well, the libertarian position is rejected by both sides, so it's stupid to even consider it." -- or something to that effect. The idea is that the majority position rules, and that the opposition has to have enough adherents to be valid. If a relative handful of people, say 500,000, or 1,000,000 have a different view than the majority or the majority's major opposition, then that doesn't count for anything because it's not politically valid. In the US, the majority and the significant opposition, the Republicans and the Democrats, are close enough to be considered to represent one major political theory when it comes to political action-- they just rhetorically disagree at the margins -- there are no fundamental differences in how they actually govern. Despite Obama's rhetoric, we are seeing a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter/Ford/Nixon/Kennedy/etc., except the statist momentum has increased. Taxes were fiddled with a bit, and there are some other differences of style and substance, but fundamentally we have the same interventionist government, just more intervening -- one gang favors these groups, and the other gang favors other groups. Each party hopes to please enough groups to gain power, but individuals outside the groups with no real "special" interests are largely un-represented or mis-represented. The people who simply want to be left alone so they make their way in life are basically ignored. 

I don't really know how many people truly favor a limited government -- I mean truly favor a limited government. Statistically speaking, I imagine it's small, and I don't trust polls. I know how people vote and what they put up with, but I don't know about all the people who don't vote and perhaps favor a limited government and just don't speak up or act on their dissatisfaction.

A limited government is more about individuals than groups. It's about the protection of negative rights so that individuals can prosper in a free society. Most political theories talk about people as if they are herds of cattle or groups of fish in the sea, analyzing the behavior to determine how they can be manipulated. I, for one, resist a certain class in our society deciding how I can live, how much money I can keep, what I can do with my property, how I will receive my healthcare, what type of vehicle I can buy, so on and so forth. But I'm a mere individual, and we know how little that means.

Well, the minority voice in the country might be ignored now, but we may have a say before too long -- when the sheer weight of a bloated federal government cracks the foundation and the structure comes tumbling down, you might find people more amenable to limitations.