Up with Chris Hayes 2/23/2013 -- the state of the Republican Party

I would like to write about the last segment of today's Up with Chris Hayes when the panel discussed the state of the Republican Party. The panel was made up of John McWhorter, a Democrat who has criticized the Democratic Party, but now says he's on board completely, Avik Roy, a Republican, and a couple of progressive types I can't remember.

Avik Roy is a Centrist, so there was no one on the show to represent a small but powerful movement in the Republican Party that is similar to the Old Right of Frank Chodorov, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garett, Rose Wilder Lane and others who represented classical liberalism moreso than conservatism. I have nothing against conservatives, per se -- it's just that conservatism mean so many things to so many people -- social, fiscal, neo, limited government. It's the limited government strain of conservatism that attracts me, and it's also the strain that most bothers Centrists and and Left, the Center-Left alliance. As I wrote the other day, Center-Left for my usage is not a point on a political line from extreme right to extrem left -- it's an alliance of Centrists and Leftists in the political realm designed to marginalize those who fight for limited government and a free market.

The nascent movement on the Right which promotes classical liberal principles is conservative only in that's the preferred label in the GOP. In real terms, they aren't looking to conserve anything recent in American politics, because our system of government has been progressively statist since the turn of the 20th century, with brief period of rhetorical pushback for the likes of Reaganites. For the most part, statism has won, even though the Serious Left would argue statism has gone far enough, and this is where we stand. You can say they are conservative in that they wish to reach back and conserve the principles of liberty and limits on power. When they're framed as insenstive to poverty and other problems supposedly addressed through powerful welfare state, this ignores their desire to deal with these issues through innovative private means. Some might even want to us a combination of public and private means, but the point is break away from government first and only means.

Although Centrists are making a lot of noise regarding compromise and no labels and smart cooperation between parties, the battle is forming between anti-statists and statists, and the anti-statists are outnumbered. The reason anti-statists are outnumbered is that the battle is understood mainly within the political realm. Anti-statism doesn't mean anarchy, so when the Left and the Centrists say the New Right hates government, they deliberately misrepresent the issue. Those in the private sector who might have attended a few Tea Party rallies or checked out the OWS protests have a superficial understanding of the problems in the political sphere. Hopefully more Americans are reading and gaining a deeper understanding of the historical battle between Domination and Liberty and will take the side of liberty, so that the political battle is transformed to a private sector/freedom movement that liberates us from a government that has taken on too much power over our lives and the economy.

I'm hoping that the battle moves beyond politics. I promote free people using the marketplace of ideas to persuade others of the viability and truth of their ideas, not political battles to gain power in order to coerce others to abide by the victor's ideas. My vision is not divided by Right Left -- it's a vision of free people working out their issues among themselves with government in place to protect our rights, property and borders. What I heard on Up with Chris Hayes was a desire from the Left to use political power to make policy that forces the Left's agenda. The Left is so convinced they are right, they view the current GOP as only obstructionists blocking what's right for America and humanity. Political power and coercion are not the right direction, for either party. Centrists who play the middle are just piddling until they can hitch their wagons on the proper star -- they need to make sure the stars aren't falling stars.

On Immigration

Soon Obama will tackle immigration reform before his momentum fades. Before anyone reading jumps to a conclusion that I'm a conservative shilling for the Republican Party, perhaps you didn't read the side column. I believe, practically, that Republicans will do better in power during the economic troubles we face, but both parties are complicit in creating the problems to start with. Philosophically, I promote a truly free market and non-interventionism in foreign affairs, but with the caveat that we maintain a superior defense system and never hestitate to defend our country. Having said that, if we had a free market and limited government, I would promote open borders, so there would be no immigration issue -- everyone would be welcomed, but no one would be guaranteed assistance if they can't find work. There would be private sector charity and if immigrants come to the country and ask for assistance, they might get a ticket back to their homeland or told to rely on friends and family or community, but they wouldn't receive assistance for our government.

Since we don't have a free market, Democrats are charged with coming up with a solution that doesn't expand welfare payouts to the point it pushes us over the edge. The Left has implied and in some cases come right out and accused the Right of racism because the Right wants to build a fence and stop illegal immigration. I don't think those on the Right who propose we obey our immigration laws are racists, but let's say that the Left's views are accepted and that the Right has no good solutions. The Left will have to do more that place themselves opposite the racist Right. The Left has to come up with a plan and then get it passed. Media and the Democrats have shamed Republicans, and the Republican establishment is now saying they have to be open and welcoming to hispanics and flexible on the issue of immigration, so Democrats will never have a better opportunity to pass immigration legislation. Obama is also getting pressure from hispanic groups because there was no action the first four years -- Obama actually bragged during his campaign that he has deported more undocumented immigrants than Bush, or something like that.

But, what can Democrats pass that's not damaging to the economy? There are no jobs for the millions of immigrants who would receive a pass to become citizens. Our government will not allow these families to suffer in dire poverty, so they will humanely receive some kind of assistance. This will likely draw more immigrants from Mexico unless Mexico's economy becomes more growth oriented than it is presently. How will the administration control the number of new immigrants entering the country? Even if the undocumented immigrants who are already here are allowed a path to citizenship, what about the millions who will come in after the legislation is passed? Amnesty is no solution unless you stop the flow of immigrants coming into the country. How is this different than what Republicans have proposed?

Government will have to pay out more in government assistance which means taxes will be raised again, thus hurting the economy. The only real way to support millions more Americans is booming economic growth, but government interventions are preventing economic growth and immigration reform that allows millions more to receive assistance will create more economic uncertainty as business owners brace themselves for higher taxes. Obama is making a political move by providing a path to citizenship for millions of Democrat voters, but it's economically troubling, from a practical perspective. Now, we have to consider the practical perspective, because if the economy collapses it won't matter who's a citizen and who's not -- we'll all suffer together and fight for what's left. Sounds like a winner.

Politics and War

The US welfare/warfare State is in trouble. There's a growing lack of confidence in the DC political realm, from President to faceless bureacrats. As we get close to the elections, while both parties want victory, the party in power, the Democrats, with an historical President in which they've heavily invested, know something drastic must be done before Democrats lose on two fronts -- they are temporarily losing the battle for statist expansion and the battle for control of government. Democrats are desperate to instill confidence in government. Obama is giving speech after speech praising the efforts of government which allow all economic activity to happen and all businesses to operate. Obama and the Democrats are presenting government as the overarcing generator of enterprise which allows businesses to take place individually.

Obama and the Democrats are presenting government, under their control, as the protector of the saftey net which stands between the American people and the jungle of the market. Government is the societal mother and father who help American citizens navigate the rough waters from school to work to retirement. The problem is that this narrative isn't getting through to over half the country, and if polls can be believed close to 80% of the country has lost confidence in congress. The President is popular with many people, but that popularity is not translating to wild support for his performance. The American people are losing confidence in our system of government.

As the election grows near, the Obama administration is trying to completely destroy Romney, but, so far, this is isn't working. Today, there are reports that Iran is threatening to close down the Strait of Hormuz, and there are rumors that Syria might use chemical weapons. Would another war perk up the American people and instill confidence in a strong warrior President? Will Democrats use the narrative of Obama the Terrorist Slayer to start a conflict with Iran or jump in Syria to save the innocent people for political reasons? Surely not. Surely not. I can't believe that I can even imagine something so cynical.

But ask yourself -- why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons and invite the wrath of much stronger nations who would surely intervene, and why would they announce the use of chemical weapons? Also, why would Iran actually close the Strait of Hormuz and invite military reaction from the US and her allies? Why? None of this passes the smell test, just as the brave Syrian rebels fighting for democracy narrative never passed the smell test. Syria is in a civil war and the thugs fighting the government (possibly al Qaeda) are no better than the government. And, while Iranian leaders bluster and sound crazy at times, the leaders of Iran are not insane.

Where's the plan?

Earlier stimulus efforts by the adminsitration did not work out as advertised, yet Obama, Democrat politicians, Paul Krugman, practically all pundits on the Left and even many GOP moderates are calling for another round of stimulus. This time, though, they say it should be done right.

If all of these stimulus promoters believe it's the right thing to do, and they have in mind the right amount and the right kind of stimulus, then we should see a plan showing how much money is needed and where the money will go, how long the stimulus will be needed and what type of transition is necessary to move from government spending to private sector investment.

It appears to me that the Left wants this issue as a political weapon but isn't serious about an actual plan that can be implemented and executed. The GOP moderates who clamor for stimulus are just sticking it to the Tea Party faction, hoping they will look even more extreme in their unreasonable obstructionism. It's hard, though, to say something is obstructed until something real and measurable is offered, promoted, explained, justified and defended. Is the call stimulus a ploy, or is there a real plan?

Democrats's OWS problem

May Day and other planned protests and disruptions by Occupiers can spell trouble for Democrats. I've noticed that establishment Democrats are urging moderation among OWS activists. On Up with Chris Hayes last Sunday, Jerry Nadler was visibly bothered by Marina Sitrin's rejections of Nadler's patronizing calls for OWS to allow congress to act. OWS doesn't believe the Democrat Party can get anything done, and activists like Van Jones, even though he is allied with Obama, have to make their names outside the party.

Anything can go wrong when radicals take to the streets. OWS's mindset is that all protesters are welcomed and the diverse purposes and goals are okay. If violence breaks out, the public will lose patience, and Democrats will be forced to reject the violence. Democrats can say that the violence is caused by a small group of outsiders looking for trouble, but this might be a tough sell if media does its job and researches the causes of violence, who's involved and who's backing the groups causing the violence.

This will be very tricky for Democrats, and they might wish they'd never heard of OWS before this is all over. Obama certainly doesn't need this going into the election, and if Obama is forced politically to reject OWS's tactics, this could stir up the protesters even more.