Political identity crisis

http://www.frumforum.com/how-i-joined-the-vast-rino-conspiracy

I've had enough of the posturing from people claiming affinity with libertarianism or conservativism who insist the "right" has disparaged them because they don't toe the new conservative line. It's fashionable, I suppose, to be the next one to claim victimhood from the New McCarthyists. These eclectic free-thinkers simply want to be open and pragmatic, yet the poor souls are castigated for damn near being communists by those close-minded neanderthals who think Sarah Palin makes sense!

This fella says he's libertarian, sort of, just not an adherent of an absolute free market -- we have to draw the line somewhere, and everyone knows absolute anything is bad, bad, bad -- absolutely bad. Of course we need a carbon tax, because there's no other solution to save the environment from destruction. And Ron Paul is totally wrong, somehow, about government spending during the Great Depression, along with Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Frank Chodorov and a host of other libertarian thinkers I'm sure this libertarian-conserative has read, studied and rejected.

It's this kind of pragmatic, utilitarian approach from people who claim to be kinda, sorta libertarian that creates the impression that sticking with classical liberal principles is somehow dogmatic and authoritarian, when in fact the principles are weapons used against the statist dogmatism and authoritarianism of modern liberalism, to which I suspect this victim has capitulated.

I could be wrong. Perhaps he has good reasons for not being an adherent of an absolute free market, but he doesn't explain them, so I assume his reasons are social more than intellectual. It's hard to find a big enough social circle of libertarians who stick with their principles.

Is Chris Christie a moderate?

http://www.frumforum.com/can-christie-stop-the-tea-partys-next-upset

Christie is not doing himself any favors if his intention is to stop Tea Party upsets. If Christie is positioning himself as a pragmatic, compromising, capitulating, status quo, establishment Republican, then his political career will be short-lived. The past problems with Republicans is that they've failed to ignite the passion, energy and clear-headed pursuit needed to build a free-market movement which stops statism in its tracks -- instead, they have been complicit in the growth of statism, and at best they've feebly attempted to slow the progress of statism -- not what I call inspiring.

Receiving kudos from the FrumForum should be a wake-up call for Christie.

The neo-con menace in the Republican Party

http://www.frumforum.com/obama-goes-awol-on-afghanistan

John Guardiano writes at the FrumForum where you'll find the neo-con vision for America. Neo-cons infected the Bush administration and they're still promoting their militaristic philosophy. Guardiano brushes aside the non-interventionist, peaceful, free-trade Republicans as a small, insignificant group of rightwing neo-isolationists -- the real problem, says Guardiano, is that Obama hasn't articulated the goals and the benefits of winning -- sounds familiar, doesn't it? You would think that someone praised as a great speaker who gives a speech everyday would have delivered every imaginable Democrat message there is by now.

Guardiano conflates non-inteventionism with isolationism, and surely on purpose, given that isolationism was discredited long ago -- plus, he adds "rightwing" for good measure. You want to make sure that no one mistakes rightwing isolationists for serious non-interventionists who believe America should not get involved in nation-building using the lives of brave young men and women as building blocks.

Guardiano writes:

Americans aren’t defeatists; they’re winners. They like to fight and they like to win, as Patton once reminded us. Our people will endure casualties in pursuit of a just and winning cause. But what rightly infuriates the American people is the sense that our political leaders are using our military to fight and die in a hopeless and unnecessary war.

Americans like to fight and win? Maybe some people like for our soldiers to fight, bu most people are afraid to fight, have no interest in fighting, or prefer peace and trade to fighting. Guardiano doesn't establish a justification for the war, and, yes, people get infuriated when lives are wasted on hopeless and unnecessary wars. If Obama can't convince the country this is a just and winning cause, maybe it's because it isn't.

What does it mean to be a member of the "internationalist and interventionist Right"? Obviously Guardiano and the neo-cons want to force democracy on other people.

Guardiano goes on:

The truth, though, is quite the opposite: In the absence of a clear and unshakable American commitment to do whatever it takes to win, the Afghan people are worried that we’ll bug out on them and abandon them at their maximum hour of need. Consequently, they have been reluctant to fully embrace us and to trust us. This is a real problem and obstacle because in a counterinsurgency campaign, the people are the center of gravity; they are the prize to be won.

The prize to be won -- scary stuff. I suspect they don't embrace us because they don't want to be our prize. Guardiano's chest-thumping about "winning" at all costs is like a bad WWII movie. What is there to win? al Qaeda is gone and we can't stay there forever to ensure they won't return, but even if they do, they're in other countries -- are we at war with Afghanistan or al Qaeda? Are we supposed to follow them into other countries as well, then rebuild those nations with their people as more prizes?

Guardiano also minimizes the economic cost by comparing it to the outrageous cost of the welfate state. That's like saying the Mercedes you bought but couldn't afford is inexpensive compared to a Gulfstream jet.

This type of mentality will destroy the Republican Party, but that's something we can get over -- this mentality will destroy the nation -- something we can't get over. We need to use the military wisely, not get all Patton-like about winning just to win. The only way we can "win" this war is to return to free trade and go about our business in peace, with a strong defense and a swift, punishing response if attacked. But attack, punish and leave -- they'll get the message. They've already got the message.

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.

More Palin and Beck bashing

http://www.frumforum.com/palins-bunker-mentality

The requirements to write at FrumForum must be centered on the idea that out-of-touch prudes have something valuable to write about. They really didn't like the Glenn Beck interview of Sarah Palin, mainly because Beck and Palin didn't show the false bravado necessary to be a phony presidential candidate in Washington DC. This assmes that  Beck or Palin want to run for the presidency.

God forbid that they get together on a tv program and have an informal, honest talk about their beliefs and impressions -- this doesn't fall within the proper preparation for the presidency of the US, and again, this assumes that either want to be president.

But, let's assume they do have presidential aspirations. Why? Because then we can judge their talk against how a presidential candidate should act. But, neither are campaigning for anything. It doesn't matter -- they could one day run for the presidency. Oh, I see.