Romney and Paul

It's a hard case to make but I think America is in need of a combination of Romney and Ron Paul. Romney's Big Government past doesn't bother me in 2012 -- most Republicans could never have accomplished what Romney did in Massachusetts with a radically liberal state government. Romney made it possible for Scott Brown to win, although the jury is out on Brown. I think I understand Mitt Romney more than Santorum and Gingrich. Santorum and Gingrich are political animals through and through. Ron Paul has been in congress a long time, but he did have a life before congress, and he's resisted the political games in DC.

I don't understand Romney's background, because I grew up in poverty. I understand Romney on a more basic level. I think Romney truly wanted to work his way out from under his father and become his own man. I also don't understand Romney from a religious perspective, because I'm not a Christian -- I adhere to no religious dogma. My spirituality is secular, human, disconnected from a particular conception of God. Romney has never proposed libertarian ideas, explicitly, although he's now proposing classical liberal ideas. I relate to Romney as someone who understands the private sector, business and the underlying potential among the public if government gets out of the economy.

I think that for political reasons in the primary Romney has to position himself as strong on national defense, but I believe Romney is more interested in maintaining a strong military no other nation will challenge rather than a military to be used as the global police force. I believe Ron Paul has had an influence on Romney, and will continue to move Romney toward full acceptance of classical liberal values and principles. If Republicans could free themselves from the out-dated conservative label, they'd see that classical liberalism decribes what Republicans should be fighting for, defending and using as opposition to statism. There's a confusion of labels in the political realm right now.

I don't know how Romney and Paul can work together, but I believe they'll be pushed toward one another as Gingrich and Santorum use a phony-conservative act in an attempt to fool the Tea Party groups. It's okay by me, though, if Romney calls himself a "severe" conservative for political purposes and to avoid confusion -- Paul calls himself a conservative -- but it needs to be tied, like he tied it today, to economic growth and a concerted effort to remove government from the economy.

Ron Paul in Nevada

Paul came in a disappointing third place even though all the polling on Paul shows high favorability. I believe voters swallowed the unelectablity narrative. It might take a few more elections before a libertarian can make real progress running for high office and have a chance of winning.

I hope we can at least get more libertarians in Congress, which is probably more effective anyway regarding systemic changes. As I've written before, it might take more economic hardship to force people into embracing the idea of radical change to our statist system. It's a shame more Americans aren't educated in economics -- they would have much less fear of free market principles -- in fact, they would fight for free market principles and do everything in their power to protect them from violation.

Independents win in Iowa

The big story in Iowa is the strong independent turnout, with over half of the independents voting for Ron Paul. This is good news for Paul, because independents will decide who wins in 2012. This doesn't mean, necessarily, that Paul has a shot at getting the nomination, because the Republican Party will not make the independent connection in Paul's case -- they'll say Paul draws non-Republicans. But, the strength of the independent turnout going foward will send a strong message against Big Government interventionism, and the candidates will take note.

I have news for Republicans and Democrats -- if they want to win in 2012, they'd better pay attention to independents and understand the apolitical mindset. The establishment might think that independents are centrists --if they do I say they're wrong. I believe most independents lean toward libertarian positions. I think independents will vote in large numbers for several reasons, with one reason being they want America to rollback the power-expansion of the military/industrial complex -- not what's necessary for national defense, but the whole ravenous, overgrown monster feeding arms contractors and politicians looking for financial security. The economic mess and a decade of war have reached the independents' radar -- many non-partisans who hardly ever or never vote will come out to vote in spades.

Independents are tired of the two party control and the obsession with politics and political means to reach political ends. Independents want the freedom to use economic means to reach economic ends. Independents are tired of the status quo, faux-elitist, cronyistic, statist system which has turned America into an economic basketcase of high debt and irrational regulations. Independents don't want government control over healthcare, and they don't want government obstructing energy production. Independents want government to eliminate central planning and social engineering -- in other words, they want government to stop meddling.

Of course, independents are not a homogeneous group, but, on the whole, this is how I read them. Independents have no political agenda or desire to gain power and influence government policies for their various special interests -- they have general interests they want to pursue without interference from government. I don't see independents and OWS sharing many goals. This is why they're independent -- they aren't party-centered -- they aren't government-centered -- they are centered on their work, families, communities and pursuit of happiness. They are likely diverse in all other ways -- some dumb, some smart, some white, some black, some brown, some charitible, some educated, some ass-holes, some heroes, some loners, etc. etc. The common thread is a desire to not allow government regulations and politics to control their lives. They know that taxes have to go much higher to pay for all the over-spending and crushing debt, and they don't like it. They see no need for America to continue military adventures overseas, and they believe it's stupid to spend money on military bases in countries which should be protecting themselves. They also realize the futility of keeping ground troops in countries like Afghanistan -- they've spoken with returning soldiers, or they are returning soldiers, and they know that what the US is doing in the mideast is not changing anything, and it's definitely not related to national defense.

Republican and Democrat establishment types can assume that independents are centrist types who can agree with either party depending on a few key issues, but if they assume independents are satisfied with our statist system and simply want strong, smart, efficient leaders to rule over the steady expansion of the welfare/warfare State, then they've misread most independents. They will be heard loudly in 2012.

For the sake of opposition to statism

and, therefore, for the sake of America, I truly hope the media/political onslaught against Ron Paul is answered by public resistance to media's attempt to silence libertarianism. In a libertarian world, present media wouldn't fair too well, because no one would buy what they're peddling.

Make no mistake, media attacks on Paul are attacks on classical liberal ideas. Nothing scares the statist machine like libertarianism. There's a panicked approach to Paul demonization, because this is the first time since the Old Right made a viable stand in the early and mid 20th century that libertarian ideas have caught hold with the public -- maybe during the Reagan years, but that wasn't really libertarian-influenced. Fear of FDR's dictatorial presidency motivated Old Right/classical liberal popularity. Today, classical liberal ideas are catching hold because the Information Age has exposed Americans to an alternative, a true opposition to statism. Between Bush and Obama and the current congress, Americans realize we need systemic changes, and the Republican Party can no longer present itself as an opposition party without proving it will limit government power. Paul is the only candidate for President determined to limit government power, while congress contains a sizeable group of representatives who are working for systemic changes.

This morning on a MSNBC panel discussion regarding Paul, they were merciless in their attacks, and several stated that Paul represents what's wrong with upholding principles consistently. I suppose this means that consistent application of principles upsets a statist system which values ad hoc expediency. This adhocracy, as William Voegeli calls it, has bogged us down in statist failures which threaten to collapse our economy. Statists are concerned with protecting State power, while our country sinks in debt, economic stagnation and slogs of foreign entanglements.

Yes, Americans need to stand against media and the political class and return to economic means and non-intervention overseas. We've been suppressed by political means and State expansion of power. We can no longer afford to vote for weak alternatives who do nothing to change the system.

The Third Way

Although I have little faith in government reform from within, the time has never been so ripe for a third party as now. A party that utilizea all the tools of the Information Age could generate a lot of interest with the right players involved. A party that doesn't act like a political party -- it will break all the rules that should be broken and draw brightly outside the lines. This new party will be unashamedly unique, going outside DC and the status quo to capture the imagination of the American people.

Getting the right players involved is critical -- people who are creative and anti-establishment in a healthy way, yet serious about government transformation. It will do no good to create a mixture of the two parties we already have -- this new party will trandscend statism and truly represent the private sector. It will avoid the mistakes of the Libertarian Party and become an intelligent purveyor of reason and common sense. By common sense, I don't mean populist and anti-intellectual. This party will be smart and proud of it, yet humble, willing to express an ideology and justify the ideology -- not rigidly ideological like programmed robots, but rather human and open to big, inspirational ideas. The key will be to articulate ideas which are basically anti-statist, which inspire the best in people sans simplistic platitudes and slogans like I spout here..

Articulating the principles of limited government and a free market in fresh and courageous language will be a welcomed relief from political spin and doubletalk. I think the country is starving for intelligent and brave leadership that doesn't build itself up by tearing others down, and doesn't claim to have all the answers. The leaders of the new party will understand the opposition and make clear distinctions people can understand on a deep level. This new party will be honest, grown-up, consistent and transparent. Integrity and realistic optimism are the keys. Dreaming is fun.