Ron Paul as a Third Party candidate

If the Republican establishment, media and the Democrat Party continue their campaigns to destroy Paul, and, if a very dissatisfied public understands why these campaigns are being waged, Paul could run as a Third Party candidate and take enough limited government conservatives, independents and liberals to win the race for President. Imagine what would happen in DC if this came about!

The political class would go ballistic. The military/industrial complex would call for a state of emergency.  Republicans and Democrats would convene to address the crisis. The entire statist apparatus would form alliances to resist this threat to Big Government. It would start the debate this country needs in order to stop our march to financial disaster and continuous war in the mideast.

Big Corporations which now feed off government teats would panic. This ought to get some OWS love. Also, Ron Paul gets the most donations from active duty military personnel. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think Paul is a savior, but that's the point -- we don't need a government savior. I don't think Paul is a great leader, but we don't need a great leader. We need a person like Paul who will stand up to the status quo and say no. We need someone who will cut unnecessary government programs and stop the Fed's central planning. We need someone who respects the military and will not misuse and abuse our troops in foreign entanglements that have nothing to do with national security. We need someone who understands free market principles and who will allow small businesses to operate free of government obstacles. Paul is flawed, but his flaws are not disguised behind a Hollywood smile. We're all flawed.

Paul will not put America at risk -- he was in the military. The political class portrays Paul as a racist kook, but Paul is a very intelligent man who proposes changes that would help minorities. What will happen when voters realize Paul can win? There are many different factions who should support Paul. African-Americans should support Paul, because Paul will at least try to end the War on Drugs which has incarcerated Af-Ams in larger numbers, proportionally, than whites. Paul would be a boon for small businesses which are avenues for Af-Am advancement. Paul will fight to end the crazy regulations which hamper individuals setting up shop and starting small enterprising businesses, and on the smallest levels this hurts Af-Ams who could otherwise start inexpensive businesses with no hassle. It's unlikely that a Paul presidency could end the welfare state, but we could begin the discussion how to best address the problem of minorities entering the workforce in much larger numbers. The private sector is the arena in which these type social problems are best addressed through innovation.

If Paul does what I think he will do, we can also begin the process of removing the State from the marriage business, allowing society to work out misunderstandings surrounding gay relationships. Just about every American will be better off without government intervention in their private lives.

The Establishment knows that a popular Third Party can win, and that's why they attack and marginalize anyone outside the status quo. If not in 2012, soon, and, if not Paul, someone -- it will happen.

Morning Joe 12/20/2011 -- Big Government Republicans on the move

I'll just call them BGR for short. On Morning Joe today the guests were Chris Christie, Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, Harold Ford, Mark Halperin and few others I can't remember. It's clear that Republicans such as Scarborough, Christie and Bloomberg prefer Romney or Huntsman because they fit the mold of traditional BGRism. They all talk about "small government" but then they'll support something like what Scarborough said this morning he supports -- the draft.

The draft is the one of most egregious misuse of government power I can imagine, and a government powerful enough to send unwilling young men and women to their deaths in foreign countries is powerful enough to do what it wants to do. When someone like Scarborough uses the term "small government", they are either ignorant of classical liberal principles or they are simply concerned with an efficient government which still possesses practically unlimited power. Anyone concerned with the problem of statism will use the term "limited government", yet I didn't hear any of the Republicans on Morning Joe this morning say they promote strict limitations on government power.

This is the problem I have with Gingrich, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman and Perry -- they will all seek a form of statism from the Right while making superficial efforts to make government efficient and a tad more business friendly. And, any "conservative" who proposes the return of the draft is more tyrant than anything. Scarborough justified his call for a draft by stating that the mideast wars would not have lasted so long if we had the draft -- like Viet Nam?

Mika and Joe interviewed Romney, yet they didn't ask him anything which will assure us that Romney is not just the typical BGR. They didn't ask Romney what he would do about corporate welfare, subsidies, tax advantages and protectionism in general. They didn't ask him the most important questions -- what is Romney's position on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and what will a President Romney do about Iran -- what will a Romney Doctrine look like?

Christie came on the Morning Joe Show and campaigned for Romney. I'm exhausted from the Christie praise. Christie would be a BGR extraordinaire. Big Government runs through Christie's veins. Bloomberg doesn't even hide his Big Governmentism. And Scarborough urges Bloomberg and Christie to run. This is the main problem in the Republican Party -- the establishment has no core. Republicans are just as pragmatic and myopic as the Democrat Party -- they simply want Big Government to take on different unconstitutional powers. They will tell someone like me, after they pat my head, that idealistic ideology doesn't win races, and you can't get things done if you don't play the game and make pragmatic compromises -- yes, this pragmatic statist system has worked so well we're on the precipice of collapse. Who can argue with that?

Why is Romney losing?

Mitt Romney has the basic qualities and intelligence to be an effective President, but Romney has yet to distinquish himself as an individual with his own set of ideas regarding government's role in the economy and in foreign affairs.

Romney says he has business experience, but our government is not a business, and we don't need a technocrat Centrist to manage the economy from the White House. I don't mind that Romney has changed positions on issues through the years -- all thinking people evolve -- but, what has Romney evolved into? He hasn't made it clear. Romney has talked the talk about the damaging effects of government intervention on the economy, but he's focused on Obama's damaging interventions, not statist intervention per se.

I suggest that Romney do some quick soul-searching and decide on which side of the fence he wants to land -- on the statist side or the free market side. If Romney has had a conversion from statist centrism to classical liberal principles, then he needs to give a speech declaring his positions and promising his loyalty to the principles of limited government, a free market.

Also, Romney needs to make it clear that he's not a neocon, if, indeed, he's not. During the debate on foreign relations, Romney took the easy way of embracing a strong national defense. Hell, everyone wants a strong national defense, but does Romney believe our decade long war in Afghanistan is the best use of our military? It sounded that way during the debate. I think Romney talked tough on the mideast because he thinks that's where most Americans are at now. I believe the public is tired of mideast interventions, and the only reason there hasn't been a more visible backlash is respect for the military and the desire to not make it look like the sacrifices have been in vain. There's a way out, though, and it's through honestly facing the situation,declaring we've done what we can do in the wars. Romney can truthfully say that our soldiers responded forcefully and expertly to the 9/11 attack and that now it's time to move on and build a better defense at home. Then Romney can help our government develope a better foreign relations doctrine for the 21st century.

Romney has to position himself as a free market believer and as someone willing to look at innovative ideas to transition from a welfare/warfare State to a nation of free, productive people who desire to trade peacefully with the world and help those in need at home -- but helping people in need doesn't mean an ever-growing welfare State that becomes more bloated and less effective year after year. It's time to rely on the private sector to deal with problems our government has failed to effectively address. It's a matter of direction, and our gargantuan government will not be changed overnight, but we can start in a new direction with new goals. If Romney can't distinguish himself in these ways, then he's just a good model for a presidential commercial. The public is learning and changing quickly, and people like Romney who are stuck in a status quo mindset of statist solutions need to change with the public so that a confrontation between the American people and our government is avoided -- the public will demand empowerment, and then they will take their power -- it will be better to transition together. Government is holding onto a thread -- it needs to let go with a new vision of America and join the evolution.

I still support Ron Paul, but I'm just saying...

Looking for a new label for the New Right

Labels are necessary to make distinctions, although labels don't completely define each individual who might fall under a label. There are liberals who lean more toward the progressive worldview, and there are liberals who lean more toward a libertarian worldview. The same goes for conservatives. Then there is disagreement regarding broader categories such as Left and Right which bear little resemblance to the orginal Left/Right divisions. It's perhaps time to reassess Left and Right, since the differences within each political group can be significant. Awhile back I wrote an article stating that a distinction between statism and anti-statism probably makes more sense in today's environment.

Statism is embraced by both Left and Right, so statism transcends the old Left/Right division, although there are distinct differences in what each political group wants out of a powerful State which basically controls the economy. The Left, broadly speaking, might want the State to redistribute wealth, while the Right, broadly speaking, might want the State to maintain predictability in the economy and to prevent a dynamic society from destroying certain traditions which serve a hierarchical order. 

Then there's an emerging movement which has revived many of the values and ideas of classical liberalism, and although I've called this the New Right, I think the label is misleading and too restrictive. This movement leans toward libertarian thought, but I'm reluctant to use that label, because it's also misleading and too restrictive. In a broad sense, the movement is anti-statist, but not necessarily anti-government. Andrew McCarthy wrote an article at NRO describing some of the problems, as he sees them, with this movement. For now, let's call the movement AS for anti-statist. McCarthy embraces most of the tenets of the AS movement, or revival, although McCarthy is a terrorist hawk who believes the non-interventionist/libertarian part of the AS revival is extreme. McCarthy calls Rand Paul a libertarian extremist. It's true that national defense is a legitimate role of government, but when a military/industrial complex is built to protect overwhelming State power, I don't know how this is balanced with a limited government/free maket world view.

National defense, foreign military interventions and welfare/entitlements -- the welfare/warfare state --seem to be the sticking points which prevent a large coalition of libertarians and limited government conservatives which could transcend this set of labels and create a new political force in America. I think the most important issue facing Americans today is the role of government going forward. Government muscle which protects a large and powerful State machine has infiltrated into the lives of every American in one way or another. In many ways Americans have become dependent on government even when they'd rather be independent. There are issues regarding the government safety net and entitlements which complicate the matter of dependence and independence, especially for anyone over 40. The welfare state has set up a system which pulls us in from the beginning with or without our consent, so when the subject of limiting government power comes up, there's concern over retirement, healthcare and protection from foreign threats for those who aren't wealthy and aren't getting any younger and who feel insecure in a dnagerous world. Many people who are anti-statist in most matters of government still expect government to honor SS, Medicare and national security, but these government expenditures are unsustainable at the present rate of growth.

The problem with the AS revival is taking the next steps, and McCarthy's article is an example. McCarthy says yes to limited government and a free market, but McCarthy still wants America to eradicate terrorism wherever it might exist, and he probably draws the anti-statist line at curbing the cost Medicare and SS rather than an innovative private sector replacement of these programs. McCarthy agrees that defense spending is out of control and needs to be brought under rational, prudent control, but McCarthy cannot embrace non-interventionism, which he calls isolationism. And McCarthy has no problem giving the State practically unlimited power to deal with enemy combatants, because the Constitution allows greater powers in times of war. The question is whether the threat McCarthy perceives is as great as he and our government say it is, and whether our government's continued responses to terrorism are warranted.

The welfare/warfare state has created divisions in American society, and the AS movement is conflicted. If we allow the State to expand its powers regarding welfare/entitlements and foreign interventions in the name of fighting terrorism, will the AS movement be reduced to winning a few economic battles but losing the battle for limited government and a free market? The question is whether the AS movement can innovate and create new paradigms (I know, it's a trite expression) for the 21st century regarding retirement, the safety net, healthcare and national defense. I believe we can, but it will be difficult, because statism has become so ingrained in our lives and ways of thinking. I believe even liberals who aren't lost to progressivism can become a part of this AS revival and help develope new ways of dealing with social problems and national defense. I'm not sure how anyone can look at our relationships with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and say that continued involvement is wise. If we bring our troops home, this is not defeat and isolationism -- it's completion and reassessment. It's moving from one way of dealing with foreign threats to another way. We can learn from our successes and and failures, then create a much better plan for national defense -- one that hopefully doesn't allow crony defense contractors and power-hungry politicians to have their way with tax-payer dollars. The same goes for welfare and entitlements -- we need a new plan that utilizes what we learned regarding successes and failures, but not another top-down government plan from a handful of technocrats.

Until the AS movement can coalesce around dynamic views which will empower the private sector and limit government power, the State will continue its march to central control and command. I'm inspired that different political groups are beginning to acknowledge the failures of statism, but there's a long way to go to create a true opposition to statism. Anti-statist is not a good label, but it dos clarify some fundamental problems.  

How Gingrich can become president

I could probably write this about any of the candidates and make recommendations regarding how they can use their skills plus big ideas to make a good run -- oddly, though, the vision I have in mind suits Gingrich more than the others. Gingrich cannot win if the old, bad Gingrich prevails. Gingrich claims he's had a transformative spiritual experience, but I'm not concerned with his religious beliefs, only the authenticity of the spiritual change.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul has been effectively marginalized in the Republican Party, and I don't see him overcoming media narratives which have held him back, now and in the past -- however, Paul has brought something very valuable to the race, and what Paul has brought to the race will transform in many ways how we select presidents going forward. We will not find Great Men like those manufactured in the past before the scrutiny of the Information Age and 24/7 cable news. We'll find, hopefully, competent men and women who can convey big ideas and break down complex concepts for public consumption.

The cult of personality has relied on celebrities, slogans and emotional appeal more than big ideas which have been denigrated as relics of ideolouges out of touch with the pragmatic technocracy of modern governance. Obama may be the last president elected from the cult of personality. Obama offered vague slogans, pragmatic open-mindedness, emotional promises and a made for tv story of historical importance. Gingrich represents something broken but real and redeemable. Gingrich's "baggage" is the baggage of our nation, and the trick is to identify the baggage and go beyond the baggage. We can't revive America by attempting to reproduce the next Reagan or a new and improved Obama -- we can revive America only through big ideas and bold action delivered by servants to the people, not saviors of the people.

If Gingrich can rise to the occasion, and the polls suggest he might be capable of doing this, he has the skills to articulate the type of periodic rebirth a great nation needs to avoid decline and collapse. Gingrich has risen from the brink of collapse, and many think he'll still collapse because he doesn't have the inner strength, discipline and authenticity to stay the course without crashing in a confusion of crazy proposals and harsh rhetoric. Gingrich has a lot of problems, but so does America and Americans. We've all expected too much and haven't been willing to do enough to achive our goals. Too many people beleived that government can somehow relieve the stresses of worry and insecurity. We have to go to work and build something new and better. We need to once again embrace big ideas and bold action.

Gingrich is comfortable with big ideas, and if he's developed the discipline and humility to harness his incredible intellectual energy, he can inspire Americans to believe in themselves again and to understand once again the power of great ideas and bold action.

First, the most important issue in the 2012 race is the economy and jobs, but, so far, mostly small, tired formulas have been offered, although Ron Paul has articulated some of the ideas which can move us past our failed Keynesian, statist past -- Paul is the messenger, not the leader at this time and place in America's evolution. I would still like to see Paul win, because Paul represents the ideas that are uncomfortable but true. America, though, doesn't appear ready for Paul. That doesn't mean the ideas will die. Gingrich can make these ideas his own and deliver them in his unique style. Gingrich has at least verbally accepted and promoted the concepts of limited government and a free market in the past, and now he has to internalize them with the realization that America is at a crossroads, and politics as usual won't get it done. Pragmatic compromise and status quo maintenance might have seemed like a safe bet in the 90s, but in the 21st century we need radical, systemic change in government and private sector empowerment.

One of the burdens weighing down the economy is our military involvement in the mideast which resulted from 9/11. Gingrich has the ability to frame leaving the mideast as completion and a transition of America's role in the world to a leader of peaceful trade rather than a global police force and nation builder. We've done all we can do in the mideast. It's obvious that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will maintain a self-protection like we envision, and staying another year or two or ten won't change anything. Terrorists in the mideast countries which harbor them have received the message that America will respond with destructive force if attacked. Now is the time to bring the troops home, take our successes and failures and learn from them how to deal with terrorism in the 21st century. America's rebirth has to include an innovative doctrine guiding our actions in foreign affairs. All our military bases in other countries should be re-assessed based on current conditions, not the conditions present in the Cold War. We need a superior national defense, but we don't need the crony-infested monster which is the present military/industrial complex. American tax-payers are being hoodwinked and shaken down by politicans and defense contractors who are making a killing off of fear of terrorism.

Ending our mideast involvement and right-sizing our national defense is a large part of any economic change in direction. This is another big idea that Gingrich can articulate -- changing direction from statism to a free market. But, it's not only big ideas about national issues -- local issues are important as the federal government now affects individual states and cities more and more. More freedom at the local level is vital for flexibility and creative experimentation across the nation, and this is an issue in Gingrich's wheelhouse. Presently, in South Carolina,  media ignore Gingrich's greatest impact as he speaks directly to issues affecting South Carolinians. If Gingrich touches the local desire for control in dealing with unique problems related to each state, this will go a long way toward inspiring those who feel burdened by directives sent from DC which make no sense at a local level.

American intellectuals have failed the American people because they speak past the average person to one another or to those in power. There are few intellectuals speaking to the American people regarding the most important issues of our time. The fundamental problem of long term unemployment is not resolved by extension of unemployment benefits and more food stamps, but by economic growth and wealth creation. Gingrich can address the underlying causes of unemployment by speaking directly to the people about the negative consequences of central management and the welfare state. The safety net in America requires innovative restructuring, while government intervention in the American economy has to stop so that a free market can properly function. The economic issues of our time are confusing, and most people have been misled by thousands of government promises and policies designed to spur government-planned economic growth and job creation. Gingrich has the ability to make economics understandable and to show how central management misdirects capital and causes the bubbles that have led to current financial crisis.

But, whether it's mideast military involvement, more freedom at the local level, jobs, immigration, energy production or problems with the Federal Reserve, Americans are hungry for big ideas which will change our direction and lead to the necessary rebirth of inspiration, creativity and innovation in order to reverse the decline and avoid collapse. This can't be done through charisma and slogans and empty rhetoric, though. Gingrich has the skills and the knowledge to articulate problems and solutions in a way that people can apply to their personal situation in order to participate as vital parts of a recovery and economic transformation.

We don't need Gingrich the King to mesmerize the public with his top-down ideas -- we need the redeemed Gingrich who empowers the private sector by fighting to get government out of the way and explaining a new vision for America. Our problems are complex and will not be solved overnight, but one thing we can do is change our direction, but first there must be deep understanding. Is Gingrich the vessel to convey these big ideas? He can be, and this might be the time for someone broken but redeemable like Gingrich to accept this role as spokesperson for a new vision as we transition from statist, central management to a decentralized rebirth of market forces which can move us forward in the global market.

Yes, there are concerns regarding poverty and inequality and helping those who are down and out, and although I've written about some of the ideas I have regarding private assistance and insurance/retirement plans which can replace a failing welfare state, the main point here is about changing our direction and attitude and reassigning government's role in our lives. What we've been doing hasn't worked.