Will the Republicans learn their lesson?

The progressives are heading for what should be a disaster, but they might avoid the consequences of their actions if Republicans don't quickly offer a valid alternative that acknowledges all the errors made by the Bush administration. I personally don't believe the Republicans have it in them to represent those in America who are resisting government over-reach. The Libertarian  Party doesn't have the political clout to make a stand, so if the Republicans cannot take advantage of the current Democrat Party turmoil and statist over-reach, the progressives will stay in power out of a lack of an alternative.

The Republican moderates hope to build a big tent effect and attract independents, but there is no capable leadership for this movement, and no clear understanding of what the moderates stand for. We know they hate Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Levin, Hannity and other base conservatives, but what is their fire-in-the-belly purpose and vision? Some amorphous plan to be open-minded and anti-ideological is not enough to ignite support.

The moderates may also be misreading the opposition to Obama and the Democrat congress -- they appear to think the opposition is merely a yahoo uprising -- they're missing the widespread discontent caused by a powerful, interventionist state. The conservative base has the right ideas regarding limited government and more power to the free market. If the moderates can't support limited government and a free market, then they are an obstacle to real reform in the Republican Party -- the Republican support didn't evaporate in 2008 because Bush was too libertarian -- it's because he acted like a coked-up liberal the last couple of years of his presidency. If he had stood up for limited government and free market principles, the Iraq war would not have become an albatross around his neck. I agree the wars need to end, but the continuance of both haven't hurt Obama. Even if the media would have treated a Republican President differently, if McCain had won, the media has lost credibility, for the most part -- enough to be overlooked on some issues when everything else is principled action. However, any Republican candidate needs to run on getting out of the Middle East and staying out -- and staying out of all other internal conflicts which don't directly harm us. The idea of proactively striking has to be smashed -- there's no way to be sure enough to make that commitment of forces. We'll have to find defensive means to prevent terrorism, and answer swiftly and decisively if attacked -- hit, punish and get out.

Republican voters were fed up with Bush, and McCain was a bad moderate choice -- both of these factors, plus Obama being a historical candidate, sealed the Republican loss. But now the country is getting their fill of Obama and the Democrat congress, and much of the country is hungry for someone with principles, who will say no to the dependents who use government as an ATM machine (not people in true need, but able-bodied dependents) -- someone to bring the country back to the reality of individual rights, free market principles, self-responsibility and private communities of problem solving citizens.

In a more ideal, libertarian society, we wouldn't need a political leader, but we haven't evolved to that level of responsibility and freedom -- however, we need to start in that direction, and, unfortunately, it will take a leader to bring the American people back to trust capitalism and back to their senses. The conservative base which is talking all libertarian now needs to put action where their mouths are. I like the libertarian talk, but will they follow through if they regain power, or will they capitulate to the progressive agenda? Or, will they turn too much to the right and start nanny-managing from a moral stance? Will they be guided by the neo-cons and extend the quagmire in the Middle East? Will they talk a good game but legislate like statists of a different kind?

The moderates need to stop whining and and quit trying to be political-buddies to the liberals -- liberalism is dead -- all the liberals are turning into progressives. What I envision is the best of the moderates and the best of the base, fused together by libertarian principles which can work in today's society -- less conservatism and more classical liberalism. I might be wrong, but I think libertarianism, in a much less philosophical form, is pushing the growth of independents. If I'm right, a leader who can understand that modified libertarian mindset, and can articulate the principles straightforwardly, can win in a landslide in 2012.

It won't be Libertopia, but it will be better than what's coming if we lay down, become apatheic and don't stop it.

Multi-national One State of America

After WWI when the world was divided up and nationalist elites from nations within multi-national empires lobbied for, and were granted, statehood, some states succeeded and others didn't. Some states which were multi-national never gelled, and one reason is because individual rights weren't instituted, so minorities were oppressed and this created tension and turmoil.

From the beginning, America was based on citizenship and individual rights, although in practice we didn't apply this to African-Americans and women, but this was later remedied. For the most part of our history we've maintained a national cohesion which has integrated diversity -- we've been called the melting-pot. Our state has respected the rights of citizens and minorities, equal before the law, even if in society racial and gender bias have been an on-going problem. In many ways we've promoted minorities through affirmative action and discrimination laws which are meant to enforce our stance on individual rights.

However, as our government has become more powerful and it has used its power to favor some groups over others, we've become more like a multi-national state with group-alliances forming a political majority to oppress the political minority, or minorities. We don't have a permanent political majority, yet -- it shifts between right and left, but the overall political ideology has shifted to the left, and the current party in power is attempting to permanently marginalize the minority. Polls show that most of the nation is conservative, but in the political sphere group-alliances recently have shifted the government to liberal/progressive control.

The tension between conservatives and liberals has prevented an extreme movement to the left, but now that more progressive elements are in powerful positions, we're at a point where more government power in the hands of progressives could procedurally and structurally create a political majority -- an alliance of liberals, moderates and progressives, and all those dependent on their power. 

A lot depends on political activism. If it's true that the country is majority conservative/independent, then, theoretically, if more conservatives voted, and independents turned against progressives, the progressive movement could be thwarted. However, it appears many conservatives have become independents because of the Republican's poor performance when in power. Independent political inaction caused by distrust of government in general -- this may include a growing number of libertarians -- could give the progressive movement the numbers and power it needs to create the structure for a permanent majority.

If the progressives create more dependence on government for vital needs, such as healthcare, in every election they can scare enough middle of the road voters to support them (the other side will take away your entitlements!) so that they hold power for a long time to come. The multi-national nature of the country can be seen, if you really stretch the meaning of nation to liberally include political togetherness, as a nation of southern conservatives, a nation of small businesses, a nation of white blue-collar/non-union men, a nation of radio talk-show hosts, a nation of fundamental Christians, a nation of libertarian-minded citizens, each a part of the permanent minority, oppressed by a nation of elite progressives, a nation of liberals, a nation of unions, a nation of environmentalists, a nation of professors, a nation of racial minorities, a nation of MSM, and so forth. There have been political factions for a long time, it's just getting worse, and the group warfare has increased.

Individual rights are becoming a thing of the past, and group privileges are take their place. We think in terms of groups of individuals. The majority doesn't hesitate to violate the rights of their enemies, because they are groups threatening their power (mobs, rightwing fanatic organizations) -- the Republicans have been almost as bad, but they might be impotent at this point. This "democratic" battle for power and control will divide the One Nation, in the traditional, overarcing sense, and groups will be constantly jockeying for power and inclusion -- and behind all this will be The State -- voracious, impersonal and unconcerned with individuals and the rule of law.

Healthcare war -- the defining turn

In 1939 the USSR could have prevented World War II, but ideology and hatred of capitalism got the best of them. If Stalin had honestly pursued the overtures from Britain and France to form an alliance against Germany, Hitler would never have invaded Poland, and if he had, Germany would likely have been defeated. Stalin claimed he was forced to sign a treaty with Hitler because he wanted to avoid a two front war with Germany and Japan. They also signed  many secret agreements to assist the Germans, but Stalin didn't have to do this. Stalin was more ideologically aligned wih Hitler, and this was the motivating factor. Germany was not prepared in 1939 to take Poland without the assistance of the USSR, so if Stalin had joined with Britain and France, Hitler might have been forced to forget about Poland, plus Japan was more interested in signing trade agreements than war with the USSR, which was proved later when the Japanese military refused to move against the USSR and instead decided to concentrate south of their country. Instead, Stalin supported Germany right up to the time Germany attacked his country.

The Democrats could learn from that history, because they are letting ideology and hunger for power advances of their agenda blind them. There's a radical anti-capitalist faction in the Democrat Party which is driving the power plays -- the moderate Democrats, and, to a certain degree, moderate Republicans,  are reluctantly going along with the ideological push to transform the country, although there is some resistance to the radical nature of the progressive faction and some concern about the wisdom of such swift, radical changes. Stalin also had concerns about his decision to not fight Germany, but the idea of joining with capitalists was just too much for him, because he wanted to take advantage of the damage being done to the west, so he could advance his ideas of socialism.

I don't think the moderate Democrats are socialists, but they do have statist plans they want to advance, and so their ideological affinity is more with the radical faction on the left, than, of course, with the right, or with independents who may be more libertarian-minded. The moderates might be setting up their own fall from power, and the moderate Republicans might be further marginalized as a result. None of this is to make a comparison between the Nazis of Germany and the radical progressives in the U.S., only to look at the similarities of alliances and strategies and motives -- and the fact that Stalin and Hitler were both madmen has nothing to do with my comparisons of ambition and alliances.

Only Britain and the U.S. were willing to truly fight the Germans in the World War II. Poland put up a fight, but fell in a few weeks, and Poland was betrayed by the USSR who had a agreement to take over part of the country. France fell with a whimper. Hardly anyone was willing to fight against Hitler until it was too late.

The radical progressives are taking advantage of the political splits and battles. The conservatives are torn into camps. Because of the tone coming from the conservative base, framed as consisting of angry mobs, tea baggers, birthers and wild-eyed radio shock jock followers, they are being critized by the moderate conservatives, the moderate liberals and the radical progressives. The moderate conservatives are being smeared with attacks on the conservative base and are pretty much marginalized politically, yet they seem to be attempting to find a place in the political realm by reasoning and somewhat supporting the moderate liberals, and mostly holding their fire against the radical progressives. The moderate liberals are trying to survive politically, weakly resisting the most radical parts of the progressive agenda, but only to get re-elected -- they don't seem to be interested in allying with the moderate conservatives, because of the fear of being smeared by the attacks on the conservative base which is growing to cover anything resembling conservatism.

The progressives are like Germany in 1939, ambitious to gain control, but without the real power to back it up if challenged. However, if they take over healthcare, this may give them the power to make huge advances. This is the reason the battle is so heated -- the progressives realize what's at stake. The moderates from both parties are ready to capitulate with a few minor compromises. Healthcare to the progressives is what Poland was to the Germans. The moderates are in the position of the USSR, they can go with Germany, or they can go with France and Britain. The moderates are more closely aligned to the ideology of the progressives, and they really want to spoil the capitalists, what they consider the right-wing, so they are on the verge of making a deal with the devil. This is the misjudgement Stalin made that almost cost him his country -- and without the intervention of the U.S., the USSR would have been taken over by Hitler, sooner or later. If Stalin could have seen that a deal with Britain and France was the best way to prevent the spread of war, the world could have been spared the subsequent tragedy.

Again, I'm not comparing the progressives with nazis, just comparing the ambition for power and control -- looking at the parallels in the two situations and how unexamined ideology can blind people. America as a whole is not far left or far right. The far left in political control would be a nightmare of socialistic madness -- the far right would be a nightmare of moralistic tyranny. America is between these two extremes in a large area of freedom. Despite what the moderates and progressives say, the people who understand and respond to Limbaugh and Beck are, for the most part, not right wing zealots. The liberals in the Democrat Party are, for the most part, not far left socialists. There is a large potential coalition from one end to the other, but what makes each end dangerous, and what they have in common, is statist tendencies.

We've created a political system that now requires people to battle each other in groups to gain favors from government. We don't need to be controlled through central planning by the religious right or by the progressives. Right now the right has been marginalized and the danger is the prospect of being controlled by the central planning of the progressives, but the answer is not a swing to the right giving power to those who want to plan from that position. The answer is to build a coalition that stops the madness. I would be saying the same thing about the right if they were in power, making grand changes in control and command, as I'm saying about the progressives.

Our defiled system of government has created the present situation we find ourselves in where the progressives are on the verge of controlling most of the economy, thus, controlling us and our actions. It could just as easily be the right on the verge of taking control -- there would just be different polices and forms of control to consider.

The moderates from both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party are making a mistake siding with the progressives. This move to paint any resistance to Obama as right-wing birtherism is suicidal. The moderate conservatives should be searching for ways to integrate with the conservative base rather than pushing the base to become louder and more combative -- the conservative base needs to find a way to reach out to the moderate conservatives -- the moderate liberals need to find a way to deal with the moderate conservatives -- and all need to find a way to include the libertarians and independents. The only way this can happen is for the tide to turn toward limited government and an opening of the free market of ideas, so that persuasion can be the guide rather than government coercion. By limiting government's power to deal out favors and protection, the far right and, as in the present situation, the progressives are rendered powerless, and the group warfare stops.

If the moderates insist on being as stupid as Stalin by joining with the progressives, strenghthening statism, this country is in for many, many internal wars. If all the factions insist on being blinded by non-essential ideology, we're lost. This is not about who wins the next election, it's about changing the political system to its original intent, sans the loopholes, and saving the country.

The false choice of either accepting the present healthcare system or supporting the reform offered by the progressives ignores the third way -- the free market -- it's the third way we need to consider, that's what the sane people left, from conservatives to liberals to libertarians, need to coalesce around, and for more reasons than just healthcare.

Libertarian Preparation Part 3: Private Counterforce

Presently, I see no political solution to the statist takeover of the economy. Many more moderate and level-headed thinkers will see such a statement as hyperbole, depending, as they do, on our long history of balancing out extremes in US politics. I understand how people can still believe we'll turn things around and become stable and balanced once again, but I think the accumulative effects of certain ideas are now beginning to change the political direction in the US on a course, far from libertarianism, which will have to run itself to a deadend.

There's a good chance that independents will sober up and put a harness on government, but there's also a good chance that the independents will give in to a bad economy and begin applying the same pressure as liberal statists to push for even more government intervention. Healthcare reform is in trouble at the moment, but the polls, if you can believe them, don't show a huge resistance, and it appears the Democrats are determined to pass something. What they pass will likely be a compromised plan designed as the first move to their ultimate goal of government-run healthcare. Even a compromised version will be enough to hurt private businesses at a time when they don't need any more problems.

If the Democrats don't get a healthcare plan passed, and cap and trade dies in the senate, it will be a big blow to the liberal agenda, giving momentum to the Republicans at a time when they are fighting on their heels. I don't see how the Democrats can let this opportunity pass, and the fact that the legislation will be hurried due to the urgency of political timing, it's almost certain the legislation will have many unintended consequences no one has had time to consider.

Unless there is private sector resistance to statism, I don't see either party voluntarily placing constraints on government power. It amazes me to see intelligent men and women cavalierly dismiss those who are concerned about the direction of the country as right-wing reactionaries. It might be that many people are having difficulty accepting everything that's happened in the last few years -- it's too much of an assault on a life view that's built on confidence in the efficacy of a two-party system. The changes are so radical, a moderate mindset will have difficulty accepting that the extremes won't be pressured back to the middle, and this might be a weakness in the moderate mindset. It's possible moderates will miss the signals and will not resist the extremes out of a temperament which doesn't recognize that the middle has moved -- in this case, to the left. Once the normalization of the shift to the left becomes set, it's too late, leaving the moderates in an embarrassing position of siding with the right where they've been unwillingly pushed, or moving to the left to fit into a new middle.

All this is tied up in political identification and will be useless dealing with the new radical positions. An objective private force is needed which is outside the gamesmanship of political identification. The people are the ones who should decide what government they want, and the people will have to define it. Too much power has been given to the state to design government, and most people no longer understand the political identities and the struggle going on to consolidate power. The potential for great power has created an ogliarchy which has pragmatically moved left in order to build a power base, so neither Republicans nor Democrats can be trusted to limit power. For awhile it will appear sophisticated and witty for the moderate pundits to cooly lampoon the slobbering alarmists from the far right, but then it will seem pathetically out of touch unless there is a more reasoned resistance to a statist reality, whether rightwing alarmists existed or not.

I believe the moderates are critical to slowing the statist movement, I just don't have confidence they will stand against it in a principled way that creates a political counterforce, mainly out of fear of being associated with the right they now abhor. So, it will take an objective, libertarian-minded, private sector force that is less concerned with political identity and more concerned with economic freedom and competitive fairplay.

Libertarian Preparation Part 2: Capitalism-Illiteracy

There's a capitalism-illiteracy in this country that's maddening. There are still those, likely smart in other areas, who ignorantly look at profits as an evil waste, something to be squeezed from the system. As I read the healthcare debates around the internet, the constant refrain relates to the evil profits made by insurance companies and healthcare providers and how a government plan should eliminate these profits.

Anyone who wants to understand why profit in business is not evil can read up on economics -- I don't have the patience to go through something anyone in the US over 16 years of age should understand. What I would like to address here is the fact that many people who are attempting to destroy capitalism, understand capitalism and profits, yet push for its demise. If I was feeling generous, I would give people like Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt and excuse their actions as attempts to create a state-run capitalism which they think is more equitable to all concerned, but I don't believe that Obama is that ignorant. I believe Obama and most of the people in power in the Democrat Party know that state-run capitalism is statism, not capitalism.

I also believe that most of the Democrats in power know that a free market will create more prosperity than statism, but their ideology leads them to prefer statism because their goal is not prosperity -- their goal is to prevent a certain part of society from generating great personal wealth which can't be controlled by government. I doubt Obama has any aversion to personal wealth, per se -- if he did, he would give away his wealth, and he would be urging all other wealthy Democrats who have amassed great fortunes to do the same. Actually, many of Democrats' proposals will create great wealth for many people who are favored in his plans, but this can all be controlled through the connections.

What statists don't like is pure capitalism, because it's not controlled and it threatens the power of the state. In a free market with a limited government, the government would be servants to the people, and the Democrat ideology doesn't allow for this reality -- the Republican ideology doesn't either, as a matter of fact, regardless what some may say in stump speeches.

It appears that a slight majority in the country can be labeled as "statists" -- they prefer government control of the economy rather than a capitalist system. When you include the number of people who are capitalism-illiterate, and when asked if they want the government to control the economy if they are helped by the control, the number of "statists" might be as high as 75%. This is, of course, just a guess based on observation, but I'll bet the numbers are very high. I can't find very many people who truly understand the basic principles of capitalism, and the public education system isn't helping -- neither are the universities or media.

Capitalism, wealth and profit have been dirty words for quite some time in the US and around the world. Any libertarian worth his/her salt will give a full-throated defense of capitalism, and that's about all anyone can do who understands the principles, short of revolution. I've written lately about the possibility that people in this country may wise-up and demand changes, but from what I'm gathering, too few people have an understanding of free markets, capitalism or basic libertarian ideas to make a principled, reasoned stand against statism. When their heartstrings are pulled with stories about Tiny Tim's surgery, old Uncle Harry eating dogfood so he can buy medicine and how rich people will control the world if not kept under tight reigns, the would-be proponents of a limited government begin capitulating and falling into the trap of trying to tinker with the present statist system to make it just a little less intrusive -- this is like trying to help an alcoholic by suggesting he just drink beer -- as long as the beverage has alcohol in it you're not solving the problem -- as long as the government has the power to intervene in the economy, it will.