If you live in the tri-state area, or anywhere actually if you are up for it, please contact the LP team in West Virginia. They are short on people for the final push to get on the ballot.
The LP needs YOU!
|
|||||
|
July 24th, 2008 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Speaking of Ron Paul… here is a press release I received last night:
I hope our LP folk in Minnesota will be out there in force! July 22nd, 2008 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
The Bob Barr for President efforts have been gearing up in Atlanta and if you want to see what you can do, you can find out about it here. I would love to see that fund raiser counter spinning like the Ron Paul one did! July 22nd, 2008 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
Right, enough grumbling from me today. Here’s a story to cheer and inspire anyone concerned about the voluntarist ethic that is essential for a free society not reliant on the State to do everything. July 21st, 2008 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
Good article about the nonsense being proposed in the US about civilian “volunteering” programmes which are not in fact, voluntary. It is worth keeping an eye on this issue because I recall that David Cameron, Tory leader, might be keen on a sort of non-military version of national service as a way to deal with problems of teen crime and lack of personal responsibility. Bad move. See my post below for how it is working in a free market that is what is required. Treat people as free adults: it works July 18th, 2008 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
A couple of months ago, I wrote a long piece here about how British voters, from having been two rather distinct groups of people, with different beliefs and habits and social characteristics and consumer tastes, were converging into a single much-harder-to-distinguish lump, which both major political parties will shun their traditional supporters (the two old separate lumps) to appeal to. Hence the new “political class”, and hence the new electoral landslides won by Thatcher, Blair, and now soon (it looks more and more likely) Cameron. I didn’t mention the USA, but I have long had the sense that something opposite is happening over there, with a more homogeneous population being replaced by two much more distinct social groups. Well, what do I know? I’ve never even been there. But now Terry Teachout has recently done a piece for Commentary called America Sorts Itself, arguing pretty much exactly this, writing about books that paint the same picture.
Teachout quotes a University of Texas sociologist saying this:
I certainly have the feeling that the “latte liberal” objection to the war in Iraq is not that it is a bad war, but that a hated gun-owning, evangelical Christian cowboy conservative is running it. Were President Obama to take charge of this war, and decide to press ahead with it pretty much indefinitely, the latte liberals would then be quite content, or such is my suspicion. The NASCAR conservatives, on the other hand … Two questions. First, obviously, is this notion of much more socially divided and regionally sorted USA true? And second, if it is more or less true, what impact with that have both on the USA’s political system, and on the world? One of Teachout’s answers to the local USA part of the second of those questions is that US politics is becoming less gentlemanly, because voters and (perhaps even more importantly) politicians on different sides don’t mix with and know each other as much and as well as they used to. They are thus quicker to attribute dishonourable motives and mentalities to one another, as, now, are younger presidential candidates like Obama and Huckabee. The USA, Teachout says, is becoming harder to govern as a single political entity. This may not be such a bad thing, but it will surely have consequences, and not just in the USA. As a coda, it is perhaps relevant to add that whenever any of us Brit Samizdatistas writes anything bad about Britain or British political trends, as we do quite often of course, as likely as not some US commenter will say: Give up on Britain, mate. Move here. And by “here” he doesn’t just mean the USA, he means one of the good bits of it. I have no inclination whatever thus to move, being very content in London thanks very much. I find these calls to give up on my own country insulting. But maybe such comments are part of the process described above, and maybe some people, especially within the USA, find such appeals persuasive. It would seem so. Such anecdotage certainly points up the way that improved communication reinforces such a process of sorting by political preference, simply by making choosing and moving easier to do and to organise. I am, of course, wholly in favour of people being allowed to do this kind of thing. Such appeals also hint at a possible future for the entire world, of geographical sorting, along distinctly political and sociological lines, rather than just organised according to the mere accident of where you happened to be born. July 17th, 2008 | 29 comments - (Comments are closed)
The power of the American left (the “liberals” the “progressives” the “radicals” – call them what you will) is very great. About 9 out of 10 newspapers lean to the left in their editorials (and, to be blunt, in the rest of their content also – from news coverage to book and film reviews) and most television networks also lean to the left. Some more than others – but the general direction is plain. This is perhaps the result of the “education system” – in which the “public” (i.e. government) schools are dominated by people with a leftist world view. They are saturated in this view of the world during their time at college and it is reflected in what they teach and how they teach it – and in the open political allegiances of their organizations. And would anyone like to deny that the vast majority of American universities are dominated by the left? In Congress the Speaker of the House is someone, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who would have been considered way to the left of the Democrat mainstream only a few years ago. And Speaker Pelosi has shown that the oft mentioned moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats are a busted flush – they are people who fall in line when the Speaker and her associates put the pressure on. In the Senate, Harry Reid was once considered a moderate – but these days it is clear he is either on board with the left, or just a front man (a cardboard cutout) who does not prevent the control of the Senate by people like the senior Senator for Illinois. But in spite of all of the above it is clear that the left is not satisfied – they demand total control of all aspects of life, totalitarianism. This is made clear by such evidence as the effort by elements within the Californian courts to de facto ban home schooling (by demanding that parents have teaching training qualifications – indeed perhaps in every subject they teach) and that private schools only be allowed to hire people who have undergone a training process that the left control. In other States (such as supposedly strongly conservative Tennessee) there are efforts to refuse to recognise the qualifications of children who did not go to approved schools – it seems that independent testing is not considered enough, indeed is the very thing that the left wish to avoid. And at the Federal level there is a very strong movement to use all the agencies of the government (from the FCC to the IRS) to eliminate or castrate that minority of media outlets where the left do not already have the main influence. All under nice sounding words of course – such as “the fairness doctrine”, or “freedom” and diversity”, but, under the Orwellian words, the intent is plain – no dissent will be tolerated. Either it will be declared “hate speech” or it will be declared “biased”. With an “unbiased” presentation of news and current affairs (and everything else – from music to sports) being a leftist one of course. And with judges that a President Woods Fund Obama would appoint and who would be confirmed by a Democrat Senate, with a Republican minority brow beaten by “main stream media” that the left already control (who will declare that any opposition is “racist”), there will be no First Amendment problems (or any other constitutional problems) for any of the above. The Bar in almost every State in under the control of the left (and I am not just talking about the ambulance chasing Trial Lawyers Association). Which is why States in which the lawyers have great influence in deciding who become judge, the courts are on the left. For example, Alaska is a very conservative State, but the courts are very much on the other side. There will be no real resistance from the legal establishment against a leftist takeover of the Federal courts (to make them all like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – there is no great love for things like the Second Amendment in this establishment. “The internet Paul, the internet”. The power of the left on the internet is actually very great – and not just in organizations like MoveOn (which claims three million activists), but in the internet companies themselves. Companies that most of us use (such as Google) have already shown which way they lean – whose world view they share. And even if some (perhaps rather difficult to reach) conservative and libertarian websites remain – so what? Sorry, but a handful of websites with no broadcasters to work with are not going to defeat the left. “But surely the rich in America will not allow the left to take over”. This view shows the influence of the false doctrines of Marxism. The billionaires are not going to prevent anything – indeed they are often supporters of the left. Billionaires like Warren Buffet may be more moderate than such men as George Soros, Peter Lewis and Marc Cuban – but they are still no more likely to come to the defence of talk radio than they are to oppose higher taxes (in fact they are often the loudest voices demanding higher taxes). Indeed many of the billionaires in the United States resemble the baddies in Ian Fleming’s James Bond stories (super rich people in league with the Reds) more than they do the sustainers of the “intellectual superstructure of capitalism” of Marxist theory. “But what about the big corporations”. Such as General Electric? The controllers of MSNBC and NBC (The distinction between the two has been breaking down for some time) can hardly be called enemies of the left. I suspect that even nationalization would not really bother the top management at General Electric – they would not have to explain why the share value has done so badly over the last five years. Life would be so much less irritating without any real shareholders. After all such de facto government owned entities (for all the claims that they are private) as Fannie Mae do not prevent top managers earning many millions of Dollars – ask Senator Woods Fund Obama’s friend Mr Johnson. Of course ever more taxes, regulations and outright government control (from the oil refineries to insurance) makes no economic sense – but that has not stopped the left in the past and will not now. “But why should non-Americans care what happens in the United States?” Because the brutal truth is that neither Britain or any other part of the West can stand if America falls – there is not, and can not be, any Plan B. July 9th, 2008 | 29 comments - (Comments are closed)
Bob Barr is looking more and more to have been an excellent choice to carry our banner this year. He is getting the sort of serious media coverage we have only dreamed of despite us working towards it for decades. Ron Paul’s run for the Republican ticket earlier this year has probably had a great deal to do with it. On Sunday Bob appeared on CNN’s Newsroom and ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos That is a lot of media impressions so I really have to congratulate him on a sterling start to the Libertarian Presidential Campaign. His job is not to win. That is just not possible yet. He is an educator who is out there to introduce our ideas to a mass audience for which a message of individual liberty is a novel experience. Bob is delivering in spades. It is a good thing too: this is a message the general public will certainly will never hear from ‘the other guys’. July 7th, 2008 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
I thought our readers might wish to celebrate the end of a very long and arduous road that Carla Howell and her friends have trod. I have heard they have just passed the last hurdle and their initiative to end the income tax in Massachusetts will appear on the ballot this fall. If you are in Massachusetts, help spread the news. This is your chance to roll back the State like it has never been rolled before. Get out there and give the Massachusetts government a good extra hard kick in the goolies for us here at Samizdata! July 7th, 2008 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
In 2004 anti-leftists were determined to prevent the Democrats capturing the Presidency. “No Child Left Behind” and all the rest of the Bush’s absurd wild spending (opposed by John McCain and a some other Republicans) were forgotten about. Even Saddam turning out not to have stockpiles of WMDs (although, yes, he had plans to get them) was downplayed by people trying to prevent a President Kerry, and lots of evidence of serious mismanagement of the war in Iraq was ignored (apart from by McCain and a few others). Total focus was on winning the election. However, even if Senator Kerry had won – the Republicans would still have controlled Congress. Now in 2008 there is the most leftist leadership of House and Senate there has ever been. Speaker Pelosi (who has shown that the “Blue dog” moderate Democrats are either a myth or a joke) and her friends in the House (such as Barney Frank). And a Senate in the hands of people like Senator Durbin – with pathetic “coal makes you sick” Harry Reid acting as front man. Yet no one cares that the Presidency may be about to fall to the Democrats – indeed a Democrat whose record and background is of the hard left. Total power over every part of government (from the FCC to the IRS) via control over the Executive and the Legislature – and power over the appointment of judges. And there is no focus – no will to prevent it happening. “But they are corrupt, Paul”. Someone can be corrupt and still work for a cause. For example Senator Dodd is corrupt (and in the most old fashioned sweet heart loan from a corporation way), but this is not stopping him putting a housing bill into law that will send yet more millions upon millions of tax Dollars to leftist activist groups. Think how much more the left will be able to do when they have total power. Or stay as you are and do not think – after all thinking about it might mean it would occur to you that you should do something. July 6th, 2008 | 89 comments - (Comments are closed)
I make a point of looking at the Economist each week, in order to see what this part of the establishment are thinking. I can not normally stand to read it for than a couple of minutes (as it makes me feel unclean), but that is enough time to find some utter absurdity with which amuse people. However, this week I think I have come upon the worst Economist article of all time: The title, featured on the front cover, is “McCain’s lurch to the right”… For those who do not know British “political speak”, “lurch to the right” is what the Labour party (and so on) have long said whenever a Conservative party politician gives any sign of not agreeing with everything the BBC and Guardian newspaper hold to be correct. However, in the case of John McCain the Economist goes overboard. First he is, as normal with the Economist, damned with faint praise – for example we are told that although it “may be wrong-headed” he does genuinely believe in the right of individuals to own firearms – so at least he is an honest lunatic. We are to forget the basis of freedom in the right of freeman to be armed, in both Classical Civilization and in English (and other Germanic) Common Law – only a few insane Americans believe in the right to keep and bear arms. But McCain is worse than wrong-headed – he is also a liar. For example, he has “recently” been saying that there should only be immigration reform after the borders of the United States are secured – which everyone knows is impossible. Actually it is not a recent “lurch to the right” as McCain has been saying this (over and over again) for more than a year. And everyone clearly does not include the vast majority of Americans who support securing the borders. On taxation the evil McCain now supports the Bush tax rate cuts – which he once wisely opposed (no mention of John McCain also opposing the Bush spending increases of course), and the crazy man even wants more tax cuts. The Economist of course does not mention that the American tax code is absurdly complex and something like a voluntary flat tax would be sensible – but it is more than this. According to what is implicit in the article this recent “lurch to the right” by McCain, actually – again something he has been saying for ages, is wrong (indeed obviously wrong) – McCain should come out and support higher taxes. Which is what “ending the Bush tax cuts” actually means. So the Economist holds that taxes should be increased at a time of economic weakness – this is a position that even Lord Keynes would have had trouble with. Even a few months off the Federal fuel tax is an insane thing that the all-wise Senator Obama “cleverly opposed”. Finally we are told that McCain’s support for off shore drilling, if the States agree, is the sort of thing that centrists and moderates would never go for. This is odd on two grounds: Firstly as John McCain’s main task at this election is to bring out the conservative, or rather conservative and libertarian – i.e. the anti left, base (a lot bigger than the Republican base) which includes many people who really dislike him. The stay-at-home threat is a terrible one for McCain. Secondly – the Economist folk simply do not know what they are talking about. In reality, with the price of fuel being what it is – and set to get a lot higher over time, about 70% of American voters support an end to the Federal de facto ban on new off shore drilling. Nor does the Economist even mention alternatives like opening up the areas of the Western States for oil shale, and allowing new nuclear power stations (both of which McCain has supported and Obama has not). So by “centrists and moderates” the Economist in fact means “committed hard core leftists who would never vote for McCain if their lives depended on it”. I do not expect to influence some people to vote for McCain with the above, John McCain has too much baggage (McCain-Feingold, the amnesty bill for illegals, and so on) for that. However, I do hope to have finally have convinced the die hards that if the Economist is a “free market” publication then I am the Emperor Augustus. The Economist is written by a group of people who were taught a lot of semi, and not so semi, collectivist doctrines at university – and simply trot them out each week in vague connection to the events of the time. July 5th, 2008 | 42 comments - (Comments are closed)
I have been perhaps less fascinated by the current political season than some, but despite my loathing for one media darling and disregard for the other, I have watched the rather normal campaign season unfold. It is all so predictable. The Democrats are running a Chicago politician, and that means someone who knows ‘machine’ politics inside out. Whatever Obama does, Obama does for political reasons. “Change” is just a nice meaningless word with which to whip up the party workers. One can well imagine that each ‘problem’ has been orchestrated to make some faction of the Democratic base feel he is ‘their’ man and is being ‘pushed’ toward the middle. Instead of seeing campaign events through the lens you are accustomed to, start looking at it from the viewpoint of “which constituency does it play to?” Take the Reverend Wright bruhaha. It simultaneously solidified support for him amongst the radical black constituency, made him appear to them as an oppressed victim, and allowed him to move toward the center. That is one brilliant bit of maneuvering, a double play that would do Karl Rove proud. Democratic candidates have a certain problem to deal with. The activists who will get out and work and who will secure the nomination are significantly (consider that an understatement of British proportions) to the left of the general population. Without their support, a candidate will have a difficult time getting the money and workers required for a successful nomination. Then comes the problem: once nominated they must be positioned for electability. That requires a bit of legerdemain. The best way to handle it is to appear ‘forced’ to the right. The base believes they ‘know’ what the candidate really believes and continues to support them. There is always enough new blood around that either did not learn through a previous election what happens next or else is gullible enough to believe it will somehow be different this time. My prediction? By September Obama will be so centrist and mainstream you will be hard pressed to find light of day between him and the polled positions of the American public. July 4th, 2008 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||