Presidential candidate Rick Santorum remains steadfastly dedicated to his agenda which appears increasingly socially conservative.
Most recently, he promised to nominate an attorney general that would help him to eradicate internet pornography.
Therein lies the divide in the conservative movement. Rights based conservatives have near meltdowns at the notion of government interference in the lives of individuals, even if that means accepting practices that they themselves disagree with. Santorum gives weight to the left wing notion that Republicans are closet theocrats looking to crush liberty.
Nevermind the mindnumbing list of agencies and bureaus created by Obama to reach ever more deeply into our educational, healthcare, and other major choices.
Santorum's moral agenda is, frankly, the wrong emphasis for today's Republican Party. We are at our best when defending religious freedom against Big Government. So why turn around and threaten Big Government action against what people do in the privacy of their own homes.
Is culture rotten? Maybe. But it is a free society, so who cares. People make choices. We do not have to love them, but we should respect them so long as they do no direct harm to others.
Romney, to his credit, understands that this election is about the economy. Not birth control. Not porn. The economy, period.
And that is why he is winning.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Don't Give Us a Leader. Just Give Us Competence
It is time to stop looking for a “leader.” America does not need leadership from any movement or any party, at least not leadership as we conceive it in the 21st century.
When you consider what the average American tends to expect from a president, or blame on him when things go wrong, an outsider might be forgiven if he assumed that the word “president” politically equated to “czar.” American ideas on what a president does and should not do have been driven relentlessly by the crises of the last century combined with the notion that if only we found the smartest man, we could plan well enough to avoid problems.
History proves that this just is not so.
Ancient sources of religion and wisdom argue against putting too much trust into a single earth made man alone. In I Samuel 8, God tells the Israelite judge Samuel that the people demand a king as the other nations have. They reject the idea of a limited government whose sovereign is God. God warned Samuel that the expansion of political authority would result in the seizing of property and enslavement of the people. Arbitrary power in the hands of leaders cannot end well.
Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching Chapter 17 wrote the following
The best rules are those whom the people hardly know exist
Next come rulers whom the people love and praise
After that come rulers whom the people fear
And the worst are those whom the people despise
The ruler who does not trust his people will not be trusted by his people
The best ruler stays in the background and his voice is rarely heard
When he accomplishes his task and things go well
The people declare: It was we who did it by ourselves.
Marcus Tullius Cicero watched the final days of the slow dissolving of what was once a free Roman Republic relative to his time and place. Rule of law gave way to a government led by ambitious and grasping men, such as Julius Caesar. The dictators of the late Roman Republic saw law as an obstacle to their plans, some of which were based on good intentions. However, the undermining of the basic law of the land ushered in the era of the Empire and all of its evils.
The people loved Caesar, but could never have imagined that his smashing of the law would lead to the depravity of Nero or the insanity of Caligula. Late in Cicero’s life, just before his own unnatural death, he railed against “the effrontery of Gaius Caesar, who, to gain that sovereign power which by a depraved imagination he had conceived in his fancy, trod underfoot all laws of gods and men.” He went on to write that “But the trouble about this matter is that it is in the greatest souls and in the most brilliant geniuses that we usually find ambitions for civil and military authority, for power, and for glory, springing; and therefore we must be the more heedful not to go wrong in that direction.”
While the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argues that man’s evil can only be contained by a strong government, many other notables fear more the evil of men when they ascend to controlling a powerful government. This is why we limit power and put blocks in the way of our elected officials. America does not need a czar, a king, an Il Duce, or any other authoritarian leader, either by name, or in power alone. We work best when under the type of executive described by Lao Tzu, the type that we never notice and who engineers his policies to enable the people to act for themselves.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
And Creepiest Guy of the Year Award Goes to . . . Vladimir Putin
Everyone's known that guy. The one who always has something a little bit too weird to say around much younger women. Who thinks that they are a divine gift to all women, but are not exactly all that they think they are.
So what happens when that guy is the most powerful politician in his country?
To the lay observer, the entire Vladimir Putin ad campaign for president seemed to be based on two premises. Either he inspires young and attractive people to have sex with each other, or to have sex with him. Or at least tear their clothes off in honor of him.
This is no exaggeration. I am not making this up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfqGSN-le0g
I think this is only legal in Lincoln County.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG2XV2n9efc&feature=related
It actually gets more tasteless than the above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2_7AfFCH-g
Yup, this is it.
Maybe this is normal in Russia, and probably most of Europe for that matter, but to Americans this is really creepy. Basically a sixty year old bald guy is trying to perv on 19 year olds. And also control them through soft tyranny.
Imagine any American political figure running a campaign like this. These ads are more ridiculous than Saturday Night Live parodies. They also reflect Putin's utter contempt for his electorate.
After watching this, give me good old fashioned American mud slinging every time. At least they come within shouting distance of an issue every once in a while.
I'd even prefer a campaign like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI
So what happens when that guy is the most powerful politician in his country?
To the lay observer, the entire Vladimir Putin ad campaign for president seemed to be based on two premises. Either he inspires young and attractive people to have sex with each other, or to have sex with him. Or at least tear their clothes off in honor of him.
This is no exaggeration. I am not making this up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfqGSN-le0g
I think this is only legal in Lincoln County.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG2XV2n9efc&feature=related
It actually gets more tasteless than the above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2_7AfFCH-g
Yup, this is it.
Maybe this is normal in Russia, and probably most of Europe for that matter, but to Americans this is really creepy. Basically a sixty year old bald guy is trying to perv on 19 year olds. And also control them through soft tyranny.
Imagine any American political figure running a campaign like this. These ads are more ridiculous than Saturday Night Live parodies. They also reflect Putin's utter contempt for his electorate.
After watching this, give me good old fashioned American mud slinging every time. At least they come within shouting distance of an issue every once in a while.
I'd even prefer a campaign like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
From Top of the World to An Ignoble Fate
In the Year of Our Lord 1801, fate claimed Benedict Arnold. He lived his life for fame, wealth, and respect, chasing those shadows of dreams across the war tossed United States. Despite victories and loyalty to the American cause, the cranky Arnold always saw others getting his accolades, such as Horatio Gates after Saratoga. Pushed by mounting expenses, his vivacious wife, and general surliness, Arnold switched sides.
In Europe, the term is Quisling. In America, Benedict Arnold has become a byword for ignominious treason. Among Republicans, Arlen Specter shines as the brightest example of outright duplicity. Between 2004, when George W. Bush absorbed a lot of criticism from conservative circles for faithfully backing him, until 2008, we are led to believe that Specter became disenchanted with the party that he joined so many years before (after election to the Senate.)
Arlen Specter saw what he thought was a clear indication of where the American voter would go for a very long time. He joined the GOP when it was fortuitous in the 1980s and rode a wave of Reagan conservatism, even though he did not quite meet the standard. When the tide seemed to start to shift in 2006 and 2008, Specter sensed that staying with the Republican Party might cost him the seat he held over two decades.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held out the honey pot for him and Specter dove right in. He abandoned the Republicans, whose cause he only barely supported anyway, with the promise of instant seniority and a chairmanship. Specter believed that the Democrats would strive to their utmost to keep him in place.
Alas, the seniority never happened. Reid allowed it to be publicly stripped from him like stripes off of a demoted soldier. When Specter counted on the support of Democratic heavyweights, such as Obama, they were nowhere to be found. Specter endured the humiliation of a primary defeat and saw his old Republican rival Pat Toomey ascend to the place he once held.
And now Specter has a book. He lays out the case for his career and exposes Democratic Party duplicity. It is certainly amazing that the Democrats humiliated Specter as they did. Certainly this won't encourage many other turncoats from the GOP.
Arnold died in 1801 a broken man. He never gained the fortune that he felt that he deserved. The British used his information and services for the extent of the Revolution, then tossed him aside. Arnold begged for a commission to fight the French in the 1790s, but none came. He earned the worst fate possible for a man of his ambition and vanity. Arnold ended up neglected, then forgotten.
As will Arlen Specter.
In Europe, the term is Quisling. In America, Benedict Arnold has become a byword for ignominious treason. Among Republicans, Arlen Specter shines as the brightest example of outright duplicity. Between 2004, when George W. Bush absorbed a lot of criticism from conservative circles for faithfully backing him, until 2008, we are led to believe that Specter became disenchanted with the party that he joined so many years before (after election to the Senate.)
Arlen Specter saw what he thought was a clear indication of where the American voter would go for a very long time. He joined the GOP when it was fortuitous in the 1980s and rode a wave of Reagan conservatism, even though he did not quite meet the standard. When the tide seemed to start to shift in 2006 and 2008, Specter sensed that staying with the Republican Party might cost him the seat he held over two decades.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held out the honey pot for him and Specter dove right in. He abandoned the Republicans, whose cause he only barely supported anyway, with the promise of instant seniority and a chairmanship. Specter believed that the Democrats would strive to their utmost to keep him in place.
Alas, the seniority never happened. Reid allowed it to be publicly stripped from him like stripes off of a demoted soldier. When Specter counted on the support of Democratic heavyweights, such as Obama, they were nowhere to be found. Specter endured the humiliation of a primary defeat and saw his old Republican rival Pat Toomey ascend to the place he once held.
And now Specter has a book. He lays out the case for his career and exposes Democratic Party duplicity. It is certainly amazing that the Democrats humiliated Specter as they did. Certainly this won't encourage many other turncoats from the GOP.
Arnold died in 1801 a broken man. He never gained the fortune that he felt that he deserved. The British used his information and services for the extent of the Revolution, then tossed him aside. Arnold begged for a commission to fight the French in the 1790s, but none came. He earned the worst fate possible for a man of his ambition and vanity. Arnold ended up neglected, then forgotten.
As will Arlen Specter.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Energy the Driving Force Behind Areas With Recovering Housing Markets
HousingPredictor.com released its 25 most promising urban markets for house purchases and sales. These energetic markets relied upon just that.
(A list of the markets: http://www.housingpredictor.com/2012/best-markets.html )
Three of the listed markets, #3 Charleston, #8 Huntington, and #9 Wheeling, are in close proximity to centers of West Virginia's fast expanding natural gas industry. Other listed cities, such as Oklahoma City, Minot, North Dakota, Lake Charles, Louisiana lay near centers of oil drilling and production.
Interestingly enough Morgantown, West Virginia, known for low unemployment due to its major university and pharmaceutical company did not make the list.
Energy production promises to be the major force behind America's return to prosperity if it is allowed to happen. Major natural gas deposits trapped deep beneath shale layers in the earth's crust in Appalachia and Texas rival some of the larger oil pools in the Middle East. Large reserves of oil in the Midwest added to the gas make the United States potentially the largest producer of energy in the world in the 21st century. If Americans threw open the energy throttle, the lower costs would benefit U. S. manufacturing while also driving OPEC into distress.
These housing market indicators show how much positive impact even a limited increase in production can create.
The only thing standing between us and our prosperous future is overblown fears of the drilling process and Obamaite Leftists who genuinely fear American predominance in anything.
(A list of the markets: http://www.housingpredictor.com/2012/best-markets.html )
Three of the listed markets, #3 Charleston, #8 Huntington, and #9 Wheeling, are in close proximity to centers of West Virginia's fast expanding natural gas industry. Other listed cities, such as Oklahoma City, Minot, North Dakota, Lake Charles, Louisiana lay near centers of oil drilling and production.
Interestingly enough Morgantown, West Virginia, known for low unemployment due to its major university and pharmaceutical company did not make the list.
Energy production promises to be the major force behind America's return to prosperity if it is allowed to happen. Major natural gas deposits trapped deep beneath shale layers in the earth's crust in Appalachia and Texas rival some of the larger oil pools in the Middle East. Large reserves of oil in the Midwest added to the gas make the United States potentially the largest producer of energy in the world in the 21st century. If Americans threw open the energy throttle, the lower costs would benefit U. S. manufacturing while also driving OPEC into distress.
These housing market indicators show how much positive impact even a limited increase in production can create.
The only thing standing between us and our prosperous future is overblown fears of the drilling process and Obamaite Leftists who genuinely fear American predominance in anything.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Mitt Romney Will Be a Fairly Strong Candidate If . . .
I had my doubts about Romney. He was far from my first choice. I felt that the Republican Party needed to nominate a strong candidate who could sell a powerful dose of economic conservatism to the middle ground in American politics.
We don't have that guy this time. Those guys either dropped out or never ran.
Newt Gingrich flubbed when he attacked a Republican for being a capitalist.
Rick Santorum forgot what the election is about.
Ron Paul looks good 90% of the time. The other 10% keeps me from wanting him to be president.
And that leaves Mitt Romney.
Our remaining four represent the different strains of thought in the party. Newt appeals to the dreamer in us all. At his best, he is appeallingly Churchillian. He is the gamble that the Republican voters are obviously not inclined to make. Ron Paul hearkens back to the heydays of the Taft family, William Howard and Senator Robert. Old school Republicanism that appeals to the youngest conservatives. Rick Santorum electrifies the shrinking base of die hard social conservatives.
And Romney appeals to few, but he is eminently acceptable.
So why will he be a strong candidate?
Mitt Romney reminds me of Shelley Moore Capito in some ways, although Representative Capito is a much better communicator with a much better rapport and understanding of average people. The trait that they share in common is pragmatism. They listen to their constituents and do what they can to satisfy their concerns. Voters direct them, not the other way around. Some deride that as not sufficiently ideologically pure, but it is certainly a grounded approach that fits a democratic society with so many viewpoints.
Capito and Romney are the anti-Obama model. They thrive on their connection with the average non-political voter. Neither sell themselves as they only answer to the question and you get the feeling that they are willing to give any reasonable constituent a fair listen.
Outside of Ann Coulter, few of the hardcore conservative pundits like Romney. Do Republicans and Democrats honestly think that is a problem for Romney? Much as I like Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk, it helps Romney in the general election to not have their 100% support. Independents and moderate Democrats who have come to mistrust and dislike Obama will be more likely to support a candidate who is not the favorite son of the Right.
Some Democrats speculate that Santorum's support in the South will hurt Romney in the general election. Are people that insane to think that Santorum supporters will miss a chance to vote against Obama in November?
Should Romney win the nomination, an increasingly academic phrase, the election is his to lose. Moderation, attacks on the President made in good humor instead of anger, and an understandable plan to return to prosperity and reduce debt will give Mitt Romney a solid victory.
Just don't get sidetracked, understand that some humorous statements about wealth translate poorly to print, and stay focused. Don't sell yourself as the answer, emphasize teamwork with other experienced people including the other former candidates. That contrasts you with The Won. Most of all, exude optimism in yourself and, most of all, Americans.
Only Romney could beat Romney once he wins the nomination.
We don't have that guy this time. Those guys either dropped out or never ran.
Newt Gingrich flubbed when he attacked a Republican for being a capitalist.
Rick Santorum forgot what the election is about.
Ron Paul looks good 90% of the time. The other 10% keeps me from wanting him to be president.
And that leaves Mitt Romney.
Our remaining four represent the different strains of thought in the party. Newt appeals to the dreamer in us all. At his best, he is appeallingly Churchillian. He is the gamble that the Republican voters are obviously not inclined to make. Ron Paul hearkens back to the heydays of the Taft family, William Howard and Senator Robert. Old school Republicanism that appeals to the youngest conservatives. Rick Santorum electrifies the shrinking base of die hard social conservatives.
And Romney appeals to few, but he is eminently acceptable.
So why will he be a strong candidate?
Mitt Romney reminds me of Shelley Moore Capito in some ways, although Representative Capito is a much better communicator with a much better rapport and understanding of average people. The trait that they share in common is pragmatism. They listen to their constituents and do what they can to satisfy their concerns. Voters direct them, not the other way around. Some deride that as not sufficiently ideologically pure, but it is certainly a grounded approach that fits a democratic society with so many viewpoints.
Capito and Romney are the anti-Obama model. They thrive on their connection with the average non-political voter. Neither sell themselves as they only answer to the question and you get the feeling that they are willing to give any reasonable constituent a fair listen.
Outside of Ann Coulter, few of the hardcore conservative pundits like Romney. Do Republicans and Democrats honestly think that is a problem for Romney? Much as I like Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk, it helps Romney in the general election to not have their 100% support. Independents and moderate Democrats who have come to mistrust and dislike Obama will be more likely to support a candidate who is not the favorite son of the Right.
Some Democrats speculate that Santorum's support in the South will hurt Romney in the general election. Are people that insane to think that Santorum supporters will miss a chance to vote against Obama in November?
Should Romney win the nomination, an increasingly academic phrase, the election is his to lose. Moderation, attacks on the President made in good humor instead of anger, and an understandable plan to return to prosperity and reduce debt will give Mitt Romney a solid victory.
Just don't get sidetracked, understand that some humorous statements about wealth translate poorly to print, and stay focused. Don't sell yourself as the answer, emphasize teamwork with other experienced people including the other former candidates. That contrasts you with The Won. Most of all, exude optimism in yourself and, most of all, Americans.
Only Romney could beat Romney once he wins the nomination.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The Power of Social Media in Politics: Eye on Keyser
Politics and social media were made for each other, if only politicians could figure out how to use it.
Mitt Romney may be one of the worst examples, at least until recently. His Facebook page had almost zero level of interaction. Imagine sitting in a room with a dozen people, periodically shouting at them, and then putting in earplugs and going to sleep.
Other elected officials seem to have a better grasp. Delegate Gary Howell (R-Mineral) produces a live feed on Facebook of every action in the West Virginia House of Delegates. He updates constituents on votes taken, including his own vote and a brief explanation of it. Most importantly, Howell interacts with constituents. Even octogenarian Republican congressman Roscoe Bartlett from the western panhandle of Maryland maintains a Facebook page that responds to questions and comments.
In Keyser, concerned residents formed a group on Facebook called "Eye on Keyser." The purpose of the group seemed to be to discuss issues in city government. Participants swelled quickly, from hundreds to now over 1,500. It's not for the faint of heart. Discussion gets about as rough and tumble as can be imagined, with accusations and amateur background checks tossed about.
However, Eye on Keyser was able to move beyond a debate society and truly start to benefit the community. It organized a crime watch patrol in some key neighborhoods. The most active members have certainly rattled the town establishment, just based on quotes in the paper alone.
One way that they could be more effective is by crowdsourcing. Some members have obtained documents and records that they believe could contain inconsistencies. They should scan them online or provide a link to the sources. That way, they take advantage of the energy and expertise of 1,500 people, some of whom might have skills that could be useful.
Social media allows for debate, but also collaboration on a scale almost unimaginable. This is a positive development for democracy and civil society, even though the process might not always be pretty or harmonious.
Mitt Romney may be one of the worst examples, at least until recently. His Facebook page had almost zero level of interaction. Imagine sitting in a room with a dozen people, periodically shouting at them, and then putting in earplugs and going to sleep.
Other elected officials seem to have a better grasp. Delegate Gary Howell (R-Mineral) produces a live feed on Facebook of every action in the West Virginia House of Delegates. He updates constituents on votes taken, including his own vote and a brief explanation of it. Most importantly, Howell interacts with constituents. Even octogenarian Republican congressman Roscoe Bartlett from the western panhandle of Maryland maintains a Facebook page that responds to questions and comments.
In Keyser, concerned residents formed a group on Facebook called "Eye on Keyser." The purpose of the group seemed to be to discuss issues in city government. Participants swelled quickly, from hundreds to now over 1,500. It's not for the faint of heart. Discussion gets about as rough and tumble as can be imagined, with accusations and amateur background checks tossed about.
However, Eye on Keyser was able to move beyond a debate society and truly start to benefit the community. It organized a crime watch patrol in some key neighborhoods. The most active members have certainly rattled the town establishment, just based on quotes in the paper alone.
One way that they could be more effective is by crowdsourcing. Some members have obtained documents and records that they believe could contain inconsistencies. They should scan them online or provide a link to the sources. That way, they take advantage of the energy and expertise of 1,500 people, some of whom might have skills that could be useful.
Social media allows for debate, but also collaboration on a scale almost unimaginable. This is a positive development for democracy and civil society, even though the process might not always be pretty or harmonious.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Charleston Gambling: the Wrong War At the Wrong Place At the Wrong Time
Disagreeing with my conservative brethren publicly does not fill me with happy thoughts, especially when it comes to a major party position, but sometimes it must be done.
I cannot fathom why the state Republican Party has selected this time and place to mount a major assault on table gaming at the Mardi Gras casino in Kanawha County.
A much more eloquent pundit than I, Don Surber, has emphasized repeatedly that this election in the Year of Our Lord 2012 must be about the economy. We must target jobs. We must target inflation. We must target the Democratic Party as a whole with its unwillingness to address either one of these issues with a real plan that does not collapse the economy in 2027.
In the Mountain State, we must focus on creating a plan for more aggressive taxation reduction and deregulation. The business and residents that we can steal from "tax and regulate until it dies" Maryland alone can pay for the costs. The state Republican Party needs to articulate a tangible and concrete vision on the economy, then hammer it home.
Republicans also must establish alliances with young independents. Give these people credit, they came out of a school system built to teach milquetoast socialism with a hardened belief in liberty. They support Ron Paul and are suspicious of government regulation of personal choices. They fear Obama, but do not trust the Grand Old Party, either. Most of them are socially conservative on some important issues, such as abortion, but libertarian on strict personal choice matters.
We need these people on our side, not on the sidelines.
That makes the fight against table games at the Mardi Gras casino somewhat baffling. Perhaps it did not live up to inflated expectations that it helped to set. Taking on its privilege to do business on these points may be the correct action.
The problem is that this should not have been undertaken by the state Republican Party. State party leaders need to concentrate on an economic plan that creates job growth. Average voters will wonder why the party promises job growth while trying to shut off a business. Young libertarian-minded individuals will wonder why the party talks about liberty, but goes on a crusade over gambling.
If the party succeeds in Kanawha County, this might rattle voters in Jefferson County and other areas that have casino gambling. We need these critical areas if we have any shot at winning statewide races this fall.
The West Virginia Conservative Foundation, which has apparently not uttered a peep since last November, should take the lead role in these kinds of actions. It can advance whatever for of conservative agenda it wishes while the West Virginia Republican Party remains free to focus on the task at hand, winning in 2012.
I cannot fathom why the state Republican Party has selected this time and place to mount a major assault on table gaming at the Mardi Gras casino in Kanawha County.
A much more eloquent pundit than I, Don Surber, has emphasized repeatedly that this election in the Year of Our Lord 2012 must be about the economy. We must target jobs. We must target inflation. We must target the Democratic Party as a whole with its unwillingness to address either one of these issues with a real plan that does not collapse the economy in 2027.
In the Mountain State, we must focus on creating a plan for more aggressive taxation reduction and deregulation. The business and residents that we can steal from "tax and regulate until it dies" Maryland alone can pay for the costs. The state Republican Party needs to articulate a tangible and concrete vision on the economy, then hammer it home.
Republicans also must establish alliances with young independents. Give these people credit, they came out of a school system built to teach milquetoast socialism with a hardened belief in liberty. They support Ron Paul and are suspicious of government regulation of personal choices. They fear Obama, but do not trust the Grand Old Party, either. Most of them are socially conservative on some important issues, such as abortion, but libertarian on strict personal choice matters.
We need these people on our side, not on the sidelines.
That makes the fight against table games at the Mardi Gras casino somewhat baffling. Perhaps it did not live up to inflated expectations that it helped to set. Taking on its privilege to do business on these points may be the correct action.
The problem is that this should not have been undertaken by the state Republican Party. State party leaders need to concentrate on an economic plan that creates job growth. Average voters will wonder why the party promises job growth while trying to shut off a business. Young libertarian-minded individuals will wonder why the party talks about liberty, but goes on a crusade over gambling.
If the party succeeds in Kanawha County, this might rattle voters in Jefferson County and other areas that have casino gambling. We need these critical areas if we have any shot at winning statewide races this fall.
The West Virginia Conservative Foundation, which has apparently not uttered a peep since last November, should take the lead role in these kinds of actions. It can advance whatever for of conservative agenda it wishes while the West Virginia Republican Party remains free to focus on the task at hand, winning in 2012.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Sad and Sudden Passing of a Monumental Figure
http://biggovernment.com/
We'll miss Andrew Brietbart. His co-workers can tell his story better than we can.
Rest in peace.
We'll miss Andrew Brietbart. His co-workers can tell his story better than we can.
Rest in peace.
Time to Scale Back Attacks on Romney
The wall is up. The writing is coming. Barring a significant reversal on Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president.
I have to admit, I still think Rick Perry would make a good president. He's back at the Governor's Mansion in Austin.
Bobby Jindal never ran.
Newt Gingrich annoyed too many people.
Etc. etc. etc.
Mitt Romney has run a steady, unspectacular campaign. He doesn't present himself as the one answer to all of life's problems. If he can go a week without accidentally reminding people how much richer he is than we are, people may even grow to like a man who obviously loves his family and has shown long term bouts of competence.
Is Mitt Romney an unprincipled flip-flopper, or is he a guy whose views evolve and who is ultra-responsive to what his voters seem to want? Either way, polls show that most folks hate Obamacare. The vast majority of his voters hate Obamacare. His past record of adhering to what his specific constituents want indicates that he will shoot down Obamacare regardless of what he did in Massachusetts.
America, especially conservative America, has evolved as well. Ron Paul's greatest contribution lies in helping to push the GOP and conservatism into a more rights based philosophy. What seemed conservative to some fifteen years ago is now seen as big government.
You don't need to love Mitt Romney. It's better if you don't. That means that, if elected, he knows that he is on a short leash and has no opportunity to develop hubris.
We are conservatives. We don't need to love our nominee. We are not looking for "the One." We just need to elect someone who will roll back this insidious march to socialism. And if Mitt Romney is our nominee, so be it. I'll fight for him zealously.
But everyone needs to stop peeing in his Corn Flakes, because he will likely win the nomination.
I have to admit, I still think Rick Perry would make a good president. He's back at the Governor's Mansion in Austin.
Bobby Jindal never ran.
Newt Gingrich annoyed too many people.
Etc. etc. etc.
Mitt Romney has run a steady, unspectacular campaign. He doesn't present himself as the one answer to all of life's problems. If he can go a week without accidentally reminding people how much richer he is than we are, people may even grow to like a man who obviously loves his family and has shown long term bouts of competence.
Is Mitt Romney an unprincipled flip-flopper, or is he a guy whose views evolve and who is ultra-responsive to what his voters seem to want? Either way, polls show that most folks hate Obamacare. The vast majority of his voters hate Obamacare. His past record of adhering to what his specific constituents want indicates that he will shoot down Obamacare regardless of what he did in Massachusetts.
America, especially conservative America, has evolved as well. Ron Paul's greatest contribution lies in helping to push the GOP and conservatism into a more rights based philosophy. What seemed conservative to some fifteen years ago is now seen as big government.
You don't need to love Mitt Romney. It's better if you don't. That means that, if elected, he knows that he is on a short leash and has no opportunity to develop hubris.
We are conservatives. We don't need to love our nominee. We are not looking for "the One." We just need to elect someone who will roll back this insidious march to socialism. And if Mitt Romney is our nominee, so be it. I'll fight for him zealously.
But everyone needs to stop peeing in his Corn Flakes, because he will likely win the nomination.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Wyoming Preparing For John Galt Scenario
The national debt is close to $15 trillion. Most of the civilized world, including China, has heavily mortgaged the future to pay for the present.
Wyoming's House of Representatives has taken up a bill to fund a committee to create contingency plans in case of national collapse. “I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case,” state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis stated.
Representatives backing the proposal have requested $16,000 to fund the operations of a committee that would explore continuity plans should the federal government collapse. These would include a Wyoming issued state currency and laws to enable the function of commerce.
It would not be a bad idea for West Virginia to start looking at continuity plans, too. In a doomsday scenario, the Mountain State would be worse off than Wyoming, due to its proximity to major metropolitan areas and the likelihood of having to absorb panicked refugees.
Wyoming's House of Representatives has taken up a bill to fund a committee to create contingency plans in case of national collapse. “I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case,” state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis stated.
Representatives backing the proposal have requested $16,000 to fund the operations of a committee that would explore continuity plans should the federal government collapse. These would include a Wyoming issued state currency and laws to enable the function of commerce.
It would not be a bad idea for West Virginia to start looking at continuity plans, too. In a doomsday scenario, the Mountain State would be worse off than Wyoming, due to its proximity to major metropolitan areas and the likelihood of having to absorb panicked refugees.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Hydrofracturing and the Environmental Protection Agency
Don't get too excited because you never know what might happen.
A week ago, Lisa Jackson, Obama's field marshal in the War on Coal, delivered a stunning message that should make every jaw drop in the continuing struggle over Marcellus Shale drilling and hydrofracturing.
“I think that fracking as a technology is perfectly capable of being clean. I do."
Now you do have to read between the lines; "perfectly capable" leaves Jackson a lot of wiggle room if the Left rears its ugly head and pressures her fearless leader. It does, however, throw a bone towards Pennsylvania, who now relies heavily on revenues from shale gas.
However, it is an encouraging sign that the EPA will not attack gas in the same fashion as coal or oil. At least until they get taken to the woodshed by environmentalists.
A week ago, Lisa Jackson, Obama's field marshal in the War on Coal, delivered a stunning message that should make every jaw drop in the continuing struggle over Marcellus Shale drilling and hydrofracturing.
“I think that fracking as a technology is perfectly capable of being clean. I do."
Now you do have to read between the lines; "perfectly capable" leaves Jackson a lot of wiggle room if the Left rears its ugly head and pressures her fearless leader. It does, however, throw a bone towards Pennsylvania, who now relies heavily on revenues from shale gas.
However, it is an encouraging sign that the EPA will not attack gas in the same fashion as coal or oil. At least until they get taken to the woodshed by environmentalists.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Ditching Afghanistan
Last week American officials accidentally burned Korans. Afghan soldiers intentionally killed American soldiers. Barack Obama apologized profusely. The Afghan government is silent.
In 1956, U.S. allies went off the reservation. Britain, France, and Israel, all three heavily dependent upon American support and defense, initiated a war against Egypt over the Suez Canal. They all backed off after a private, but fiery threat from then-President Dwight Eisenhower to cut them out of the alliance system.
A president with more sand would call Karzai and demand an apology and restitution for the families of military men sent to protect Karzai's government. The alternative would be an immediate and total withdrawal coupled by a 100% shutting off of support. Then create a cordon sanitaire around the nation. If Karzai falls and Iran wants to go play, provide support to groups that could tie Iran down there. Perhaps also carve out a territorial portion of the nation for those who supported us and for others who want to live in some era beyond the 11th century. Within this westernized enclave, work on complete education of women and the abolition of pedophilia. Maybe this area can serve as a model for the rest of the country to join when it sees the benefits of living Western.
But otherwise, abandon the place to its hellish fate, if that is what it wants.
In 1956, U.S. allies went off the reservation. Britain, France, and Israel, all three heavily dependent upon American support and defense, initiated a war against Egypt over the Suez Canal. They all backed off after a private, but fiery threat from then-President Dwight Eisenhower to cut them out of the alliance system.
A president with more sand would call Karzai and demand an apology and restitution for the families of military men sent to protect Karzai's government. The alternative would be an immediate and total withdrawal coupled by a 100% shutting off of support. Then create a cordon sanitaire around the nation. If Karzai falls and Iran wants to go play, provide support to groups that could tie Iran down there. Perhaps also carve out a territorial portion of the nation for those who supported us and for others who want to live in some era beyond the 11th century. Within this westernized enclave, work on complete education of women and the abolition of pedophilia. Maybe this area can serve as a model for the rest of the country to join when it sees the benefits of living Western.
But otherwise, abandon the place to its hellish fate, if that is what it wants.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Devil and Rick Santorum
Several years ago, Rick Santorum opined about the influence of Satan on society to students of a Christian school.
You would have thought that he brought about Armageddon itself based upon the responses.
I'd rather that the presidential primary not devolve into a discussion of the Adversary, so I am loathe to contribute to it in any small way. However, it must be observed that once again we see the disconnect between the Coasts and Middle America.
The Coasts only think of Satan during exorcism movies.
Not everyone in Middle America talks about Satan on a daily basis. Some do, most don't. Most don't even really like bringing up the Prince of Lies. However, it is not an uncommon part of conversation in most areas. Mention of the devil doesn't bring shouts of derision or a belief that the speaker is a nut job. It elicits a civil response, a discussion, or a shrug. It's not weird or bizarre to hear someone talk about Satan as an evil force in society in most parts of the country.
So once again, much of the media lives in its own worldview. They don't understand that when they ridicule Santorum for his Christian faith, they also belittle a large segment of American society.
But they really don't care about that, do they.
You would have thought that he brought about Armageddon itself based upon the responses.
I'd rather that the presidential primary not devolve into a discussion of the Adversary, so I am loathe to contribute to it in any small way. However, it must be observed that once again we see the disconnect between the Coasts and Middle America.
The Coasts only think of Satan during exorcism movies.
Not everyone in Middle America talks about Satan on a daily basis. Some do, most don't. Most don't even really like bringing up the Prince of Lies. However, it is not an uncommon part of conversation in most areas. Mention of the devil doesn't bring shouts of derision or a belief that the speaker is a nut job. It elicits a civil response, a discussion, or a shrug. It's not weird or bizarre to hear someone talk about Satan as an evil force in society in most parts of the country.
So once again, much of the media lives in its own worldview. They don't understand that when they ridicule Santorum for his Christian faith, they also belittle a large segment of American society.
But they really don't care about that, do they.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Obama's Re-election Strategy: Pander to Negative Stereotypes of Democratic Base Groups
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/16/obamas-bleak-view-of-african-americans/
This Emily Miller op-ed from the Washington Times pretty much confirms what elitist left-liberals think of their base. And it reflects a highly offensive worldview. Blacks go to jail, Hispanics are illegal immigrants, all gays are worried about AIDS. The only thing that is missing is programs on dental hygiene and front porch decorating tips for people in Appalachia.
Conversely, they imply that whites have no problems with incarceration, that straight people need not worry about AIDS, etc.
Sure, this was not intentionally offensive. It reflects the failed imagination of the worldview of the privileged leftist. They cannot imagine why their potential white constituents would be interested in programs for people getting out of jail. Leftists assign people into categories and treat them as objects and means, not as ends. This approach comes from their collective worldview combined with basic laziness.
When Republicans do this, it comes off as clumsy and gets the ridicule that it deserves. I am sure that Obama apologists will see this as simply a smart strategy.
Whatever. As an American, I am offended by their approach.
This Emily Miller op-ed from the Washington Times pretty much confirms what elitist left-liberals think of their base. And it reflects a highly offensive worldview. Blacks go to jail, Hispanics are illegal immigrants, all gays are worried about AIDS. The only thing that is missing is programs on dental hygiene and front porch decorating tips for people in Appalachia.
Conversely, they imply that whites have no problems with incarceration, that straight people need not worry about AIDS, etc.
Sure, this was not intentionally offensive. It reflects the failed imagination of the worldview of the privileged leftist. They cannot imagine why their potential white constituents would be interested in programs for people getting out of jail. Leftists assign people into categories and treat them as objects and means, not as ends. This approach comes from their collective worldview combined with basic laziness.
When Republicans do this, it comes off as clumsy and gets the ridicule that it deserves. I am sure that Obama apologists will see this as simply a smart strategy.
Whatever. As an American, I am offended by their approach.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Are Gun Control Advocates Racist and Sexist?
Racist. Sexist. Ugly words. Objectively they mean that an individual has made a conscious choice to dislike and create disadvantages for groups based upon race and gender. Their foul connotation means that they should be used as narrowly as possible. When used broadly, they either raise anger against an individual or group that did not deserve it, or they lose their meaning.
Leftists use "racist" and "sexist" all the time. They do not wield these terms against those who are actively prejudiced, but mostly against people who disagree with them. A Republican fighting Obama's expanded government is "racist." Catholics who resist a legal mandate to pay for abortion pills get called "sexist." Republicans have no anti-minority agenda and the religion that celebrates Mary more than any other certainly does not hate women. In the leftist world, disagreement means hatred. But what about the real world?
Forbes ranks Detroit as the most dangerous city in America. In 2010, the city, which is almost 83% black, suffered 1,111 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. Michigan public radio host, Jack Lessenberry, called for constitutional change to eliminate the Second Amendment to halt the "mass murder."
Detroit in its best recent year, 2010, admitted that priority 911 calls had an average 24 minute response time. How long is that for an elderly woman who hears someone breaking into her apartment? How long is that for a scared young woman who just mustered the courage to leave an abusive, psychopathic partner? It is certainly long enough to get beaten, raped, or killed.
So you have a city which remains one of the most violent in America, where police much of the time take more than a half an hour to get to priority calls. The left wing elite believe that the answer to this problem is gun control. Less gun, less problems, they try to say.
The vast majority of Detroit's 82.7% black populace abides by the law and wants to live in peace. Gun control laws would make it harder for them to protect their homes and families against criminal predators. Using the left wing language standards, this means that, if black law abiding citizens would be more vulnerable, then gun control laws must be racist.
Chicago has a 58% non-white population. Its civic leaders have vainly tried to push aside constitutional guarantees on gun ownership and purchasing while it claims a violent crime rate three times higher than New York City. City leaders need to ask themselves who is hurt most by these restrictions. That would be law abiding citizens living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Not criminals who get weapons regardless of the law. Not the left wing elite living in gated communities.
Consider the recent case of the young woman in rural Oklahoma, terrorized by a man seeking her dead husband's medicines. She shot and killed her would-be killer. What would have protected her better? Liberal feel good rhetoric? Sheriff's deputies and state police who were who knows how far away? Or a loaded shotgun? You would think that the image of a young single mother protecting herself and her child with deadly force against a crazy, predatory male would warm the cockles of feminist hearts. But they remain eerily non-supportive of women learning to use guns for self-defense.
Since women are usually more vulnerable, it makes sense that they should be able to obtain guns very readily with no waiting period. Gun control advocates must be aware that men are generally larger and stronger than women and that guns balance the equation. So, according to liberal logic, they must want more women to be attacked, raped, and killed. This means, again according to the left wing language guidelines, that gun control advocates are not only sexist, but exhibit very severe misogyny.
In the real world, Republicans actually oppose Obama on policy issues, not because he is black. Otherwise we would call Herman Cain, Allen West, etc. etc. racists. In the real world, gun control advocates do not hate blacks or women. They simply have a bizarre outlook on humanity that suggests that guns make people inherently more violent, thousands of years of human history not withstanding.
Gun control advocates may not have racist and sexist worldviews. They have either not followed their logic through to predictable conclusions. Or they just do not care. That doesn't make them hatemongers, only foolish.
Leftists use "racist" and "sexist" all the time. They do not wield these terms against those who are actively prejudiced, but mostly against people who disagree with them. A Republican fighting Obama's expanded government is "racist." Catholics who resist a legal mandate to pay for abortion pills get called "sexist." Republicans have no anti-minority agenda and the religion that celebrates Mary more than any other certainly does not hate women. In the leftist world, disagreement means hatred. But what about the real world?
Forbes ranks Detroit as the most dangerous city in America. In 2010, the city, which is almost 83% black, suffered 1,111 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. Michigan public radio host, Jack Lessenberry, called for constitutional change to eliminate the Second Amendment to halt the "mass murder."
Detroit in its best recent year, 2010, admitted that priority 911 calls had an average 24 minute response time. How long is that for an elderly woman who hears someone breaking into her apartment? How long is that for a scared young woman who just mustered the courage to leave an abusive, psychopathic partner? It is certainly long enough to get beaten, raped, or killed.
So you have a city which remains one of the most violent in America, where police much of the time take more than a half an hour to get to priority calls. The left wing elite believe that the answer to this problem is gun control. Less gun, less problems, they try to say.
The vast majority of Detroit's 82.7% black populace abides by the law and wants to live in peace. Gun control laws would make it harder for them to protect their homes and families against criminal predators. Using the left wing language standards, this means that, if black law abiding citizens would be more vulnerable, then gun control laws must be racist.
Chicago has a 58% non-white population. Its civic leaders have vainly tried to push aside constitutional guarantees on gun ownership and purchasing while it claims a violent crime rate three times higher than New York City. City leaders need to ask themselves who is hurt most by these restrictions. That would be law abiding citizens living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Not criminals who get weapons regardless of the law. Not the left wing elite living in gated communities.
Consider the recent case of the young woman in rural Oklahoma, terrorized by a man seeking her dead husband's medicines. She shot and killed her would-be killer. What would have protected her better? Liberal feel good rhetoric? Sheriff's deputies and state police who were who knows how far away? Or a loaded shotgun? You would think that the image of a young single mother protecting herself and her child with deadly force against a crazy, predatory male would warm the cockles of feminist hearts. But they remain eerily non-supportive of women learning to use guns for self-defense.
Since women are usually more vulnerable, it makes sense that they should be able to obtain guns very readily with no waiting period. Gun control advocates must be aware that men are generally larger and stronger than women and that guns balance the equation. So, according to liberal logic, they must want more women to be attacked, raped, and killed. This means, again according to the left wing language guidelines, that gun control advocates are not only sexist, but exhibit very severe misogyny.
In the real world, Republicans actually oppose Obama on policy issues, not because he is black. Otherwise we would call Herman Cain, Allen West, etc. etc. racists. In the real world, gun control advocates do not hate blacks or women. They simply have a bizarre outlook on humanity that suggests that guns make people inherently more violent, thousands of years of human history not withstanding.
Gun control advocates may not have racist and sexist worldviews. They have either not followed their logic through to predictable conclusions. Or they just do not care. That doesn't make them hatemongers, only foolish.
Monday, February 20, 2012
George Washington's Birthday
This used to be the most important patriotic holiday of the year, easily outstripping Independence Day.
Let's take a few minutes to reflect on George Washington and all he meant to our country and freedom loving peoples everywhere.
And West Virginia University students . . . skip class next year on Washington's Birthday and say that it is a day of special concern.
Let's take a few minutes to reflect on George Washington and all he meant to our country and freedom loving peoples everywhere.
And West Virginia University students . . . skip class next year on Washington's Birthday and say that it is a day of special concern.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Conservative Dad of the Year!
Putting a stop to bloated sense of entitlement . . .
http://www.litefm.com/pages/news-story.html?feed=421220&article=9738000
http://www.litefm.com/pages/news-story.html?feed=421220&article=9738000
The New Republican Party: Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion
In the election of 1884, a badly ethically challenged Republican candidate, James G. Blaine, stumbled towards an election day date with disaster. A Democrat had not won the White House since 1856.
This election featured nominees that resembled nothing more than Newt Gingrich split in half (Republican congressional leader with ethics issues and a "world historical" complex--Democrat with family baggage.) The only issue separating them was whether or not the United States ought to have a protective tariff. A Blaine supporter, in New York of all places, fired off a fatefully dumb rhetorical shot. He claimed that the Democrats were the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." The well-meaning fellow apparently forgot that liquor drinkers, Catholics, and Confederate supporters (not just a few in New York City) also voted.
In 2012, the Republican Party has turned full circle.
Rum. Republicans tended to support the temperance movement in the 1800s. This movement served as the model for several different successful progressive pushes in the early part of the past century. Progressivism tends to push for a better and healthier society at the expense of individual rights and liberties. In 2012, one probably sees more outspoken advocates of marijuana legalization in the conservative camp than elsewhere. Republicans also tend to be more consistently libertarian, which is leading towards agonizing debates inside the party and conservatism as well about issues such as gay marriage.
Romanism. This was one of many terms tossed about for years as a derogatory term for the Catholic Church. Opponents had a strange fear that the Pope intended to use Catholicism to usurp civil authority in the United States. Today, the Church and the GOP find themselves on the same side of many debates, including abortion and religious liberty.
Rebellion. In 1884, this term looked backwards at the Civil War with all of its bloodshed. Today, rebellion looks forward, anticipating what kind of civil disobedience may be necessary if the reigning party is allowed to continue its clamp down on freedom. Parents cannot pack their own children's lunch without reference to the government. Catholic organizations may be forced to violate centuries of belief. Liberals need to understand that Catholics and other Christians can look back to a variety of martyrs for inspiration if they wish to peacefully and effectively rebel. These go from Jesus Christ himself through Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The Tea Party is just the beginning.
Conservatives ought to be proud to be the movement of run, Romanism, and rebellion. Each means a strident defense of rights and the Constitution.
This election featured nominees that resembled nothing more than Newt Gingrich split in half (Republican congressional leader with ethics issues and a "world historical" complex--Democrat with family baggage.) The only issue separating them was whether or not the United States ought to have a protective tariff. A Blaine supporter, in New York of all places, fired off a fatefully dumb rhetorical shot. He claimed that the Democrats were the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." The well-meaning fellow apparently forgot that liquor drinkers, Catholics, and Confederate supporters (not just a few in New York City) also voted.
In 2012, the Republican Party has turned full circle.
Rum. Republicans tended to support the temperance movement in the 1800s. This movement served as the model for several different successful progressive pushes in the early part of the past century. Progressivism tends to push for a better and healthier society at the expense of individual rights and liberties. In 2012, one probably sees more outspoken advocates of marijuana legalization in the conservative camp than elsewhere. Republicans also tend to be more consistently libertarian, which is leading towards agonizing debates inside the party and conservatism as well about issues such as gay marriage.
Romanism. This was one of many terms tossed about for years as a derogatory term for the Catholic Church. Opponents had a strange fear that the Pope intended to use Catholicism to usurp civil authority in the United States. Today, the Church and the GOP find themselves on the same side of many debates, including abortion and religious liberty.
Rebellion. In 1884, this term looked backwards at the Civil War with all of its bloodshed. Today, rebellion looks forward, anticipating what kind of civil disobedience may be necessary if the reigning party is allowed to continue its clamp down on freedom. Parents cannot pack their own children's lunch without reference to the government. Catholic organizations may be forced to violate centuries of belief. Liberals need to understand that Catholics and other Christians can look back to a variety of martyrs for inspiration if they wish to peacefully and effectively rebel. These go from Jesus Christ himself through Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The Tea Party is just the beginning.
Conservatives ought to be proud to be the movement of run, Romanism, and rebellion. Each means a strident defense of rights and the Constitution.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
University of Oxford Study: Libyans Wary of Democracy
They hated Gaddafi, but learned no lessons from him. After suffering for decades under the rule of a tyrant strongman, an Oxford survey of over 2,000 Libyans points towards likely restoration of authoritarian rule.
Libya has never experienced democracy for any real length of time in its history. For much of the past 2,000 years, the region was merely a piece of a larger empire under the Romans, Ottomans, Arabs, and Italians. United States and British forces liberated Libya in 1943, but it remained a United Nations mandate until 1951.
Moammar Gaddafi seized power in 1969, touting his Third Universal ideology. This proposed a synthesis between Islam, tribal practices, and socialism that relied heavily upon oil revenues for financing. Gaddafi actively promoted his ideology as an answer to African woes and aspired to continental leadership. However, propaganda about "mass" government cloaked typical strongman rule.
The area has a history of trouble with the United States. Libya's capital, Tripoli, once constituted a semi-autonomous city-state nominally under Ottoman Turkish rule. Pirates under its flag exacted tribute from the United States as part of a large scale protection racket. Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both sent naval squadrons to successfully chastise Tripoli. Later, President Ronald Reagan used air power to get similar results when Gaddafi backed terrorists blew up a Berlin nightclub. George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq chastened Gaddafi who agreed to abandon weapons of mass destruction programs started in the 1980s. He remained ever abusive of his power over the people of Libya.
Libya experienced tyranny and international humiliation at the hands of their strongman. They used violence to rid themselves of him, and 16% still say that they would use violence again to achieve political ends. Only 29% of Libyans desire to live under a democratic government, according to the survey. A little over one-third would prefer a strongman over any other formulation.
The country, over two-thirds of it, agree that the people need some say in their government. This survey is not necessarily pessimistic. Libyans understand democracy as the European majority rule form, which does not protect the rights of minorities or establish strong checks and balances.
Oxford's numbers do indicate that Libya would be open to some modified form of the American republic style system. They mistrust (with good reason) the possibility of tyranny of the majority. After all, Gaddafi's dictatorship claimed to rest upon mass approval. A republic along Madisonian lines would satisfy Libya's desire for strong and coherent leadership while giving a say to the people. That country's population, still armed and obviously ready to fight for its rights, serves as the ultimate check on the power of any future Libyan president.
Will Libya take this path? Probably not. The United States has almost no track record after World War II of suggesting its own system to any nation emerging from tyranny, although it makes more sense than simple majority rule in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. People who have felt the persecution of government have every reason to fear that a system of one tyrant can evolve into one of hundreds of thousands of tyrants.
Libya has never experienced democracy for any real length of time in its history. For much of the past 2,000 years, the region was merely a piece of a larger empire under the Romans, Ottomans, Arabs, and Italians. United States and British forces liberated Libya in 1943, but it remained a United Nations mandate until 1951.
Moammar Gaddafi seized power in 1969, touting his Third Universal ideology. This proposed a synthesis between Islam, tribal practices, and socialism that relied heavily upon oil revenues for financing. Gaddafi actively promoted his ideology as an answer to African woes and aspired to continental leadership. However, propaganda about "mass" government cloaked typical strongman rule.
The area has a history of trouble with the United States. Libya's capital, Tripoli, once constituted a semi-autonomous city-state nominally under Ottoman Turkish rule. Pirates under its flag exacted tribute from the United States as part of a large scale protection racket. Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both sent naval squadrons to successfully chastise Tripoli. Later, President Ronald Reagan used air power to get similar results when Gaddafi backed terrorists blew up a Berlin nightclub. George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq chastened Gaddafi who agreed to abandon weapons of mass destruction programs started in the 1980s. He remained ever abusive of his power over the people of Libya.
Libya experienced tyranny and international humiliation at the hands of their strongman. They used violence to rid themselves of him, and 16% still say that they would use violence again to achieve political ends. Only 29% of Libyans desire to live under a democratic government, according to the survey. A little over one-third would prefer a strongman over any other formulation.
The country, over two-thirds of it, agree that the people need some say in their government. This survey is not necessarily pessimistic. Libyans understand democracy as the European majority rule form, which does not protect the rights of minorities or establish strong checks and balances.
Oxford's numbers do indicate that Libya would be open to some modified form of the American republic style system. They mistrust (with good reason) the possibility of tyranny of the majority. After all, Gaddafi's dictatorship claimed to rest upon mass approval. A republic along Madisonian lines would satisfy Libya's desire for strong and coherent leadership while giving a say to the people. That country's population, still armed and obviously ready to fight for its rights, serves as the ultimate check on the power of any future Libyan president.
Will Libya take this path? Probably not. The United States has almost no track record after World War II of suggesting its own system to any nation emerging from tyranny, although it makes more sense than simple majority rule in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. People who have felt the persecution of government have every reason to fear that a system of one tyrant can evolve into one of hundreds of thousands of tyrants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)