Learning From Libertarians

A few years back, I found myself born again in making a political party conversion from Republican to Libertarian.  As such conversions go, this wasn't so much of an "Ah Ha" moment as it was an "Uh huh" moment.  I had been encouraged to attend the gathering of a group that was attempting to start up a Libertarian organization in Lucas County, Ohio at which that friend of mine (Brian Wilson) was speaking.  While I knew that he was a long-time small 'L' libertarian who was more than up to the challenge of presenting the party's point of view, I was curious about those others who might also be attending.

We were a pretty mixed lot as it turned out; some strongly pursuing a single issue that was likewise held under the general principles of the party, some who were merely curious like myself, and some who were seriously trying to pursue a rational framework in which to few the world in general and government and politics in particular.  While not really much of a joiner in the past, I found myself impressed enough with what I discovered  that I decided to fill out one of the the forms that was handed out at the end of the meeting and register as a member of the Libertarian Party.  

As everyone knows who has lived through such an experience, parting with an 'Ex' is a difficult time.  Investing yourself in a relationship (even with a political party) carries with it a residual of memories and emotions that are difficult to let go of.  Having grown up in the Democratic hotbed of the Windy City, I rejected its teachings after Bobby Kennedy and while not a Nixon fan went over to the Dark Side.   I was not of age to vote until the 1976 elections however, and having Jimmy Carter pitted against Gerald Ford was an experience that damn near put me off voting for life.  Like many others however, my spirits recovered in 80 and 84 when Reagan ran for office; even though a lot of the small government ideals espoused never really came to fruition.  In ensuing years, my spirit again flagged, as the GOP ran a series of big government, 'me next' candidates (though I did have some enthusiasm for Jack Kemp).  

So I suppose that in my new found enthusiasm as a libertarian, I hoped that my 'Ex' would not only understand the reason for my desertion, but might even learn something from why it had happen; perhaps someday embracing the path that I had chosen.  Government after all, had been inexorably growing regardless of the party in the power or the number of branches in which they held sway.  Sure, Clinton could talk about the fact that "the era of big government was over", but nobody really believed it ... including him.  Now that I was truly part of a movement that truly believed in smaller, less restrictive government; where Washington spent only the money it took in, (and the less of that the better) I hoped that Lincoln's party might learn enough to once again free us from chattel service to the bloated nature of Washington (the city, not the man).

Now some of you might wonder why instead I didn't fall into lockstep behind every Libertarian candidate out there in order to promote the world I sought.  The answer however, was simple.  While libertarian beliefs were a logical and organized sense of principles, the party that espoused them was often anything but.   Something about the nature of libertarians made them inherently suspicious of a party 'organization'.  Perhaps the freedom they sought to follow their own paths and their willingness to accept personal responsibility for doing so may have made them ideal to lead the country, but it also made them as easy to get going in a single direction as a herd of cats.  

Just being a libertarian (unlike some places where just being a Democrat or Republican) did not automatically make a person the a good candidate, let alone a good elected official. In a party that prided itself in having nothing to 'trade' with big donors, libertarian candidates were often woefully short of funding as a consequence.  The long-entrenched nature of the two-party system in this country did nothing to make it easier, and rules specifically designed to leave it a two-player system made it damned near impossible for anyone else to try and play the game.  (If you don't believe me, read up some day on the struggle required to even get Libertarian candidates on ballots or count the number or recent state and national debate venues in which a libertarian candidate was allowed to participate.)

And so the libertarian was also placed in a unique position in American politics of knowing the path to be followed, but unable to guide the team.  Libertarians constantly found themselves during elections in the unenviable choice of holding fast to their principles and gaining nothing; or abandoning them to pick a 'lesser of evils' that might slow, of not stem the growing tide.  Neither choice served well, and both left one with lingering pangs of guilt.

I've discovered recently however, that without noticing it, some of the lessons of libertarians have in fact crept into mainstream Republican thinking.  Unfortunately however, they are not the ones that I hoped for.  Instead of returning to the shadow of conservative principles that they knew under Reagan (and even to an extant, under the Contract with America), what they've learned instead is a is an attempt at greater popularity through a dilution of those ideas.  Instead of enacting their own vision of a smaller government, they've learned instead cover their light in a basket of blandness lest they be called extremists and scare the children.  Instead of presenting a united front of shared beliefs in self-reliance and personal responsibility, they hide at the first resistance by the nanny state to protect single issues which by themselves are largely indefensible in the current political climate.

If you haven't figured what I'm getting at yet, what Republicans have learned from libertarians is to adopt a pattern of practiced and and almost endemic disorganization, to fail utterly in rallying and holding the troops in key issues,  and to find themselves scattered at the first sign of resistance.  Like those they often themselves cast aspersions on, they have learned a pattern of failed tactics in everything from discovering what their message is to getting their message out.  They have allowed their opponents to characterize them and their ideas (much as with libertarians, such characterization becomes about legalizing drugs and prostitution), without demanding an understanding of the core philosophy from which such ideals germinate.  Far too often, they are now forced from the debate not because of flaws in their position, but by the outmaneuvering of their opponents.

Yes, unfortunately the GOP has learned the worst of what the libertarian party has to offer, rather than accepting its best.  Perhaps its a sign that we are in fact witnessing the last days of a party in retreat and the ascension of one only now beginning to learn its way. I can't yet say for sure.  I think however that if conservative principles are to play a realistic part in the national debate however, one of the two needs to learn a better way of cat herding for both's sake.  
  

Love Me Or Leave Me Alone ....

Is there anybody out there who still remembers the Republic primary?  You know, that was the part of the political process where we were told early in the game that long-time political moderate Mitt Romney was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party (apparently because he'd run in the previous election cycle and lost to John McCain, which now made it his turn).  Since there was already an established primary process that taxpayers pay for, and in spite of the forgone conclusion of his nomination that the media promised us, someone in the Republican party apparently felt that they should at least go ahead hold these primaries.  With due diligence therefore, conservative candidates who at that time thought that Republicans were their party, lined up to take on this presumptive heir to the throne.

From Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, to Ron Paul and Rick Perry of Texas; conservative politicians threw down their gauntlets to compete in oratorical this jousting tourney.  Though often wildly greeted by the crowds, these conservatives were often met with skepticism and scorn by a media that challenged their credentials as conservatives, continued assaults on their qualifications to compete in so august a contest against the presumptive heir by their Party, and a fair amount of fear from the powers behind the throne throughout for the conservative ideas they represented.  In fact it seemed that these conservatives were apparently being asked to do little more than sacrifice themselves on a state-by-state altar of moderates.  

In spite of the sacrificial nature of these conservative campaigns however, the heir apparent was forced to assume a more conservative air in order to compete with party conservatives who were polar opposites to the candidate from Democrats that Republicans wanted to plan their strategies around.  With the primaries over however, we watched as this presumptive heir gradually abandoned the move to the right he made as the general election began.  He quickly re-established his position back in the center; 'evolving' beyond, if not completely deserting the temporary lean to the right required of the primary season.  This reversal became so evident that the heir himself, during the three debates held, many times admitted that he and his far left opponent's views were similar on given subjects.  Having failed to distinguish himself from his opponent and likewise failed to energize his party's conservative base, to the utter surprise of his party's faithful and many party pundits ... He lost.

Now that the election is over, the race to the right that other Republicans also made just over year ago has likewise ended.  Republican Party leadership, not having achieved the White House or the majority in the Senate that they wanted with the assistance of conservatives (one in which they'd often abandoned conservative principles in part to earn), have seemingly abandoned conservatives altogether. In perhaps some form of vengeance on the conservative voices that they paid lip service to, or in some twisted hope of appeasement to a even more twisted mainstream media, plum committee appointments going into the next session of the House have been purged of incumbent conservative House members.  Like the spouse whose looks or money has begun to fail, conservatives are apparently no longer appealing.  Perhaps afraid of what they friends will say about who they're hanging around with and realizing that they have some tough battles ahead of them with the fiscal cliff, entitlement reform, and the budget ceiling; Republicans seem more than willing to once again sacrifice their conservative base as a first step of capitulation to their political opponents.  With barely the first shot fired and perhaps are uncomfortable with the looks the receive from their erstwhile allies, perhaps they're feeling guilty over seeming ready to concede ground faster than the French in every war they've fought since Napoleon.

What fascinates me in all of this however as a Libertarian living through this process is the mixture of coercion and scorn in which those of a like mind have been handed.  We have been all but scolded during the last couple of election cycles that our votes would be wasted if used them for a true Libertarian candidate.  We were told that we were wasting our votes if we didn't come back inside the tent and vote for a mainstream Republican candidate that had a chance to win; and would be abandoning the nation to candidates without conservative values.  When I look at what seems to constitute a conservative Republican these days and at the recent treatment of real conservatives by the Republican party however; I cannot help but wonder in what way supporting these more moderate candidates (candidates who ultimately lose) is doing for the conservative cause.  If the current House purge of conservative committee members is now to be the measure of how conservative beliefs will be treated by Republican leadership,  one might even conclude that the 'loyalty' expected of them is doomed to be a loveless one and entirely one-sided.  

As a socially moderate, fiscally conservative Libertarian therefore, I'm not sure that I shouldn't begin to treat this party the same way it's currently treating me and my fellow conservatives ..... as an occasional convenience.  Quite frankly I can't help but feel like the abused spouse in an old country song.  I can hear Marty Robbins singing the chorus from "Love Me Or Leave Me Alone" right now:   

If you love me come and stay  

If you don't, please stay away  

Either love me or leave me alone  

Don't come back and say you'll stay  

If you plan to leave someday  

Either love me or leave me alone

Damn, I Missed My Train of Thought

Being a rider of public transportation these days, one cannot help but occasionally miss the boat, bus, or train (as the case may be) from time to time.  This usually isn't a problem, since if you miss one, there's always another (though here in Kansas there are limitations to such rules).  Missing (or losing) a train of thought can be slightly more embarrassing however, and can even have greater consequences.     

Now though never officially diagnosed with a recognized disorder, I'm the first to admit that I've suffered for more than fifty years (far more than I would like to admit) with the attention span of a two year-old (with all due apologies to two year-olds for the comparison of course).  It's a situation that I should probably be concerned about (since it keeps getting worse); but I can't seem to keep it on my radar screen long enough to do anything about it.  Even as I attempt to write this, I find myself jumping ahead to write down bits that I want to use and will otherwise forget in the next minute or so if I don't.  Let me tell you that it can sometimes be a rather frenetic process trying to assemble the bits and pieces into something resembling coherent thought, which might account for how little coherency occurs in these efforts.     

Some might ask why I haven't had the necessary testing done, since confirming a diagnoses might provide a path to its improvement. The problem however, is that I have little of the patience required for the medical profession to perform their alchemical testing processes on me, and absolutely none for the ensuing pharmacological experimentation required to achieve a 'medicinal balance'.  (In other words, I don't like taking pills.)  Besides, once I turn myself over to the military industrial complex that modern medicine has become, there's no telling what they may find and want to treat; ailments which would thereafter qualify as "pre-existing conditions" that would follow me around under new health care law. 

This condition might well explain in part why I spend so much of my literary efforts in writing about politics.  For in doing so, I can easily acknowledge that I'm not the only one out there suffering.  The strategies of politicians running for election or re-election for too many years is ample proof.  Every time that their teleprompter pontifications end and the subject becomes a Q and A session, we see the prestidigitation begin.  

While the mainstream media can normally be counted on to ask the same tired old questions, from which the candidate can pull a platitude from their tired bag of tricks (PETA gets pissed if it's a rabbit instead); occasionally one of them (or someone from the audience) manages to sneak in a real question about a real issue.  After pausing, smiling, and often reaching out the audience; the candidate (or incumbent) says, "I'm glad that you asked that question."  After stumbling through a couple of completely unrelated responses, they sum up their answer with, "Oh look, squirrel!"      

Amazingly, no one in either the media or the audience immediately stops the proceedings by shouting out, "Hey, that's not an answer!" Seldom in fact, will anyone attempt to re-ask the question in order to clarify an answer that was never given in the first place.  Even more surprisingly, if it's done well, the candidate insists in the follow up response that they think they've answered the question and would like to move on; the audience's short-term memory loss and loss of focus normally allows them to do so.

Now before those on either the left or the right begin nodding in a sad example of the 'bobble head' effect of so many true believers while reading this, you should understand that I think this one of the few bi-partisan efforts of politics.  Both political ideologies are equally guilty in participation and both are equally susceptible to its machinations.  Even Libertarian candidates can fall prey to the process, though usually in their case it's not that they're trying to dodge the question as much as they're trying rephrase it in such a way that the answer makes sense.   

For example     

Question: Do you support the concept of traditionally sanctioned Marriage between a Man or a Woman or do you approve of Gay Unions? 

Answer:  No. 

Follow up: Wuh?  (The media is often confused by direct answers to poorly phrased questions, as they fail to provide good soundbites.)  

Answer:  I think (not believe) that government, at any level, has no place sanctioning marriage.  Churches may choose to sanction or ban practices relating to the union of couples as it suits their beliefs, and the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees them the right to do so without government interference.  Forcing a couple to obtain a license from the government in order to marry is over reach, and therefore denying them such a license for any reason should be irrelevant.

See those damn, pesky Libertarians keep throwing in distractions like limited government, the First Amendment, and the use of government force where it has no place.  Now what kind of answer is that?  But such occurrences are unfortunately rare, as Libertarian candidates are seldom asked such questions by the mainstream media (or any others for that matter).  And so we are left with a political rope-a-dope that Muhammad Ali would be hard-pressed to compete with, and a dearth of answers that's far too common in the legerdemain of modern politics.  

Though perhaps the gridlock, non-stop electioneering, and rhetorical nonsense being currently spouted (especially at the national level) is in fact a direct result of the apparent short attention span of the American voter.  Their ever-present need to be distracted in every aspect of their lives from entertainment to politics (when you can tell the difference between the two, of course) may be the only thing keep the few who actually do voting. 

Wow, it seems that I may be jumping around a bit in this effort, so perhaps I should attempt to sum this up for you and .... damn!  What was talking about again?

Look, Squirrel! 

Leaving Conservatism

While I'm sure that the title of this post might have some of you scratching your heads, you need have no real fears (beyond the usual ones) that I have gone stark, raving mad. (OK I have, but that's ancient history.) I am not, and will not in fact be announcing significant changes any of my core beliefs in this bit of writing, but perhaps that's the problem. 


You see compromise is very popular these days, and abandoning one's principles in the true spirit of bi-partisanship demanded by the shrill voices of the mainstream media and illustrated so wonderfully by the Congressional 'dates' from the recent SOTU is the prevailing spirit of the day. Then again, I've never been very popular. 


In fact, it's this lack of compromising spirit that causes me a certain amount of discomfort. It's not enough that I should be beset by the accusatory tone of the media and the double standard of a political left who suddenly seem to find compromise much more interesting now that they are no longer in clear majorities in both Houses of Congress. I am equally assailed by many calling themselves Conservatives, and who though now in the majority in one house of the national legislature sometimes appear to have backbones of the firmness of licorice sticks. 


The lack of character and principle being demonstrated quite frankly makes me want to leave today's Conservatism further behind than leisure suits and disco balls. Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal is often quoted as saying that: "Republicans never pass up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity". The same may apply to Conservatives. What's more, it seems that many who call themselves one cannot be happy when in power and seem to undergo distinct personality changes when they are. It's only when being demonized and victimized by their opponents, only when they can do little more than shout at the rain, that they can see fit to raise their voices. When finally in a position to do more than stand stoically on principle, they fold like like a pair of deuces in a Texas Holdem game. 


 In fact, once taking the reins of the national agenda, they seem to forget (if they ever really understood) what real Conservatism is. They speak of pursuing a spirit of self-reliance and personal responsibility, but attempt to try and legislate such behaviors in others. Though this might be considered altruistic in some circles, it is actually done in the same misguided belief as the left that someone without the exact same moral code as theirs should somehow be forced into compliance with the force of government behind them. 


They talk about wanting a smaller government, but define the term as either slowing its growth or nibbling at its edges, rather than actually whittling the beast down to size. They cannot seem to propose a vote for the elimination of departments, programs, and subsidies that have proven to be utter failures; let alone those that had no place in government to begin with. Even when they have their noses rubbed in the waste and abuse that has gone on in their watch, they manage to look the other way. When it falls to them to make the tough choices, they have long since run for the cover of political expediency, claiming that the ideological changes that they once spoke of will simply take more time. 


They become more concerned with playing nice or playing fair, and fear being held in a bad light by people and groups who hate everything about them. When finally presented with the opportunity to act on their principles, they seemingly become embarrassed by them. 


And then there are those who call themselves Conservatives, but who are more concerned with the success of the Republican Party than with the ideals that they claim to hold dear. They appear to be too wrapped up in scoring points in a pointless game of politics between D's and R's than actually standing up for the things that they said they believed when running for office. Of course a name is just a name, and Conservatives have gone by others in the past, including liberal; but the Classical Liberalism that inspired many of the Founding Fathers was something far different. And just as this political philosophy has nothing to do with the political left of today, it sometimes seems that to be equally distant from the form of Conservatism being practiced. 


Perhaps the truth of the matter is that I may not in fact be leaving Conservatism so much as it has left me. Unless and until it begins to practice what it used to preach however, I expect to remain outside of it; committed to the ideals that it once stood for.

It's Not My Party, But I'll Cry If I Want To

Being a Constitutional Conservative leaves one often in a rather lonely place politically. While I have registered with the Libertarian Party as that closest to my thinking, even many of their positions do not come into alignment with my own. This apparently outside-of-the-box positioning however leads me with some things that I would like to say (or more accurately whine) about where political parties are concerned today in the US:

__________

Listen, I have nothing against Democrats and in fact considered myself one in my youth. (Hey, I did grow up in Chicago after all, where being Republican was damned near illegal.) I believe however, that you have been led astray by a well educated, self seeking, power elite that have taken over your party's message. 

Where once you were the party of the little guy, trying to make sure that everyone in this country got a fair chance at achieving their piece of the American Dream; you now appear to have been led down an egalitarian path. The focus is no longer on equal opportunity, but on equal results. Your support of the union member has now evolved into a support of the union leadership. Intent on attacking big business and the bloated rich that you demonize in this country (in spite of the fact that they pay the government's bills), your leadership now appears oblivious to big unions and the bloated fringe interests of environmental concerns and animal rights. 

Who in fact is more evil these days, GM or the UAW? (Oh wait, they're the same thing.) Who is more onerous and odorous, Exxon or the Sierra Club? Who cares less about animals than they do about the exercise of power within government, the beef industry or PETA?

The truth of the matter is that any large organization, on either side of a given issue, is prone to egregious influencing and extortion of elected officials. Look around you with unclouded eyes., you may find that you have been led astray. 
 

__________

As for Republicans, I have nothing against you either, and in fact considered myself one in my youth (a bit later on, of course). I believe however, that you have been led astray by a well educated, self seeking, power elite that have taken over your party's message (hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar). 

You have abandoned your core beliefs in fiscal responsibility and small government, choosing instead to become the party of "somewhat less than the Democrats". Once the supporter of Capitalism and a free market-based economy, you now attempt to defend corporate bailouts, increased government handouts, and limited wealth redistribution. Far from being a party with a clearly defined message, you are now being told by your own leadership to accept ideals and concepts which were previously anathema to your principles in the name of creating a "big tent". Even worse, you allow your party of opposition to define what that big tent should be. Circuses have big tents my friends, but that doesn't mean that we will vote for the clowns. 

__________

Libertarians, you are nearest and dearest to my heart these days; but you have taken the concept of a political party to a level of disorganization that almost reaches an art form. This lack of basic organization skills makes your fund raising difficult and hinders your inclusion on the broader field of American politics. 

Far from trying to change this however, you glory in the internal anarchy and take pride in your self-imposed fringe status. In the name of such worthy causes as limited government and the 2nd Amendment, you have seemingly taken under your wing every anti-government cause on the planet. In the hope of increasing your power base, you embrace fringe groups that often scare your staunchest supporters and allow others to demonize the very freedoms that you seek as "wacky". 

As a Constitutional Conservative, I simply ask that each of the political parties of this government follow the dictates of the document that defines it and limits its powers. The Constitution, contrary to the belief of some, was not created as an 'organic' document and is not subject to the opinions of either the Executive or Legislative branches of the government or the whims of politicians, as seems far too often to be the case these days. Even the Supreme Court is limited in the interpretive oversight that it has on this document (though there are times when you would be hard-pressed to convince them of that.) 

It is the framework that supports the freedoms that protect us, and should be treated with appropriate respect as a consequence. I ask only that the branches federal government simply follow the guidelines in this document as set out by the Founding Fathers; and if they find them too limiting and wish to in some way change them, that they do so through the Constitutional processes provided rather than through creative interpretation. (For those of you who have not read this document lately, they call these Amendments.) 

I truly believe in these dangerous days that none of the political parties (and few individuals except perhaps, some of the more well-informed groups that came out of the Tea Parties) limit themselves to this simple rule-of-thumb, and that makes me rather sad. 

It's a terrible thing in this country to discover that the elected leaders who took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" have mostly abandoned it either through willful neglect or carefully orchestrated deceit.

So I cry out against each of you; Democrat, Republican, and yes even Libertarian as I paraphrase the lyric: "It's not my party, but I'll cry if I want to". And as the line continues from this song from my youth, "You would cry to if it happened to you." My friends, it is ... 

(By the way, did you know that the expression "rule of thumb" came from English common law, wherein a man was allowed to legally beat his wife, so long as the stick used was less thick than his thumb. Perhaps the practice is worth reviving, only this time for use on recalcitrant politicians.)