Italians have elections this coming weekend, and the Anglo press, to the extent it has an interest, is focused on the generally neocon, but popular in the paleosphere for his ties to Lega Nord, Berlusconi, as he seeks a Lazarus like return.
The populist standard bearer is Beppe Grillo, a television star, who is using modern technology, and campaign barnstorming in tandem. The Ron Paul parallels are obvious.
Mr. Grillo is running on an ‘out of the EU’, repudiate the debt, expand Internet access, platform.
While not exactly Tea Party, the most interesting development was that this populist leader refused to join the antifa’s, or ‘anti-racists’ in Anglo terms, when it came to denouncing Casa Pound (Casa Pound, Pound as in Ezra, being considered beyond the pale, fascist to polite company, of course.) Good luck finding an Anglo-press article on this development–I can only offer a google translate.
Censorship and technology have such a ying yang relationship.
Here are a couple of stories from Politico about the 12 Republicans who didn’t vote for Boehner. See here and here. Not all voted for the same person. Three voted for Cantor. Some didn’t vote. One voted present. Others voted for various people. This slide show has how all the resistors voted.
Sadly, the effort to oust Boehner was amateur hour. National Review has the story. Here is Dave Weigel ‘s take.
Update: Here is Jim Antle’s take. He thinks that even though the coup attempt was ill planned, it still demonstrates Boehner’s weakness.
I’m going to pass along a couple of articles on Boehner. One suggests he should resign. One suggests there may be a coup attempt in the works. Of course I think Boehner should step down, and if not he should be replaced, although I’m not sure any of the current leadership would be much if any improvement. Otherwise I’m not going to add much commentary because my take on the tax increase issue is already abundantly clear, and I don’t want to beat a dead horse. So for your reading pleasure:
It paints a picture of a very somber Republican caucus. I’m not sure why. The conservative members who killed it should be whooping it up. Even Justine Amash, the reputed successor to Ron Paul’s mantle, is pictured as somber, even though he was planning to vote against it. I’m not sure what is going on there. It really doesn’t paint a flattering picture of Amash, IMO, unless I’m missing something. I heard it suggested on another venue, that the people who were planning on voting against Plan B were voting against it for their own sake but were secretly hoping/expecting it to pass. This is the impression I get from Amash based on his comments. Again, am I missing something?
Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a conservative with libertarian leanings, was stunned. As he walked back to his office, he said the episode was unfortunate, even though he was planning to vote against the measure. For the past month, since House leaders booted him off the budget committee, he has been railing against Boehner for his management style. But even Amash wondered whether the House GOP was making the right move. “Too many people in there were arguing that this thing is a tax increase, and I don’t think that’s what Boehner was trying to do,” he said. As much as he disagrees with Boehner’s approach, even he regretted how the speaker’s plan was killed.
I talked to two congressmen who were not involved in the purge or victims of it. They both said that seeing House leaders back “squishes” during the primaries including against some incumbents and then seeing them throw conservatives off committees was all they needed to strengthen their spines against the Speaker.
They said they’re happy to be team players, but they think conservatives in the conference are now treated as kids who are to be seen and not heard. They decided they needed to be heard.
A group of “conservative” “leaders” have issued a statement denouncing Boehner’s Plan B. The group reads like a Who’s Who of Conservative Inc. But this is the problem with opposing Conservative Inc. per se. Occasionally they get something right. They should be opposed when they are wrong and worked with when they are right. Here they are right.
Prominent conservative leaders … scheduled a press conference this afternoon to denounce Speaker John Boehner’s “Plan B” tax increase for addressing the fiscal cliff. Some are accusing Grover Norquist of giving cover to the establishment to facilitate this cave-in and hand President Barack Obama a liberal victory.
This is pathetic! I actually didn’t think Norquist would cave. Sadly, I guess I was wrong.
I hope this makes Sean and the rest of the moderation caucus happy. And make no mistake about it, moderation is what this is. You can toss around the names Burke and Kirk all you want, this is not responsible conservatism or realistic conservatism or any other kind of conservatism. It is moderation. It is moving to the center. It is conceding an important element of the fight to the left.
I want to know how Sean and Gallupo and the rest of the gang think it strengthens the Republicans’ hand to cave rather than to go down fighting! Obama stood tall and Boehner and Norquist et al flinched. That’s what people are going to see, and that’s what happened. This makes Obama look large and in charge and Boehner and Norquist look like a bunch of (I’m just going to say it) groveling bitches.
I’ve got news for Boehner, Norquist, and company. All revenue bills MUST originate in the House. The House is controlled by Republicans. The way to tackle this fiscal cliff issue is to repeatedly pass bills making the current tax rates permanent, and let the Dem controlled Senate and the President whine about it. But don’t send then any bills that raise taxes. No tax increase gets to the Senate and the President unless the Republican controlled House sends it to them. Then when we go plunging over the fiscal cliff (which does what the moderation caucus wants anyway – raises taxes and cuts spending ) scream from the rooftops that the Dems forced a tax increase despite the best efforts of the Republicans to hold the line.
Ask yourself this, how do you think Ron Paul is going to vote on “Plan B.”
If the Constitution Party is smart, they should start writing up the press releases now: “Republicans Raise Taxes!”
And for those who decry outside influences holding the GOP hostage, one huge reason why the GOP sees the fiscal cliff as intolerable is because it would cut defense and make the defense contractors unhappy. So again, I hope you’re happy. The anti-tax lobby takes it on the chin and the defense lobby wins.
This article from the Leftist American Prospects magazine shows the authors know exactly what the Tea Parties area compared to the rest of the political media. Thus, there is simply no rise or fall of the Tea Parties because whatever happens in the futures, those persons wishing to get involved in politics will do so through organizations like them. Indeed, the authors want a “Tea Party” of the Left, not have their activists bound to the White House they way they were in Obama’s Administration’s first term. They get it. As they say in the article: “This is not about taking over the Democratic Party. That won’t work. They take you over, not the reverse. “ Indeed and converse is true for the Republicans, something Ron Paul supporters should think about.
What the IPOs are are not “third-parties” but organizations which try to influence politics at various levels through one or a series of issues. In fact they’ve existed for a long time but they were usually under the ageis or something bigger, like a national organization (the NRA), religion (The Christian Coalition) or unions (COPE for example). These organizations would be truly independent, answerable only to themselves and operating for themselves. The Campaign for Liberty could easily be an IPO, so long as it doesn’t turn into a Rand Paul front. Again, IPOs cannot be tied to the fortunes of individual politicians. They have to be able to stay standing and keep at it despite election results.
A famous story in Chicago political lore goes something like this: An eager, young man was looking to work on his first political campaign in Chicago. He went to his local ward Democratic Party headquarters and asked the ward committeeman there if he could help out. “Who sent you?” The committeeman asked him. “Nobody.” The young man replied. “I don’t want nobody nobody sent,” was the blunt answer of the committeeman to the volunteer’s request.
Professionals have plied their trade in American politics for a long, long time. Once upon a time they were known as bosses and they ran political organizations called machines which controlled city blocks, wards, townships, counties and even whole states from one end of the country to the other. The boss may well have been a saloon keeper or a public employee in the parks and rec. department and the organization may have doubled as a volunteer fire-fighting company. But no mistake should be made in the describing the purpose of these organizations: Getting out the vote for the party they belonged to and the ticket they supported for by any means necessary, legal or illegal. The boss was the one in charge of the effort and he benefited from the spoils from winning.
However, this quest for votes to obtain the spoils of office angered businessmen and other professionals and ordinary citizens alike who didn’t like the idea of their tax money going to further fatten the already portly boss and his friends, otherwise known as cronies. As an educated middle class began to grow in the late 19th century these persons (who were nearly all Protestant and native stock American in contrast to the machine’s vote which nearly all Catholic and immigrant) decided to beat the politicians on their own field of play – the ballot box. They may well have been amateurs when it came to politics but they used their college educations to master election law, learned how to organize and mobilize their own fellow citizens into various political groupings either for certain causes (like Prohibition or the Suffrage movement) or for certain candidates like Roosevelt, Bryan, Wilson or LaFollette and raised money from businessmen tired of being shaken down by party organizations. In time they would ride waves of reform and voter disgust at machine corruption to rip power away from the bosses and the vested interests. And thus the Progressive Movement was born.
The Progressives came and went but the struggle between professionals and amateurs in politics continued onward and continues even to this day. However, the campaign of 2012 is showing signs that the professionals may get the upper hand for a long time to come.
The results of the 2012 elections for the three biggest non-major parties (Libertarian, Green and Constitution) clearly show the LP is strongest of three as of right now. And that’s not just because Gary Johnson broke 1% of the electorate or gained the LP’s largest vote total in a Presidential election since 1980. Across the board in elections for the Senate and House there were many LP candidates who finished with over one percent of the vote as well and in some cases much higher than that. Indications are the LP cost the GOP at least nine seats in Congress and if one combines votes for Gary Johnson plus votes for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries of Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, it seems the LP’s influence was there on the Presidential race as well. Combine these good results with the fact that culturally the country may well be going in a more libertarian direction (at least amongst whites: Romney carried young whites 55-40 percent) and LP finds itself in its strongest spot since the early 1980s. If they can continue to build their party in places where said candidates ran strongest (places like Colorado, Indiana and Georgia for example) and continue to identify young, they could become a long-term threat to the GOP. That is, if they avoid the kind of destructive infighting which plagued the party the last time they were in this spot. Finding someone who can fill Gary Johnson’s leadership will be their next big step.
For Greens and the Constitution Party, the results were not positive. The partisan nature of the election took votes away from both parties for their potential bases on the Left and Right. Only consolation for the Greens is they did win state legislative seat in Arkansas. Neither party’s base is getting any younger. However, the future is not completely bleak for either.
With Obama ensconsed for a second term, the Greens can better their activism for their agenda, especially if they hook-up with larger groups on the Left like the Occupy Movement for example. They don’t have to worry about “costing” Obama anything. Remember, the Greens greatest period of growth took place during Clinton’s second term, culmination with Ralph Nader’s 2000 campaign. Back then, it was the Greens who were the most powerful of the nation’s non-major parties.
The Constitution Party finds itself in a position to take advantage of the ferment going on the Republican Party. If GOP decides to jettison its anti-immigration wing or make other changes displeasing to conservatives, it could pick up those groups by emphasizing their concerns. Even with Goode’s disappointing showing, the CP is still the largest conservative alternative to the GOP. And they can get larger if other such parties who are smaller or not as successful join with them
I’ve seen the Sailer Strategywork in Wisconsin, so I will not say it cannot work at all. However there are many different circumstances which have to be met for it to work and often times those circumstances never come to fruition even in overwhelmingly white areas of the country.
The circumstances included either heavily segregated regions of the country (like the Milwaukee metro area) or areas where there is clear polarization of the racial divide around the two-party system, as one finds in the South. But in areas where there is not a large population of minorities, then other questions and concerns trump race because is not the everyday present reality (such as a state like Ohio where the auto-bailout helped Obama with white voters there). Red asks why white Iowans, Minnesotans, and Wisconsinites don’t vote the same as white Alabamans, Georgians and Carolinians? Well, I think we both know the reason why. Put it this way, you can live in parts of the Upper Midwest your entire life and never meet anyone of different race in person. How do you think that’s going to affect their mindsets as compared to living near county which is in the “Black Belt”?
Now some point out the state’s of the upper South (from West Virginia to Oklahoma) don’t have large minority populations either and voted in huge margins for Romney and Republican candidates, which is true. But in four years you won’t have Barak Obama on the ballot anymore, you may well have Hilary Clinton, you know, Fox News’s favorite Democrat, the woman conservatives turned from a marriage-hating radical into Norma Rae back in 2008. I would be curious to see what those numbers would be if Clinton vs. Romney in Kentucky or Arkansas. In four years we may find out and it may not be pretty for the GOP if there’s a white face on the top of the ballot for the Dems.
Now this is not to say such voting patterns will stay the same. Minority populations have actually grown in many areas that were once all-white due to immigration (which just adds more Democrat votes) which may affect voting turnouts in the future (as they have in Milwaukee). But given the fact the Romney campaign pretty much ran away from any discussion of the President’s birth-certificate, or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or immigration or any other such items in the campaign which could have increased its percentage of the white vote in theory, why would anyone think any party candidate will make a deliberate attempt to win 70 percent of the white vote in future campaigns (if they had to) given the demographic trends and given the fact the party may very well have a re-think on issues like immigration? Just remember this, when the top ranks of both the GOP and Conservative INC. come to a consensus, they will act in unanimity and cast off those who don’t, just like they did with the Iraq War. And this goes from the think tank leaders down to the talk show hosts to the politicians and as we all know, when you’re on the outside you really are out. Once upon a time publications like the National Review once strongly supported segregation. You can, if you wish, head out to the desert to be a Minuteman and arrest illegals but no longer will Rush Limbaugh laud you publicly or even give you attention on his show.
So the reality is if you really want to see the Willie Horton or the “Hands” ad again from Republican candidates I’m afraid you’ll have to do so on You Tube because you won’t see them from GOP candidates. Will some conservatives object to this and leave the party? Perhaps, until elected officials do so I will not hold my breath because if there’s one thing conservatives know how to do well, it’s to get in line.
We at Conservative Heritage Times have been inspired by the TAC symposium to do one of our own, although one with more of a paleo edge. I’m actually not sure symposium is the best characterization of this. It is a virtual symposium I suppose. But I’m going with it because we are blatantly riffing (not ripping :-)) off TAC’s effort.
Not all the people here would be best described as paleoconservatives, and some would not claim that label, but the attempt was to try to get people who might be considered part of the paleo/traditionalist sphere. I asked CHT’s own contributors, plus people I know (both actually and virtually) whom I thought would represent a broad cross section of the paleo/traditionalist sphere, plus some of our regular commenters. Other of our regular commenters volunteered their services.
In order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, I have arranged the contributions in alphabetical order by first name. I am still expecting some more to roll in. They will be added in their appropriate alphabetical order as they do. Please check back frequently and please promote this on Facebook, Twitter, with you email contacts, etc. Thanks, enjoy and discuss. The endorsements commence below the fold. ~ Red
Inspired by TAC’s conservative vote symposium, CHT has decided to do a symposium of our own with a bit more of a paleo edge. Tune in tomorrow for the first installment We hope to add others as they come in. You might be surprised by some of the talent we have managed to attract.
TAC has a “symposium” of multiple writers discussing whom they plan to vote for. Some endorse voting for one of the major party candidates and some endorse not voting, but several endorse third party votes or write-ins. Some of the writers include Andrew Bacevich, Justin Raimondo, Paul Gottfried and friend of this website Sean Scallon.
Daniel Larison has a separate endorsement here that wasn’t included in the symposium for some reason.
Samuel Goldman has a separate endorsement here because Hurricane Sandy precluded his participation in the symposium.
Governor Johnson says, “Jon is committed to lowering and eliminating taxes, minimizing the size of our federal government, restoring our Liberty and Freedoms, and the limits placed on Government as explicated in our Constitution. His commitment to Liberty and demonstrated conservative economic principles make him the best qualified candidate for the US Senate in New Mexico. Be Libertarian with me! Vote for Jon Ross Barrie for the United States Senate.”
Jon Barrie says, “Our nation needs leaders that will guide us back to the freedoms and liberties set forth by our founding fathers. Governor Johnson and Judge Jim Gray will return us to freedom and prosperity.”
I have taken the liberty not watching any of the major party Presidential debates to protest their exclusion of non-major parties. I also did not watch the “third” party debate because no one is really debating policy differences so much as they debating how it sucks to be left at the kids table every four years.
Which is not their fault of course, having been excluded by a oligarchy which determines for itself the rules of participation. And it’s too bad because who loses out but voters who cannot decide among a wide variety of views. Monday’s so-called debate on foreign policy such a “me too” fest one wonders what could be any worse in terms of excitement level (Chess on TV? Congressional committee hearings? Watching the advertisements on the local cable access channel?)Viewers missed on a chance to hear a real debate on foreign policy if say Jill Stein of the Greens or Obama mixed it up on Guantanamo or having Gary Johnson question Mitt Romney on preventative war.
You may ask how many candidates should we let in the debates since there are many more than just three parties in U.S. politics? I would say an appropriate standard is any party which has enough ballot access to get to 270 electoral votes should have that chance. A five or six person debate involving the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists and what’s left of the old Reform Party (Rocky Anderson’s Justice Party) is more than suitable to have a proper debate which is a give and take of ideas and views, thrust and parry of words and notions. Not: “I agree, but I can do it better than you.” Obama and Romney could have soared us the lack of drama.
My uncle, God rest his soul, said to me once the only time he ever voted for anyone in any election was for George McGovern in 1972. I suspect there are lot of people around like my uncle, not single issue voters but single person voters. McGovern’s recent death reminded me of this, and I’m sure there are others who remember their first and only votes for Goldwater or Stevenson too. Maybe even a Perot. Losers can make a difference in politics if they inspire others but who they are and what they stand for. I guess for myself Ron Paul these past years will have to foot that bill. But like the aforementioned, he too is making the same kind of impact politics which goes beyond the spoils of office. Indeed, in two weeks you’ll find many a write-in vote for Paul which will exceed those of several non-major parties fooling themselves by running for President.
This debate is the only 2012 Presidential Debate featuring four candidates. The top six candidates were invited to participate. Democratic Party candidate and incumbent Barack Obama and Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney are welcome to participate in this historic debate. The moderator will be announced shortly.
If one is concerned about about Jesse Benton moving over from Ron Paul’s campaign to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell’s, I would advise you to forget Jesse Benton, who, if you believe Penny Langford-Freeman, is a buffoon who many members of the Paul “family” consider the sap of the tree.
But even the black sheep are useful if you have strict, defined roles for them to carry out and for Jesse that’s being an intermediary between the Pauls and the media and others persons outside of the “Family”, which is basically what he did for the 2012 campaign. He decided who got access and who didn’t, sort of a castle guard if you will as Tom Woods and Adam Kokesh and others found out to their chagrin. And it allows the media to see him as the fellow in charge (even though he never was “officially” campaign manager) and see the Pauls as a family operation while the real decisions were being made by Rand, Trygve Olson and John Tate and Debbie Hopper. Indeed if you believe Langford-Freeman, Jesse’s role was basically to speak out loud whatever Olson would whisper to him. Olson, whose former role in the politico-intelligence field was destabilizing governments, probably prefers working incognito, being the power behind the throne than having a public role. If you understand this then you’ll understand Benton’s usefulness in being a front man.
Here is an excellent article from Examiner.com defending third party voting. The author is Matthew Reece. I particularly like this gem:
1. Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because the candidate cannot win.
Anyone who claims this is claiming that the election process in America is rigged. Let us set aside the matter of whether this is actually the case and focus narrowly on the claim being made. A person who believes this should be trying to convince people either not to vote at all in protest of a corrupt system or to take up arms to start a second American Revolution, not trying to convince people to vote for Republicans or Democrats.
Our frequent critic Savrola asked me what I thought of Thomas Fleming’s recent comments about Chuck Baldwin. I was unaware of such comments. Turns out they were in the comment thread of an article, not an article itself as I had supposed.
As a supporter of Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party, I obviously disagree. I posted my comments there and Dr. Fleming has already responded. I won’t reproduce my them here because they are rather long. I’ll just direct you to them.
Your thoughts there (requires registration) and here.