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
As most traditionalists readily acknowledge, neither major nominee offers us much hope. We need a return to Constitutional integrity, fiscal restraint, vigorous federalism and a non-interventionist foreign policy, a return not offered by our two major parties.
Thus I understand fully why a conservative might refuse to vote for Mitt Romney. His dedication to even what commonly passes for conservatism is dodgy at best. A Romney administration will be an ongoing frustration. No one need have any illusions about that.
But the active dangers of Barack Obama are vast and varied: Obamacare, kill lists, drone strikes, etc. However, the tipping point is this administration’s corrosive assault on religious liberty. That convinces me to mark my ballot for Mitt Romney. I believe Romney to be seriously religious. His religion might not be mine, but he would not pursue the active restrictions and edicts Obama embraces. There is also the chance that Romney’s nominees to the Supreme Court would keep an overturn of Roe v. Wade in play. And if there is an answer to the current presidential cult of personality Mitt Romney is it.
In past presidential elections I have frequently voted third party. In fact, I have only once voted for a presidential winner. My vote for Mitt Romney is not enthusiastic, but rather strategic and defensive. I hope to promote protection for religious liberty and the life of the unborn.
If our nation is to be saved, it will spring from religious revival and cultural renewal, not the Oval Office.
Alan Cornett is an evangelist in Athens, Alabama, and is a former assistant to Russell Kirk. You can follow him on Twitter (@alancornett), and he blogs (not about politics) at pinstripepulpit.com.
Even at this late date, I am one of those strange “undecided” voters. I still haven’t made up my mind for whom I’ll be voting for President. However, I have made up my mind on who I’m not voting for: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Despite all of the outrageous rhetoric from supporters of both candidates, there’s simply not a dime’s worth of difference between them on almost every major issue that this country is facing — they are both big-government statists who ultimately believe that their form of government intervention is better than the other guy’s form of government intervention. Neither will truly cut spending. Neither will stop getting us involved in useless and unconstitutional wars overseas. Neither will put a halt to the ongoing onslaught against our personal rights to life, liberty and property. And neither will deal with the actual source of nearly every fiscal and monetary problem this country faces: the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve. So, I can’t vote for either one of them, unless I’m willing to give up every political conviction I hold dear.
I know of no reason why political treason
Should ever be forgot
In 2004 my wife and I acquiesced to the “lesser of two evils” premise and voted for George W. Bush. A little over a year after that election we discovered Rep. Paul, Austrian economics (which greatly aided me professionally in interpreting the real estate bubble), and the distinction between traditional conservatism and sundry mutations. We came to deeply regret our support for Bush and vowed never to repeat that kind of mistake.
I have taken a beating from single-issue Republican friends who reduce this election to the pro-life concern. While we fervently believe in the sanctity of life and seek to live out that paradigm at home and church, we have no confidence in the Republican candidate or the party itself. Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on this issue several times over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, Republican majorities in Congress during the ‘90s and early 2000′s failed to bring forth legislation to restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over abortion “rights” and return the matter to the states.
The president’s primary constitutional duties pertain to foreign policy. Given that Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with neoconservative advisors, and listening to his campaign rhetoric (especially his speech at VMI), we can only conclude that he is, at the very least, willing to continue commitments to aggressive overseas interventionism.
On the economic front, Romney has no commitment to sound money, nor does he criticize central bank policies. Perversely, there is a possibility that either candidate, if elected, could benefit from a mild economic upswing stemming from Fed money-pumping. But this, too, like all credit-induced cycles, would correct at some point.
That President Obama is not an option for us is an understatement. But we are continually disappointed by a GOP that professes unencumbered market process and limited government with its lips but denies these points in practice. And neither does it offer a viable alternative to the sitting president. But Ron Paul’s impact will be long felt, and several of his young congressional protégés offer hope that a governmental philosophy of ordered liberty, constitutionalism and limits will live to fight another day.
Chuck Hicks is a real estate appraiser, consultant and teacher in North Carolina. A student of economics for over 30 years, he is a born again proponent of the Austrian school. He sometimes comments at CHT.
Decision 2012: Rootin’ For Putin
Every single time the US chattering class gets sanctimonious toward Russia, I find myself sympathizing overwhelmingly with the Russians. This says less about any naive delusions of mine regarding Russia’s leadership than it does about my loathing and contempt for so-called “American values”: The radical Democratic wing of liberalism takes the breaking up of my people’s religious tradition and historical memory as an end unto itself, while the Republican wing of liberalism sees in such “creative-destruction” a necessary means of promoting finance capitalism. For someone who wants an actual home for himself and his family there’s no meaningful choice whatsoever to be found in the American system.
Of course I’m not claiming Russia’s rulers actually do their duty, much less that they do it well; I am saying that however unscrupulous, Machiavellian, and power-hungry they may be, they are at least vaguely aware of what their duty is: To preserve the nation. This stands in stark contrast to Western rulers, who feel it their duty to destroy their respective nations so as to make way for a Brave New World.
In other words, Vladimir Putin is not really detested among our elite for his sins but for his redeeming qualities. As we live in an age of liberal hegemony, Putin is hated for not being yet another groveling overseas yes-man for the Beltway establishment; as we live in an age of absurd militant tolerance, Putin is hated for not renouncing the very notion of a particular Russian identity; as we live in an age of Alan Alda, Ashton Kucher, and the metrosexual android from Star Trek: The Next Generation, Putin is hated for appearing somewhat like a man.
That last is worth emphasizing: The New York Times can’t stand Putin not because he’s a corrupt man, but because he’s a corrupt man.
As for his KGB ties, the outrage is hardly due to the KGB’s role in promoting godless Marxist revolution. The real offense is that the KGB played a role in Russian nationalism — one of the few sane features of the Soviet mind and empire.
Yes, please do color me un-American, for actually, no, I don’t lie awake at night lamenting the shortage of gay pride parades in Moscow. Nor do I lose much sleep fretting that, in the event “we” fail to take a strong stand, feminist punk bands throughout the world might lose their Soros-given right to bust into churches and shriek sacrilegious obscenities at the altar. Nor do I patriotically yearn to see Pushkin and the balalaika finally and irrevocably supplanted by Coca-Cola and Lady Gaga.
With the Cold War over it is now the United States which aggressively pushes a warped and satanic ideology throughout the world, while Russia — whatever her flaws — now stands in the way. If I had Vladimir Putin on one hand and anybody acceptable to the posthumanist American political class on the other, that decision would be as easy as choosing between Don Corleone versus the invaders from H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds. Though neither Obama nor Romney could be described by any serious, honest person as possessing a vast intellect, the rhetoric of each is cool and unsympathetic, and ultimately alien.
Jerry Salyer writes for Front Porch Republic.
This was the most difficult election choice I have made since I began voting. I can honestly say I was not sure which way I was going to go until I was actually in the booth. I had narrowed it down to two candidates: Mitt Romney and Virgil Goode.
My conscience will not allow me to cast my vote for the President. His extreme stance on abortion is something I must oppose with every fiber of my being. His redistributionist economic philosophy is nothing I could ever support.
Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is a candidate who intrigues me. I had the privilege of chatting with him in person once and I used to be a regularly invited guest on his blogger conference calls. By far, Governor Johnson has the best resume of all the other third party candidates. He is bright, bold and charismatic. He is a great communicator well capable of explaining a message of fiscal sanity. However, I was greatly disappointed when he switched his position on gay marriage. When I asked him about it (while he was still the GOP) he assured me that while he supported marriage equality personally, he believed this was best handled on the state level. Once he began his bid for the Libertarian Party nomination he suddenly thought this was a national issue. I also cannot agree with his pro-choice views either.
As for the rest of the third party candidates, only Tom Hoefling of America’s Party stands out as someone I could vote for. However, I can’t take Tom as too serious of a candidate as he has little chance to even make a decent third party showing.
So that leaves two campaigns – Romney/Ryan and Goode/Clymer. This was tough. As I already stated, I didn’t make up my mind till I actually made into the booth. I decided to go with Romney/Ryan. Let me explain…
I like Virgil Goode. I had the honor of meeting him last week when he took time out his busy schedule (the day of the Free and Equal debate) to speak to my students. He was engaging and stuck around to answer every question the students had, even when short on time. He was a gentleman and made his case very well. I love his consistent 100% pro-life record. He has been a champion of conservatism. However, I do not share his views on immigration. The idea of a moratorium on green cards goes way too far in my opinion. I also had to take into consideration the fact that ultimately Congressman Goode will be unlikely to even capture 1% of the vote. He wasn’t even on the ballot in my state (Illinois).
As for Governor Romney, I don’t like the man. In fact, I don’t even trust the man. I lived in Massachusetts while he served as Governor. I was not impressed then. I remember his repeated assertions that he was indeed pro-choice. I remember his statement about being more pro-homosexual than Ted Kennedy. I remember his failure to stand against an activist court as he ordered those under him to begin implementing gay marriage. Flip flop after flip flop enshrines him in my mind as a political opportunist. So, why in the world would I cast my vote for this man? I didn’t. I voted for Paul Ryan.
I’m going to admit it, I love Paul Ryan. I’ve had the privilege of meeting him many times. I’ve had the chance to speak with him and question him on several different occasions. I am highly impressed with this young man. First of all, he is 100% pro-life – no exceptions. My liberal, feminist friends exploded on Facebook once his selection was announced. That alone might have won my vote! Fiscally, Congressman Ryan is the best qualified to bring us back from jumping into economic abyss and destruction. No, his budget does not balance for several years in the future – but it is a start. His roadmap has been called draconian and heartless even by moderates. I believe it’s the best option we have at the moment that has even a chance of getting passed.
I would love to correct everything wrong with Washington all at once. I love Governor Johnson’s plan to balance to budget tomorrow, but it’s not going to happen. What took years to get off track will not be completely fixed in one election. I no longer buy into the idea that it’s all or nothing. This approach has not brought the all it has promised and has only left with a bunch of nothing.
Am I voting for the lesser of two evils? No. I am voting for the lesser of five evils. There is no perfect candidate. Each candidate is a sinner before God and imperfect before men. I understand the argument that the GOP is not Constitutional enough and is at best leading us to the same fate/destination as the Democrats are trying to lead us, but just a bit slower. I voted for Mitt Romney in order to at very least give our country a little more time before get there. Maybe in that time we will come to our senses as a nation and begin to seriously consider returning back to a purely Constitutional platform. We’re not there yet, we need more time. As for the life issue, I voted for the candidate who can do more for the unborn than the others can. Voting for the candidate who has at least a shot of saving some babies is better than voting for the candidate who has no chance of saving all babies. I would hate to think there will be some children murdered in the womb because I voted for the guy who couldn’t get anything done.
I voted my conscience. I voted for Romney/Ryan. I urge you to vote for which ever candidate your conscience allows you to vote for, even if that differs from my candidate.
There really is no way I could in good conscience vote for one of these two awful candidates. I have almost nothing in common with either of them. Their policies would be dreadful for people like me. Many people I know in Southern circles are not voting in this election; they feel they do not have a good choice. Even if we had a better choice, many have lost faith in the US political system. They saw how Justice John Roberts sold them out on Obamacare. They saw how Bush II sold them out on immigration. Some of them even remember the amnesty that Ronald Reagan, the supposed conservative champion, gave to two million illegals. They’ve known nothing but constant war, massive Third World immigration and continual growth of government their entire lives. Many people I know do not believe any of this is going to change not matter who is elected. Instead of getting incolved in US party politics they are focusing on their families and communities and strengthening alternative institutions which will support our values and speak for our people and culture.
Michael Cushman is the founder and editor of Southern Nationalist Network.
Part of my therapy as a recovering Republican is to vote for the Constitution Party candidate, Virgil Goode. I have made a career out of working for conservative GOPers, but I realize that’s not enough. A few stalwarts in the House and Senate are terrific, but the Republican ship of state is adrift, and a few strong brave sailors can’t reverse its course.
In my state of Georgia, Gary Johnson is on the ballot, and Goode is a certified write-in. Write-in votes in Georgia are not counted unless the candidate is a certified write-in candidate, so I see no point in casting a write-in vote for Ron Paul or whoever. My intent in voting for Goode is to repudiate the two party duopoly system and endorse the Constitution Party as an idea. It is not to endorse Goode in toto.
Red Phillips blogs at Conservative Heritage Times and is a regular columnist for EtherZone.
Normatively-speaking, participation in any election, any group decision-making in fact, is an implicit endorsement of (or at least acquiescence to) the legitimacy of both the group involved, as well as the decision to be made. I do not endorse the legitimacy of U.S. federal elections nor do I endorse this regime-system. As such, one’s participation must be done with an eye toward something other than the “best choice.” It would be participation with an eye toward effecting an end unrelated to the ends of the de facto group. For instance, if I secretly entered Iran and voted in an election, I obviously would be doing so in order to affect the election’s outcome, with little regard to the best interests of Iran in se.
I must face facts, right? All of the parties in this election are regime parties. That is, there is not only no significant difference between them practically; there is no difference at all between them in principle. They are both parties of modern political liberalism, meaning that they ground political legitimacy exclusively in terms of the social contract, pluralism, democracy, etc…. Alasdair MacIntyre, philosophy professor at the University of Notre Dame, has said that, “[c]ontemporary debates within modern political systems are almost exclusively between conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals. There is little place in such political systems for the criticism of the system itself, that is, for putting liberalism in question.” My political opinion constitutes a critique and rejection of liberal republicanism, from 1776 onward. Thus, there seems to be no true, good faith political position for me to hold here.
If however one is a secessionist desiring one’s subgroup secede from the larger group, obviously hoping that conditions for the subgroup become as galling/bad as possible so as to facilitate development of the subgroup’s will to secede, is a reasonable attitude to hold. A vote to save the de facto group would be counter-productive in fact.
I am a Southern nationalist. I wish for the liberal system to crash, and for significant, real change to occur. Real dissent. I am not resolved as to which candidate would push things more quickly in such a direction. This, unfortunately, boils down further as to which of the two parties and their candidates represents the more offensive, and/or draconian choice, thereby spurring the hoped-for real regime change. While Barrack might be the obvious choice, there is reason to believe that a Romney victory could prove more problematic in terms of real living conditions (e.g., the plutocratic option where I can’t afford my health care, and the schools are just mindless worker production factories corrupting my kids.), and certainly the more disappointing. History teaches us that disappointed expectations cause more revolutions than mere squalor.
There are those with whom I would find kinship and sympathy, who consider the situation under the American system very grave, even threatening, but would also consider my outright rejection, to be abhorrent and even a little crazy. Yet, what is really perplexing is their critical attitude. It represents a cognitive dissonance. These people believe in the group, the system, and the associated modern American democracy, as core values; but then they paradoxically believe that voting any other way than they do is utterly condemnable. Treasonous even. How they are able to balance these two positions in their minds is a mystery.
The following logic is undeniable: If a member of a group believes the group’s leadership is fatally flawed, given the direction the leadership has taken the group, but other members of the group believe that the leadership would be fatally flawed going any other way; the group itself as such is the problem. It isn’t really a polis, even if it is held together for the time being in some way. In such a situation, there are only two possible long term resolutions: Either there will be separation, or one side or the other will eradicate the other. Barrack and Romney do not elect themselves. Neither the government, nor any particular politician hates you. Your neighbor hates you.
Either they must go, or we must.
I tend to think that Republican policies tend to erode community and tradition in the long run more than do Democratic ones. The Democrats after all do recognize community (just not ours), the proper purpose of the economy, and their progressive projects tend to flop or backfire (unlike those of the Republicans). Nonetheless, the Democrats do represent an overtly leftist revolutionary vanguard in their changes in law and academia. Thus I tend to support them, as the best-positioned to strengthen the will of my people to opt away from the status quo, to opt away from the middle ground, and seek a separation.
Robert Salyer is a lawyer in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Any sane voter needs to demonstrate their distain with the fraud of the Democratic and Republican two party monopolies. With this in mind, casting a protest vote is the only option if a citizen wants to engage the electoral system.
The three candidates that deserve consideration are:
LIBERTARIAN PARTY – Gary Johnson
CONSTITUTION PARTY – Virgil Goode
AMERICAN THIRD POSITION PARTY (A3P) – Merlin Miller
Running for president does not translate that all of the above will be on your state’s ballot.
In New York State, the election commission is an adjunct of the Democrats and Republicans. As long as the electoral system is controlled by this duality, the people will never have an effective chance to vote into office real Patriotic Americans.
Write in votes are routinely discarded in many districts. Therefore, if you want your vote counted, you will need to select from candidates who are on the official list.
BREAKING ALL THE RULES is a paleo-conservative advocate. BATR urges voters to review the issue positions of any candidate you regard qualified.
The one issue that will not be on the ballot is whether you give your consent to federal government authority. If that referendum were on the ballot, a NO vote would be the only choice.
SARTRE is the publisher of BREAKING ALL THE RULES and a regular columnist at EtherZone.
Don’t vote, it’s for your children’s future.
It is a truism that most Americans including those on the conservative and, indeed, paleo-right do not understand American politics.
This is proven by the fact that they continue to vote.
Voting is not a political action.Voting is an affirmation of citizenship, for some. For others, a feelgood gesture engineered partially by the satellite media, but also by hordes of hacks who get paid to write about politics in hackneyed fashions of yesteryear.
Voting is not even a political gesture. The minds 90% of Americans are putty in the hands of the satellite media. It matters not how the remaining 10% may choose to vote.
Voting is a pathology. It allows the 10% minority to feel as though they had accomplished something, when all they have in fact done is aid in the continuance of their own demise.
What is to be done?
Even the most informed political junkie, on the Paleo-Alt-Right doesn’t understand the basic mechanics of the American political system. This assertion was proven by their dismal performances in the deliberative assemblies held in every state, earlier this year. Or perhaps those who did understand our political system simply decided to stay home, and not waste their precious time on an exercise in futility, but the point remains that most Americans, those on the Paleo-Alt-Right included, cannot function in a deliberative assembly, the most rudimentary form of any political organization in American politics.
I recommend that instead of voting, readers should resolved to go through the archives of William Robert’s late-show, Become Vocal Local, and spend the next four years, gaining a basic understanding of American politics, law and sociality so that four, two, or even one year from now, they will have learned enough to make intelligent political decisions for themselves. Only then, when we have put abstractions and illusions aside, and replaced them with concrete theory and action, can we advance to a successful future.
Rundown on the Parties.
Republicans-Romney may well be the next Reagan. Is the U.S. ready for the devestation another Reagan might cause?
Libertarians-A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Wayne Root is a vote for Ron Paul…is a pattern starting to develop here?
Constitution Party-The Constitution Party will never amount to anything, not because of its platform or what it stands for, but because the Constitution Party is run by old ladies of both sexes.
Democratic Party-Obama will be remembered as a fairly conservative president. He has governed as a moderate Republican. Don’t believe me? Wait until Mitt and Paul get married during their 2016 re-election campaign.
Savrola is a Missouri-based freelance writer and political consultant. He also has a day job. Several, in fact. He is a frequent commenter at CHT.
Our own Sean Scallon already contributed an entry to TAC. It can be seen here.
I’ll vote for Merlin Miller and Virginia Abernethy. Miller’s solutions are based on common sense, not bound by simple ideology. Ideology unfortunately sells a great deal better than does common sense.
The A3P answers Huntington’s question of America’s identity while acting for the whole, for all American citizens. The “pro-white” policies are merely an end to affirmative action and illegal immigration and a reduction in legal immigration.
If a voter is making a protest vote, he ought to make it count.
Weaver is a blogger at Conservative Heritage Times.