Perspective and Principle

*The perspective of an individual is more often shaped by their skewed perceptions, not their objective observation.
*A principle is something that was, is, and always will be true.

Conservatives shouldn’t be giving in to Romney just yet

Given the state of the primary so far… I’m not so convinced that Mitt Romney is the worst of the pack by ideology, rhetoric, or record.

However, based on Principle, I’m supporting Rick Perry, because I trust him to boldly govern by conservative principles. Out of all of the candidates, his record and rhetoric squares the circle better than any other candidate in the field. I still believe this is true, even with his most recent egregious strategy to go after Romney with a populist’s class warfare argument.  Elections are elections. I disagree with the strategy, but I still believe Rick Perry is the best conservative in the pack.The media have done their part to dismiss him in the eyes of voters. The campaign handlers have done their part to fail in their messaging. The candidate has done his part to make mistakes along the way.

I am part of the “Anti-Romney” crowd by default, because I am Pro-Perry.  As such I have to recognize that time is short, and Romney has momentum that can’t be ignored. If I were a weak-minded fearful cuss, I’d likely accept the narrative of Mitt Romney’s inevitability. But I won’t. However, any other conservative out there should be aware, that if consolidation doesn’t happen sooner rather than later, Romney wins. It’s that simple.

The fact is this primary season is different, and nobody has been looking at the process. Primarily because we’re all caught up in the very dangerous game of attempting to bend reality to the narrative. This primary season has gone from weak arguments of electability to even weaker arguments of inevitability. With the first 4 major primaries completed by January 31st 8PM EST, we’re left with the presumed ‘inevitable’ nominee. THIS IS NONSENSE.

• 1,142 Delegates is what is needed to win the G.O.P. nomination before convention.

• The first 4 events leads to a total of 115 delegates (that’s with the penalties of moving primaries up)

• Super Tuesday isn’t so super this year.

• Total delegates available at the end of “Super Tuesday” is 874… Romney will not be getting 100% of all delgates up to this date.
• Super Tuesday also includes states that are less likely to pull a New Hampshire, and back a squish based on “electability” arguments.
• There are some caucus events between Florida and Super Tuesday that will likely not get a lot of media attention regardless of the results, rather I’m predicting that televised debates, and narrative will be the biggest factor in this period.

• There’s only 1 thing that causes a conservative candidate to drop out. Lack of Money.

• Consolidation will happen, because eventually someone is going to foolishly lose their mind and then become untenable to the conservative electorate.
• I’m going to go ahead and predict that South Carolina will not be the hill to die on for Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum, or even Jon Hunstman Jr. They’ll each have enough in the war chest to go on to Florida, and likely ride things out to Super Tuesday at least before they are winnowed down to 1-2 conservative alternatives.

A word concerning the Weeping, Wailing, and Gnashing of Teeth

Some conservatives are giving up. Some out of desperation are flailing about with all the negative they can, hoping that Romney will be hurt by populism, or hoping that the other “conservative alternatives” will drop out making this a 2-man and a Loon race. Look folks… consolidation will happen… the question is, when it does… will it have been too late?

I have had enough of the ridiculous bemoaning that has been going on lately. We can NOT allow the media to shape the narrative. Are you so FEARFUL that you’re willing to give in? They want to use YOUR fear, YOUR doubts, YOUR ignorance to drive you to do silly things, such as MAKE LEFTIST ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAPITALISM… Are we that desperate? I think not!

Let’s attempt to view things objectively for a moment.

Should Mitt Romney become the G.O.P. nominee, it will be the DUTY of EVERY FREEDOM LOVING, LIBERTY EMBRACING, CONSERVATIVE OF ANY STRIPE, to not only vote for Mitt Romney, but to DONATE, AND WORK WITH THE FURY OF FIRE FROM THE SKY to get him elected. Why? Because the alternative choice is President Obama for 4 more years.

This country has LOST THE SENSES IT WAS BORN WITH! All it took was 3 years of a hell bent socialist-reformer™ in the office of President of The United States to change the narrative of political battles of “how do we make the country better” to “how do we keep from driving off the cliff”. The arguments went from “socialism vs. capitalism” to “fairness vs. wealth”. Your everyday American can’t make the distinction, because your everyday American most likely isn’t wealthy… so naturally they’re going to assume that they side with “fairness”.

If the choice is between a “vulture capitalist” and a “socialist-reformer™”… I’m gonna take the vulture capitalist and be darn glad I had a choice. I’m not defending Romney or Bain here, I’m defending capitalism. There simply is no excuse for any conservative that tries to make Bain the Bane of Romney’s existence. Romney had a successful career at Bain, he did turnarounds, and slash and burns… but as an unapologetic believer in freedom and liberty… let me say this…

There is a whole lot of piss poor analysis going on. Some of it may even be dishonest attacks by ignorance or arrogance. When Romney spent his private sector career building wealth with his ability to make an enterprise prosperous or break it down and sell it off for profit… it really has little to do with job creation or destruction.

Economics is what drives job creation and job destruction. Government and Private sectors are but vehicles in the process. Capital destruction processes are just as necessary to economic systems as termites in a forest of dead wood.

The TRUTH is going after Romney and Bain is a POPULIST ARGUMENT no matter how you dice it. This is the problem with comparing a private sector record with a governance record. Romney’s comparison of Bain to GM is appropriate… the difference is, had the GM bailout been structured by Bain and not the Government. A capital investment firm would have not negotiated for the Unions, they’d have restructured the company without throwing the shareholders with preferred shares under the bus, they would have been subjected to bankruptcy laws, and all precedents in the exchange. Unlike how Obama made the tax payers the creditors, and handed the company over to the Unions, and knew going into the deal, that they were just kicking the can down the road.

The REAL Alternative

That’s just it… Obama’s plan is ‘kick the can down the road’ on any issue that can’t be fixed without inflicting some real pain on people, his plan is to kick the can down the road, and get Republicans to agree to more spending out of necessity to keep things moving. Look I’m not heartless. I’m not rich. I’m not envious. And I’m certainly not persuaded by arguments of false charity, false hope, and false faith. But I have to say it, LIBERTY CAN’T EXIST WITHOUT OPPOSITION. You CAN’T enjoy the merits of opportunity, without the realities of risk, failure, and pain.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JOB. So reserve your moral judgements for moral issues. Any Job that exists… exists because someone had the liberty to innovate, create, and pursue their happiness. Government can’t exist without generating revenue from its citizens. I have empathy to those that lose their jobs. However, I don’t blame any capitalist for turning profits in any way they can, while the government does nothing to seriously put a stop to the unethical practices through damn fine policy and legislation. If you want to prevent ALL situations where someone might lose a job… You may as well have joined the socialist team. Giving credence to these narratives of the media is giving credence to their creeds of a socialist nature.

Folks sometimes you have to rely on the fact that the sparrow doesn’t fall without the Father(Matthew 10:29), and when considering the lilies of the field (Luke 12:27) in all their non-spinning and non-toiling, even Solomon was not arrayed like one of these. Populism is not conservatism. Conservatism is based on principles. It’s based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I’m not defending Bain or any other capital firm for practices that may be unethical when you live in a Joe Biden Recession/Depression. I’m am talking about the fact that WE SHOULDN’T be involved in this narrative AT ALL. IN NO WAY is it appropriate. Joining the stream of the narrative, effectively causes us to lose sight of what is important. It causes us to view things from a very skewed perception. The more skewed our perceptions are, the more our ignorance will blind us to what is really important.

Maybe the ignorance of my youthful idealism is blinding me to the fact that we should somehow be supporting populism, anti-capitalist, and class warfare views… This narrative is exactly the medicine the media wants us to take. It deflates the T.E.A. Party, It presents Obama as a caring, nurturing, bleeding heart for the ‘little guy’ that got laid off, and had to either find another job with his current skillset, or re-tool the skillset, and go after a diffferent job. Well LA-DEE-FRICKIN’ DAH… I’m 31 and have already had to face economic realities of job loss, poor employment opportunities, and having to move from state to state, losing the value of my home to a vacuum created by the housing bubble…I don’t blame capitalists… I blame the government regulation and legislation that led to INTERVENTION of the Free Market. Call me quixotic, but I don’t have time to misdirect my energies on “Government Solutions”… I want a President that will make the best decisions from a conservative view, not from a socialist’s view.

This election is about DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM for them… Not us…

*WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT* Conversely THEIR ONLY WINNING STRATEGY… is to cause the base to become discouraged, demoralized, disaffected, and disengaged. If Obama wins re-election, it will be due to failure to turn out the vote… if the enthusiasm to vote against him is removed… then the incumbency wields the victory.

*IF* Mitt Romney is the Nominee… I’m prepared to fight the good fight for his election. What I’m not prepared to do is give up on nominating the most conservative candidate that we can. We do that by convincing every person we know that is age 55 and above that votes Republican to vote conservative, and not for the tall guy with the nice hair.

Over at National Review, Jay Nordlinger is fuming and indignant. By William F. Buckley standards, his article Conservatives vs. Capitalism nearly requires a set of html rant tags. And on Jay’s behalf, I don’t necessarily believe anger is automatically bad.

Nordlinger considers himself to be a Conservative. He believes strongly in free enterprise. He sees his favored candidate, Mitt Romney, being lambasted for aggressively participating in a harsh form of free enterprise. This lambasting is by other Republicans, who ostensibly all claim to represent Conservatism. It pees in his Cheerios; as he expounds below.

Read More →

Over at National Review, Jay Nordlinger is fuming and indignant. By William F. Buckley standards, his article Conservatives vs. Capitalism nearly requires a set of html rant tags. And on Jay’s behalf, I don’t necessarily believe anger is automatically bad.

Nordlinger considers himself to be a Conservative. He believes strongly in free enterprise. He sees his favored candidate, Mitt Romney, being lambasted for aggressively participating in a harsh form of free enterprise. This lambasting is by other Republicans, who ostensibly all claim to represent Conservatism. It pees in his Cheerios; as he expounds below.

Read More →

There are some striking and uncomfortable similarities between populism as it is expressed in Thailand and the United States. Since 2000, we have all been made familiar with the map of the United States that shows red, blue, and purple areas, and given that we are here on a site called “Red State” it is (or should be) very clear which side we are on. What may not be as obvious is that a similar divide and a similar color scheme exists in Thailand, where the red stands for the populist supporters of ousted and controversial ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (whose younger sister Yinluck Shinawatra is the current Prime Minister of the country) and where the yellow stands for the elites who support the military and palace establishment.

To be sure, there are some profound differences between Red State and the red shirts (which is why I am not a supporter of the red shirts). The Red Shirts are a cult of personality, centered around the ex-Prime Minister (though, to be fair, the yellow shirts are a cult of personality as well around the aging and very frail 84-year old King Bhomipol). Additionally, the policies of the red shirts are pretty standard socialist prescriptions for what ails society, a Obamacare-esque “30 baht card” that will cure any disease for 30 baht (roughly a dollar), increased minimum wages for the poor unskilled laborers, anti-American rhetoric (in all fairness, we do arm and train Thailand’s highly repressive army), and plans to subsidize technology for tots by providing an ipad (or similar high-tech educational item) for every schoolkid. Very few people here (except maybe for those enamored with Romneycare or who found Ron Paul’s anti-American rhetoric persuasive) would find much to support among these policies.

On the other hand, though, there is a substantial and worrisome area of common ground between Red State and the red shirts that shows deep divides within the democratic orders of both nations. For one, the politics of Thailand and the United States are highly regional. The red shirts have won every free election since 2000 (elections are usually held every three or four years, though not with our scheduled regularity), even though they have twice been removed from power by military coups (in 2006 and 2008). The base of the support for the red shirts is in northern and northeastern Thailand. Northern Thailand is where I live, and the Shinawatra family is based out of Chiang Mai (on whose outskirts I reside), the old capital of the Lanna Kingdom. Northeast Thailand is largely inhabited by Isan Laotian-Thai inhabitants who are the poorest people of Thailand and whose ancestors were captives/slaves of the earliest Chakra dynasty of kings (during the time of our early Republic in the late 1700′s and early 1800′s) who once ruled over Laos. Neither of these groups of people, even though together they make up a (slim) majority of the entire political body of Thailand’s notoriously fractured political system, are given full respect or legitimacy by the Thai elites and establishment. Rather, these areas are considered “Flyover country” by the elites who are centered in the South of Thailand (where Thailand fights against a Muslim insurrection and whose people especially support the military for understandable reasons) and especially in Bangkok.

The United States has a similar political order. America’s cultural and political elites are largely “blue state” dwellers, whether we are talking about Washington DC, New York City, New England, or California (or the corrupt city of Chicago). Likewise, the rural and Southern core of the Republican party does not have a great deal of legitimacy with these elites who sneer at those who believe in God, oppose infanticide, disbelieve in Darwinian evolution, and prefer personal responsibility to top-down socialist mandates. For such elites the areas where Red Staters are most at home are “flyover country.” Those of us who, like myself, are very sensitive to such matters find this extremely offensive.

The problems that exist are ones that elections alone cannot solve. Winning political power does not grant Republicans legitimacy–that must be fought for, as our politicians must be reminded over and over again that we don’t elect them to roll over and play dead for the scraps offered by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. We elect them to fight for what is left that is noble and good about the American Republic, something they do not seem to remember well, preferring the cowardly ways of compromise to a principled struggle for the soul of the United States of America. The same is true in Thailand. Elites do not care that the populists from the North and the Northeast win elections, because in their mind those politicians are still “peasants” who can be put in their place whenever they get too uppity by a military coup.

Clearly the situation is serious. For a republic to endure there must be a common identity and a legitimacy given to the will of the people within those grounds where majority rule is to reign. Matters of conscience are not up for vote, but matters of policy are and ballots ought to be respected over bullets. Where this legitimacy of the circumscribed will of the people is denied, elections are either shams to pretend as if the people have their say while nothing ever changes or are virtual wars fought for spoils and corrupt gain, where politicians can choose winners and losers based on holding offices.

Eventually, if respect within a society declines to a point where both sides in a conflict see the other side as the enemy of the people, then an actual civil war is on the way. I am deeply concerned that the politics of both Thailand and the United States are approaching that sad fate. There are only two ways to avoid that fate–for those who are disrespected to surrender all goals of holding legitimate power and an acceptance of a permanent position of second-class status, or for those selfish and corrupt elites to voluntarily give up the offices that they have so shamefully abused for the preservation of the Republic that they claim to serve. The first is unacceptable, as it means surrendering our principles and accepting the domination of Pelosi and Reid and Obama and all of their ilk. The second requires that our adversaries love the American Republic more than their own power and position. Clearly, given such odds, I am deeply pessimistic for the long term health of my beloved country, as well as the country in which I now reside, which faces a very similar and equally insoluble dilemma.

This is not popularity it is populism, and they are as different as good and evil. Populism dates back to Rome, the Populares Party has been considered the origin of both socialism and Populism, the populares, “People’s Party.” Populism is often considered a major factor in the downfall of the great Roman Empire and should be considered one of the most destructive forces in politics. The Populist Party in the US, originally the People’s Party was established in 1891 and in 1896, the Populists gained control of the Democratic Party in turn became part of the Progressive Movement, Fabian Socialism. What makes populism different from popularity seems to be the exploitation of economic and social interests. We now have what can be called a Populist Revolt in Egypt, as of now we see many colors being added but no one knows the final hue, it is only speculation. From this we can certainly see how infectious Populism is and how it spreads. This goes beyond a pure democracy in to more of a “Mob Rule,” or unchecked popular power, this only leads to social instability and was almost never successful throughout history. Populism often leads to abuse, we see politicians play their role as champion of a greater cause, but in reality they are fighting their own personal struggle for power. Nazism had its roots in Populism, as did many other failed democracies.

Thankfully, the framers of our US Constitution placed our form of government to the right of a pure democracy and “Mob Rule.” James Madison said, “Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” This should be the dividing line between left and right, with those on the right supporting the original intent of our Constitution, The Tea Party to Conservatives are and must be anti “Mob Rule” and anti- Populism. Most certainly, those so named Republicans that do not support our Constitution need to be flushed out because everyone needs to be on the same side of the fence on this. Thanks to the culmination of compromise and bipartisanship, our government has grown beyond its original scope, and now unpopular and drastic cuts need to be made. The fundamental argument from the Populist opinion is that liberty and capitalism is wrought with corruption and unscrupulous people. Therefore, government must step in and intervene, often giving the power to unscrupulous politicians and more corruption, a fallacious argument. Lord Acton astutely noted human nature, “Absolutely power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely.” The argument the leftist Populist use is what can be done, it is a crises, and this is apocalyptic thus shifting the argument from should anything be done to close the eyes to the burden of those actions. This shifting of the narrative toward the Populist opinion is so powerful in human nature reason is often dismissed as a conspiracy theory and fear mongering. Those that use this response are nothing more then useful idiots that ignore historical facts, human nature and natural law.       

Populism comes in many flavors, at times it may be hard to tell what flavor but it is predominantly one color and that is more government, left. Benito Mussolini used the Ministry of Popular Culture, a version of the politically correct police that release news broadcasts and newspaper stories glorifying the Populism of Mussolini. Lyndon B. Johnson used his sympathy for the 1891 Populist Party to push for The Great Society. The New Deal and the ACLU were often described as Populist. The French Revolution was a Populist Revolt and Marx studied the history of the French Revolution resulting in the use of Populism in Marxism. Populism unlike class warfare attempts to take a broader swath of “The People” against “The Privileged” and both as shown throughout history to be involved with some sort of demagoguery, scapegoating, and conspiracism. We hear it all the time from the left, blame Bush, well the Republicans did, the Tea Party is a bunch of racists and so on, but this is not to say the left are all the same as Mussolini yet they seem to live in the same house. The People’s Republic of China, here we are again with a “People’s” Party in their Great Leap Forward used the Populism of productive force determinism, the Populism of a Communist utopia and more than 20 million people died. Luis Echeverría Álvarez Mexican president used the Populist rhetoric of social change and economic progress and became the first former Mexican president to be placed under arrest on charges of genocide. This is not some easily dismissed conspiracy theory but a fact that Populism wherever it is found thought history is usually bad and the opposite policy of the Tea Party and Conservatives. You may also find the demagoguery from the left accusing the Tea Party as a Populist movement.

There is also the Egalitarian side of Populism, the equality of income and wealth typically associated with Labor or Workers unions. There are well defined lines describing the separation of private sector unions from government sector unions with the government sector having extremes of left and right. There is also a thin line that separates the original intent of unions for worker safety and prosperity, and the exploitation of economic and social interests. Government is a force, they forcefully take your taxes, there is no freedom in this matter either you pay your taxes or go to jail, and they have the power to take what they want. Collective bargaining by the government few is not a right because it takes the rights and freedom of others by force, it is by definition the opposite of a god given right and liberty. Private sector and government sector Labor or Workers unions are very different in this nature and cannot be treated the same. It seems politicians and labor unions are playing their role as champions of a greater cause use Populist rhetoric by calling it a right, this is a lie. The original intent of our framework of government was that our government was only supposed to protect our god given rights and not be the owner and provider of our rights. Clearly, our government has grown beyond its original scope in this, but the Populist rhetoric closed the eyes to the burden of those actions. Government union members are handing over their god given rights to the government in a “Mob Rule” and mob mentality, shifting of the narrative toward the Populist opinion and dismissing natural law and reasoning. This is tyranny when government owns our rights but some passively accept it because of the collective good it provides them. The burden of these actions is the likely corruption of power, as history has shown all too true. The original scope of our government was supposed to prevent this from happening and now we teeter on the extremes causing social and economic instability. We can only walk this thin tightrope for so long because it is natural law that we eventually fall, history has shown there is no safety net in this and our fall will be extreme left or right. The extreme left and right of Labor or Workers unions where they have been corrupted with power is the Social Democratic Labour Party, Bolshevism and the National Socialist Workers Party or Nazism wherein they eliminate all other unions and become a single Party, a pure democracy.

The Populist typically displays the Populist rhetoric of the day, this could be under the guise of any brand and what they are branded must not be that easily dismissed but scrutinized. Often the branding comes from the Populist and this is typically in the form of demagoguery, class warfare, shifting of the narrative, and dismissal of facts, history, natural law and reasoning. Sometimes the branding merits further scrutinizing as in being branded a “flip-flop” as in “flip-flop Mitt Romney.” Typically, the Populist rhetoric is contrary in substantial action, say one thing and do another, or go mushy and compromise. Sometimes the Populist will skew the popularity of an adversary in to Populism to cause confusion and division. The only way to protect our selves from this Populism is to step back for a moment and think about it, do not get caught up in the Populism, engage brain before opening mouth and beware the Populist.