RedStateEclectic

The Worst Get to the Top

This post is by way of addendum to Eric Parks' recent article The last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government. I find Eric's post noteworthy not least because it reminds me of how undiscerning and crude people have become in the face of the most blatant violations of justice and the rule of law. The position taken by the Institute for Justice (see Eric's post) is a pleasant exception, deserving wide dissemination.

On a different level, this post on Hayek's thesis that in a politicised society the worst get to the top forms part of the background to Eric's observations.

I like the author's definition of a statist, i.e. a person passionately asking for leadership by the worst:

“Someone who learns nothing from human nature, economics, or experience, and repeats the same mistakes over and over again without a care for the rights and lives of people he crushes with his good intentions.”

Even the worst features of the statist reality, Hayek showed, “are not accidental byproducts” but phenomena that are part and parcel of statism itself. He argued with great insightfulness that “the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful” in any society in which government is seen as the answer to most problems. They are precisely the kind of people who elevate power over persuasion, force over cooperation. Government, possessing by definition a legal and political monopoly of the use of force, attracts them just as surely as dung draws flies. Ultimately, it is the apparatus of government that allows them to wreak their havoc on the rest of us.

Bubama Advancing

Image credit.

 

It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.

In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies “due process” as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote of the Holder speech:

“All the Administration has said is that they closely and faithfully follow their own guidelines — even if their decisions are not subject to judicial review. The fact that they say those guidelines are based on notions of due process is meaningless. They are not a constitutional process of review.”

It is particularly bizarre to hear the logic of the administration claiming the right to target its citizens according to some secret selection process, when we justified our attacks against Iraq and Libya because their leaders supposedly were targeting their own citizens! We also now plan a covert war against Syria for the same reason.

I should make it perfectly clear that I believe any individual who is engaging in violence against this country or its citizens should be brought to justice. But as Attorney General Holder himself points out in the same speech, our civilian courts have a very good track record of trying and convicting individuals involved with terrorism against the United States. Our civilian court system, with the guarantee of real due process, judicial review, and a fair trial, is our strength, not a weakness. It is not an impediment to be sidestepped in the push for convictions or assassinations, but rather a process that guarantees that fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I am encouraged, however that there appears to be the beginning of a backlash against the administration’s authoritarian claims. Just recently I did an interview with conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham who expressed grave concern over using these sorts of tactics against Americans using the supposed war on terror as justification. Sadly, many conservative leaders were silent when Republican President George W. Bush laid the groundwork for this administration’s lawlessness with the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, and other violations. Similarly, as Professor Turley points out, “Democrats previously demanded the ‘torture memos’ of the Bush administration that revealed poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens.” The misuse of and disregard for our Constitution for partisan political gain is likely one reason the American public holds Congress in such low esteem. Now the stakes are much higher. Congress and the people should finally wake up!

The Crowd-Pleasing-for-Dummies President

Credit.

Leaving education in the state's hands is a guarantee to keep the conscripts of such enlightenment so self-contentedly uneducated as to take pride nationwide - by democratic majority and other mean means - in their preposterous ignorance and to cheer the paragons of educationally acquired obtuseness as men of genius and compelling leadership.

In this respect Obama is the people's president (no less than Bush), and a dignitary truly worthy of representative democracy.

Writes Mark Steyn:

A great nation needs successful self-made businessmen like George Peck, and purveyors of scholarly excellence like Mary Somerville. It's not clear [well, it is - see above, G.T.] why it needs a smug over-credentialed President Solyndra to recycle "Crowd-Pleasing For Dummies" as a keynote address.

The source.

Hat-tip.

See also More Obarrassment.

The People Who Like Gary Johnson

Image credit.

Of course, I know Ron Paul (´s credentials and philosophy) a lot better than Gary Johnson ('s). If I faced an either-or-decision, I would support Ron Paul over anyone else - but this does not mean that I am adverse to Johnson.

In fact, there is much to be said for Johnson, not least that he attracts support from people (a) I admire and (b) personally like - (a) and (b) holding true with respect to Laura, (a) applying to the Coyote, who has this to say in his blog, today:

I decided today to volunteer for Gary Johnson’s independent libertarian run for President.  I have always been a Johnson supporter, and was disappointed that he did not get more attention in the debates and nomination process.

Yes, I know folks will be saying that if Gary Johnson does well, it will just be guaranteeing an Obama victory.  You know what?  Given the choices, I don’t care.  My other choices seem to be the guy who pilot-tested Obamacare and Rick Santorum, perhaps the only person the Republicans could have found with a deeper authoritarian streak than Obama.  You know those 2×2 matrices where one leg is “government intervention in social issues” and the other is “government intervention in economic issues?”  Where libertarians are low-low and Republicans and Democrats are each in one of the low-high boxes?  Did you ever wonder who was in the high-high box?  Well, Obama has moved pretty strongly into that space.  But Santorum staked it out years ago.   He is right out of the John McCain, I-am-nominally-for-small-governemnt-but-support-authoritarian-solutions-for-a-range-of-random-issues school.

In fact, I might argue that freedom and small government would be better served by an Obama second term that the yahoos likely to gain the Republic nomination.  First, there is nothing worse than having statism and crony capitalism sold by someone who is nominally pro-market (see either of the Bushes as an example).  Second, Republicans are much feistier about limiting spending and regulation in Congress when in opposition.  They tend to roll over for expansions of state power when they have a fellow Republican in the White House — just compare spending of the Republican Congress under Clinton vs. Bush.  Medicare Part D, anyone?

The source.

While the cold is giving way to thaw here, people in Amsterdam are skating the frozen canals - enjoy, and nite, nite:

 

Obama's Puck

That is, of course, Bubama's puck.

Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas released the following statement Monday evening regarding his absence from the Bruins' visit to the White House this afternoon:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"

The source.

And The Race Gets Smaller…

After last night’s Iowa caucuses, it appears that the GOP nomination race is going to get smaller. 

Michele Bachmann, who had put a lot of time and effort into her Iowa strategy, came in 6th place (beating out only Jon Huntsman, who opted out of Iowa).  Absent some sort of surprise, it looks like she’s going to leave the race today, given that she had canceled campaign appearances in South Carolina, and has a press conference later this morning in Iowa.  I suppose it’s possible that she’s got something else in mind, but as a native Iowan and current member of Congress from neighboring Minnesota (not to mention “values” candidate), she needed to do better in Iowa.

Likewise, Rick Perry appears to be considering a departure, as he returns to Texas for “prayer and reflection” as he considers “whether there is a path forward” for him to the nomination this year.

Jon Huntsman has put all of his eggs in the New Hampshire basket, where he is doing reasonably well in the latest polls—although one has to wonder how much of a bump he could get out of a “no-place” showing in Iowa, followed by a 3rd or lower place showing in New Hampshire.  He needs to finish 1st or a strong 2nd in New Hampshire, in my opinion, in order to have any momentum moving into South Carolina.

South Carolina and Florida look likely to be the “make it or break it” for Newt Gingrich’s campaign.  Falling into 4th in the Iowa caucus, and 5th place in the most recent New Hampshire poll, Gingrich needs South Carolina to stage a comeback.  South Carolina has a much better reputation for selecting the ultimate nominee of the Republican Party that either Iowa or New Hampshire (probably because those other two states do a lot of the culling of candidates), so I’d expect a big push there.  Gingrich should have the resources to stage a big fight there, and though they’re almost 3 weeks old, polls in both South Carolina and Florida were showing him in a strong position, so he’d have something to build on.

Which brings us to the three who definitely lived to fight another day: Romney, Santorum and Paul:

• Romney’s “victory” (by something like 8 votes across the state of Iowa) was tenuous.  It points to the notion that even among the establishment types, there is a certain “not Romney” sentiment.
• Santorum’s de facto “victory” (coming from WAY behind to nearly “win”).  He’s at the top of the “not Romney” and “not Ron Paul” pile right now.  Based on the e-mails that have come into my inbox in the last 10-12 hours, it looks like he’s trying to capitalize on his showing in Iowa for fundraising (and renting lists from everyone from tea party groups to National Review conservatives), asking for “URGENT” contributions of “at least $35”.  Most accounts suggest his campaign has been operating on a shoestring budget.  He’ll need an infusion of cash and a healthy showing in New Hampshire (where he hasn’t spent much time) if he is to move into South Carolina and have any hope of staying alive in the battle of the establishment titans (Romney and Gingrich).
• Ron Paul.  Well, my Twitter feed suggests a certain disappointment by supporters.  Paul supporters really hoped for a “stick it to the man” first place finish.  Of course we don’t really know how well organized the Paul folks were—the actual delegate count, after the Paul folks move through the convention system in Iowa, could be much higher than his strong 3rd place finish would suggest.  Still, I fear the results demonstrate a certain “cap” on Ron Paul support at this time.  The highest polling numbers he’s seen anywhere, anytime (except in his congressional races), were in Iowa.  His poll numbers in New Hampshire (next Tuesday) have topped in the high teens, and his nationwide numbers tend to be in the low-to-mid teens.  Is there a possibility of him getting the nomination?  Well, sure, I suppose so.  But it’s hard to see how from where I sit.  As I’ve mentioned before, he would have to reap the benefits of some of the “drop-outs”—but beyond the infinitesimal Gary Johnson support in New Hampshire, it’s hard to see where that support might come from (well, maybe some from Huntsman if he exits, but he’s really a non-consideration beyond New Hampshire at this point).

Nevertheless, while some people (including some people who I consider friends here in Nebraska) consider Ron Paul “bats**t crazy”, his presence in the race—win or lose—has the potential for value, if his supporters will learn to play the game, rather than just picking up their balls and leaving when they get struck out.  In a Twitter conversation with a friend last night, he suggested that Ron Paul’s supporters would follow any of the candidates (presumably Santorum, Gingrich or Romney) who would “co-opt” (his words) Ron Paul’s fiscal message on sound money and the Federal Reserve.  I begged to differ, because I thought that painted Paul supporters as shallow and unprincipled. 

The Republican establishment assumes that if “someone else” (the eventual nominee) were to take on a couple of Paul’s key issues, that Paul supporters will support the Republican candidate over Barack Obama in the General Election.  That attitude shows both a thoughtful realization that the Paul supporters are important to the end game, and a delusion which suggests that the Paul folks aren’t “different” and can be bought off (in a manner of speaking) by just whispering “sweet nothings” into their ears.  Paul supporters—crude though they may be at times (my Twitter feeds last night were full of “f” bombs)—are really quite discerning, and won’t be easily convinced by “Johnny-come-latelys” to the fiscal discipline/constitutionalism show.

My friend asked whether Paul people would really vote for Obama or stay home, when Ron Paul didn’t get the nomination, even if the GOP candidate “co-opted” some of Paul’s issues.  My response (paraphrased):  “Darned right—or they’ll vote 3rd Party.”  At that point, he said (direct quote): “Sad. That would leave the Republican party with no choice but marginalization.”

To which I kind of chuckled, and pointed out that the Ron Paul folks have largely been marginalized already (in spite of trying to work within the Party) for the last 4 years.  Why should we expect anything different?

EDIT:  As I published this, this came across in my reader:

“Here’s the deal,” Palin told Fox Business Network’s Neil Cavuto. “The GOP would be so remiss to marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters as we come out of Iowa tonight and move down the road to New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, et cetera. If we marginalize these supporters who have been touched by Ron Paul and what he believed in over these years, well, then, through a third party run of Ron Paul’s or the Democrats capturing those independents and these libertarians who supported what Ron Paul’s been talking about, well, then the GOP is going to lose. And then there will be no light at the end of the tunnel.”

“So, the worst thing that the GOP machine can do is marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters,” she added.

Palin said that while she disagrees with Paul on foreign policy, the Texas Republican “does have good ideas when it comes to the austerity measures that domestically we must engage in in order to be secure, in order to be solvent as a nation.”

“The supporters of Ron Paul, they hear that. They have been touched by that,” she said.

UPDATE 2: Bachmann is out for sure.  Twitter feeds suggest that Perry is in through South Carolina, anyway—which may make it tougher for Gingrich and Santorum to lay claim to the “not Mitt Romney” establishment vote.

Are Iowans Crazy?

In about half the articles I read on the Iowa Caucuses, and about 80% of the comments that are directed against Ron Paul and his supporters, the notion that Iowans are crazy or weird seems to be a theme. The notion that the voters in Iowa are not representative of Republicans or their racial diversity is not reflective of America or they just aren't like the rest of us because they live on farms and still live in River City.

I was born in Iowa, I have extended relatives in Iowa, I lived in Iowa durign medical school and during my residency training. So I think I can say with some authority that Iowans are not crazy (except about the Hawkeyes). They are predominantly white (whitest state in the country), socially conservative (outside of Iowa City and Ames), and the state is overall purple (evenly Democrat and Republican).

The implication that because Ron Paul is doing well in Iowa is not a reflection on the state of Iowa - it is a reflection on the state of the Republican Party. From as much as I can ascertain from the reports of Ron Paul's speeches, his message of small government, challenging the central bank, and non-intervention overseas is unchanged from what he said in 2008 and in the debates this year. So his surge of success in the polls is more an indication that he is appealing to lots of Iowans with his message.

I agree that a fair percentage of his support comes from those who have not caucused before. Some of that is the young and some are crossovers from the Democrats and independents. But looking at the supporters completely misses the point and fails to recognize why he is gaining popularity. Liberty.

He is the only one talking about massively reducing the size and scope of the federal government both here and abroad. He is the only talking about reducing our military presence around the world. He is the only one taking on the PATRIOT Act, SOPA, and NDAA. He is the only one questioning the role of the Federal Reserve and its $16 trillion of bailouts in 2008.

This campaign comes on the heels of the 'conservatives' holding all the branches of government and exploding the debt and deficit. They expanded the department of education with NCLB, created a new cabinet (Homeland Security), devised the largest expansion to Medicare since its inception, and ballooned up the war on terror with spending abroad and restricting many of our liberties at home. Once Republicans returned to power in the House they delivered on almost none of their promises. They didn't force vetoes. They didn't overturn Obamacare. After a lot of hand wringing they agreed to continue to massively grow the federal government with nothing to show for it except they delayed (didn't even kill) the incandescent light bulb ban.

So if you're a conservative who wants the following: 1) a federal government that is the same size or smaller after one term in the White House, 2) personal freedoms that are the same or improved, or 3) actual long term reform of entitlements in Washington, who would you support? Even if you found Ron Paul's views on foreign policy dangerous or "out-of-step" with most Americans would you care? If you saw our country hurtling forward towards the economic brink what would you do?

Ron Paul is not the perfect messager. Of that, there is no doubt. But he is absolutely the best right now because of his organization and name recognition. Hopefully he will force Republicans to finally act their rhetoric. Whether he wins Iowa, New Hampshire, the nomination or nothing, his impact has been overall positive.

So are Iowans crazy or are they just paying more attention than those in the rest of the country?

One More Cobblestone on the Road to Barbarism

The problem are the people. They want big government. Big government is another word for "law" unto yourself. The difference between big government and proper government is the difference between arbitrary law and the rule of law. People believe solutions come from government as such. Justice, they believe, is produced by government. They believe, human beings are evil, unless they form a government. One of the tasks of big government is to remove the standards that allow you to recognise, challenge, and punish corruption, theft and other forms of injustice. However, the people prefer arbitrary legalism to consistent justice. They like big government to do the bullying, the deception and the theft that would be called by its true name if they committed such misdeeds in their capacity as ordinary citizen. The people of the Western "democracies" have been successfully deluded and conditioned to be morally rotten to the marrow. The more big government you get, i.e. the more politicised society becomes, the more lawless and barbarian will our societies become. And the political consensus of the majority vehemently approves of this sure road to barbarism and serfdom.

 

See also my first post here at RedStateEclectic The Destruction of Civilization - the Replacement of Justice by Politically Enforceable Interests and my recent Obama's Trendy Ignorance, the latter if only to admire the two brothers-in-arms, Obama and Corzine.

A template for Drew Wellrock

The Ron Paul Newsletters are once again at the forefront of a Ron Paul campaign. I hate to write about them because they are just so stupid. Dumb, mean things written in a style that is very much unlike Ron Paul. I don't profess to be a confidant to Rep. Paul but I have spent a few hours with him and his brothers at a family reunion and never once detected any sort of racism or mean bone in any of their bodies.

I am almost certain that those newsletters were not written by Ron Paul. He is culpable (to quite an extent) with the fact that he invested in something that had his name on it without much oversight. This post, however, it to the mysterious writer we will call Drew Wellrock, who was responsible for the content in those newsletters. The writing is similar to your style of writing even today on your website. It is time to fall on the sword of your own making if you care anything at all for your friend and former boss, Ron Paul. You have profited mightily thanks to his name and association and it is time to pay him back with the respect that he has and continues to give you now.

This is how I imagine the letter should go:

I have known Representative Ron Paul for decades. I worked for him, have travelled with him, and spent countless hours over the years with him. I can attest with absolute certainty that Ron Paul is not a racist. He is the penultimate gentleman and as wholesome an individual as one could hope to meet and know. He served his patients and constituents with respect and compassion without any consideration of social status, race, or ethnicity.

After Ron Paul retired from Congress and returned to medicine, I approached him with a business venture where I and some associates would write articles regarding conservative topics. The newsletters would go out to his mailing list of supporters and he would earn a little bit of money and keep some contact with those supporters if he ever chose to run for Congress again.

Mostly the letters were typical boiler plate railings against the establishment, people who looked to strip away gun rights, and the political correctness crowd and their insistence on turning a blind eye to all racial conflict. I never included a byline because I felt this would diminish the appeal of the newsletter and effectively hurt my bottom line.

I sent Ron Paul the first few newsletters to review. They were more tame then the ones I authored after a few years. Ron really never expressed much of an interest in the newsletters feeling that he was affording his name to help out my career and business. He trusted me completely with the writing and publishing. And I failed him.

I failed him in writing things that were so out of character with Ron without asking his permission. I saw that the more incendiary the prose, the more newsletters we sold. I was writing almost entirely to push sales and without regard to much of what I was writing. I stopped consulting with Ron outside of sending the small royalties which he generously refused and insisted that I use towards an educational foundation promoting freedom and austrian economics (now the von Mises Institute).

My biggest failure was to not admit my role in the newsletters when Ron ran for Congress again in 1996. Had I admitted my shortcomings then, the issue would not have resurfaced in 2001 and 2008. Fortunately, the issue never gained the prominence it has during this election. I am very proud of my friend Ron. He had many opportunities to tell all the world that the writer was most likely me. He chose friendship and loyalty over convenience which makes him the rarest kind of friend. And my role a colossal failure.

I took advantage of Ron and his name, profited off of it, and launched a career thanks in part to his kindness and loyalty. Of that, I am the most ashamed. I apologize to Ron for what I wrote and my pride that has prevented me from admitting my guilt. I hope that he will forgive me but can rest easier now knowing that he will now be able to spread his message of liberty, and freedom to millions of Americans during this campaign.

Sincerely,

Drew Wellrock

What if Ron Paul wins...

Iowa? This scenario is looking more and more possible. In what was virtually inconceivable to me even a month ago now seems to be within reach for Ron Paul's anti-establishment run for president. Aside from going into why or why not he could win Iowa, the question I'd like to ask is what would happen if he won Iowa?

I think most likely Bachmann (barring a 1-3 place finish) drops out. Gingrich is significantly damaged and begins to move farther down in the polls both in NH and nationally. Romney supporters are ecstatic as their apparent chief rival is smashed down and the path to victory begins to look clear after NH. At that point, very likely only Ron Paul will be available to keep Romney from winning the nomination. Perry, and Santorum will be on life support while Huntsman has his fingers crossed.

 

New Hampshire? If Ron Paul wins Iowa, he will give himself a chance to succeed in New Hampshire with the increased coverage and likely massive infusion of cash from now-delirious supporters who will 'believe.' This is Huntsman's make or break state which, after a Paul Iowa win, would be very unlikely. A finish in first here by Paul would effectively send Romney to the showers since he would have to wait until FL to get that first state. After NH, he has very little chance of slowing the Paul snow ball down in SC or NV. If Paul wins NH I suspect the anti-Paul candidate will emerge which establishment conservatives will rally around. Whether this is Perry, Gingrich, or Santorum depends on their position in the NH primary and perceived support nationally. My hunch is it would be Perry who would be seen as having the best liklihood of taking Paul out in the south. The other candidates would also very quickly all drop out in order to coalesce to stop Paul.

South Carolina? Contrary to what many may think, if Ron Paul were to win Iowa and then New Hampshire a South Carolina victory would still be unlikely. His support is just not very strong and the amount of ground he would need to make up is probably too large. However, if he won SC then the establishment would go nuclear and attempt every possible smear, tactic, and tens of millions of dollars to derail the Paul train. A third straight victory in SC would probably be a near death knell for the GOP establishment though. They would continue their rally around the anti-Paul candidate but it might be too late.

It is at this point that electability might be bandied about and if the numbers were to hold, it would be seen that Paul has a better chance than the other GOP candidates to defeat Obama, especially when looking at his support with independents and the young. Paul would significantly carve into Obama's coalition of supporters stripping away many of the young, civil libertarians, and antiwar. The question to Republicans would be how badly do you want to see Obama lose? Could you hold your nose and vote for someone not looking for expanded military engagements in the world in order to get massive spending cuts and seriously attack the budget?

Florida? If Paul won FL and the previous states then the game would be over. I can't imagine Romney (who has the money to hang around a long time) would be able to catch Paul at this point. Expect the GOP to quickly winnow down to field to try and force majority votes for Paul, not plurality votes in order to test the foreign policy ceiling for non-interventionism within the GOP.