Conservative Values

Killing Common Sense

Mark Noonan9 Comments

Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice. – 9/11/1909

This is the age in which thin and theoretic minorities can cover and conquer unconscious and untheoretic majorities. – 12/20/1919

The purpose of Compulsory Education is to deprive the common people of their commonsense. – 9/27/1929

Three quotes from G. K. Chesterton, and I bring them up because I have another quote for you by Mark Steyn, via Ace:

John Moulton was a distinguished judge, a man of science, and a chap who held the splendid title during the Great War of Britain’s “director-general of explosive supplies,” a job he did brilliantly. Lord Moulton divided society into three sectors, of which he considered the most important to be the “middle land” between law and absolute freedom — the domain of manners, in which the individual has to be “trusted to obey self-imposed law.” “To my mind,” wrote Moulton, “the real greatness of a nation, its true civilization, is measured by the extent of this land.” By that measure, our greatness is shriveling fast: The land of self-regulation has been encroached on remorselessly, to the point where we increasingly accept that everything is either legal or illegal, and therefore to render any judgment of our own upon the merits of this or that would be presumptuous.

A small example: The other day, I visited a Shaw’s supermarket in New Hampshire. On the front door was a sign: “No bare feet — for Health & Safety reasons.” Really? Yes, it’s true that the bare foot is particularly prone to fungus and bacteria, and one wouldn’t want it promenading in large numbers around the meat department — in the same sense that it would be unhygienic to take a leak in the produce department. But the reason a civilized person neither urinates nor pads barefoot amid the fruit and veg is not that it’s a health-code violation but that it’s (in the Moulton sense) ill-mannered. Shaw’s can no longer rely on its clients to know this (and to “obey self-imposed law”), and it apparently feels it cannot prohibit such behavior merely as an affront to societal norms, so it can disapprove of barefoot shopping only as an act of regulatory non-compliance…

Rather mission accomplished, wouldn’t you say? We are, indeed, afraid of things which no real man or woman would fear – but we aren’t at all afraid of being complete moral zeroes. We fear war so much we’ll let ISIS go nuts over the Middle East…but are so unafraid of moral corruption that we’ll let even the most egregious lies in our press and politicians slide. We, as a people, have been deprived of that old common sense which basically regulated our attitudes…towards both things like war and things like lying…and, of course, whether or not you should wear shoes to the grocery store. And that brings us to Steyn’s quote. We’re going to have to get a federal ruling on who shall bake a cake and when for the same reason we need a sign posted against bare feet…because we’ve been so completely crushed by a thin and theoretic minority, so propagandized by a compulsory education system, that we are unsure if we have a right to not bake a cake if we don’t want…nor are we 100% certain we can really insist that people wear shoes to the store.

If you really think about it, the thin and theoretic minorities have been doing this to us for more than a century and they have always done it via idolatry. Every time they needed we, the people, to be moved against our will, they’d cook up something into a crisis we were supposed to fear so much that we’d cede power…or, more accurately, a few judges and bureaucrats would see to it that the power was ceded. A false idol is set up for us to either worship or fear (which ever seems to work best for the moment), and off we go. Think about how many people fear war, as one for-instance. It really isn’t remotely the worst thing which can happen – things like what happened in Kenya a few days ago are the worst things which can happen. Innocent people being massacred and enslaved – that is the worst thing that can happen. Brave men and women fighting (and, yes, dying) in a noble cause to prevent massacre and slavery should be considered among the very good things of the world. Common sense dictates that if it be true that a 20 year old man has to die – as much as we’d like to avoid it completely – then better he dies armed and trained for battle and fighting for what is right, than to be cruelly murdered in his college class. But we have been deprived of our common sense…and so we’re not sure it would be better to die fighting than to die for nothing.

Until we get back to being a people who (a) have common sense and (b) are fearless enough to act on it, we’re not really going to get anywhere. Until we just “know” that ISIS is to be fought, shoes are to be worn in the market and no one can be forced to bake a cake, we’ll remain at the mercy of the thin and theoretic minority. It’ll take a bit of rebellion to get there, to be sure – not taking up arms, but still some rebellion. Actually, that Memories Pizza store getting hundreds of thousands of donations after being snookered on whether to cater a gay wedding is indicative of the sort of rebellion we need. That was common people exercising their common sense: it is absurd that anyone would be troubled over expressing such an opinion, and each dollar donated was a symbolic affirmation that we just “know” its ok if you don’t want to participate in a particular activity.

It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next 10 to 20 years – whether common sense will rebel and win, or whether that thin and theoretic minority can cook up enough false idols to distract us?

Understanding the Left

Mark Noonan40 Comments

It does come to everyone who listens and watches – in this case, to Pete Kaliner:

I find myself at odds now with a lot of proponents of same sex marriage who appear to be walking the charred battlefield of the cultural war and shooting the wounded.

I apologize for thinking this was about only equal treatment under the law. I apologize for dismissing conservatives’ fears that this slippery slope would lead to de facto banishment from various sectors of the public square.

I thought people just wanted to be left alone. I was wrong.

For many, they wanted forced conversions.

As such, it’s only fair we ask where it ends.

Do read the whole article – there is a lot more, including a very insightful quote from Vaclav Havel about how people conform out of a desire to just “get along”, thus strengthening tyranny upon all.

As to the question of, “where it ends”: the answer to that is simple. It ends with the complete victory of one side, or the other. I’ve got a little bit of inside knowledge and thus I know that in the End, my side wins – but it is still my responsibility to try to avert as much trouble and suffering as I can in this world, and so I will still fight for my side, hoping that eventually a majority will understand the facts and allow the necessary reforms to preserve our civilization. But in that task one of the crucial things is for all those in favor of civilization to stand together.

We are in a titanic battle for our civilization, my friends. Pick your side. You can come up with lots of reasons to back this or that liberal ideal – but no matter what the alleged merits of a liberal ideal, the bottom line is that the left, itself, is under the thumb of oppressors. Junior-league Leninists I called them a number of years back…people who just yearn for the opportunity to smack a person down; to humiliate them and drive them off. These people are not in it for justice – they are in it for total domination.

UPDATE: Ace of Spades, who does understand the left, gets very angry:

…Unlike some other Dummies, I’m not really of a mind that we must all Follow the Same Rules and all Subscribe to the Same Bland, Grey, Dead Corporate-Friendly Culture in which no one is really religious or different or odd at all Because That’s Bad For Corporate Business.

I think people should have — and by God, do have — the right to be fairly different from one another.

That’s f***ing America.

Did you not know that? That {is} what America is?

That America is the right to be different from other people?

I don’t see why a store run by a pious conservative Muslim can’t demand that women be covered, if that’s his bag, nor why a store run by a pious conservative Catholic can’t also insist that women cover their shoulders, if that’s his sense of what his business should be, of what should happen on property he owns.

Will there be hurt feelings when some are turned away?

Sure.

And who cares?

What the f*** are we, babies? Is this kindergarten, where everyone must be made to feel welcome, always?…

Do read the whole thing – be warned, though, of lots of NSFW language, but that is just Ace all over…and, hey, it takes all kinds to make a world, right?

Being Clear on Religious Liberty

Mark Noonan10 Comments

Indiana passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which is fundamentally the same as the federal RFRA and the RFRA’s in force in 19 other States – and liberals went ballistic. Given the rapidity with which the outrage spread, I can only presume that it was all orchestrated – liberals, at any rate, not being given to doing anything until they are so ordered by the liberal leadership (no liberal wants to get out in front just in case the Party Line turns out to be different from personal opinion). As to why it was orchestrated – I figure that the left is trying to gin up its base for 2016 and this is just the start of it, and as Democrats have zero chance of winning Indiana in 2016, it makes the perfect target for liberal slander and hatred. Expect more and more of this sort of manufactured outrage as time goes on – Hillary’s only chance (other than the GOP nominating Jeb) being people upset over nothing rather than paying attention to what is happening.

Still, there is an actual issue here. Liberals are attempting to frame it as a replay of Jim Crow – the RFRA, it is alleged, will allow a “straights only” lunch counter and this will be a horrific violation of homosexual rights. The truth, of course, is completely different. The purpose of RFRA is not to harm anyone, but to protect the rights of a minority – in this case, a religious minority (orthodox Christians). Jim Crow was different – that was laws which required the treatment of non-whites as second class citizens by all and sundry. RFRA is just a way out if someone tries to get someone to do something in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs. It would not allow me, if I were a baker, to refuse to serve homosexual customers – it does excuse me from participating in a same-sex wedding by making the cake which will be consumed at that wedding. If I were a baker – and being that I am Catholic – you could get just about anything you want form me…but you couldn’t get a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. There are other sorts of confections you couldn’t get from me, as well…I probably would not want to bake a cake which, say, proclaimed some dogma of Christian Science. You just want a cake – you got it; you want a cake which requires me to sin: it ain’t happening.

And that is all RFRA does – it allows me to not do something for you. If I am not doing something for you then I am also not doing anything to you. I am not violating your rights by not providing a service. In fact, if you were able to compel me to do something for you, then not only would you likely be violating my religious beliefs, but you’d also be forcing me into involuntary servitude…and slavery is explicitly prohibited in our Constitution.

I would never dream of asking someone to do something against their conscience. I’d never ask a pacifist to serve in the army. I’d never ask a Jew to provide me a ham sandwich. I’d never ask a Muslim to sell me some wine. It is just plain and simple courtesy that I do this – it would be the height of arrogant oppression if I were to demand that everyone do for me as I wish. We do live in a pluralist society – in the United States there really are all kinds of people and the only way such a society works is if everyone respects everyone else. Doing it any other way just leads to anarchy, oppression, a disintegration of the ties that bind and a risk of complete societal breakdown.

Live and let live – wise words to live by.

Attacking Big Corporation as a GOP Campaign Issue

Mark Noonan37 Comments

See? It’s not just me any more – Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) weighs in on how the GOP can leverage a bit of anti-corporatism for electoral victory:

…the fact is that many big businesses are unpopular with the public, aligned with the Democrats, and wide open for attack. And after eight years of the Obama administration’s naked cronyism and support of Wall Street even as the middle class has suffered, the opportunities are there.

One of the most appealing targets would be the tech industry’s wage-suppressing hiring habits. Not only have tech giants like Apple and Google engaged in what a federal court called an “overarching conspiracy” to prevent wage competition, but Silicon Valley firms also abuse H-1B visas to bring in immigrant competition at lower wages, a practice that’s now spreading to other industries. (In Los Angeles, Southern California Edison is firing workers and replacing them with immigrants now)…

Reynolds goes on to note how big corporations – especially big tech – are abusing the H1-B visa program to get rid of well-paid American workers and bring in low-paid foreigners, thus abusing both Americans and foreigners in the name of increased corporate profits. That is just one in a very long line of issues where Big Corporation is working against the United States. We on the GOP side have got to wrap our minds around the fact that big anything is bad. Once a concentration of power and wealth exceeds a certain size, it becomes baleful…and must be controlled carefully, lest is wreck everything. We understand this regarding things like the Department of Education, but we’ve failed to understand that General Motors is just like the Department of Education…an bureaucratic behemoth most interested in using raw, political power to preserve itself.

It is the free market we must defend – not those who are on top of the market and who are abusing their position. That the leaders of these corporations also largely support Democrats (or are at least de-facto liberals), just makes attacking them doubly advantageous for us. It becomes best of all when we realize that a lot of people who vote liberal (but who are not particularly liberal, themselves) can be moved to vote for us when we do this. Defending the worker against ruthless exploitation by Big Tech is just a splendid way to move the needle in our favor…let Democrats defend the H1-B visa program, we’ll defend the workers.

We have a grand opportunity to take the abysmal failure of the Obama years and use it to destroy liberalism as a political force forever. All we have to do is dare to take it.

The Conservative Circular Firing Squad

Mark Noonan26 Comments

Scott Walker hired Liz Mair to be a communications outreach staffer – and while I can’t say that I know Ms. Mair (we are Facebook friends and have met some years back – I think at CPAC in 2007), everyone who knows her says she’d be splendid in the position. I have no doubt that this is true. As it turns out, however, Ms. Mair had to very swiftly leave the Walker campaign – from what I’ve read, she’s made some disparaging remarks about the whole Iowa caucus system and that caused a ruckus. On the other hand, Erick Erickson over at Red State is holding that Christian conservatives went after her because of her liberal stance on some social issues. In the end, it was probably more the latter than the former – making fun of Iowa is almost a political standard…but being socially liberal is much more problematic.

The other day Ms. Mair took a break from her Lenten fast from Facebook to post the following:

I’m breaking my rule against no social media during Lent to share that I’m a little bit proud and excited that my name is on this amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court.

The amicus brief in question was in support of legalization of same-sex marriage. By judicial fiat. Votes of the people be damned.

To this post, I responded with words to the effect of, “so, by doing this what, exactly, are we conservatives supposed to be conserving?”. My comment isn’t there – so perhaps I forgot to post it. No matter. The main thing is that I find it astonishing that conservatives – of any stripe – do this sort of thing. Same-sex marriage is not just a stand-alone thing. It is not something that once done will be over and done with. It is not, no matter how much one might want to believe, merely a matter of whether or not the privilege of marriage shall be extended to same-sex couples. It is just another tool in the liberal armory. Liberals have many tools – and this one is to be used to further break down the traditional family but even more important, to the left, to attack Christianity. For a conservative to support the imposition of same-sex marriage (especially via judicial fiat!) is to be working for the destruction of conservatism. In theory same-sex marriage might be within the tolerable eccentricities of mankind – it might be something, that is, that a broadly tolerant and reasonable Republic allows to happen…but we are not living in broadly tolerant and reasonable Republic. We are living in the tail-end of a Republic which is mere steps away from becoming a Third World banana republic.

If we just give the left this, then they will use it – and they’ll use it against Christians. It is already being so used in Europe…and if you think liberals will actually care about the 1st Amendment, you’re nuts. Heck, if you’re even of the opinion that when push comes to shove that the Supreme Court will protect the 1st Amendment rights of Christians, you’re still nuts…suppose it happens? Ok. So the Court carves out an exception which allows Christian churches to not perform same-sex marriages…but that would only be after a massive, lengthy and expensive legal fight against the left. And, meanwhile, anyone who can’t afford such a battle just retreats into silence…including political silence. I don’t know how our more libertarian minded conservatives expect to survive when we more socially minded conservatives are forced into the political wilderness.

I’m sure Ms. Mair is sincere about it. Fine. A thousand points for adherence to personal conviction – but minus a million for lack of political sense. We are in a crisis in this nation and the very survival of the United States is the stakes we play for over the next 10 to 15 years. To be sure, she’s just one person who got caught up in the political meat grinder – and she seems a tough enough person to go through it without too much trouble. I’m sorry it happened to her – I wish we had a Republic where tolerance was the order of the day. But we don’t. Liberals forbid tolerance – they are out to destroy us, social and libertarian conservatives, alike. It is time to firmly choose a side – time for all of us on the right to cease the circular firing squad and keep our eye on the ball. We can’t work across the aisle. We can’t generate an alliance to advance one liberal thing and expect to follow up by advancing a conservative thing. For goodness sakes, people: do any of you on the right backing same-sex marriage think that liberals will now come to you to help advance school choice? Go ask your liberal allies about it. See if they are willing.

It is all or nothing – either we go all one way, or we’ll go all the other way. The left has set up the battle just like that – and giving them concessions is akin to surrendering a hill top wherein they now dominate our lines of supply. Every issue has to be taken in consideration to its position in the overall battle. Will an action help or hinder the advance of the overall right? If it will, then do it – if not, then put it aside and concentrate on some other aspect of your agenda which will.

By the Way: You Can’t Win With Nothing

Mark Noonan2 Comments

In the end, you have to believe in something – those who believe in nothing are easy prey:

Michael Nikolai Skråmo, who also calls himself Abo Ibrahim Al Swedi, appears in the propaganda video wearing desert camouflage and clutching an assault rifle, and proceeds to give practical and motivational encouragement to would-be jihadis.

“My brothers, ‘hijra’ (migration) and ‘jihad’ are so simple. It only costs a few thousand ‘lapp’ [Swedish kronor],” he says in Swedish. “Do you not wish in in your heart to fight and show God what you have to offer him? The door to jihad is standing there waiting for you. It’s the fastest way to Jannah [Paradise].”

Skråmo, who has two Norwegian parents but was born and grew up near Gothenburg in Sweden is understood to have moved to Raqqah, the capital of the fledgling Islamic State in Syria, back in September with his wife and two children, hoping to fight alongside Islamic State soldiers…

The man is a Swede of Norwegian extraction. He was born and raised in Sweden. He had every opportunity a rich, western, socialist nation can provide with a lavish welfare State. He converted to Islam and is now willing to sell his life – and the lives of his family – in order to advance his faith. Why? Well, why not? What does life in Sweden offer? A chance for more welfare? More degraded pop culture? Multicultural mish-mash bull by the truck load? Who in Sweden ever offered him the chance to rise above narrow self-interest and subordinate himself to a cause? No one. ISIS did – and they got him now. This sort of thing shocks a lot of people – it doesn’t shock me. I know that if you don’t believe in something, you’ll fall for anything.

I believe in the Christian God and the Roman Catholic Church. I believe in the Declaration of Independence. There’s not a chance in heck you’ll ever find me fighting for the crazed barbarians of ISIS…but the endless number of westerners who believe in nothing? They might very well – because something always beats nothing. As I noted before, only believers will beat ISIS…in other words, only people who offer something rock-solid in opposition to ISIS can prevail…

HAT TIP: The Gateway Pundit

Time For a New Political Party?

Mark Noonan18 Comments

Joy Cost makes a strong case that if you’re conservative, the GOP is not really your friend. I do recommend reading the whole thing. Cost points out that the GOP while being the political home of conservatism is not a truly conservative party. He’s right about that – and also right that the part of the GOP which is loyal to big business is not actually in tune with conservative principals.

This is something I’ve been yammering on about for a while – that big business and big government are actually quite in tune with each other. This is especially true as the sort of people who rise to the top in both areas are alike as peas in a pod. They mostly go to the same schools, have the same social backgrounds – they marry each other, attend each other’s events and, in the end, have the same world view, which is almost entirely liberal, save that big business types are often in favor of lower taxes, at least for big business. This is why the GOP leadership – which is often beholden to big business – infuriates us so often. There isn’t in big business – and thus there isn’t in a lot of the GOP leadership – the real will to reduce government, to end subsidies, to reduce regulation…because big business profits off the system as much as liberals who man the government system do. Think about it: if we really reduced regulation, then a lot of small time operators would be able to enter the market and start competing with the established companies…that means that profits would shrink! Can’t have that…

On the social issues side of the ledger, those who inhabit the world of big business are almost entirely on the side of legalized abortion, endless immigration, affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Why? Because it would be uncool to be otherwise – it really does go to that shallow a level. If you’re working at some large investment firm in New York City, do you want to go to the Manhattan party and admit that you think marriage should be between one man and one woman? For goodness sakes, everyone would think you entirely out of it…you might not get invited to the next party! Most, if they started with conservative social morals, will drop them like a bad habit once they reach the upper echelons…because that is just the way things are, and most people lack courage to stand against what is fashionable (and this condition is even more pronounced among those who rise high up in the bureaucracy or government or business).

For years now I’ve stuck with the GOP because I believe it is the party most likely to be taken over by conservatism – and I do believe that this is still the case. But suppose we work hard and battle our way to victory in 2016? We get even someone like Walker as President and we have a GOP controlled Congress. All that would be good – but suppose we get to 2019 and there’s still no ban on abortion after 20 weeks? Suppose the Department of Energy still exists? Suppose government spending is higher than it was in 2016? What have we really accomplished? Even supposing we’ve got taxes cut, our defense rebuilt and the economy is humming along? We’ve got nothing, as conservatives – we’ve neither reduced the size of government as more libertarian-minded conservatives demand nor have we even made a start at reviving American morality as social conservatives demand. All we’ve done it tinker around the edges and left in place the government monster built up by liberalism – and eventually to be reconquered by liberalism in a future election.

I have been wondering of late if it is time for a new party? Maybe even two new parties? To be sure, we have to be careful – we don’t want to spit the non-liberal vote and thus merely ensure endless liberal political dominance…but we do need some mechanism to ensure that what we, the base of the GOP, demands actually gets done.

What I wonder is if we split off, only for Congressional purposes, from the GOP about 100 Representatives and 10 Senators and formed, say, a Christian Democrat Party…without those Representatives and Senators, the GOP cannot control either house of Congress. Democrats can’t, either. In fact, no one can – absolute gridlock…unless certain demands are met. Boehner wants to be Speaker? Then there are certain actions which must be taken. You get the picture. Such a thing would become even more crucial if there is a Republican President because that is when actual laws which can be enacted can be sent up…if Congress does so; but the GOP as currently constituted might not really want to send up the sort of laws the base wants. Holding them to ransom (ie, do as we bid or you’re no longer Speaker) would be a convincing argument to actually move conservative legislation along. And if some on the right don’t want to be part of a Christian Democrat Party, they can form a Liberal Party (taking back a word which the Progressives have co-opted) to pretty much do the same thing…withhold support to the GOP unless, say, the GOP agrees to, for instance, reign in the power of government to spy on the American people.

I’m not at all sure this would work – but as you can see, what has happened here is that the three main elements of the GOP (business, social conservative, libertarian) are broken up for Congressional purposes into three different parties, and no one on the right gets anything unless everyone gets something. There is a risk that one party will join with the Democrats to form a Congressional majority, of course, but I think it pretty small as Democrats won’t openly embrace business and can’t embrace social conservatism…the libertarians might from time to time be swayed by Democrats, but such would never last long because, well, Democrats are just increasingly fascist. The best way for the new parties of the right to work is that they all nominate the same person for President…but if a real lousy GOP candidate emerges, then the Liberals and Christian Democrats nominate someone more acceptable and the GOP goes down to flaming defeat…which would make the GOP more likely to seek a candidate who can appeal to both Christian Democrats and Liberals. And there’s always that chance that a Liberal or Christian Democrat in a three or four way race could win the White House with a plurality…which works even better for the right.

This is all just an idea – for now, I’m still back in the GOP, especially in the White House, for 2016. But I think it something worth thinking about.

Government is the Problem

Mark Noonan18 Comments

And it looks as though people are (finally!) starting to figure that out:

Government (and the creatures who infest its rotten carcass) was the most important problem facing the United States in 2014, Americans tell Gallup pollsters. That’s up from being the second most serious problem in 2013, and the third-ranker in 2012.

Who says the American political system is stuck? This is progress!

It is, indeed. Not quite enough, though – we need people to really understand, deep down in their bones, that government is a necessary burden, not something that can be a genuine force for good. It can restrain, it cannot really help – only people, acting as individuals and groups, can help other people. To be sure, if you could get a government run entirely by saints, you might have something which could do better – but that just isn’t going to happen because the sort of people who become saints wouldn’t want to be in government; while the sort of people who do want to be in government often ensure that government is messed up, when not actually malevolent. The mistrust of government upon which our nation was founded is healthy, and the sooner we get it back, the better.

We Just Can’t Work With Liberals

Mark Noonan25 Comments

Over at Free Beacon, Sonny Bunch notes a recent article by Jonathan Chait wherein Chait demonstrates his abiding hatred of all persons Republican. Meanwhile, we have the Gruber revelations that bald-faced lies were used to enact ObamaCare. The question I ask is: how can we work with people who hate us and will flat-out lie to us? The answer: we can’t.

This is not an argument to start lying, nor an argument to start hating. In fact, it is our duty to be more careful that what we say is true, and that how we say it betrays not the slightest hint of hatred towards the other side. But it is an argument that there is no common ground for us to meet the left upon. And, I think, we all know this – and have known it for a long time. Even on this little blog, we found over the years that we just couldn’t so much as discuss things with liberals, let alone hammer out some mutually acceptable course of action. Any time we got a liberal on here, the discussion would immediately be filled with falsehoods and invective from the left. Didn’t matter what the subject was, it always went that way (to be generous, some liberals spread lies out of ignorance – they might sincerely have thought their falsehoods true, but that still doesn’t change the fact that lies were being spread). This is because liberals hate us, and hold to a view which believes that a lie, if it is allegedly in the service of a greater good, is ok. As we are not liars and we believe that there are some things out of bounds no matter how allegedly worthy the desire, there is just no way to get together with such people. We’re oil and water.

We could endlessly discuss just why the liberals are like this – but it would be a bit pointless. Unless they decide to change, there’s nothing we can do about it. Other than oppose them with all our powers and, hopefully, eventually remove them from any position of influence or authority within our nation.

This won’t be quite a difficult as it might sound. While it appears that our liberals are ubiquitous, their real numbers are somewhere around a mere one in five Americans. They just appear very powerful because they own most of the societal megaphones – especially in the popular culture. But the real basis of their power is, ultimately, government – either directly or indirectly they live and die by government subsidy. Once we cut that out, they will whither and die. Governor Walker – intentionally or not – has shown the way in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has been a very reliably blue State for a long time – it was, after all, one of the States wherein the early 20th century Progressives had some of their greatest successes. But, lo and behold, Walker has won three times in the past four years…and the GOP strength in the State government has increased, to the point where even if Hillary wins in 2016, we might see that State going GOP at the Presidential level. What was the main thing Walker did? He went after the government unions – the primary mechanism whereby taxpayer money (ie, money which mostly belongs to centrists and conservatives) is funneled to liberals. Without that government money, the liberals were just unable to rule the political roost. Do this on a State-by-State level and the federal level, and you’ll see a collapse in liberal power: enough of a collapse, in my view, where we can over time completely rid ourselves of them (as an aside, another line of attack is on the student loan scam – this funnels mostly conservative and centrist money to colleges, almost all of which are completely owned by the left…I’d agree to an annulment of all college debts in return for a cancellation of the student loan program: it’d be worth it in the long run…imagine thousands of “studies” teachers and liberal apparatchiks in college Administrations suddenly out of work, and no longer able to funnel money to the left!).

But we can’t do this if we’re looking to “work across the aisle”. If we do that, we’re just allowing liberals to continue to force centrist and conservative America to fund them to our own detriment. Its not that we’re unwilling to compromise, but that we’re unwilling to commit suicide. Unless liberals change, we can’t work with them – and even if they announce a change, we can’t trust them because we know they lie about everything all the time. Our best course of action is just rigid opposition to whatever they propose combined with a forthright argument in favor of our own cause. Let the voters decide which way to go – but if they choose us, then let us go our way, right down the line. This is, after all, just what liberals do – you might recall the dearth of argument for compromise in late 2008 and early 2009. If liberals have the power, they do as they please; if they don’t have the power, they demand we do as they please. No more of that. If we win, we do our thing – if the people reject us at the next election, so be it. But I don’t think they will – no more than the people of Wisconsin rejected Walker. Most people, as I said, are centrists and conservatives and so a center-right governing philosophy will always command majority support as long as it implemented (when center-right governments start acting liberal, they lose).

We’ll see how the next two years go. I’m hopeful that even our more RINOish Congressional leaders have learned a bit of a lesson. The harsh invective and unconstitutional actions of Obama supported by Reid should have, it is hoped, opened a few eyes. These people on the left are serious – and they are hate filled and dishonest, into the bargain. Keep them at arms length and just keep on pushing a center-right agenda. Maybe we lose – and that is fine; at least we’ll have lost on principal. But I think we’ll win – and in 10 years, we just won’t have these liberals to deal with any longer…they’ll be out; out of government subsidies, out of power, out of any ability to use hatred and lies to advance their agenda. And that will be good for America – and good for them, as well: it might make them start to re-think their views.

A 680 Member House of Representatives?

Mark Noonan

It is, at least, proposed:

The American public’s dislike of Congress is far from a new development in US politics. However, over the past few years the situation has gotten even worse with public approval of this institution hovering around historic lows.

The vast majority of citizens in this country think most members of Congress have lost touch with the people and don’t represent their interests. There are not many simple answers to remedy this problem but one change that might help bring members of Congress closer to the people is to increase the size of the US House of Representatives to 680 members.
One hundred years at 435 seats

For almost a century the House has consisted of 435 members. This seemingly permanent fixture of American politics often obscures the reality that during the first century of the country’s existence the House was increased almost every ten years after its original size of 65 members was established…

Of course, I’ve been yammering on about this for years. Over at Hot Air, Jazz Shaw reviews the proposal and counters with the idea that it might be better if we just got to some hard-to-game redistricting system. This is a good idea, but I’ve been advised since I was a teenager – and first got a bit outraged at gerrymandering – that there is no system which can’t be gamed by people with the right amount of shamelessness and dishonesty (ie, the general run of any political class).

We do, however, need to do something – quite clearly, regardless of which party is in power, the government and it’s attendant Ruling Class is entirely disinterested in the fate of the American people, and when it gets into the hands of the actually baleful (ie, the Obama Administration), the results can be rather catastrophic. To me, there isn’t just One Answer – there has to be a complete reworking of the system. In service of this, trying to make a harder-than-usual-to-game districting system is a good idea, but we also need to increase the size of the House (my preference these days is for 651 members) because a House member should be (a) someone who can actually be in touch with his constituents and (b), potentially, be someone who can run for the office on a shoestring relative to the cost of a Senate or gubernatorial office. But with redistricting and increasing the size of the House, term limits are a requirement or we’re just spinning our wheels. But here’s the part that will make a lot of people stop in shock – term limits just in the sense of saying “Congresscritter, you can’t be in office after Date X” isn’t good enough. Term limits must also include a prohibition against obtaining a different federal elective or appointive office for a period of time after leaving the current office. I’d say five years is a good time frame. You’re a Representative and coming to the end of your term limit (I’d limit House members to four, two-year terms) – see ya in five years. Until that time has passed, you can’t run for President or Senate, nor be appointed to a federal judgeship, nor take a position within the Executive Branch of government (five years it to make it unlikely in most cases that a person who leaves office will be able to be rewarded with a new federal office by gift of a grateful President). Yes, this does mean that a sitting Senator or such won’t be able to be selected for the Cabinet by the President – this, right there, would have spared us both Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of State Kerry; it also would have spared us President Obama. It would not, however, have spared us President Lincoln nor President Reagan – and for you liberals, it still would have allowed President Roosevelt and President Wilson.

But we can’t stop there. We need to go further and further into this, I’m afraid. We need more States. 50 just doesn’t cut it – especially since at least a dozen of them are not really States, but two or more States rather mashed together as the States were created in the 19th century – when national population wasn’t a third of its current level and the new States, especially, were largely empty of people and hadn’t had time to develope into organic politico-economic units. As I’ve said again and again, just in my State of Nevada it is starkly clear that the northern part of the State is vastly different in needs and outlook from the southern part. There is no reason that the people of Winnemucca should have to put up, for instance, with a Senator or governor elected on the strength of voters in Las Vegas – and vice-versa. Having more States would ensure that the State government are really representative of the people of the State rather than being representative of the large population centers within the States – it would make it so that Senators, especially, represent their States, rather than select special interests within the States (California’s Senators, for instance, are the merest tools of the monied interests in San Francisco and Los Angeles – the rest of the State has, in practical terms, no representation in the United States Senate).

It is, as we have seen, enormously difficult to maintain a democratic Republic – but part of our difficulty is that a great deal of power is held by a very small group of people representing only very narrow interests – and they can do this because the way our system is set up combined with the way our nation has developed from 3 million people on the east coast to 317 million people spread out of over 3 million square miles has allowed too much power to aggregate in just a few areas. California, Texas, Florida and New York have power far in excess of their aliquot portion because they carry far too much weight in Presidential and Senatorial elections…but, worse than that, all four of the States garner their power from just a few metropolitan areas – New York from New York City, California from Los Angeles and San Francisco, eg; in other words, the powerful in those States are wielding power they haven’t properly earned from the totality of the people within the States, because they can safely ignore a lot of the people as long as they please the particular people in the large, urban areas…and then take that excess, unearned power and apply it to the rest of the country. Breaking up the sources of power will allow more people access to the power – and thus to have a say in how things shall and shall not be done. In a democratic republic, political health is only possible if the largest possible number of people and interests have a say in governing. It does, of course, make for lumbering, slow and contentious government, but that is the only way to safety for a people wishing to remain free. It must be that we have to ask everyone’s brother for permission before we move – that way we have the best chance (though still not perfect, of course) of ensuring that national policy reflects the overall desires of the American people.

So, redistricting reform; term limits, increase the size of the House, increase the number of States. That has to be the ultimate plan for the political reform of the United States – if we don’t do this, then we will, as I said, be spinning our wheels. Those who have power right now will not want to give it up – and if the GOP wins on Tuesday, as everyone expects, then all you’ll see is the Ruling Class turning itself to the task of co-opting the new GOP powers-that-be, to ensure that they stay on board with things as they are (this is what killed the GOP revolution of 1994 – eventually, the GOP was captured by the system; for all the reformist zeal of the Class of ’94, they failed to recognize that only fundamental reforms will do – anything less than that, and the Ruling Class will eventually re-conquer).