![Why I am Caucusing for Ron Paul]()
by Steven Waechter | Dec 21, 2011
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom…..And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.â€
– Barry Goldwater, Conscience of a Conservative
Perhaps more than any other politician of the twentieth century, Barry Goldwater captured the essence of the American spirit – ferocious independence. This spirit depends upon the Constitution for its life and energy. Without our Constitution, our nation is nothing more than another geographic location; nothing but more real estate.
The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party has been asleep for decades, as the economists espousing Keynesian and Chicago School theories on the benefits of inflation became trendy and the American political aristocracy banished the Constitution to the wilderness, to be replaced with a holy mission to spread democracy with armed drones and replace civil liberties with state-managed dependency – what Barack Obama once referred to as “positive rights.â€
Our nation is bankrupt; the unemployment rate is falling, not because people are finding work but because people are giving up and staying at home. While we still import millions of barrels of oil every day, we now export refined gasoline. As the Federal Reserve printed money to inflate the tech bubble, the housing bubble, five military conflicts, the bailout, the wealth conflagration referred to as the Stimulus, and the Treasury bonds sold to raise the money to pay the interest on the bonds sold to pay the interest on the bonds that were sold by Lyndon Johnson. The M2 supply (the number of dollars floating around out there) has more than doubled in the last ten years; as a result each individual dollar is now worth less. By doing nothing more than holding Canadian currency, the Canadian people now have the purchasing power to essentially outbid us for our own gasoline. This is what inflation looks like.
Prior to 1964 no American politician had ever referenced inflation in a political advertisement, and then Barry Goldwater did it. As Lyndon Johnson proposed to pay for a war in Vietnam and the Great Society programs of increased social spending, Barry Goldwater condemned the entire charade as a swindle, a hoax, and a fraudulent promise of perfect prosperity – if we print enough money, we will all be rich.
As the 1960’s gave way to the 1970’s, the bills began to fall due, and the government realized that its promises exceeded it’s abilities. With little more than a speech, Richard Nixon took us off of the gold standard. As it turned out, William McChesney Martin (then the Federal Reserve Chairman) had printed so much money to pay for Johnson’s war on poverty that the gold reserves were no longer adequate to back it up. Bye-bye gold standard.
Hello fiat currency. Since 2001, the Fed has expanded our money supply by upwards of $6 trillion dollars. They distributed it to the government – to pay for social programs that are necessary, not perhaps for our national strength, but for the reelection of our politicians, as well as to banks so that they could write mortgages to people who couldn’t pay them back. Nobody cared if the mortgages went bad; the banks had sold them to Fannie Mae, created by the government in 1939 specifically to buy mortgages from banks. Then, in 2008, the Federal Reserve printed the money needed to buy to bonds the Treasury needed to sell in order to fund the bailout of Fannie Mae and the banks.
In his pamphlet “Conscience of a Conservative,†Goldwater blasted what he called delusional dreams of the “Jacobins and leftists.†We in the conservative movement are not supposed to be allowed the luxury of idle utopian dreams, be they making the world safe for democracy, or making our domestic economy so wealthy (through housing and stimulus) that we simply wouldn’t need to save money, manufacture things, or export anything other that Treasury bonds. These goals are fantasies; they have led us to quagmires of humiliation, poverty, and degradation.
Will anyone dare to ask Barack Obama why, when the United States was consistently running trade deficits in excess of $40 billion per month, he believed our problem was a lack of demand? Will anyone ask why he simply assumed that if we paid people to buy new (foreign-made) cars, then our economy would improve? A trade deficit, by simple, logical definition, is the consumption of goods in excess of your ability to produce. Stimulus accomplished nothing more than the further impoverishment of the nation. Who will challenge Barack Obama on this issue?
Enter our Republican candidates, most of whom seem to think that we desperately need to print money to pay for a war with Iran. Is this really the best we can do? A choice between inflationary games to pay for socialism, and inflationary games to pay for a war that we cannot otherwise afford and could easily be prevented? Only one candidate warned of the inflationary bubble in housing as early as 2001. Only one candidate understands the fundamental problem of our economy – too much debt; too little production. Too much urgent government initiative; too little freedom.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.†Barry Goldwater was roundly condemned as an extremist for these sentiments. We live in an age of bankruptcy, fear, and disappointment. Candidates of firm conviction, shrewd talents, or competent judgment are frequently passed over in favor of the candidates with the darkest nightmares, the most delusional promises, or the most artificial of Cheshire Cat grins, with their insistence that spending borrowed money will make us rich and powerful, and if you disagree then you are clearly a cynical malcontent, playing politics at a time when action is required; that is American politics in the 21st Century.
The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party – fanatical adherents to the Constitution, ferocious nationalists, resolute defenders of liberty and individual rights- has been asleep for decades. Without our Constitution, the United States of America is nothing more than real estate. The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party is awake now; and they demand to be taken into account. So far, only one candidate has.
Photo Courtesy of Dave Davidson, his fabulous work can be viewed at http://prezography.blogspot.com/
![Why I am Caucusing for Ron Paul]()
by | Dec 20, 2011
Possibly the most common question I hear from friends and neighbors this year is, “Who do you like for President?â€.  I rarely answer this question in a direct fashion because I am not interested in persuading someone to vote a certain way based on my own thinking.  I would prefer to see anyone who sincerely cares about their vote to gain an understanding of the candidates and their positions, and to vote based on how what they learn aligns with their personal convictions.
This may seem like an odd perspective in this day and age, especially with the current mega-rush by so many people to endorse a candidate.  For some, their endorsement has become almost a status symbol; if your endorsement makes the news, then you must be important.  And yet, some here in Iowa have become known because of their refusal to endorse, most notably the Governor (Terry Branstad) and one of the leaders in the Christian activist world, Steve Scheffler.
I don’t wish to condemn those who offer endorsements because I believe that some are very sincere in believing that they have a responsibility to act as leaders in our party and community by pointing the way.  If one is strongly engaged with a campaign, that provides even more reason to provide an endorsement.  And frankly, we do live in an imperfect world where a large portion of the electorate would prefer not to spend any time researching their choices, but rather be told who to vote for.
However, it seems that choosing a candidate based on endorsements is about as helpful as supporting the top polling candidate.  What you are doing in essence is voting for the most popular candidate… trying to be on the winning team, instead of supporting the candidate you truly believe is worth your support.  There is no shame in voting for the candidate you think is best to lead the country even if they are polling at .5% and have no endorsements.  Your vote is a reflection of you, not others.
The Conservative Reader is here to inform, to question, to promote good policy ideas and condemn bad ones. Â We want to encourage our readers to gain knowledge and understanding as a process toward making sound individual decisions.
We want you, our readers, to make your own choices rather than simply taking direction from us.  We don’t know what’s best for you, only you do.  We cherish our system of government including your role in deciding who our leaders should be.
Our policy on endorsements at TCR is this: we endorse ideas, not people. We may talk about people (and frequently do), but what we talk about what they say and do.
Some of our writers will provide their perspective here, and perhaps may even state that they have an endorsement (John Bloom recently endorsed a candidate, although has not discussed it here at TCR). Â Editorially, we have no intent of keeping our writers from speaking their mind, but we also expect the writers to provide perspective on their choices.
The Conservative Reader itself, and I personally, will not be endorsing any candidates for any office. Â We hope you will make your own choice thoughtfully.
Image © iQoncept – Fotolia.com
![Why I am Caucusing for Ron Paul]()
by | Dec 5, 2011
While not big news that Iowa Republicans don’t wait with bated breath for the Des Moines Register to anoint a Republican candidate the cream of the presidential crop, in recent years their recommendations have barely risen above laughable fodder. Since we could all use some comic relief from this seemingly endless campaign season, let’s take a look back at the Register’s recent forays into Presidential advocacy. What follows are two main reasons, among many others, why they should stick to merely reporting on the political pulse of Iowa—instead of trying to alter it.
Reason #1 – A Sketchy, Schizophrenic History
While nearly all the data on editorial board endorsements show that they have a miniscule impact, if any at all, well over 70% of newspapers insist on letting readers in on their intense, well researched, and agenda free vetting. Though a nightmare for the hard journalism side of the paper, the hubris of editors and the short term buzz created by endorsements proves, cycle after cycle, too intoxicating to deny. Clearly I have no problem with public expressions of political opinion. If a newspaper wants to engage in it in spite of the fact it is counter-intuitive to their charter, then they have every right. However, one does have to wonder if it’s too much to expect for them to undertake the process with a minimal amount of intellectual honesty. Consider the following examples, all from the Des Moines Register’s editorial board since the year 2000.
• When contrasted against a Democrat, they have not deemed any Republican candidate fit for the White House in the last three cycles—opting for Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008.
• Of the Republican primary field in 2000 they chose, believe it or not, George W. Bush. Beyond the massive irony, what’s interesting is that they chose Bush over fellow competitor John McCain, describing McCain as “having a tendency toward petulance when the cameras were off, and a lone-wolf style of action that has left him without the support of colleagues who should be his biggest admirersâ€. Never mind that eight years later he was chosen by the editorial board as the best choice amongst Republicans in 2008—though of course he ultimately fell short of recommending.
• In 2004 The Register had sized up John Edwards and concluded that he would make the finest president amongst the group, giving him the nod over all other Democrats running. Somehow over the next four years, he had regressed so far in his ability to lead the Country that when he came back in 2008 they couldn’t recommend him. Not only did they bump him from their top spot they slid him behind both Hillary Clinton and Obama, saying they “too seldom saw the ‘positive, optimistic’ campaign we found so appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.†Something tells me the editorial board doesn’t have quite the same problem with the “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric†being screamed by the Occupy Wall Street crowd today.
• Also in 2004, in what would prove to be perfect foreshadowing for their future love affair with Barack Obama, the paper, as mentioned above, endorsed John Edwards over the rest of the field. In doing so they wrote that after initially discounting Edwards because of his lack of experience, they changed their minds after hearing him eloquently speak about the needs of ordinary Americans—you can’t make this stuff up! Clearly their weakness/hunger for the fool proof combination of inspired speech giving and inexperience had not been quenched by the time 2008 rolled around. This leads us to the biggest piece of evidence that all the Register is accomplishing is insulting our intelligence…
Reason #2- Â The 2008 Debacle
While the preceding examples were shady, The Register’s editorial board performance in 2008 showed beyond a reasonable doubt not only where their allegiance lay, but that the whole point of their endorsements are to further an agenda. They ended up of course endorsing Barack Obama in the general election, but it’s the way they got there that is so telling.
First, they chose Hillary over Obama on the Democrat side, while endorsing McCain over the rest of the field on the Republican side. I don’t doubt that the selection of McCain was largely due to him being the most moderate Republican in the field (though strangely he was a disturbing ‘petulant, lone-wolf actor’ eight years earlier), but he also would have been a “safe†choice at the time because he was polling in single digits and in 5th place. Picking a Republican that would not go on to win the nomination, like McCain appeared to be at the time, would have kept them out of the undesirable situation they eventually found themselves in—having to endorse their second Democratic pick over their first Republican choice (Obama over McCain).
Embarrassed and knowing they had to explain it away somehow, they managed to make themselves look even worse. They acknowledged the situation and explained their reasoning by claiming they had endorsed McCain because they felt he was a man of honor—but as the campaign wore on he became opportunistic and less dignified. What they cited as the biggest reason of why McCain was out for them was his selection of Sarah Palin. They did this, I kid you not, on the grounds of her inexperience! So to recap…The inexperience of a VP candidate turned them off enough that they instead chose to support, for the actual presidency, a man who had served less than four years in the Senate.
A great way to sum up the whole disingenuous circus is that while selecting McCain in the primary they said, “none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.†Contrast that with this insight as to why Hilary Clinton was a wiser choice than Obama, “When Obama speaks before a crowd he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead. You have to give them credit there–that was some impressive foresight.
Conclusion
Former Des Moines Register opinion editor Richard Doak, who authored the 2004 Edwards endorsement, summed it up best in a later interview. Sharing his thoughts on the process he said, “The primary purpose of editorials are to stimulate discussion in the community… and it’s a vehicle through which the newspaper expresses its values.â€
Trust me Richard, Iowa Republicans are plenty aware of the Des Moines Register’s “valuesâ€. Perhaps if they used any manner of consistency in the endorsement process, beyond of course the consistency of their Liberalism, maybe more Iowans would “value†the paper enough to start buying it again.
![Why I am Caucusing for Ron Paul]()
by | Nov 28, 2011
Four months ago as the Republican field began to form and potential candidates began poking around Iowa, a major issue they were forced to address was ethanol. Thankfully the conversation has since developed from a fringe stereotypical issue like ethanol to more serious and pressing issues like illegal immigration.
If in a vacuum and in absence of other big problems ethanol subsidies may be a valid issue to talk about.  A variety of factors, however, make it a silly topic to debate. First, the economy is in tatters and we have seen the result of politically driven subsidies on the other side with the Solyndra debacle. Second, we are now over 15 trillion dollars in debt and, beyond being irresponsible, pumping borrowed money to prop up an industry is both nonsensical and in direct opposition to Conservative philosophy. Third, a majority of Iowans don’t even support financially supporting ethanol at this point.
Immigration on the other hand has been a national outrage on both sides of the isle for over five years. The failure to deal with it one way or another not only has direct economic consequences, it unquestionably is an issue included in the Federal government’s charter–the Constitution.
Not by accident, Mr. Gingrich has brought the immigration debate back to the front burner by bringing it up in the CNN National Security Debate last week. You could almost see Mitt Romney’s eyes light up as Gingrich made the political ”mistake” of voicing his true opinion. Seeing a rare chance to get to the right of a fellow candidate, Romney acted aghast that someone would consider letting illegals who have been here for over 20 years stay rather than be deported or jailed–never mind that this was nearly his exact position four years ago.
Watching the media operate on this story for the last five days has truly been a case study in how pathetic they can be. First, it is infuriating to hear them repeatedly characterize this as a “mis-step”. No my pointy headed friends, voicing your longstanding opinion on an issue during a primary is not a “mis-step”–its the point of the process. Acting like this was some kind of huge blunder assumes that the purpose of a primary is to just say a bunch of things that everybody in your party agrees with. If you think for yourself (yes you Mitt), sometimes you find your opinion differs from the conventional wisdom. When this occurs a politician has two choices, they can either change their opinion (sound familiar Mitt), or articulate it and try to bring the electorate toward their belief.
In terms of illegal immigration you would have a tough time finding someone more hard-line on the issue than myself. I deal daily in an industry that largely exists on illegal labor and can prove my bona-fides with the fact that my front yard, for a time in 2008, was home to a Tom Tancredo for president sign. Having said that, a little less than two years ago I came to the conclusion that the issue was not ever going to be fixed without a scenario that included many illegals staying in America. While they are too numerous to get into here, the two main reasons are the massive volume of illegals and that the Democrat party is, to their very core, committed to pandering to them.
In my view, having accepted the realities involved, the real issue is achieving the steps necessary to permanently solve the problem before decriminalizing long-time, otherwise crime-free, illegals. To me these steps should include passing harsh penalties for future border crossings, implementing intense bankruptcy risking fines for companies hiring illegals, and an actual double-sided, full border fence.
While I don’t support the Gingrich idea of “citizen boards” to determine deportation–coming up with some sort of process, provided the prior mentioned steps have been taken, is a logical place for the debate to occur. Ironically the second major failure of the media is not pointing out that Gingrich’s “de-criminalization” status for some illegals is only to take place after the border is secure. While he does not define “secure”, his platform states the goal for doing this would be January 1st of 2014.
Since the media remains largely useless in honestly informing citizens on the true substance of what is taking place, every voter has the responsibility to research the issues and the candidate’s actual stances on their own. While in the end it may be that many fellow Republicans will not agree with Newt’s, and largely my own, position on tackling the illegal immigration problem, he deserves credit for honestly and openly expressing his opinion.
How it plays out for him remains to be seen, but one thing that’s certain is this is a debate worth having…the same couldn’t be said for ethanol subsidies.
![Why I am Caucusing for Ron Paul]()
by Brian Nygaard | Nov 1, 2011
A fine line exists between the seemingly simple notions of greed and self-interest. It might be concluded that greed is a subset of the broader concept of self-interest. Alternatively, some may say that there is no difference between the two. Irrespective of the choice of definition, it is universally observable that human beings are driven by WIIFM (“What’s in it for me?â€). With a very few noteworthy exceptions, we all seek, as the Austrian School economist Ludwig Von Mises summarized, the “elimination of personal discomfort.â€
At a recent trip to the local high school track, I had occasion to observe an interesting set of father and son scenes. Both dads were teaching their sons to hit a baseball. The differences in the results could not have been more starkly different. While both of the boys were of similar age (about seven) and stature, one of them was pounding the ball into the outfield, and the other missed almost every swing. It was apparent, as it relates to their athletic ability, there was a disparate allocation of giftedness. If the game was changed, and the object was shifted to art or academics or whatever, the results would likely have been much different. But the point is the same. We are each born with a wide variety of aptitudes, interests, giftedness, personal attractiveness and assorted other abilities…and liabilities
This picture is an almost perfect metaphor for the underlying problem faced by every society in every era. No matter where we look, we find something that appears “unfair.†Someone else possesses something of value that we do not. And even though we all know we are possessors of other important “things,†the perceived lack of parity is natively and deeply bothersome.
This bit of reflecting brings us to the recent activities of the Occupy Wall Street throng. While it is difficult to determine any level of coherent message coming from the group, the word “greed†seems central to their posturing. This same greed theme was echoed in a question that came from the Washington Post journalist at a recent Republican debate. The essence of the question was “Isn’t it a problem that no Wall Street executives are in jail over the financial meltdown?†The inference was apparently that greed has now become a crime punishable by imprisonment. That the banking and securities regulations allowed for forty-to-one leverage on A-tranche CMOs (backed by residential mortgage debt) is apparently (at least in the retrospective view of this journalist), irrelevant. Something “bad†happened and therefore someone must be jailed. The crime was greed. Justice must been served.
One thing is clearly certain: If greed is now a crime, we are going to need to build a bunch more prisons.
The beautiful thing about the rule of law is that greed is never on trial. And it can never be on trial. If it were, we would all be in jail. Self-interest, to the point of something resembling greed, is in our very nature. The pursuit of self-interest is what brings satisfaction to our lives. Our ability to pursue our own very personal ends, consistent with our native gifts, abilities and circumstances, is the pure manifestation of personal liberty.
If the Occupy Wall Street protestors were incensed with perceived or real corruption, or the obvious violation of laws, or even some type of “abuse of power,†the situation would look very different. If they could actually defend their case, it might even lead to meaningful and positive change. My sense is, however, that if the protestors were offered a pot of money to just go away, they would abandon their current quest in a nanosecond.
Systems of economic social justice that focus on greed (and protests with similar themes) are always doomed to fail. And they fail because they always end in some type of war, broadly defined. When the attention of a society becomes fixated on economic outcomes (and economic disparities), and not those things that bring about true quality of life, major trouble is right around the corner. When the focus of life becomes not “what each of us has,†but rather “what the other guy has†we enter a mindlessly downward spiral.Â
It is exceptionally important to work towards a just and equitable system of economic social justice. The place to start in that endeavor, however, is not with an overpowering emotion – our indomitable sense of unfairness in the face of the general “riches†of others. Rather, the place to start is in a much more practical approach to lifting the overall quality of life of the most economically powerless amongst us.
The personal responsibility-based capitalistic systems of economics are certainly flawed, at least in part, by their reliance on self-interest. But they meet the objective of best serving the interests of all the participants, including those who start with very little. The greed-based systems supported by liberals and progressives are always completely flawed, as they have been proven to bring universal misery. They meet the objective of personal equality at a price that no one is willing to pay.
When greed becomes the motivator in any political and economic debate, the result is always lose-lose. The Occupy Wall Street folks should be more focused on meeting the needs of real people (of whatever description they chose), than on the perceived character flaws of a narrowly selected group of capitalists. They happen to share the same flaws as their alleged tormentors.
Page 4 of 17« First«...23456...10...»Last »
