Sunday, February 10, 2008

Ron Paul Fallout from Libertarian perspectives

Libertarians in PA, are pondering, in part, these concepts with party divisions and libertarian leaning candidate in the R-party, Ron Paul. This is a merged post from M&M R (PA Libertarian Party leader) and Dan Sullivan, Pgh L and political friend.
Headline: McCain Moves Toward Republican Nomination

Sub headline: Libertarian Party Conducts Snide Antic

Some have said that Ron Paul has no place in the Republican Party. Dan posted, "It is fairer to say that he has no place in the American political process, period. Certainly he has gotten more attention and more support as a Republican Party than he could have gotten as an Libertarian Party candidate.

Dan feels that Libertarians could have great credibility as a philosophical movement, or as a political force that uses its party mechanism as one of the weapons in its arsenal.

Ron Paul has done far more to discredit the dominant warmongering, corporate-welfare big-government Republican than we (Libertarians) could ever hope to do within the Libertarian Party.

If Obama wins the D Party nomination, the race will effectively be over, thanks largely to how well Ron Paul forced the other Republicans to be explicitly in their
defense of Bush's war. Of course, if Hillary Clinton wins, it will just be a more competent warmongering corporate-welfare liberty-smashing administration against a less competent one. Incompetence being a virtue in such a situation, McCain might be the better choice.

Questions linger as to it Libertarianism has never been a prominent feature of the R Party.

-- Republicans in Pennsylvania introduced home rule, freeing counties and municipalities from top-down control by the state.

Libertarianism has not been dominant in recent times in American politics generally.

-- Eisenhower warned of the influence of the military-industrial complex.

-- Goldwater was a Presidential candidate.

-- Reagan paid some lip service.

Republican Presidents unduly used or expanded federal power or sat back while their corporate backers so trampled on individuals that government had to act with things like anti-trust legislation, pure food and drug legislation, and worker safety standards.

Congresses controlled by the R Party have been bad for liberty. Those who have been successful in getting to Congress have, for the most part, made matters worse, regardless of what party's mechanisms they used as stepping stones.

Libertarian Party Congressmen have not been guilty of betraying the public trust simply because there is no such thing as Libertarian Party Congressmen.

Yes, politics makes strange bedfellows, but is there virtue in our chastity if we offer ourselves up and have no takers? Are we really in a position to denounce those who failed in the sense of turning the country around, but whose successes vastly exceed the successes of those who work only within the LP? Dan doesn't think so.

The two-party system has not been imposed on our form of government; it is our form of government.

Leaving aside the additional injustices of discriminatory ballot-access laws, etc., the fact of the matter is that a winner-take-all electoral system is, de facto, a two-party system. It aways was, and it always will be. One does not change that reality merely by running a third party as if reality didn't matter, but by using every means at one's disposal to fundamentally change the structure of government itself.

To do that we need credibility and the confidence of the voters. While it may be fun to conduct these antics, I'm not sure it will help to convince anyone that the LP is the party representing the fundamental principles of American government.

That's not such a difficult task. The difficult task is to convince people that the LP actually matters. If, in order for us to matter, we must elect enough LP members that we actually control legislation, then we simply don't matter, period. However, if we can matter by shaping the debate and making major-party candidates explicitly state their unacceptable authoritarian views, as Ron Paul did, then we can matter
very much.

In other discussions:

Milwaukee GOP to Vote 'No' on McCain

According to a draft copy I have received, the Republican Party of Milwaukee County is penning a resolution to oppose Senator John McCain as the GOP nominee for President of the United States. The resolution will be proposed during their meeting on Monday, February 11, 2008.

The resolution includes a long list of grievances against McCain, including his past efforts towards illegal immigration, campaign finance reform, and tax increases. McCain has long been rejected by the Republican base and his success on Super Tuesday has apparently stirred that base into action. It is to be expected that once a front-runner has clearly emerged, the party base will rally; though normally they rally for their candidate, not against.

What may prove even more interesting is that the resolution is being penned by one of Milwaukee?s leading supporters of Ron Paul. With Romney stepping aside and clear disdain for McCain, will Republicans finally see Ron Paul as the only true conservative in this race?

One can only assume that the Milwaukee GOP is not alone in taking this action. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end for the media-anointed nominee John McCain. The question remains however, will it prove the beginning for the true conservative nominee Ron Paul? Only time will tell as Wisconsinites prepare for their own primary on February 19.

The draft resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS the Republican Party is founded upon the conservative political philosophy derived from the belief that individuals are endowed not by the government but by the Creator with certain unalienable rights and the belief that the Constitution of the United States of America is designed to guarantee the free exercise of these rights through strictly limiting the power of government whose powers are derived only from the consent of the governed, and

WHEREAS the Principles of Conservatism promote Liberty, Prosperity and Individual Freedom, and

WHEREAS the leading presidential candidate for the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, has consistently demonstrated a record of public service counter to the philosophy and principles of conservatism and the Republican Party. To prove this, let these facts be submitted.

He has colluded with Tom Daschle to vote against President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and joined leading liberal senators in offering and voting for amendments designed to undermine the tax cuts.

He has colluded with Russ Feingold to undermine the First Amendment to abridge citizens' free speech in the political process.

He has colluded with Vice-President Al Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman to expand greatly the power of government in order to combat global warming in ways that would greatly increase energy prices and negatively affect consumers.

He has colluded with Ted Kennedy to promote amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

He has colluded with Ted Kennedy and John Edwards to create the Patients Bill of Rights, which allowed the government to impose a set of onerous mandates on insurance coverage instead of allowing individuals to make their own decisions about healthcare plans in the marketplace.

He has undermined the principles of a free market economy by voting for an amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set prices on prescription drugs under Medicare.

He has voted to undermine American Sovereignty by granting consulting rights to Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence

He has a consistent pattern of shocking verbal abuse of Senate colleagues who oppose his bills.

He has exercised extremely poor judgment by intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating in the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s.

He sponsored and voted for a 282% tax increase on cigarettes that also would have increased the size of the federal bureaucracy exponentially.

He supports raising Social Security taxes.

He has promoted the granting of the unconstitutional line-item veto power to the president that tramples the constitutional separation of powers.

He has undermined the Republican Party and opposed the constitutional duties of the vice president to break a tie on judicial nominations.

He has demonstrated consistent leadership to undermine second amendment rights by his promotion of bills that regulate all sales at gun shows; that force gun-owners to purchase trigger locks making their firearms useless for self-defense; that restrict the legitimate transfer of firearms over the internet; and that extend the restrictions of the Brady bill to pawn shops and gun repair shops.

He has voted to use taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos.

He has refused to take immediate and direct action to protect the life of the unborn; he opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade; and by opposing a constitutional amendment to protect all human life.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Milwaukee County [branch omitted] opposes any effort to promote, support, or endorse Senator John McCain as the Republican nominee, and

RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Milwaukee County [branch omitted] will only support candidates who promote the philosophy and principles of conservatism in government, and promote Liberty, Prosperity and Individual freedom, and whom have consistently demonstrated a record of public service as evidence of their principled beliefs.

With perhaps a few exceptions, the vast majority of those in the LP are seeking to maximize individual liberty and minimize the role of the state. Of course there are different ideas on how to this is best achieved, but that should not be confused with wavering. I think this over-arching principle makes for a more coherent political party than most.

The LP is for the most part bereft of those wanting government to provide things like health care, retirement security, moral guidance through legislation, or legislative support of special interests. There are other political parties, including other non-mainstream parties, that work toward those goals.

Mik Robertson

No comments: