Constant Readers will notice that I finally emerged from my state of denial and took down the link to Fred Thompson’s web site today. I also mailed in my absentee ballot for next Tuesday’s “Super-Duper” primary. Fred was on it, as was Duncan Hunter. Both are out of the race, and although Alan Keyes’ name was listed, I wasn’t even aware he was running again. This year’s election is vital to the future of America and the course of our history. We are literally playing for mortal stakes as a society. Yet, despite the importance of who will supplant the Bush dynasty—will it be a continuation of the Clinton dynasty?—I am unable to summon any real interest in the candidates, liberal or conservative. This goes to the heart of one of my basic rules in life—Robert’s Rules of Order, if you will: The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I’m a conservative Libertarian. That’s not a political designation that I’m making up out of whole cloth; in fact, I consider it a redundancy. I’m an “old-school” Libertarian, i.e. one who subscribes to and lives by the original philosophies of Ayn Rand. As such, political parties, including the modern Libertarian political entity, are anathema to me. To paraphrase Groucho Marx on country clubs: I wouldn’t belong to any political party that would have me as a member. As a conservative, I believe we should be guided by what Lincoln called the better angels of our natures; as a Libertarian I believe that we should be free to discover these inner angels without government edict or interference. Rand put it fairly simply: the task of government is to coin money, and to provide for the common welfare, i.e. national security from threats, foreign or domestic. That’s it, folks. All the rest of today’s governmental fiat is superfluous at best, and outright meddling or persecution at worst. “A is A”; human nature is what it is, and people will do what they want, regardless of laws to the contrary. This was proven by the Volstead Act [Prohibition] in the early 20th century, and continues to be proven daily by the contemporary fiasco of “the war on drugs.” (Here’s a radical suggestion: let’s legalize drugs—all drugs—and let those inclined to take them do so until they OD and take themselves out of the gene pool. The profit motive would be gone for the gangsters, and so would the need to create new generations of drug-dependent users. Just as there are always going to be alcoholics, there will be a minority of drug addicts, but overall statistics would decline dramatically.)
In the perfect storm of hype, rhetoric, and outright hatred that’s raging around the 2008 presidential campaigns, I have picked up one resonant gem from the countless pundits that are nattering on: The conservative coalition is divided into three camps; national security, economics, and social/moral values. There is no single conservative presidential candidate who can embody anything resembling a philosophical adherence to all three areas of concern. (I am totally dismissing the Democrats, and will get to that momentarily.)
I have to put myself firmly in the national security camp. That includes the “war on terror”, and securing the borders, which is integral to national security. This is in keeping with Ayn Rand’s assertion that the primary mandate of government is to provide for said national security. I am not much affected by economic considerations. I don’t play the markets, I don’t have extensive investments, and my main concern is that the overall cost of living a hand-to-mouth existence rises faster than the COLAS [Cost Of Living Allowances] built into my pension. As Rand did, I am content to let the business moguls sort through the complexities of international trade and finance, and decide what is best for them. I follow Al “Li’l Abner” Capp on this: “What’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!” Rand stressed the same point: if the capitalist captains of industry are doing well, then there will be true “trickle-down” economics, and everyone else will live a dramatically improved life. Don’t believe me? Ask anyone who works for Microsoft, Apple, or any company that started in a garage 30 years ago and now employs thousands. You don’t have to have a good idea to benefit from it; you just have to let the idea grow according to the vision of the person who did have it. We don’t need governments to decide how business is conducted among those who are free to do so. I realize that the issues of international trade are more complex than I am describing here; I’m trying to provide sweeping generalizations to make a point.
The “social values/moralization” camp worries me least. As I just said in “A is A” above, people are gonna do what they’re gonna do. I’m pro-drug-legalization, and yet resent abortion as an affront to life; I know that people are going to do either, no matter what some august body of lawmakers says. Given the direction of their respective moral compasses, people will find the right direction according to the values they believe in. Someone vying for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. does not need to concern him/her self with this as an issue for election. It will work itself out, and is a red herring when we’re playing for mortal stakes against people who want to see us dead for the simple fact we exist.
By the lights of today’s pundits, I should be firmly on the side of John McCain, who shakes out as the “national security” guy. He also has a solid record as pro-life [anti-abortion]. The man is a war hero. He was a POW, and endured the unendurable. I will not vote for John McCain. I consider him a person of honor. His name is attached to too many pieces of questionable legislation in the Senate. He shares a common fault with Bush the Elder: he is a professional politician, and too quick to make a deal across the aisle or with fanatical liars who want us dead at the next turn of a homicide bomber on a crowded subway. Bush the Elder was a war hero who went places defying the imagination when he was a 19-year-old Naval aviator; he parlayed that into a long political career. His major failing was that he made deals with Democritters, and caved on vital promises. Blood in the water, he was quickly consumed by the coming-from-nowhere Clinton dynasty, Part I. He betrayed the legacy of Ronald Reagan, who was the last president to embody all three of the “camps” described above.
Mitt Romney is the economics guy. He’s a brilliant CEO, which is what an American president really is. He has a different flavor of personal belief; he’s a Mormon. Maybe I should add the ! I am diametrically opposite in my personal relationship with God, but my Libertarian pragmatism leads me to believe that he’s the cleanest of the conservative candidates. McCain is trying to paint him as a flip-flopper, al la
John Kerry, but that doesn’t fly at the Possum Den. I have been through too many personal crises of conscience to stick him for changing his mind. I am hoping that his waffling is based on evolving personal belief, but then, we are dealing with presidential politics, so anything is possible.
Mike Huckabee is the social values/morality guy. I like him. The polls are saying that he’s winning in Georgia. He doesn’t stand a chance in Hell—no pun intended—against the Hildebeast, and running on a ticket against “immorality” is a quick way to become marginalized. People are going to do what they want in their personal lives, and you, I, the federal government, or God His Own Self can’t stop them. I would love to have Rev. Huckabee as pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Blairsville. I also like John McCain in his position as senator in the United States Congress. I don’t want either for my president.
The Georgia ballot, especially the absentee version, gives you a Chinese menu: one from column A, one from column B; Democritter or Republican. Guess which I ordered. My ballot’s in the mail. (I love saying that to creditors: “The check’s in the mail.”) No write-ins; no Libertarians. Okay; the check’s in the mail…I chose a Republican, although my first choices are gone.
(Alan Keyes was on my ballot. Was he even running? I like him; I didn’t notice.)
As promised, I’ll address Hildebeast/Osama Bamalama for a moment. I know Barack Obama’s given name. I continually play off a faux pas
by Ted Kennedy: it’s ironic that a year ago he thought the man’s name was “Osama”, and this year he is supporting him for president. I got “Osama Bamalama” from Ted Kennedy. I could care less that he’s a black person; that’s for the revelation of the liberal mindset to those who think about where their vote is going. The Draft Dodger and his wife’s machine care about racial politics; I care about the welfare of the American people. I became literally ill and had to turn off the Kennedys rock ‘n rolling about a “force for change” with Osama Bamalama when they trumpeted their endorsement last week. I have personal issues; the last thing I need to see is a fat, alcoholic murderer screeching on national TV about any specific topic of national interest. The Kennedy endorsement of Bamalama was a stomach-churning event.
Osama Bamalama and Hildebeast are two sides of the same coin. Again, as with the Chinese menu, take one from Column A, and one from Column B. (I stole that “Hildebeast” reference from a contributor to ScrappleFace, but it perfectly describes the honorable senator from New York. The Bible refers to many anti-Christs; she is one, as I live and breathe.)
Flip a coin; you get heads or tails. Heads or tails, you’ll get the Hildebeast and Osama Bamalama as a Democritter alternative this fall. I have no doubt that a black or woman can be president of the United States; these guys scare the bejabbers out of me. I always thought Shirley Chisolm would have made a wonderful president; she embodied the best of both ideologies.
Now we have two sides of the same coin; no matter which liberal wins the nomination, they will take a McGovernesque path and sell our troops out. The United States Army won the domino war against Communist terrorism in the field in Vietnam, but those tactical victories were bargained away at a “diplomacy” table in Paris. These days, they teach that we "lost" that war. Will shameless teachers have grounds to say that about Iraq in the future?
The war in Iraq was ill-conceived and ill-planned. I have not been a big “fan” of it. I know better; with our technological wherewithal, we can jump in and kick someone’s ass before they can find it with both hands. To deny this fact is to offer a white flag to the jihadists. They don’t want white flags; they want surrender, slavery, and death or servitude to Allah [dhimmitude].
For a liberal to take office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. now, and sell our troops out, is unthinkable. There was a sign, written on a cardboard C–rat carton, posted above the chaplain’s office, in Na Trang, Vietnam: “It ain’t much of a war, but it’s all we have.”
I have been living in denial that Fred dropped out of the presidential race. My imagination is too vivid: I see either side of the Democrat coin being awakened as president to some crisis like the Iranian navy buzzing our fleet in the Persian Gulf. I am Mr. Doom’n Gloom; continued inattention to our borders, and continual Political Correctness is going to result in a catastrophe. A Democrat president will awake sniveling that “they didn’t talk to us first.”
No, they set a nuke off at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Akron, Ohio, first. Then it’s up to the liberal Commander-in-Chief to burst into tears, and display sensitivity. Negotiations will continue. Islam is a religion of peace… yadda, yadda.
A threat to the public welfare of the United States is not solved by negotiation. This is the truly righteous form of government for this nation of laws, and I am enamored of the idea of a smart bomb through some loud-talking mullah’s
bedroom window. This isn’t the way to conduct international diplomacy; then, again, I ain’t running for nothing. There are people out there who want to see me and mine dead; I will oblige them soon enough; leave my progeny alone. There are people out there who will die to affect the demise of the 90% Christian belief of the American people.
Nothing good will come of this presidential election. No matter who wins, America loses.
On my desk, I have a crystal paperweight. It is cubic, and contains an antique engraving of a Victorian librarian reading a book in his care. Next to the engraving is a quote from the Roman historian, Cicero: “A room without books is like a body without a soul.”
I own over 15.000 books. I have books that languish in cardboard boxes, because I don’t have space to unpack them.
Point is, beneath this paperweight, there rests a paper $100 bill in United States currency. Possession of this artifact began as a vanity upon my retirement, but it quickly morphed into a bet.
I am not what you’d call Bob Seeger’s “Gamblin’ Man”. I hate to lose. I only bet sure things.
The last few elections, I have offered my liberal friends the wager: bet on the good sense of the American people, or bet on some party ideology. You win, I’ll put the $100 bill into an envelope and mail it via the first snail mail. Otherwise, you owe me $100 or a decent steak dinner, and possibly train fare to the city of my choice, whichever come first.
I always won. No one would take my bet. I wagered on the good sense and decency of the American people, and I floated my bet against liberals with “progressive” ideas.
Not this year. At the suggestion of my lib friend, Red Liz, that $100 is going to the USO [link at right on the sidebar], so it will benefit our troops in the field. I am not betting this year. I may be a victim of the media, but I am not betting the good sense of America.
The media tells me John McCain will challenge the Hildebeast and Osama Bamalama. Good for him.
The most important thing a true conservative can do is heed the next token of advice:
The President is not a king. They are not elected for life, and they have no absolute control. They are a figurehead who is a glorified CEO. They can be overridden by Congress, which is the crux of the matter.
We will lose the White House to media-darling fools who will gamble with the lives of hapless American citizens for their own political agendas.
What we, as any sort of caring conservatives, must do, is gain back the Congress. The House and the Senate are where the laws are made and legislation is introduced. Pelsosi and her gang of do-nothings are holding their collective breath as though whoever shakes out the White House means, in Grace Slick’s lyric, “shit to a tree.”
It means nothing. Congress can override a presidential veto. The American system is based on checks and balances; I’ve taught this precept to high school kids.
We [conservatives of whatever flavor, including Libertarians] are going to lose this election. It’ll be similar to Nixon and Kissinger handing away militarily strategic victories at the “negotiation” desk in Paris.
There is an obscure French political philosophy which is about the only thing French I’ll embrace: Elect the worst possible leaders at the earliest possible opportunity. That way, your Republic will survive the worst corruption, venality, and cowardice that the most misguided of your populace can concoct in the easily misled public mind.
America will only wake up when we are brought to our knees. My traditional $100 bet will go to the United Service Organizations [USO—link at right on the sidebar], where it will do some good for the troops who are defending the rights of morons like “Code Pink” to ban Marine recruiters from Berserkley, Californication. They have shown their appreciation for our front-line troops by calling them “mass murderers” and attempting to ban Marine recruiters from the vicinity of Berkley, People’s Republic of California.
Okay, they have a right to say such rubbish. There are plenty of right-thinking Americans, including moi
, who think they are so loaded up with Left-wing propaganda that they can’t see straight.
It’s this inability to see clearly, and realistically, that has me quaking in my boots. I am in the uncomfortable position of not betting on the common sense of the American public. My traditional $100 will go to the USO.
There is another classic life-lesson that comes into play here: You will get the government you deserve. For Democritters or Republicans, this is a dismal prospect. The Democritters have two sides of the same coin; flip it, you get Osama Bamalama and the Hildebeast. A McCain-Whoever ticket ain’t going to beat them. I am going to “waste” my vote on the Libertarian candidate, and American society will suffer the worst for their choice of a Democrat or Republican. I feel like a Founding Father; there is no true representation.
My conscience will win. My fellow citizens will lose. Another of Robert’s Rules of Order is “Don’t vote, don’t complain.” I love to gripe, so my meager vote is being cast. I urge my constant readers to do the same: as the saying goes, vote early and vote often.