Posted on 04/04/2015 11:38:36 AM PDT by Bratch
The problem with going third party is all the spineless “conservative” cowards who are too afraid to try, so they fallback on the Sisyphean “we have to reform the GOP from the inside!”
Ain’t gonna happen, folks.
If all the millions of so-called conservatives out there who *say* they’re mad at the GOP actually left and formed a third party, and joined with the other millions of conservatives and liberty lovers who have *already left* the GOP, you’d have something right there that would have a good shot at ending the GOP and replacing it.
But “we can’t do that, because third parties never win!”
Self-fulfilling prophecies are always the worst ones.
...
...
That's life, that's life
And I can't deny it
Many times I thought of cuttin' out but my heart won't buy it
But if there's nothing shakin' come here this July
I'm gonna roll myself up in a big ball and die ...
It's about entropy, the climate for conservative change and whether that change is reasonably possible at all.
Yeah what was the point to fight the war of America’s first Revolution against the world’s greatest super power at the time in the 1700s, the British, yeah, it’s a lost cause, we could not beat the British. Sarcasm
I think the error with this essay is a lack of historical context. And that can be uncomfortable viewing, but the end result is hopeful.
To start with, conservatives today are not like Goldwater conservatives, because the world is a very different place today than it was then. Nobody but radical leftists (well, maybe Putin) is upset that the Soviet Union collapsed.
The radical leftists in the US back then were *so* far left that they supported Soviet gulags, and wanted a US even more brutal, like Red Khmer Cambodia. They were hardcore fanatics like Angela Davis. The worst that can be said of today’s leftists, with a few exceptions, is that they are more like Mensheviks. Weakling socialists with profoundly naive and stupid ideas.
The Democrats have become little more than the part of sin, from the seven deadly sins to petty nuisance sin. That is their campaign platform, with no deep thought behind it.
Conversely, Republicans are now divided into the various flavors of conservatism, which overlap considerably, and the Whig-style Republicans, the current leadership, who have power but no will or spine.
With continued erosion, there really is no future for the Whigs. One way or another, they and their cronies have no future in the Republican party, because though they have deep pockets, their only platform is to stop conservatives from ascending to power, just to protect their cronies.
If Jeb Bush is elected, the truth is that he will carry the day with fewer than 10,000 wealthy contributors. Literally nobody other than they wants what he wants. There is no joy or hope in that. “Jeb will fill a much needed gap” is hardly a winning campaign slogan.
Yet the time of the Whigs is running out. With each election, at all levels, their numbers are decreasing. This last election, the Empire struck back, but it is losing the war. And the fewer there are, the more concentrated the efforts of conservatives are against them.
Sisyphus... indeed...
The confederal American Republic ended in 1913, after only 125 years. It is way past time to trash the subsequent democratic republic and return to our structural beginnings.
We can do the same as the Romans. Article V to repeal the 17A and reclaim the federal republic. There is no substitute.
Dismal prediction I don’t agree with, although it does contain a lot of useful information.
What America is experiencing now.
Thanks for the BEEP!
I, too, have a vision for the renewal of the Republic. Seemingly, one less Sisyphusian than other approaches. Or perhaps, a realistic way of making the other needful things less impossible.We must tame “the media.” Lots of luck, right? But what if a civil suit could bring it to book? That wouldn’t even require a single Republican politician. What would such a suit allege?
- The Associated Press, and its member news outlets, together represent a monopoly. Although the various news outlets package the product differently and in that sense are competitors, “the news” is a product of wire services (particularly but not exclusively the AP), and that product is the result of a conversation among the “competitors,” which inevitably - as Adam Smith told us in Wealth of Nations - has resulted in “a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices.”
- The conceit that journalism is objective is no part of the First Amendment and is not necessary for its rationale. Neither the First Amendment nor the rest of the Constitution implies a corresponding duty on anyone to tell the truth or to be objective. The constitutional regime places the onus on the reader to transcend Adam Smith’s warning (in Theory of Moral Sentiments:
"The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing."For that reason, a monopoly on journalism, or on a reputation for objectivity, is anathema to the First Amendment.
- Monopoly journalism naturally conspires against the public by exaggerating the virtue of journalism and journalists, and denigrating the competing claims to importance by entrepreneurs and others who work to a bottom line:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds.Journalists behave as critics, indeed as cynics; they despise the Theodore Roosevelt dictum above and far prefer the opposite, cynical formulation that “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”This tendency extends to systematic promotion of Democrats as “liberal,” “centrist,” or “moderate” and the denigration of Republicans as “right wing” or “extreme.” It extends to the systematic denigration of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, converting the name into a byword for “smearing" Democrats by telling the truth about them. Systematically, the journalism monopoly promotes fraudulent narratives which not only have been revealed to be false with the passage of time but were never supported by serious evidence in the first place. The Duke Lacrosse case, the Zimmerman case, the massive campaign against Sarah Palin, the list is endless and extends back through the valid claims of Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Communist influence in the government and through the Alger Hiss case.
- The federal government, and certainly the FCC and the FEC, have no authority to place the imprimatur of the government on political speech/press, nor to regulate political speech or press at all.
- It may be reasonably claimed that money is not “speech” - but there is no case that money is not essential to the workings of a press for ink, paper, reporters’ salaries, newspaper distribution, and for new printing presses. It follows that “Money is the Press” - and any regulation of political money is abridgment of the freedom of the press. “The press” in constitutional terms is not a right only of the AP and its member newspapers, but it is a right of any citizen who even might want to operate a newspaper, magazine, radio station, or TV station. Any other interpretation is elitist and proposes that journalists are either priests or noblemen.
- The justification and reason for the existence of the wire service was the economic distribution of news over very expensive telegraph bandwidth. The cost of worldwide data transmission bandwidth is now negligible in comparison, and the wire services are therefore in on sense “too big to fail.”
- As to the question of the constitutional status of modern publicity technologies the Constitution explicitly contemplates the promotion of “science and useful arts.” So although there is no case that the framers specifically accounted for the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, the television, or the computer and the worldwide web, if those technologies require regulation not contemplated in the First Amendment it is incumbent on the Congress and/or the States to amend the Constitution to authorize such regulation.
- the Constitution would not have been ratified, in the opinion of James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, had they not had the right to publish the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius.” And according to the Ninth Amendment,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. There is therefore no case for the claim (central to “Campaign Finance Reform”) that no one who indulges in freedom of the press may do so anonymously.
- For all these reasons the courts should delegitimate the wire services, granting crippling damage judgements against the AP and the other wire services, and their memberships.
Hes right the fight against the political greed for power is a unceasing one. But his supposed inflection points such as the Reagan revolution while they do happen, as he pointed out they clearly don’t accomplish much but buy a little time if that. Add to that and they only happen after democrats screwing things up so bad that we have no choice, even then they don’t fix the problem so we still lose ground over all and in the end the result is the same dictatorship.
Its really just a question of how much of our culture and demographic legacy we lose before we get there and to the next revolution.
Maybe letting it all collapse will end in dictatorship, maybe we can’t form a white army strong enough as to insure some part of our country remains free. But from the ashes of tyranny we have the seed of of a new revolution written in the cultural legacy of freedom provided that legacy still exist, and is not completely destroyed by forgoing centuries of leftist progressive tyranny.
Of course we can win. But people like this make it more difficult.
Someone has to lead the way.
Let’s ask ourselves the obvious question - in the event of a genuine, it-all-hits-the-fan situation, who do we think the military is going to support?
Obama and his cronies?
The military in which 85% of the personnel hate the guy’s guts? The military that he and his cronies have spent the last 6 1/2 years belittling, denigrating, insulting, and emasculating? The military whose morale he has destroyed through social engineering (gays in the military, etc.)? The military whose personnel he cannot even gin up enough respect for to salute them back when they do their duty? The military in which chaplains who speak in Jesus Christ’s name (who the large majority profess to believe in) are hounded and drummed out? The military which has a C-in-C who curries and caters to the Muslims that we have spend the last ten years fighting?
THAT military?
The ones who took an oath to protect and defend the *Constitution*, not the President personally?
Do we *really* think that military is going to just go along with rampaging through American neighbourhoods arresting gun owners or people who disagree with the President or whatever else?
Being one who believes what the Bible says, and how God’s plan for us includes the entire world becoming a cesspool, I also believe that we will not win other than some small victories. I would love to have President Cruz as a victory to be able to hang my hat on as we wend our way into the sewers before He returns to defeat the evil that the Left aids and abets as a matter of “principle”.
Ping to my #12.
BTTT
Peacefully possible?
No.
But still possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.