RoR: Forum

Steve:

It is the horrors of ObamaNation that is waking the people up.

Maybe so. Which may explain why a Republican actually has a shot of winning a seat in the most liberal state of the nation. The seat that was occupied by the most liberal senator in American history.

Would anyone actually expect the people of Massachusetts to ever elect a libertarian with those facts to consider?

Has anyone here been to that state?

Post 21

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 2:18pm

Jay,

You said, "I wish I could agree with Steve W's hopefulness about such atrocities helping define the debate on free enterprise and government, but I see that even as the debate may be defined... it is being consistently lost in a tsunami of awful government actions."

My point was that the tsunami of awful government actions (to use your words) is the very trigger of the debate being defined in this much broader frame. People are talking about small government Capitalism versus progressivism or socialism - instead of Republican versus Democrat. That change is critical since without it we could never succeed in a major step forward. And, now, with hind-sight, I see that change in how the debate is framed and the energy needed at a grass roots level would NEVER have occurred without the kind of government actions we are getting.

All things have a thresh-hold. Until my hunger rises to some level I'll not get out my chair and head for the kitchen.

Would I plan in advance this kind of approach - of course not. Do I advocate any of these destructive programs - of course not. I am only pointing out that the amount of pain we will endure to get back on track is a measure of badly our educational system has let us stray in the last century.

Jay, what do think is needed, given who we are and where we are in history, to effect a significant change? If you want to say education, you'd be right, but how would you change that when it is in the control of the progressives? And if you somehow, magically changed it, how long before that changed our culture enough to change our political direction? And what, in the meantime, would stop the current cultural juggernaut of progressivism from continuing. Had we elected McCain instead of Obama we would have been much, much better off short-term. But long term we would have been immeasurably worse off since the reframing of the debate would not have occurred and progressivism would continue unchallenged. And every decade the very sense of what freedom feels like fades away.

In the end, if a significant number of people don't understand the real problem, it can never be fixed. And, if a significant number of people do understand it correctly, it can be fixed rapidly.

Post 22

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 2:38pm

John,

More and more I'm coming to see that it is the level of the compromise you make that defines the success. Now, with this new definition of what the real debate is, it would be wrong to pick a candidate that is a progressive but on the right side of this bill or that bill or simply less progressive.

It is because the debate has become defined with one side being "Capitalism" that makes it a mistake to select someone who falls so far short. If Brown lost, and if it was by a margin that went to a Libertarian, that message would have more effect on our political direction than any other. If we don't win big over the next decade, we won't see any freedom in the decade after that.

This is so much larger than the particular issues (even ones as momentous as ObamaCare) - and the reason I say that is that winning a seat in Senate that becomes anti-Obama care doesn't stop the progressives as such - it is a battle, but to do it you had to stop fighting on the much more important front. This is the very mechanism that sets the expectations. The political 'right' will always go no further towards freedom than they must to win. When they are shown the didn't go far enough, they rise to the new expectations, or watch in bewilderment as new parties or independents who will go further towards freedom take their votes away. That is the real battle front.

When the war is defined as for or against free enterprise you can't win by compromising on that issue.

(It goes without saying, that if there is no candidate better than Brown, then he gets the vote. But better must be about principles - not polls.)

Post 23

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 3:38pm

But it's Massachussets. They would be the last state in the union to elect a laissez-faire Capitalist. I can see maybe trying this in less liberal/more conservative state but for MA that's about as good as it can probably get for some time at least.

Steve my issue with the strategy you espouse is we don't know when we'll hit rock bottom. The Democrats won't stop because they may experience some close election wins. As long as they have complete power over the government, they will continue to show nothing but utter contempt for the American electorate. The vast majority of Americans don't like libertarians. They've made their voices clear on that. Maybe a Tea Party candidate can fare better, who knows.

I don't want my business to go under, so honestly, I am coming at this with the very real threat I will be in bankruptcy court if this health care bill is passed. I am a small business owner and I'm feeling the pressure with all these taxes, I don't want anymore to deal with. I don't think I can survive this bill.

We're talking about the best we can probably get for MA, not a Congress full of Browns. Maybe it's easy for others who don't have a lot of their lively-hood on the line to adopt this strategy, but to me this is suicide. And I'm going to continue with what I believe is a far more productive approach.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/16, 3:39pm)

Post 24

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 4:19pm

John,

I'm not going to try to tell you what is in your best interest. Clearly, you have to vote to avoid the ObamaCare so that you can continue to fight later.

For the rest of us, I'm arguing that we won't get capitalism unless it is capitalism we are fighting for. And if we are fighting for capitalism, then we can't compromise on that.

When anyone tried this decades ago, they were on your own. Now, in most states, there are large tea party supporters, Rand is on prime time TV like the Stossel special, and Atlas Shrugged is selling off the shelves. I think the path is pretty clear for those who aren't in your spot.

Post 25

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 4:26pm

"As long as there is a better candidate" is not a serious, real world strategy under the current electoral system. One can always write someone better in. Again, it's a fantasy. It's not about who actually holds the seat, not about what happens in reality. It's about "principles." But principles don't sit in congress. People do.

So again, we get down to what is the real concrete difference between the two human candidates with a chance in this race. Well, that's clear. One will continue and one will break the filibuster-proof majority until the next congress is seated in Jan., 2011. Until then one can either support or oppose making it easy for the Democrats to carry out their socialist agenda.

How much damage do we expect the Democrats to do before we are allowed to start voting to end their reign? Do those who think Obama's election was good also think that we need hyperinflation or two more liberals on the supreme court before we can react? If Obama's election is good because of the reaction it engenders, then why isn't Brown's election by voters whose sole issue is healthcare the beginning of that reaction? Do we have to have rolling blackouts before the Elect Obama in order to fix the world strategy is declared victorious?

And how, exactly, does how one votes effect what one's principles are? We don't have the opportunity to vote for principles, unfortunately. One can espouse and campaign for the free market on one hand and still vote for the far less destructive candidate on the other. You can't say that voting in Brown is a betrayal of one's principles, while voting in Coakley is not. Nor is voting for Brown is not a vote for a Republican majority set on outlawing abortion. Voting for Brown is voting to stop a year's worth of Democratic supermajority. They will still be in power.

If this strategy is serious, then there are concrete conditions that satisfy it? So let's hear it. Under what concrete circumstances is it alright to start voting for winning candidates?

Post 26

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 5:39pm

Ted,

We continue to disagree on this issue. The entire tea party movement is one that doesn't recognize the shell game: "Democrat or Republican - there is no other choice"

The grass roots are reaching the state where they no longer choose to play the rigged game and the result is that the players will have to start unrigging the game or get replaced - as individuals or even as parties.

Playing their game just puts more crooks in Washington - how well has that worked so far? Voting on principles changes the game. I'm sorry that it can't happen overnight, but it wasn't created overnight.

You asked, "How much damage do we expect the Democrats to do before we are allowed to start voting to end their reign?"

We, the people, voted them in. We, the angry people, started to run them out with the tea parties (because without those you had only twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum to choose between). And you were allowed to vote long ago - had people begun voting Libertarian long ago, we would be in a different place. And if they don't vote Libertarian now, we won't get out of the mire of mixed economy. And the damage started long, long ago - before Roosevelt even. And the damage has been done by progressives from both parties. Bush started much of our current miseries in the debt department. Nixon erased the last vestige of a gold standard making possible the current destruction of the dollar. We can expect Democrats and Republicans to cause damage until we quit playing that lessor of two evils game.
-----------------------

When someone argues that voters must choose between the two major parties even if neither on puts up a capitalist, and says that this is the only reasonable approach because the others don't stand a chance is, with that argument, ensuring that only the rigged-game people can be in the game and that they will never have to field a capitalist.

Your argument doesn't allow for future changes based upon voters responding as the tea party is. Brown wouldn't have stood a chance without that movement. (Not that that means he rises high enough to be a free market candidate).

When you pull the handle you are doing more than putting a particular person in a seat (or not). More importantly you are changing how the game is played in the near future.
----------------

You asked, "Under what concrete circumstances is it alright to start voting for winning candidates?

When a candidate who represents best represents your principles may also end up being the most popular in the race. Otherwise you are voting for continuation of the rigged game.

Post 27

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 7:26pm

You asked, "Under what concrete circumstances is it alright to start voting for winning candidates?

When a candidate who represents best represents your principles may also end up being the most popular in the race. Otherwise you are voting for continuation of the rigged game.

So your position is that ideological purity is the only criterion, and that if the price of reform is total collapse, so be it? Or if total collapse is not acceptable, then what level of collapse is?

Post 28

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 8:33am

Ted,

You are using the phrase "ideological purity" to represent what I termed "principled" - and you are, evidently, asking what degree of ideological impurity should one accept.

The problem is that ideological impurity created our problems and continues them and, at the root, is the problem. Just as people think a certain amount of regulation or government involvement is okay - mixing in a degree of statism with what should be pure free-enterprise.

The whole thing is wrapped up as false-premised package. They say you have to play our game, our way, or things will get worse. But when you play the game, your win is to be safe from the threatened horror of today, but it means that worse will eventually come. And it guarantees you will never get to the root of the issue. Instead you just keep electing statists.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. It isn't realistic to imagine that we can win it all today. We have to keep building the understanding that this is capitalism versus tyranny. It is a very dynamic process and the good news is that each collapse is now strengthening the support for capitalism. People won't opt out of that rigged game if they think they can win with a compromise. If Brown came out for Capitalism and lost, it would better for the only win we really want - the big one - then if he is elected now and changes the Senate Majority but at the expense of validating the old game, the one that says, they will elect a progressive, as long as we can threaten them with worse.

Post 29

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 12:30pm

So your position is that [being principled] is the only criterion, and that if the price of reform is total collapse, so be it? Or if total collapse is not acceptable, then what level of collapse is?

Post 30

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 2:24pm

A fun read from the WSJ:

Maybe it's true that Coakley would win easily if she weren't so awful. But without the damage Obama and ObamaCare have done to the Democratic Party, she'd win easily despite being so awful.

Post 31

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 2:42pm

I'd agree that we have to consider this particular vote to be a battlefront for capitalism, whether Brown, the candidate, is flawed or not.

Obama and his cronies rely on the 'great unwashed' of the populace to simply 'get accustomed to' the changes they are wreaking, and they have history on their side. Forgetting, for the moment, how difficult it would be later to abandon such policies, how difficult do you think it would be to undo the abusive damage and court sanctioned misinterpretations of the Constitution.

The only way to define the battle is to continue as strongly and as aggressively as we can to fight the battle every day. Otherwise, everything slips into complacency.

jt

Post 32

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 4:47pm

I've been arguing the principles and not the people. Which to me is the more important issue. Whether or not Brown is the best candidate running, solely on principle, not pragmatics, is something I haven't even looked at (that is, I don't know if there is a Libertarian alternative - if not, or if that person is a total jerk, then Brown is the Capitalist choice).

Ted, so your position is that [being pragmatic] is the only criterion, and that if the price of stopping ObamaCare is giving up the goal of Capitalism, so be it? (Ain't it awful to have words stuffed into your mouth?)

"Total collapse" is your premise and not mine, and it is your assumption that your approach will head it off and mine won't, and it is your premise that anyone should pick events like that to draw a line instead of battling for principles that are the real cause of the events, and to find the most efficacious pursuit of that battle.

Post 33

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 8:30pm

What does this swing for Brown represent? A sudden surge in racist anti-Obama sentiment? A newfound passion for liberal Republicans? Or popular support for the (one-principled-candidate) X (who can win)? This is an election based on principle, one principle, a principle clear even to lifelong Democrats, if not Libertarians.

The latest RCP polls

Date Sample Brown (R) Coakley (D) Spread
InsideMedford/MRG 1/15 - 1/15 565 LV 51 41 Brown +10
PJM/CrossTarget (R) 1/14 - 1/14 946 LV 54 39 Brown +15
ARG 1/12 - 1/14 600 LV 48 45 Brown +3
Blue Mass Group/R2000 (D) 1/12 - 1/13 500 LV 41 49 Coakley +8
Suffolk/7News 1/11 - 1/13 500 LV 50 46 Brown +4
Rasmussen Reports 1/11 - 1/11 1000 LV 47 49 Coakley +2
PPP (D) 1/7 - 1/9 744 LV 48 47 Brown +1
Rasmussen Reports 1/4 - 1/4 500 LV 41 50 Coakley +9
Boston Globe 1/2 - 1/6 554 LV 36 53 Coakley +17
Suffolk 11/4 - 11/8 600 RV 27 58 Coakley +31
Western NE College 10/18 - 10/22 342 LV 32 58 Coakley +26
Suffolk 9/12 - 9/15 500 RV 24 54 Coakley +30

Post 34

Monday, January 18, 2010 - 11:06am

Now here's something. This is more like it!

"This video doesn't exactly represent our point of view--we never fell for Obama's "hope and change" scam--but it does speak for many millions of Americans. It's nicely done. We'll see a lot more of this kind of populist calling of Democrats to account between now and November:

UPDATE: Apparently liberals have been trying to drive this video off YouTube. The original link no longer works; this one does, for now at least:"

LINK

jt

(Edited by Jay Abbott on 1/18, 12:14pm)

Post 35

Monday, January 18, 2010 - 3:34pm

Or popular support for the (one-principled-candidate) X (who can win)? This is an election based on principle, one principle, a principle clear even to lifelong Democrats, if not Libertarians.

*yawn* - the Libertarian can win, too, if more people voted for him. Of course, suckers like yourself let the Republican Party sell you a packet of scare tactics. Everyone "can win" an election, Ted. They just need enough votes.

Post 36

Monday, January 18, 2010 - 8:30pm

Well when are the Libertarians supposed to win? They've been at it for over 40 years. They barely make it over 2% of the vote on any given election.

So I wouldn't hold your breath.

Post 37

Monday, January 18, 2010 - 8:49pm

Steven and I aren't holding our breath. We are marking our ballots for Libertarians. You are marking your ballot against them. We are that 2% you mention, and you are among the 98%. We are voting for Freedom.

You ask when we Libertarians will win? Well, when will more of you join us? Your principles are over here... Just need you to mark that ballot in a different place.

Post 38

Monday, January 18, 2010 - 9:08pm

Well it would help if the Libertarian party didn't blame America for 9/11.

Post 39

Monday, January 18, 2010 - 9:12pm