Polite Kid

Here is a fun survey to tell you which candidate you should support, based on the answers you give. (H/T Daily Paul)
If you agree with us that issues matter, then take the following objectively designed short survey to see which of the leading candidates most agree with your position on a wide variety of issues - and also who least agrees with those positions - you may be surprised!''
I took the quiz, and came out with Ron Paul as the leading choice.

Labels: Elections, Presidential Candidates

I have had a blog entry in mind for some days now, 'inspired' or, more accurately, provoked by what I have been observing with the election returns of the last week. It relates also to a piece I wrote about a month ago called 'Crisis of faith', in which I described my wavering faith in my fellow Americans.
Darrell Dow sums up what I have been thinking recently in this piece called Boobus Americanus
A friend once summed up his view of democracy and the limitations inherent therein with the following formulation: "The masses are asses."
While admittedly crude and by no means a wry, Menckenesque description of the folly of Boobus Americanus, my friend insisted he was merely quoting Alexander Hamilton. And in fact, he had hit upon an important truth. Though elites always and everywhere rule, in a democracy they do so by holding to the faith and aspirations of mass man. As Burton Blumert observed, "if we only unmasked the conspiracy, all our problems would be solved, but if the trouble is in all of us, then we really are in trouble."
Witness the current GOP primary. Sixty-four percent of all Americans oppose the Iraq war and fifty-nine percent think things are going "somewhat badly" or "very badly" in bringing stability to that blood-soaked land. Still willing to flak for the prez, an astounding sixty-four percent of GOP primary voters continue to support the war. Obviously, that means the remainder must be voting for Ron Paul, right? Well, no, they are voting for John McCain.''
Dow describes the irrationality behind most of the choices being made by voters across America; people claim to be concerned about illegal immigration and yet they failed to rally behind the candidate who spoke out most forcefully about it, Tom Tancredo. The same people, having 'moved on', then switch their allegiance to someone like Mike Huckabee, who has been an unashamed apologist for illegals for some years. Of course Huckabee made some kind of profession of being a born-again restrictionist, and his lip service to enforcement was enough to satisfy the undiscriminating voter.
And now we are told that McCain is almost certainly the Republican nominee -- which makes not a whit of sense, given that McCain's name is indelibly associated with the amnesty bill which so many Americans fought to defeat last year. We oppose amnesty and yet we are willing to accept the most pro-amnesty, pro-open borders politician out there? This is insane. The only possible explanations are that many people are irrational, or irremediably stupid, too stupid or lazy to find out what a candidate's record shows on a given issue, or that there is some kind of election-fixing going on. Or perhaps all of the above apply.
Dow lists all the issues like trade, smaller government, and the Iraq war -- on which McCain seems to be the worst possible candidate from the perspective of the majority of Republicans, if not all Americans.
What is going on here? Can we attribute this to voter ignorance or apathy? Short attention span? Or is it evidence that the real votes have not been reported, and that the elections are fixed? It is tempting to prefer to believe the latter, rather than to accept that the average American is so lacking in common sense and civic virtue as to vote for a McCain (or a Huckabee, or any of the others in both parties).
I've noticed, to my considerable frustration, that I can be talking with someone who seems to 'get it', who seems to understand that our country is now at considerable risk for various reasons, reasons which are familiar to all my readers. Just when I think I am talking to an aware and perceptive person, that individual will utter some complete inanity which completely destroys my optimism. Sometimes I despair of my fellow Americans. It seems that I will invest considerable time and effort to try to get people to think and to question, and then they will suddenly revert to the kinds of idiocies purveyed by the mass media. One step forward, ten steps back.
Our 'democratic' system puts excessive faith, I think, in the masses. We have become too enamored of the idea that there is some kind of mystic, magical wisdom inherent in mass man, or in the 'average' man or woman. The saying from Alexander Hamilton 'the masses are asses', which Dow quotes at the beginning of his piece, is in fact an echoing of a longstanding attitude, going back to classical times. Have we in fact made a god of 'democracy' or of the average man? Can it be that at the founding of our country, in a reaction against the idea of an aristocracy of birth, we went too far in the opposite direction, toward exalting the 'little guy' and disparaging the idea that perhaps an aristocracy of character and ability might be preferable?
In an ideal world, the average man and woman would be possessed of sound instincts and common sense as well as basic knowledge about the world around us. It was emphasized by those who founded our country that only a literate, informed, moral, righteous people were capable of sustaining our Republic. We may have strayed too far away from that ideal, and in present-day parlance, dumbed down our Republic by broadening the franchise while we diminish the average intelligence.
There is now no serious and informed political discourse except in various isolated places; what passes for political and philosophical discussion in the mainstream media, in newspapers and especially on cable 'news' channels, is crude and banal propaganda. It is no wonder that we have an electorate which does not make rational and informed decisions.
And maybe it was always thus, really. If we look at the quotes from various classical sources, we see that similar laments were heard thousands of years ago.
"In the common people there is no wisdom, no penetration, no power of judgment." - Cicero
"It is proof of a bad cause when it is applauded by the mob." - Seneca
''Since the masses of the people are inconsistent, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequence, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death.'' - Polybius
For a while, perhaps, we had an anomalous age in which there was widespread literacy, and when children were given a sound education and a good grounding in logic and reason.
However as Nock and other observers have noted, the very fact that literacy became nearly universal was the beginning of the dumbing-down process. The advent of the printing press, too, may have made possible the wide dissemination of great literature, but mass literacy and mass production of cheap books spread a great deal of inferior and vulgar material as well. In this context, science-fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon was supposed to have said that "95 percent of everything is crap", the formulation which is now called Sturgeon's Law.
It seems rather a cynical statement, but looking at the media and the political world these days, it certainly seems true.
Sometimes I've had what seemed to be a fruitful conversation with someone about the urgent issues of our time, and about the election, and then later I talk to the same person and it's as though our earlier discussion never took place, or perhaps went in one ear and out the other. Is this just a sign of short attention spans? Poor memories?
It almost seems as if people are placed in a trance by the 'mainstream media'; what they hear on Fox News or on their favorite talk radio program or on Oprah seems to carry considerable weight with many people, and then there are those who, even worse, seem to change their minds by the hour, depending on which neighbor or co-worker they have spent time with. Many people seem highly impressionable, a fact which seems promising at first, because it is easily mistaken for open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity, at least at first glance. But too often, it's just malleability and fickleness, double-mindedness, lukewarmness. I truly do believe that many people vote based on the toss of a coin, or worse, based on what the consensus at the water cooler is. So many people are swept this way and that, and have no fixed beliefs or principles. Some people are fine on their own, in a one-to-one conversation, but put them in a group and they will passively agree with the group consensus.
This is not the stuff of which good representative government is made; it is fodder for demagogues and exploiters.
John Stuart Mill said
At present individuals are lost in the crowd. In politics it is almost a triviality to say that public opinion now rules the world. The only power deserving the name is that of the masses, and of governments while they make themselves the organ of the tendencies and instincts of masses. This is as true in the moral and social relations of private life as in public transactions. Those whose opinions go by the name of public opinion are not always the same sort of public: in America they are the whole white population; in England, chiefly the middle class. But they are always a mass, that is to say, collective mediocrity. And what is a still greater novelty, the mass do not now take their opinions from dignitaries in Church or State, from ostensible leaders, or from books. Their thinking is done for them by men much like themselves, addressing them or speaking in their name, on the spur of the moment, through the newspapers."
And given the present calibre of our newspapers, this is not a good omen.
Still, since John Stuart Mill wrote this in the 19th century, it's obvious that things were not much better in his day.
In this essay
Everything you need to know
James Leroy Wilson writes, of Albert Jay Nock:
The more Nock was persuaded that humans can not be perfected, the more he looked upon them with a "Christian spirit." Their drives, tastes, and prejudices didn't bother him any more.
It's good advice to those who believe that if only the masses can "be told the truth," they will see the light, change their ways, and reform the system. The best anyone can hope is to reach those with an open mind, who are open to persuasion. We shouldn't expect either the masses or the system to produce freedom or justice - only individuals can choose to be free, and only individuals can be just.''
Maybe this is the only sensible -- or Christian -- attitude to take toward the average man and his irrationality. It may be that we have unrealistic expectations. I have to return to Nock's beliefs that the masses are not amenable to reason or enlightenment; I am afraid that any other view is based on wishful thinking and not on a reading of history.
However, is this not bad news for 'democracy', if the average man, the mass man, is only prey for demagogues and exploiters? What hope is there for representative government, or specifically for our Republic if this is the case?
I suppose I put my hope in the fact that it does not take 'the majority' to make things happen. In fact, if we look at the world now, it's clear that the majority are mere pawns, while a few very powerful -- and very motivated -- people are manipulating the rest.
Maybe all that is necessary to work good is to awaken an equally determined and motivated few to counter the ascendant few who are working so much harm.
Forum comments here.

Labels: Democracy, Egalitarianism, Elections, Politics

The CNN debate transcript, at least the first part of it, is here.
Just a few quotes, mostly on questions to do with immigration and sovereignty:
Ernie Nardi: This is Ernie Nardi from Dyker Heights in Brooklyn, New York, with a question for the ex-Mayor Giuliani.
Under your administration, as well as others, New York City was operated as a sanctuary city, aiding and abetting illegal aliens.
I would like to know, if you become president of the United States, will you continue to aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens into this country?
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: Ernie, that was a very good question. And the reality is that New York City was not a sanctuary city. (OFF-MIKE) single illegal immigrant that New York City could find that either committed a crime or was suspected of a crime. That was in the executive order originally done by Ed Koch, continued by David Dinkins and then done by me.
The reason for the confusion is, there were three areas in which New York City made an exception. New York City allowed the children of illegal immigrants to go to school. If we didn't allow the children of illegal immigrants to go to school, we would have had 70,000 children on the streets at a time in which New York City was going through a massive crime wave, averaging 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week.
The other two exceptions related to care -- emergency care in the hospital and being able to report crimes. If we didn't allow illegals to report crimes, a lot of criminals would have gone free because they're the ones who had the information.
But, most important point is, we reported thousands and thousands and thousands of names of illegal immigrants who committed crimes to the immigration service. They did not deport them. And what we did, the policies that we had, were necessary because the federal policies weren't working.
The federal policies weren't working, stopping people coming into the United States. If I were president of the United States, I could do something about that by deploying a fence, by deploying a virtual fence, by having a BorderStat system like my COMSTAT system that brought down crime in New York, and just stopping people from coming in, and then having a tamper-proof ID card.
Cooper: Time.
Governor Romney, was New York a sanctuary city?
Romney: Absolutely. It called itself a sanctuary city. And as a matter of fact, when the welfare reform act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status.
And the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime -- how about the fact that the people who are here illegally have violated the law? They didn't report everybody they found that was here illegally.
And this happens to be a difference between Mayor Giuliani and myself and probably others on this stage as well, which is we're going to have to recognize in this country that we welcome people here legally.
But the mayor said -- and I quote almost verbatim -- which is if you happen to be in this country in an undocumented status -- and that means you're here illegally -- then we welcome you here. We want you here. We'll protect you here.
That's the wrong attitude. Instead, we should say if you're here illegally, you should not be here. We're not going to give you benefits, other than those required by the law, like health care and education, and that's the course we're going to have to pursue.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the -- worst record.
For example, in his case, there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them.
There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned into anybody or by anyone. And then when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never even seemed to catch the illegal immigrants that were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.
Cooper: All right. I have to allow Governor Romney to respond...
Romney: Mayor, you know better than that.
(Laughter)
Giuliani: No ...
Romney: OK, then listen. All right? Then listen. First of all ...
Giuliani: You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?
Romney: No, I did not, so let's just talk about that. Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor -- because I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home -- paint the home, put on the roof. If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has.
If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers."
Is that what you're suggesting?
Giuliani: What I'm suggesting is, if you ...
(Crosstalk)
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude, that your whole approach to immigration...
Romney: I'm sorry, immigration is not holier than thou, Mayor. It's the law.
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude that you are perfect on immigration...
Romney: I'm not perfect.
Giuliani: ... it just happens you have a special immigration problem that nobody else up here has. You were employing illegal immigrants. That is a pretty serious thing. They were under your nose.
(Applause)
And ...
Romney: I ask the mayor again. Are you suggesting, Mayor, that if you have a company that you hired who provide a service, that you now are responsible for going out and checking the employees of that company, particularly those that might look different or don't have an accent like yours, and ask for their papers -- I don't think that's American, number one.
Number two ...
Cooper: We got to move on.
Romney: Let me tell you what I did as governor. I said no to driver's licenses for illegals.
I said, number two, we're going to make sure that those that come here don't get a tuition break in our schools, which I disagree with other folks on that one.
(Applause)
Number three, I applied to have our state police enforce the immigration laws in May, seven months before I was out of office.
It took the federal government a long time to get the approvals and we enforced the law. And Massachusetts is not a sanctuary state, and the policies of the mayor of pursuing a sanctuary nation or pursuing a sanctuary city...
Cooper: We've got a number ...
Romney: ... are, frankly, wrong.
Cooper: We've got a number of questions from our viewers on this topic, so we have a lot more to talk about on this. You will have another chance to respond.
(Applause)
Giuliani: And it's really hard -- it's really hard to have employer sanctions...
(Audience booing)
Cooper: All right. Let's play this next video from the same topic.
(Begin video clip)
Michael Weitz: Good evening. There are thousands of people in Canada and Mexico waiting to come to America legally. They want to become American citizens. They want to be part of the American dream. Yet, there are those in the Senate that want to grant amnesty for those that come here illegally.
Will you pledge tonight, if elected president, to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally?
Thank you.
Cooper: Senator Thompson?
(Applause)
Thompson: Yes, I pledge that. A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation. And it's unfair...
(Applause)
We have -- we have thousands of people standing in line at embassies around the world to become United States American citizens, to come here to get a green card, to come here and to assimilate and be a part of our culture. They are part of what has made our country great. Some of our better citizens. We all know them and love them.
Now, it's our country together -- their's and ours, now together. It's our home. And we now get to decide who comes into our home.
And to place somebody above them or in front of them in line is the wrong thing to do.
We've got to strengthen the border. We've got to enforce the border. We've got to punish employers -- employers who will not obey the law. And we've got to eliminate sanctuary cities and say to sanctuary cities, if you continue this, we're going to cut off federal funding for you, you're not going to do it with federal money.
(Applause)
Now, there are parts of what both of these gentlemen have just said that I would like to associate myself with.
First of all, of course, Governor Romney supported the Bush immigration plan until a short time ago. Now he's taken another position, surprisingly.
(Laughter)
As far as Mayor Giuliani is concerned, I am a little surprised the mayor says, you know, everybody's responsible for everybody that they hire, but we'll have to address that a little bit further later. I think we've all had people probably that we have hired that in retrospect probably is a bad decision.
(Laughter)
He did have a sanctuary city. In 1996, I helped pass a bill outlawing sanctuary cities. The mayor went to court to overturn it. So, if it wasn't a sanctuary city, I'd call that a frivolous lawsuit.
(Applause)''
One question to Tom Tancredo was from a man who said he 'needed' guest workers for his business, and he wanted to know what Tancredo would do to help him.
...Well, I'll tell you, I'm not going to aid any more immigration into this country, because in fact, immigration...
(Applause)
... massive immigration into the country, massive immigration, both legal and illegal, does a couple of things.
One of it is, makes it difficult for us to assimilate. The other thing is that it does take jobs.
I reject the idea -- I reject the idea, categorically, that there are jobs that, quote, "No American will take." I reject it.
(Applause)
Now, what they will do...
(Applause)
... what you can say -- what you absolutely can say to these people is that there are no -- there are some jobs Americans won't take for what I can get any illegal immigrant to do that job for. Yes, that's true.
But am I going to feel sorry if a business has to increase its wages in order for somebody in this country to make a good living? No, I don't feel sorry about that and I won't apologize for it for a moment. And there are plenty of Americans who will do those jobs.
(Applause)
[...]
Cooper: We've got another question from a YouTube watcher. Let's watch, please.
YouTube question: Good evening, candidates. This is (inaudible) from Arlington, Texas, and this question is for Ron Paul.
I've met a lot of your supporters online, but I've noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council of Foreign Relations, and some plan to make a North American union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico.
These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory. So my question to you is: Do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?
Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.
Paul: Well, it all depends on what you mean by "all of this." the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a, quote, "conspiracy of ideas." This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.
And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up.
And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It's not somebody made these up. It's not a conspiracy. They don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there's been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.
So it's not so much a secretive conspiracy, it's a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move into the direction of international government, more U.N.
You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So, I'm against all that.
But it's not so much as a sinister conspiracy. It's just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.
Cooper: Congressman Paul, thank you.
(Applause)''
Reading through the transcript it does appear that Romney and Huckabee had a sharp exchange over the immigration issue, specifically over tuition breaks for illegals. When reminded of his favoring children of illegals in that respect, Huckabee resorted to claiming the moral high ground by saying we are a 'better country' than to punish children for their parents' acts. And then Huckabee went into his Abraham Lincoln-esque story about coming up from poverty.
In all, the debate doesn't seem to have revealed anything I didn't already know, and it confirmed my already-existing perceptions of the candidates. I think this series of debates (which are not real debates, anyway) have done little but produce a certain campaign fatigue in many of us; I'm hearing people say they are sick of the election and the candidates.
Any thoughts?

Labels: American Sovereignty, Amnesty, Elections, Gop Ron Paul, Illegal Immigration, Presidential Candidates, Presidential Debates

''...McWhorter suggests we're in a transitional phase in the way people feel about race as a national obsession. In the short run, "I suspect that where we are going is whites feeling ever more that it's time we blacks get over it, while an ever shrinking population of blacks continue hoping that whites will change their tune and 'wake up,' " he says. But this too shall (eventually) pass. "In about 50 years," he adds, "we will be so hybrid a nation that any idea of black-white relations as a major problem in need of address will seem archaic."
The above comments from John McWhorter, who is often touted as one of the 'moderate' or 'conservative' blacks, are part of the concluding paragraph from a piece called Double Vision: The Race Issue Revisited from AdWeek.
According to Ron Guhname at Inductivist, McWhorter said on the Laura Ingraham show that he is supporting Obama.
...he plans to vote for Obama for president because of the tremendously positive psychological effect that it will have on blacks. Hope will be felt like never before, and race hustlers like nut surgeon Jesse Jackson won't be taken seriously anymore.''
Mr. McWhorter, in all his racial excitement, must have neglected to read yesterday's New York Times poll:
The results of the poll... suggested that Mr. Obama�s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.
For the first time ever, the person who is one step away from the most powerful position in the world is black, but still blacks folks don't think things are getting better?!''
Guhname is skeptical of the 'vote-for-Obama-because-worse-is-better' meme which has taken a stubborn hold among some on the right. McWhorter thinks that an Obama presidency will give blacks 'hope' while polls suggest they don't see the prospect of an Obama presidency as any evidence of 'progress.' So what will change after January 20, 2009?
The AdWeek piece on the race issue contains the usual PC boilerplate. Nothing much to see there, but there is confirmation of some of the trends many of us have noticed:
If some white people are insensitive to the travails of their black compatriots, some are very, very sensitive -- and proud of it. "There's now a kind of white person under 30 who thinks of himself as an 'honorary' black person [because he's so highly aware that] the playing field isn't level," says John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Race and Ethnicity, and author of the just-published All About the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can't Save Black America. "Quite simply, the 'playing field' issue means that blackness is thought of as a problem, which is not where we need to go." Moreover, he says, this sort of hyper-consciousness leads to such white people "thinking they can 'be' something that you cannot 'be' unless you were born to it.
[...]
There's clearly a sizable white constituency that welcomes the prospect of an Obama victory as a sign that America has already become a post-racial society -- that the struggle of race is behind us. This sentiment also influences the way in which people react to popular culture, advertising included.
It's obvious to anyone who watches TV that the content of advertising has become more inclusive, and not just in the form of "black" versions of "white" commercials. We see easy-going interaction between the races in recent spots for everything from Miracle-Gro plant food and McDonald's Happy Meals to Levi's jeans.
David Lubars, chairman, CCO of BBDO North America, suggests advertising content is a pop-culture leader in its inclusiveness. "Advertising does a much better job of showing diversity and reflects the American fabric better than the movies or TV shows," he says. "You watch any evening of TV commercials, you see a great mix."
The piece is full of the usual smug PC platitudes on race, and it's clear that the advertising industry has an agenda other than inducing people to buy products or services. They are selling an agenda, trying to shape society towards ends that they see as moral and good. Should that not be the province of clergy and philosophers, not advertisers? Oh, for the good old days of advertising when they were merely pushing widgets or toothpaste or soap. Now they are shaping the world we live in, leading us in directions that we might not go if we were approached more directly, rather than insidiously as with today's advertising.
McWhorter's support for Obama is not surprising; blood is thicker than politics, as we've said before. The idea that Obama's election will inaugurate not only the first black president, but new heavens and a new earth, will prove to have been a fantasy, I'm afraid. It is too big a gamble on a long shot to think that some kind of new consciousness will awaken in White people. As the AdWeek article says, we have a large constituency of White people, especially the under-30s, who see themselves as 'honorary blacks', by virtue of their great sensitivity. One of these days, these people will be in the ascendancy, and an Obama presidency will probably be the beginning of the end of the old America.
The idea of hoping for an Obama débâcle to 'wake people up' reminds me of the idea many non-Christians have about Christian believers. I've heard the accusation made that 'fundamentalists', believing in the impending End Times, want to hasten Armageddon in the Middle East so as to provoke Christ's return and thus inaugurate the 'new heavens and a new earth' promised us. The fact is, I've never encountered a Christian in real life or even on the wild-and-wooly internet who thinks that way, or who would say 'bring on Armageddon!' so as to hasten Christ's second coming. But isn't that the thinking behind the 'worse is better' scenario? Bring it on, so that the millennium will follow? As for me, I have no thoughts of hastening the tribulation. I believe we should work to delay this 'worse' that is supposedly inevitable.
And let's keep in mind that last paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this piece. McWhorter thinks that it will take half a century for our people to be 'hybridized' out of existence. I see it happening much sooner, if things don't turn around, and I am not sure that speeding the process up, which is what an Obama presidency would do, is helpful.

Labels: Advertising, Anti White Racism, Elections, Presidential Candidates, Propaganda, Racial Division, Racial Guilt

A while back, I read this piece called The GOP: A house divided by Darvin Dowdy. It seemed to me that there is a lot of truth in the blogger's assessment of the state of the Republican Party, and more importantly, conservatism and the country at large.
The GOP has divided like some amoeba on a glass slide under a microscope.
There are the Globalists that continue to warn the various GOP candidates and politicians that they will damage their political careers if they take the side of those wanting to seal the border and strictly enforce existing immigration laws. They blame the discontent by GOP voters on the Iraq War, run-away federal spending and scandalous behavior by elected GOP politicians. They delight in pointing to the downfall of those who have taken strong enforcement first stances. J.D. Hayworth lost his congressional seat in Arizona after taking a tough stance on the border. George Allen of Virginia lost his senate seat, some say for the same reason. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. And in the current presidential race the campaigns of both hard line border enforcement candidates, Hunter and Tancredo appear to be sinking like a rock. Their fundraising efforts a total joke. Or so these geopolitical elitists would want us to believe.
And then there�s our side of the divided amoeba. We don�t really have "advisers" and "strategists" telling us what our next move should be. We live every day with the reality of illegal immigration and its negative, downward pull on our social structure. We�ve observed the illegals banding together, marching in the streets of America. Streets that we as taxpayers have paid to build. We saw them waving Mexican flags and burning American flags. Their monumental ingratitude. We�ve watched our politicians allow these illegal hordes to invade our nation and enjoy rights and privileges that actually accede our own. And when we dared to raise complaints regarding this dangerous and worsening situation these same politicians, that we elected, presented us with disrespect, insults and intimidation. Yet we fight on to maintain and protect our nations sovereignty.
Sadly, we are losing. The globalists controlling our party seem to be gaining the upper hand. Both Hunter and Tancredo are nearly out of cash. The other candidates , good men all, will simply not remain on our side in the long term, in my view. They are making all the correct noises now because they want our votes. But when the battle gets intense they�ll fall back on they�re long proven expertise � the art of compromise.''
This piece was written before Tancredo dropped out of the campaign, but the writer asks where the donors are for candidates like Tancredo and Hunter? That is a good question; why are their campaigns seemingly underfunded? We see the same phenomenon, though, in the case of McCain and Huckabee, who seem not to be raising much money.
So the question begs to be answered � why? Why have the campaigns of Hunter and Tancredo faltered? Certainly its not lack of support. Duncan Hunter recently left the entire GOP pack in the dust in the Texas Straw Poll. No one was even close. He�s also won other straw polls. Tancredo did well in the recent Iowa straw. Why are they so upside down in the fundraising department? Would it be fair to say that their followers are a bunch of dunces who go about waving their flags and emotions in the air? Who are so stupid that they can�t figure out that it takes money to run a campaign? God forbid as I count myself among them. Well the jury is not yet in on that verdict yet. But honestly, something simply doesn�t add up. About 60% of Americans support tougher enforcement of immigration laws. Hunter and Tancredo both have large followings. So where are the donors?
Where the heck are these so called Border Watch groups, I ask? Groups like the Minutemen Project? And U.S. Border Watch? Jim Gilchrist�s Wake Up America? And U.S. Border Control? And these are just a few. There are many more org�s of this nature. But when you visit these sites you see no open support for Hunter or Tancredo. No ads, banners or anything. You can�t tell me that there isn�t a way to, legally, get the word out to their members regarding the fundraising woe�s of these 2 candidates. My gosh the entire Borders/Illegals issue is at stake! Certainly the decision makers within these organizations must have enough snap to know that without enlightened politicians and originalist judges on the bench our cause of U.S. sovereignty is doomed! Many of the org�s have become bogged down in the details and have lost sight of the mission. I ask all who read this to begin some kind of email campaign or other correspondence to these org�s immediately. Especially those who might be members of such groups. Put pressure on them to more aggressively work for our 2 valiant candidates Hunter and/or Tancredo. Withhold your donations to these groups until they regain the correct priorities. Inform them, if they don�t know, of the dire fundraising situation that our 2 candidates face and encourage them to formulate an action plan to help keep these campaigns effective financially. These candidates can not be effective without TV/Radio campaigns and that takes money. ''
Given the fact that most Americans favor controlling our borders and stopping illegal immigration, it is suprising that there doesn't seem to be much financial support for restrictionist candidates and groups. Why is that?
So while the fundraising efforts of our valiant candidates Hunter and Tancredo continue to sink into the quagmire, the globalists that have hijacked "our" GOP are standing around in the shadows having a good laugh at our expense. Snickering at us. Also sinking into the quagmire is our cause of sealing the borders and insisting that our elected officials see to it that immigration laws are strictly enforced. Why should they listen to us? We can�t even keep our own candidates in a liquid financial state. So to all of you who still believe that the notion of national sovereign borders is not an antiquated, obsolete concept, I ask you, do you enjoy the sting of defeat? How do you like being laughed at, rebuked and put back into your place by the elitists?
I also put forth the question � is it too late to reverse this negative trend? Is there still time? I believe there is time but none to waste. I welcome your comments. And who is your least-favorite GOP open borders globalist? ''
Why is it that there is so little money going into the restrictionist cause, seemingly? Do we not believe in the people who are heading up these groups? Given the recent Huckabee/Gilchrist/Simcox stories, it would seem there might be some cause for skepticism now. Will that recent bad publicity lead to further fracturing and weakening of the restrictionist cause? Will Tancredo's dropping out further harm the movement -- especially as it appears there is no 'top tier' candidate to take up the mantle of Tancredo?
It seems as if the Republican Party is more divided now than it has been in my memory, and the divisions are stark and rather bitter in some cases. The liberal wing of the Party is contemptuous of the conservative wing, and expects the latter to obediently go along with the liberal GOP agenda and to expect nothing in return.
The party rank-and-file are being asked to choose between various liberal candidates, each of whom has been anointed as being 'electable', and to simply accept that these choices are the only available options.
It seems to me that this aura of 'electability' is bestowed by the media and the party elites, and that simply the title of 'electable' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. These candidates are 'electable' only if we accept the inevitability of their election -- which too many seem to do. If we say in advance that only these 'top tier' candidates stand a chance, we are taking away the voters' right to choose for themselves. It ain't over till it's over. Neither the biased old media nor the party elites have the right to tell us who can be elected or who can't. If they can make that decision for us, they've essentially taken away our voice in the election.

Labels: Conservatism, Elections, Gop, Party Politics, Presidential Candidates

I've been following the discussion about McCain's picking Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.
I must admit I was surprised by the choice, though it will have no effect on my own vote.
I have to say I am also surprised by all the buzz generated by the choice, and by Governor Palin herself; she has seemed to impress many people favorably, even on the Democrat side of the aisle, with a number of disgruntled Hillary supporters enthused about the addition of Palin to the ticket.
Predictably the Democrats are calling the choice 'tokenism' and there are the expected personal insults: she is a 'right-wing extremist' and a 'Nazi sympathizer' for having worn a Buchanan button during his visit to her town in 2000. Some Republicans on other forums dislike her because she is 'extreme' on social issues, with some even criticizing her choice NOT to abort her Down's Syndrome child. Some Republicans say she represents the triumph of 'affirmative action' in the GOP, and say that McCain was pandering to feminists by naming her. Though he's shown he's certainly not above pandering to certain constituencies, I think he may have been 'reaching out' not to Republican women, who, one supposes, would be less inclined to seek such pandering, but to unhappy Hillary supporters. He's always fostered the 'maverick' image, and has seemed more often than not to be courting liberals/Democrats rather than Republicans, who he likely thinks will swallow their dissatisfaction and vote for him after all, as 'good Republicans' generally do. I think he knows that many Hillary supporters are quite angry about the treatment their candidate received by the anointed candidate, and I think he is right; there are quite a few who are ready to jump ship and vote GOP this time, which is not a frequent occurrence among Democrats. I know some Democrats, mainly women, who have already threatened to vote GOP, and this may well confirm that decision for them.
So, given McCain's tendency to try to cross party lines and appeal to the liberals on the left side of the aisle, it isn't surprising that he would try to snag some female votes by choosing Palin.
Some argue that Palin is not likely to win many feminist votes, considering her very conservative views on social issues, namely abortion and gay marriage. But that belief is probably based on a misconception about how radical many Democrat 'feminists' are. The extreme left wing of the Democrat Party is its public face, but there are many rank-and-file average women out there whose 'feminism' consists mostly of rather middle-of-the-road ideas about having more women elected to various political offices or about equality in the workplace. Not all who call themselves feminists are as socially radical as those who have the loudest voices in the Democrat Party; not all women have abortion as their number one issue, or gay marriage.
Some of these women are realistic enough to know that legal abortion is not under threat in this country; it just isn't likely that Roe v. Wade will be reversed anytime soon, so all the scare tactics of the left are just rhetoric. Some younger single women may consider abortion very important, but I think there are many more who are not as concerned about it when it comes time to cast their ballots.
I don't know what Palin's positions are on issues that are all-important to me, such as immigration (note that I said 'immigration', not 'illegal immigration') or affirmative action or homeschooling or hate crime laws. I have tried to find information about her positions, but there seems to be little information as to her positions. I would say that since Alaska, until recently, has not had a sizeable immigrant population, immigration and borders are not pressing issues in Alaska. I know that Anchorage has a certain amount of 'diversity' (what city doesn't, these days?) but apart from Alaskan Native issues, I don't think these things are hotly debated in the state as in so many other states.
In any case, I think she will be expected to be on board with the Party line; I would hardly expect her to deviate from McCain on issues like amnesty or affirmative action. She will be a team player; I am sure this is understood from the get-go.
I have to say, though, that this quote from her, cited in the above-linked article, is unfortunate, though typical in the GOP these days:
In an interview last year with this reporter, Mrs Palin lamented the paucity of leadership in the Republican Party, saying it was weighed down with "good old rich white boys". She mentioned no names.''
[emphasis mine]
And as I said, I would not have voted for McCain in any case.
At least, though, there is some excitement and life being injected into this gosh-awful, dead-and-alive election. For months, we've known who the Presidential candidates would be, and the conventions have been a dismal display. I talk to so many people who express disillusionment and alienation, who say they are beyond sick of the campaigns. And these are not partisans, or political junkies, just average people who feel dismayed by the choices on offer. Maybe the presence in the campaign of Governor Palin, who at least seems to be a well-spoken, personable woman, will shake things up and spark some discussion. Her presence might perhaps highlight the sorry state of both parties and their presidential nominees. I know little about her, but she does seem to me to break the mold somewhat, being something other than one more stale beltway hack or corrupt machine politician.
Having said that, I don't share the enthusiasm many people have expressed to me about the 'history-making ' potential of a black President or a woman Vice-President. To me, it should be about character and ability, not about race or sex.
Is Palin good for the GOP in this election? At this point, it appears so. But is the GOP good for us?
Democrat or Republican, it's a wash. On the important issues, we still have nobody representing us.

Labels: Elections, Gop, Party Politics, Presidential Candidates, Social Conservatism

Obama picks Biden for V.P.
Barack Obama selected Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware late Friday night to be his vice presidential running mate, according to a Democratic official, balancing his ticket with an older congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues.
Biden, who has twice sought the White House, is a Catholic with blue-collar roots, a generally liberal voting record and a reputation as a long-winded orator.
And , it appears, a plagiarist. He stole part of a campaign speech from British politician Neil Kinnock, if I remember correctly.
Why Biden? He seems a very lackluster choice. What is gained by having him on the ticket? What motivates this choice?
Not that it really makes any difference to me; to me, the two-party rigged system is not to be taken seriously anymore. I will vote third party regardless, but I am curious as to what my readers think of this, if anything.
Besides, I have little else to blog about tonight; does it seem to anyone else as if the blogosphere is especially quiescent lately? Or dispirited?
I've noticed that many of the blogs I used to read daily have either died or been abandoned, or have such infrequent posts as to be virtually extinct, while several are going on some kind of indefinite hiatus. Does anybody else notice this?
And does it seem lately as if the news is always just more of the same old same old, nothing 'new' about it? Has the news ever been more boring or ennui-producing than it is now?

Labels: Blogosphere, Elections, News, Party Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates

There is a short piece today from Fjordman at Gates Of Vienna, titled Heeding Locke and Jefferson.
Apparently it's from a longer essay which is to appear soon.
A couple of excerpts:
...Every single day we get more evidence that the authorities are totally incapable of protecting any semblance of security and freedom for their citizens. The only thing the State still seems to be capable of is indoctrinating our children with hatred of their own civilization and taking away our money so that it can be given to those who colonize our countries and abuse our children, verbally and physically.''
Well-articulated, and true.
Or are our leaders incapable of protecting our security and freedom, or simply neglecting those things as they pursue conflicting goals? Such as promoting the colonization by our countries by those who abuse not only our children but us? The Western governments can't do both, obviously, and it's clear that our safety and security are not on their list of priorities, but promoting colonization is at the top of the list.
Fjordman quotes Locke, from the Second Treatise on Government:
"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property, and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society�.whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people�.By this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society."
Yes -- by their actions, our 'leaders' forfeit their lawful powers invested in them by the people, because, as Locke says, their actions have put them into a state of war with the people. That's it in a nutshell.
But how did it come to be that the 'leaders' who were ostensibly chosen by the people to represent and defend our safety and security and to look out for our national interests are now serving other global masters, and serving the interests of every people except those who elected them, and the very people of which they are genetically a part?
Selwyn Duke has a new essay on this issue:
Political Elections, Cultural Elections, and the Votes that Really Matter
I recommend you read it; he discusses the upcoming election, the sad choices being offered to us between two evils, and the ways in which he believes we have brought ourselves to this pass. He quotes the maxim which asserts that 'people get the government they deserve'. That saying is usually attributed to Joseph de Maistre, and I have quoted it here from time to time. (Duke attributes it to Thomas Jefferson, and I am not aware that he said or wrote those words anywhere, but I am open to being corrected.) In any case, whoever first said it, I believe it's true. I know some have disagreed with me about the validity of that sentiment, but I think in some sense it is always true.
Those who disagree will usually say something along these lines: "How did the people of Iraq deserve Saddam Hussein?" or "What about dictators, who seize power and silence all dissent? The people don't deserve them.'' Or another variant but broader argument: 'some governments are so bad that nobody could be said to deserve such a government.''
I think that dictators, including some of the more odious examples in history, have been nurtured and brought up in a particular society, a particular culture. In some cases, the people from whom the dictator originates are people with a barbaric culture or history, or certainly a tolerance for such traits. The fact that such cultures exist, and as such are assented to by the majority of people, supports the idea that the people in a sense deserve the harsh rulers they produce. Tyrants don't come out of nowhere. If a psychopathic, bloodthirsty man arises in a humane and advanced society, they would surely recognize his dangerous qualities and not elevate him to power, not reward him.
Selwyn Duke describes how we in a sense 'elect' the culture which ends up at the particular crossroads at which we find ourselves. It's an interesting piece, and something to think about.

Labels: Consent Of The Governed, Elections, Elites, Globalism, Rogue Government

''Where the people possess no authority, their rights obtain no respect.''
The above words were written by George Bancroft, who was a historian, diplomat, and a New England transcendentalist. He was also called 'the father of American History.'
My previous post had to do with the question of whether the 'average' citizen is capable of the demands of participating in the political process of our republic. It may be that because our population has been so dumbed-down and distracted, 'the people possess no authority', in Bancroft's terminology, although he intended another meaning by his words.
Bancroft, like others in his intellectual and social circles, had what I would consider an inordinately high opinion of human perfectibility. I wonder if he were able to time travel, as we discussed the other day, and visit 21st century America, if he would have such a high opinion?
Over at the Nolan Chart, EJ Moosa notes that debate is a lost art in our society.
What are we afraid of? Why are our debates so short? Why are we afraid to debate others on topics of importance? Why do freedom seekers seem to want to stifle debate at the first chance they get? Our presidential debates are not really debates. They are question and answer sessions. The candidates do not go toe to toe, and debate the underlying principles of their beliefs. Those that watch the debates do not have the patience to listen to such a dialog. Either that or they are not really interested unless what they hear reinforced what they already believe. This does not accomplish much.
[...]
Our forefathers debated for weeks and months on issues. Yet here we are and we must be suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder. A five minute discussion and we have had enough.
Why are we afraid of debate? Is it because we must know what we believe to defend what we believe? That we must have absolute principles behind our statements?
We are told that we should not discuss religion, sex or politics with friends. Yet, are those three topics not the most significant in our lives?''
[Emphasis mine]
That last paragraph is something I've said many times over the course of my life -- or at least regarding religion and politics, although Moosa and I would probably find little political or philosophical common ground apart from support for Ron Paul. But we can agree that debate is a lost and dying art.
When it comes to our presidential 'debates', I've lamented here on this blog how they are not debates in any sense of the word, being scripted and staged, and containing few exchanges of any substance, much less formal arguments and rebuttals. But to 21st century, short-attention-span Americans, these 'debates' and what passes for discourse seem good enough.
We may think this is a trifling matter, but I don't believe that we can have any kind of real participatory government, or an informed electorate, without real debate. And in order to have that, we would need to undertake the monumental task of educating the public from the ground up. Our public schools are meant for indoctrination and socialization only, and seem to actively discourage critical, independent thought. And they do not teach young people logic and analytical thinking, or rhetoric. They seem to purposely turn out young people with little capacity for deep thought or any kind of disciplined use of the mind.
But there is something other than poor education and attention deficit disorder that plays into this phenomenon. It has to do with personality traits or social habits.
Americans somehow seem to confuse argument with personal quarreling. Some people do not perceive any difference between a spirited debate about ideas or events, and a barroom brawl, finding both equally unseemly. Some people are quite willing to enter into a spirited debate or discussion and yet they cannot keep it on a detached and objective level, but must turn it into a personal attack. We see this last phenomenon a lot on the Internet; I suspect many of the attackers and trolls on the Internet may be polite people in the real world, who feel their inhibitions loosened in the anonymous world of the Internet. So we have two extremes: people who shy away from all debate and disagreement, even when it is of a very civilized kind, and people who are eager to turn a polite debate into a slanging match and a donnybrook.
We need to be re-educated on how to have a civilized but frank discussion of ideas and issues. We seem to have lost the art of it, if we ever possessed it.
Albert Jay Nock quoted Goethe as saying that the test of civilization is conversation. In The Right Thing, Nock said:
American life has long been fair game for the observer.
[...] So much, in fact, has been written about the way we live, how we occupy ourselves, how we fill up our leisure, the things we do and leave undone, the things we are likely to do and likely to leave undone, that I for one would never ask for another word on such matters from anybody. As a good American, I try to keep up with what is written about us, but it has become rather a dull business and I probably miss some of it now and then, so I cannot say that no observer has ever made a serious study of our conversation. In all I have read, however, very little has been made of the significance of the things we choose to talk about and our ways of talking about them. Yet I am sure that Goethe's method would give a better measure of our civilization than any other, and that it would pay any observer to look into it. For my own part, ever since I stumbled on Goethe's observation --- now more than twenty years ago --- I have followed that method in many lands. I have studied conversation more closely than any other social phenomenon, picking up from it all the impressions and inferences I could, and I have always found that I got as good results as did those whose critical apparatus was more elaborate. At least, when I read what these critics say about such people as I know, especially my own, they seem to tell me little with which I was not already acquainted
[...]
[T]he most significant thing that I have noticed about conversation in America is that there is so little of it, and as time goes on there seems less and less of it in my hearing. I miss even so much of the free play of ideas as I used to encounter years ago. It would seem that my countrymen no longer have the ideas and imagination they formerly had, or that they care less for them, or that for some reason they are diffident about them and do not like to bring them out. When I first remarked this phenomenon I thought it might be an illusion of advancing age, since I have come to years when the past takes on an unnaturally attractive colour. But as time went on the fact became unmistakable and I began to take notice accordingly.''
Nock remarks that Americans don't like to explore a subject in depth, or to hear a range of opinions; there is a pressure to agree.
It is a mark of maturity to differentiate easily and naturally between personal or social opposition and intellectual opposition. Everyone has noticed how readily children transfer their dislike of an opinion to the person who holds it, and how quick they are to take umbrage at a person who speaks in an unfamiliar mode or even with an unfamiliar accent.''
Nock notes the pressure to conform to popular opinion. I think this is especially strong in our society.
Surely this tendency has to translate into bad news for the success of our political system. A democratic republic relies on an informed and civic-minded citizenry, and an open and fair and thoughtful discussion of important issues. Do we have either of these on any scale in America, or anywhere in the Western world these days?
Nock wrote that the extension of the franchise has been detrimental to the character of politics and to the type of person who enters public service:
...One must also remark with interest that in a republic every extension of the franchise has been accompanied by a deterioration in the character of politics and in the personnel of the public service; and this, too, is by hypothesis what one would look for. When England extended its franchise in the last century, Mr. Mill asked pathetically how it was possible to produce great men in a country where the test of a great mind was agreement with the opinions of small minds; and one can easily paraphrase this saying to suit the terms of our hypothesis.
Allowing everything in reason for other contributing causes, there is at least a striking coincidence in the fact that the American public service, all over the land, became fully twofold more irresponsible, unscrupulous, and scandalously wasteful almost at the moment when the electorate was practically doubled by the extension of the suffrage to women.
[...] On its political side, the eighteenth-century doctrine of republicanism, on which the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution are based, turns out to be utterly false and mischievous. This doctrine assumes that if the mass-men take control of politics, if sovereignty be lodged in "the people" and exercised directly by them, they will in time work out a true commonwealth, a political order established on principles of justice, as set forth in the Rights of Man. The ground of this assumption, obviously, is that the mass-man is human, and therefore capable of a degree of development competent for this purpose; and indeed, if this be true, the doctrine is probably sound enough, the only postulate being that of practically unlimited time.''
And now we return to the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who was quoted in the blog excerpt I posted yesterday:
At the time our republic was established, Alexander Hamilton was one of many who were strongly against this doctrine [of republicanism]. He objected to the experiment of putting sovereignty in the hands of the mass-man, and he expressed himself about it in terms that are curiously anticipatory of the idea that we are discussing. "The people," he said, "are a great beast." Now, if the anthropologists should decide that Hamilton was right about this, if the mass-man be literally and actually not human, if he be essentially incapable of any such degree of development as our eighteenth-century political theory presupposes, then surely republicanism is about the worst system that could be devised, even for the mass-man himself; for, in practice, instead of promoting any such limited development as the mass-man, in common with the other more teachable and imitative forms of animal life, is capable of making, it seems bound to reflect the very lowest common denominator of the mass-man's intelligence and character, and its tendency must be continuously to depress that denominator ever farther.
Thus instead of improving and elevating the mass-man by means of political experience, republicanism serves merely to degrade him. This appears to be what we see taking place. The candidate for political favor is sedulously careful to approach the mass-man on a plane of intelligence and character which is never above that of the mass-man's ordinary self. It is a commonplace of republican politics that he not only does so, but must do so.
The issues and policies that he presents must be such only as are adjustable to a potential majority in a mass-electorate endowed with an unlimited franchise. Thus every republican campaign reminds one of nothing so much as the scene described by Plato, where a huge, sluggish, obscene monster is surrounded by people who are assiduously flattering it, pretending to understand its noises, and in every imaginable way courting its good-will. Hence, by a selective process almost automatic, the political organization of a republican society is bound to be in control of the mass-man who is gifted merely with a low type of sagacity somewhat in excess of his fellow-creatures; whereby he is able to exploit their lack of intelligence, their vagrant attention, their superficial spirit, their hot and cold fits, their superstitions, their tendency always to run to the short-time point of view�and worst of all, their occasional good impulses, their occasional good faith, their boundless credulity, their weak hopes and weaker fears.
All this is extremely bad for the mass-man. What it does in the long run is to snarl up his society in a terrific tangle, wherein he is utterly helpless. Not only the financial genius of Hamilton but also the transcendent philosophical genius of Hegel foresaw this consequence. Hegel said, at the outset of republicanism, that it would culminate in an unexampled catastrophe; for, when all comes to all, republicanism puts upon the mass-man a burden of responsibility which he is not only unable to bear, but wholly incapable even of comprehending. This view has been inconclusively debated ever since the end of the seventeenth century, and its satisfactory conclusion on a priori grounds now seems as remote as it was then. In our own history we find John Adams on one side of the question, saying that the political struggles of the mass-man, left to his own devices, could end only in "a change of impostors." On the other side we are confronted by the great name of Mr. Jefferson, who believed that the mass-man was indefinitely improvable, that he was capable of learning by political experience, and of learning fast enough to enable him to hold his society together in some sort of working order while he was learning more.''
Nock calls our attention to the stark contrast in opinion between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in their views on the perfectibility of man. On the one hand, Hamilton's rather cynical (or is it realistic?) view, as opposed to Jefferson's more sanguine one. Also on the sanguine side was the assessment of George Bancroft, the transcendentalist historian I quoted at the beginning of this entry. Which view is the correct one?
In an 1835 speech, The People in Art, Government, and Religion, Bancroft said
...the best government rests on the people and not on the few, on persons and not on property, on the free development of public opinion and not on authority; because the munificent Author of our being has conferred the gifts of mind upon every member of the human race without distinction of outward circumstances. Whatever of other possessions may be engrossed, the mind asserts its own independence. Lands, estates, the produce of mines, the prolific abundance of the seas, may be usurped by a privileged class. Avarice, assuming the form of ambitious power, may grasp realm after realm, subdue continents, compass the earth in its schemes of aggrandizement, and sigh after worlds, but mind eludes the power of appropriation; it exists only in its own individuality; it is a property which can not be confiscated and can not be torn away. It laughs at chance; it bursts from imprisonment; it defies monopoly. A government of equal rights must, therefore, rest upon mind, not wealth, not brute force; some of the moral intelligence of the community should rule the State. Prescription can no more assume to be a valid plea for political injustice; society studies to eradicate established abuses and to bring social institutions and laws into harmony with moral right; not dismayed by the natural and necessary imperfections of all human effort, and not giving way to despair because every hope does not at once ripen into fruit.
[...]
The world can advance only through the culture of the moral and intellectual powers of the people. To accomplish this end by means of the people themselves is the highest purpose of government. If it be the duty of the individual to strive after a perfection like the perfection of God, how much more ought a nation to be the image of duty. The common mind is the true Parian marble fit to be wrought into the likeness to a God. The duty of America is to secure the culture and the happiness of the masses by their reliance on themselves.
[...]
It is the uniform tendency of the popular element to elevate and bless humanity. The exact measure of the progress of civilization is the degree in which the intelligence of the common mind has prevailed over wealth and brute force: in other words, the measure of the progress of civilization is the progress of the people.
[...]
It is alone by infusing great principles into the common mind that revolutions in human society are brought about. They never have been, they never can be effected by superior individual excellence. The age of the Antonines is the age of the greatest glory of the Roman Empire. Men distinguished by every accomplishment of culture and science for a century in succession possessed undisputed sway over more than one hundred millions of men, until, at last, in the person of Marcus Aurelius, philosophy herself seemed to mount the throne. And did she stay the downward tendencies of the Roman Empire? Did she infuse new elements of life into the decaying constitution? Did she commence one great beneficent reform? Not one permanent amelioration was effected. Philosophy was clothed with absolute power; and yet absolute power accomplished nothing for humanity. It could accomplish nothing. Had it been possible, Aurelius would have wrought a change. Society can be regenerated, the human race can be advanced, only by moral principles diffused through the multitude.
[...]
The irresistible tendency of the human race is therefore to advancement, for absolute power has never succeeded and can never succeed in suppressing a single truth. An idea once revealed may find its admission into every living breast and live there. Like God, it becomes immortal and omnipresent. The movement of the species is upward, irresistibly upward. The individual is often lost; providence never disowns the race. No principle once promulgated has ever been forgotten. No "timely tramp" of a despot�s foot ever trod out one idea. The world can not retrograde; the dark ages can not return. Dynasties perish, seeds are buried, nations have been victims to error, martyrs for right; humanity has always been on the advance, gaining maturity, universality, and power.
No truth can perish, no truth can pass away; the flame is undying, tho generations disappear. Wherever moral truth has struck into being, humanity claims and guards the greatest bequest. Each generation gathers together imperishable children of the past, and increases them by new sons of light alike radiant with immortality.''
[Emphasis mine]
There is a degree of truth, I think, in Bancroft's words, but I think his philosophical beliefs inclined him to think somewhat too highly of the perfectibility of the human being. History does not seem to bear out his belief that 'humanity has always been on the advance.' Too often, for the human race, it's one step forward and several steps back, just as I observed yesterday of certain individuals I've encountered. In a way, they typify the human race. Just as when we congratulate ourselves that humanity 'gets it', and we think we are on the way to solving the riddles of the human condition, we see a retrograde movement of the human race. We seem, as a species, to have to keep reinventing the wheel, where our moral and societal development is concerned.
Nock noted that the efforts of the political and social reformers hinged on the question of whether Man is perfectible, or even substantially improvable. If he is, then the pollyannas and the utopian reformers must keep on trying to perfect humanity. If he is not perfectible or even substantially capable of improving or 'evolving' then we had better scale back our hopes for do-gooding projects and government interventions. So this question is central to our politics.
But such questions are never considered, much less discussed by the reformers; we go blithely on assuming that we can continue our endless efforts to improve human nature, despite the observable lack of progress in that area.
Meanwhile, our public discussion is centered on the trivial and the superficial, our discourse deteriorates, and we are left with a feeling of dissatisfaction. In Nock's words,
The civilization of a country consists in the quality of life that is lived there, and this quality shows plainest in the things that people choose to talk about when they talk together, and in the way they choose to talk about them.
It can be taken for granted, I suppose, that man has certain fundamental instincts which must find some kind of collective expression in the society in which he lives. The first and fundamental one is the instinct of expansion, the instinct for continuous improvement in material well-being and economic security. Then there is the instinct of intellect and knowledge, the instinct of religion and morals, of beauty and poetry, of social life and manners. Man has always been more or less consciously working towards a state of society which should give collective expression to these instincts. If society does not give expression to them, he is dissatisfied and finds life irksome, because every unused or unanswered instinct becomes a source of uneasiness and keeps on nagging and festering within him until he does something about it.
Moreover, human society, to be permanently satisfactory, must not only express them all in due balance, proportion, and harmony. If too much stress be laid on any one, the harmony is interrupted, uneasiness and dissatisfaction arise, and, if the interruption persists. disintegration sets in. The fall of nations, the decay and disappearance of whole civilizations, can be finally interpreted in terms of the satisfaction of these instincts. Looking at the life of existing nations, one can put one's finger on those instincts which are being collectively overdone at the expense of the others. In one nation the instinct of expansion and the instinct of intellect and knowledge are relatively over-developed; in another, the instinct of beauty; in another, the instinct of manners; and so on. The term symphonic, which is so often sentimentally applied to the ideal life of society, is really descriptive; for the tendency of mankind from the beginning has been towards a functional blending and harmony among these instincts, precisely like that among the choirs of an orchestra. It would seem then that the quality of life in any society means the degree of development attained by this tendency. The more of these instincts that are satisfied, and the more delicate the harmony of their interplay, the higher and richer is the quality of life in that society; and it is the lower and poorer according as it satisfies fewer of these instincts and permits disharmony in their interplay.''
It would appear that we in America and probably in the West in general have developed the instinct for expansion almost to the exclusion of the other instincts, such as that for religion and morals, intellect and knowledge, and beauty.
And as ideas and ideals as well as emotions, that make us individuals, Nock observed that we are thus less individuated and more conformist. This, although he did not spell it out, would seem to make us inclined towards a mass society, which does not brook much dissension. There is a pressure toward consensus; peer pressure often shapes ideas and ideals and emotions, thus depleting our individuality in what should be the most individualized areas.
To bring this down to the mundane level of our present political campaign, we see the people stampeding, or being stampeded, towards candidates who seem to be the poorest of fits for the expressed wishes of the people: in an era in which many people mobilized to fight amnesty, we get three pro-amnesty candidates. In an era in which most people seem to be disillusioned with if not staunchly opposed to the Iraq War, we get three candidates who will pursue more war. How is this happening? Are the elections rigged? Or are people just being caught up in the bandwagon effect, and passively acquiescing in what is being presented to them as an inevitability, with which they had better get on board?
I think there is much of the latter, and it is no surprise in a society which thinks debate and argument is rude, a society in which people who differ from majority opinion are ridiculed as 'kooks' (Ron Paul and his supporters), that people are willing to be herded toward a comfortable consensus, in which everybody splits the difference though nobody really gets what they want.
I can't help but think that this is not what our forefathers had in mind when they conceived of our system.
How can we extricate ourselves from this situation? Or can we? Does the fault lie in our stars or in ourselves?
I think the very first thing that must happen, if there is any hope at all, is that we have to reinstate free speech, plain talk, and common sense. We have to re-learn, or learn for the first time in some cases, how to think logically and dispassionately, and we have to be able to debate and discuss and talk among ourselves in a civilized way about the urgent issues of our time. This is the absolute first step.
This would be the first step to 'possessing authority' and thus the first step toward obtaining respect for our rights as the people.
Forum comments here.

Labels: Democracy, Elections, Founding Fathers, Government, Politics, Presidential Debates, Societal Decay

The excuses and rationalizations are all lined up, in case Obama is elected President.
Many naive White Americans think that an Obama presidency will put paid to complaints about 'racism' and discrimination. The usual way it is framed is that if Obama is elected, it will be because large numbers of Whites voted for him. He cannot be elected simply by the votes of nonwhites, even if every last one voted for him; White votes are necessary for anybody to win the Presidency, no matter what the renegade old media imply. So Obama's election would show that most Whites were willing to have a black President, and this, supposedly, would silence all the cries of 'racism' in this country.
Imagine that happening. The silence would be deafening. I can barely remember such a world.
But would that happen? Not if these representatives of the 'African-American community' are an accurate sample of blacks' thinking. Race-obsessed CNN asks Could an Obama presidency hurt black Americans?
and various blacks answer:
...Glen Ford, executive editor of the online journal blackagendareport.com, offered some white Americans a free solution to the race problem: "Millions of whites came to believe Obama could solve the 'race problem' by his mere presence, at no cost to their own notions of skin privilege," Ford wrote in an essay in January.''
At 'no cost to their own notions of skin privilege?' Tell me more about this skin privilege business. In my experience, the only 'skin privilege' goes with dark skin.
But let's hear the rest of the race-card playing:
Other African-American commentators say the "post-racial" tag attached to Obama could be used to dismiss legitimate black grievances.
Andra Gillespie, an assistant professor at Emory University's political science department, says Obama's success doesn't mean America has become a post-racial society. She says it may signal the decline of individual racism but not another form of discrimination: systemic racism.''
Ahh, systemic racism. I had actually forgotten that sub-category of racism; silly me. I recently listed off the various brands of 'racism', such as unconscious racism, subconscious racism, and 'institutional racism.' I learned these things back in the 70s from my militant black sociology teacher in college. It seems I need to be sent back for a refresher course in black victimology. So I'll let the all-knowing Ms Gillespie bring me up to speed on White Racism 101:
It doesn't mean that there aren't prejudiced people anymore," she said.
Systemic racism is a form of racism that's entrenched in institutions. Some argue that it's the primary cause for intractable problems in the African-American community that range from substandard public schools to disproportionate rates of imprisonment, she says.''
Well, some say these 'intractable problems' (credit to Gillespie for at least admitting that they are intractable) are due to, ahem, differences between the races. But I have a feeling that's not the desired answer.
Electing a black president does not mean that America is ready to take on systemic racism, Gillespie says.
"A rising tide doesn't lift all boats," Gillespie said. "Just because [Obama] gets elected doesn't mean the lives of poor black people are automatically going to improve."
It could actually get worse for poor African-Americans, she says.
"People could say if Barack [Obama] can succeed and someone can't get off of the stoops in the hood, it's their fault, and it has nothing to do with systemic racism," Gillespie said.''
It's their fault? Imagine anyone saying that. Who would make such a scurrilous judgment? Racists, of course.
So no, it's obviously not going to happen that blacks will wake up the day after election day, should Obama be elected, and thank their lucky stars that America is no longer an evil racist nation where Whitey keeps the black man down. No, life will go on as before, and unless I miss my guess, the old tattered race card will be flourished with increasing frequency. The only difference will be that Obama himself will probably be leading the chorus of accusations, and encouraging more of the same.
Granted, we haven't had a President who unequivocally represents majority White America for decades now, but does anybody on the right seriously think that Obama would even feign impartiality or neutrality?
In this piece, the columnist mentions talk of 'civil unrest' in the event of an Obama defeat in November.
... I�m not a conspiracy theorist or alarmist. But I do believe that current cultural and political conditions are such that a McCain "victory" in November could create, at the very least, some significant tension in our society, if not outright civil unrest. Much of my concern has to do with a rather skewed, subjective, and selfish view of the notion of "injustice" that Obama himself has propagated throughout his campaign.
Think about it. On both implicit and explicit levels, Obama�s rhetoric suggests that the annoyances, the risks, the hardships and insecurities of your existence are the result of various injustices done to you, and that he alone can correct those injustices. ''
In other words, if the idea is widely accepted among blacks that Obama's election is the only way for their myriad grievances to be addressed or corrected (an impossible task, in any case), then they will likely react with great bitterness should he be defeated.
And if he's elected, will the situation be any better? I think race relations can only be further polarized and inflamed with Obama in office.
But if this is the case, then the 'worse is better' theorists believe worsened race relations would galvanize Whites and cause a new solidarity to develop. I am not convinced that this would be the immediate effect.
But if Obama's defeat would lead to civil unrest, as some posit, could that not be sufficient to wake up our somnabulists? I think that would be a far less risky gamble than placing our bets on an Obama presidency as a strong dose of reality tonic for most Americans.
And it seems clear that the single most intractable thing is the insatiable demands of the perennial victims. It has truly become a way of life, this constant complaining and demanding, so that no objective change for the 'better' will ever be sufficient. And unfortunately, our adversaries' idea of 'better' is objectively worse for us.

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Elections, Political Correctness, Politics, Racial Guilt

Here's an interesting site, where people of every country can 'vote' for their choice for President of the United States.
When I looked at the results, it appeared as though Ron Paul was in the lead among the Republican candidates and Barack Hussein Obama was leading on the Democrat side.
Luckily, the world can't participate in choosing our President -- not yet, anyway, though if the open borders crowd and the liberals of both parties have their way, we will be giving the vote to non-citizens before too long, and of course there have been reports that illegals in our country have voted.
For now, however, only Americans can legally have a say in who becomes our next President.
I am wondering, however, why so many voting in this poll would pick Obama? Any thoughts on that phenomenon?
Is he that charismatic, or is it just a politically correct thing?
Ron Paul certainly seems to have drawn a lot of favorable notice in other countries; there are blogs supporting him in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and the UK, among others. Of course this is proof, to the neocons and the Fredhead types, that Ron Paul must be a liberal because all the 'Eurotrash' as they call Europeans like him.
As I said, every condemnation from those types is like a recommendation, from my point of view. He must be right (in every sense of the word) if they dislike him so much.

Labels: Elections, Gop, Politics, Polls, Presidential Candidates, Ron Paul

Lately we've heard the term 'balkanization' tossed around a lot, and it seems our America is in the process of being Balkanized. Well, over at Matthew White's website (which has been up since the 90s) he has a series of interesting maps and historical speculations, under the heading 'Surreal Histories.'
Among the maps there are his map of a 'Balkanized North America.' He poses the question
'What would America have looked like if every separatist movement in U.S. and Canadian history had succeeded?'' See the map here to find out, according to his speculations.
It is interesting to contemplate how things would have turned out had these movements been successful.
Another interesting link on the page is 'Perotista Revolution!' -- asking 'What if the anti-government forces of the 1990s had risen...?''
First, I am not sure that the Perot supporters he seems to conflate with the ''extreme right'' are who he believes them to have been. I was actually a Perot supporter at that time, and I was still quite a leftist in many ways. I met with many Perot supporters and they were quite a cross-section of people, most of them quite ordinary Americans, not a bunch of survivalists or militia members as he seems to believe. There were a few of those, but there were more ticked-off 'average Americans' from both parties and some who had always been independents. I worked with several people who voted for Perot and the majority of them were Democrats who were disgusted with Clinton as the candidate.
So I am not convinced that the Perotistas, as he calls them, were necessarily radical revolutionaries.
However his speculations are interesting; by all means read them.
I found it interesting to see the percentage of Perot voters broken down by state. I had not been aware of the strength of Perot's support in places like Maine, but then despite my New England ancestry it's the part of the country I have the least experience of. But in Maine, Perot snagged 30 percent of the vote, and 28 percent in Alaska. I find it interesting that the South did not go for Perot in a big way; he got 22 percent of the vote in his own state of Texas but apparently didn't make much of a showing in the rest of the South.
All this is interesting to me mainly for the parallels I see between the mood of the electorate (as I read it) in this election cycle and the mood of the country in 1992 and 1996. I was active in political matters then (I'm embarrassed to admit, in the Democrat Party) and I know how people were feeling. There was a great deal of disaffection, and constant talk of the need for 'change.' Many people were not happy with the choice of George H.W. Bush on the GOP side and Bill Clinton on the Democrat side. The big theme of the debates in 1992 was 'change', and all the candidates, including Bill Clinton, promised change, and change away from 'business as usual' in D.C.
People were restless and fed up.
Somehow the major parties succeeded in persuading the gullible or the easily-led that they, the major parties, were going to set a new tone in D.C., and that the old D.C. insiders would no longer reign. It didn't happen; they lied.
Now, after years of failed policies, the two parties are more unresponsive to ordinary Americans, majority Americans, than ever. So we have the potential for another third-party candidacy, if the two major parties continue to be as oblivious as they are. And I don't see any reason to expect any change.
My perceptions, based on what I see and hear, may be incorrect but I sense even more disillusionment and disgust now than I did in the 90s. People are looking for leadership, and some people, for whatever reason, think they see the leader we need in Rudy or Mitt or Fred, but I think that few people are very enthusiastic about voting for any of them. I think people are grasping at straws, or are in denial, or they are scared stiff of not voting for the party they've always voted for. And the media tell them that only Rudy, Mitt, or Hillary or Obama are 'electable.' So they obediently pick one of the approved candidates, fearing that if the other 'evil' party is elected, the sky will surely fall.
I think one of the problems we have in trying to effect needed change is the attitude that what is, must be. The two parties have 'always' existed, and no third party candidate has ever been elected, so no such candidate can ever be elected. Obviously this is fallacious. There is, as the old saying tells us, the first time for everything. And the Republican Party was at one time a third party. Things change; change is the one certainty in this world, and it's wise to try to steer the change in the right direction when we see that we are as lost as we are in this country right now.
So Matthew White's alternate histories serve as an exercise, to cause us to attend to the possibility that things could easily have taken a different turn along the way, and that the aggregate actions of a relatively small number of individuals made the difference between two outcomes.

Labels: American History, Elections, History, Maps, Political Parties, Third Party