Many voters on both sides of the political spectrum are currently experiencing ‘Stockholm syndrome’.
Mitt Romney has a terrible record as governor of Massachusetts, and so does US House Representative Paul Ryan. And yet now that they are on the campaign trail they say a few nice things that make us feel good, and the republicans support them.
The same is true with the Democrats. Barack Obama has been a terrible president, and yet his supporters still root for him as the lesser of two evils, even though he passed the NDAA act and kept our troops over seas.
George Bush was supposed to be a moderate conservative and yet he massively increased spending, the debts, government and he started two wars. Obama is a continuation of that presidency, and Mitt Romney is an expansion and continuation of that further. And yet we see people on both sides clinging strongly to their statist candidates because they are afraid of what ‘the other side’ might do if elected to office. Rather than realize that their own party is as damaging to their livelihoods and freedoms as ‘the other side’.
We are now expected to vote through fear of what the other side might do if allowed to get office, rather than realizing that both are wrong and will only harm us.
The republican establishment showed last week that it is not interested in your constitutional rights, they laid out in plain sight this year that they are only interested in unbridled power. The RNC prevented Ron Paul from speaking, and shut down any chance of him being nominated.
We have heard that “we need to vote in Romney in first! Then we can influence him!” which sounds like something Nancy Pelosi would say “we need to vote for it first before we read it”.
We’ve now got people thinking that Mitt Romney is a good manager and thinking outside of the box for picking Ryan as a fiscal conservative, which is completely unfounded, given his voting record.
Paul Ryan is not a good man, and is beginning to show his colors again while campaigning. Remember that Paul Ryan practically begged for the auto bailouts:
Mitt Romney chose to shun Ron Paul, who, if only he’d been allowed to speak, and his delegates been allowed to share their voices and concerns, may well have put their support behind him. Instead he choose to put up Clint Eastwood, whom I admire greatly. But Mitt Romney’s Dirty Harry stunt backfired. The liberal media of course derided the speech, but interestingly, so did the conservative media including Glenn Beck. This has helped to expose the fallacy of the left/right media paradigm, and has exposed that they are all corrupt. Not only that, but Clint Eastwood’s speech overshadowed Mitt Romney’s highly edited, polished and robotic speech which was very vague and didn’t specify how to actually fix the economy or return lost liberties to the nation.
It’s very telling of what the republican establishment is doing, when they’d rather have an old man talk to a chair in front of the crowd, than allow another old man to talk about the future of the party and how to restore liberties. I liked the things that Clint said as much as the things Ron say’s, but I’ll stick with Ron on not endorsing Romney.
In a time when information is available everywhere, ignorance is a choice.
I would encourage you to learn about the candidates, what they stand for, and to look at what the power structure is doing in each party.
The republicans are already showing their true colors again. They did nothing good for the country during the Bush administration, and now that they are close to having full power of the house, senate and presidency, they are showing once again what fumbling fools they are. They are simply a milder version of the democrats. Think of Bud light and Budweiser, there’s not much difference in the two of them.
Many people who are over sixty years old believe that anyone but Obama will be good for the country, but they cannot support their arguments with facts, only rhetoric, and memories from the good old days of Eisenhower and Reagan. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have the people who are under forty, almost all of whom support Ron Paul, and are beginning to understand that both parties are deeply flawed and do not follow the constitution.
The liberals were infiltrated by statist ideas a long time ago, and it has become very obvious. The infiltration of the right is less obvious, but it has happened.
The Overton window is a political theory that describes as a narrow “window” the range of ideas that the public will respond to as acceptable, and that the political viability of an idea is primarily defined by this rather than individual preferences of a given politician. It is named after its originator, Joseph P. Overton, former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office.
So how do we escape the perpetual downward trend of statism? The first thing to do is to recognize the problem. This chart will help you figure out where you stand on liberties and freedoms:
Take the quiz and see where you rank!
Libertarians offer an alternative answer to our current problems. You might even be a libertarian yourself.
There is only one escape option left for the nation right now, and that is a 3rd party candidacy. Ron Paul was our last chance to steer the republican party from within.
FROM DR RON PAUL
As we enter the fall political season, we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from both major political parties and their many candidates for office. It’s important for us to remember, however, that words can be made meaningless by misuse or overuse. And when we as citizens allow politicians to obscure the truth by distorting words, we diminish ourselves and our nation.
For example, we’ve all heard politicians use the words “democracy” and “freedom” countless times. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. They have become what George Orwell termed “meaningless words”. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused for so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, such words were “often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As just one example, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom. Thus we are conditioned to believe that democracy is always and everywhere benevolent. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. While our Constitution certainly features certain democratic mechanisms, it also features inherently undemocratic mechanisms like the First Amendment and the Electoral College. America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Yet we’ve been bombarded with the meaningless word “democracy” for so long that few Americans understand the difference. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom or liberty–regardless of the issue being discussed– ask yourself whether he is advocating more government force or less. The words “liberal” and “conservative” have also been abused. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. Liberalism has been redefined to mean liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. “Conservatism,” meanwhile, once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government. But in recent decades conservatism has been redefined as support for big-government grandiosity via military adventurism, corporatism, and inflationary monetary policy. The modern political right has redefined conservatism into support for an all-powerful central state, provided that the state furthers supposedly conservative goals. Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. Our task, therefore, is to reclaim our language and reclaim our liberties. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.
I hope my posts are somewhat of a counsel to those who are rubbing their eyes in disbelief. I know its hard to give up ideas you’ve held for so long about certain people and certain parties, but the cause of liberty and freedom is worth the sacrifice. I’d rather be told a cold hard truth and learn to live with it, than to be told a comforting lie, only to have its bitterness slowly seep in over time and rot from the inside out.
Do not be discouraged, do not be upset, once you have learned what has happened to both sides of the two party system, you can begin to rebuild your ideas and share them with others. There are many good intellectual libertarian websites out there where you can learn more, and do your part to return liberty and free market concepts to this once free nation.
The time for a third party has come. The time to restore liberties is now. We must restore this nation. Give me liberty or give me death!