Category Archives: General

Story of An Election

It’s a contentious election year. The Republican party is deeply divided. An insurgent conservative is trying desperately to become the Republican nominee for President, but the odds are long against him. In a late, some say desperate move, and at any rate an unusual one, he’s named his preferred Vice Presidential running mate before he has secured the nomination. His opponent’s point man on stopping that insurgent campaign is Kremlin stooge and career criminal Paul Manafort. Does this all sound familiar?

I am, in fact, describing 1976.

If I were the sort of religious man who didn’t believe in coincidences, I’d be one hundred percent convinced that if this isn’t Ted Cruz’s year, then in 2020, he will be elected President of the United States, just as Reagan was four years after narrowly losing the nomination to Gerald Ford. The circumstances are all strikingly similar. Indeed, I wonder if Cruz is evoking the circumstances of 1976 on purpose, since he is I think the sort of guy less inclined than I am to believe in coincidences.

As it stands, I am not yet ready to write this election year off. I still hope that Hillary Clinton isn’t elected President of the United States, and I especially hope that she is not elected President of the United States in July, by just under thirteen hundred Republicans. But on the unlikely chance Donald Trump, the likely nominee, somehow defeats Clinton, he will do so without my help or my vote. Or indeed the votes of any of my immediate family members. The Republican party is not entitled to my vote, and I will never be brow-beaten into voting for an unacceptable nominee again. I hated Mitt Romney and John McCain, but they were at least Republicans. It was often hard to understand why but they were, of a sort anyway. Donald Trump defies ideological description, indeed he has contempt for the idea of having ideas-that’s not what “winners” do you see. Winners “make deals.” More over, he has clearly signaled that he will not work with conservatives. He will however work with the Mitch McConnells of the world to continue screwing over the American people. But that’s mostly moot. Donald Trump will not be President, and you should probably bet money on that, to anyone who will take you up on the offer.

I do, however, feel that even when we are ready to write this election off, we should not abandon all hope. Reagan’s comeback after 1976 just for years later provides a useful model for the potential future of the conservative movement. Twelve straight years of bad left wing policies will inevitably produce disastrous results. But what really finished Carter in 1980 was a combination of a weakening economy and the Iranian hostage crisis. That Hillary Clinton will continue the sort of feckless interventionism in foreign policy of Obama, that has all the negatives of both adventurism-neoconservatism and none of the countervailing positives of actual direction and purpose and, you know, that quaint notion of American interest, is basically beyond doubt. That style of foreign policy was invented by the Clinton administration. So that she will likely have equivalent problems to the hostage crisis tp deal with, is fairly easy to see. An increasingly isolationist American public may find arguments from a Rand Paul type Republican more amenable on those issues, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that less libertarian Republicans can credibly attack her on those issues in 2020. More importantly, there are good reasons to think Hillary Clinton may contend with a bad recession in the middle of her Presidency, and she will certainly not pursue policies that will actually be helpful in alleviating it. Even if she did, getting reelected in the near immediate aftermath of a bad recession, without the ability to credibly blame the economic crisis on the opposition, is a tall order. If there is a recession in 2018 or there abouts, I expect 2020 to be a Republican year.

For many of you, this message that we must remain in the political wilderness a bit longer, will be a bitter pill to swallow. But during that time, we may begin to regard this as strong, hopeful medicine.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, elections, General, Republicans

Beyond Reproach; On Questioning “Patriotism”

Strictly speaking, the word “Patriot” cannot apply to modern American progressives because the word “Patriot” actually means someone of Whig persuasion. To say that Progressives are not Patriots is merely to affirm the obvious fact that Progressivism is an Anti-Liberal political philosophy, and is obviously not meaningful. I do not “question the Patriotism” of American leftists, as that would be akin to questioning the Christian Faith of a Hindu. The American Patriots that fought for their rights as Englishmen were not Patriots because they “loved their country.” That would be nonsense: America was not yet a country, and most people would question whether you love a country you try to separate from. No, the Patriots loved an idea. To be sure, a fairly uniquely English idea, but certainly not one the British Government believed in, since the denied it to those in their colonial dominions. That idea was freedom, but in particular it was freedom in what Schumpeter called “the bourgeois sense.”

But the recent controversy over Rudy Giuliani’s remarks is not, contrary to the abuse of the term, over him “questioning Obama’s Patriotism.” In reality, Giuliani questioned whether Obama has the same kind of love of America, or whether he has the love of America, that people like Giuliani do.

I mean really, how dare he! You Republicans, you’d probably question Lenin’s love of Russia, or Robespierre’s love of France. Outrageous! Everyone’s Nationalism is beyond reproach: who would want to lead a country he did not love? Surely no one.

Do you see the rhetorical point I’m trying to make here? I think it’s actually obvious that American progressives cannot love American-at least, not as America is or has been. Democrat Nationalism-not Patriotism, that would be an oxymoron-is love of America as it could be, if only they could make it so. But a love of what the country could be if only you were in charge, implies a hatred of the country as it has been, if how that country has been, has been in a recalcitrant state, standing athwart your march toward Utopia. This is I believe what Giuliani has rightly observed appears to be a feature of Obama’s worldview in particular. And in some sense, if you love America you ought perhaps look askance at those who would see her transformed into something very different before they could truly be proud to call her home. I know that I would-that I do.

But far more important, I think, than whether one loves the country as it is or has been, is the question of whether what one wants for the country, for the people that inhabit our polity, is truly good for them. And this, not whether Democrats are Nationalists or not, is the truly damning indictment of their entire ideology. Robespierre loved France: he loved to see it terrorized. Lenin loved Russia: he loved to see it suffer. Of course, there are also those who love their country, in that they love to see the boot of their country on everyone else’s throat-think Mussolini or Hitler-but the left in America is relatively uninterested in directly oppressing foreigners. Contrast all of those with Patriotism, a love for what is actually good for the people of our country, love of things that would be good for everyone. The love of the American idea as such, neither a love for a people, a geographic location, or a government, but a love of American freedom.

I have absolutely no doubt that Obama has no such love for the American idea. No one should really be surprised by that. And I suspect most people criticizing Giuliani would understand that if only they wanted to. But they don’t want to.

Comments Off on Beyond Reproach; On Questioning “Patriotism”

Filed under Freedom, General

Neo-Free Soil

In 1848, Salmon P. Chase coined a simple slogan for the Free Soil Party, which later became a core part of the Republican Party.

Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men

I believe that something similar is in order today. In fact, many of these very same brief summaries of positions would be adaptable to present day policy debates in parallel with past ones, and naturally align with the American Conservative/Right-libertarian positions, with a few additions:

Free Soil

The Government lays claim to large swaths of land in the American West. Their claim to property rights over this territory is theoretically dubious; indeed, from a Lockean perspective, it is totally illegitimate. As such, while it might be pragmatic to pay down the debt by selling off public land, it is bad law to do so. My suggestion would be to pass a new Homestead Act, whereby this property could transition to private ownership from non-ownership, through use. Economic activity on and development of this land would be encouraged by temporary exemption of all State, Local, and Federal taxation therein. Some portions could be set aside for the establishment of private parks and nature preserves, with the provision for ownership changed from any use, to exclusively use as parks where the owners would be free to charge whatever fees for access they see fit, on condition that they maintain the land well (Not that they attempt to keep the land in a static state, it must be said) . Legal authority (ie law enforcement jurisdiction) within the territory is to belong solely to the States or the relevant Local Government, but all property rights are to be private, and certain state regulations are to be considered abrogated within the property at least for the duration of the development period. This is a program that not only restores the right notion of property rights to our laws, but will also spur economic development and growth, as reopen the once closed frontier.

Free Speech

Freedom of Speech is under assault in America, make no mistake about that. Whether it be Harry Reid and his ilk seeking broad, sweeping power to ban the use of money by corporations to give the views of the people they are composed of a platform-including, it must be noted, all media corporations, between which there is no legal distinct or distinct of substance-or be it the effective nullification of anti-SLAPP laws for anyone who dares speak against a publicly funded High Priest of the New Religion, or State sponsored Universities have explicit or implicit speech codes and whereby in the latter case aggressive intimidaters can force Universities to suppress anyone from speaking there that they don’t agree with. American Conservatives/Right-libertarians must stand against all this, in favor of absolute, unequivocal freedom of speech.

Free Labor

We should favor the elimination immediately of the minimum wage-a barrier to entry in the labor supply market for unskilled, inexperienced workers. We should favor the elimination of most if not all occupational licensing. We should abolish the National Labor Relations Board that supports labor supply cartelization that could not survive in the market otherwise. We should pass a national right to work law forbidding and abrogating all closed shop clauses in labor contracts. The labor market must be competitive and free, as should be all other markets.

Free Banks

Banking has been substantially regulated in the US from it’s very earliest days. Monetary Laissez Faire was never allowed to prevail, even during the “free banking” era. Economic theory and historical experience both favor a free system of competitive note issue (historically, under a commodity standard, ie Gold) has produced far greater economic stability than a Central Bank could hope to achieve-indeed, Central Banks are the cause of much monetary disequilibrium and thus economic and financial instability. Scotland, the home nation of Adam Smith, offers particularly strong historical evidence in this regard, but the experience of our Canadian neighbors to the North are also especially informative, where during various periods Canadian banking was not subject to certain regulations and restrictions that were often plaguing the US, and escaped many of the associated problems. This amounts to a proposal for the eventual privatization of the Money Supply. As we recognized, the demand for a good is best met when competitive, private forces supply it to the public, meeting Demand for it by finding the appropriate price to clear the market. At present, however, a monopoly over meeting demand for money by the Government means that Supply is essentially arbitrary, and unsurprisingly shortages and surpluses result as always when the Government attempts to control the provision of a good. In this case it is the good that stands in for all others, or more precisely when we speak of money demand (that is, to hold, not spend, money, where the immediate demand is for money for it’s own sake, that is, for forgoing present consumption in favor of future consumption), the present good that stands in for future all possible future goods. Equally unsurprisingly, all manner of mischief results from this central planning of the Money Supply. A system of free, unregulated banking would all but eliminate business cycles caused by monetary disequilibrium, leaving only those cycles caused by real shocks, which are unavoidable no matter what the economic system. It would accomplish this by stabilizing nominal income (MV), and implicit monetary rule far superior to any difficult to implement Federal Reserve policy. And while historically these systems have involved Gold or other commodity standards, it would be possible to implement gradually and without having to first define statutorily the dollar as redeemable in gold-banks would, of course, be free to write contracts of that sort, but high-powered or base money could be used as reserves in the meantime-with the stock thereof being frozen. In the previously linked book on the Theory of Free Banking, economist George Selgin outlined how this could all be achieved, in addition to the many reasons such a program would be a great reform for our monetary system.

Free Markets

Myriad subsidies, taxes, bailouts, handouts, and other Government interventions in the marketplace should be ended. We must liberate the economy from the controls that are holding it back, the interferences that get in the way of real progress. If we are to restore our economy to a healthily growing state, this is an imperative.

Free Trade

End the Export Import Bank and unilaterally repeal all protective tariffs. Restricting free exchange of goods across an arbitrary boundary is just bad economics.

Free Men

Whether it’s government intrusion on our civil liberties, like listening in on all our phone conversations and storing massive amounts of information on us using illegal writs of assistance, or claiming upwards of half of our earnings in some States, and half our wealth upon death, or compelling us to purchase health insurance on penalty of prohibitive fine-sorry, “tax”-which must be paid or else one is a criminal, it is clear that our Government no longer sees us as citizens, but as serfs. The leaders of both parties seek to enfranchise the foot soldiers of an invading army of a hostile country-the so-called ally who teach their children that half of our country belongs to them, who continue to keep an American as a prisoner of war-effectively erasing our own right to vote by cancellation-and have the unmitigated cheek to accuse attempts to counter this of disenfranchisement! We must reject and reverse this. The people should be free, free to keep the fruits of their labor, and retain their basic freedoms from Government control and intrusion. And free to determine the form of their own Government, and not have it decided by enemy combatants given access to the ballot box.

So that’s my simple slogan, and what it means to me. Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, Free Banks, Free Markets, Free Trade, and Free Men.

Comments Off on Neo-Free Soil

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Freedom, General, History

Rand Paul’s Criticism of Reagan Is Unfair, Misplaced.

Recently-although not that recently, since I can’t work and keep totally on top of everything that happens in the world-Senator Rand Paul criticized the record of President Ronald Reagan on spending, comparing him unfavorably to Carter. I’m obviously saddened to hear this, as I’m actually a fan of Paul, and more obviously, and fan of Reagan. But I’m not afraid to criticize people I generally like when I think they’re wrong, even if their going astray really is a rare miss. Rand Paul cites statistics that are, as a matter of literal fact, accurate. However, Paul has fallen victim to a dangerous political myth: that of the All Powerful President. It is wrong to give all of the credit, or all of the blame, to the President of the United States for everything that happens during their term(s) in office. It is especially wrong to do so when the Congress is controlled by the opposition party. Although Republicans controlled the Senate from January 1981 to January 1987, at no point during Reagan’s Presidency-and indeed at no point from 1953 to 1995 did Republicans control the House of Representatives at all. You should consider that last point for a bit, also: the House of Representatives was at one point controlled by Democrats for forty two years. It is Congress, not the President, which ultimately possesses the power of the purse. And the House in particular is important in this regard. Measures for raising revenue-which in practice generally means the entire budget-must originate in the House of Representatives. So under the Reagan administration, a significant degree of the blame for increased spending should fall on Congress, with only a relatively small portion of the blame falling on Reagan for not fighting hard to restrain spending. Cynically, it is likely that doing so would have insured a Mondale Presidency-who would have basically run the country into the ground, to be perfectly frank. Similarly, Bill Clinton does not deserve the credit he is given for the restrained of Government growth in the 1990’s-the fact that Republicans regained control of the House for the first time in two generations-that’s 21 elections!-and fought impressively for an agenda today’s GOP wouldn’t dream of achieving, actually succeeding in achieving most of their ambitious goals. Clinton fought this every step of the way, but not quite to the bitter end the way Obama has proven frighteningly willing to. It is remarkable enough that Reagan managed to achieve as much as he did, in fact it’s likely that much of his agenda had to be achieved by giving spending to the House Democrats. But there is much, in retrospect, that we have learned from the Reagan years. Certainly not the lessons many people think we ought to have learned. But perhaps Paul has mostly learned the right lessons. For example, we have learned that deals to cut spending, traded for higher taxes, lead to higher taxes and higher spending-hence the familiar left wing talking point about how many times “Reagan raised taxes” (which, again, and even more strongly, is the responsibility of Congress and in particular the Democrats running the part of it from which revenue measures must originate. We have learned that “comprehensive immigration reform” meaning deals cut to secure the border traded for amnesty for illegal aliens, results in more illegal aliens and no actual border security-and leads, gradually, and unfortunately inevitably, to the demographic suicide of the United States of America. In short, we’ve learned what we should have known all along. The other side is evil and not to be trusted. You don’t compromise with the devil (speaking metaphorically here, butthurt atheists).

If you fault Reagan for anything, as a Conservative, or a True Liberal (rather than these Pre-Liberals who call themselves “Progressives” who would advance society by advancing an agenda to reconstruct Medieval society) it is being too compromising. Too willing to reach across the aisle and work with the other side. The struggle between individualism and collectivism is a fight between right and wrong, a moral battle. So I’d be quite pleased if, say, a President Paul would be unwilling to compromise in this fight. But be fair. Intellectually, I believe Reagan understood that. But unfortunately it is difficult to act like this in practice. The Leftists are our friends, our neighbors, our countrymen. As much victims of their own hateful, repugnant ideology as they are perpetrators. And Reagan was sentimental, and friendly to a fault. A man who could write, privately, of JFK being, underneath the boyish haircut, still old Karl Marx, but who never the less considered his adversary in Majority leader Tip O’Neill a friend. Hate the sin love the sinner, better Christians would say. These days it is easy to criticize that sort of sentimentality. The stakes are too high these days, to be that way anymore. Still, I really do think that Paul has erred, and done a disservice to Reagan and to history, with a criticism that is not really fair.

Comments Off on Rand Paul’s Criticism of Reagan Is Unfair, Misplaced.

Filed under Conservatism, Fiscal Policy, General, History, Liberals, Republicans

A simple thought experiment to illustrate why a Government cannot facilitate exchange better than Capitalism

Suppose an economy of eleven people. In this economy, 5 people have X and want Y, 5 people have Y and want X, and there is one person who knows this (each individual party is ignorant of this fact). This person recognizes a profit opportunity: he can buy X from 5 people and Y from 5 people for, say, $4 dollars each, and sell them to the people that want them for $5 each. He makes a total profit of $2 per exchange, or $10 dollars.

Now, technically this represents an inefficiency. If we all possessed omniscience, and there was no cost to us actually getting our goods to each other, we could simply exchange with one another directly. This can be, and moreso now than ever is, resolved by technology; thanks to the internet, we can cut out the middleman more and more in our exchanges. But it must also be recognized that a perfectly efficient exchange could only be achieved by omniscient beings with unlimited power to act as the please. It is impossible in the real world. Some amount of inefficiency always exist, and where it does it represents a profit opportunity that will be exploited. In this example our choices are to let the middleman profit and each of us pay a dollar to engage in our exchanges, or not engage in the exchange at all, and not get what we want.

But what if we had the Government as the middleman? Couldn’t they do it without profiting, so we wouldn’t have to pay a dollar to get what we want? In a word, no.

The reason can be illustrated simply. Suppose the Government acted as the middleman, or more specifically, the a government employee is ordered by “the Government” to do, as his job, the facilitation of our exchanges. He is ordered to buy and sell X and Y in such a way as to make no net profit: $4 each. In net, the Government makes no profit and each of us gets what we want. However, if the Government is to do this it needs to pay the employee what he is willing to work for to facilitate the exchanges. That will be, judging from the Capitalist middleman, $2 per exchange; in other words, $10 dollars. Now, he would not be willing to do it for less than that, because he could just facilitate the exchange under the table without the Governments knowledge and make that much money. So the Government has to pay him at least that much. But the Government made no profit, so how is it to pay it’s employee’s wages? The answer is that it must raise revenue through taxation-Here the difference from Capitalism becomes interesting, because the Government can tax different people different amounts through the use of force: it can implicitly tax future people by borrowing money, it can tax everyone implicitly by inflating the currency and reducing the value of their dollars, or it can simply explicitly tax people, but at different rates. But either way it has to take the same amount of money from the people in total as the Capitalist did,  but unlike the Capitalist, who got the voluntary consent of those paying him, the Government does so with or without their consent, by force. If our Government strives to be fair, it taxes all 10 people equally (and cannot tax the employee of the government without raising his pay, because if his net pay is less than $10, he has an incentive to facilitate the exchange under the table.) The net result is that all ten people each pay a dollar to engage in the exchange, which was the same exact result achieved by the Capitalist who made a profit. We introduced a Government into this process, exchange, and we failed to improve the outcome for anyone. We could have improved the outcome for some individuals only at the expense of others (by harming them). And all this resulted from rather generous assumptions about how the Government would act. In the real world, the Government does not merely fail to improve on market outcomes, it actually does significantly worse; which is to be expected, since we assumed away that the Government would, itself, constitute a use of the 10 people’s resources and an additional cost to their exchanges. Which means that since the Government failed to improve upon the exchange process, there is no justification for having it interfere in it; if it can’t actually improve it, why should it?

Comments Off on A simple thought experiment to illustrate why a Government cannot facilitate exchange better than Capitalism

Filed under Common Sense, Economics, Freedom, General

A Teeming Horde Of Socialists

-Or, the Capitalist Suicide Pact.

Is it the case that the restraint of free movement of people across international boundaries is, in essence, of the nature of the error of the protectionist? Is, it not the case that imposition on such free movement represents violation of the natural right of man by the State?

Resolved that these propositions are, so the citizen of the Capitalist World, fear hypocrisy, deigns it that the artificial construction of a border ought not restrain migration, and he welcomes with open arms as a brother the worker, the talent, the human resource, (for he does not make the error of the population alarmist, that more people is bad) into the nation he calls home, but which, thinking on it, he holds in no special regard, except in so far as it may be an exemplar of his capitalist ideal-and that it is not, so much the more reason to hold it in contempt.

And, being that he may occasionally dislike the results of elections, but thinking the results of human events must inevitably favor liberty in the end, he excepts democracy, perhaps hesitantly. He thinks not for a moment that, in the regions from which his new brothers come, in choosing their own governments freely they have chosen despotism, tyranny, socialism. He is, after all, not racist, to think that ideology could be genetic. He thinks, such is the product of their institutions, but our institutions favor the market-One supposes he forgets that this is not so often, his patriotism is oddly restored from his-deserved-early contempt. And more importantly, he reasons, these are Christians, and we all know how Christians vote. Oh sure, he thinks, my wife or lover may not be able to get an abortion the next time she gets pregnant, but trade will be reasonably unrestrained. He is, unaware? Perhaps, of the evidence the prevailing opinions of these folks, on the contrary, are much the opposite of the typical evangelical Christian. He attributes, instead, all the evidence of every passing election, of evidence of purposeful thought by a block of voters seeking to righteously punish the truculent. And, he says, surely if we do away with the truculent, these people will, so long as we may make the issue ours, vote more in line with their religious beliefs. Religion, not biology, determines ideology, all human history not withstanding.

And lo, political victory! He achieves his goal, and across the nullified national boundary comes the teeming horde. Wonder, glory, at the production from this labor! Huzzah, a victory for mankind, for the future! And thus, on the surface, it seems.

But things are not as they appear. Look upon those things our Capitalist Citizen holds, rightly, in contempt: government largesse swells, and strains to be supported by a tax structure that burdens exclusively the upper income earners; for now, the state of Social Security and Medicare improve, at the expense of Medicaid and welfare programs.

Never fear! The election is here! Finally in good conscience, Capitalist Citizen can support Republicanism again, having defeated the bigots and reclaimed it’s name for the Truly Righteous. And, he expects-contrary to recent evidence-that the people are generally intelligent enough to realize that socialism isn’t working. He is enthusiastic. And so election day arrives.

Disaster! Calamity! Well, on the bright side, your wife can get that abortion. It is the first electoral college unanimous election since George Washington.

Republican Crass Crusty is defeated by Democrat Hugo Vladimir Gonzalez in a landslide. The election is attributed by pundits to the Hispanic vote.

Well, an election is just an election, there will be another one. So he waits, and in the mean time the Democrats further transform the country into something he does not recognize as remotely Capitalist. They win the next election, too, and the next one.

After an entire generation of ruin, Citizen Capitalist is in despair. In his squalid, rent controlled apartment, Citizen Capitalist commits suicide, not able to face the world anymore, it’s future so dim.

Of course, in reality, he committed political suicide a generation ago.

Comments Off on A Teeming Horde Of Socialists

Filed under Common Sense, Dumbasses, Economics, elections, Freedom, General, humor, Republicans

Of Vice (Presidents) and Men.

Hey everyone, I’m back. I had computer meltdown and school so I haven’t posted in some time.

Well, today we are going to be talking about who, in my opinion, should (or should not) be the Vice Presidential nominee of the Republican party. Can anyone repair the damage done by the decision of the establishment to nominate their worst candidate since Benjamin Harrison? Unfortunately, the answer to that last question is “Probably not” but some choices would be markedly worse than others.

By far the worst options come from among the United States Senate. While strictly speaking there is some logic to picking a Senator (namely that the role of the Vice President when the President is not very incapacitated or dead is to be, in effect, a “extra” Senator who normally has no voting role, save to break a tie) the fact of the matter is that if something were to happen to the President, the person who would assume the role would (in general) have no executive experience save observational experience from working alongside the President. That alone is reason enough to doubt the wisdom of a VP choice from the Senate, but not enough to absolutely preclude it. However, there are reasons why all Senators should be out of consideration. First, suppose a conservative Senator were chosen (especially a younger, newer member from oh, say, Florida) this would rob the people of that State of a conservative voice in the Senate to stand up to the President’s anti-capitalist agenda, and drastically shorten and probably end the political career of said VP pick. Alternately, suppose a leftist were chosen to court independent voters: this is redundant even putting aside that this logic doesn’t work in the first place. More than that, the Republicans must understand that they can’t take conservative votes for granted. The only positive to a leftist VP candidate is that when the ticket inevitably goes down in flames it should be impossible to deny the reality that leftist Republicans don’t win elections, and even that morbid prospect is hollow when you realize that the establishment has never acknowledged the overwhelming evidence that already exists. No, the conservative wing of the Republican party must survive this election to either rebuild whatever is left of America after another Obama term or for a primary challenge-I’ll be damned if I see any Presidential reelections any time soon. So the only real options are either a conservative Governor, or someone from outside of current government. Of these options, a Governor is the best direction to go. But one must be careful here: sometimes the fact that a Governor is outspoken and Republican is mistaken for making that Governor a conservative. If, for example, you are thinking of Republicans near the Mason-Dixon line, you may be thinking of a good choice, but only if you are on the south side of it. Ask yourself, “is this guy everyone thinks is so conservative actively trying to keep coal out of his state” if you are assuming the answer is no, as many of you who think you’ve got the perfect pick are, check again, because you are wrong. Please don’t misunderstand, some amount of leftism is to be expected of Northeast Republicans: if we want to have any power in the region we must tolerate that, at least for now. But what is necessary there should stay there. We can continue to like those Republicans if they stay where their beliefs pass for conservative. All of you fans of a certain Republican governor may find you don’t like him as much as you thought you did when he is fighting for capn’trade as VP.

Now, I think I have given enough clues for the astute to discern which of two highly talked about prospects for the VP slot I am specifically trying to argue desperately against. But at this point, there is a disturbingly high chance that either of those choices is going to be the pick. The future of America is very bleak for the coming five years and I am seriously considering talking to one of those crazy libertarian groups about their artificial islands where they intend to establish capitalist paradises. It seems highly preferable to continuing to live in a country governed by anti-capitalists.

Comments Off on Of Vice (Presidents) and Men.

Filed under Announcements, Conservatism, Election 2012, Florida, Freedom, General, Liberals, personal, Republicans