Christmas, Wolves, Sheep, and Everything In-Between

Per usual custom, I spent Christmas Day at my grandparent’s, surrounded by family and more food than usually imaginable.

It was a very unusual Christmas, however, as nearly everyone stayed far later than usual, probably to see what “surprise” gift my uncle got that was forbidden to be opened until 6P.M. Either way, the inevitable happened: Someone mentioned something political.

The reference was something involving “Big Brother”. Had I been a fox, my ears would have visibly perked. Instantly, my realm of hearing focused on the conversation. For the record, the bulk of my family is pretty hardcore Republican, primarily due to the fact that they don’t feel many politicians are worthy of being voted into office, and so they default to the less intrusive of the two major political parties. Someone made the statement that under Barack Obama’s leadership, we were in for a big surprise, insisting that a surge in “Big Brother” activity was inevitable.

Instantly, I was somewhat irritated. Witnessing what has taken place over the past eight years, including the USA PATRIOT act, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and the use of sonic hearing devices in law enforcement vehicles, I was shocked. I quickly made the interjection that, “I highly doubt anyone could do more damage than George W. Bush has done”. A few quick “Just you wait”s came out and I decided that the argument wasn’t worth my time.

Don’t get me wrong, any president that can dodge a shoe as well as Mr. Bush certainly deserves a bit of respect. In fact, that video alone gave me more respect for him than his being president for the past four years. I’m not a “Bush Basher”. I agree with the foreign policy he ran on in his campaigns; limited government, non-interventionalism, the good stuff.

The point I wanted to make was not that we would see a lack in Big Brother activity. My point, for one, was that Big Brother has grown incredibly the past eight years, all of it behind-the-scenes and under the stage. I don’t see the behemoth growing that exponentially in the next four years. In addition, I believe any increase we see in “Big Brother” under Barack Obama’s leadership will certainly be rivaled by any behind-the-scenes increase that G.W. made. I could be wrong. Who knows.

The second point that I really wanted to make but knew would fall on deaf ears was more of a plea than a point. No president does things alone. While our system of checks and balances lies in wreckage and shambles, it still exists and is still legally binding. We elect senators and representatives to stand up for us in the face of tyrannical injustice. Without their approval, as things stand, the president meets a brick wall with his orders and desires. Unfortunately, we as Americans have grown so distanced from the political forum that we no longer elect people to protect us. We elect people that will lead us on endlessly, even if it is in a negative direction. When things go sour, we blame our president, never the men that we gave the opportunity to say “No, Mr. President” and didn’t. Why is it that when a senator does not do his job properly and continues supporting higher taxes and less freedom we do not simply reject him? We will not hesitate to get the cook at McDonald’s fired for forgetting ketchup on our burger, but we certainly do not care enough to fire the man or woman responsible for protecting us from tyranny? I know that I, for one, have written many many letters to congressmen, either supporting, denouncing, or offering potential changes to a piece of legislation.

I was told in elementary school by a teacher that there were two types of people in the world; sheep and wolves. She said that sheep were fairly happy with the necessities; food, water, shelter, etc., but that they were dumb, easily confused and scared. Then she said that wolves were smart and clever and, while they sometimes went hungry, they always seemed to be able to get back on their feet and when they did manage to get food, it was an amazing meal, generally of sheep. She then asked the class delicately, “Are you a sheep or a wolf?” In a room of no more than thirty, only about three or four people raised their hands claiming to be sheep, the remainder claimed to be wolves. She then established that, in life, wolves would be the leaders and sheep the followers. Obviously nearly everyone in the room lied; victims of a false positive self-image. If the majority of that classroom were truly wolves we, as Americans, would not be nearly as clueless as we are today.

I did not raise my hand to be a wolf. My hand was soft and quiet. I was a sheep, complacent with my place in the world.

Times have changed.

Presidential Confusion

I really have tried hard not to think about this, especially since it is so far away, but I’ve seen at least one news article on the subject every day for the past couple of weeks. There seems to either be some huge GOP support, some crazy GOP supporters, or some weird media infatuation with her, but there has been an immense amount of talk, speculation, and suspicion that Sarah Palin will be running for the Republican presidential candidate in 2012.

Really?

Are Republicans really that ignorant? It doesn’t really affect my view of her that she and McCain lost, after all, I’ve already tackled that here. But really? Sarah Palin? The woman who said that she actively read every newspaper in print? The woman who could not do an interview properly without John McCain by her side? The woman who did not understand a single piece of economic literature handed to her? The woman who used more buzzwords by herself than either John McCain or Barack Obama combined? This is the person that the Republican party is excited about? The woman who has less international relations experience than a college student who failed International Relations because it was at 7:30 in the morning? This is what the GOP wants?

Again, it is simply early speculation, and I really hope that she doesn’t even receive a single vote if she decides to run. Wait, let me rephrase that: I really hope that she doesn’t receive a single vote if she decides to run. It is simply absurd to think that this woman can somehow run the country. She was a nice, down-to-Earth person, but lacked any real convictions other than the almost radical conservative religious viewpoints that made her almost tyrannical. Sarah Palin is in no way qualified to run our country.

One of the biggest points I’ve heard made about her is that she put the Alaskan state budget on-line for citizens to view. I will most certainly agree that that is a remarkably good idea. However, if you look at Alaskan itemized budgets compared to, let’s say Texan itemized budgets, Alaska is seriously lacking in both complexity and volume. The idea is a great one, but we cannot say that she’s some sort of fiscal angel because of it. The problem is that it simply wouldn’t work in larger states (though I wish it would) and it certainly wouldn’t work in a modern day federal government (though I wish it would).

The Republican party is currently trying to acquire a fresh face to counter the Democratic party. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to realize that simply because a candidate is young does not mean that the candidate is fresh and viable.

An Unexpected Knight

During the Republican primaries I was fairly offset by Mitt Romney. Not because of his pro-pharmaceutical statement at one of the debates, not because of his Mormon faith, not because of his lack of disclosure on his torture platform, but just because he looked so fake.

Romney looked young and presentable, but had a hard time appealing to middle-class Americans. He was just way too rich!

However, scouring the web at 4:00A.M. CST unable to sleep, led me to an article written by Mitt Romney for the New York Times. To be blunt- I was amazed. Romney calls for no bailout for the “Big Three”, insisting that it only delays their inevitable bankruptcy. Instead, Romney says that the automobile industries need to rethink their production model, cut retirement benefits, and hire new, fresh management while kicking out the old, failed management. In fact, reading the article, I thought I could hear aspects of free market capitalism being mentioned; no bailout, renegotiate/eliminate union contracts and even “rectify the [embedded] tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers”.

While I do not support everything that Mr. Romney mentions in his article, I found it an interesting read from a very unexpected person. Who would have known that free market capitalism was still a prominent thing? Certainly not I, with all of the government regulation, subsidization, and nationalization spreading around so vehemently by members of both parties.

The article can be found at the New York Times’ website under the title Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.

The Bailout: A Natural Alternative

I became sick and tired of hearing congressmen saying how much they regretted having to sign the bailout legislation (this includes you, Mitch McConnell) and yet seeing them sign it any way. I know that the bailout is over and done with and has proven entirely ineffective, but I read an article this morning and wanted to spread the knowledge of how capitalism, not nationalization, works.

Reference this article.

When banks, such as Franklin and Security Pacific, take on more risk than their company can handle and continue that business plan, they’re bound to fail. Capitalism punishes bad behavior. That’s how it works. The bailout tries to intervene in this and rewards bad behavior.

Any way, I was happy to see that Franklin Bank and Security Pacific Bank went belly up. I hate it for them because they were relatively small banks and should have been helped by the bailout if larger banks were helped (Read Ron Paul’s Too Big to Fail article). I’m rather tiffed at the bailout, simply because it benefits big business and offers no consolation to smaller businesses. I hate the bailout from an economic standpoint, but when it applies a double standard, come on, that’s just ridiculous. (Please don’t take this paragraph to say that I favor a bailout of small business, either.)

Any way, the thing that made me happy about them going belly up is that capitalism worked in that sense; it punished bad behavior. And, to counter the argument that many politicans had: “What about the deposits held by these failed banks?” Well, capitalism has an answer for that too: Now two more banks, Prosperity Bank and Pacific Western Bank have thousands of new customers! The government does not need to pay for the losses of big companies simply because they are big. Capitalism is very fair and balanced, when unregulated, and would have been able to recover no matter what. Businesses that make bad decisions fail. Suddenly small banks become more prominent. This increases competition and suddenly investors find themselves winning in the long run.

Again, I know that the bailout is over and done with and that we’ve learned that it doesn’t work. However, I feel that any amount of text that supports capitalism rather than socialism is able to offset an equal amount of misconception about how flawed and dangerous free market economies are.

Election Day is Over.

I’ve had an insane amount of visitors today coming from bookmarks rather than external links. I assume all of them were hoping I would give some sort of “Obama Won, What’s This Mean” post. Unfortunately, it’s too early to determine what path the president elect will take or how he will begin to micromanage his office.

However, I believe that Obama did not win as much as McCain lost.

What I mean by that is that, throughout the country, Republican incumbents were tossed from their legislative seats and replaced with Democratic newcomers. It seems that the country may not have been entirely in love with Senator Obama, but were bitter and disenfranchised by the Republican Party of the past 8 years, of which Senator McCain was a part of. In fact, in a local race, I nearly saw incumbent Republican state senator Ken Winters usurped by Democrat Carroll Hubbard, a man convicted of numerous felonies related to his misuse of authority as senator years ago.

Now, what I want to look at, given this information, is the long-term vision of the Republican party…

Currently, Democrats take up the majority of congress and we have a Democrat as our president elect. Republicans are hurting, forced to analyze how to take back congress in 2010. So, let’s think about what the Republican party could possibly do to seize control again.

1.) Let’s kick those politicians that think war is an economic stimulus out of office; Democrats and Republicans alike. This general election did not have a mainstream “anti-war” candidate and so anti-war voters had to select Obama as their candidate, although he is just as much of a warmonger as John McCain. Obama managed to throw in the word “diplomatically” and sway voters. If the Republican party could get rid of the neo-conservative war chiefs, we’d be doing a lot better.

2.) The economy was a major issue for most voters and it was this issue that essentially determined the election. Prior to the RNC or DNC, John McCain was the nation’s pick for president. It wasn’t until the economy came to the foreground that McCain’s campaign had a major setback, seeing as how economy was John’s weak point. Socialism always sounds pretty on paper and so many voters, based on interviews I’ve conducted, really liked that fact that Obama represented “some” socialism-like economic policies.

Face it. For the short time that socialism will work in this country, any Keynesian Republican will stand no chance. However, if the Republican party adopted another form of economic policy, such as Austrian, we would gain a major advantage, as Austrian economics stands in direct opposition to socialism. Besides, whether any one thinks it or not, Keynesian economics and fiat currency got us into this economic mess. Obama gained votes because he offered economic “change” contrary to the small, almost unseen amounts of socialism that John McCain endorsed.

3.) Drug laws are always a big democratic voting issue. If the Republican party actually stood by their vows of “Individual Responsibility” we would see a lot more freedom in our personal lives, including the exodus of government from our homes. Say “We’ll end the war on drugs”, which is the theoretical standpoint of the Republican party, and you would be amazed at how many straight-edge democrats the Republican party would find itself being endorsed by. This of course doesn’t mean that suddenly all drugs are legal and everyone gets high and cracked out every day of the week. There are a LOT of economic and social problems created by the prohibition of illegal substances and The War on Drugs does little to actually help the situation; therefore it is useless. I’ll actually write a post on this later and then I’ll edit this post to give a link to it.

4.) Kick this dogmatic “family values” platform. Politicians on both sides of the fence run on “traditional family values” pretty frequently and I’ve seen some “traditional family values” Republicans vote more liberally than some democrats. The Republican Party prefers to scare people with religion and moral compasses rather than discuss constitutional or legislative legality.  They would rather isolate middle of the line republicans in favor of securing a radical right wing conservative base.

This election was decided by independent voters and previously undecided voters, many of whom were middle of the line Republicans that had found themselves disenfranchised by the mainstream Republican party. Young voter turnout was incredible, most of whom were registered democrats, due again to the distinct hatred felt toward the Republican incumbents.

This race was not as much a success for the Democratic party as it was a defeat for the Republican party. If the GOP wants to make a comeback, they’re going to have to get off of their high horse and humble themselves, admitting that perhaps the 4 steps above are within their party’s guidelines, can secure independent voters and can bring new blood into the Republican lifestream.

It is not the policy of the Republican Party, based on their pledged ideals, to manage a federal department of education, sustain a military in 130 countries around the world, or subscribe to socialist economic policies. Democrats and Republicans alike have decided that these paths are the paths that are right for America. Only when Republican newcomers decide to challenge that status quo will we see victory and “change” in the Republican party.

I want to also make it perfectly clear that I am, indeed, a Republican. However, any one that knows me will tell you that I am not the type of Republican you would normally associate the term with. Hopefully this post will extend that knowledge to people that I cannot get time to talk to in my everyday life.

Any one that wants to challenge me, go ahead. If you want to say “Those four things don’t work with Republican beliefs!”, here’s the party’s official platform so we can begin our debate:

Limited Government, Lower Taxes, Individual Responsibility, Strong National Defense [Security]