I phoned my dad to tell him I had stopped smoking.
He called me a quitter.
Steven Pearl
Earlier One-Off Post: Michael Grunwald and the "Irrational GOP"
A General Note to Readers
I like to follow a general format leading to a terminating music selection. Occasionally embedding videos throws off subsequent post format, so occasionally you'll see a video/segment at the bottom of the post.
The Free State Project
Ironically I've talked to an Oracle boutique consultancy based out of New Hampshire a couple of times in recent years, but it never got to a serious stage. New Hampshire is the only New England state I've seriously considered moving to. I don't think Tom Woods identifies the party affiliation of Cynthia Chase, but take a wild guess: which party uses "Tea Party" as a pejorative term? Which mindset thinks that the State, not the market, must regulate the economy, schools, healthcare, retirement, what you can eat or drink or whether and where you can smoke or drink alcohol, even whom cuts your hair or sells you lemonade? What morally self-superior individuals believe that they have the moral standing to "educate" you on "diversity", your choice of words, the climate, etc. I don't see a lot of recent material on the blog beyond certain upcoming events, but according to one blogger, there are now 1144 Free Staters and 70% of the way towards their goal of 20,000 petition signers.
Romney Was "Too Libertarian"?
HT to Eric Dondero of the Libertarian Republican website for pointing out the Robert Patterson Examiner op-ed Free-market absolutism is killing the GOP. First, I want to discuss a Dem whom left this comment on Dondero's post (I have zero patience for progressive nonsense): "So you're saying the reason that Romney lost is that he didn't believe in what he was saying? After spending 4 years trying to undermine President Obama and still getting his doors blown off, that's the reason? I'm shocked you guys keep losing." First, Obama was an incumbent, he didn't have to fight for his party's nomination, and his campaign ran millions of dollars in unanswered negative ads; despite a superior campaign organization, Obama barely beat Romney in Ohio, Virginia and Florida and a number of other purple states by 5 points or less. Obama won by a narrower margin than in 2008, two fewer states, millions fewer votes, despite record turnouts by minorities. So much for "doors blown out". Also, no GOP member "undermined" Obama; Obama blew his own super-majorities in Congress, and he managed to pass major legislation without a single GOP vote because he refused to negotiate. According to family sources, Romney was leaning against a second run for the GOP nomination as late as 2010. I am no Romney apologist, but facts are stubborn things.
Romney lost for a number of reasons. He had boxed himself in with a hardline position on immigration. Many in rhe Latino and Asian communities see this as a family values issue; Mitt Romney as a devout Mormon is as family values as you get. Second, I thought Romney made a mistake in nominating Ryan as a running mate. Ryan brought a lot of baggage to the ticket through no fault of his own. I thought Romney had a gender gap (confirmed by election results); I pushed for former Sen. Hutchison. Third, I think he ran too much on his resume, he ran mostly on the economy and too detailed--come on, a 59-point economic plan? Fourth, I thought he did a poor job of posturing himself; for example, he could have attacked the poor economic growth, high spending record under Bush/Obama, nation building under Bush/Obama; he could have touched on Eisenhower's critique of the military-industrial complex. Finally (I could go on but let's stop here) Romney had some basic flaws as a candidate; he is wealthy, and it's hard for the average family to relate to someone whom is financially set for life, multiple homes and cars, even car elevators. He is not a charismatic speaker, and he had a reputation as another Massachusetts flip-flopper. He was going up against a man more popular than his policies or performance.
Let's go to the article.
That familiar lineup shares one big liability: libertarian economics, which has been undermining the Republican brand with the party's natural middle-class base for years.
Indeed, the failure of Mitt Romney's economic platform to resonate with an anxious electorate was no fluke. That message represents the heart and soul of a party that started sleeping with far-right libertarians in 1990.Flat-out not true. Reagan considered himself a libertarian, not GHW Bush. In a manner of speaking, Patterson is correct: the GOP is less likely to support a statist agenda, with more belief in the invisible hand. And Patterson is wrong: Romney blew away Obama in the first debate on the economy, and exit polls gave Romney the edge on the economy. They voted for Obama for other reasons.
But to call Romney a free market guy is a stretch. This is the guy whose proudest public sector achievement was a mandatory health insurance system with government subsidies; he was a supporter of TARP...
Today, amid a long GOP losing streak, the same ideologues are still pushing free trade, globalization and marginal-rate tax cuts. Meanwhile, conservatives seeking to craft a center-right agenda that would directly and substantially boost middle America find themselves struggling uphill.Mmmm. Do I smell a whiff of Alexander Hamilton-style economic nationalism and mercantilism? In fact, Patterson goes on to cite the same type of infrastructure propaganda that Barry Obama and Jerry Brown use in hyping boondoggles like high speed rail. I think Patterson's analysis is quite confused here: the idea of competing against Obama is to adopt similar talking points? Elsewhere he similarly complains about more tax breaks for the wealthy versus the middle class using almost the same class warfare rhetoric as the Dems.
He does at one point point out "government-business collaborations". I believe, for instance, the libertarian Cato Institute has talked about privately-operated tollways, etc.
But Patterson is promoting stuff I would expect from paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan or the Constitution Party.
One more excerpt:
The GOP's embrace of free-market absolutism also explains why party elites support the fiction of same-sex marriage and turning America into an open-borders, low-wage country via immigration amnesty, further weakening the social and economic foundations of middle America.What I've heard is that party leaders do not see same-sex marriage as a litmus test. That's different from changing the party platform supporting traditional marriage. Companies can already built plants in low-wage countries. Immigration and free trade, the law of comparative advantage are good things. Consumers are able to stretch their dollars.
Final point: unlike Obama's "we can't afford to do nothing", we free market folks know statist control of the economy is delusional hubris. What we should focus on is ensuring a nurturing environment for economic growth, not gambling with crony companies using taxpayers' money.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Jerry Holbert and Townhall |
U2, "Pride (In the Name of Love)"
A Young Man Bullied By Progressive Educators
Benji Backer (below) published a good essay at Freedomworks of his dealings with harassing progressive teachers, being singled out in class or otherwise because of his well-known volunteering for conservative candidates. Many of the teachers would rant on politics in non-germane settings, e.g., an English class, highly unprofessional, of course. It's one thing to use a Socratic dialog to flesh out a perspective or to facilitate an even-handed debate among class members; it's another thing to spend valuable class time venting personal opinions to captive classes and intimidating students with a different point of view. A couple of pathetic incidents that caught my eye:
- One teacher even said she wouldn’t be able to have another child because Scott Walker was cutting so much money from her pay.
- [His English teacher] also said many businessmen work fewer hours than teachers. He explained how his pay was too low to support his family. He told the class his pay was so bad he had to paint houses in the summers. During this discussion, he was swearing and saying how wrong it was for anyone to support Walker. Students were telling him to stop, and he wouldn’t. The same English teacher who had lectured to almost 30 students about a month earlier took me aside during class again. He started talking about Mitt Romney and Scott Walker and his views on them. He reiterated how much harder he worked compared to my dad, a small business owner, which he had no knowledge of. He went on to ask how much my parents made because he wanted to compare it to his salary. Later, I looked up this teacher’s salary. He had been making over $100,000 with benefits for the 2010-11 school year, the same year Walker's reform bill passed.
