Count the Chads
Myths of the Ivory Tower. I was 14-years-old when Kent State went down. Say what you will about the Sixties, good or bad, the elections this country has had since 1976 are a referendum on the Sixties. The two main political parties in this country have straddled the competing catechisms: Republicans, conscious that they can't compete nationally unless they advocate -- or at least, defend -- existing entitlement programs, keep the System in place while promising cuts; Democrats, fearful of gun-toting Bible quoters, formulate moral justifications for expanding the federal government while steering clear of gun control, and paying lip service to pro-life sentiments. The truth is, this country's been wrestling with the Big Turd called the Sixties ever since 1971-72, when four kids bit the turf at Kent and a handful of Nixon operatives got caught playing Trickster.
Republican Party Leadership. Times have changed, the catechisms haven't. It makes no sense to lose your temper over the 
philosophy of Social Security, for example, when no one is interested in re-thinking the existing Social Security program. Are there better ways of taking care of our mentally and physically handicapped folks, the most vulnerable beneficiaries of the Social Security apparatus? We'll never know -- until the dollar fails. Does it make more sense to sack the retirement aspect of that apparatus and keep the SSI aspect? How can you tell? No one ever talks about it. When George Bush whispered the idea of privatizing retirement funds, Warmy Fuzzy Liberals brought out the Mace and the Rack, while Bush retreated into an undisclosed location. (Please note, in the wake of banking fiascos, which the press blames on capitalism, no politician in his right mind would broach the topic of private retirement in lieu of Social Security.) This is where my friend Classic Liberal and I part company -- slightly -- on the parties. He is impatient with their apparent lassitude, not to mention historically recurrent corruption. I view them as extensions of dominant catechisms, the weather vanes of belief. Unless and until Americans come to grips with the the regressive anachronism called Social Security, for example, the political parties aren't obligated to talk about it -- counter-intuitive as that sounds. Parties reflect the dominant myths people have believed in, catechisms that are reflexively repeated at the New York Times and U.S. News and World Reports. Both parties, presently constituted, were set in stone in 1976. Gerald Ford is the head Republican; Jimmy Carter the head Democrat. It is, unfortunately, altogether too rare when an Eldridge Cleaver evaluates the falsehoods of his youth. How exciting it would be if the Democratic Leadership embraced the elder Cleaver and rejected his younger incarnation, but we can't expect it, whereas 10 years from now, Tea Party "radicals" will be old hat at Republican conventions. Wait and see. In the meantime, uncertainty and agitation probe the perimeters of both parties.
Does Providence Draw a Veil Over Our Eyes as a precondition to collective upheaval? I have to tell you: I believe it so.
They Just Don't Get it. It makes no sense to infuse Faith into an exponential increase in the size of Federal entitlements for the purpose of "providing health care." The system will cost trillions, reduce the quality of health care and, ultimately, will be sacked, by repeal or by necessity. Yet here we are: Democrats tell us Justice depends on this boondoggle; Republicans shrink from the possibility that they'll be criticized. Result?
Revolution. Both political bureaucracies have maneuvered themselves into the margins. Neither party, presently constituted, will survive the decade. America, to me, feels as it did in 1965: an eerie calm ready to explode into a cauldron of passion and angst. Who can we thank the most for this change?
Why, Barack Obama. He is the Mephistopholes who is dissolving the catechisms which have defined my life time.
I wonder, what's next?
Paul Ryan: Should Americans Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom?
Warning Signs: Our Warrior Class
The Other McCain: How About a Union of Liberty-Conscious Americans?
[...] 03 April 2010 @ 19:07 by bobbelvedere …is awarded to Irish Cicero for his incisive commentary on the ‘collectivist catechisms’ of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Propriety does not permit me to quote the whole [...]
Sacked? The government always doubles-down. As health care gets worse, we'll just get more government! Man has never gained liberty out of government failure. It takes either revolution or a complete collapse of the system. Even then, nothing is guaranteed.
Well, our difference is that I believe the parties perpetuate the dominant catechisms for their own benefit, not ours. The Republican Party is not a grassroots organization.
Look. It takes a very special kind of person to go to Washington DC and fight to limit his or her own power. There's a lot more in it for them personally, to gain power instead. Multi-billion dollar campaigns aren't financed without strings attached. Corporate subsidies and contracts don't exist in benevolence. Neither monopoly party has an incentive to shrink the Leviathan.
The history of the Republican Party apparatus itself, is not one of limiting government. It's a history of money, power and corruption. Barry Goldwater's worst enemy in his 1964 campaign, was the Republican Party, not LBJ and the Democrats. Why? For the same reason the party apparatus spends big bucks running against Ron Paul each election, and treats him like an enemy everywhere else.
The RNC didn't want Goldwater to be president. Because the party doesn't want limited government. To me, this is the first truth, the shadow, that conservatives must face if we're ever going to turn anything around. Because if people can't face that shadow, they'll continue to fall for platitudes and vote for Republicans who will do nothing to reverse the growth of the State. There was a time when conservatives would rail against their own politicians, today, we look for "leaders."
The conservative is driven by philosophy (or should be). The party is driven by power. Conservative philosophy, which is very skeptical of power, can't exist in the same space as the drive for power. They are mutually exclusive.
While all that may be true . . . .
I don't believe there will ever be a day where there are no political parties in the U.S., even if the U.S. becomes, as I suspect it will in my lifetime, a collection of Regional states.
There will never be a day where there are no self-serving bureaucracies -- and no deluded individuals -- even in such associations as Libertarian undertakings.
There will never be a day where men cannot benefit from military organizations and police apparatus. If there is such a day, you and I cannot reasonably conceive of it.
There will never be a day when there are no mavericks to challenge the hierarchy.
I go on the notion that systems rise to a level of complexity, and then are taken down by natural disintegration, just as individual bodies. I believe the folks in Washington who court power and need this power will be shattered by natural forces, i.e., death. The worst days this country will ever see lie yet ahead, as the Obama-type of person, and those who believe they need such a person, attempt to hold back Nature's ends.
I am grateful I won't have to see the worst days of it. I'm watching the fall, but likely won't see when things are on the pure survival level, as I think they will be. Surely I will be old enough that some barbarous exemplar of modern "morality" will kill me or starve me. Surely there will be little in the way of genuine humanity in our immediate future. Men will have to once again learn that lesson the hard way. Wherever men have tried to function without an idea of social duty, they have paid in more ways than can be imagined. Society rises from those ashes. Are men perfect? The question needs no answer.
Nature's vitality, Life's vitality, will win out. Our job, as individuals, is to respond intelligently and honorably to the forces that made us. Even the idea of the autonomous individual was created by collective forces we can see only with the most determined study.
There will never be a day when there are no societies, no groups, no organizations, just as there will never be a day where there is no tea and no madeleines. Humanity will never cease in its quest for unity, whether it's in the sex act, or commerce. That is how we are built.
Personally . . . . I have no stake in any of this outcome, other than my own personal duties. 30 years ago I saw that our complexity, our structures, would have to fail. I have made my life choices based upon what I saw. I will do as little harm as possible between now and Judgement day, but do not believe any of the posturing folks seem to need to do will make a difference. The complexity will dissolve. It will be replaced by new societies, and new organizations. Who knows exactly what they will look like?
I don't!
Certainly I cannot believe that a Libertarian Party is the right alternative to the Republican Party. Parties are just that: mechanisms through which human energy can flow. They cannot be perfect. How could they be? Why should they be?
No, I am perfectly content to watch others learn the lessons they must learn. When and if their hostilities or their habits cause harm to others -- only then do their actions require a response from me!
What I wrote I'm sure sounds maudlin to some, but I don't mean it that way. We are living through the close of a historical period that probably began in the 1860s. A new historical period is taking its place. Men in their hearts are searching for their heritage in the American constitution. They will need those principles in the decades to come, eh?
I never advocate the Libertarian Party because they've never been organized enough to make a difference. Too much in-party fighting. I also never say "don't vote for a Republican."
What I do say is this: Don't put your faith in the party. Don't assume an 'R' on the lapel will help you advance your goals. Look at politicians as individuals only, not as part of a meaningless collective. The lesser evil is still evil. If you can find it in your heart to vote for evil, then do so. But I can't. I will not support evil. For me, it's our original form of government or bust!
CL! Flushed you outa the chuch pews, did I?
I'd like to tell you that's where I've been , but ...
got here from TCOTS great post followed all the links to Rockwell Thank you
Two words: John McCain.
Nuf Said.