In 2012, Nonvoters Admit Disliking Candidates

Posted on February 5, 2013 by Jim

At UVa’s Miller Center, Charles Stewart III recently discussed a draft paper analyzing survey data from the 2012 elections.  Instead of focusing on the horse race aspect, the survey looks at the experience of voters.  Why is this important?  Pundits and politicians advocate a variety of electoral reforms, but do these solutions relate to actual problems and opportunities for improving participation?

While I enjoyed and recommend the whole discussion, which is available via audio and video on-line, one point stuck out for me because it matched anecdotal data that I had personally collected.  What is the #1 reason for not voting?  Table 2, of the draft paper reports, that it is “I didn’t like the candidates or campaign issues.”  This was also true in the 2008 election.

Given the low rate of voter turnout and close elections, this represents an opportunity for one of the two major parties to stop nominating candidates that are so dislikeable and stop advocating issues that alienate potential voters.

However, this was also a lost opportunity for those that did not vote, because they did not like one of the major party candidates.  If you don’t vote, then the major parties appear just as happy to continue business as usual, see the continued inaction on fiscal problems since the election.

When no acceptable candidate is running, instead of tuning out, give thought to an actual person that you thing would do a good job in the office, and vote for that individual via write-in ballot.  Does this solitary act change the electoral result?  No, not yet, but it might change you as you opt-in to perform an independent act of integrity that focuses on reality and choice.

Posted in Election | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Republican Hydra

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Jim

Last year’s Republican presidential nomination process was interesting, because the candidates who contested through the process represented distinct ideological perspectives.  Thus, they are proxies for the relative strength of contesting ideas within the Republican Party.

The ability of candidates with these clear ideological distinctions to maintain the contest as long as they did may be attributed to an increase in protection of free speech rights from the Citizens United decision (see post “Super PACs: Shedding the Bad Rap”  by Ray La Raja on Riding the Tiger).

In order of their relative electoral strength, the candidates and their ideas were as follows:

  1. Mitt Romney, the victor, was the standard bearer for pragmatic stewardship, which is the dominate ideology of the Republican Party.
  2. Rick Santorum evangelized for the religion right.  His electoral failure demonstrates the weakness of the theocrat faction.  For all their huffing and puffing, they are a minority within the party.
  3. Newt Gingrich’s government reform platform expressed the agenda of the neoconservatives.  Republicans proclaimed him the candidate of ideas, and most Republicans don’t like ideas.
  4. Ron Paul was followed by the ‘libertarians’.  While I disagree that Ron Paul is an advocate for freedom and limited government, that is how his mistaken and passionate supporters label him.  Based upon his supporters’ narrative, Paul’s showing demonstrates the electoral weakness of advocates of limited government within the Republican ranks.
  5. A relevant mention is merited for Rick Perry, who championed the neoconfederates and was quickly booted from contention by the party of Lincoln.

Given the results in the primaries and caucuses, the Republicans have demonstrated themselves to be primarily a pragmatic party, not a conservative party.  This supports my frequent contention that those that complain loudest about RINOs as not really Republicans, but they hope that they can pretend to be the dominate voice in the party without being challenged for their fraud.

Because pragmatists oppose principles on principles, Republican policies are implanted by those who do express ideas.  Thus, we see Republicans advocate a mix of big government reforms from the neoconservatives, and policy concessions to the religious right so that they will remain obedient within the Republican coalition; however, those that advocate limited government will be offered empty rhetoric without implementing policies.

So far, since the election, that condition continues to describe the Republican’s feckless congressional leadership.

Posted in Congress, Election | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Obama Plans More Rapes (a satire)

Posted on February 3, 2013 by Jim

In shocking news not being reported from Washington, President Obama advocates a plan to increase the number of American women being raped.  Citing all the correlated public “benefits” to more rapes, our President called on narrow minded advocates for individual rights to compromise and get behind his rape plan, which he says is in the public interest.

In response, Republicans promised to support the President’s proposal if the rape victims are compelled to carry their rape babies to full term.  Rep. Inbreeder (R-MA) said, “Rape babies are a blessed gift from God; if we passed our President’s proposed legislation, then rape babies will be a gift from President Obama and the Congress as well. Women of America, you are welcome.”  Former Texas GOP gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams could not be reached for comment.

A spokeswoman for NOW says that American women support President Obama no matter what, because he is a Democrat.  Whether it is cozying up to violent misogynistic Muslim extremists, increasing corrupt political payoffs to incompetent public school teachers (who fail to teach our children), or making women wholly dependent on protection from a unionized police worker (who is only 20-30 minutes away), NOW asserts that President Obama’s policies are pro-women, because He says so.

Now of course this is not literally true, but it is actually true.  These individuals did not literally advocate these positions, but the actual consequences of what they do say and do would be consistent with this satire.

Politicians, like President Obama, advocate public policies as panaceas without serious consideration of the costs, probable unintended consequences, and their likely ineffectiveness.  This can have disastrous consequences (see federal deficit) when we as citizens get caught up in a thoughtless hysteria to solve a problem and lose sight of government’s purpose, the protection of individual rights.

In the nonsense debate over President Obama’s misfocused effort to increase federal gun control, we need to ask ourselves about these proposals:

  1. Whose rights are being protected by the proposed law?
  2. Which of their rights is being protected?
  3. Is that really a right?
  4. Do alternatives exist that would be more effective at protecting individual rights?
  5. Does the proposed “solution” violate an individual’s rights?

Related to this last point, there is another important aspect to be considered regarding the criminalization of voluntary behavior that does not directly infringe upon another’s rights.  Based upon their personal values, interests, and needs, individuals are currently choosing to engage in behavior related to gun and rifle purchases that will be criminalized, either outright or by the effects of the compliance costs associated with new regulatory schemes.  If 50% plus one of the voters disagrees with that individual’s personal choice, should that be a criminal issue, or even a civil issue?

These questions are not particular to this specific proposal or even President Obama.  In fact, these questions would function as excellent guidelines for solving the real problems (see federal deficit/debt) that President Obama’s gun control scheme is distracting the Congress from addressing.

If you are pro-Obama’s proposal and pro-gun control, please answer the above questions in the comments below.

Extra points:

“A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)” – Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights”, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 93

“The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.” – Ayn Rand, “Galt’s Speech”, For the New Intellectual, p. 183.

Posted in Congress, Political Discussions, President | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Islam vs. Islamism?

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Jim

Whether we agree with it or not, related to Islamic terrorism, the American strategy is to win the hearts and minds of the ummah.

One policy in that regard is to attempt to use language to alienate Muslims in general from the terrorists. This is a concrete instance of a legitimate counterterrorism policy – backlash, which is the creation of an environment in which non-state actors who commit political violence can no longer find assistance and support from outside of their organization (narrowly defined).

In that context, I wondered how our neologisms are being translated into Arabic, the language of the supposed target audience. In essence, are our intellectuals attempting to sell the equivalent of the Chevy Nova in Mexico?

One of the terms that I have been hearing is Islamism to describe the ideology that seeks to justify terrorist violence based upon Islam.

While I am illiterate when it comes to Arabic, I do have access to Google Translate, which provided an identical translation (الإسلام) into Arabic of Islam and Islamism; no bueno. Thus, someone fluent in Arabic using Google translate from English would read in Arabic that Islam and Islamism is the same thing.

As this can not be the intent of the advocates of this neologism, I referenced Daniel Pipes. On his website, Islamism is translated as ألتحرك ألأسلامي, which according to Google means “Islamic action”. However, according to Wikipedia, Islamism can also be translated as الاسلامية (Islamic) or إسلام سياسي (political Islam).

When we use the term Islamism, what are we communicating to Muslims? It sounds like a confused imprecision in which our message is subject to the shading of the translator. Further, in all cases, this term appears not to actually distinguish itself from Islam.

Is there an alternative?

One could follow the anti-conceptual approach of the U.S. State Department, which treats each instance of an Islam-inspired terrorist organization as an unrelated case. According to them, al Qaeda is definitely bad…Hamas could become good…Hezbollah is not necessarily bad if you squint when you look at them…and the Muslim Brotherhood may be the Society of Cincinnati for all Foggy Bottom knows.

On the other hand, Muslims already have names for such terrorists. Egypt’s Sadat was assassinated by them as was Saudi’s King Faisal. When the terrorists attacked the Red Mosque in Pakistan and the Grand Mosque in Mecca, what did they call them? If we wish to communicate with the ummah, should we not take heed of their own terms as English adapts more easily than their own language?

While it would be preferable to integrate our knowledge of Islam-inspired terrorist organizations into a single coherent concept, such may actually be beyond the mentality of our concrete-bound primacy-of-consciousness target audience, the ummah. For ourselves, the United States and its allies should perform the required integration, which we will need to teach to the State Department and other Washington policy makers.

Posted in Political Discussions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Tale of Two Homeless Men

Posted on January 28, 2013 by Jim

I posit a hypothesis regarding two homeless men and how they would be commonly viewed by the typical man on the street, as expressed by current government policy.

These two men are the same in all observed respects except as noted related to location and activity.

The first man encamps upon a bench in an urban park.  His activity includes begging from those passing him on their way to and from jobs, and receiving food and emergency lodging paid by the government.

The second man encamps in a wilderness park and has very infrequent contact with any other person.  He builds a shelter, plants a garden, traps game, and catches fish in the nearby river.

Based upon public policy, what is our evaluation of these two men?

The urban homeless man is at liberty to squat unmolested by the police.  Further, he has a “right” to sustenance provide by others.

In contrast, the wilderness homeless man is a trespasser who infringes upon the public’s “right”.  He will be subject to harassment from park rangers and possibly prosecuted.  His efforts to turn a wilderness into a place fit for human habitation is a “blight” and the property that he created will not be legally protected.

Consider the contrast.

  • Does this correctly describe typical facts that we observe?
  • Do you agree with this public evaluation of these two men?
  • What are the principles that you used to make your evaluation?
  • How do these principles apply to issues in the current political discussion?

Add your answers below, or link to this post if you answer on your own blog.

Posted in Questions | Tagged , , | 4 Comments