Thursday, November 3, 2011

Why Pro-Freedom Voters Will Reject the GOP in 2012

The question an American voter needs to ask is, "Do I support a centrally planned, government directed economy, or a free market?"  The two major parties are committed to big government and central planning; if you oppose socialism, voting for either major party is a wasted vote.  Although Herman Cain pleads otherwise, three facts suggest that he is lying, just as other Republican candidates, including Ronald Reagan, have lied, about their commitment to freedom.

First, Cain continues to support the $2 trillion TARP  bailout (see video below).  He objects to its execution, but not its intent.  Second, Cain was a president of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.  His intimate involvement with the biggest and most sensitive of government institutions renders his claims of being in favor of anything other than socialism suspect.  The days when Milton Friedman could call himself a libertarian and still support the Fed are passed. You either support freedom and liberty OR support the Fed--there is no middle course; the same choice was evident to Jacksonian Democrats with respect to the Second Bank of the United States.  Third, Cain has not brought to the fore concerns about the $16 trillion Fed asset purchases and up to $30 trillion monetary expansion ($3 trillion in  the past three years, with a potential expansion by banks through fractional reserve banking to $30 trillion).  These steps are more significant than Obamacare; Cain's avoiding their discussion camouflages his socialism.

Since the Civil War the federal government consistently has increased the scope of its central planning and government intervention. The leading party with respect to this trend until the 1930s was the GOP, especially Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.   A segment of the GOP became a force for small government because of the Civil War's forcing former northern Democrats (who were the limited government party at least until 1896) into the GOP.   Other reasons Republicans became associated with advocacy of limited government were the Democratic Party's backing of Populist William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s.

Despite the GOP's small government strand, its establishment strand never relinquished its commitment to big government.  Democrat Woodrow Wilson oversaw enactment of the first income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, but establishment Republican Theodore Roosevelt made Wilson's election possible.  Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate to defeat the relatively conservative incumbent, William Howard Taft.

In the 1950s, the big government GOP establishment put forward Dwight D. Eisenhower to defeat Taft's son, Senator Robert Taft, also a limited government advocate.  This was accomplished in part by New York Times support for Eisenhower.  In other words, big government Republicans have been willing to defeat small government Republican candidates by running against them as third party candidates (Theodore Roosevelt) and by sabotaging legitimately run campaigns (Eisenhower).  Through deception, legacy media support, third party candidacies, and outright lies (claiming that they are for small government, as did Reagan and George H. Bush) the big government strand of the Republican Party has marginalized the small government strand.  

The only way to resolve the intense conflict within the GOP is for those who favor freedom to bolt. The reason is that the GOP has become so extreme in its socialism that it has supported literally handing the entire economy to control of failed banks.  The economy amounts to $14 trillion; the subsidies to banks potentially amount to tens of trillions.

There are other reasons as well. First, Republican support for radical environmentalism, such as the extremist UN Agenda 21 that the George H. Bush administration signed. Second,  Richard M. Nixon's termination of the gold standard. Third, George W. Bush's tax and spend policies such as his prescription drug plan and the bailout.  Fourth, the failure of the GOP to reduce the size of government under Ronald Reagan or the Newt Gingrich Congress. This failure occurred during years when the GOP controlled all three houses of Congress.

Only two candidates now support a pro-freedom platform.  These are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. The cause of freedom will be better furthered by reconstructing the Republican Party into a pro-freedom party.  This would undo the damage that the Rockefeller Republicans, with the support of The New York Times and talk radio, have done to the small government strand within the GOP.

It is more important for those who support freedom to now aim to reconstruct the GOP.  The choice between socialists like Romney and Cain and a socialist like Obama is no choice--voting for any of the alternatives to Paul or Johnson is a wasted vote. 


Vivian Wadlin said...

Thank you, Mitchell. It is refreshing to read informative, educated political thought. I look forward to a column on the protests on Wall Street.

Anonymous said...

What you have failed to tell your readers is Ron Paul says its ok for Iran to have nuclear weapons as so to wipe Israel off the map and become a MAJOR threat to USA and the rest of the world. You of all people should be standing against Iran and standing by Israel's side and by that I mean dump Ron Paul and his agenda ASAP!

He wants to Legalize Heroin, Cocaine, LSD, Crack, date rape drugs etc. (you must not have any children), as well as have it ok for a person to marry a dog (canine for those of you in Rio Linda) and practice bestiality.

(just to name a few things)

I say no thank you to that kind of a sick man leading my country.

Mitchell Langbert said...

Ron Paul correctly says that Israel has over 100 nuclear weapons and can defend itself, as it did in '48, '67, and '73. It does not need the United States' Fed-corrupted tit to enable it to defeat Iran.

Other than Ron Paul and Gary Johnson all other candidates support the Federal Reserve Bank's transferring your wealth to banks, Wall Street and the government, and that you're HALF AS WELL OFF as you would be without the Fed.

I can see why you are willing to sacrifice half your income because dogs might get married under a Paul presidency: you oppose freedom. You favor big government, regulation of morality, and tight government control. I disagree. I favor less government and freedom.

If social conservatives and libertarians are to work together, there would need to be compromise. You might insist on government's ending the Fed, and I might say that I oppose dogs getting married.

Incidentally, I oppose gay marriage and I am pro life, as is Paul. It so happens that marriage is not a federal issue, it is a state issue. Hence, Paul would not take action on it. But I do believe that there should be no government regulation of marriage. There is no reason for marriage licenses, and they only came into existence in the Progressive era to stop miscegenation.

You haven't said that you think that government ought to shrink or that the Fed ought to be closed. Rather, you insist on regulating marriage. You're not a pro-freedom voter, which is the title of the blog. As a big government advocate, of course you will support Mitt Romney. He thinks half your paycheck should go to support banks.

Like you, who doesn't care about big government, I don't care if dogs get married and although I haven't heard of the date rape drug issue, my opinion of the concept of date rape is that it's a fabrication of feminist crackpots.

So I don't think that we're going to be voting for the same candidates without some kind of compromise. You're going to be voting for a socialist Republican, a big government stooge, and I will be voting for a candidate who favors freedom. A small government candidate who opposes abortion like Paul is a good option, as opposed to a flip flopper like Romney (Romney supported abortion rights as recently as his 2002 campaign for governor. But he said during his first presidential run that he had a change of heart in 2004, during a legislative debate over stem cell research.,0,1071709.story)

But I'm not going to be voting for any candidate who will not significantly cut government. If you're not willing to join me, you can go down your self-destructive, socialist, big government road, and I will say adieu.