Steve Levy for Governor

Phil Orenstein of Democracy Project has blogged in support of Steve Levy's candidacy for governor. According to the video below, Mr. Levy has a strong record in Nassau County. He is a Democrat who aims to run as a "post partisan" candidate. Academics coined the term "post modern" a generation ago and "post partisan" is indubitably a corollary. Indubitably.

I am not yet convinced that Mr. Levy is the candidate of choice. We need to ask more questions.

Mr. Levy's candidacy is controversial. Mike Long, the head of the Conservative Party, suggested in the New York Post yesterday that given the massive failure of the Democratic Party to manage the state's economy competently, the Republicans ought not nominate a Democrat. This is the very sort of thing I had previously feared from Republicrat Edward F. Cox. Also, the article reports allegations that there is a corrupt deal involving Edward F. Cox's son, Chris Cox, who like his father desires a nepotism deal, and Suffolk Republican Chair John Lavalle:

"There has long been a rumor that Cox, Levy and Suffolk Republican chair John LaValle have a domino-style deal going, with the main goal being to get Chris Cox nominated in his own seven-way primary in Suffolk. Ed Cox has strenuously denied it."

If so, this is not the sort of candidacy the Tea Party ought to support. We need clarification of Mr. Levy's relationship to Ed Cox and John Lavalle.

Which is not to detract from Levy's record. Levy's website says that he has delivered "six consecutive operating budgets, each with a General Fund tax freeze or tax cut." He says in the video that he has cut spending for two consecutive years. His website adds that he "has delivered three operating budgets with spending lower than the previous year's adopted levels -- a record that is unprecedented in Suffolk County and extraordinarily rare in any level of government anywhere."

In his blog, Orenstein points out that in his Op Ed in the New York Post Levy said "no" to:

"the exorbitant pay and pensions of the County police officers, who are the highest paid police force in the world, (which) shows he is one of the rare politicians with backbone. We need a courageous figure to govern a state with the nation’s most dysfunctional legislature. Could Levy be a ray of light for our troubled state on the verge of fiscal disaster?"

We'll see. So far, the jury is out.

Despite the allegations of insider shenanigans, according to the Daily News Levy has already taken the initiative to develop a relationship with the Tea Party. The Daily News writes that Levy will hold an informational video conference with New York's Tea Parties.

According to his site, Levy has called for a state of emergency because of New York's incompetently managed budget. In a year when there was deflation, the state increased spending by nine percent, according to Levy. New York voters are undoubtedly to blame, electing the same tax-and-spend Democrats like Ulster County's Kevin Cahill year after year. New Yorkers never saw a wasteful or corrupt Democratic Party scheme that they could not support. Newspapers like the Kingston Freeman in my county are also to blame, refusing to take any initiative in demanding fiscal responsibility and providing ongoing propaganda for the massive waste in Albany. Millions have left this state, and the remaining population is mostly on the dole, but what do the editors of the Freeman care? When Wall Street crumbles, which it will, there is going to be a serious problem, with greedy unions and corrupt contractors clawing at each other for state handouts that are no longer available. New Yorkers will, undoubtedly, blame everyone but their greedy selves.

I am concerned that I did not see a prominent statement on Mr. Levy's site of the two chief fiscal issues facing the state: (a) the badly mismanaged Medicaid system, whose waste likely amounts to in excess of 15% of the entire state budget (yes, it is fair to say that 15% of the entire New York State budget is attributable to Medicaid waste) and (b) the egregious handling of the state's unions, specifically the Service Employees International Union and the New York State Union of Teachers in facilitating massive waste. I can blame Democrats like Ulster County's Kevin Cahill for the waste, but the fact is that during 12 years of the Pataki administration things only got worse. Governor Pataki failed to live up to his mandate, failed to curtail Medicaid waste, failed to rein in the bloat associated with the SEIU and failed to rein in administrative waste in the schools. What plan does Mr. Levy have to offer?

Tea Parties Should Work within the GOP

The Poli-tea blog has an interesting post (h/t Chris Johansen). The blog argues that Tea Party activists should avoid working within or infiltrating the GOP:

"Infiltrationist strategy plays right into the hands of the ruling political establishment: filling out the apparatus of the Democratic-Republican Party political machine is literally exactly what the ruling political establishment wants you to do!"

It is unlikely that the Tea Party will ultimately constitute a major party. The reason is its inability to find a national leader. My good friend Phil Orenstein is a likely candidate who seems to have been overlooked. Otherwise, there has been so much confusion that one of the groups claiming to be the Tea Party had Sarah Palin as their keynote speaker.

There are several reasons why a third party will not work. First, Americans have been committed to a two party system almost since the first Congress. Initially, partisanship was considered unseemly, and politicians did not consider it appropriate to volunteer to run--they ought to have been asked, they thought. Washington was concerned about the formation of independent political clubs. Nevertheless, by 1790 two discernible parties had formed, the Democratic Republicans of Jefferson and the Federalists of Hamilton. Although after Jefferson's election in 1800 there was a twenty-something year respite from parties (the "era of good feelings") partisanship reasserted itself when Andrew Jackson took several aggressive stands, especially against the Bank of the United States. In response, Henry Clay formed the Whig Party. The Whig Party was the forerunner of the Republican, but it broke up just prior to the Civil War and was replaced by an all-northern Republican Party that included abolitionists.

If you look at the history of the parties they were all started by charismatic or special leaders: Federalists-Hamilton; Democratic Republicans-Jefferson; Democrats-Jackson; Republicans-Lincoln. Who is the charismatic leader of the Tea Party (besides Phil Orenstein)?

Second, there is a long history of third parties playing a prodding role in American history. In the 1850s The Anti-Masonic Party pushed for some nativist platforms in the Whigs. In the 1890s, the Populist Party pushed for inflationist and "Progressive" platforms among the Democrats. I believe that the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan was in part due to prodding by the Libertarians.

The major parties have been good at integrating insurgent interests. In contrast, insurgents have been generally poor at building independent parties. The Progressive Party, founded by the redoubtable Theodore Roosevelt, spoiled the 1912 election and had an effect in the days of Progressivism and social democracy. But it never gained power. The same for Ross Perot. Perot was an almost-successful leader. But the proof was in the pudding. The failure of his party to generate a continuous organization shows how difficult it is to start a new party. Even a leader of Perot's caliber was unable to do it. I don't think Phil Orenstein can either (although he never said he was forming a third party--he's an active Republican).

In sum, the difference in difficulty of working through the GOP and starting a new party is the difference in difficulty of sending someone to the moon and sending someone to Mars or Venus. So far, I am not convinced that the Tea Party knows which end is up, much less whether it can start an independent party.

Infiltration of the GOP is possible. This is what happened to the Populist movement. When the Democrats ran William Jennings Bryan in 1896 as the inflationist/populist candidate, it had just seen four years of libertarian leadership by Grover Cleveland, a "Bourbon Democrat" from New York. Bryan lost to McKinley, who was a pro-tariff Republican who supported sound money. But within forty years, Franklin D. Roosevelt adopted most of what Bryan had advocated (in 1896 and in two subsequent failed presidential runs). In other words, the Populists transformed the Democrats.

That is a more fertile strategy for the Tea Party than to start a third party. I worked with the Libertarian Party in the 1970s and know that third parties are very difficult without charismatic leadership. And if Orenstein keeps refusing the job of leading the Tea Party, I'm not sure who is going to do it.

Contrairimairi on Political Strategy

ContrairiMairi of Chi-town just sent me this e-mail:

Honestly, Mitchell, I think we MUST look outside BOTH parties! I do not trust ANYONE on an inside track that either party will endorse right now.....The rhetoric during election cycles all sounds so wonderful....then BAM! Once they are in office, the hierarchy pull all the strings!

I think if the Tea Party Movement is going to be ABSOLUTELY successful, we MUST disassociate from ANY and all candidates running on a Dem or Repub ticket. That is going to put a ton of pressure on the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates, but I believe it is THE ONLY WAY! Repubs and Dems MUST be taken to their knees.

Look what happened with Brown in Massachusetts. I DID contribute, but only to send a message to D.C., "You're next!" But what really changed? Brown is a RINO from the get-go. His term will be an abbreviated version, and I can live with that for now.....but if we REALLY want America and The Constitution back, then ALL DemocRATic and Republican sponsored candidates MUST be refused!

I believe we MUST make a list of focused demands. Once that list is compiled, we MUST make candidates sign a pledge to adhere to it. If they do, they will be supported by the Tea Party Movement, grassroots, NO big-money backers......the people know how to, and WILL, spread the word.....it's already underway.....

I think the information I sent you previously form the Thomas Jefferson Center is an EXCELLENT place to start. The one thing I feel badly that they have not included, is a DEMAND that all candidates PLEDGE to rid this Country of illegal aliens. They must also pledge that there will be no such thing as an "anchor baby"......any mother who illegally enters this Country to deliver, passes her crime on to the child.....baby shall NOT be eligible for citizenship and BOTH will be thrown out summarily! The arrangement shall be retroactive......no baby born here by a mother entering illegally should EVER have been considered a citizen. Only babies born to individuals here on a legal basis shall have that distinction!

Not sure what you will think, but we have GOT to get smart in this Country, and quit standing back wringing our hands and complaining. We have to INSIST on REAL applications to already existing laws. We have enough laws already to keep us busy....time to roll up our sleeves and get the hard work done.

E-verify MUST find and remove the illegals here.

GOD Bless,
airi

When It Mattered, Sarah Palin Supported Big Government

September 24, 2008



Last week: "While people on Main Street look for jobs, people on Wall Street — they’re collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses." EconomyCollapse.blogspot.com notes:

"Further, in traveling to Texas to stump for incumbent Governor Rick Perry after speaking under the Tea Party Nation banner, Palin is slighting the one real tea party candidate running in Texas-- a rising Debra Medina who is insistent on shaking up the status quo and triumphing over party stooges Perry & Hutchinson."

Has Sarah Palin undergone a major intellectual transformation since fall 2008? Has she read Ludwig von Mises's Theory of Money and Credit? Or is she just yanking the Tea Party's chain.

February 6, 2010 (about 8 minutes in)



I find Alex Jones's emphasis on conspiracy theories to be far fetched, and he is too harsh about Palin. But he is right that unless the Tea Party can find a candidate who opposes the bailout for intelligible reasons, it is an abject failure.

Four Degrees of Separation: More on Wall Street and Obama

World Net Daily reports that an advertisement on Craig's List offers to pay anti "tea bagger" activists $24,000 per year to work for a group called Grassroots Campaigns. It would be interesting to learn who funds Grassroots Campaigns.

The real grassroots campaign is the Tea Party. The people who work for the Tea Party don't receive salaries from George Soros or similar kinds of Wall Street-linked sources. Calling a group "grassroots" and then offering salaries from unspecified sources is something of a contradiction. I would like to know where the money funding grassroots campaign comes from, and how many transactions separate it from the Fed. I would guess no more than four.

The WND article states:

>"Help-wanted ads are appearing on Craigslist that offer to pay citizens $24,000 a year, plus health insurance, to "counter the hysteria and lies of Glenn Beck and other talking heads" and "stop the tea-baggers!"

"The ads are being posted by Grassroots Campaigns, a canvassing group that has performed services for the Democratic National Committee and MoveOn.org. Its postings can be found among Craiglist listings in Chicago, Ill.; San Francisco, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; Philadelphia, Penn. and Austin, Texas."

Kingston New York Tea Party Meeting

Monday January 11. The Kingston, New York Tea Party organization headed by Tom Santopietro met to exchange ideas this evening. I had attended a previous meeting in December but was unable to stay for more than a few minutes. The meeting was productive. It was held in the Town of Ulster Town Hall in Lake Katrine, two short left turns off Route 209.

Overall, I would call the meeting a marked success. Between thirty and fifty people were present. For a cold Hudson Valley January evening that is an achievement. I drove there from the Town of Olive, about 25 miles away.

The initiatives of the Tea Party are worthwhile. Several demonstrations in Washington and elsewhere were discussed, and there was discussion of George Phillips's announcement-of-candidacy for Congress meeting this Thursday. Phillips will be initiating a second candidacy against knucklehead-incumbent Maurice Hinchey.

My chief concern about the Tea Party movement is the likelihood of its cooptation by (a) Progressive or Rockefeller Republican types and/or (b) Democratic Party infiltrators. The Republican Party in New York has so far ignored the Tea Party. In appointing Edward F. Cox chair of the state committee the party has confirmed its self-destructive commitment to the Wall Street Republicanism of Newt Gingrich, Theodore Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller. I have several times contacted Cox without any kind of response to my inquiries.

I would like to encourage the Tea Party movement to begin to think about concerted infiltration of the Republican Committees at the town, county and state levels. This takes time but it would seem the best way to overthrow the current commitment to special interest corruption, to the failed education system and to big government.

One of the most interesting points of the evening was the discussion of a committee to try to influence public education in a more productive direction. This is a subject of importance to me and I offered a few suggestions.

Rubio Ousts Greer in Florida

Progressive Republican Jim Greer has stepped down as chair of the Florida Republican Party, according to Talking Points Memo.com. David Brooks in the New York Times mentioned Greer's replacement, Marc Rubio, as a potential leader of the Tea Party movement (along with former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson). I hesitate about the Brooks mention for obvious reasons. Anything associated with the Times is potentially cooptive. If I were Fidel Castro, I wouldn't be asking the Republican Liberty Caucus for advice, and we should be extremely wary of the Times's opinions.

TalkingPointsMemo.com writes:

"It's hard to overstate the importance of this resignation to the national GOP landscape.

"Florida is shaping up to be the epicenter of the intraparty GOP war in 2010, and the resignation of Greer suggests the battle is tilting toward the ultra-conservatives on the tea party side of the line. Ever since Crist entered the Senate race, Rubio backers have accused Greer of turning the state party into an arm of the Crist campaign. Crist and Greer are longtime political friends, and Greer made it clear from the get-go that he supported Crist over Rubio (he promised to run the party objectively, however.) Rubio backers began to attack him and call for his resignation. Now -- over Crist's objections -- they appear to have gotten their wish."

Repeal Health Reform

National Broadside has proposed that reform of the Democrats' health care bill become a focal point for the Tea Party, conservative and libertarian movements. I agree. But I can't help but wonder why the million and one other government boondoggles wouldn't serve just as well. But health care would be a good starting point. National Broadside writes of the health bill:


>"This has an unusual ability to be repealed, and the public is on that side.” he said. "The Republicans are going to have to prove that they are worthy of their votes."

>Writes Greg Sargent of Plum Line:

It’s now becoming clear that this could be a major issue for Republicans in 2010: the Tea Party movement, as well as high-profile conservatives, are going to demand that candidates call for a full repeal of the Dem health care reform bill, presuming it passes.

Tea Party Movement Outpolls Democrat and Republican Parties

Larwyn just forwarded a link to Ace of Spades HQ blog which in turn links to AllahPundit:

>"The entire Republican Party...continues to maintain a net-negative favorable/unfavorable rating, 28 percent to 43 percent...But, for the first time in more than two years, the Democratic Party also now holds a net-negative rating, 35 percent to 45 percent...By comparison, the conservative libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement has a net-positive 41 percent to 23 percent score in the poll."

I had previously blogged about a Wall Street Journal article about this poll. Ace of Spades and Allahpundit out that Americans' views on the tea party movement correlate strongly with whether they watch the more left leaning of the Democratic media, CNN and MSNBC, or the mainstream media, Fox, which is the largest cable channel (almost equaling the entire combined viewership of the other cable channels, and apparently larger than any of the Democratic network channels, NBC, ABC and CBS.)

De-Coopting the Freedom Movement

Liberty Republicans need to think about strategies to counteract the cooptation of the newly revived liberty movement that Rockefeller or Progressive Republicans will attempt. The Tea Party movement's explosion shows that there is potential for success for liberty Republicans. As well, the failure of Rockefeller Republicanism under the Bush administration might well keep big government Republicans from success if we liberty Republicans refuse to cooperate with them.

Because the Tea Party movement is composed of many fine and well meaning but inexperienced activists, it is susceptible to the same tactics that coopted the libertarian movement in 1980. If a Progressive Republican calls himself a "libertarian" or a "capitalist" and offers symbolic gestures, he can sufficiently cloak his commitment to the status quo. It doesn't help that many mistakenly call the pro-freedom movement "conservative", which leads to a tacit assumption that it is the status quo to which we are committed. Nuh uh. We are moderate, but we are radical in the sense of getting to the root. The current system is extremist. The status quo is not normalcy. We represent a return to normalcy and moderation, which means a lot less government and a lot more freedom than currently.

Recently, Forbes Magazine, for instance, has been calling its pro-Wall Street, statist positions like support for the Bush-Obama bailout "libertarian". This reflects the ancient tactic of calling totalitarianism justice. Karl Popper argues that Plato was the first to do so 2,500 years ago. Some classicists dispute Popper's reading of Plato, but we can all agree that George Orwell was not the first to think of this idea, and Forbes will not be the last to apply it.

In a recent article in the Washington Post, reporters Dan Eggen and Perry Bacon, Jr. note that "the energized tea party movement...is preparing to shake up the 2010 elections". The Post article notes of the tea party movement:

"The strategy poses both an opportunity and a risk for the beleaguered Republican Party, which is seeking to take advantage of conservative discontent while still fielding candidates who appeal to independent voters." (bold added).

Websites such as Erick Erickson's RedState.com and Dick Armey's and Matt Kibbe's Freedomworks.org are aiming to engage in direct political competition via primaries with the Republican machines in various states. The article makes a crucial point:

"...political experts in both parties say it is unclear if the movement can become the kind of unified force that can win, and not just disrupt, elections... The tea party movement is splintered into hundreds of local and state-level groups that have differing rules and goals and for the most part have not participated in big-money politics. Many of the groups have been torn apart by personal feuds in recent months; one major umbrella organization, the Tea Party Patriots, has filed a lawsuit against a founding board member who signed on with a rival, the Tea Party Express. "

The Republican Liberty Caucus ought to play an integrative role. We should be thinking about how to (a) win elections; (b) prevent the professional politicians from coopting liberty Republicanism in the interest of special interest pandering; and (c) cause them to defer to libertarians' aims.

The Post article quotes Senator John Cornyn of Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as to the importance of "tempering our conservative approach with pragmatism." In other words, the kind of pragmatism that causes 50% of the national income invested in failed government programs that, obsessively, must not be terminated when they fail. Rather, they should be expanded when they fail. That is "moderation" in the eyes of the Washington Post and Senator Cornyn.

Given the large amounts of money that government provides to its favored interests, such as Wall Street, government employees, and the military-industrial complex, there will be a slick, well executed thrust to neutralize and manipulate the liberty movement to make it palatable. We need to devise intelligent tactics to resist it.