Citizenship, Free Society, Trivia

Death of Parties

© 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

I read of the death of the Republican Party. I have read this many times about both parties. Ross Perot was going to replace both. Political parties come and go and evolve.

A number of Federalists in New York affiliated themselves with the Tammany Hall wing of the Democratic-Republicans sponsoring Aaron Burr in 1804 as their gubernatorial candidate against against Morgan Lewis of the Clintonian (or anti-federalist) Wing. Burr’s program included his support of the secession of the Northern States (New York and New England) to form a confederation more favorable to Britain than to France. Federalists from Massachusetts actually supported Burr for Governor of New York because of his willingness to sign a bill of secession. There were those who feared the Louisiana Purchase would give Jefferson too much power. The Federalists had no candidate so two Democratic-Republican Candidates went head to head.

In steps Alexander Hamilton who wants absolutely nothing of secession because it would be bad for commerce. Hamilton disliked Jefferson and loathed George Clinton politically because they opposed the ratification of the Constitution. He also happened to despise Aaron Burr as a rival in New York Banking. An off-handed insult by Hamilton was perceived by Burr to have given the victory of Lewis and was the “proximate cause” of the oldest sports rivalry in the Ivy League. (Dueling: Princeton 1 – Columbia 0) While some credit the duel as the end of the Federalists, the party had become a northeastern parochial party after 1800.

The Democratic-Republicans, on the other hand were experiencing a similar breakdown. Morgan Lewis, while having some moderate support, was the last of the anti-federalist crowd. A supporter, DeWitt Clinton (George’s nephew who inspired a future governor to build canals) shifted to Tammany to run for Governor and even ran as a Federalist for President in 1812 to oppose Madison’s War.

TRIVIA WATCH

George Clinton was the longest serving governor in American history. He was the first vice-president elected on a party ticket rather than as runnerup for President. He served as vice-president for both Jefferson and Madison. His greatest accomplishment was in chairing the Ratification Convention in New York where New York’s entry into the compact was made contingent on the Bill of Rights. Some scholars believe he was the author of the Anti-federalist Papers attributed to Cato, but others say the authorship is still in doubt—fortunately dueling has been outlawed.

Speaking of dueling: Aaron Burr was the grandson of Jonathan Edwards and a well educated banker. He was involved in a plot to form an empire in Spanish Territory—That had to wait for Pres James Polk who was a cousin to Bishop Leonidas Polk who married a Granddaughter of Jonathan Edwards. The Burr family formed the Manhattan Company (not to be confused with the Manhattan Project) to transport water in Manhattan Island—it also had authority to issue notes and hold deposit. It remains in existence as JP Morgan Chase and owns Alexander Hamilton’s pistols.

DeWitt Clinton had a steam engine named for him. He is best know for the Erie Canal—in opposition campaign literature it was called, “Clinton’s big ditch.”

Modern Republicans are divided and ripping in several directions, but there will always be dissension. The great political philosopher of the 19th Century, Finley Peter Dunne, speaking in the persona of Mr Dooley, said, “if ye’re in a room where a man in one corner is shouting miscreant and in the other corner is one shouting thraitor, you know its only two loyal demmycrats trying to reunite the party.”

Remember: tags are invitations to research.

Standard
Citizenship

Debates – if you have nothing better to do

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

Thinking about debates I have always regarded them as roughly less interesting than going in a spare room and measuring how much the wallpaper has peeled since the last go round.

Some thoughts regarding debates and polls.

Explaining the shift in polls after the first debate indicates that the debate gave an nation a side by side look at the candidates showed that a) people were waiting to see how strong Romney could come off, or b) some people were waiting to see Obama as less than invincible (therefor inevitable), or…

The big OR. Or the electorate is highly fluid. If the tables turn in the next couple debates—or shift with each one—the electorate is also extremely volatile and the demagogue who gets the last shot may win.

Do not worry about prevarication. Lies about economic plans are relative. Paul Krugman, who will not debate an Austrian school economist, is not an expert worth listening to. Romney ignores the fact that we have not had real capitalism in this country since before the passage of anti-trust in 1890, and certainly before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Obama, who snagged the name of a defunct CPUSA publication as a campaign slogan, lives in a fantasy world of centrally planned economy. His one venture into relevance was his reference to Lincoln—in those days Presidents did not propose or advocate legislation and the one of the three that required expenditure of funds was the Transcontinental Railroad in which he had a vested personal financial interest.

And I have a question for those who place great stock in the debates. Who cares or even remembers Quemoy and Matsu?

Standard
Citizenship, Free Society

RINO, DINO, who really cares?

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us! — Robert Burns

As I sit here watching the political infighting among Republicans I can see why they remain a minority party. One of the key words I here is RINO. The concept is that the individual is a Republican for the purpose of getting elected. It is a matter of perspective. Bob Dole mused that when he was deciding to run for County Attorney he weighed the number of Republican voters as opposed to Democratic voters in Russell County.

Now I would point out that in 1956, George Docking, a lifelong Republican, having been previously rebuffed for the Republican nomination for Governor of Kansas, registered and filed as a Democrat. The term DINO was not used. He won and his son Bob also won as a Democrat. Back then the lines were not drawn as sharply as in the national parties.

Jim Pearson, whose Republican credentials no one questions, switched from the Democratic Party to be appointed and thereafter elected as a United States Senator from Kansas.

Joan Finney, a Republican County Commissioner in Shawnee County, became upset when her mentor Frank Carlson did not support her for Second District Representative. She became a Democrat and ran for State Treasurer. She was elected and reelected and eventually elected Governor.

For a good deal of my life the major parties have been non-ideological. I identify as a Goldwater, conservative and see individual liberty, not populist family values, as defining my philosophy. What that may mean is that I will be at odds with those in power—and I have been a Republican longer than many of them have been alive.

The problem I see is that some of the Republicans calling others RINO are basically Populists in the guise of conservatives. Those who know history know that the Populists, with the aid of the Secretary of State, took control of the legislature until the Kansas Supreme Court certified the results of the County Clerks (whose authority is not subordinate to that of the Secretary of State) and the Republicans, aided by Winchester Arms, took the Statehouse back.

Now that Romney has been nominated he has become the “conservative” answer to Obama. That is not what the “conservatives” were saying at the time of the primaries and the caucuses. So what we have is a “center left” Romney as opposed to a “hard left” Obama, both of whom would have fewer problems with a Democratic Congress than a Republican one.

To find a conservative candidate we need to go back to 1964. No, Ronald Reagan was not a conservative, he was a Teddy Roosevelt progressive with conservative—even some libertarian—tendencies. Look at the record. Call him RINO. No, nor would anyone call Teddy Roosevelt who had plans to amend the Constitution to centralize power in the executive a RINO. They are part of the Pantheon.

And the question is: what happened to the “big tent” after it let in southern populists? And are Republicans going to get elected by trashing other Republicans?

 

Standard
Economy

Unemployment drops – Are you impressed?

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

So the unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent. October surprise? We will not know whether this is a sign of recovery for another six to twelve months. This is, of course, a figure that both parties will spend time spinning this figure. (How many campaign spinners will be out of work on 7Nov?) But how much does the figure really mean.

The unemployment rate is based on the number of individuals in the Civilian Work Force unemployed as opposed the total number of persons in the Civilian Work Force. This latter figure is the number of persons ages 16 through 64 minus undocumented aliens, military and naval personnel, the incarcerated, full time students, those committed to mental institutions, those working part time, the disabled (under SS guidelines), those who have ceased seeking employment and those whose unemployment benefits have expired.

I have heard estimates that the “actual” unemployment rate stands anywhere from 11 to 28 percent. Without actual figures there is no way to state an actual percentage and the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers are, however flawed, what we have to work with. The interesting thing is that both the right and left actually defend or attack BLS depending on who is in office. I have been told by Republicans that 4.9 percent figure was actually too high because it ignored those on unemployment who were “scamming” the system. I was also told by members of the other party that the same figure is too low because it ignores “underemployment.”

Sorry. I know there are scammers. They show up for interviews and get their card stamped, but deliberately offend the hiring authority and get another week by showing that they were “looking.” Near the end of their eligibility they obtain employment which they keep long enough to have worked in two quarters and then be discharged for less than competent work. The number of these folks is not large but they do exist. They will take advantage of any system—the system just needs to figure them out.

Sorry. I do not buy the “underemployment” argument any more than I buy the “overqualified” argument in denying someone employment.

So we are dealing with the numbers BLS uses. But what, statistically, is the difference between 7.8 percent and 8.2 percent? In terms of who is work and who is not, you have to look at factors of economic activity as well. Are factory orders increasing? Is output increasing?

Does the American manufacturing sector show an increase or are these jobs based on the fluctuation of the retail system or the increase of freelance companies wherein the self employed have decided to go it without the capital base they need because there are no other options? And if so, how much of this is going to last? I had a discussion with my late father-in-law back in the late 80s about the surge of service sector jobs without an agricultural or manufacturing base to support them.

Right now, through the Quantitative Easing, the Fed is creating money without wealth. The created money will possibly create some employment in the financial sector—until the next bubble bursts. Without real wealth creation, reduction of unemployment is temporary at best.

To butcher a saying from Abraham Lincoln, “You cannot fool all the people all the time, but you can possibly fool a plurality through election day.”

Standard
Citizenship

A case for a change

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

There are two major candidates, one of whom will be elected in December, with different aspirations. Mitt Romney wants very much to be President. To that end he will promise anything he needs to promise and will have a tough time following through on those promises if elected. This is not intended as an endorsement of Mr Romney.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is President. He made all those promises four years ago, and to achieve some he ignored others. He wants very much to transform America. It worked for FDR—four times. It was only after World War II ended and Truman lifted wartime restrictions that the nation began to recover from the recession of 1931.

So let us look at the transformation so far. The “bailout” of the auto industry involved a takeover of two companies in order to preserve the union welfare state of those companies and give the government a “stakeholder” place in decision making. The bankruptcy law was violated and preferred stockholders, many of them public employee and teacher pension funds, were left holding the bag to assure government preferred stakeholders—aka the UAW. When franchises were closed, the fact that some had paid serious money for their franchises was not a consideration. Apparently volume of sales was not either.

Another aspect of the transformation of the auto industry is the new green technology. An example of this is the new Chevy Volt. GM loses $49,000 on every one that leaves the factory in order to reach a price point of $40,000. In addition the taxpayers pick up another $7,500 in a tax credit to bring the price down to a level where people will buy the vehicle.

The genius of the American auto industry has been its ability to produce vehicles that capture the consumer. And scuttle those that do not. They did not have to deal with the fiat that “you will build this vehicle” mentality of the Combloc. The Edsel was a failure—Ford ditched it and followed with the Mustang. Despite Ralph Nader the Corvair was extremely popular—there is a 61 driving around town that is in better shape than Ralph.

Ford escaped the “bailout” by having shepherded its resources to where it would not have to take a reorganization. Not to worry. New EPA CAFE standards took care of the the popular Crown Victoria. The company will survive, but a solid, powerful vehicle has been removed from production. Its replacement, the AWD Taurus-SHO, is unlikely to last as many miles and has a higher price tag to begin with. And with Executive Order 13603 in place, Obama has “authority” to seize industries in the name of national security.

The “bank bailout” saved some companies that should have been allowed a quiet demise. The real estate bubble which brought it down was caused largely by federal requirements to “open up” the housing market. To avoid pressure by compliance agencies, the banks loosened credit requirements to the point that massive groups of people were approved for loans they could never pay. There were people in certain counties in Colorado who were refinancing every eighteen months. There was a joke in the consumer community about using Visa to pay Mastercard—eventually the house of cards (so to speak) tumbles.

As the Congress set about remedying the financial situations there were companies that should have gone under, but were “too big to fail” so they were propped up. The regulations bill that the President signed had not been read by its sponsors. Retiring Sen Chris Dodd said it would take a couple years to find out what was in it.

So we come to the quick fix comprehensive health care reform. Like the financial services bill it was rushed and rammed through without time for reading or reflection. So much for the promise of transparency. What is in it—other than a tax that is unlawful because it originated in the Senate or else in the mind of an intimidated Chief Justice—is not clear. What is not in it is: cost control, frivolous lawsuit control, and cost increase control. Without these, the temporary nature of the bill is apparent—the costs will crash the government.

Then we come to the assertion that the President has authority to order the assassination of anyone he deems a threat to the American people. In asserting this power—which was not asserted in the Divine Right of Kings—the President places himself with banana republic dictators as well as Vlad the Impaler, Caligula, Stalin and Rasputin.

The President has also issued executive orders giving himself authority Congress and the Constitution will not. He tires of waiting for Congress. He has always, from his own statements, been frustrated by the Constitution’s negative liberties. He would like to change this Constitution out for one that mandates redistribution. And he clearly is looking for three more appointments to the Supreme Court in order to achieve this.

Mr Obama recently remarked that is is nearly impossible to effect change from the inside. Perhaps the community organizer needs to get back outside.

Standard
Free Society

“Not my party”

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

The “teaser” on the Ron Paul’s response to Romney’s speech said, “It’s not my party.” Further, the Washington Post portrayed Ron’s supporters who walked out as spoiled brats who had never won a caucus or primary. Scratch WaPo as a reliable source.

The demonization and marginalization of Ron Paul has begun. This is a bad move by a political party that has a shrinking share of the electorate and only through good fortune is facing an incumbent whose record and negatives outweigh his positives. But this good fortune can be tossed aside by the actions of the Party and a pro-Obama mainstream media.

What Dr Paul said was not a repudiation of the Party but a statement that no one person owns the Republican Party. What he was saying is that the party is not owned by any person or faction. While the ham-handed tactics of the Romney faction prevailed at this convention, they are not etched in stone, but rather reflect a neo-conservative philosophy that may disappear as the ex-Trotskyites progress into senility and beyond. Youth, Hispanic voters and the disaffected are not jumping on the bandwagon in large numbers. And neither the “Romney vision” nor the Ryan budget are going to address the fiscal and social breakdown that is coming.

The glimmer of hope for the Party lies in the platform. If enough of the Congressional Candidates take it seriously, it could make a difference. Time will tell.

Standard
Free Society

I came out–Fighting

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

Let me put this in perspective.  I write as loboviejo because I like the concept of being an old wolf–there is a great deal of wisdom in a council of wolves.  I consider the three little pigs to be feral swine.

There is a great debate going on in this country right now.  We are being led by an establishment that wants to continue the travel into a totalitarian world government with the kleptocracy of the UN Secretariat at the center.   And there are some working specifically for the dictatorship of the proletariat to run this country.  They attack capitalism which has not really existed in this country since the Coolidge administration.

So the Washington Post is covering the DISCLOSE Act debate.  The gist of it is that the Republicans are blocking the transparency needed to make politics accountable.  What they are attempting to block is a bill that would create an “enemies list” for any president.  No amount of spending or advocacy is going to neutralize the inherent advantage of incumbency–the only way for a challenger to get that much coverage would be to get pulling off the heist of the Century and Ben Bernanke already did that.

So the comments are basically the glories of transparency versus the evil Republicans who probably get billions in undisclosed….   Let’s be real.  Harry Reid wants power.  Harry Reid wants to know who is giving money to opponents of his program.  Same with Barack Obama.   Same with any number of incumbents.

So here is my comment.

Here is the deal. There organizations on both sides of the political spectrum who engage in harassment of those they disagree with. Some have been known to enter upon private property to intimidate the family of an executive of a company they disagree with. President John Adams sent thugs to “punish” opponents of his war and even those who dared insult his management style. Richard Nixon had a list of enemies whom he attempted to bring down the powers of the Government on. Abraham Lincoln had opponents jailed.

Anonymity is a tradition in American politics from Silence Dogood and Poor Richard to “an Englishman” to Publius, Cato and Brutus. I see no reason for the FEC to collect an enemies list for whoever gets elected. I will make this easy for the Progressives. My name is Earl Haehl, my blog is loboviejo.com, I am a Republican and I oppose any assault on the Bill of Rights.

Ultimately the fight is one that will go to the side with the most popular support–the Supreme Court has the tradition of Hugo Black opposing any infringement on the first amendment alongside the tradition of William O Douglas who had a much looser definition of necessity.

Standard