The fact of the matter is, there has been, is now, and will always be an alliance in the United State’s federal government. At times it is uneasy - spats emerge between Democrats and Republicans, normally over irrelevant side issues - but the truth remains that ultimately Republicans and Democrats are in this thing together.
The non-event of Arlen Specter’s recent switch of parties (with almost no switch in ideology) reminds us that we have an unholy binity in Washington: one party, manifest in two political factions. Despite the appearance of debating and battling over the years, these two parties have formed a bipartisan coalition to increase the power of the state, enrich the state and subvert the freedoms of the individual.
The primary way they have enlisted the support of individuals in the dismantling of their own freedoms has been through the appearance of fundamental, ideological divisions. Republicans have warned that if the Democrats are elected to power, there will be a kind of atheistic socialism - higher taxes, private property regulations, debauchery, immorality, appeasement and economic collapse. Democrats have said that if Republicans are elected to power, there will be Christian fascism - corporatism, erosion of civil liberties, big-brother, integration of church and state, wars and environmental destruction.
By painting the evils of the opposition with broad brush strokes, the average person has been scared into a never ending cycle of anti-government behaviour when not in power and support for pro-government behaviour when holding power. Since those in power actually have the reigns of the state - the pro-government movement always ends up accomplishing the majority of changes in the direction of expansionary government.
For example, all it took to pass the PATRIOT Act were a few days of Americans frightened over Islamic terror with Republicans wielding power. However, the PATRIOT Act has been immensely unpopular since, it has been opposed for years - yet very little has been done. Net gain: the state.
Now That We’ve Admitted We Have A Problem…
Recognising this reality is the first step towards breaking this cycle. This means being anti-government both in and out of season. It also means, and this may be difficult to accept for those who are deeply invested in partisan politics, that we must stop viewing those who are in the other party as 100% politically evil. We must abandon “our team” and forge a new alliance with those who abandon theirs.
I’m not suggesting forming a new party - God knows that will fail. Rather, we should being to recognise common ideals and goals and work together to support them.
Every political ideology, even those advocated by people who are genuinely Marxist, fascist, Anarchists, etc… would prefer to see some aspects of the current government eliminated. It may mean that a Republican is going to have to help a socialist protest the war. It may mean that a Marxist is going to have to help a conservative oppose hate crimes legislation.
Obviously, some issues are going to be deal-breakers - a Marxist probably wont join with a libertarian on certain tax reductions. But they might join together for a reduction in certain regulations. The key is acknowledging that some ideas of the “opposition” are held in common, and can be supported to a mutually beneficial end.
Words like “liberal” and “conservative” need to cease to be used as curse-words for the other side. Because a person takes an opposing view on one issue - does not automatically make them in opposition to your side in general. It definitely doesn’t make their pragmatic goals in opposition to yours.
One Example of This Happening Now
A current example of “alliances of issues” is Ron Paul’s HR1207. Ron Paul has dedicated his political life to, above other things, fighting the power of the Federal Reserve. He has hitherto had almost no support in this effort. But he has been able to get over 100 cosponsors for the Federal Reserve Transparency Act by appealing to common anti-government sentiments across ideologies. It is now actually possible (though still probably not likely) that the Federal Reserve could get audited in the future.
“But Ron Paul wants to legalise drugs! Ron Paul is ok with homosexual marriage! Bad bad bad! Liberal! Libertarian!” These are the words of a zealot - these are words that prohibit progress to be made in deconstructing the apparatus of government power. Fine, oppose Ron Paul on drugs and homosexual marriage - fight him until the bitter end. But admit that auditing the Federal Reserve is a good thing! As it stands, 100 other people, whose general disagreements with Ron Paul range from 50 to 99 percent, have formed an alliance around HR1207 to see something constructive done.
The ideas of bipartisan alliance have been used far to long to compromise the rights of the individual for government expansion. This weapon should be used for good - to slowly dismantle the state. Libertarians, Republicans, Anarchists, Democrats, Socialists and Marxists each have some anti-government issues that are important to them. Rather than seeking alliances on expansionary measures - alliances should be formed against the government.
Once we realize that the current definition of “conservative” or “liberal” is one where one half of the Constitution or the other suffers, we’ll realize that the “moderates” who wander around in-between the two as populists should consider gravitating toward the libertarian-constitutionist part of the political spectrum, which is where both the major parties used to be before the gravitation toward the right and left ends of the spectrum fifty to sixty years ago.
Some wise observer has said, We have not had a change in administration since 1913. That, of course is when the federal reserve took over our nations money issues. Andrew Jackson warned us as to what they were up to back in 1835. Now they have taken over completely. They in fact are the nation’s terrorists we have been looking for. Just consider the damage they have caused to our economy. Compared to Osama Bin Laden. They are our real enemy, masquerading as community leaders in their three piece suits extracting interest to the tune of $2.3 Billion a day. When constitutionally we are supposed to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Congress has not the power to delegate that duty to another group. The Supreme court ruled in 1935, “Schecter Poultry
v US 295 US 495 1935 Congress cannot abdicate it’s duty and delegate it to another group.”
Info Wars !
The true value, is in the debate itself.
Ron Paul’s HR-1297 is worded is such a way, that even if it passes without amendment, it will be so week, that no real or significant change will occur within the Federal Reserve accounting & disclosure system itself.
However, if the debate itself reveals to the public, the fact that the Federal Reserve is “NOT” a branch of the American government. There will be real value in this exercise.
The Federal Reserve is a consortium of privately owned banking institutions. The exact membership of this consortium (I am not making this up) has been a well kept secret ever since it’s inception on Dec. 23 1913.
Having said that, I can tell you that the controlling interest in the ownership of the Federal Reserve is widely believed to be the European “Rothschild” banking dynasty.
What this means, is that the Federal Reserve & the American dollar, has been in the control of a non American banking family empire for the last 96 years !
Why, if it is true you may ask, hasn’t a story like this been told before now ?
The answer is that it has been said many times by many people throughout history. It just does not get reported or repeated in the press after it has been said, because the same people that control the Federal Reserve, are also in control of the corporate monopoly system that is the MSM
(Main Stream Media).
Will this debate expose the secrets of the Federal Reserve ?
Time will soon tell.
Info Wars !
support H.R. 1207
Thanks for the spam everyone!
There is a proven equation… for every time a blog post or article mentions Ron Paul, there are two people who will spam in reply.
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!!!!1!
I fully agree with this article. I like 90% of what Ron Paul stands for, and would gladly campaign for and support MOST of his bills. I would have voted for ANY of the front runners for the major parties though for President before Ron Paul though because I disagree with him in areas where he would have significant influence as President. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a majority in this country that opposes government. People on both sides of the spectrum oppose their opponents having power, but almost everyone supports their OWN side having power. Those who oppose the power itself are a small minority, whatever else they might believe. There are very few liberals OR conservatives that don’t support big government (doing different things), and there really aren’t that many people who fall outside of these camps either. The Republican and Democrat parties may be two sides of the same coin, but that’s because there really isn’t a lot of variety in what US citizens WANT from their government.
Yes, Darius T., the “spam” is always 2 or more, usually more. You know, there could be some reasons behind it. You might want to investigate.
The reason is that there is so little meaningful coverage that Ron Paul crazies (most of whom probably aren’t even registered to vote) can make thoughtless and stupid comments (spam) on any even slightly related reference. If a small fraction of such spammers were actually intelligent, thinking people, there might actually be some hope for a few of Paul’s less ridiculous ideas. As it is, the support of a bunch of irrational nutjobs doesn’t help much. While I agree with the article that even alliances with morons should be made where useful, there aren’t enough such crazies to make a meaningful difference. If any of you spammers wants to pass a Turing test, try reading the article and tailoring your response to actually be applicable. Dropping names from other comments makes you a somewhat smarter bot, but will not convince any of us that you are actually human.
Hey, don’t knock the spammers. I started on here as a spammer.
Plus we should realize that spammers, steered in the right direction, might be of great value. I mean, since we’re talking about forming alliances and all…
Yeah, Colin, I’ve said this before, but this is quite possibly the best thing you have written. Very concise and to the point using relatively few words, which is something I admire since I find it nearly impossible to do myself.
People must realize that the two parties are propping each other up. Neither can continue to exist without the other. And the moment an outsider threatens the duopoly, you can expect a coordinated attack from both sides, although you will typically only see it from one side. And that’s just your programming kicking in, or we could say that you generally will only see things from you political vantage point. That may be why a third party will not work. It’s kind of like busting up the mob. You may have infighting between the families, but all that is manageable occupational hazard as long as the FBI doesn’t get involved.
http://www.newsok.com/house-bypasses-governors-veto-to-claim-oklahomas-sovereignty/article/3366762
I thought Republicans and Democrats were the same…
Darius, I’ve been following this fairly closely, although I was unaware of the most recent developments. And I am originally from Oklahoma. Politicians like Charles Key are rare for either party. But keep in mind he is a politician within the state government, not the federal government.
I assume Colin’s article is centered more around Washington, based on his references to Arlen Specter, Ron Paul, HR1207, and the PATRIOT Act. How many Republicans do you know in Washington arguing for states rights?
There are plenty, they’re just not in seniority. Part of the problem is the longer one is in Washington, the greater one’s love of power becomes. In principle, I am against term limits because I don’t like limiting the freedom of the people to elect whomever they want, but in practice, they seem like a good idea for senators and representatives. Get rid of the Byrds, Kennedys, and Specters of the world.
Darius T:
I don’t think there is an absolute characterization of Republicans and Democrats. Some are good people trying to help. But, I admit to be being disgusted by the lot in Washington–especially, most especially, the “party leaders.” These are the worst. The heads of the committees are bad, too. I’m not even sure why we have such a setup. This creates many layers of unneeded middlemen and focal points for the lobbyists. The system of representation is bad enough. I don’t need Lockheed Martin lobbying the head of a Defense committee. Get rid of that. The representatives and senators are supposed to represent the people–that is their enumerated function–not these idiotic corporations. If companies are not producing a product that can succeed in the market, let them go away. Who needs them? If there’s not enough work for people to do, then that is a good thing, in my view. I’d rather have a bored nation that might do some charity work as opposed to a nation of butt-sitters devising ways to colonize the world and put a Walmart in Yemen. There really is a lot of work that can be done in this country–it is government interference and corporate influence that is directing the work to unneeded causes. It is old-think. Time for some regeneration.
“There are plenty, they’re just not in seniority…”
Can you name some? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but my sense is that those in favor of a limited federal government, as prescribed by the Constitution, are few are far between. Every now and then I’ll catch C-SPAN and I can tell you that limiting the scope of federal authority doesn’t seem to be a priority for many of them. In fact, the opposite generally seems to be true.
This states rights movement, of which Oklahoma is a part, is just breaking past the “fringe”. I don’t see it as being generally popular with many in Washington - Republicans or Democrats.
In fact, everything is being federalized right now and there are plenty of Republicans and Democrats to thank for that. The John Warner Defense Act intends to federalize the National Guard and make them an “operational force” under the jurisdiction of the Pentagon, effectively bypassing the state government. Who was the main sponsor? Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California. His co-sponsor was Ike Skelton, a Democrat from Missouri. This bill passed the Senate with unanimous consent, and received overwhelming support in the House from Democrats and Republicans alike. This is just one of many such examples.
I do believe I’ve heard junior Republicans giving lip service to states rights, but when it comes to any issue THEY care about such lip service disappears. The only people who ever express support for states rights in a given area are the ones losing the federal control. Nobody is in favor of it when they HAVE control.
Darius: “Get rid of the Byrds, Kennedys, and Specters of the world.”
Naming three Democrats…What a great example for this article.
I was referring to Specter as a Republican. I’ll throw in McCain too, does that work for ya?
I’m going to go a bit off-topic here. Darius (indirectly) brought up the Oklahoma sovereignty movement and Rep. Charles Key. In order to understand Key’s motivation behind pushing for state sovereignty, it would be helpful to know a bit about his history.
After the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City, a bombing that took the life of Key’s secretary, Key was made aware of some troubling facts about the crime that the feds seemed to be ignoring. He believed there was a cover-up. The multiple eye-witness accounts of other conspirators seen with McVeigh, the omission of certain witnesses from the federal grand jury, the refusal of the feds to release a video of the Ryder truck prior to it exploding, etc. etc. His constituents wanted answers and so did he.
When he attempted to impanel a grand jury himself, one as per his rights stated in the Oklahoma State Constitution, he was blocked by a state judge. When he went before the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, they ruled in his favor, citing the Constitutional provision. Then the original judge who blocked Key’s efforts appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which stalled the independent investigation pending the court’s decision.
In January of 1997, ABC aired an episode of 20/20 that featured Key and his theories about an FBI cover-up of the Murrah bombing. It was a two-part episode, but for some reason part two was never aired. Don’t worry, the federal government wasn’t involved or anything.
In February, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in Key’s favor, and gave the go ahead for the investigation.
Anyway, that gives you some background on Charles Key and why he is crusading against the feds. Indeed, he is not your every day politician. He is no more typical of Republicans than Ron Paul is.
Chris, I absolutely agree that it is unfortunate that the county level grand jury was blocked by a local judge. It sounds like he was absolutely and completely unjustified in doing so according to Oklahoma state law. It looks like that grand jury did eventually take place though, and completely agreed with the federal grand jury. I might need to take a look at Key’s book, but it really doesn’t look like he had sufficient evidence for his position to be convincing:
PBS article about the country level Grand Jury
Final Report on the Bombing: Charles Key
So yeah, Key’s is definitely a bit of a fringe character.
The grand jury was actually taken over by then Attorney General, Bob Macey. He was vehemently against it from the beginning, but when it was apparent that he couldn’t get his way, he took the opportunity to co-opt it. His office selected all the members of the grand jury. He is also the one who prosecuted McVeigh.
Interesting. I would have a hard time believing the government was involved with the bombing, but this kind of behavior could definitely suggest that they received information in advance that could have been better utilized or that their investigation had flaws they don’t want the public to look at too closely. The fact that anyone actually tried to oppose a grand jury being formed it definitely a concern, regardless of whether any other wrongdoing was done. Opposition to further investigation does tend to suggest that something is being covered up, even if it was just a sloppy investigation.
Darius T wrote: “I was referring to Specter as a Republican. I’ll throw in McCain too, does that work for ya?”
Yep, Ted Stevens would be another great “bi-partisan” example.
Not trying to be argumentative, but it was a pretty good case in light of the article.
Yeah, Stevens is a good example. He was unjustly denied his seat by that sham of a prosecution, but I’m not sad to see him gone.