It seems increasingly clear to me that the Democratic Party is a communist party and that its agenda is redistribution without regard to merit. Race, gender and class are their paradigm, with Marxist visions of class as underwriting their vision for the future. Redistribution from white Protestant males to all the others throughout the world is their rallying cry, whether they say so openly or not.
My problem with this is not that the others don't deserve it. Not that some should live in squalor while others live in comparative plenty, but simply that WASP work ethic worked, and without it, we will have no economy, and the whole thing will collapse.
What do the Republicans on the other hand stand for? We have had one surge after another from "conservative" rivals to Mitt Romney. Herman Cain fell apart because of his egregious attempts to force women to "date" him in exchange for a job. "Give me a blow job and I will give you a real job," seemed to be his MO. Santorum seems to want to go to war with Iran for a reason I can't understand. Plus he doesn't want three men to be able to get married. Ron Paul wants open borders. As an Austrian economist (have you read Von Mises?) that's exactly what he stands for. He avoids the issue, but that's where he's at. Huntsman and Perry are now out, as is Bachman. So let's not bother to discuss them. What's left is Newt, with his shameless attempts to force his second wife into an open marriage (he had the upper hand, and tried to force hers). To her credit, she didn't buckle. This strong arming of one's own spouse indicates to me a bully that would use bullying in many other arenas, and lead to massive resentment. Still, he's won South Carolina now and this may give him credible power that will translate into a win in Florida, and other states, and force Romney out.
But what does Newt stand for? He mentioned that he wanted inner city kids to take the jobs of union janitors so that they could then have those jobs and the work ethic that comes with it themselves. But wouldn't they in turn be replaced by other free labor from high schools rather than actually get union jobs themselves as janitors?
While I despise the Democrats and their race, gender, class mantra and the notion of multiculturalism (all cultures are equal, which they obviously are not, even if you think of the Islamic and communist countries around the globe, as well as the Catholic, it becomes immediately obvious that they are not equal and that some cultures simply don't work as well as the WASP one that has been elaborated upon over the last five centuries since Luther and which is now under attack by the redistributionists). The only candidate who might have understood this is Michelle Bachmann, but she did not understand the enormous difficulty of the fight with the communist media who have set so many traps for those outside their paradigm that it will be incredibly difficult for anyone who is not of their ilk to get through.
What we need is someone who is an apologist for capitalism (especially corporate capitalism), and who understands the role of banks, and Wall St., in a robust economy. Ron Paul may be what is needed for that, but he's also too old (he's 78 and his hands shake and his voice whines). We also need someone who can be an apologist for America itself: someone who can articulate the WASP mentality that built the country, and yet do it in such a way that it doesn't antagonize those who want in, and who do want to come with a work ethic & personal discipline.
Romney is almost completely inarticulate. I have no idea what he stands for or wants. His dad was equally vague, and lost out to Goldwater as a result. Goldwater was a maniac, but could come up with terrific phrases ("the defense of extremism in the pursuit of a virtue is no vice"). Unfortunately Goldwater also wanted to use atomic weapons against Vietnam, which is just plain extremism in the pursuit of viciousness.
It looks as if we're going to be stuck with Newt, who is a slimeball, if you ask me. He's a well-named little reptile.
Whether or not he can slither past the media and past the Goliath of the left with its endless gauntlet of crypto-Marxists is unlikely. He may at least slime as many as slime him. He's one fierce SOB. And he is completely unafraid of a fight. He is what he is, and isn't ashamed of it, or at least not too ashamed. Plus I think he will hold Obama down in a playground fight and beat him half to death intellectually. But standing around the fight will be the media who will get in many licks on Obama's side.
What Newt will do in the White House should he survive the shellacking is more of the same. He will pick fights and create resentments. Oy vey. I suppose this is just the situation we're in.
I had wanted a Protestant. I had wanted a Lutheran Surrealist.
But there's no way I could survive the left gauntlet, nor would I wish to even attempt such a run. If Newt does win the thing, at least we will have two different philosophies on offer. I still don't really know what Newt stands for, but it's not race, gender, class. That's enough to make me crank the lever for him. Nothing could be worse than rgc and redistribution toward equality without any reference to merit. Newt does at least believe in his own merit. So he might be able to articulate the rationale for a meritocracy for all. I hope to God he can, and I hope he can tone down his truculence. When the man gets mad he's out of his mind.
9 comments:
If you still want a protestant you can vote for Ron Paul.
Paul is an Austrian school libertarian. Von Mises and Hayek were total secularists. They wanted open borders. I don't think we can plan with open borders. It's a mistake. It's another form of redistribution to let in more rgc and thus gain votes for the Democratic viewpoint.
Resdistribute, gringo. There are some Hispanic righties such as the Cuban-Americans, but the vast majority are leftists who are already coming from failed leftist economic systems. Mexico was communist for 100 years. Look at what's left: only the drug cartels could make any money.
The school kids were the janitors at the schools where I taught in the Pacific. Every Friday morning after their religion class and the school assembly a bunch of the students were given bush knives they'd use to mow the lawn for half an hour or so and a plastic bag to collect the trash and grass reed brooms without wooden handles for sweeping the dust out of the classrooms. The schools where I taught didn't have indoor plumbing and the windows were louvered so there was no air conditioning. Sometimes there was a nice sea breeze.
I still don't really know what Newt stands for, but it's not race, gender, class.
Newt stands for Newt. There's no mystery there. When people in relationship with him become burdens rather than supports, he drops them. It's all about Newt. Just ask his ex-wives, or his former colleagues.
Newt said in Florida he wants to attack Cuba by any means necessary in order to topple Castro. More craziness. Let the communist systems suffer by comparison with the capitalist.
I miss Cal Coolidge. He had the right idea. Government should be parsimonious and always seek to cut itself down and whittle itself down instead of metastisizing into new bureaucracies and new czars and new branches of tomfoolery:
http://www.archive.org/details/coolidge_1924
Based on the Florida primary, I think it is safe to say that the Republican party stands for negative campaigning.
Newt has gone nuts. He came on as some kind of Teddy Bear, kind of like in Survivor how the first round you have to build alliances. Now that it's just he and Mitt left, we see the real Newt. He dumps his first wife becaue he has cancer. He then sleeps with his aide while his second wife burns with rage, and he tells her to get over it and accept an open marriage. Now the third wife will let him do whatever he wants. That's how he likes it.
I don't like Newt much on the personal level, but he does have some good ideas here and there. I think he's right to overthrow Chavez, for instance. One Cyclops understands another.
I hope Mitt makes it through to the final round. We need someone who's fair and balanced in the WH. The Republican party requires about 1170 delegates to secure the nomination and now Romney has 70 and Newt has 23 or so. Santorum and Paul have a few per.
There aren't very many winner take all states so the longer this goes the more it's going to stay even, I am afraid. Most of the states are proportional. February 7th is another round with four states.
Oy vey.
Even florida isn't secure for Mitt because they may yet change their roles and move to a proportional system, apparently.
All too true about Newt. But I heard that Mitt ran 150 different commercials—149 negative, and the one positive one was in Spanish. It's an interesting, if typically Mittesque approach—segment the electorate, and try to run a distinct campaign in each. Be all things to all people, and hold your real opinions to yourself.
FWIW, I think we do have someone who is fair and balanced in the White House, but I know that you can't see beyond your unfounded ideological commitments. Too bad, that.
As for Mitt, I don't think he'd be a disaster like GWB or the Tea Party caucus. He's rich enough not to have spent his life obsessing on revenge fantasies, nor is he willfully ignorant and proud of it. He's more like GHWB, but without the diversity of governmental experience, and without the military service. But I don't think he'll win. Given two even candidates, the Republicans need a big turnout advantage to be competitive. I don't believe that's going to happen for a Mormon candidate.
Post a Comment