Good evening again, Lowell! Lowell C. Savage wrote Frank Reichert...
> (Sorry for the length.) Not a problem, and I'll try to keep this a short as possible. However, so everyone can find the context of this... I previously wrote: > > As I browse through all of these messages on this conference, > > that is, from Travis, Robert, Lowell and others, there appears to > > be a common thread with regard to Democrats and Republicans, > > there are only two questions that all of us should be asking, > > namely: > > > > 1. Political Expediency, e.g.: Doing what is most likely a > > probability of getting a half of a loaf, versus nothing at all, > > and > > > > 2. Doing what is the right thing, e.g.: Voting on the principles > > upon which you stand, and what you believe is the absolute > > correct course that ought to be followed. To which, you replied: > Versus voting for a compromise candidate who might enact some of the > principles you believe in. You missed my point here somewhat. This is exactly what #1 above is all about. This is Political Expediency at its finest! People vote, and politicians deliver on what is 'possible', not what is right. People vote for politician that will do the least amount of damage, rather than one who will likely NOT get elected, such as a third party candidate. Meanwhile, the politician has no mandate, but votes in the same fashion as most likely his opposition would have done if he or she were elected, vote according to the results of the latest public opinion polls. Again, I wrote: > > Along with this, of course, is the U.S. Constitution, which > > seemingly during the last seveal decades gets very little > > attention, either from the politicians, or the people who elect > > the politicians. To which you replied: > It gets attention when it is convenient. For instance, Democrats who > haven't cared about "States Rights" since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was > passed now care deeply about them because it appears to be an argument for > not passing the DC Personal Protection Act where Congress will override DC > laws to allow residents to keep self-defense firearms at home in DC. Again, political expediency! That's why I only listed two choice categories here Lowell! If, on the other hand politicians would vote on principle versus expediency, then we would likely have real choices in the voting both, which at present, no real choices exist except maybe some of the third party candidates. Not enough of them get elected to form a good picture of how they might vote if they were really elected. That isn't universally true, there's one holdout in Congress, Congressman Ron Paul who almost always votes on principle. Since Goldwater and others are no longer in Congress, there aren't too many other examples left anymore. And again, the voters choose these bozos out of political expediency knowing full well that neither of the two party candidates will support or represent them when they are elected. I wrote last time: > > Travis points out, with facts I might add, that BOTH the bulk of > > the GOP and the Democrats follow the first course, that is, doing > > what is politically 'possible' or expedient -- getting what you > > can, while you can, and for largely your own political survival. And, you replied: > Yup. And Robert, Ed, and I point out, with fact I might add, that both > parties can be swayed and that the Republicans tend to favor more of our > issues than Democrats do. I tend to doubt the veracity of that. If GOP politicians appear to do that, why isn't that happening here in Idaho that is almost totally controlled by the GOP with only a minuscule number of Democrats holding public office for the last decade? Truth is, things have become horribly WORSE in Idaho since the GOP total takeover of the State government! The Idaho sales tax is at historic highs, as well as property and income taxes. The State has become far more intrusive into our personal lives today than they ever were when Democrat Cecil Andrus was governor for 18 solid consecutive years! It is pure fiction to believe that their is a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats after they are elected to public office. By the way, Democrat George Wallace, and Republican Barry Goldwater echoed the same remark as the one I just broached. [Some snipping done for brevities sake...] > The problem is in coming up with a working majority. The highest estimate > I've heard for the percentage of the population that is ideologically > "libertarian" is 25%. (Which group, BTW, includes people who are against or > wobbly on one or more "pure libertarian" issues. Some won't like one issue, > others won't like another.) In order to get to 50%+1, you've got to find a > way to work with people who disagree with you on some issues. If you're > going to get elected as a L, you're going to have to give up some of the L > platform to get elected. If you then turn around and implement that part of > the platform any, once elected, people won't trust your promises and will > turn you out and elect someone to undo EVERYTHING you did and won't trust > anyone else who runs under the same label. So, just to get elected, you > will have to compromise. I didn't even come close to getting elected this year, but I did receive a higher percentage on local returns that other Libertarians such as Badnarik who were on the ballot. One of the reasons I believe I did as well as I did was due to dealing with issues as they concern the people who are doing the voting. I didn't talk about legalizing prostitution, gambling and drugs. I talked about economic revitalization through free market mechanisms and getting government out of Idaho's natural resource-based economy, lowering taxes. All of this is strongly Libertarian. I would only answer questions on the other stuff if I were asked the question. By focusing on what people understand, Libertarianism has a strong message. By focusing on the bizarre stuff, it alienates just about everyone. If I really did win, I would NOT have compromised anything. I would have consistently voted on everything that I had campaigned on. To show you how simple my campaign really was this year, this is what I campaigned on: 1. Economic revitalization (bringing back our lost jobs in the natural resource-based economy; 2. Education Reform in Idaho. Parental choice and recognizing that a higher and higher percentage of Idahoans are opting out of public education, empowering parents to make the choices for their own children's education; and, 3. Tax reform. Abolishing Idaho's sales tax on food and groceries, and cutting state government spending and reducing taxes for all Idahoans. That was it. Very simple. Very straight forward. No talk of legalizing prostitution, drugs or gambling. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't do these things and vote this way if given the opportunity. But I didn't expose myself to the inevitable backlash that would have certainly resulted had I spent all of my time harping on these issues that are mostly irrelevant to the majority of voters anyway. > Three points. (1) Much better the catastrophe never occurs. It must be the > shits to wish catastrophe on your own country for political gain. That is a point that you seem to have twisted very badly. I doubt anyone 'wants to see' such a catastrophe occur, but it is certainly inevitable given the direction of our economics. Simply put, with a greater and greater burden placed upon the productive sector, there is less and less incentive for American business moguls to invest here. They'll go elsewhere and invest in infrastructure and industry with less regulation and less demanding labour costs. I, as one of those you probably straight jacket as wishing a catastrophe for political gain, I want you to know that I really wish people might wake up on their own accord and do the right thing. Which brings me all the way back to #2 in my leading paragraphs. > (2) If > there's no groundwork laid for solutions and trustworthy leaders ready to > implement those solutions, in a catastrophe, no-one is going to turn to > them. (3) In case of catastrophe, the overwhelming urge is to turn to > government to "fix it" regardless of how much government contributed to the > catastrophe in the first place. As Exhibit A, I give you the Great > Depression. Yes. And I sense you are backpedaling here, because I already gave you THAT one, didn't I? I also gave you Exhibit B, of Ronald Reagan when Americans overwhelmingly voting for change to get government off their backs given Reagan's rhetoric! I didn't say it WOULD work, only pointed out that Americans can vote anti-government sometimes when government, as it did under Jimmy Carter, didn't work very well at all in both economic and foreign policy matters. If you remember that far back, as I do, Ronald Reagan asked Americans directly to sacrifice for a while in order to fix things. Americans did that, even demanding their liberal Representatives in Congress give his administration what it needed to fulfill its mandate! This was so very unique in my lifetime of observing politics in America. It was the ONLY time that I can remember of a President really setting an agenda and going directly back to the American people to protect his mandate of campaign promises made prior to his election. The early Reagan era was a seascape of change in American Politics. It was knows and the 'born again Conservative' era. It was a time when conservatism came in vogue. Damn, even liberals were trying to convince their constituency that they were at heart, conservatives! > Several years ago, I volunteered to work the LP booth at the Spokane County > fair. It was a VERY interesting and enlightening experience. I gave out > and scored quizzes and chatted with people about freedom and how it was the > best way to achieve the goals that people wanted and tried to make it > relevant to the issues that the individuals happened to care about. One of > the other people helping to run the booth mentioned that one of the County > Commissioners (a Republican) had taken the quiz and scored a perfect 100% > libertarian. I believe that. This year I lectured the Priest River High School government students, and I passed out the same quiz. During the entire campaign season, that was the greatest single experience that I had, and I had both of my opponents along side of me. Both of them admitted that if the election were held that day, in that place, I would have won overwhelmingly. Problem is, as I've found out, most adults are set in their ways, and young people are looking for new ideas to frame the rest of their lives. I believe all libertarian candidates should spend as much time as possible with high school government students (in Idaho it is required for everyone in their senior year). You reach people early on who will be in the voting booths for the rest of their lives, if you can convince them that libertarians are their best choice early on, you have an opportunity to change the seascape. > Travis will probably say the guy must have been lying because he's since > been re-elected and he hasn't done any of several things he could probably > do to make this county more libertarian and more closely aligned with the > Constitution he swore to uphold. I guess that's part of the point I just made in the paragraph just above. Adults seem to be set in their ways, even when shown evidence that given the right set of circumstances, they agree with you. It's kind of like the adage that goes like this: Damn things are turning to shit in a hand basket. The economy is declining, and the government keeps getting deeper and deeper into my wallet and my personal life. I'm glad this is an election year -- I've voting the straight Democratic ticket, because their out for the little guy. Believe it or not, that's really the way most adults today are programmed to think and react accordingly. You can replace the "democratic ticket" with the "republican ticket" and the result is exactly the same. I previously wrote: > > I was raised by my parents to believe that principle means > > everything. You're as good as your word. If you believe > > something strongly enough, it's worth fighting for! And, you replied: > Did they also explain to you that sometimes you have to work with people you > don't entirely agree with on issues where you do agree? No, thank God, I don't believe they tried to teach me that. If they tried to, it didn't sink in. My mother in particular taught me to hold my ground when I believed I was right, and do the right thing. It was my TEACHERS in the public government run schools that tried to teach me the 'art of compromise', and they failed miserably to accomplish that. I wrote last time: > > One thing however that I was never brought up to believe or > > practice was the art of compromise, or to put that a bit current > > in this conversation, the art of what is possible, or political > > expediency. I understand this is a popular notion today both in > > politics, and in American society in general. We're stuck with > > that, I guess. To which, you replied: > Uhm. It's been part of the political scene in this country since the very > beginning. You know, things like the Electoral College? the House > representation based on a state's population size? the Senate consisting of > two Senators from each State? Those were compromises! When we get that > bland, boring world where everyone agrees with everyone else about > everything, we won't need compromise anymore. But until then.... Until then, what? Politics as usual? I believe you'll have to admit that there was far more consensus to the things you mentioned just above, like a near unanimous fear of totalitarian government if one branch has a way to control the whole enchilada. What you are really talking about above is such things that give virtually no propriety to any branch of government and yet represents the interests of all. Everyone, they thought at the time, would be protected by these constraints that they placed within the framework of the new government. For example, you cited the electoral college. This was one block upon mob rule and was intended that individual voters could choose delegates who would be largely free to vote their own conscience. Well, by default today, that doesn't happen as it was originally intended. Neither does the US Senate operate as it was originally designed to work, which was to represent the States, rather than individual voters. Originally, the States chose how their two Senators would be selected, mostly by the action of State legislatures. That's gone too. The House of Representatives was intended as the 'mob rule' branch. Now we have two mob rule branches within Congress, both the Senate, and the House. > Actually, you have no reason whatsoever to support or defend failed and > reckless policies in which you DID "sign on to" in the voting booth. I'm > not happy with the growing deficit and growing spending either. But I'm > willing to support the politicians responsible for it because of other > things. Ya, I can see that everyday, Lowell. That's why it will likely take a real catastrophe before you and most other Americans decide that political expediency has brought upon this nation the disasters that we are confronting now, some of them have the potential to change our landscape forever to our own detriment. Until that happens, I won't sign on. So, I have a legitimate right to criticize and exert pressure for real change. You don't. By your own admission, you signed on to all of this in the voting booth. So enjoy your misery -- but don't blame me for it, because I refused to sign on. Kindest regards, Frank > > Lowell C. Savage > It's the freedom, stupid! > Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
