I recently read an article in The Daily Bell that really bothered me. The article is an "Exclusive Interview" with Nelson Hultberg. There are several phrases that indeed cast light on the reasons that alternative parties never truly take hold. This particular phrase really caught my eye.

"Marginalization" is the flaw of the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. This takes place because these two parties attempt to instantly implement an ideal vision of how society should be constructed through the political process. They ignore the fact that politics is a game of incrementalism, that it is not an arena in which an "ideal society" can suddenly be voted into place. Because they try to do this, they are perceived by the public as not living in the real world.

For example, whenever they are asked what tax policy they advocate for the country, Libertarian and Constitution Party members reply that the income tax should be totally abolished and government should be stripped down to a minimal state funded by tariffs. Now this is a wonderful "ideal" that could perhaps be achieved in 100 years. But it's not a credible political platform to be gained through a political campaign. Libertarian and Constitution Party members are blind to the damage this does to their image in the minds of the voters. As a result, both parties are marginalized as utopian. They end up getting at best 1% of the vote every year and remain obscure fringe voices.

And further down he states:

From time to time a question is submitted for my consideration. Answers are not always forthcoming in a timely manner as I do have a life outside of writing, politics and my vivid imagination of global conquest. Recently I was asked if I would consider changing my political affiliation over to the Republican Party. After all, it was surmised, my political “ambitions” would never be fulfilled with an “L” behind my name. Where do I begin?

Let me be very clear on this, or at least as clear as my abilities may convey. My ambitions do not lie with politics. What I may or may not wish to achieve in this lifetime are quite basic and mundane to say the least. Obviously I wish to provide for my family. Outside of that, I wish to retire before 60 and acquire 100 acres in order to build my small ranch home, raise livestock, grow a garden, hunt and fish. I want to ride horses and in a pickup truck, not a limousine. I want outside dogs, not inside ankle-biters. I want forest and streams, not phone poles, bayous and mosquitoes that can carry small children away. I can do without the sailboat if I can have a greenhouse and live off the grid. I wish to return hither from which I came. That pretty much sums it up.

My ingress into the political arena was not a result of ambition. It was a result of desiring to keep my children free. One in my age group or older would be hard pressed to consider the modern era even remotely similar to the country of our youth. And while I loved my grandparents very much, I am sometimes grateful that they did not see the nation that we have become.

Well, as promised I am opining with respect to the so called “bailout” that we have witnessed this week. Recent reports indicated that 85% of those who contacted their Congresspersons and Senators were against this welfare handout, yet our elected leaders voted for the measure anyway. Doesn’t that make you proud to be an American? You will not find a finer example of how well our system works than this particular issue. The “will of the people” (i.e. the consent of the governed) is ignored. Our rulers act with impunity.

The current financial “crisis” that we are witnessing is not a new phenomenon. At the core, it is the logical and natural result of business practices predicated on the concept by amortizing debt, while booking revenue as “profit” as a result of normal business operations and acquisitions. This model rewards those who go deeper into debt, while punishing those who do not. Debt does not equate to “assets” no matter what the media and our government claims. As a result, we have a “debt-based consumer” economy instead of an economy based on sound business practices.

How the Stomach Churns
or How We Failed to Keep Our Republic

I must admit that since before Hurricane Ike, I had not watched corporate media for awhile. My reasoning was that they (corporate media) are not reliable and as a matter of routine they engage in propaganda and attempt to sway public opinion to fit their agenda. Likewise, I view silence on governmental malfeasance to be equally repugnant.

I suppose one can argue that silence is not collusion by consent. However, as witnessed in Texas, when the media fails to report on the government blatantly violating the election code, one can only be left with the impression that corporate media is engaging in purposefully misleading….no, let’s just call it lying, to the citizens of our state, and of our nation.

I wish to focus on two issues this week. The first issue is that of the State of Texas’ refusal to uphold the rule of law with respect to the election code. Secondly, I would like to discuss the nonsense we are witnessing with respect to ‘the bailout’ being rammed down our throat by the ruling elite. It has taken me awhile, considering recent events, to wrap my mind around these topics and today I intend to make my position very clear and very succinct. I will have to write on “the bailout” tomorrow as I lack the time to complete the article prior to performing my parental duties for the evening. Hopefully I will not bore you with the election code in the meantime.

Main Entry: can•ni•bal•ism
Pronunciation: \'ka-ne-be,-li-zem\
Function: noun
Date: 1796
1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being
2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind
3 : an act of cannibalizing something

As a politically natured person, I watch the actions of not only my own party, but that of our tax subsidized big government adversaries. While I disagree with both of their jingoistic sound-bite sloganeering for the consumption of the masses, I respect their ability to inspire, solidify and expand their bases none the less.

This week and next we will be treated to infomercials on behalf of the two tax subsidized party candidates. I wait anxiously to see the total cost to the taxpayers for these infomercials. In 2004 the cost was in the neighborhood of $80 million for those in power to provide mass media consumption to the voting electorate.

I am often confronted by political detractors stating that my ideas of the Constitution are “quaint” and “outdated.” Indeed, I hold the ideals of the founders of our nation in high esteem. They were not perfect men by any stretch of the imagination, nor the Constitution a perfect document. However, both accomplished something never before realized in history. A nation was born where the framework established that government obeyed the laws of the people, and the people were the sovereigns of a nation.

These very detractors are often those who promote a concept where the rule of law applies only to those outside their immediate peer group. Regardless of political positions, be they leaning right, left or somewhere outside of the “mainstream,” they promote the concept that government may employ whatever measures necessary to advance their agenda regardless of the ramifications to those who are not in agreement with their goals.