Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

82 votes is all it took for me to become the precinct delegate for the Republican Party in the 3^rd precinct of Benton Charter Township. And that was a mouthful.

There are 1043 registered voters in my precinct, and of that number 154 came out to vote last night; an extremely low turnout, but par for the course in primary elections in this area. So, almost 15% of voters came out, and of that number just a little over 50% cast a ballot with my name selected¹. Which doesn’t mean much, when you think about it. It was a partisan primary, I was the only one in the position. The result is pretty inevitable.

Now the real work begins. On August 12 there will be a county convention to select delegates to head to the state convention where a number of candidates will be chosen for various statewide positions. After that, it’s time to campaign for those candidates. Can’t wait to get working.

Except…I’m having surgery on September 8th, which will undoubtedly cut into some of that work.

It won’t be long before I’m headed to the August 3rd primary to vote for myself; sounds a little self-serving, but I don’t expect a giant wave of supporters to throw their weight behind someone they don’t know or to vote for someone in a position very few know exist. But any Republicans in the precinct will be limited to the choice of me in that position, so if they do not abstain from voting for that position, I’ll get a vote.

This is a little problematic for me; the fact that I’m the lone Republican running for the position in my precinct should set off a few alarm bells for county leadership. A most disconcerting fact if you think about what my role will potentially entail–I’m supposed to communicate with the residents in my area and act as a sort of liaison between them and the party in order to determine what they find to be important. Will party principles line up with common issues?

I’m getting a little nervous about the responsibility this will entail; as a libertarian I don’t always agree with the Republican party. We’re in agreement on some things, but I will be required to potentially fight for candidates that I do not agree with 100%. Is the compromise OK? I don’t know. At the same time, what are voters after in the various candidates in my district, and are these the same things I’m willing to fight for?

I’ll find out in a few short days.

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness. — Mary Frances Berry

This is a rather poignant statement from Mary Frances Berry. She summarizes the strategy that is most effective in discrediting one’s critics–a strategy I have discussed on numerous occasions. The method? That of labeling an opponent as holding some socially unacceptable position that is nearly impossible to refute; this is a most effective strategy because any arguments against such charges are not believed due to the heinous nature of the charge.

The Tea Party has been called out on numerous occasions as a racist group. A group that must denounce racism within its ranks, or else be forever tainted as a political movement. The only problem is that real evidence of supposed racism is hardly prevalent. It is, of course, entirely possible that some small percentage of members hold views that are racist in foundation, but this does not manifest itself in the Tea Party ethos any more than ant-white sentiment manifests itself in the NAACP’s core principles.

What we see evidence of instead is a group attempting to steer political discourse and fight for principles they truly believe will benefit all citizens. This can be said for the NAACP, Republicans, Democrats, and just about any other political organization. Disagreements around core principles and philosophies on governance have become toxic and are hardly good examples of discussions and debates, particularly when such charges effectively end it.

While the Tea Party isn’t my bag–haha–I do have a certain affinity for the small government philosophy they seem to be espousing; with that in mind, it is difficult for me to tell how racism has any part in debates concerning their ideas. From the few meetings I’ve attended, which makes my sample size prohibitively small, I’ve seen very little to no evidence of any racism to believe they are discussing anything other than what they claim.

Why is defending one’s character against this charge such a difficult proposition? Imagine having a lively discussion about the color of the sky. You and your opponent are deadlocked in a debate about the shade of blue the sky typically is on a sunny day. “I feel it has more purple undertones,” you might say. Your opponent claims, “it is more blue-green.” The discussion continues like this for another ten minutes, when suddenly your opponent says, “well those who see purple in the sky probably dislike children, and are inherently unfriendly to them.”

Well now, the debate has shifted from the color of the sky to whether or not your like children. You’ve gone no further in discussing the sky or the implications of it being one color or another, you’re stuck defending something that has nothing to do with the debate at hand. While this illustration is rather crude, it should give you a good idea of why accusations of character being related to certain political philosophies have no place in most discussions involving matters of government.

Take my man of straw with a grain of salt, but please don’t accuse me of a character flaw because of my beliefs; instead, debate my philosophy on its merits alone.

This is a very interesting move on the part of the NAACP. Accusations of racism make fighting back incredibly difficult for the Tea Party; not because the Tea Party harbors any sort of racist tendencies, but because when a group or individual is accused of something as strong as racism, outside actors will tend to see any following action or reaction in the light of said accusation.

What this means is that no matter how often Tea Party members claim to have not seen any racist displays amongst other members, outsiders will say, “but that is only your small group, what about the others you aren’t a part of?”

From NPR¹:

The NAACP has approved a resolution condemning what it calls “racist elements” within the Tea Party. The vote has sparked a war of words between the two groups, and NAACP leaders hope the move will help fire up its membership with midterm elections approaching.

The fray began when NAACP President Benjamin Jealous issued a challenge to the Tea Party:

“You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions.”

Liberal groups, like the NAACP, are rarely ever responsible for the actions of a few fringe members. And they shouldn’t be. Those elements rarely ever represent the thinking of rational members, or the overarching goals of the group–one hopes–but painting this sort of picture of conservative groups is a rather routine occurrence. Why?

Why is the belief in limited government racist? I’ve been to a couple of Tea Party gatherings. The speeches aren’t particularly unique, noteworthy, hateful, racist, et cetera, but what they have to say is representative of a group of people that are troubled by the actions of the government; this is simply because they have an opposing view of governance. Nothing more.

Since I guess I’m a little dumb, could anyone out there explain the racist angle to me?

This isn’t something I take lightly. There will be a certain bit of responsibility on my part to try and organize Republican voters to get involved; this is particularly difficult for me simply because the community that I’m a part of tends to vote over 60% Democrat, save for the incumbent state rep, while their interests and beliefs tend to be better represented through other parties these days.

The trouble for me will be in identifying Republican voters and convincing those who vote for other parties that their interests are better served by the ideas of the Republican party in Michigan.

I see their interests being better served by Republicans, particularly if long term community viability is a goal, simply because the ideas being implemented in our community today have created an environment that is no longer sustainable. Which is why I’m so interested in becoming a part of the political process to begin with. My community has seen better days. What was once a major manufacturing and shipping community, has become a center of poverty and depression with little hope of recovering former prestige. The bottom line is, it won’t recover that prestige, but it can gain another kind. It can grow and become a viable community again.

In recent years there has been an active investment in bettering the area, and some new business has made it’s way in, but those businesses have a focus on community consumption rather than production; businesses focused on selling to consumers will never meet the employment needs of the community if certain standards of living are to be met, though it should bring in plenty of tax dollars. What can be done to entice the right kind of business? Offer the right tax and land incentives to the right manufacturer and you’ll have a viable employer and tax base for many years to help sustain the community, bring it growth, and better the conditions of everyone.

Unfortunately, our city has mismanaged its affairs, and we are currently under state control while we get our books in order. While the position I seek can do very little in regards to any of these problems, I can help to get the right folks elected that will foster the environment necessary to bring about the kind of operational changes we need to build a healthy sustainable community. And of course, we need to prepare for the difficult road ahead of us.

It is my hope that in running for this position, and perhaps serving if elected, that I can help to foster some of the change needed to make my city viable again, in addition to getting a better understanding of what the community is looking to accomplish.

You’re not alone. There are–literally–tens of hundreds of you out there right now, plotting ways in which to make your voice heard in regards to the oil spill. You’re mad, and you’re not going to take it anymore. In your mind, the corporate greed of BP was enough to create the massive environmental disaster in the gulf. Their desire to earn, earn, and earn some more took precedence over everything else, including the safety and well-being of the region. Somebody has to pay! That’s why you’re going down to the local station.

Step 1 There will be cameras. Photographers for sure, but perhaps a local news channel on a slow news day will show up. Find an appropriate outfit for the occasion. Something tasteful perhaps, not too colorful, as the occasion is indeed quite somber. If the weather is warm, a pair of short pants may be the ticket.

Step 2 Come up with a really great slogan to put on your sign. You need to let others know that you’re witty and socially aware when you protest. Something like “BP = Selfish Greed” is the shit…tiest one you could use, mostly because it doesn’t really jive with the whole two letters equals two words beginning with those letters motif. Why not “BP = Barn Poop.” At least that makes a little bit of sense.

Step 3 So, is it time to head on down? Should you really protest?

First off: don’t do it. Your message may be the right one for your cause, but you’re inflicting economic harm on the wrong people in most instances. Owners of gas stations, whether they are BP or Citgo, are not tied to those corporations. They’re more like fast food franchises in that they purchase their fuel from the parent corporation. Essentially, by the time you’re out there protesting, you’re really harming the owner of the station, as well as its employees, more than the parent corporation, which I would hope is not your goal. Hurting local business is really a very negative thing if you’re concerned about the welfare of your community.

Second, if your cause is to make the government move towards asset seizure, then your cause is wrong. Where in the hell do we live? When in history class did you learn that one of our founding principles was the asset seizure of entities that inflicted economic harm from a situation that can only be described as an accident? Just because contingency plans are inadequate does not make the corporation criminally negligent. They may be liable for clean up, which is likely to lead to bankruptcy, but government seizure seems antithetical to our notions of what ‘property rights’ mean. Another topic perhaps?

However, if BP is guilty of skirting the law, we must absolutely prosecute them and all of those involved in said activity, and make decisions on the future of the company in the United States based on the findings of the case rather than a knee jerk reaction to what we might feel in response to the massive disaster we’re experiencing.

Lastly, keep on protesting abusive and illegitimate corporate practices, but learn to recognize what those practices are and what they aren’t. Our government is often in bed with corporate interests that are harmful, simply because of the campaign money that is involved, and so it is difficult to rely on government for proper regulation. Voting with dollars is your best bet. I recognize the hypocrisy of this statement in light of what I’ve written above, but in terms of economic effect, this will have a greater impact if you’re not spending money on the right things.

I also want to address this rather interesting situation we’re experiencing with the six month moratorium on drilling: the current administration is making the claim that BP should be held responsible for the wages that workers affected by the government ordered moratorium have lost. They say BP is at fault for the wages lost during the government imposed work stoppage. I’m not sure that I really understand the logic here.

Blame a corrupt government, a corrupt regulatory process, and a corporation that did not have a proper contingency plan in place, but do not think BP evil for this disaster.

This is one of those issues I should be commenting on; particularly because I’m such a proponent of the expansion of domestic oil exploration, but this makes me an unpopular man amongst many folks right now. I harbor no ill will towards British Petroleum, which perhaps makes my crimes particularly egregious.

I’m a big believer in harnessing our resources as often as possible in order to maintain our way of life. As a caveat, I’m a proponent of working towards harnessing sources of energy other than fossil fuels. It just makes economic sense. More efficient methods of generating the energy we need exist (or not), but we really need to utilize the sources (nuclear) that all ready offer the promise of efficiency with little to no pollution. Until we do that, we need coal, oil, and natural gas in vast quantities to maintain a certain societal equlibrium.

What is it that convinces so many that oil companies are hatching nefarious plots in an effort to make a huge, largely evil, profit? The fact that they provide a commodity that happens to be in great demand? That this commodity has largely fueled the emergence of the great industrial empires in the last several hundred years, created a vast network of communication, and essentially built the world of cheap energy within which we live (or once lived, depending on your view of energy’s costs)?

Frankly, without the oil companies you couldn’t run your shitty little Apple iPads (damn’t I want one), drive your Prius, or run any other true electric vehicle that won’t take me to work and back on a single charge. That all requires oil, coal, nuclear, and other forms of energy (this is all in various quantities that is a big fucking mystery to everyone but the power distribution people) that you folks decry as evil. Progressive ideology is more nuanced than this, but it seems that any form of profit is evil, and these companies should just be in the business of providing a product for shits and fun, and to provide jobs to the jobless, and the sun to the sunless, bringing songs of joy to all, and a Ford in every driveway. *Fuck-it-all*.

Is my strawman enough for you, or do you require more?

In any event, this whole mess is certainly a tragic accident. Many of the players involved, up to and including government regulators (one could argue the President’s lackadaisical attitude is a result of some very intriguing campaign contributions from folks associated with BP), are at fault. BP should pay for this mess–as indeed, their actions certainly created the problem–while the government should be contracted in, at BP’s expense, to assist them in the cleanup.

But–you knew this was coming, right?–this event should not be taken as an excuse to end off-shore exploration. These accidents are few and far between and we need these domestic sources of energy.

Whatever the consequences of this are, what say you, fine reader, about the future of off-shore drilling and this event?

I was thinking about something the other day concerning seat belt laws. In the past I’ve been against regulations concerning the wearing of seat belts; namely that you are required by law to do so when in fact the choice harms no one but yourself in the case of an accident, thus the requirement in itself is intrusive. The government is involving itself in something that it should not!

My notion of what libertarianism meant was one of absolutes, in that any and all government involvement was inherently wrong and, I think you run into a lot of folks who have this view, it becomes a little murky when determining what is acceptable as opposed to what is off limits. It is hypocritical of me to claim all involvement is unwarranted, though isn’t it?

In the case of seat belt laws, and road regulations in general, it is perfectly acceptable for government to regulate in any way they wish in relation to a system of roads they developed, built, and encouraged the use of for the expansion of the nation. The roads are public and government property, and so in order to maximize utility and ensure the safety of everyone, these laws become necessary as deterrents, as well as punishments, for this who would shirk their responsibility as a user of public goods to follow the rules.

Whether the government should be in the business of building and regulating roads is another matter, but one I suspect most would find to be an agreeable proposition.

So, essentially what I’m saying is, there are legitimate uses of the long arm of government; and for the most part this includes the regulation of public properties and their use.

In general, though, I’m highly suspicious of the police powers of the state. Such coercion can be dangerous when given the kind of power they regularly exercise. This is indeed an affront to liberty and something that is unlikely to be corrected anytime soon.