Ron Paul in the General Election


When have the RiNOs not tended to blow Presidential elections?

There is this common myth that a “moderate” Republican — a big government interventionist — is the best choice for a general election. They are called the most “electable”…by the Big Government advocates in the media.

As proof of this, we can look to how well Bob Dole and John McCain did. Conservatives compromised their principles, and nominated a Liberal Republican, and then won the general election…

Oh…wait…they lost. In fact, “moderates” almost always do.

Yes, as FDR once pointed out, “me-too Republicans” like Dole, McCain, and Romney almost always lose, because you might as well vote for a Democrat as for someone who is imitating one. He used this argument against John Dewey, with great success.

In fact, the last three decisive turnouts for Republicans were all for “extremist Conservative” positions: 2010 with the TEA Party, 1994 for the Contract with America, and 1980 with the “unelectable” Ronald Reagan.

In fact, in 1980, the “moderate” Republicans ran a spoiler Republican in the general election, as an “Independent”. John Anderson, whom they would have preferred be nominated because he was an “electable moderate”, was supposed to split the vote, giving Carter the win.

Yes, the RiNOs actually preferred Carter over Reagan.

But what actually happened, of course, is that Reagan won in a landslide, even with a “moderate” Republican trying to steal his votes in the general election.

That shows just how much more electable a real Conservative is, than a “moderate”.

Americans still believe in the American principles that a Reagan/Goldwater sort of Conservative espouses, and will turn out in record numbers to support that, when it’s actually available in our false dichotomy of a two-party system.

And the only major candidate running for President today who has that form of American Conservatism — conserving the principles of liberty of the Founding Fathers — is Ron Paul. As Reagan put it:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" ~Barry Goldwater

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.

The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
— Ronald Reagan, interview with Reason Magazine (1975)

The claim is that Romney would win with independents (who are a plurality of the population, more numerous than Republicans or Democrats) and Democrats. But in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Ron Paul won among independents, and beat Romney among Democrats who crossed over to vote.

Paul would win a in landslide akin to the TEA Party, the Contract with America, and Ronald Reagan.

Romney will lose in a landslide akin to John McCain, and Bob Dole.

Advertisements

The Censorship Known as Campaign Finance Reform


“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” -- SCOTUS

We’ve had two major rounds of  “campaign finance reform” violating the first amendment in the past forty years. Each one has turned out to INCREASE the very bribery and corruption they were supposed to end, becoming the very means of filtering money to candidates or officials, and promoting causes out of proportion with their real support.

This is because:

  • The Law of Unintended Consequences. Imposing simplistic “order”, by force, on a complex system always produces unexpected results, usually the opposite of what you intended.
  • Each one increased the power of government, making bribery of government that much more profitable
  • As long as government has power that is profitable, the private sector will pay WHATEVER it takes to obtain it. If the “reforms” made bribery more difficult, then it simply raised the cost, which made accepting bribes more profitable to the GOVERNMENT, increasing the incentive for officials to be corrupt.
  • By “organizing” the thing in question, through imposing a government bureaucracy on it, the “reforms” just create an orderly, static way of bribing government officials and calling it “legal”.

Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of…stupidity.

It is stupid to expect future, censorship-oriented “Campaign finance reform” to do anything but increase corruption and abuse, the way all previous ones did…even if it targets the speech of people who are associated with corporations.

%d bloggers like this: