"Now" is the new "Future"Submitted by nostater on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 00:29
“Now” is the new Future”
I. The Rand Paul debacle and the libertarian movement
In a recent interview with Ben Swann, defending his too-hasty endorsement of Romney – reportedly he gave his dad 30 minutes notice before appearing on Hannity – Rand Paul mentioned the oath required of him in 2010 by the Kentucky GOP to support the party's presidential nominee, before they would “allow” him on the ticket. In a non-presidential year they might not have been able to stop him even if he refused, but bet “his party” would have instantly disowned his efforts from that moment on. I've seen excellent “gut-libertarian” congressional candidates who were solid on the issues, but not “in” with the local GOP, obstructed rather than helped in runs against Democrats who were well-connected with defense contractors, i.e. everyone's neocon bosses.
Defending his actions, Rand outlined his progress in Senate committee getting Audit the Fed to a vote, spoke of his heart-to-heart with Romney about indefinite detention, domestic drones, Obama-like foreign policy and other touchy subjects, and generally reaffirmed his conservative-libertarian credentials for public consumption. This of course contrasts somewhat with his earlier characterization of the unhappy Paulian internet cadre as immature anarchists, and his overweening eagerness to abandon a strategy way larger, older and more important than even his dad's candidacy. We are not immature, some of us have been philosophically consistent for over half a century.
Familiar with amoral opportunism, we instantly recognize the associated waffling. But rather than wish Rand was a bastion of principle like his dad, perhaps we should wink and nudge each other; hey, he's our ringer, made up in GOP-acceptable lipstick, and let Them wonder about Him. It helps that he struts about as though he knows something they don't, which of course he does. And we must still assume that as usual, power corrupts, or at least excites the heck out of everyone. If you have five kids, how many of them will turn out loyal, truthful and moral? Shall we trust this ambitious young politician, or wish he had stronger principles, especially in regard to foreign policy? He is easily the best the Tea Party has to offer... “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king.” It's an imperfect but agreeable improvement of leadership in the Senate that won't happen otherwise.
Ballot Access tyranny & Ron's personnel adventures
These identity crises evidence the restriction of US politics to the equally corrupt, barely distinguishable choices. Ron has stated that the cost of ballot access was his main reason for not running third party again. The hypnotized, attention-deficit electorate buys the media slur: those who can't successfully jump through draconian ballot-access hoops don't deserve coverage.
These fire-rings and gauntlets sap whatever financial strength the group has, hence the sad visage of the castrated and domesticated Libertarian Party, eternally rife with petty opportunists, resting benignly on the ballot forever in some states, but toothless and irrelevant without a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson who can raise their own money and run their own campaigns. In off years you get the agents incompetente like Bob Barr, Bill Redpath, etc., people who are so inept at real world politics that, if they aren't government agents sent to muck things up, they might as well be.
Adam Kokesh' recent videos have nailed the larger problem with Ron's chronic insularity and nepotism, concluding that he has never really understood who his real friends are. We saw this in the 1988 campaign. All I could personally think to say to him at the end of that was, “please don't give up on politics.”
Subsequently Ron's organization adopted a persona of non-secular and/or family non-professionals, one speaking style somewhat improved over 40 years, and one ill-fitting suit. In the end game, you must appear to be taking it seriously. He's always had the innate confidence, and has developed an invaluable sense of wry humor and a pained smile. Yet the last stage is to develop a healthy swagger indicating resolve in performing as a real player, to show he is as capable and ready, if not moreso, as any of their plastic trained anthropoids to be the actual leader for a term. ([finger snap]That's who Romney reminds me of! I, Robot!)
Ron has mastered the art of derisively laughing down into the faces of arrogant statist runts like Giuliani, Bernanke, Bob Schieffer, Chris Matthews and the like, and during the debates challenged the other candidates to a 25-mile bike race (of course, no takers). Yes, there have been several flashes of brilliance. But in the end, back into the comfort zone we go, and the PR instantly breaks down.
Instead of the straightforward common sense we expect from Ron, even in withdrawal, we got mumbling and obfuscation from Jack Hunter, Jesse Benton and Doug Wead, whose libertarian credentials and understanding of the larger movement, piled together, beg that question and more.
Ron advanced the art of political outreach to those who never got a decent education in history or civics, let alone economics, without additional reading. In high school and college these subjects are made to seem arcane, dull, difficult to all but a chosen few. But he's never wanted to acknowledge or develop his appeal towards those motivated by the socially liberal aspects of the libertarian philosophy. Thus, few progressives ever get to the part about corruption of society by fiat currency, and the math.
For unexplainable years Ron put up with a personal district aide who was an unread, crass buffoon, probably exiled from some agency to go do real dirty work; keep a beady eye on the movement, hang out with libertarians, try to lure them into compromising situations like hot tub sessions and group gropes with his wife (soon enough ex-), and push the (woo hoo!) warmonger-libertarian agenda, while he hit on every female present, married or not.
Someone with political sense could have improved Ron's choices for campaign leadership in 1988. The “handpicked” non-Libertarian campaign manager turned out to be an insufferable, domineering monster who embezzled thousands from the Ballot Access fund and looted Ron's business accounts and staff payroll deductions. No charges were filed, and no meaningful explanation ever appeared anywhere to my knowledge.
What might have happened to this movement had Ron picked any of a score of dedicated, hard-core L/libertarian activists with real-world ground experience, such as the people who during the previous 16 years, put the LP on the ballot again and again in difficult key states – and clever, street-smart petition ramrods and trainers who forced good candidates and multiple tax limitation, school choice and term limits initiatives, against great odds, dirty tricks, intimidation and threats, onto state ballots across the country? There were brilliant non-religious idea people behind many excellent candidates who had but the one shot against a stacked deck. What about the CPA's and business managers who somehow kept these wild radicals who hated record-keeping and reporting, from running afoul of agencies who were all-too-ready to stomp out the movement forty years ago?
Penny Langford, the late Kent Snyder, Norm Singleton, Jean McIvor, Jackie Gloor and several others we didn't know personally must be mentioned as excellent exceptions to this trend, especially in later years, but it has not been enough.
A couple of us old-timers were quoted, in Brian Doherty's new book on the Paul Revolution, about the idea we expressed to Ron in early '06, to run for president again (his head vigorously shaking 'no' at that point), as an Independent (shaking more vigorously), and not get caught up in the self-destruction of the GOP as it warmongered and jackbooted itself into deserved obscurity. We didn't look wrong in '08, and still don't. Only Obama's race-to-the-bottom-of-the-barrel government gives life to the ersatz Romney “alternative.” To this day, Ron Paul is the only positive development in the GOP since (very early) Reagan, and owns the only new ideas since Goldwater.
Cynicism or facts?
Obama could easily win if the economy doesn't tank again, or he doesn't start WWIII. But there is very dirty work to be done; good conservatives with silver coins and young entrepreneurs with dreams, applying for passports, to victimize. Perhaps it's a parallel to how Clinton was tasked with selling welfare reform to the Democratic base, and Bush Sr. lied about taxes. The administration has certainly performed its apparent mandate to undermine US sovereignty, responsible statesmanship and constitutional restraint for the globalist warmonger-banksters, but now that the racial bills have been paid, perhaps “they” prefer the obedient, fuzzy-cheeked mush-mouth to the confused charlatan. To me, Obama looked like a duck who's been told he's lame... by a cook. Then Justice Roberts flipped over and threw the hot question to Congress, and the duck looks more agile, for the moment.
It sometimes seems Ron does not really want to be president, which is one good reason so many of us think he's the only person for the job. If his only political failures are unsupervised newsletters, and the decades-long snub of the secular libertarian movement, which is quite larger than his religious, anti-abortion conservative clique, well, whatever. All failure, said Voltaire, is failure of imagination, and he doesn't smoke the stuff. He often mentions his ongoing surprise at the response to his message amongst young people, but I don't think the majority of them understand half of what he is saying about sound money and corrupt central banks. They vaguely perceive that they are on the hook to pay the inconceivable debt, and are OK on the abortion question because it's left to the states, but those are not the issues that animate them.
The Ron Paul blimps, money bombs, music festivals and other advanced fundraising techniques were not invented nor usually set up and administrated by the Ron Paul organization, but by young activist promoters working on their own, which is as it should be. As a lifelong salesman, Ron Paul was the best product I ever promoted, and the pledges had the highest fulfillment rate I ever saw in politics; 75% consistently when I worked the phones, a proud commentary on the quality of his followers.
You can't script liberty, and you can't herd cats or smart people. Big picture, I suppose we cranky old remnants could be prouder of how this has played out, but the petty squabbles and red herrings pale before the evil we confront, and yet we are still alive and debating the Fed, gold and true individual liberty, and we get to see Ron Paul scare the crap out of the stultified neocon mind-tunnel – priceless!
Considering only upside, ignore their tiresome hubris and profound misunderstanding of human nature, and seize the moment. This is probably our best hope for a system reboot in which the debt is reset to 0, violence and misery can be minimized and basic liberties preserved. The way our society and the financial system operate must now undergo basic overhaul, which is impossible without a means of exchange of reliable value – commodity-based money – which the banksters fear most, because they and their political manipulations will be removed from the equation. We are smarter and have better basic institutions and traditions than Europe. This is no time to quibble; opportunity beckons.
II. It is still possible!
Weeks remain. Strong legal precedents guarantee delegates cannot be bound by oaths nor prohibited from abstaining, regardless of which ballot. If the GOP were not filled with amoral hacks, there would be a strong backlash against the illegal, unfair and unAmerican tactics used against Ron's supporters in places like Louisiana, Nevada, Oklahoma and Massachusetts. Still, enough Romney delegates could be turned (many ringers already on board) to guarantee a speaking spot, if not deny the nomination. These delegates should sell the idea like their futures depend upon it, because they do. They should argue this now with any family, friends or peers who know other delegates, into the hot nights. NO BACKING DOWN NOW!
So, young voters and delegates, are you going to take this? You who are charged with paying the taxes funding the retirement of the baby boomers, all social benefits and welfare, more bailouts for the rich, more wars, more regulation... Yes, you who are on the hook for e-trillions in unpayable, double-leveraged, credit default swaps and moldy Fannie Mae paper piling up in the back hallways at the Fed, plus all the interest? You, if you join the military, who might be sent who-knows-where to shoot brown people; then watch as so many before you have, while lessons never learned come back in pine boxes, more families destroyed, for what? Democracy? Cyber-megalomania? Oil? You, who will be spied upon relentlessly; never look up at the drone and frown, kid, they'll know.
Face it , this is your “social contract,” whether under Romney or Obama, only you didn't have to sign your name, they already have your “consent,” soon enough your DNA and maybe a chip in your hide.
There is still time to change the course of history, but the destination is now clearly visible if the linear inertia is not overcome, and now. This is no time to wimp out, whether the candidate is excited about it or not, whether his opportunist son is a real libertarian or not. And whether anyone you know believes you, or approves, or not, you incorrigible sovereign individualist!
Why would morally self-righteous, uber-authoritarian hypocrites violate every oath any of them ever took, basic fairness, Robert's Rules, Jesus' teachings and the long-term traditions and well-being of their own party, to prevent a fair outcome? So that they can promote and defend torture, murder without due process, war without congressional approval, snooping without warrants? Romney opposes little that Obama does wrong other than healthcare, and the real lies have not even started yet.
If you don't want your brightest young thinkers in the streets like the Occupiers, then why exclude them from the legitimate political process? Haven't “they” been insisting we work within the system ever since the first doubts were expressed about the direction of this government? Why only now have a problem with anyone bringing crowds of new people to GOP meetings and working to get a candidate nominated in the proper, fair and legal manner they themselves have set up over decades, to carry forward and achieve the will of the grassroots?
It's only because they don't really believe in justice, fairness, liberty or the Constitution, when it comes right down to it. Instead, they believe in party, power and authority above all that other stuff. And therefore they deserve neither a moment of our time, an iota of our respect nor a dime of our money.
Do not let them stop us now, friends. Some of us have 40 years of activism invested in this moment. We may lose our country and our liberties, forever, if we don't do this. There's no point, and certainly no fun, in not trying.
“There is no such thing as the foreseeable future.” – Charles Burton Marshall
“To the morally inverted, war appears to be a quick, smooth path to the top.” – Preston Parker
“So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” “…the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.” – Martin Luther King, Jr., from the Birmingham jail.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”
– John F. Kennedy