What were The Founders thinking? Part 2 .

     You won't find anything in The Constitution that states that there is supposed to be two exclusive political parties battling to run our government. It just "evolved" that way.

     There were many parties formed by like-minded people to address issues that were of concern as our country developed. Whigs, Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, even (Former Republican) Teddy Roosevelt's Bull-Moose Party (which evolved into the Progressive Movement- that "continuing nightmare" is for another post...later) came and went. But what happened was that the two parties, that we are stuck with now, got together, in the shadows, and rigged our political system to shut out any 3rd party from ever getting a real shot of winning a major election.

     I don't really see much difference between today's Democrats and Republicans, they both want to stick their noses in and control where government has no business intruding.
    To see how I got to this point, here's my history of party membership:

• 1980 - Registered Republican & voted for Ronald Reagan from the American Consulate in New Zealand.
• 1982/83 - Voted generally Republican in minor elections.
  
• 1984- Still registered Republican & voted for Reagan again.
• 1985/87 - Yeah, Republican still.
• 1988 - Republican, voted for Bob Dole in primary election. Was very disappointed that Geo. H.W. Bush was the Republican candidate. Became aware of the Libertarian Party, but Ron Paul seemed a little weird, and didn't want to "throw-away" my vote, so I held my nose and voted for Bush, just to keep Dukakis out.
  
• 1990 - Registered Democrat to participate in California primary elections to get a particular candidate I knew to run against John Garamendi, who was "out to get" chiropractors as the first California Insurance Commissioner.
• 1991 - Registered Independant for minor elections.
• 1992 - Still Independant, voted for Ross Perot, even though his flakiness by getting out then getting back in was strange.
• 1993/95 - Decided to be permanently Independant.
• 1996 - Voted again for Ross Perot. Figured since I was now living in Republican Utah voting for Perot was symbolic.
• 1997/99 - Independent, voted generally Republican, what else was there?
• 2000 - Voted Libertarian, even after watching Libertarian Convention on C-Span, attendees were goofy but I liked what Harry Browne had to say as Presidential Candidate.
• 2001/3 - Minor elections in Utah, might as well encourage the Libertarians, the Republican always wins in Utah County, especially.
• 2004 - Even though I've thought Kerry was one of the world's biggest weenies since seeing him testify in front of congress back in the early 70's, I didn't vote for Bush Junior for re-election I just voted for the Libertarian, whoever that was. The Electoral College system really bugs me, I'm in Utah, of course Bush will take the state.
  
• 2005/07 - Didn't vote.
• 2008 - Voted for School Vouchers in Utah, was amazed at the gullibility of the voters who believed the Teachers Union schpeel to defeat it. Voted Libertarian for President again, whoever that was. McCain lost me with amnesty for illegals and signing on with TARP. Even though I thought it would be cool to have either a woman or a black person as President, just not Hillary or Obama.

     So, having lain out my history regarding elections, perhaps you can see where I'm coming from in this next thought of mine.

     I don't care what they call it, Libertarian, Constitutional, Fiscal Conservative, Reform...whatever.
I would like to see a new party, or the renewal of an existing party, that has it's beginnings with a massive defection from both of the corrupt national parties in power, with sitting members of congress, governors and state legislators to a party that is willing to unwind the tangled web of unconstitutional power-grabs, entitlements and self-destructive policies that have slowly crept into our government since the beginning of what is known as the "Progressive-era" and quit trying to tell people how to live their personal lives. We need to get back to The Constitution and start hacking away at the cancer of Big Government and social engineering. If we can do it, I believe, the rest of the free-world will follow.
     We haven't been following the constitution for the past 100 hundred years, let's  try that for "a change we can believe in?"

What were The Founders thinking? Part 1

From one extreme to the other, how I view things now:

TOTALITARIANISM
(Left Wing) / (Right Wing)
8

Communism / Fascism
7
Socialism / Ultra-Religious Right
6
Liberalism / Social Conservatism
5
Democrat Moderatism / Moderate Conservatism
4
Neo-conservatism / Paleo-conservatism
3
Constitutional Libertarianism
2
Federalism
1
Anti-federalism
0
ANARCHY

     Note the scale 0 to 8, Zero being "No Government" and Eight being complete "Tyranny".

     We should be fluctuating between Two and Four at the most, we started out as a Three! Now we are a 5/6 and headed full speed to Seven. Both Wings are digging in and they both are setting up our country for some seriously bad times to come.

Definitions:

Totalitarianism - The Central Government or " the state" is the ultimate authority and source of all personal rights, it's citizens are obliged to work and conduct themselves for the good of the state. All commerce is controlled by the state. Self-determination and personal wealth accumulation by individuals is not allowed.

Communism and Fascism are basically the same thing, Totalitarianism from either "Wing".

Socialism and Ultra-Religious Right are both softer forms of Totalitarianism, they usually derive their authority from a charismatic philosophy(ie; Progressivism) or fundamentalist religion, both are based on the assumption that citizens are incapable of taking care of themselves, can't distinguish the difference between right and wrong, and that it is necessary for the state to dictate most aspects of daily living.

Liberalism and Social Conservatism are both political strategies to appeal to citizens that consider themselves as disaffected complainants of the status quo. These movements are targeted at uniting special interest groups by addressing pet marginal issues. These people seek government intervention to correct perceived social wrongs. Classic "Us verses Them" politics.

Democrat Moderatism and Moderate Conservatism are similar in that they both attempt to appeal to the general populace or the masses. Their positions on issues are usually the least offensive to the majority at the time, for the sole purpose of winning elections. They seek political power by being perceived as those who are tolerant of wide variations of views and are willing to fund programs with goverment monies instead of allowing the private sector to determine the potental value of such programs through private investment.

Neo-conservatives are the descendant movement of former leftists/Liberals who view Liberalism as a noble, but failed, philosophy of national politics, they view democracy as a system that must be promoted internationally, even by force if necessary. They are open to a New World Order and international intervention.

In contrast, Paleo-conservatives, believe in a close reading of the Constitution and legal precedent. They are vigilant regarding individual rights, the rule-of-law, national sovereignty and tend toward isolation regarding international affairs.

Constitutional Libertarianism is the position that government intervention in a citizens personal life and the national economy is not in keeping with the constitution's intent and that the power of state and the role of government needs to be scaled back to what the country's founding documents literally and originally allow and nothing more.

Federalism and Anti-federalism refers to the struggle prior to the constitution being radified in 1788, in which the individual former colonies now united states determined the role of a central government and the role left to the individual states. The range of involvement spanning a strong federation to loose association to virtual anarchy.

Anarchy is the lack of any cohesive government and the total lack of community.

When Right isn't right and Left is just plain ol' wrong.

     Here is a representation of what I once understood as the political spectrum to be found throughout history:

(Far Left)Communism - Socialism - Liberalism(Left)

- Moderate (Center) Capitalism - 

(Right)Conservativism - Religious Right - Fascism(Far Right)

 

Communism - Theoretically there are no poor, there are no rich, also no incentive for excellence. The Government owns all industry.
Socialism - There are the rich, they are evil and must be kept in check, the government is there to take from them and give to those who haven't been as successful.
Liberalism - Say whatever the "have-not's" and Special Interests want to hear and what the "Idealistic Egalitarian's" need to hear to feel "Evolved" to get elected. The power of office is it's own reward and they will do whatever it takes to stay in office.
Moderate - A balance of controlled capitalism and social conscience. Help yourself and collectively lend a hand to those in less fortunate circumstances.
Conservatism - "Rising Waters Lift All Ships", government needs to just "get out of the way", let the entrepreneur do his thing, all strata of society benefits, you reap what you sow. Charity is more efficient and effective when it's voluntary.
Religious Right - Fiscally conservative, but wants to dictate morality and personal behavior to the populace.
Fascist - The state controls privately-owned industry, picks winners and losers and dictates what behavior is acceptable.

     I used to think that America was set up to be politically Center (Moderate), with the tensions and struggle being between Center-Left(Liberal) and Center-Right(Conservative). That this linear Two-party system was healthy and kept us "on track" as a Democratic Republic. The pendulum would swing back and forth as time went by. I think that is what the politicians want us to believe, it's really not true!

     My next post is how I view things now and why.