Category Archives: Jacksonian Party

Posts relating to my new party affiliation

Normative Conformity, or “Why Obama Polls so Well”

Go here, and read this article, all the way to the end. Especially if you’ve ever listened to a co-worker blathering on about hope and change, and thought, “no, I don’t want to start an argument or stand out…”

Implicit in the Left’s continuous attempts to exaggerate Obama’s perceived support is the belief that “a crowd draws a crowd” and that undecided voters will be drawn to the Obama camp if they think “everyone else” is supporting him. But is that an accurate assessment? Is there any evidence that it’s true?

Well, actually, yes.

And that evidence was collected fifty years ago.

Starting in 1951, Asch, a professor at Swarthmore College, ran a series of unusual experiments to generate a quantitative measurement of the subjective term “conformity.” The experiments, which many now consider somewhat unethical and a bit sadistic, went like this:

A volunteer was recruited to participate in a vision test. He was brought to a room with seven other volunteers who were also to take the same test, in a group. Little did the volunteer know, however, that his fellow “volunteers” were all confederates of the experimenter, and the test was not a vision test but a psychological torture session designed to elicit conformist behavior. The experimenter would then unveil a pair of displays, one showing a single black line, and the other showing three black lines of varying lengths. The volunteer is told to simply state which of the three lines most closely matches the length of the single line.

The volunteer, who was always placed in the second-to-last position, was only allowed to state his answer after he had heard most of the other faux-volunteers give their answers. For the first two rounds, these confederates were instructed to give the obviously correct answer; in each instance, the test subject would then also give the correct answer. But starting on the third round, the confederates, as instructed by Asch, intentionally gave a consistently wrong answer; the goal of the experiment was to see if the volunteer would “break” and also begin to chime in with the wrong answer as well. Most volunteers would resist for a few rounds, but eventually the majority would cave in at least part of the time and give the wrong answers in complete defiance of their own perceptions. Overall, the test subjects gave the wrong answers 36.8% of the time — an astonishing result.

Should you speak up? Should you speak out? Should you engage an Obamabot? Well, yes. Just have an escape route planned; they’re not all rational, when challenged, you know. For the sake of your fellows, (who will probably slink for the shadows, leaving you unsupported, the ingrates).

…the pressure to conform drops precipitously if the subject is aware of even a single fellow dissenter. All it takes is one person to shatter the facade of unanimity, and suddenly the number of conformist answers drop from around 33% to around 8%. With more dissenters, it drops even further.

Now as any of my longtime readers know (Hi, mom!), I wrote off the Republican party back in 2006 over pork and immigration. I may vote for its candidates, or I may vote Libertarian, but I don’t consider myself a member of either one. I’ve supported the Jacksonian Party, with a membership of one. (Or two.)

Next week, I will have more information on how to stand up, en masse, and refuse to conform. Stay tuned.

Obama Organizes Chicago

So, James Taranto wrote in the WSJ’s Best of the Web that…

TNR’s John Judis tracked down Jerry Kellman, who in 1985 “hired Obama to organize residents of Chicago’s South Side.” Kellman describes a conversation the two “community organizers” had at a conference on “social justice” in October 1987:

“[Obama] wanted to marry and have children, and to have a stable income,” Kellman recalls.

But Obama was also worried about something else. He told Kellman that he feared community organizing would never allow him “to make major changes in poverty or discrimination.” To do that, he said, “you either had to be an elected official or be influential with elected officials.” In other words, Obama believed that his chosen profession was getting him nowhere, or at least not far enough. . . .

And so, Obama told Kellman, he had decided to leave community organizing and go to law school.

I don’t have any issues with the above — with the exception that Obama believes that politicians and people manipulating politicians can make major changes to poverty. Look, the only thing that can make a major change to poverty is raising someone’s income. How do you do that? Well not by the tried-and-true political method of removing someone else (a productive, tax-paying citizen) and just giving it to the person in poverty. Now all you’ve done is penalized the hard working taxpayer and removed the incentive for the person in poverty to try and raise their income on their own. But that’s what politicians do. What about “community organizers?”

Continue reading

Keeping Fred

Bob Krumm wants to keep Fred Thompson in the race. So do I. A whopping 5 states with only 5% of the delegates have voted so far, and the media is trying to talk him right out of the race. Dammit, I haven’t voted yet, you bastards! So he hasn’t run the greatest campaign on earth. So what? He’s still the best candidate; frankly, he’s better than the party he’s in. (Granted, that doesn’t take much; being in either of the major parties would qualify him.) Anyway, if there were a Jacksonian Party for real, he’d be my nominee for it.

So anyway, I decided I should give $50. Then I started thinking, “Wait, that’s not even one order of animé. I should bump that up to $100. Yeah. No, wait. I’m saying that making Fred Thompson my next president is only as important as one order of animé? Make that $250…” I had to stop myself from eyeing the $500 button… “It’s just half-a-year’s animé,” that seductive voice kept whispering. I mean, I only make a little over $30k a year.

So, I’m going to spread the load a bit. Help Fred out a bit, will ya? Here’s the link to Fred’08, and here’s the donation page. Don’t tell him I sent you. Not that you can…there really ought to be a comment box on the donate page. Then again it might be counterproductive if folks get too wrapped up in writing a comment, and forget the donation.

Edit: They really need to fix the password generator for the Friends of Fred site. It uses punctuation as a part of the password, and I finally figured out that the “.” at the end of the password wasn’t to end the sentence “Your password is:” it was actually part of the password!

IATF RFC — Houblog Response

For quite some time now, I’ve had a post that I’ve worked on, off-and-on, trying to articulate my core beliefs within the context of Jacksonian principles. I haven’t succeeded in outlining those beliefs in a fashion that I consider acceptable yet, but Arnold Kling has come along with an article on TCS in which he requests input from other libertarian conservatives, using as his template, the RFC process used by the internet community. Since Jacksonianism is a major strain of libertarian conservatism, this provides me with an opportunity to place these beliefs into the RFC. (Or at least my version of them, since we’re all notoriously stiff-necked independants).

Arnold wrote:

I invite readers to participate in an Ideological Affirmation Task Force (IATF). The first Request for Comment (RFC) is given below. It is a draft document that attempts to articulate a set of principles for contemporary libertarian conservatives. To comment on these principles on your blog, write a post that includes the phrase “IATF RFC.” I will use that phrase to search for comments. Please elaborate on the wording that most appeals to you and the wording that needs the most improvement. There are certain to be revisions, and comments themselves are an important part of the conversation.

Well then, here we are. The format below will be to quote his original proposal, and then to either accept it, elaborate on it, or refute it and propose an alternative. (Of course, since Mr. Kling is the sole authority on what goes into the RFC, in other words, he’s the governing authority in this effort, whether or not we get a result akin to that from a task force is uncertain. But I still regard this as a worthwhile tool for sparking debate.)

Head below the fold for the RFC.

Continue reading

A New Force?

Instapundit links to an article at The Economist, pointing out that the margin of victory in some Democratic wins was less than the number of votes obtained by the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, it then veers off into the “conventional wisdom” that any Republican voting for the Libertarian Party is just shooting themselves in the foot:

And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one’s goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation’s economic policy leftwards.

Well, there’s always that fear. The problem is, if we constantly give in to it, nothing will ever change. We have an electorate that is about as restless as it has ever been. We’ve always had a looney left or and a whacko right; but now that the left is about to be unleashed. Hopes that the Democrats won’t be as stupid as the Republicans were have got to be on a par with opium dreams–come on, they’re the Democrats, you know, the ones that almost handed this election back to the Republicans? Will it scare conservatives and centerists back into the Republican fold? That’s what the Republicans have to be hoping today, as they play musical chairs and put new faces to the front.

There’s only one way to get any change in the status quo: break one of the national parties. I had hopes two years ago, that it was going to be the Democrats that would break first, as the last of the “Libermans” gave up the rear-guard action and decided the only sane choice was to split the party. Instead, it’s going to have to be the Republicans. Fiscal and legal conservatives have two enemies in the Republican party: greedy politicians and the religious fanatics. The first is what got us conservatives into this hole, and the second doesn’t care how much power it gives to the government, as long as (their version of ) the bible is law.

I wish it were still possible to build a national party from the ground up in this country, but the truth is, only about 1 person in 100 has enough desire for change to strike out in entirely new directions, and can combine that with enough will to make a change. If that one person wants to influence 50 of the remaining 99, he or she is going to have to already be in a position of leadership. Much as it pains me to admit is, Joe Blogger down the street isn’t going to get it done. But such people of influence are already part of the current Dem/Rep power structure; they generally don’t see any benefit in being revolutionaries and overthrowing the established order.

The only way to bring these people forth is for it to be clear that they will have followers. And as long as the voters continue to deliver votes to a political class that’s all struck from the same mold, discontent, no matter how strong, will continue to be judged within current boundries; a perceived lack of followers ensures a lack of leaders. Therefore, I judge voters for the Libertarian Party in the recent race as not being counterproductive, but registering their discontent. They are asking for a leader to emerge who will not be just another face, telling the same lies.

Will they get one?

Did You Vote?

Already done with my civic duty. I can definately say that my choices were very simple. Since I wrote off the Republicans and despise the Democrats, my choice for every race was simple: I voted a straight Libertarian ticket. They’re not the Jacksonian party, but they’ll do until we get one. Or maybe we should just go take over the Libertarians?

That Was Satisfying

Just got a call asking me to support my Representative for re-election to Congress. “He has worked tirelessly for Senior Citizens…” blah blah blah.

I interrupted, “But he has not worked tirelessly on behalf of those who believe Kelo v. New London was decided incorrectly. I wrote him in regards to that issue and his response was inadequate. Thank you for calling.”

Click.

Unlike some people, I don’t give the paid campaign hacks a chance to argue with me. (Now if I can just remember who that was so I can link it.)

Are You Republican? Or a Jacksonian?

The prior article in this informal series was, in some ways, out of order, and it originally carried the same title that this one now does, as I changed directions on the fly, but didn’t catch the details. I discussed the general anger at both parties, but concentrated on the anger of the electorate with the Republican Party. In doing so, I referred time and again to a belief structure known as Jacksonianism. And while I’ve provided the links, not everyone wants to read a scholarly article of the length that Walter Russel Meade wrote. Nor does everyone have the time to read the nearly as lengthy (but thought provoking) writings of the first person to tell the two parties to take a flying leap. So, briefly, what makes a person a Jacksonian, then?

Well, never fear, because this article is here to summarize it for you.

Firstly, we’re warlike. I don’t mean that we’re war-mongers, or even like war. But we don’t shy away from smacking down someone (or spending 50 years standing guard) when it’s necessary.

An observer who thinks of American foreign policy only in terms of the commercial realism of the Hamiltonians, the crusading moralism of Wilsonian transcendentalists, and the supple pacifism of the principled but slippery Jeffersonians would be at a loss to account for American ruthlessness at war.

THOSE WHO prefer to believe that the present global hegemony of the United States emerged through a process of immaculate conception avert their eyes from many distressing moments in the American ascension. Yet students of American power cannot ignore one of the chief elements in American success. The United States over its history has consistently summoned the will and the means to compel its enemies to yield to its demands.

Secondly, while we like some federal programs, we really don’t like the government telling us what to do or how to raise our kids.

Suspicious of untrammeled federal power (Waco), skeptical about the prospects for domestic and foreign do-gooding (welfare at home, foreign aid abroad), opposed to federal taxes but obstinately fond of federal programs seen as primarily helping the middle class (Social Security and Medicare, mortgage interest subsidies), Jacksonians constitute a large political interest.

Lately, even that liking of Social Security has wavered, dragged down in part by the Medicare boondogle. A Jacksonian might feel guilty, having a relative on the “Plan D” prescription benefit, but knows in his or her heart that much of the problem is caused by one’s own failure to plan for retirement, since “social security will take care of it.” This is why some of the plans floated to end SS involve a graduated ending; reducing the benefits for people who are under 30 today until the whole program goes away. As Jacksonians don’t shy away from fights, it’s likely that pragmatic (as opposed to draconian) proposals along that line will resurface if a Jacksonian revolt takes place. These will, of course, be demonized by the existing parties.

Thirdly, Jacksonians see the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, as the citadel of liberty. Every member of the NRA is, in some respects (if not many of those given here), a Jacksonian.

Fourthly, Jacksonians believe you can go to hell if you want to. It’s none of our business if you want to worship some other version of God, or Allah, or Budda, or even funky aliens. We believe in our own version, you worship yours, and we’ll both mind our own business. That works best. Now, we’ll draw the line if your religion involves sexual explotation, assault/murder, terrorism, or any other asocial activity that is a physical (or financial) threat to others, but by and large, we don’t give a damn if you want to do the nasty with your own sex or six of the opposite, or even change your own. It may seem creepy to some of us, but it’s your life. Gay marriage? Enh, marriage needs to be divorced from religion. Problem solved. Whomever you are and however you want to live your life, just don’t expect your hijinks to be held up as a positive example for our kids, ok? Or even respected, for that matter. (Yes, I’m talking to you Brittney. And you, Madonna. And… oh hell, half of the entertainment industry.) Your right to be an ass doesn’t preclude or prevent my right to criticize you. It’s this distinction that the press often always fails to note. But this sort of belief isn’t just domestic, it applies to foriegn policy as well.

Jacksonian chairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are the despair of high-minded people everywhere, as they hold up adhesion to the Kyoto Protocol, starve the UN and the IMF, cut foreign aid, and ban the use of U.S. funds for population control programs abroad.

So why, if this resonates with you, and if you believe that you’re actually in the “silent majority,” do the Jacksonians not have a greater say in our government today? Simple. We haven’t had any well-known leaders in the media.

A principal explanation of why Jacksonian politics are so poorly understood is that Jacksonianism is less an intellectual or political movement than an expression of the social, cultural and religious values of a large portion of the American public. And it is doubly obscure because it happens to be rooted in one of the portions of the public least represented in the media and the professoriat.

But in the ’90’s, the “right” started being represented by talk radio, and now the internet is here. The only reason the right (including the Jacksonians) doesn’t have an influential bunch of lunatics like the DU’ers or Kossacks acting as a tail wagging the dog is that we’re a bunch of fiercely opinionated and independant people, who have yet to find their own rallying point. And one can be sure, if and when such a point appears, the media and professoriat will do their level best to discredit it/him/her. (Paging Juan Cole! Paging Juan Cole!) We can count on it.

Where do Jacksonians come from? To reach the fifth point, this must be examined. Jacksonianism started as a culutral meme of the rural Scots-Irish, a hardy people forged from a millenia of war. From there, it spread all across the demographics of America. It even ensnares people of other nations who come here because this nation reflects their beliefs, not just their opportunity. Such people are American in heart and soul even before they set foot on our soil.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, among others, has said that the United States is unlike other nations because it is based on an idea rather than on a community of national experience.

Times have changed and the Scots-Irish were long ago outnumbered by other immigrants, but the belief hasn’t changed. Instead, it spread:

The new Jacksonianism is no longer rural and exclusively nativist. Frontier Jacksonianism may have taken the homesteading farmer and the log cabin as its emblems, but today’s Crabgrass Jacksonianism sees the homeowner on his modest suburban lawn as the hero of the American story.

To use a current controversy for a demonstration: It isn’t fear of immigration that drives Jacksonian opposition; it’s fear that the pace of immigration, the reason, and belief structures of illegal immigrants threaten the ability, already seriously endangered by the government and existing political parties, to hold on to that modest suburban lawn. Is it a vaild worry? In a word, yes. Because by entering illegally, the alien has challenged one of the core beliefs adopted from the Scots-Irish.

It’s one that hasn’t changed; one that’s key to the whole structure, and embodied in a word you don’t see much used anymore outside the military (a place Jacksonians are heavily overrepresented, unsurprisingly) and not at all in politics: Honor.

So, Fifthly: Jacksonians believe in honor and integrity. Your word is your bond and all that, so be careful about giving it on important things–like marriage. It includes things like following the rules, even if you don’t like them, not flauting them and then asking for special treatment. Honor is a life value to a Jacksonian, even if he or she professes not to understand the word in those terms.

The first principle of this code is self-reliance. That’s a polite way of saying those that won’t help themselves should be left to rot instead of sucking down our tax dollars, used by one or the other of the political parties to buy support. Give them adequate schools and a way out, but if they won’t take it, the hell with giving them my money to sit on their butts.

Real Americans, many Americans feel, are people who make their own way in the world. They may get a helping hand from friends and family, but they hold their places in the world through honest work. They don’t slide by on welfare, and they don’t rely on inherited wealth or connections. Those who won’t work and are therefore poor, or those who don’t need to work due to family money, are viewed with suspicion.

The second principle, Respect, builds on the first.

We give respect to those who earn it, either through ability, deed, or sometimes simply age (with wisdom). And according respect means according dignity; an insulted and disrespected Jacksonian is often a dangerous Jacksonian, and an enemy for life. (Extreme Jacksonians have been known to stuff and mount their grudges, passing them down to future generations. “War of Northern Aggression,” indeed.)
(Note: Meade treats Respect as a sub-point of self-reliance; I raise it to an independant point in this article, as I believe it should be. Other points have been similarly moved, to relflect their importance in the debate.)

Behind that comes the third principle: equality.

Among those members of the folk community who do pull their weight, there is an absolute equality of dignity and right. No one has a right to tell the self-reliant Jacksonian what to say, do or think. Any infringement on equality will be met with defiance and resistance. Male or female, the Jacksonian is, and insists on remaining, independent of church, state, social hierarchy, political parties and labor unions.
(Emphasis added–you need to read the “Unions Due” category for why, if you’re new here.)

The fourth principal of honor is individualism.

The Jacksonian does not just have the right to self-fulfillment–he or she has a duty to seek it. In Jacksonian America, everyone must find his or her way: each individual must choose a faith, or no faith, and code of conduct based on conscience and reason. The Jacksonian feels perfectly free to strike off in an entirely new religious direction.

Which brings us back to the fourth belief above, does it not? Meade thinks there are serious limits to the extent of such free-thinking, but I disagree, based on the traction “civil unions” and even gay marriage has gotten within supposedly conservative bastions. It’s not moderation of political and moral fiber; it’s gaining the recognition, if not support of the Jacksonians through appeal to their belief that everyone should live as they wish, within proper limits.

Although women should be more discreet, both sexes can sow wild oats before marriage. After it, to enjoy the esteem of their community a couple must be seen to put their children’s welfare ahead of personal gratification.

And there are some limits, especially for children. Jacksonian parents have the unquestioned right to set those limits for children, and woe betide anyone else who sticks their nose in to tell a them how to to it.

Corporal punishment is customary and common; Jacksonians find objections to this time-honored and (they feel) effective method of discipline outlandish and absurd.

And from there, we can move back to immigration and show why opposition to the current state of affairs (let alone any form of reward for flauting the law) runs counter to Jacksonian belief. Amnesty would be akin to rewarding a child with ice cream for throwing a temper tantrum because he was served broccoli.

Financially, Jacksonians are a mixed bag. If a set of wide parameters can be drawn around their belief structure, it the sixth belief would be in an open, loose financial policy personally, and a tight fiscal policy governmentally. In short, Jacksonians prefer that they have access to easy credit with low interest rates, allowing them to spend for luxuries far beyond the absolutely necessary, but that their government should excercise fiscal restraint, not borrowing money, nor wasting it on frivolous non-necessities. Most especially, not wasting it on supporting a permanent underclass–or “pork class” for that matter. Such funds were taken from the Jacksonian, and thus are entrusted to the government to be used as seen fit by the people from whom the funds were removed by force of law. Many Jacksonians would be happy if the government spent on nothing but national defense and enforcement of necessary laws — and what they deem necessary is usually somewhat less than what we have.

Lacking a home to call their own, and suspicious of government spending and governmental power, Jacksonian traditions get expressed in many ways and from both parties: Flat Tax; check boxes to direct funds to specific programs; cutting U.N. subsidies; and suggestions to abolish Cabinet-level offices like Energy, Education, and even Homeland Security. All of these spring from the Jacksonian thought mode.

To date, the party that has expressed a platform closest to their beliefs has been the Libertarian Party, but is has been fatally handicapped by its idealistic stands on foriegn policy and society in general. Jacksonians recognize that in today’s smaller world, simply withdrawing to our own borders is tantamount to national suicide. And worse, some limited government is a bargain with the devil, but it’s better than no government at all. “Communism requires that all men be angels for it to work; Libertarianism assumes that they are,” is how one person put it. Whether that was an original by the author who wrote me, or if he was quoting someone else, I am not sure.

So what does the future hold? Will the Jacksonian tradition find it’s own identity and political party, or will it continue to make a deal with the two devils we know? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do know that continuing the path we Jacksonians have followed thus far will only result in more of the same. The Contract with America lies in ruins, and the constitution is tattered.

It’s time for Jacksonians to recognize themselves for whom and what they are. Only then can we advance our agenda, and it appears that a third party is a necessity for doing so, as the Republican party thinks it can continue to ignore the will of the masses, and the Democratic party has simply jumped off the deep end.

2007: Year of the Jacksonian Revolt?

(Edit: Oops! Originally posted with the wrong title, drawn from the next article in this series.)

I have, since reading Meade’s magazine article distilling Divine Providence, in which he discusses the Jacksonian tradition, wanted a political party based on the principles espoused by that tradition, and none other. Up until a month ago, I settled for backing the Republican party as the closest alternative. I was hardly alone in that: Meade points out that the Jacksonian principles make up a major portion of the Republican Party:

Solidly Democratic through the Truman administration . . . Jacksonian America shifted toward the Republican Party under Richard Nixon–the most important political change in American life since the Second World War.

It is my contention that the alligence of this Jacksonian block has been lost by the actions of the Republican party in supporting pork, failing to prosecute the war’s home front seriously, and failing to oppose illegal immigration, despite the clear and strong message sent by the voters. For many years, the term applied to such “strays from the fold” has been RINO. It has also been applied by the religious wing of the party to those insufficiently responsive to their beliefs, but this usage is not as common; nothing gets a politician tagged RINO quicker than supporting big spending and big government. But RINO is a deceptive term: these people are part and parcel of what the Republican Party is today. We somehow remain blind to that fact, even as we acknowledge (and lament) that their presence prevents the Party from being what we want. Therefore, a more accurate depiction would have been “NJR” or Non-Jacksonian Republican.

This is a crucial distinction, and one the mainstream media has not seen, or perhaps it refuses to. In the view of our oh-so-centerist media (just ask them, they’ll tell you!), “conservatives” mean Jesus freaks and NASCAR rednecks. The followers of the Jacksonian tradition have ground their teeth and tolerated the slurs, having no clearly defined identity, no tag, no label to describe itself. Arguably, the Jacksonians weren’t even aware of themselves as a group until after Meade’s groundbreaking article was published. But now they are beginning to be–and a critical mass may be reached soon, for Meade firmly predicts that the fate of the Republican party will rest with the decisions made by Jacksonian believers:

The future of Jacksonian political allegiance will be one of the keys to the politics of the twenty-first century.

It is my belief that the discontented “conservative” voters in the U.S. today are primarily Jacksonian in their outlook, and they are ready to lay down their allegience to the Republican Party. The “silent majority” has been disenfranchised by the persistant lean (if not outright run) away from its principals by both parties, and the Jacksonians badly want a party reflective of their belief structure. Peggy Noonan says in today’s Opinion Journal:

The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they’re closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people–between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

But how? The dominant political parties have “rigged the game” to make it extremely hard for others to enter it. In doing so, they have undone the work of Andrew Jackson:

-Andrew Jackson laid the foundation of American politics for most of the nineteenth century, and his influence is still felt today. With the ever ready help of the brilliant Martin Van Buren, he took American politics from the era of silk stockings into the smoke-filled room. Every political party since his presidency has drawn on the symbolism, the institutions and the instruments of power that Jackson pioneered.

More than that, he brought the American people into the political arena. Restricted state franchises with high property qualifications meant that in 1820 many American states had higher property qualifications for voters than did boroughs for the British House of Commons. With Jackson’s presidency, universal male suffrage became the basis of American politics and political values.

And from there, we went on to universal citizen suffrage, which is where we should be. But how important is that vote, when someone else controls who you can vote for? Oh, there has to be a selection process, to screen out the whackos and field strong candidates– but with only two choices, group-think has set in with a vengence. County-wide, less than 100 people make the real decision on what choices we have on primary day. That’s out of a population of what, four million? At the state level, it’s even worse, proportionally speaking.

Addendum: From The Twilight of the Two Party System, a position paper of The Jacksonian Party:

The work of the Two Party System since the 1930’s has been that to divide the commonality of We the People and repudiate the Constitution in that doing. And the fruit of those long decades of giving unto the Federal Government more and more responsibilities and allowing the Legislative and Executive branches to codify their parties into perpetual power and their persons in High Office in Congress as Royalty that may not hindered by the mere Law that applies to We the People is a bitter one. We the People now stand as a People divided by ethnicity, national origin, skin color, living circumstance, sexual outlook, religious viewpoint, and fiscal wealth. Each party has pushed hard for these divisions so as to ensure that We the People will view each other with suspicion and not be able to come together to form ‘a more perfect Union’ and ensure ‘Justice’ that can be applied equally to All of the People.

Continuing:

Just look at all the footwork being done by Strayhorn and Friedman to run for governor of Texas as independants. The very fact that they are in the race is indicative of people’s alienation from the major parties: Strayhorn actually has a shot, a long one, but a shot at winning nonetheless. Beyond even that, however, is the fact that both she and author Kinky Friedman may outpoll Chris Bell, the Democratic Party candidate. He isn’t a particularly strong offering to start with, but to be relegated to fourth place is an embarassment for any so called major party, and a measure of how angry the electorate is. If enough of that anger turns against Perry’s “tax solution,” then Strayhorn’s chances will improve remarkably, and we may be treated to the spectacle of an independant governor in a state, indeed a region, with no tradition of independant politics.

It is Ms. Noonan’s contention, and that of the Texas Rainmaker (who also quotes the above) that not only has the come for a third party to form; it will form, and this time it’s got leverage that even Perot’s money couldn’t buy fourteen years ago: The internet.

Perot showed that even with a dissatisfied electorate and a lot of money, one cannot build a political party on the leadership of a single person (especially if he’s a flake.). A broad-based coalition of angry voters must emerge around local leaders to create a new national party. The only way to build it is from the ground up. And the only way to do that is to reach enough people who are willing to set aside their apathy and feelings of helplessness in the face of the two-party system, and pitch in to build that party. The internet is the method to make that possible. Again, quoting Rainmaker:

…with the grassroots effort of the Internet, I think the tide could be changing. Now anyone with a computer and Internet access can reach millions of potential voters and get something close to “equal timeâ€?… especially as citizens continue to shun the traditional media outlets.

The question is not if… but when?

Obviously, it is impossible to make a showing in the 2006 elections now — and our masters in Washington know that, even as they continue to “pork it up” and allow illegals to flood across our border. They pay us lip service even as they continue business as usual. But Houston has a unique opportunity to make a statement on national issues within the local scope in 2007. Yesterday, two issues about which the electorate has been increasingly polarized, were passed by the City Council at Mayor White’s request. The lesser of the two would be the red light camera system. The idea itself, the questionable value, and equally questionable bid procedure was enough to make it a contentious issue, but one that probably would be “forgotten” in the same way that the Kingwood annexation and (Un-)Safe Tow have been forgotten: the anger is still there, but it’s muted and part of the background mutter now.

Not so with the day labor center. It is too wrapped up in the issue of immigration, which will keep it fresh in everyone’s minds; further, since the funding has to be voted on yearly, it will come up again next year during the campaign.

Add all this to the latent unhappiness over expensive arenas, unsafe rail, Metro’s arrogance, and Mayor White’s use of quasi-governmental authorities to “lock in” his agenda for the future … and the opportunity exists for a group to coelesce in opposition to all this. One that can draw on a wide base of anger to bypass the traditional party apparatchiks that control who we get to vote for, and thereby what kind of government we get.

Will Houston become the base from which a new political party springs? A Jacksonian party, built around the principals of that oh-so-overlooked president?

One can could only hope. Now, perhaps, one can do something….

Sure Fooled Us, Dubya

And all this time he had us thinking he was so smart he was just looking dumb to make folks misunderestimate him. I began to wonder about his sanity as far back as the Miers nomination. Now… nope, lets face it, he was just plain stupid. Well, he’s just pissed off another (ex-) supporter.

Unless we start seeing a sharp reversal in conduct, I’m done with George W. Bush. This isn’t about politics — it is about the proper stewardship of the laws and the Constitution.

I keep telling people: the Republicans are no longer the answer. Sadly, Ross Perot wasn’t either, being more of a flake than anything else. (Aside: One thing I still want to hear him explain: If NAFTA was going to cause a great big sucking sound as all our jobs went south, why the hell are the Mexicans still coming north?)

So we’re just going to have to form our own party. Jacksonian, anyone?

Ubu to the Republican Party: So Long, and Thanks For All the Pork

And illegal immigration, pork, half-assing the War on Islamofacism, pork, creating another huge bureaucracy, more pork, nearly blowing the SCOTUS picks, and, oh, probably a dozen other little things that don’t quite come up to the level of major grievance, such as not prosecuting seditionists. (As much as I’d like to, I can’t blame you for Banner of the Stars III not being licensed in region 1 yet.)

At this point, I’ve given up on the Republican Party. I’m not voting for them just to keep the Dems out of office. That’s what they want and expect. The only way to remind them of who their bosses are is to humble them. Break them on the anvil of the voting booth, and reforge them into something better.

However, I no longer believe that is likely, and I can’t continue holding my nose and hoping. Therefore, I am no longer a Republican. Henceforth, I am a member of the Jacksonian Party, even if it’s just a party of one. For those who would like to know more about the beliefs of this party, and why Andrew Jackson is it’s namesake, I recommend this article.