Mitt Romney? Wine not.

No, there isn’t a typo in the title to this post. I didn’t mean to type, “Mitt Romney? Why not?”

Actually, some might suggest there are two typos: wine instead of why, and a period instead of a question mark. No…the title is an accurate reflection of my intention and therefore contains no typos.

I meant the title to be understood this way:

“Mitt Romney for President? Why not? Because he believes in ‘wine not’ – that is ‘no wine for me.’”

May, 1968, France

Mitt Romney served as a Mormon missionary in France for 30 months. The fateful month of May in 1968 was toward the end of that stay. My readings of Romney’s time in France brought to mind two questions:

·       How could anyone live in France for 30 months without drinking a glass of wine with a Frenchman?

·       How could anyone live in France for 30 months, which culminated in the infamous May 1968 general strike, without being at least somewhat impressed with the anti-authoritarian mood of the protestors?

The French are passionate about their politics, their philosophy, and their wine. And yet, young Mitt Romney managed to spend 30 months there without being influenced by any of those three. As for the first two, there is really no excuse except to say that Romney’s worldview was so hardened into inflexibility, he couldn’t have been moved. And yet he wondered at the time why he had managed to win so few converts to his church. As for the third, the wine – there’s nothing in the Ten Commandments barring alcoholic consumption. In fact, wasn’t Noah (of Noah’s Ark fame) a vintner and wine drinker himself? And yet, Noah found favor with the Lord.

I doubt Mitt Romney had ever gone through an adolescent rebellion stage. That might explain a lot in terms of an oft-repeated accusation: That he’s out of touch with the average man.

On the science of practical conversion

I can see why Romney had problems converting the French to Mormonism. That is, I can see how his personal rigidity got in the way. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a one-way conversation. And that’s probably how many of Mitt’s potential converts among the French felt – that he was talking at them instead of to them.

In fact, I have to wonder if Romney had ever made any serious attempt to question his own faith. Did he ever talk to himself? If he did, then he’d have to have realized how strange the Mormon sales pitch would sound to an outsider:

·       “Well, you see, there was this guy named Joseph Smith who claimed an angel told him where a book of golden plates was buried; a book which he translated into English and claimed to be the most perfect book of scripture.”

·       “Well, you see, Mormons originally practiced polygamy which some would see as counter-productive to a fledgling group of religious separatists. I mean, it’s kind of hard to understand how allowing a few men to have many wives (which would mean, many men having no wives at all) would serve to grow our population. Some would see it that way, but I don’t because permission to polygamize was granted as a revelation from God. Just like a mandate to abandon that practice was yet another revelation from that same God.”

The science of practical conversion embraces:

·       A requirement that a believer question his own faith – not necessarily doubt, but question;

·       Enough courage to declare that the closely-held beliefs of your family, friends, and community are fraudulent (should one come to that conclusion); and yet not abandon nor treat them meanly;

·       An ability to interact with others, to the extent of being able to understand their own views;

·       An assessment of “how my religion feels about your religion” – beyond just saying, “Non-believers are going to Hell;”

·       A knack for breaking down complex doctrines into simple, easy-to-understand parts.

That last point brings me to this quote:

QUOTE: Plus, Romney was obsessed with numbers. “My favorite thing to do is to bathe in data,” he says now, “do analysis, reach conclusions, and then find a breakthrough. There is nothing as exciting as that ‘aha!’ moment—seeing something that looks insoluble and finding a way to make it work.”  :UNQUOTE: http://www.american.com/archive/2006/december/mitt-romney/

From this, I can see how Romney failed as a proselytizer.  Religious truths don’t yield their meanings to Statistical Analysts – at least not to those SA’s who insist on only applying the methods of statistical analysis. Some other quality is needed, which Romney seems to lack. It’s that same something that prevented him from seeing how badly people would react to his refusal to make his income tax returns public. It’s that same something that fellow Mormon and GOP rival Jon Huntsman referred to when he said Romney was out-of-touch and unelectable.

As for the science of practical political conversion, Mitt Willard Romney has his work cut out for him. Will he bathe himself in data, trying to figure out why his numbers tanked in South Carolina? Will he himself refrain from attacking Newt Gingrich, knowing that his Super Pacs will do this for him – and quite well, I might add?

Will he, like Herman Cain, start telling people God told him to run for the presidency? In fact, a fair question from a reporter to candidate Romney would be: “Have you ever received any revelations from God? And if so, did He tell you to run for the presidency?”  God gives revelations to the president of the Mormon Church and to lesser personages as well. Surely God would have spoken to Mitt Romney on such an important topic.

Side Note: Let’s assume that God had spoken to Romney on at least this one important topic. A proper response would be: “What or if anything had been spoken by our Lord to me is something I wish to remain only between the two of us.”

Closing thoughts

·       I’m surprised, given Mitt Romney’s lifelong dedication to his church and his twelve years of leadership service as a bishop and “stake” president, that he doesn’t wax more poetically about it.  Instead, he has said precious little of that experience or his precepts.

·       I hope Romney doesn’t stonewall by refusing to discuss religion. That would only confirm how secretive and cultish Mormons are. There are ways to charmingly convey one’s love of faith without coming across as close-mindedly triumphal.

·       Even though some might deride Romney as a numbers cruncher in the mold of Robert McNamara, it’s not too late to change. I believe that if a man has an abundance of talent or has developed himself in one way, that can leave him woefully underdeveloped in others. Romney could explore those other areas. As I said, it’s not too late, and this campaign could well turn out to be what decisively motivates him.

·       Stop being so defensive about RomneyCare. He should claim what was good about that initiative, especially compassion for those less fortunate. But he could also admit how some could see this, in its ObamaCare incarnation, as excessively intrusive of Big Government. But…he should hasten to add that even Big Government has its place – for instance, in the realm of its regulatory function. He could (and should) urge that the health care industry be brought under the scope of the anti-trust laws on our books, which affect all other big businesses.

·       Stop being so defensive about how he earned his fortune or what he pays in taxes – neither of which are in violation of the law. Same goes for that part of his fortune which he keeps in the Cayman Islands.

Concerning that last point, Romney could turn the tables: “If my 15% tax rate bothers people, I personally wouldn’t have any problem paying more – if that’s the kind of change in tax law people want to see. I wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes, since I have successfully lived the American Dream and have exceeded my wildest expectations. But I hope that serious tax reform in this country is based on more than how much I’ve got or what my tax rate is. And I hope no one decides to confiscate the wealth I’ve already earned and paid taxes on – that sword cuts many ways.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Mitt Romney, just like the rest of us to one degree or another, is both a victim and beneficiary of the system we live in. I’ll say this much, though: He seems a lot better behaved than Newt Gingrich and more honest than Barack Obama” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Dick Sans-Scrotum

What’s in a name?

I know, I know…his name is Richard John “Rick” Santorum. But ex-Senator Santorum has managed to raise my ire so much as to inspire a pun name. I hereby dub him “Dick Sans-Scrotum.” I explain:

·       Another name for “Rick” is “Dick” – that’s how Richard Daley (former mayor of Chicago) is often called Dick Daley.

·       “Dick” of course refers to the male sex organ or refers to a guy who is a jerk or an asshole.

·       The words “sans” means “without,” therefore “Sans-Scrotum” would mean “without scrotum.”

·       Put together, this name refers to a man who is “all dick but no balls.” Frequently, it is guys who never served in the military but manage to beat on war drums (like Santorum) who lack balls.

The essential Dick Sans-Scrotum

I don’t generally make a practice of punning a person’s name, especially in a sexual way. But this guy really deserves it, as I’ll make clear.

Here’s a short snapshot of the essential Sans-Scrotum:

·       He was basically a professional student before becoming a lawyer;

·       After 5 years of lawyering, he served in the US House of Representatives for four years;

·       Then Santy served for 12 years in the Senate before his constituents bounced him out of office;

·       Having a wife and six kids to feed, and a lifestyle to maintain, he decided to reinvent himself as a Conservative Champion in order to further his political career. Since he’s now 53 years old, it was either that or get back into lawyering as a washed-up political has-been.

·       Besides, even if he doesn’t get the GOP nod this time around, he can ride the coattails of his fame to enrich himself for the next four years, should he decide to run again (which he will).

The following quote from Bloomberg Business Week amplifies that last point:

QUOTE*:

Since his 2006 re-election defeat, the former Pennsylvania lawmaker has gone from being one of the poorer members of the U.S. Senate to earning $1.3 million between January 2010 and August 2011. In 2007, he spent $2 million to buy a 5,000-square foot home in Great Falls, Virginia, according to property records.

Santorum’s financial rise was powered by consulting contracts with fuel producer Consol Energy Inc., faith advocacy group Clapham Group and American Continental Group, a Washington consultancy, as well as media engagements.

“If he’s claiming he’s not an insider, this is the thing that insiders do -- after public office they cash in,” said Kent Cooper, a campaign finance expert and former Federal Elections Commission assistant staff director.

:UNQUOTE*.

From Dick Sans-Scrotum’s website

I will now quote from the ex-senator’s website, interspersing those quotes with my own comments.

QUOTE:

Coming from Pennsylvania, a state with a rich heritage of hunting and fishing, Senator Santorum understands firsthand the importance of preserving our constitutionally protected rights found in the 2nd Amendment. Senator Santorum fights to preserve this tradition, and will work to ensure these rights are not infringed upon.

COMMENT:

There’s a reason I highlighted rich heritage and preserve this tradition. Is Sans-Scrotum really saying the rich heritage (of hunting and fishing) is this tradition? If I were from the great state of Pennsylvania, I would be ashamed that “Senator Santorum [came to understand] …the importance of preserving…the 2^nd Amendment” because of our rich heritage of hunting and fishing. Huh? Say what?

Most of the 2^nd Amendment freaks I’ve encountered believe their guns will prevent the US from surrendering its sovereignty to a UN-based New World Order. Hunting and fishing have nothing to do with this! So if Sans-Scrotum really believes in the Second Amendment as the best way to ensure our freedom, why doesn’t he just come right out and say so? Why blather on about “huntin’ and fishin’?” Unless, Santy simply doesn’t have the balls to take such a bold stand.

QUOTE:

Santorum Administration’s Response to Iran:

• Would work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat immediately; and developing a potential plan for military action if needed.

·       Any nuclear scientist proven to be working for Iran’s nuclear program would be treated as an enemy combatant.

·       Help create Strike Funds to help organizers on the ground publicly protest and overthrow the regime.

·       Economically target Iran by sanctioning Iran’s central bank coupled with opening all forms of energy production in the U.S effectively devastating Iran’s only economy

COMMENT:

I will restate each bullet point and follow with a comment:

• Would work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat immediately; and developing a potential plan for military action if needed.

This makes no sense. Maybe he intended to say, “Would immediately seek to work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat; and develop a potential plan for military action if needed.” In its original wording, one has to ask: “How could we even think to eliminate that threat immediately without having first developed a military action plan?”

Finally, does Sans-Scrotum really think we haven’t already developed at least several military action plans?

COMMENT (next bullet point):

·       Any nuclear scientist proven to be working for Iran’s nuclear program would be treated as an enemy combatant.

Maybe Santy meant to write “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” instead of what I had yellowed above. Details, details…and this guy’s a lawyer? Where’s his command of the language?

If Santy means (as he wrote) to treat such nuclear scientists (even if not working on a nuclear weapons program) as enemy combatants, isn’t he equating such people with soldiers who actually bear arms against us in a declared war? I hope Santy bothers to at least inform Congress in advance before he starts bombing Iran. Heaven forbid he would actually seek a declaration of war. If he were to seek such a declaration publicly and formally from Congress, that could be persuasive enough for Iran to allow international inspectors within its borders.

A man with a brain would seek alternatives to war. But a man who’s all dick and no balls might be too afraid of seeming insufficiently macho.

COMMENT (next bullet point):

·       Help create Strike Funds to help organizers on the ground publicly protest and overthrow the regime.

How would we like it if a foreign power tried that against us? The goal is supposed to be to persuade Iran to abandon any possible nuke weapons program it might be contemplating. How did regime change suddenly become the goal? The Iranian government could point to this bullet point and accuse all of its citizens on strike of being US puppets. That government could also conclude: “If Sans-Scrotum is willing to publicly state that he wants to “help [strike] organizers…overthrow the regime,” he wouldn’t be too shy about covert ops against our sovereignty.”

COMMENT (next bullet point):

·       Economically target Iran by sanctioning Iran’s central bank coupled with opening all forms of energy production in the U.S effectively devastating Iran’s only economy

This is just plain stupid, since Iran doesn’t depend on energy exports to the United States. Even if we were to become totally independent of all foreign energy sources, Iran wouldn’t suffer. Sans-Scrotum is trying to inject his support for removing all barriers to our domestic energy exploitation (the environment be damned) as a flimsy part of a strategy to undermine the Iranian economy.


And then there's this to consider:

Besides, what if Iran would suddenly reverse course by saying:

“We hereby invoke our right to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as stated in that treaty, and start building nuclear weapons. We cite the belligerent rhetoric of politicians like Sans-Scrotum.”

As noted in Wikipedia**: “Article X [of the NPT] allows a state to leave the treaty if ‘extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country’, giving three months' (ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.”

In reference to my highlight above, “The [Iranian] state could legitimately leave the NPT by giving as reasons the threat to its security as undeniably confirmed in the public statements and writings of self-serving pols like Sans-Scrotum.”

Someone should ask Santy what he would do if Iran were to invoke its rights under the NPT and declare its intention to build nuclear weapons. In that case, Iran wouldn’t be in violation of international law. The question is, would Santy go along with that or would he decide to attack anyway – thereby putting the US in violation of international law?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Considering that the US has 300M citizens, how is it the GOP can’t do better than the likes of Rick Santorum, shameless self-promoter, as a candidate for US President?” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

  * http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-06/santorum-becomes-millionaire-in-six-years-after-u-s-senate-loss.html

   ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Leaving_the_treaty

Obama’s Recess Appointments – January, 2012

Title of article recently posted on The Blaze:

“Obama Uses Executive Authority to Make Recess Appointment – While Senate is Still in Session”*

This is what nobody’s pointing out – an inconvenient truth if ever there was one: Even if, as Obama claims, the Senate was not in session, he would still have been wrong to make these 4 recess appointments: 3 for the NLRB and 1 (Richard Cordray) to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Obama claims to be making recess appointments but nobody is pointing out that these can only be made in the case of “vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” According to the Constitution:

Article II, Section 2: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”

None of these vacancies “happened” (that is, “occurred”) during “the recess of the Senate;” they “happened” when the Senate was, by universal agreement, in session. All four appointments had been pending in the Senate (Cordray’s, since July 2011), only to be held up by the GOP. If any of these positions had become vacant during a senatorial recess, only then would Obama have been within his rights to make a recess appointment.

The only way Cordray’s confirmation had failed was due to (you guessed it) a filibuster. Why do we allow the Senate to cling to this highly unconstitutional device? Rule by supermajority is the surest way to get nothing done.

My view of recess appointments, in general

Back in 2008, I had run for the office of US President under the terms of a 47-point contract. I was the first presidential candidate in this country’s history to offer such a revolutionary document. This is point #34 from that contract:

“I will not make any recess appointments. Also, I will ask for lists of recommendations to ambassadorships from the ten leading universities in the U.S. with programs in international studies. I will submit names to the Senate from those lists.”

[NOTE: Think about it. If I had been elected instead of Barack Obama, we would have all been spared the ignominy of an Imperial President trying to thwart the will of the elected representatives of the people.]

Detractors will object to my point #34 by claiming: “What if Congress isn’t in session and it would be imperative that a position be filled immediately?” For one thing, I can’t imagine such an imperative arising. But if a particular position should be filled quickly, I would simply use my power under Section 3 of Article II: “…[the President] may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses…” Then I would invoke the usual process for filling such a vacancy.

Even though recess appointments are allowable under the Constitution, I find them repugnant to the notion that Congress should be regarded as the supreme of our three branches of government. For that reason, under a Searle presidency, there wouldn’t be any recess appointments.

I base my Congress first philosophy on at least three grounds:

·       Congress outranks the President simply because it can impeach him for any reason whatsoever (or none, should it so choose) and the courts would be powerless to interfere.

·       Though there is a provision to enable the removal of any sitting president (again, by means of impeachment), there is no counterpart in terms of the president being able to dissolve the Congress. Some countries grant that power to their chief executives; we don’t.

·       The President should be regarded as beholden to the Congress since he must report to that body according to Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution: “Every bill…shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated…” In other words, the President can’t just say “no” to a bill, he’s got to say why he objects.

More on the idea of Electoral Contracting

This is from the Preamble to my 2008 contract, posted on-line September 19, 2008:

QUOTE:

 The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2008

Preamble:       I, Steven Searle, am the only candidate running for the office of US president in 2008 who is offering a binding contract in exchange for your vote. The following 47 points comprise this contract, which is now presented to you in its final form….

I will not be shy about claiming this to be an historic document, on a par with the Magna Carta and the U.S. Declaration of Independence. I hope my creation will serve as a model for future candidates (for national and local offices) who wish to follow my lead by offering themselves as alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties which are ruining this country.

:UNQUOTE.

Suppose a candidate for the US Senate would want to offer such a contract. He might want to include a provision like this:

“If elected, I will vote to end any and all attempts to filibuster any business before the Senate.”

The Senate as an institution will never willingly get rid of this anti-democratic device. However, individual senators might hasten its demise by “contracting it out,” as it were. As soon as individual senatorial office-seekers oppose the filibuster in their contracts, perhaps that might generate the public outcry needed to finally terminate this practice.

There is another provision I’d like to see in (again) a Senate candidate’s contract:

“If elected, I understand that my constituents are sending me to Washington DC to be a senator who is to be the equal of any other, regardless of seniority. Toward that end, my constituents are instructing me to be a member of the Senate but not a member of any of its committees.”

I’m very keen on reigning in the power of the Imperial Presidency by redesigning Congress, as indicated in my essay, “The Long Arm of the Law,” posted on April 12, 2011. After clicking the following link, scroll to the part that’s yellowed –

How a Congress without committees would work:      

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5696907376473242750&postID=3382380853699079953

Enforcement Mechanism: Such a contract would be easy to enforce against a sitting President – he could simply be impeached for non-compliance. Even though Congressmen can’t be impeached, they can give their contracts teeth by (in effect) posting a compliance bond. For instance, Senator So-and-So’s contract could identify in advance a panel of 12 volunteers to monitor his compliance. If, for instance, 8 out of 12 would determine him to be in violation of his contract (for instance, by voting against cloture, thereby enabling a filibuster to continue), So-and-So would be given the option of either resigning his office or forfeiting a bond held in trust by that panel, which would consist of (for instance) 12 faculty members of a leading law school.

What I wrote in the preceding paragraph are only my suggestions. I’m sure if an office-seeker really wanted to commit to an Electoral Contract, he would come up with his own contractual provisions and enforcement mechanisms. I have no doubt that such Electoral Contracts will find their way into our campaigns. Perhaps they’ll be offered by candidates who are desperate enough to try anything. In that spirit, I had sent several of the current GOP presidential candidates a suggestion that they, too, submit their own contracts to the voters. Michelle Bachmann was one whose campaign I’d contacted. Either she didn’t believe she was desperate enough or the whole concept of contracting didn’t fit into her strategy.

One of these days, though, my approach will sound viable enough to attract a mainstream candidate’s attention. One desperate enough. Newt Gingrich comes to mind, for I had contacted his campaign as well several months ago. We’ll see.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I wonder if Ron Paul would have made such ‘recess’ appointments if he happened to be president right now.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

  * http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-uses-executive-authority-to-make-recess-appointment%e2%80%94while-congress-is-still-in-session/

The only viable U.S. reform strategy

There is really only one way to force political reform in the United States: Deny job security to all incumbent officeholders. Translation? Next time you cast your ballot, vote against all incumbents, even those you think are good candidates. [I’ll explain that a bit later.]

Obviously, my proposal will fall largely on deaf ears, as do most unusual proposals – at least in the beginning. Most people are creatures of habit. So getting them to break old, comfortable habits will take a lot of effort by a dedicated few. As those few become many, the task becomes easier but first things first: I have to explain why (according to the title I picked) an anti-incumbent movement is the “only viable U.S. reform strategy.”

The only reason the DC establishment runs roughshod over its constituents is, they have job security. Most incumbents get reelected on a routine basis. And even if (for instance) a certain number of Congressmen get swept from office due to voter anger, that only represents a momentary wobble of the systemic  gyroscope. Balance is soon restored, the first sign being a softening of the rhetoric once the newly-elected Reps assume office. The new guys want to get reelected too, so they won’t want to appear too radical.

In any event, in spite of occasional turns of fortune by one party or the other, the Two Party System itself remains entrenched. That is the source of its power over us, and that is the source of our frustration.

If, however, We-the-People were to send a message that we will not tolerate incumbency, that will set the stage for independents to get elected. Think about it: If an elected official knew there was an anti-incumbent tide rising throughout the land, he’d be less likely to automatically fall in line with whatever the party leadership has in mind. He’d, instead, be more mindful of the voters.

My message to him? “It won’t matter what you do, for once you’re elected, you become the new incumbent. So you will be voted out of office after only one term.” Sounds rather brutal, but (as I’ll explain) this uniform approach to all incumbents will be necessary for us to maintain.

The Fear Factor

I will refine my proposal:

Vote against all incumbent officeholders. If you love Democrats, vote against them anyway if they happen to be the incumbent. If the Republican you vote for wins, then (obviously) he is the new incumbent against whom you should vote in the next election. If you think such a strategy risks anarchy, then don’t vote that way in local elections. Focusing only on the US Congress will be good enough to force a sea change in our national politics.

Anarchy inspires terror. And the Establishment will try to use this as a Fear Factor to urge people to vote the straight-and-narrow (that is, to vote according to whatever motivated them in past elections).

However, there are two good reasons not to fear anarchy, at least not as induced by anti-incumbency:

·        Even if we were to be 100% successful – that is, in unemploying  all incumbents in all future elections for the next dozen years or so – the Elite which really runs this country would not allow a legislative breakdown to threaten the smooth day-to-day operation of this country’s business-as-usual. No matter who gets elected, the Elite will be able to bring sufficient pressure to bear (even by death squad actions, if necessary) to whip newly-elected Congressmen into line.

·        We are already living in a state of anarchy, but our downward slide is so gradual (slow but sure like a glacier) that few notice how surely legislative gridlock and kicking-the-can-down-the-road will induce a societal breakdown – and much sooner than we realize.

A bit later

To repeat one of my earlier statements: “Next time you cast your ballot, vote against all incumbents, even those you think are good candidates. [I’ll explain that a bit later.]”

So why should you vote against someone you “know” is a good candidate? By analogy, when a doctor scrapes out a cancer, sometimes he has to remove good cells. But I believe the real answer is, there are no good candidates because they all, to an unavoidable degree, are victims two irresistible forces:

·        Lobbyists; and

·        The leaders of their own party who can demand at least occasional adherence to the party line – or else.

Besides, even the so-called “good” officeholders fail because they’re habitually tied to the Two Party System. Even Ron Paul, in spite of his unorthodox positions as a Congressman, never came out and said: “We need independents in Congress, since only they won’t be swayed by the demands of their party or by lobbyists.”

More on Ron Paul and Third Party possibilities

Ron Paul was a member of the Libertarian Party once, having resigned from the GOP. Back in 1988, he was even the LP presidential candidate. However, Ron rejoined the GOP, which I think was a mistake – he should have seized the Bully Pulpit as a Congressman in order to promote the Libertarian Party. Instead of promoting the importance of an alternative to the Dem/Pub options, Paul decided to assume the role of resident curmudgeonly crank. “Dr. No,” his colleagues ended up calling him for his routine “no” votes on “unconstitutional” legislation.

Now, apparently, his strategy might change. If Ron Paul does not win the GOP nomination this time around, there’s talk he might try a third party run. Ah, a third party! Apparently none of Dr. Paul’s supporters realize you can’t have a viable third party which only manages to elect one candidate to national office. Even if that office happens to be the presidency. The other two parties would close ranks to oppose such a president.

Activists have spoken for decades about the need for a third party. They are mistaken, since only a Congress full of non-party independents can successfully govern. Instead of a Two Party or even a Three Party System, we need a Zero Party System. Moreover, we need term limits to protect us against the pernicious influence of lobbyists. Since incumbents will never vote for term limits, it is up to us as voters to “vote” for term limits by routinely voting against incumbents.

It’s time to break the programming, people

We are mercilessly hammered with propaganda 24/7. All of which serves to program us. The only reason the Two Party System is so dominant  is due to the efficiency of this programming. We can successfully rebel by doing this little: Stop being so damn predictable! If the Elite can anticipate our reactions to their agenda, they can tailor-make their long-range strategies by pushing our buttons with a lot of little steps along the way.

Or, equally as effective, just change the faces of the players. Case in point: If George Bush had suggested a “surge” in Afghanistan, he would have been roundly denounced. But when President Change-You-Can-Believe-In issued those orders, no problem. Sure, his supporters were disappointed, but so what? They surely wouldn’t vote for his GOP opponent in the next election.

But I feel that people don’t like to be played or made to feel they have no real choice. Right now, we’re at an ideal stage to push this anti-incumbency campaign. Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. The GOP has shown itself to be a far-from-loyal opposition – sinking as low as petty and non-ending obstructionism.

 And the beauty of this particular moment in time? We don’t even (much like the Occupy Wall Street crowd) have to present a coherent plan of action such as, “If elected, we will do (this, that, or the other thing).” Instead, we can merely assert that only a Congress of non-party aligned, loyal Americans can put their heads together and come up with practical solutions that work. And this assertion will resonate with voters who are tired of legislative gridlock, rule by supermajority (for instance, the filibuster), and the unending spectacle of each party that’s out of power trying its best to undermine the party that’s in power.

The Founding Fathers never intended for us to be governed by a class of professional, life-long politicians. Their ideal was for men of means (established pillars of the community) to take time out of their business affairs, spend a couple of years of public service as legislators, and then return to their former lives. Or perhaps retired gentlemen of means would like to give a few of their sunset years to such community service. Since the lengthy travel time of the early 1800’s would mandate long absences from home, it was expected that few would even be tempted to serve for more than two or three terms at most.

So our challenge is actually very simple: Just remind people of what they already know – the system isn’t working; we need answers fast; and incumbents under the current set of rules, who have managed to insulate themselves from the wrath of the voters, aren’t sufficiently motivated to create the practical system of laws we need to get our country moving forward again. But we have to remind them more than a few times. Remember: We have quite a wall of propaganda to break down!

Some examples of successful propaganda

Look at the recently-concluded Iowa caucuses. As observed by the Huffington Post*:

QUOTE*:

The numbers tell the story: of the 2,250,423 voters in the state (using the higher voting-eligible population), only 147,255 came out last night. And of those, only 122,255 voted in the Republican contest, for a turnout percentage of 5.4 percent.

:UNQUOTE*:

I had tried to promote (on this blog) the idea of cross-over voting to skew the primary results. In this case, given the low turnout, it would have been easy for independents and Democrats to have voted in the GOP caucuses for (say) Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman. Sabotaging the GOP primaries is a potent weapon, especially since Obama’s supporters can cross-over because their candidate won’t need their support since he’s running unopposed.

But…nobody crossed over. We have been so successfully programmed that we completely overlook obvious and potent strategies to convey our dissatisfaction. Instead, we have completely bought into the notion of how “important” Iowa and New Hampshire are to legitimizing the candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire? Give me a break. These two states are far from representative of America. However, that’s not the point. These two states were chosen on purpose to make it that much harder for a candidate to obtain traction. You don’t think it’s merely a coincidence these two vote first, do you?

It takes a lot of money, time, and trouble to campaign in these two atypical states. So only the best-financed can afford to engage. And “engage” they must, for failure to do so would allow the media to conclude these states were “written off.” That’s a charge that’s hard to beat.

Of course, the purpose of the long build-up to primary season (and the lengthy season itself) is to focus voter attention on this one particularly ridiculous notion:

What matters most – which one man ends up becoming president.

By focusing our attention on one man, the media and the System itself succeed in diverting our attention from what really needs fixing: The Congress itself. But we’re used to this type of mindset:  After all, when a major league baseball team isn’t having a winning season, we expect the manager to get fired in order to “shake things up.” But this view is in violation of our constitutional model. After all, Article I of the Constitution set up our national legislative bodies; Article II, the Presidency; and Article III, the Judiciary. These, I feel, were set up in order of importance.

It’s about time we reasserted that order of importance, insisting that Congress is of the utmost importance – not the Imperial Presidency.

End note:

If we ever reached a point where incumbents had no hope of being reelected (at least, not as Democrats or Republicans), there would be one immediately daunting outcome: Without a seniority system, how would committee assignments and chairmanships be determined? As I’ve written before, I feel that our Congress should consist of coequal members serving without being forced into a hierarchy by a committee structure. We have no problem expecting our president to be knowledgeable on all of the issues (or at least to have his own reliable sources as consultants). So why shouldn’t we expect our Congress to consist of (dramatic pause) – 435 presidents?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“There’s nothing like a loss of job security to throw the fear of God into our arrogant party animals” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

   * Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/iowa-caucus-results_n_1184479.html