May 2019 Open Thread

May 2019 monthly open thread. Post news tips about alt parties and independent candidates, discuss any story that should be posted here but has not yet been posted, or even delve into completely off-topic stuff.

110 thoughts on “May 2019 Open Thread

  1. Florida Man Larry

    Brandi Hicks (the current state party treasurer, invictus 2016 treasurer, and partner of white nationalist gang leader ryan ramsey) endorsed steven nekhaila for chair of the libertarian party of florida.

    The mises caucus and the current chair marcos miralles endorsed him as well.

    The convention is this weekend.

  2. Fernando Mercado

    Sorry I haven’t actually written an actual article in a bit. Nothing’s really struck me as interesting.

    On the bright side, I got some more interviews lined up (One of which i disagree with)

  3. paulie

    I would be interested to know as well, and in any other state LP conventions we have not already reported on.

  4. paulie

    What would be the process for getting an ASP member signed up to write here?

    Pretty sure I signed up someone already but they have not been posting. All I really need to do it is a screen name (can be real name or pseudonym) and a working email address.

  5. paulie

    Unfortunate, but unfortunately also not surprising. I’ll remain opposed to moving Alabama to Region 2.

  6. robert capozzi

    Joe of Morning Joe again today said, “Bob Barr.”

    Scott Adams caught himself the other day, noting he’d been saying, “Bob Barr” recently when discussing William.

  7. robert capozzi

    fwiw, my operative theory is that “dL” is “David Cox.”

  8. dL Post author

    fwiw, my operative theory is that “dL” is “David Cox.”

    whoever david cox is, I’m not him

  9. Eric Sundwall

    Since the “conviction”, bemusement therapy has included a limited dosage of IPR injections. Temptation to be included or heard was tested this weekend, along with the possibility of the Mormon and some big U of R ciphering near the ‘ol Genesee River.

    The LPNY were meeting just up that River, at a Holiday Inn airport.

    Should I hit the reception of former fellows and bask in their new light of ballot access or just hunker down with my free ten bucks at the Batavia Downs racino while the youth soccer players caught Endgame at the local, quaint theater?

    Of course the guy whom Roger Stone called the most interesting City Lib, Joseph Dobrian wouldn’t be there like in ’09. When I gave up the chair and got smashed in State Court because I chose the message of freedom, that last fateful campaign in the middle of winter. Perhaps Chris Edes would be lurking, we could talk Free and Equal shite a bit. We hit the Childrens museum with the kids after M. Carling tried to hustle me to the show store. Man of international intrigue . . .

    But no, I remembered. I wasn’t welcome. A dirty, no good, NAPster! Ugh, what had the politico gods done to me! Sure there was the fling with the jewish lawyer with the catchy slogan in 2010. Stop Wasting Time, I think . . . we beat Stone at his own game. Rope a doped him and the madam didn’t get the nod. The last night of Occupy Wall Street was the last pitch to the Manhattan Crowd for Senate, in 2012. When Halloran clipped me from behind and Axinn was the only closet big A to defend “us’. Not Israel.

    Just burned off the itch with an old man 3 miler at the Y. The LP New Yorkers don’t need me anymore. Got note that a County Committee was forming and someone running for Supervisor. That’s all I ever wanted too. Stupid planning boards saying I can’t sell to DD.

    It passed on the dreary Batavia flats as the boy got pummelled by rain and girl soccer players from Toronto. I didn’t care who got elected to officers, or reacting to the Great LS speech afterwards. I stayed away from my former brethren at the airport hotel conference room and let them go on without me. Had a great dinner at Main St. Pizza with the real players and put my self at ease.

    It wasn’t even a temptation to think that Sunday’s State Committee meeting was juxtaposition-ed with this huge Chinook helicopter that approached the pitches from afar, with some sunlight. He circled once and hovered a bit at the local airfield. More brute technology to me than the tools of international, illegal occupations throughout the world.

    Knowing that the NAP-ism was in remission. Even listened to NPR TeD Talk about wisdom while my son slept and the son of Mexican immigrants thought about being an architect. It’s a shame that Gillibrand gets to talk about being “brave” when she started out so cowardly, refusing to debate about Iraq and now claiming that she did in 2006. Stand-up open mic will take care of this better.

    At one point we were holed up in a McMansion with two esteemed physicians, a mere 3/4 from the First Vision, by Joseph Smith in Palmyra. An old friend has stage four . . . the life that matters is out there.

    Go find it.

  10. robert capozzi

    ES,

    Is it the case that NAPism is now a widely understood and used term in LP circles? Perhaps there is still hope!

    The first step in fixing a problem is to identify it.

  11. robert capozzi

    more….

    While I don’t follow most of this, you may have a future as the Yankee Faulkner!

  12. NewFederalist

    Unfortunately since the Constitution Party does very little to differentiate itself from the Republican Party there really is very little reason for them to exist. Any potential CP voter is easily frightened into voting GOP with the scare that “those Democrats will ruin the country!”. Mix that in with some religious differences and… BINGO!

  13. Jim

    That’s only true in the age of Trump. Trump and the Constitution Party are both PaleoConservative. But the Constitution Party has plenty of disagreements with the NeoConservatives.

  14. dL Post author

    Trump and the Constitution Party are both PaleoConservative.

    Oh, there are those who try to claim Trump is a 8th dimensional chess paleocon. Please

  15. J.R. Myers

    Due to the unchecked corruption at the top, the National Constitutional Party is now in a freefall. Several states have, or are in the process of disaffiliation. Several officers have, or are in the process of resigning. A new national entity is being formed from the CP remnants and other groups. This is an exciting time, as a new national constitutionalist/libertarian party emerges on the scene. Stay tuned!

    https://www.jibjab.com/view/make/were_not_gonna_take_it_you_rock/f73e33e7-a635-4d47-8f37-0c0e8e438e3c

  16. dL Post author

    What does 8th dimensional chess have to do with Trump’s ideology?

    8th dimensional chess is the higher dimensional strategic plane sycophants claim their favorite politician operates on to rationalize a supposed ideological commitment on the part of said politician that is plainly not true. First popularized with Obama, who purportedly was playing 4th dimensional chess via vis a whole host of progressive issues, and now taken up a notch with Trump. The higher the dimension, the more patently absurd the claimed ideological commitment.

  17. Jim

    Jared “The larger ideology that the [president] represents is a post-Iraq War, post-crash, post-Barack Obama update of what used to be called paleoconservatism.” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trumpism-intellectual-history-populism-paleoconservatives-214518

    I agree with that article from about Reagan on, but I strongly disagree with its claimed origin of paleoconsevatism.

    PaleoConservatism became a distinct ideology around 1950. It has roots older than that, but those roots are shared with other ideologies and are not distinctly PaleoConservative.

    PaleoConservatives are not descended at all from some corrupt version of Robert LaFollete style Midwestern Progressives. One half of the PaleoConservative antecedents simply had an alliance with Progressives over the cause of immigration. Those were the nationalists, then of the Democratic Party, who began trickling over to the Republican side in the 1950s, and really ramped up that migration in the 1960s.

    Where those Democratic nationalists landed on the Republican side was with the faction with the most strongly anti-immigrant rhetoric. That was the John Birch Society crowd.

    The Republican half of the roots of PaleoConservatives came from the Old Right. The Old Right split into thirds in the aftermath of WW2 over how to address the Soviet threat. The Buckleyites wanted limited government at home, but a hyper aggressive foreign policy because they saw the Soviets as an existential threat which necessitated a break with the Old Right tendency to keep the US out of foreign affairs. The JBS crowd wanted limited government at home, but a super-defensive, isolationist foreign policy – no immigration, protectionist tariffs, and no foreign alliances. They wanted to create Fortress America and let the outside world rot. The 3rd split from the Old Right was the libertarians, who wanted limited government, opposed an aggressive foreign policy, and were supportive of free trade and immigration. They more or less just wanted to ignore the Soviets and continue business as usual, correctly figuring that the Soviet economy would eventually cause it to collapse.

    The Democratic nationalists made contacts on the Republican side during the Goldwater and Wallace campaigns and were attracted to the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the JBS crowd. They hit it off and the nationalists mingled with the JBS spinoff of the old right. The anti-immigrant JBS crowd was, let’s say, very susceptible to some of the rhetoric coming from the nationalists. And that nationalist influence, mixed with the super-defensive, isolationist faction of the liberal Old Right, is what created PaleoConservativism. They’re a mix of classical liberalism and nationalism.

    PaleoConservatism has several spin-offs outside of the Republican Party. The Constitution Party, which puts an extra emphasis on social issues. The Reform Party, which de-emphasized social issues. And the Alt-Right, which puts an extra emphasis on anti-immigrant and nationalist rhetoric. And that emphasis by the Alt-Right has attracted some extra nasty people, like Neo-Nazis, which has led to certain factions of the Alt-Right being supportive of large government programs. Which, I guess, is why the guy who wrote that article thinks that PaleoConservatism had some kind of corrupted MidWestern style Progressive influence.

    I don’t know why this guy is throwing Buckley – who wanted to bomb Moscow – in with the isolationist PaleoConservatives. They both came out of the Old Right, but they clearly went separate ways. Neither was Nixon a PaleoConservative. Nixon was a Progressive Republican and pretty much just filled the gap between the Prohibition Party and Social Conservatives.

  18. Jim

    dL “8th dimensional chess is the higher dimensional strategic plane sycophants claim their favorite politician operates on to rationalize a supposed ideological commitment on the part of said politician that is plainly not true.”

    Trump is a dumbass and not a particularly principled PaleoConservative, but he clearly is one. And both PaleoConservatives and the closely related PaleoLibertarians recognize it, which is why Lew Rockwell spent the 2016 campaign carrying water for Trump.

    The 8th dimensional chess claim isn’t to rationalize Trump’s supposed commitment to an ideology, it is just a claim that he is somehow outsmarting his opponents, but no one can see what he is doing, yet. They often make the multi-dimensional chess comparison to things that have nothing to do with ideology. Most recently, I saw it in reference to how Trump may be trying to goad Democrats into trying to impeach him, which might give him some kind of advantage in the 2020 campaign.

  19. dL Post author

    Trump is a dumbass and not a particularly principled PaleoConservative, but he clearly is one.

    First and foremost, a paleocon would not move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem(i.e, Christian Zionism). A paleocon would not banging the war drums with Iran. A paleocon would not be threatening regime change in Venezuela. A paleocon would not hire a Neocon poster boy like John Bolton as National Security[sic] Advisor. A paleocon would not be squeezing the tits of the american flag on stage(i.e, the nationalism of paleoconservatism is not wrapped in the militarism of American imperialism). A paleocon would not unilaterally thumb his nose at Nafta and WTO as a ploy to merely unilaterally renegotiate Nafta 2.0 and WTO 2.0. A paleocon would not be pounding the table 24/7 for easy fed money.

    In what way is Trump a paelocon other than citing Raimondo or Rockwell as water carriers? Shit, there are libertarians out there who carried water for Bill Weld. It doesn’t mean Weld is a libertarian.

    Most recently, I saw it in reference to how Trump may be trying to goad Democrats into trying to impeach him, which might give him some kind of advantage in the 2020 campaign.

    That’s Nancy Pelosi’s 12th dimensional chess.

  20. dL Post author

    The Buckleyites wanted limited government at home, but a hyper aggressive foreign policy because they saw the Soviets as an existential threat which necessitated a break with the Old Right tendency to keep the US out of foreign affairs.

    “The most important issue of the day, it is time to admit it, is survival. Here there is apparently some confusion in the ranks of conservatives, and hard thinking is in order for them. The thus-far invincible aggressiveness of the Soviet Union does or does not constitute a threat to the security of the United States, and we have got to decide which. If it does, we shall have to arrange, sensibly, our battle plans; and this means that we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except though the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.”

    William Buckley

  21. dL Post author

    I don’t know why this guy is throwing Buckley – who wanted to bomb Moscow – in with the isolationist PaleoConservatives.

    I didn’t read it that way. The author credited Buckley as a primary architect of the new right, a faction which pointed their guns at the progressive Eisenhower wing while pushing the “old right” elements to the fringe. The author, however, mistakenly cited Nixon as New Right’s rise to power. Nope. Nixon was the last holdover from the Eisenhower wing. People forget that Nixon’s republican judicial appointments were the architects of Roe v Wade. However, Nixon’s southern strategy would later pave the way for the New Right’s rise to power in 1980 with Reagan, and the transition of the GOP from a pro-choice party to a pro-life party. That being said, it seems to me the paleocons and the new cons got along well enough during the Reagan years. It wasn’t until Bush and Gulf War I that any fissure became noticeable to the casual observer. I never even heard of the term “paleoconservative” until 1992 and then promptly forgot about it until Ron Paul came along.

  22. Jim

    dL “First and foremost, a paleocon would not move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem(i.e, Christian Zionism). A paleocon would not banging the war drums with Iran. A paleocon would not be threatening regime change in Venezuela. A paleocon would not hire a Neocon poster boy like John Bolton as National Security[sic] Advisor. A paleocon would not be squeezing the tits of the american flag on stage(i.e, the nationalism of paleoconservatism is not wrapped in the militarism of American imperialism). A paleocon would not unilaterally thumb his nose at Nafta and WTO as a ploy to merely unilaterally renegotiate Nafta 2.0 and WTO 2.0. A paleocon would not be pounding the table 24/7 for easy fed money. In what way is Trump a paelocon….

    The PaleoConservative JBS was supportive of moving the American embassy to Jerusalem.

    Trump thinks it doesn’t matter who he surrounds himself with as long as they are fighting each other. He thinks he can just overrule them on any decision he wants. Plus, there is a shortage of people with experience that actually want to work for his administration.

    Trump’s goal was not to renegotiate NAFTA into NAFTA 2.0. He wanted to scrap it, didn’t get anywhere with that, made mild tweak and tried to save face by calling it a major overhaul.

    Trump’s norm, with weaker countries, is to talk tough, but not to act militarily. He will act with economic sanctions but, being a PaleoConservative, he doesn’t really want to trade with them, anyway. That is true for both Venezuela and Iran.

    Trump’s support of easy money is for his personal benefit. Federal Reserve policy is not an intrinsic part of PaleoConservatism, so it isn’t much of a deviation.

    The three key policy points in identifying PaleoConservatives are anti-immigration, trade protectionism, and reluctance to get militarily involved in other countries. Trump has the first two down solid and I don’t recall him getting involved in any additional military conflicts. He in inherited some from Bush and Obama, but I don’t think he has started anything new, despite calls from NeoCons to do so.

  23. Jim

    dL “The most important issue of the day, it is time to admit it, is survival. Here there is apparently some confusion in the ranks of conservatives, and hard thinking is in order for them. The thus-far invincible aggressiveness of the Soviet Union does or does not constitute a threat to the security of the United States, and we have got to decide which. If it does, we shall have to arrange, sensibly, our battle plans; and this means that we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except though the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.” William Buckley

    I have read the rest of that essay, apparently unlike yourself. Buckley wasn’t hoping for big government. He was lamenting that, given the incompetence of the government of the day, it would be necessary to accept big government in order to face the existential threat of the Soviets. It was a complaint, not an endorsement. That is the meaning of “given our present government skills” in the quote above, and elsewhere in the essay his complaint that the Republican Party was failing to provide “an opportunity forthrightly to reject the ideology of the Leviathan State.”

    Buckley starts the essay by calling for the Republican Party to declare our own government as a domestic enemy. Most of the essay is a complaint about all of the big government policies that were in place at the time and a further complaint that the Republican party has done little or nothing to counteract it. Then comes the quoted paragraph – because the government is so bloated and incompetent, we may be faced with big government for the duration of the Soviet crisis.

    I’m sure I have told you this before. Which means that either you did not look up the context of the quote, or you did read the essay and are just hoping to continue fooling those people who haven’t, while forgetting that I have actually read it.

  24. dL Post author

    The three key policy points in identifying PaleoConservatives are anti-immigration

    Joseph Sobran, a prominent paleocon mentioned in the original cited article, was not an immigration restrictionist. Immigration restrictionism and trade protectionism are not unique to paleoconservatism within the conservative orbit. In particular, the republican reputation for free trade is undeserved.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/reagan-record-trade-rhetoric-vs-reality
    https://mises.org/library/ronald-reagan-protectionist

    As a reminder, the democrats are responsible for the free trade agreements(NAFTA and WTO), and “deregulation” originated from the left, not the right.
    https://www.theregreview.org/2019/03/18/schiller-ideological-origins-deregulation/

  25. dL Post author

    He was lamenting that

    If I had a dime every time some small government conservative lamented the need for big government. That quote is not exactly common knowledge, and the fact that I am familiar with it probably indicates I’m familiar with the source article…

  26. Krzysztof Lesiak

    J.R. Myers writes at American Third Party Report:

    “I have resigned as CP Western Area Chairman over this debacle. Several states have (ID, SD, VA), or are in the process of disaffiliation. Several state officers and NCMs have, or are in the process of resigning from the National CP.

    Discussions and plans are underway to form a new national entity. This is an exciting time, as a new national constitutionalist/centrist/libertarian party emerges on the scene. Stay tuned!”

    I do think these articles should be reposted on IPR, because it seems as though the Constitution Party might not have that much time left as a national structure, at least.

    Updated 5/12/19; National Constitution Party Implodes Due To Corruption At The Top; Western Area Chairman Resigns From National CP
    http://www.american3rdpartyreport.com/2019/05/updated-51119-national-constitution.html

    Trouble in the Constitution Party: Fallout From Milwaukee; Virginia CP Chair’s Statement & Intent to Disaffiliate from National
    http://www.american3rdpartyreport.com/2019/05/trouble-in-constitution-party-fallout.html

    Trouble in the Constitution Party: Fallout From Milwaukee; CP Midwest Regional Chair – ‘Travesty in South Dakota’
    http://www.american3rdpartyreport.com/2019/05/trouble-in-constitution-party-fallout_10.html

  27. paulie

    Agreed, I think they should be posted. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to be able to force myself to post articles, the people I have signed up to post (and others who were already here) don’t seem to have much interest in doing so, and Warren banned you completely. I would have kept you at the level where you can save article drafts but Redlich outranks me.

  28. Krzysztof Lesiak

    It was a reasonable decision on his part, I think any person in his position would have decided on it because it was a rational move, I was going off the rails at the time (not just on the internet). It was a fun ride while it lasted and I can’t complain about Warren letting me be part of the “staff” as long as he did. Looking forward to reading about the 2020 conventions on here.

  29. Jim

    dL “Joseph Sobran, a prominent paleocon mentioned in the original cited article, was not an immigration restrictionist.”

    Oh, really? Let’s find a Sobran quote on immigration:

    “Pat Buchanan is among the most famous of those who favor restrictions on immigration, and his recent book The Death of the West is, in my view, indispensable reading. … Pat shows, with powerful evidence, that government policies, here and in Europe, have systematically undermined the Christian peoples and their culture for the last generation.

    “…While driving down white birthrates (one of the effects of heavy taxes), its welfare system has encouraged the wrong sort of immigrants, the sort among whom crime and other destructive behavior are most apt to flourish. The U.S. government discriminates precisely against the productive European immigrants who would be most compatible with us and add to our material wealth and cultural health.

    “Starry-eyed proponents of limitless immigration recall the last great period of immigration, which occurred more than a century ago and was largely from Europe. But that was before the welfare state, and it was a blessing, in most respects, because the Europeans (my father’s father among them) were coming here to make their fortunes in a free market, not on the welfare rolls. The U.S. government has managed to turn an essentially good thing into an evil.

    “Could there be a more insane practice than importing a gigantic new welfare class from alien cultures? Yet this is precisely what Western governments have been doing, under the giddy slogans of “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”

    “…the Democrats fully support any growth of the welfare state (and see prospective immigrants as future Democratic voters…”

    That could have been written by Hoppe or Andy.

    dL “Immigration restrictionism and trade protectionism are not unique to paleoconservatism within the conservative orbit. In particular, the republican reputation for free trade is undeserved.”

    There are different factions of conservatives. Some of them support free trade, others don’t. Some of them support immigration restrictions, others don’t. But the combination of immigration restriction, trade protection, and reluctance to interfere in foreign affairs is unique to paleoconservatives among existing political factions.

    dL “That quote is not exactly common knowledge, and the fact that I am familiar with it probably indicates I’m familiar with the source article…”

    If you are, then you are deliberately mischaracterizing it. What you’re doing is on par with the commies throwing that Mises quote about fascism saving liberalism in libertarian’s faces.

  30. dL Post author

    Oh, really? Let’s find a Sobran quote on immigration:

    You’re doing the very thing here you accused me of doing vis a vis Buckley. In doing that Google Search to arrive at the page in question
    http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2004/w040729.shtml

    You should have clicked on the link in the first sentence “My recent item on immigration, dissenting from conservative alarm on the subject, has riled a number of readers”

    Read that and then reread the follow up post you are quoting from and you’ll find no support for the state’s regulation of immigration. It’s clear that Sobran’s position was: the welfare state + immigration is a problem. The solution: get rid of the welfare state. Or at the very least, the predatory state was much bigger problem than immigrants. So Sobran agreed with Buchanan on the problem but not the solution. That’s not immigration restrictionism.

    If you are, then you are deliberately mischaracterizing it. What you’re doing is on par with the commies throwing that Mises quote about fascism saving liberalism in libertarian’s faces.

    This is nonsense. The quote is contextually accurate. The substance of the essay was: ideally, the GOP platform should acknowledge an internal enemy, the State, but if the external Soviet state is a greater threat, then internal totalitarianism it must be. Since Buckley’s position was the Soviet state was indeed such a threat, Buckley’s quote on totalitarian bureaucracy is Buckley’s own view. That is, fascism at home is required to beat back the communist threat abroad.

    Btw, that Mises’ quote is not contextually inaccurate, either. It is taken from “On the Fascist Argument” from Mises’s Liberalism. Mises clearly did view fascism as a makeshift, emergency counter to the bolshevik threat in the context of early 20th century European politics. There is no misreading that.

  31. paulie

    I’ve posted them. Just waiting for review.

    You posted links. I understand if you don’t want to cross-post the full articles but can you at least cross-post the first couple of paragraphs of each article before linking back to the rest? An image attachment would also help if you know how to do that and select the Constitution Party category.

  32. JR Myers

    Paulie, I was able to revise the posts as suggested, except for the addition of a graphic. I would like to use the Upside down CP Eagle Head Logo at the top of each of the three articles, but was unable to figure out how to do so.

  33. JR Myers

    OMG, I have seriously received communication that leaders within the CP consider it, “THE PARTY OF GOD!” Is it now the American Hezballah? The message said that anyone who leaves it in anger, is influenced by Satan! That we are impulsive and childish…Well, that’s what happens when you leave the Reservation fellas!!!

  34. paulie

    We can add the graphic after the articles are published. Does that graphic already exist elsewhere? If yes it will be easy to link. If not, graphics programs such as photoshop and many others have a rotate feature. I’m far from an expert but I can do that much.

  35. paulie

    Yes, and you can too. Been up since about 3 am, need to get up about that same time in the morning. Just got back from work, trying to do a few things online real quick before I pass out.

  36. Jim

    dL “You should have clicked on the link in the first sentence “My recent item on immigration, dissenting from conservative alarm on the subject, has riled a number of readers”

    Yes, and then he wrote that the early article was a “hasty last-minute substitution” and that he had “done further reading and thinking on the subject.”

    dL “Read that and then reread the follow up post you are quoting from and you’ll find no support for the state’s regulation of immigration. It’s clear that Sobran’s position was: the welfare state + immigration is a problem. The solution: get rid of the welfare state. Or at the very least, the predatory state was much bigger problem than immigrants. So Sobran agreed with Buchanan on the problem but not the solution. That’s not immigration restrictionism.”

    Yeah, Andy says he’s for open borders after the welfare state is gone, too. And then Sobran started going on about “alien cultures” and “multiculturalism”, just like a Paleo.

    dL “This is nonsense. The quote is contextually accurate. The substance of the essay was: ideally, the GOP platform should acknowledge an internal enemy, the State, but if the external Soviet state is a greater threat, then internal totalitarianism it must be. Since Buckley’s position was the Soviet state was indeed such a threat, Buckley’s quote on totalitarian bureaucracy is Buckley’s own view. That is, fascism at home is required to beat back the communist threat abroad.”

    Nope. Buckley’s position was that the government could not win by any other way “given our present government skills”. He clearly wanted a different sort of government, but was lamenting that the Republicans were going to remain a big government party which lacked the skill set to win any other way.

    dL “Btw, that Mises’ quote is not contextually inaccurate, either. It is taken from “On the Fascist Argument” from Mises’s Liberalism. Mises clearly did view fascism as a makeshift, emergency counter to the bolshevik threat in the context of early 20th century European politics. There is no misreading that.”

    This is the extent of the quote used by communists:

    “It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.”

    An example in the wild: https://i.imgur.com/DRsOpI1.png

    Ignored is everything else he said about fascism in that chapter, like when he called fascism “evil” and said that it “cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization.” (A prediction made in 1927.) Or even the rest of the paragraph from the commie selected quote, where he says that viewing fascism as anything more than an emergency makeshift “would be a fatal error.” The “emergency makeshift” was necessary because the Russian commies were already out there killing people. That was the emergency. Fascism, according to Mises, arose as an emergency counter to the commies and temporarily saved Europe. That was the good intention. But, fascism was still “evil” and would, according to Mises’ 1927 prediction, “destroy all of modern civilization” just as the commies were trying to do. That is the opposite of what the two out of context sentences give as an impression.

  37. dL Post author

    Yes, and then he wrote that the early article was a “hasty last-minute substitution” and that he had “done further reading and thinking on the subject.”

    I’m not here to defend Sobran. I read his syndicated column as a kid, and as I recall, he was a lot more concerned about the true identity of William Shakespeare than illegal immigration. It seems the few times he did opine on the matter only served to enrage his comrades
    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005516.html

    It is clear–objectively clear–from reading the two cited Sobran pieces that he was skeptical of the state’s role in immigration restrictionism and viewed the state as the much greater threat than immigration. That doesn’t mean he was an open borders enthusiast. He wasn’t. In the end, it probably boiled down to the fact that he–as a devout catholic–felt a greater kinship with catholic hispanic immigrants than he did with the tatted and pierced grunge/hip hop Gen X nativist population. And that’s the last time I’m going to broach the topic of Joseph Sobran.

    Nope. Buckley’s position was that the government could not win by any other way “given our present government skills”.

    My position on “limited government” is that limited government doesn’t have totalitarian bureaucracy qualifiers. He said it. The quote is not taken out context, comical rationales about government skills notwithstanding.

    Ignored is everything else he said about fascism in that chapter

    I have the book. I know exactly what he wrote. No, he wasn’t a fascist. But he harbored a leftist derangement syndrome to the extent he included that embarrassing chapter in an otherwise OK book.

  38. Cody Quirk

    “But the Constitution Party has plenty of disagreements with the NeoConservatives.”

    Yeah, like the social issues & the religion department.

    Its pretty sad how their kowtowing and utterly brown-nosery with the Religious Right (what’s left of it these days) and the fundamentalist fringe -keeps falling on deaf ears, especially in the south and midwest.

  39. JR Myers

    The MT CP has disbanded less than two weeks after a successful convention in Helena, due to the ongoing controversy and fallout from the CP NCM meeting in Milwaukee.

  40. Krzysztof Lesiak

    This certainly merits an IPR article. Here’s Arvin Vohra, Vermin Supreme and Chris Marks ( https://www.facebook.com/Marksfor2020/ ) debating at Michigan Libertarian Party state convention in Bay City on April 13th, 2019:

    Vermin Supreme, Arvin Vohra & Chris Marks @ LPM POTUS Debate (108 views, 23 minutes)

    This is the concluding portion of the forum. Moderator questions and questions from the audience came before this.

    Vermin Supreme, Arvin Vohra and Chris Marks told Michigan Libertarians why they should be the Libertarian Parties 2020 nominee for President of these united states of America.

    This was the luncheon part of the 2019 Libertarian Party of Michigan Convention at the Courtyard Marriot in Bay City Michigan on April 13.

  41. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Also this:

    WAL 2020 Presidential Candidate Debate Series: Science, Energy, and Education (43 views, 1 hour 46 minutes)

    We Are Libertarians
    Opublikowany 26 kwi 2019
    Join Arvin Vohra, Benjamin Leder, Christopher Marks, and Daniel Behrman as they discuss vaccinations, nuclear power, alternative energies, GMO labels, space exploration, free college, student loans, common core, charter schools, and more.

  42. robert capozzi

    Yes, Amash really stepped out of line. That is a bold move. I suspect he’s either going L or just having some fun on his way out of the Swamp. I suspect his R colleagues all completely shun him now.

  43. paulie

    IPR was founded on May 20th, 2008. Happy 11th birthday to IPR, and Happy Birthday to Paulie as well!

    Thank you! As posted to IPR email list:

    We missed doing our annual anniversary article for the first time last year. Anyone want to put one up this year? You can find all the past ones on May 20 archives from each year for comparison, except for 2008 and 2018.

  44. dL Post author

    REp. Amash is getting news coverage for his stand against President Trump

    If crimes against humanity and crimes against the treasury aren’t impeachable offenses in Washington, then “crimes against the FBI” apparently will have to suffice.

  45. NewFederalist

    I was just leaving the country when Rep. Amash made his statement which is why I have not commented until now. I can’t believe he did this unless he intends to run for the LP presidential nomination. If that is true then why not just switch parties immediately? I don’t believe he has played this well at all. His chances of being re-elected to the House are now pretty close to zero. Switching to the LP now would be huge for the LP as far a having a Member of Congress for the first time. Just blurting this shit out and sitting back to see what happens isn’t my idea of getting ahead of the news. Perhaps he isn’t as intelligent as I thought.

  46. paulie

    I don’t know about his intelligence level – he seems to be a smart guy, but maybe not optimally strategic – but I agree, he would be better served by switching parties now rather than later.

  47. Jim

    If Amash spaces events out he can keep his name popping up in the news over a longer period of time.

  48. robert capozzi

    NF,

    Multiple news cycles. He would get more news and position himself as a martyr if he gets attacked by the Rs.

  49. NewFederalist

    RC- he will continue to be attacked by the GOP anyway. I would like to tune in to C-SPAN to watch a roll call vote with Lib listed along with Dem and Rep. i think that would set a good precedent for someone to eventually get there on there own!

  50. Jared

    NF: “Just blurting this shit out and sitting back to see what happens isn’t my idea of getting ahead of the news. Perhaps he isn’t as intelligent as I thought.”

    Or not as calculating, but it’s also possible he doesn’t want to give ammo to the Trumpists who accuse him of only seeking attention. His attackers are the ones doing all the media interviews, not Amash. The unrealized threat that he will change party affiliations or enter the presidential race as a Libertarian may give him some much needed leverage in the short term. I suspect his chances of reelection are higher than many people think. Not all Republican-held districts are MAGA strongholds, and Amash seems to know his district pretty well.

  51. robert capozzi

    NF,

    I agree. The point is that IF he’s already decided to seek the L nomination (which he well may not have), there is a question of timing and progression of his narrative. He took his time to call out that DJT for impeachable offenses. He’s working this cycle. Perhaps later he’ll resign from the Rs and declare he’s an L. He might later declare he’s seeking the L nomination. Etc.

  52. NewFederalist

    Jared- I believe I read somewhere that his really big money backers have pulled away from him and are supporting a primary opponent. My first choice would be for him to remain in the House even as a Republican since he votes very well over 90% of the time. I think that is now unlikely. If he changes parties now his credibility goes up with those who don’t want another GOP re-tread at the head of the ticket. He would be Rep. Justin Amash (L-MI) which would make a huge impression at the convention.

  53. NewFederalist

    RC- I have read about it. I still do not understand just how he intends to remain a Republican. His deep pocket backers have found a new candidate.

  54. George Phillies

    In other good news, the Governor of Nevada vetoed a bill that would have caused Nevada to adhere to the Popular Vote Compact. The Maine House voting not on party lines rejected the Popular Vote compact.

  55. George Phillies

    You mean I could have been stuck with Gore and Clinton instead of Bush and Trump? There is no progress here. Also, changing the rules because you think you can rig the outcome is stupid and dangerous, i.e., up to the usual standards of American politicians.

    As Trump pointed out, and liberals did not have the brains to understand, as they are as stupid as conservatives, if the race was based on popular vote both sides would have campaigned very differently, for example a Democratic get out the vote effort in rural Utal, and the outcome of the popular vote would not have been predictable.

  56. paulie

    Little known is that the electoral college almost worked the other way in 2004. If Kerry had just a few more votes around Cincinnati, Ohio, which some people have alleged he did get but were not correctly tabulated or reported, he would have won the electoral college despite still losing the popular vote. Right now Democrats love popular vote and some Republicans defend electoral college because of the way it worked out in 2000 and 2016 but that could change. However, overall national popular vote is more favored than not – even among Republican voters – and in polls in every state in the US.

  57. NewFederalist

    If states no longer matter (which is what the NPV plan basically says) then why should we have the U.S. Senate constituted as it currently is by equal representation of the states? Isn’t that outmoded as well?

  58. George Phillies

    Kerry needed 120,000 more votes in Ohio. Or 60,000 if they were all erstwhile Bush voters.

  59. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I’d not heard that, thanks. Is that how they assign electoral votes in OH? If Kerry’d done better in Columbus or Cleveland would he have not carried OH?

  60. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    No article on Amash’s doings on IPR for pro-choice libs to rant against.

    And proPalestinian property rights advocates to hopefully cheer about?

    It’s all GREENIE statist stuff

  61. George Phillies

    Ohio is winner takes all. Kerry needed a significant movement in the total vote, abouta percentage point, not a huge movement, to carry the state and win the election.

  62. paulie

    No article on Amash’s doings on IPR for pro-choice libs to rant against.

    And proPalestinian property rights advocates to hopefully cheer about?

    It’s all GREENIE statist stuff

    Someone who is signed up to post articles has to be motivated to post them. I can sign new people up to post. If that’s what the people who choose to sign up are motivated to post that’s what we will have.

  63. paulie

    Ohio is winner takes all. Kerry needed a significant movement in the total vote, abouta percentage point, not a huge movement, to carry the state and win the election.

    Correct, but Ohio has swing counties just like the US has swing states. Cincinnati area happens to be the swinging part of then ground zero swinging Ohio and there are allegations of the vote count being manipulated, candidates who were on the ballot statewide not having been listed on the ballot in some counties etc etc. I don’t remember every detail either. Bottom line is that it would have been very possible for a small swing to Kerry in one part of one state lead to him being president yet still lose the popular vote nationwide. Didn’t happen but very well could have.

  64. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    paulie
    June 1, 2019 at 15:31
    Someone who is signed up to post articles has to be motivated to post them. I can sign new people up to post. If that’s what the people who choose to sign up are motivated to post that’s what we will have.

    CM: Thanks for info! I’ll get the word out! 🙂

  65. paulie

    If states no longer matter (which is what the NPV plan basically says)

    No, it does not say that. The president is the only office that is voted on nationwide. Every state still elects its own senators and representatives and its own state legislators and executive and judicial offices. It’s a long stretch from having NPV for president only and doing away with states. Sooner or later the electoral college will elect a Democrat who loses the national popular vote, and most of the Republican leadership will support NPV then. Their rank and file already do according to surveys (I’ve seen them but don’t have a link handy nor feel like looking them up again). Maybe Democrats will then all of a sudden stop supporting it. It may be giving them too much credit to expect they would take a more long term view than one election.

  66. paulie

    You mean I could have been stuck with Gore and Clinton instead of Bush and Trump?

    That would have been marginally better, even as bad as those two were and are. Ivan Eland’s work ranking presidents on peace, freedom and prosperity indicates that are every recent Republican president has been a bigger disaster for this country and the world than every recent Democratic president. In the 40 years I have been here I tend to agree, and my reading indicates you can extend that back at least another decade before that.

    There is no progress here. Also, changing the rules because you think you can rig the outcome is stupid and dangerous, i.e., up to the usual standards of American politicians.

    I don’t think that’s a good reason to change the rules either. But I think they will be changed sooner or later. Maybe right after the first time it works in favor of the Democrats under the current rules, or perhaps someone will fund NPV state initiatives in some of the states where legislators don’t pass it or governors veto it but which have the initiative process. It polls above water in every state and even among Republican voters, so chances are good that if anyone did fund them those initiatives would pass. The courts may also throw NPV out but I’m guessing they probably won’t.

    I think NPV is more or less inevitable, unless something much more dramatic happens first which would make this discussion way beyond the point. I don’t know how long it will take. My guess is probably no more than a couple of decades and maybe much less.

    As Trump pointed out, and liberals did not have the brains to understand, as they are as stupid as conservatives, if the race was based on popular vote both sides would have campaigned very differently, for example a Democratic get out the vote effort in rural Utal, and the outcome of the popular vote would not have been predictable

    That’s correct. The campaign would have been different and I don’t know who would have won.

  67. robert capozzi

    PF,

    Might be true that D prezs do less damage than Rs. However, circumstances for each presidency differ, as do the makeup of the respective congresses being assessed. Baggage and inherited smoldering situations differ in each year.

    This lessarchist finds both parties unsupportable. Polished turds are still turds.

    OTOH, if the Rs somehow nominate Weld or Amash, I vote for them, if the Ds nominate Gabbard, I’ll give her strong consideration over an NAPist L.

  68. NewFederalist

    It’s a long stretch from having NPV for president only and doing away with states. – paulie

    Why? The Constitution has the STATES electing the President/Vice President not the individual voters directly. That’s the purpose of the Electoral College. The 17th amendment changed the way U.S. Senators were elected otherwise it was the STATES who selected their senators any way they wished (most by a vote in the state legislature but I am not aware of any reason they could not have opted for popular vote if that is what the STATE decided). The only popularly elected part of the U.S. government was the House of Representatives which is why it is based on population. If the EC is effectively eliminated then I don’t see why the next “big thing” wouldn’t be making the U.S. Senate “more fair”. That is the path to changing the original agreement between the STATES and the national government. The STATES created the national government not the other way around. That is largely forgotten today. Just my $0.02 worth.

  69. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie: ” . . . .The courts may also throw NPV out but I’m guessing they probably won’t. . . . ”

    The constitution gives the states absolute authority on how to allot their electoral votes. If they choose to give them to the national popular vote winner, they have very legal right to do so.

    It’s inevitable. Thankfully.

  70. Tony From Long Island

    George: “. . . . if the race was based on popular vote both sides would have campaigned very differently, for example a Democratic get out the vote effort in rural Utal, and the outcome of the popular vote would not have been predictable. . . . . ”

    Even with a NPV, a democrat would spend next to no time and next to no money in Utah. At least not with the actual candidate. It has been and always will be a get out the vote plan.

    Vice Versa – a GOP POTUS candidate wouldn’t be spending valuable resources in San Fran.

  71. paulie

    Might be true that D prezs do less damage than Rs. However, circumstances for each presidency differ, as do the makeup of the respective congresses being assessed. Baggage and inherited smoldering situations differ in each year.

    This lessarchist finds both parties unsupportable. Polished turds are still turds.

    Yes, I agree with all that. I don’t support Democrats and have no interest in being one again, voting for or encouraging anyone to vote for them. If I moved away from the LP it would be more like to be towards “principled non-voting,” not back to the Democrats and certainly not Republicans (I’ve considered Greens before; despite the potential for a libertarian Green Party and the presence of that sentiment among some Green voters/supporters, the party is dominated by Marxist cults which have a disproportionate influence on its platform due to being organized and “DemoGreens” who operate as a sort of DP Jr.)

    Nevertheless I stand by my assessment that Republicans are even worse, again with a variety of data points over a half century. I also consider them to be worse leaders of Congress. However, I prefer they lead congress when there is a Democratic president to check the Democrats’ worse impulses. Thus my most preferred configuration is D prez, R congress; but R,R is worse than D,D. It doesn’t work as well in the other direction; a Democratic congress doesn’t do very much to check the worst aspects of Republican presidencies – but it does do at least a little bit, so that’s better than when both are Republican.

    OTOH, if the Rs somehow nominate Weld or Amash, I vote for them, if the Ds nominate Gabbard, I’ll give her strong consideration over an NAPist L.

    You do you. I will not support anyone running as a D or R even if I like them better than any of the above mentioned.

  72. paulie

    Why?

    Because we don’t live in the 18th or 19th century and aren’t going to go back to it, and at this point the electoral college is just a relic of a past that doesn’t fit its surroundings, only causes confusion and is unlikely to remain in place very long regardless of whether you think it’s a good idea or not. The ship you want to keep from sailing has in fact long since sailed out of sight and out of the harbor. The anchor isn’t anchoring anything anymore.

    It survived as long as it has mainly due to inertia, and the fact that there was no disparity between national popular vote and electoral vote from 1876 until 2000, so few people noticed or cared. Now that this disparity happened twice in 16 years it’s coming under fire, but only from one party’s supporters being seriously focused on it despite majority polling on the other side too and in every state for NPV. But if what almost happened in 2004 actually happens in anytime soon and it works in the other direction expect EC to be gone or NPVed into irrelevancy very quickly. Alternatively, if and when D major funders figure out they can get there through state initiatives in red and purple states, expect it to be NPVed into irrelevancy within 4-8 years at most.

  73. paulie

    The constitution gives the states absolute authority on how to allot their electoral votes. If they choose to give them to the national popular vote winner, they have very legal right to do so.

    That’s one side’s argument. I am aware of it, and I think it will probably prevail in the courts. There’s a counterargument. I don’t care to present it. You can find it on wikipedia among other places if you care and no one else here cares to present it either. I wouldn’t go so far as to say inevitable but I agree it is very highly likely NPV will get enacted fairly soon.

    If the courts do rule against it, a constitutional amendment to get rid of it may well pass. If none of that happens another war of secession/breakup of the union becomes more likely.

  74. robert capozzi

    pf: I will not support anyone running as a D or R even if I like them better than any of the above mentioned.

    me: Y’all do y’all. Anyone? Say a dyed-in-the-wool NAPist left the LP and became a D or R. Say s/he gets nominated by the Ds or Rs for prez, and yet (somehow) maintains her or his NAPist cred. So skilled is s/he that her/his positions are at once NAP-compliant and yet palatable to the Ds or Rs.

    In a sense, this describes RP1, especially in 08, especially prior to NewsletterGate 1.0 became known.

    Are you THAT hyper-partisan?

  75. George Phillies

    I have posted several replies to the LNC finances article, and they all disappear.

  76. George Phillies

    The Constitution also forbids compacts between the states without permission of Congress. THe NPV vote thing claims to be a “Compact”. Perhaps it is nota compact, despite what it claims to be. On the other hand, it also seems to be running out of blue states that might ratify it.

    At some point, there may be repeal drives in some states. The compact will only matter if there is some state that casts its electoral votes for the candidate who did not carry the state. Readers may try to imagine DC casting electoral votes for Trump or Mississippi casting electoral votes for Clinton, each requiring the appropriate popular vote outcome. In a more extreme form, recalling the election of 1860, the electoral votes could go to a candidate who was not so to speak on the ballot (yes, they did things differently back then) in the state. I anticipate this outcome would go over less than well.

    The Electoral College was a very fundamental part of the original Constitution, and the compromises that led to its acceptance. It is not as fundamental, perhaps as two Senators from each state, whcih requires unanimous agreement of the 50 states to change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *