Connect with us

Federalists

Third parties done wrong, and done right

Published

on

I wanted to talk about JD Rucker’s interview with Steve Deace, but I really felt compelled to tell you about why we are stuck with the Republicans and Democrats and why we can’t replace either of them. That in part is because of Duverger’s Law, and how that infected modern American politics.

Two-party power politics has led to creeping socialism

http://noqreport.com/2017/09/30/two-party-power-politics-led-creeping-socialism/Believe it or not, a lot of creeping socialism has been accepted by many Americans whether they know it or not. Some of the biggest ideals that have slowly crept into the political world are indeed out of situational ethics. The biggest one is that of “voting for the lesser of two evils,” and out of that a philosophical law espoused regarding how a two-party political system anywhere on the planet forces weaker factions to join stronger factions in order to win power in elected office…but it also disallows the good candidates (based mostly on character) not to run for office and get behind a candidate is that most likely to win (regardless of the candidate is of character or morally corrupt).

Background

In Steve Deace’s interview with JD Rucker, Rucker admits that he had a successful business and that he could have just focused on that, and try to be a good provider for his family. However, as a citizen of America he decided that he needed to be the one to truly step up and look for a new way to break the current two-party system; and how they keep certain players in place in spite of the primary system.

I disagree with the ideal Steve Deace presents that the current established third parties are fragile. The problem with them is that these political parties are nothing but a protest, throwaway, wasted, “all of the above” vote. Have these parties actually tried to run at the local levels, regional levels, county levels, and state levels? Not nearly as much as they should.

I am a fan of KOA NewsRadio’s Mandy Connell out of Denver, Colorado. One thing she said about third parties when I called in to her show is that they need to start locally and build from there. Rucker is doing what Mandy Connell told me is what a third party needs to do.

Analysis

Start with city governments, school boards, country governments (including the local sheriff), college/university regents etc. Get grass roots people truly involved in the hands of pulling the levers in government at the local level. With that momentum, then focus on the state level, and after that our federal races.

Only then can the White House be a goal. You’ve heard the saying, “all politics is local.” Starting small forces a focus on what is truly local. Remember that the emotional and historical attachments bred by Duverger’s Law are powerful, and many in the media will remain cultishly loyal to the two-party system. The likes of Hugh Hewitt and KOA NewsRadio’s Mike Rosen fall into this category.

At the same time, allies must be pulled from the crop of media who are open to change. Those kinds of people will forever change their opinions not necessarily based on their honest convictions, but by the whims of certain masses of what a group of people think about things. Mark Levin while an honest constitutional scholar will still work within the whims of Duverger’s Law trying to uncorrupted what was already corrupted, and his history reminds us; that is truly Mission: Impossible. Good luck Mark, but your government will eventually self-destruct. Maybe not in five seconds, but it will eventually. I do, howver, believe that a Convention of States (Article V) must happen.

The Takeaway

I totally agree with Rucker and the fact that the Federalist Party must do whatever humanly possible to stay a grassroots party, and never be influenced by big money, regardless if that is from big labor or major corporations. The big union bosses or the big corporate officers must never become the voice of the Federalists like they did with the Democratic and Republican parties. Otherwise we shall ensure the swamp that we are trying to drain now only gets swampier.

Someone who wants to be a voice for liberty and freedom. Telecom (Radio/TV) Pikes Peak Community College 1993-1998, BS Journalism, minor Political Science, Colorado State University-Pueblo 1999-2004

Continue Reading
Advertisement
5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Alan Levy

    October 11, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    If Duverger’s Law is that which is highlighted above then it’s nonsense and unnecessary. The Founder’s themselves in a extremely rare moment agreed in unanimity about the dangers presented from a two-party system, and went so far as to provide clear examples of the inevitable outcome, that closely follow our condition today. Socialism is in itself not a driver, but only a tool used by those seeking a methodology for control. It’s a way station to the inevitable further tightening on the reins of power because it is uneconomic, and in the end must rely either on brutal force and or a continual replenishment of a constantly dwindling population. That said, the article, in it’s chastisement of earlier third-party failings, actually returned to the scene of the crime and suggested another try. Einstein warned that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same over again while expecting a different outcome. “Socialists” commonly explain that their failures were because of not having the opportunity to succeed, instead of the truth, which is that they actually did succeed and it simply doesn’t work. Apparently, there’s too much use of “philosophy” for self-promotion and not enough common sense. Politics are local, but political parties are built around a state. Attempting to conduct politics prior to building a political party is the exact reason our third parties fail. Someone with many decades of experience and an understanding of party operations, from the top to the bottom, would know that. The first goal of a successful political party is not to run candidates, but to gather public participation in the political process. Candidates rarely attract the public and convince them to participate. And, even when that rare occasion occurs, it is insufficient to build an ongoing party. Think on it, the smallest county may have close to 200 elected officials. Winning a handful out of 200 offices doesn’t exactly inspire confidence for changes to come. It’s correct to recognize a need to attract public participation, but the problem with of third parties is that they fail to learn how to offer the public sufficient reason for participation. They fail to offer an exacting path to power. Do that, and the public will come. Vague promises for future electoral successes don’t work. And yet, there is a path. It simply hasn’t been explored. Do as I did, and study what powers are already allocated to the public. Then learn how to exploit them, turn them into something even more useful, and afterwards deploy them in a way that feeds off the two-party system. Do that, offer them power, and the people who already participate within the political process will become your allies.

    • Don McCullen

      October 12, 2017 at 9:08 am

      I think those are fair statements Alan. It is still trying to empower the grassroots, which need to be done.

      • Alan Levy

        October 12, 2017 at 10:56 am

        Even the term grassroots is a misnomer. The public is not grassroots, they are constituents or voters. They are the body politic. Political participation neither begins nor ends at the voter’s booth, except under totalitarian government. The public participates in the political process through membership in a political party. You cannot empower the public without first drawing them into the process, into a political party. On a rare occasion you might convince them to support an individual wild card candidate such as President Trump, but that’s infrequent and one need look no farther back than to President Reagan to see most results are temporary at best. The key is to find and provide “power” directly to the public. If you can do that, the public will return to political participation, which is to say they will return to membership and participation in a political party. And at this point, if you find and can provide something so seemingly illusory as “power,” the public won’t care the name of the party. Once you realize who you’re trying to sell to, and what they want to buy, the rest is only a laborious study into the political and legal processes. After that, you only need apply technology to speed the outcome. But you must realize that the only way to join the ranks of major political parties is by subsuming the body politic already participating, subsuming the party membership itself. And to get away with that takes a whole different set of smarts.

        • Don McCullen

          October 12, 2017 at 11:25 am

          Alan, we can nit pic at this all day. I know the term “Body Poltic” as much as I know the term “Grass Roots.” I think we are on the same side, just think about things differently. I agree you have to do have more that just the voting booth. Much more.

          Right now final decisions being made for the “Body Poltic” who based on the benefits of large corporations and government bureaucrats and workers. I don’t speak for the Federalist Party as the editors and some of the writers of the NOQ Report do, but I can say that they are trying to get power back to the common people who we have termed Grass Roots.

          Yes their are those in the Body Poltic with different viewpoints and their is a division. Those who want more Liberty and Freedom and Limited Government, and those who think that the Government would do better by micromanaging our culture in hopes out of that we will get the best outcome.

          Problem with bigger government is that it usually is set up to benefit a few while many suffer. It was always this way…ever attempt to make equalize everyone through the government has failed.

          • Alan Levy

            October 12, 2017 at 12:18 pm

            What you’ve stated is true but are the usual generalities continually repeated over the last several decades. There’s no benefit to be had by complaining about government. And it provides no solution. I wasn’t arguing, only trying to provide a frame of reference for understanding the problem and recognizing where the solution could be found. I found it after a great deal of study. But having participated within the political and party processes for more than four decades, I had personal experience to call upon. Yes, we need a new party. But it takes more than dedication and resources to succeed. And generalities won’t attract the skills or constituency needed. After having talked with a number of third parties, I’ve yet to find one with the broad knowledge base necessary for success. And they all use the same words and promote the same processes found in the new Federalist Party presentation. My attraction, and willingness to take the time to respond, was only to discover whether there might be some meat on the bones. Something more than the usual grandiose pronouncements. That is to say, actual working solutions. And, although there are a somewhat complex series of steps that can be taken to succeed, I’ve yet to find anyone having already attained sufficient political experience achievement who would want to disrupt the current process. But thanks for the repartee.

Leave a Reply

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

Federalists

How to debate your political enemies… and win

Published

on

How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

GOP plays pro-life card in an election year bluff for votes

Published

on

GOP plays pro-life card in an election year bluff for votes

With another year of failure behind them and a midterm election ahead, the GOP is busy doing as it always does under such circumstances, squeezing a boatload of bills through Congress designed to give the appearance that they’re keeping their word to the conservative base of the party.

An ace-in-the-hole often played by the Gang Of Phonies when they are desperate for our cash and our votes is the pro-life card, which explains their plan to hold a show vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act (BAASA) later this week.

If passed, BAASA would allegedly protect infants delivered alive after a failed abortion which begs the question, if a failed abortion delivers a live baby and a successful abortion delivers a dead baby, isn’t abortion the very definition of premeditated murder?

Premeditated Murder: The term that is used to describe a murder that was planned in advance and was carried out willfully. – Black’s Law Dictionary

In 2002–strangely enough, another midterm election year–George W. Bush signed a similar bill called the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). While the bill claimed to provide legal protection for an infant born alive after a failed abortion, BAIPA failed to provide penalties or enforcement mechanisms to punish violators.

Without those provisions, the law was meaningless and made it possible for a baby killer like Kermit Gosnell–who routinely murdered babies by severing their spinal cords with scissors through the back of the neck or drowning them in toilets after being born alive–to become a millionaire.

While it can be argued that BAASA might do some good, this is simply an election year ploy that falls woefully short of doing what’s necessary to end the abortion holocaust.

For example, there has been no advance of the “most pro-life platform in GOP history,” which included commitments to defund Planned Parenthood, ban dismemberment abortions, and pass a Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In fact, Trump and the GOP actually supported the abortion industry by passing three spending bills in 2017 that fully funded Planned Parenthood.

As a supporter of the Federalist Party and the Convention of States project, I see this charade as more proof that conservatives need to leave the GOP and join these movements. Only by reigning in the federal government and returning power to the states will we bring an end to this holocaust.

What difference could it make? Well, Indiana State Rep. Curt Nisly just introduced a bill that would completely ban abortion in the state. In Roe v. Wade America, his chances of success are somewhere between slim and none. But in Constitutional America, where “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” NIsly’s bill would likely succeed.

BAASA may or may not become law, but it’s nothing more than a lame attempt by RINOs to save their jobs. The lives of the unborn deserve better than this.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Will Trump and the GOP ever defund Planned Parenthood?

Published

on

Will Trump and the GOP ever defund Planned Parenthood

Despite claims that 2017 was a “tough year,” Planned Parenthood still managed to have a very profitable year according to a just-released annual report.

After murdering 321,384 unborn babies still in their mother’s womb at their so-called clinics–occasionally selling their body parts on the black market–and receiving nearly $544 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies, Planned Parenthood was able to report an increase in its profits of nearly $21 million despite shutting down 32 centers last year.

According to Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood manager who currently runs an organization designed to help abortion workers get out of the baby-killing business (And Then There Were None), the report proves what we already knew: Planned Parenthood is a political movement, not a women’s healthcare organization. As noted by WorldTribune.com, data contained within the report supports Johnson’s conclusion.

  • The organization’s birth control services continued to drop in the past year. According to its 2016-2017 annual report, contraception services were 2,701,866 – four percent less than 2015-2016.
  • The annual report also shows the number of prenatal services once again dropping – this year to 7,762 – a 17 percent decline from the 9,419 performed the year before. In 2014-2015, Planned Parenthood claimed 17,419 prenatal services performed.
  • While Planned Parenthood performed 3,677,503 sexually transmitted infection (STI) tests, and 706,903 HIV tests over the past year, the organization performs no mammograms but lists 336,614 manual “breast exams.”

During his 2016 campaign, Trump’s position regarding Planned Parenthood changed depending on the day of the week–or Ivanka’s agenda–as he defended the organization for the “good things” it did for women’s health while claiming that abortion was a “small part” of their business operation.

Abby Johnson shot down Trump’s conclusion in a Newsmax interview at the time.

“My message to Donald Trump… [is] nothing Planned Parenthood does is for the greater good of women. Every single service they provide leads back to abortion.

“So why do they provide contraceptive services to women? Because they know that eventually that contraceptive will fail; 54 percent of women who have abortions were using contraception at the time they got pregnant.

“They know that method is going to fail and because they’ve already developed a relationship with that woman then that woman will come back to Planned Parenthood whenever that method did fail and they will be able to sell her on an abortion.

“Why do they provide STD services? Because they care about eradicating STDs? No, because they want to have that first point of contact with a person who is participating in high-risk sexual behavior.

“Because they know that that person has a greater chance of having an unplanned pregnancy and that’s a person they can sell an abortion to. Every single service leads back to abortion.” (emphasis mine)

Candidate Trump wrote a letter in September, 2016 to a group of pro-life leaders stating that he was “committed to … Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health for women.”

Unfortunately, President Trump–who warned America that he would be different once he became president–agreed to a budget deal with Democrats that funds Planned Parenthood into Fiscal Year 2018, which began Oct. 1. It was the third spending deal Trump signed as president that continues federal funding for the abortion group.

The current extension on that deal expires two weeks from tomorrow and Democrats have a long list of demands to be met in exchange for their vote on a new budget. Also, as we witnessed during the Obamacare repeal debates, the GOP has demonstrated a disgusting willingness to abandon the unborn in order to appease Democrats.

With Trump’s track record of near-schizophrenia when it comes to defunding Planned Parenthood, and with the spineless GOP more concerned about keeping their positions than with keeping their promises, the odds look pretty good that Planned Parenthood will be reporting about another banner year 12 months from now.

Time will tell if the American taxpayer will continue footing the bill for this American Holocaust.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.