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.

Continue Reading
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 *

Democrats

Ben Sasse: Neither party has ‘a long-term vision’

Published

on

By

Ben Sasse Neither party has a long-term vision

With the GOP losing it’s way and the DNC losing it’s mind, now is the time for a new party paradigm.

As someone who left the Republican party years ago, Sen. Ben Sasse’s (R., Neb.) sentiments on the subject were well received. The emergence of a new conservative, Pro-Liberty party has always been bubbling beneath the surface. While the timing of such considerations is problematic at this point in time so close to the midterms, this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The problem of moderate Republican Party and populist tendencies.

Let’s face facts, the Republican Party has morphed into a moderate, centrist party with an agenda based on the poison of popularism instead of Conservative principles. In many ways, it’s reflective of the ‘at the moment tactics’ of President Trump. This really shouldn’t be the case, there is a reason the founding fathers created a system of government based on three branches of government. In physics, a plane has to be defined by a minimum of three vectors (i.e. forces). Take away one or two of these vectors and the plane is no longer defined. Such is the case with government as well, take away one or two of these vectors and the system becomes unstable.

To be blunt about what could happen in the near future, if the Democrats succeed in retaking the House of Representatives we could see something far worse than mere impeachment. We could be witness to all manner of ‘bipartisan compromises’ that would only serve to push us further down the slippery slope away from Liberty. The President has an unfortunate tendency to take the word of the last group he consulted, exemplified by his “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” gaff earlier this year. At this point in time we don’t need to compromise, we need to reverse the process and restore Liberty.

We cannot give any more ground.

The Constitutional principles that undergird our freedom are under a full frontal assault by those who try to maintain the pretence of favouring Liberty with the self-labeling as “Liberal”. As much as it is hard to believe, the 1st amendment is under attack on a daily basis along with last bastion of government restraint, the 2nd amendment. Many do not realise that we are dangerously close on the slippery slope to seeing those Liberties disappear forever. We cannot afford any more ‘compromises’ with those out to destroy Liberty on the nation’s Left.

The Democrat’s have become a national Socialist Party.

While the GOP has it’s own issues, the DNC has lost the plot going full socialist. How they think that this is a winning strategy is beyond comprehension. We are over $21 Trillion in debt, not to mention the estimates of over $80 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. Meanwhile they are promising all manner of vote-buying largess without nary a word on how’s it going to be funded. A number of years ago, video raconteur Bill Whittle produced a short dissertation entitled ‘EAT THE RICH!’
in conjunction with mathematical maven ‘Iowahawk’ examining how long the government could be funded by taking ALL the property from the rich of the nation. Even at that time 7 years ago, this type of scheme would have only run the government for a year. Of course, that would have been the end of it since ‘the rich’ would no longer pay any taxes. The bottom line here is that the Left cannot fulfil any of it’s existing grandiose promises, much less add new vote buying schemes to the mix.

The nation’s Socialist-Left won’t be able to fund it’s vote-buying schemes.

In recent days, many of the luminaries of the Left have been asked how they would fund their grandiose schemes of ‘Free’ healthcare, ‘Free’ college, ‘Free’ housing, etc, etc. No serious answers have been forthcoming, only that we are somehow under a moral imperative to provide this largess to everyone in the states and around the world for that matter. The nation’s Left won’t be able to fund it’s promises if it attains power, but it doesn’t seem to care. It is only concerned with gaining power, while the GOP is only concerned with holding onto power.

Where do we go from here?

In many ways it’s a blessing that the nation’s Left has dropped the mask and gone full socialist. That has been obvious for years, and it’s always best to play to one’s strengths. Even though that ‘strength’ is an ideology based on ideas from over 500 years. The left wants to run headlong into a brick wall, who are we to stop them. Those in the DNC unwilling to accept it’s abject failure can #WalkAway to the GOP or they can move over to a new party that is based on rock solid Conservative principles: The Federalist Party.

There is a reason why the United States is the greatest nation on earth. There is a reason why the first experiments in collectivism were tried here and rejected. There is a reason why we are the lone superpower in the world. And there is a reason the Socialist-Left would like to tear it down and replace it with the failed model of the French Revolution.

The founding father’s were learned men, they took the available ideas and crafted a limited government paradigm that has been shown to work over the centuries. We need to restore that best model of governance with a new party, getting back to the time-tested precepts of Liberty.

 

Continue Reading

Everything

Establishing a proper foothold in federalism

Published

on

Establishing a proper foothold in federalism

While I was away, I had plenty of time to think about federalism. One interesting note is that I did this without having the lens of current events in the way. I was completely away from pretty much all forms of news; if it wasn’t big enough to be talked about by family, I probably missed it.

One of the interesting side-effects of living like this is that my sometimes-random, sometimes-focused thoughts pertaining to federalism were geared towards historical and theoretical federalism. I wasn’t contemplating how a federalist should view Obamacare or gun control. Instead, I was able to apply proper federalist principles to a general perspective. Think of it as a 30,000-foot view.

There were some interesting conclusions and even more interesting questions I’ll go into in the future, but the biggest takeaway is that federalism can only work in modern America if we’re able to get a proper foothold. We’re on a slippery slope with a left-right, liberal-conservative dichotomy that currently holds the nation’s ideologies hostage. Most conservatives believe that federalism applies only to their ideas while most liberals believe federalism is a convenient tool to invoke only when they’re not in power.

The reality is that federalism has very little to do with right versus left, at least as it pertains to decision-making. Let’s look at a basic way to apply federalism generally. Hopefully then we can understand the challenges that can prevent us from finding our foothold. This is not meant to be a scholarly or philosophical look at federalism. It’s just a quick view to set the stage for finding solutions.

The federalist lens

I’ve written in the past that the roots of federalism were based on sharing powers, not making the national government more powerful. In the 18th century, states held the lion’s share of government power so it was necessary for early federalists to push for a stronger central government. Today, the power has shifted unnaturally to favor DC, so a true federalist will embrace taking power away from the central government and distributing it to states, counties, cities, communities, and most importantly to individuals and their families.

With that understood, let’s look at why federalism does not fall within the left-right paradigm that exists in America today. There’s no need to show examples of conservatism championed by federalism because conservatives have generally embraced most tenets of federalism whether they know it or not. However, there are many examples of how leftist ideas also invoke federalism and rightfully so.

One easy example is New York politicians’ desire to give “free education to all.” While conservatives will naturally ask the question of how expensive this “free” idea will become, many are calling on DC to figure out ways to block the attempt altogether. This is 100% against federalist tenets and should not be acceptable. If New York wants to go down that road, it is not DC’s job to stop them. One of the beauties of federalism applied to 50 states is that they should be free to attempt whatever programs their residents desire. If it fails, it is a lesson for other states. If it succeeds, it’s a model upon which others can embrace or improve.

Experimentation allows the states to be like governmental labs. This is a good thing. It applies all the way down (or up, depending on your point of view). Cities should be free to adopt just about anything that does not hinder others. This is a key point because the fear of a free-for-all in governance makes liberals and conservatives alike cringe. Are sanctuary cities acceptable in a federalist model? No. Unless a sanctuary city is able to contain the suspects and criminals they set free, their actions against federal cooperation are not true federalism. Cities cannot be allowed to harm their neighbors based on their actions (or lack of actions). Sanctuary cities are perversions of federalism.

Steps toward federalism

While I get back into the swing of things, there are still many questions I need to answer. One is where the Federalist Party stands, or more specifically where I stand within the Federalist Party itself. Just as with my friends here at NOQ Report who carried on in my absence, I know there were many who continued to build the groundswell for the Federalist Party. Where the party and I stand will be an important piece of information I’ll need before knowing how to proceed.

One thing that does not require any additional information is the realization I came to while on hiatus. For federalism to succeed in America and truly gain a foothold, it MUST be understood. I’m a firm believer that 70% or more of the American population would embrace the tenets of federalism if they understood it properly. Just as a right-leaning gun advocate can be shown how true reciprocity can only be accomplished between states instead of by decree in DC, so too can left-leaning environmentalist can be shown the benefits of localizing environmental protection rather than sinking money into the EPA or (gulp) the Paris accords.

In my downtime, I concluded that a population that does not understand federalism cannot properly embrace it. Conversely, bringing true federalism to light can and will help it gain more supporters because it simply makes sense. Going forward, that will be one of the most important roles I play in the outside world. Championing federalism is the best thing I can do in American politics. It won’t be easy, but if we’re to continue to prosper as a nation, we must wrest power away from DC and back into the hands of the people.

Continue Reading

Federalists

Hazel picks up key endorsement

Published

on

With just a couple of weeks to go before the Georgia primaries, insurgent candidate Shane Hazel has picked up a  key endorsement in his bid to unseat liberal Republican Rob Woodall in the Georgia 7th Congressional District.

Hazel, the former Marine Force Reconnaissance member and proven businessman, has picked up the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus. The RLC, also known as “the conscience of the party” endorsed Hazel should come as little surprise. The RLC has a long history of focusing on endorsing liberty-minded candidates, rather than establishment members who have proven themselves to be unreliable when it comes to conservative issues.

The RLC earlier this year likewise endorsed MO Senate Candidate Austin Petersen.

The outpouring of support for insurgent candidates is clear as supporters take to social media to voice their displeasure at the lack of follow through from lawmakers like Woodall during their time in control of both houses of Congress and with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. The failure to repeal Obamacare as well as passage of a massive $1.3 Trillion omnibus bill have angered most voters on the right, resulting in the realization that giving the GOP control of Washington is not enough, they must, in fact, cull the GOP Congressional roster of those who make conservative promises, but vote like leftists.

As my readers have noted I’ve followed several insurgent races across the country. Hazel’s may be the best example of a truly grassroots movement of ordinary citizens fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, and instead want to see real change with a return to Constitutional principles.

In a past article I noted that Hazel and others were not garnering any support from many of the major lobbying groups. In the latest of their disappointing moves, the National Rifle Association chose to endorse Woodall, telling Hazel they preferred to stick with “the devil we know.” Well, the problem with dealing with a devil is sooner or later he’ll betray you. Woodall had bragged previously that he has the lowest score from the NRA of all Republicans in Georgia, and that he was proud of it.

Always a class act, instead of complaining about the NRA’s rather typical move in endorsing establishment candidates, he told me “I will never vote for any legislation that puts people, especially veterans, on a no-buy list without due process. Woodall has voted repeatedly for Feinstein gun control, Fix NICS, against national reciprocity, and for Obama’a 4660 that has put 200,000 veteran on a list denying them their right to bear arms, without due process. Shall not be infringed means exactly that.”

The NRA’s hierarchy can say what they like, but we rank-and-file gun 2nd Amendment advocates don’t vote the NRA line, and I think we’re smart enough to vote for a man who truly cares about liberty, not a man who has proven he doesn’t.

You can learn more about Shane at www.shanehazel.com

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report