No More Ping Pong Politics!

William R Collier Jr.

Freedom News August 10, 2009 Washington DC- It would appear that the Democrats, who won majorities in Congress and who have gained the White House on the promise of hope, change, and more transparency and accountability (after the Republicans proved their inability to govern) are blowing their opportunity to restore confidence and trust between citizens and their government.

Many Americans were appalled to see how the Republicans, who presented themselves as the party of low taxes and limited government, spent our money like spoiled rich children and systematically betrayed promise after promise. The reaction was to vote for a third party, to not vote at all, to not support the GOP or its candidates financially, or even to vote for a Democrat, as with the many Democrats who ran as “conservatives”.

The Democrats won and now, if trends continue, the Republicans could bounce back, but would this “Ping Politics” actually address the much more fundamental issue of the increase of control over our lives by Elitists in high places at the expense of individuals, families, private enterprises and associations, and local communities?

The Democratic Coalition

If 53% of Americans who voted supported a win for the Democratic Party, what did Americans want? It would be simplistic to say exactly WHAT enabled the Democrats to win so big in the election, however we can characterize some of the reasons why the Democrats won. While you might debate the exact numbers I am using, I think we can agree with the general premise of what follows.

Perhaps as many as 10% of Americans who voted, but almost 20% of those who voted for President Obama, wanted what you might describe as an ultra-liberal agenda, including a single payer health care system, gay marriage, progressive taxes as a means of creating more equality of incomes, an essentially non-violent foreign policy, a retreat from free trade, a strong emphasis on reducing our carbon footprint even if this causes increases in the cost of energy, and other such “liberal” policies.

It is probable that half or more of the members of the so-called “black community” were motivated by factional interests in the hopes that the Democrats would focus on problems they face, including economic disenfranchisement, real discrimination that is still a factor, the disproportionate representation of black men in the prison population which some believe is a result of racial bias, and social problems including drug abuse and absentee fathers. Over 95% of the black community voted for Barack Obama and of this, it is possible that half or more of these voters were primarily motivated by these factional concerns and/or by the fact that Barack Obama is a black man. This means that around 10% of the Democrat support base is rooted in mostly factional concerns for the “black community”.

I would estimate that around 15% of the supporters of the Democrats could be described as independents or so called moderates who were attracted to the party on the basis of wanting accountability and transparency and as a reaction against the Republican Party’s misgovernment.

More narrow interest groups, including seniors who voted for benefits, members of the “gay community” who were seeking official positive sanction for their lifestyle and gay marriage, government employees, unions, and other special interest groups voted mostly for their own factional interests. This coalition of disparate narrow special interests made up as much as 30% of the supporters of the Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 elections. This means that around 30% of the support base for the Democrats are people who are primarily motivated by a narrow factional interest even if they don’t support the whole Party Platform.

Finally, as many as 30% of the voters who called themselves conservatives lent their support to the Democrats believing that the GOP no longer deserved their support, believing the Democrats who called themselves conservative would act that way, or simply out of protest in the hopes that a Democratic win would compel the GOP to get back to its roots. This means that up to 15% of the people who voted for the Democrats were people who call themselves conservatives.

This is quite a coalition- ultra liberals, the black community, moderates and independents seeking more accountability and transparency, narrow special interest groups, and even disgruntled conservatives.

A Loose Coalition Under Strain

While the jury is still out, and a dip in support for the Democrats now does not necessarily prove a permanent loss of support or discount the possibility of a recovery, at present it seems that this grand coalition is under strain.

Ultra-liberals and narrow special interest groups are pushing for an “all or nothing” approach- they want what they want and they want it now and they are not in the mood for a compromise. These people are the water-carriers for the Democrats in terms of donations and manpower. The seniors, a narrow special interest group that is fairly large, are at odds with the ultra liberals on the issue of health care, indeed the seniors are at odds with the AARP which continues to stand by the Democrats in a partisan fashion, despite their claims that they are non-partisan.

The promised accountability and transparency is not materializing, in fact those who felt that George Bush and the Republicans lacked in these areas are seeing similar secrecy and obfuscation by the new power holders: “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” seems to be the mantra. The largest decrease in support for the President is amongst so-called moderates and independents.

The Democrats who ran as conservatives have proven to be staunch partisan supporters of an agenda that can only be seen as ultra liberal. Virginia’s Jim Webb is a great example: he claimed to be a Reaganite and a conservative, but he played a key role in supporting Harry Reid when Reid was keeping the Senate “in session” officially, even during recesses, to prevent President Bush from making appointments. The so-called “blue dogs” have been reliable allies to Nancy Pelosi and only on the health care issue have they given any push-back, albeit often making a big show of opposition but then caving in quickly as soon as they are pressured by Party leaders.

If this all continues it could result in such a loss of support for Democrats that the Republicans could, by default, and certainly not by merit, regain a lot of lost ground or even regain a majority in the House and the ability of filibuster in the Senate.

Marginalizing Conservatives- Obama and his supporters tell Conservatives, “It’s all your fault, shut up and get out of the way/”

One of the themes I often see on comments in blogs and articles is this idea that conservatives are somehow responsible for all of our present problems and therefore have no right to be vocally opposing the President and the Democrats: the attitude seems to be “we won, you lost, so get out of the way and shut up.” The President actually said this, blaming all of the present problems on what “conservatives” did for the last 8 years, saying that he and his party were elected to “clean up the mess” that conservatives caused, and saying conservatives need to “get out of the way” and “not do any talking.”

This kind of attitude is fallacious. Those who consider themselves to be conservatives, over 40% of the population, and those moderates who often ally with them, generally more fiscally conservative independents, should not be lumped in with the Republicans as if the two entities were synonymous. The idea that the people who voted for Republicans in the hope of having limited government, lower taxes, and a more traditional view of social and cultural issues are responsible for the failure of the Republican Party, overall, to actually pursue such policies is an insult to people who have already been greatly insulted.

Consider this: people who wanted limited government, lower taxes, free market policies, pro-life policies, more conservatives social policies, free trade that is FAIR, more power for individuals and States, and the like watched in outrage as the Republicans, whom they gave their time, money, and votes to betrayed those values and acted a lot like the Democrats who they had unseated. As somehow who is called a “conservative” I am not responsible for what the Republicans failed to do, nor for the fact that on balance the Republicans have tended to sound-bite “conservative” and to govern more to the center-left than to the center-right.

The opposition to such policies as increasing the size of government and of deficit spending have been opposed by conservatives consistently- conservatives were no more happy with deficits under Reagan or any of the Bushes than they were with Clinton or the Bushes. Conservatives were happy when the Republican Congress and the President Clinton agreed to a plan that eliminated deficit spending. Conservatives were not happy with the Bush=Kennedy “No Child Left Behind” scheme that increased Federal powers over education, a scheme that would not have passed but for liberal support, nor for the Medicaid prescription program, again something that was not possible without liberal support. Conservatives opposed McCaine’s assault on the first amendment via “campaign finance reform” and the Bush-McCain-Liberal “immigration reform” and were outraged when the party they supported called them viscous names, like “racist”, over this issue. Note to pro-illegal immigration advocates: I am for more liberalization of our immigration policies, but for absolute control over who comes across our borders as a matter of common sense security and I see the so-called “browning of America” as a POSITIVE because the IDEALS that made America great will work for us no matter how well tanned or naturally tanned we may be.

Conservatives rebelled over all the pork spending and the imperious attitudes of the people they elected, and whenever a “conservative” politician acted in ways that were seen as unethical or immoral Conservatives did not hesitate to throw them out at the first opportunity, even if that meant a Democrat won.

Conservatives spoke out against the way the Iraq war was being run and were not happy to see Americans being used to “spread democracy” in a policy that was tying our hands- we wanted an exit strategy, not a retreat and certainly not an open-ended commitment.

Conservatives opposed the very notion of a “war on terror” that had no defined end and were outraged when those who were supposed to be their “leaders” actually talked about an endless war that would last for 50 years! I wrote about this in 2001 right after 911 and said that we needed a formal declaration of war against Al Queda and all those nations that supported Al Queda and that we needed a definite end-goal instead of some nebulous “war on a means of warfare” (e.g. “terrorism?).

The problem was, and is, that rank and file conservatives do not have the microphone: they don’t get covered by the media and within the Republican Party the preponderance of power remains in the hands of people who can at best be described as “semi-conservatives” or party people who think all that matters is how many people get elected with an “R” behind their name.

The Majority of Americans Lean Conservative On ISSUES and Values-

Are Americans actually, as even some GOP members, including Pennsylvania’s Republican Party chair, opposed to the GOP because it is “too conservative”, especially on “social issues”?  The fact is, the news media goes on attack node if you run on conservative social issues, but this is not line with views of most rank and file Americans.

On many issue what people call “conservative” values or beliefs are actually shared by MOST Americans-

1. Over 50% of Americans describe themselves as “pro-life”

2. Over 60% of Americans think lowering taxes is the best way to solve our economic woes

3. Over 70% of Americans OPPOSE so-called “gay marriage”

4. Over 70% of Americans think the Government has TOO MUCH power

I could go on.

The problem for the majority of Americans who, whatever they call themselves, tend to support mostly conservative ideals and values is that neither of the parties faithfully represents them. Some are drawn to the Democrats for more narrow self-interests, as with Seniors who tend to think the Democrats will dole out more benefits to them or women who think that Democrats will fight more for “women’s issues”. Some think the Republicans will enact laws of policies that codify their conservative values and make them a national standard, even against the wishes of local communities that may lean against such values.

Democrats Focus On Benefits, The Republicans Focus On Ideas, NEITHER Delivers On Its Promises

The election strategy of the two parties is different, on one hand Democrats promise benefits and on the other hand Republicans talk about ideas and values, but in the end neither party can deliver on its promises. It is true that Democrats try at times to offer ideals and values and that Republicans try to offer benefits, but overall Democrats have a benefits-based approach and Republicans have a values-based approach which neither can live up to: consider, for instance, how Sanford, a family values “leader”, treated his wife?

The overall focus of the Democratic coalition is “benefits” to each group rather than broad ideas or principles: the top leadership of Democrats do have broad ideas, e.g. secular-humanism and socialism through social engineering, but these ideas are so much at variance with most Americans that Democrats cannot and will not admit to “owning” them. It is not true that being a secularist or a socialist makes you evil, but to be a secularist or a socialist and yet try to conceal that is simply dishonest- it may very well be that some communities would willingly embrace such ideas given the freedom of action to do so, but to pursue these ideas and NOT honestly admit that you are doing so is contemptible.

The Republicans speak in terms of ideas and values, rather than benefits, although a growing chorus of Republicans are proposing that they switch to a “benefits” mode, but in point of fact the Republican Party overall does not faithfully pursue those ideas and values: they use these values and catch words like “family values” to galvanize support but they govern more or less in the interest of parochial interests, including industries favorable to them, the blue-blood elites who own them, or simply for the sake of being in office. The amount of “families values” Republicans who have treated their own families very poorly is staggering- I remain appalled at Newt Gingrich’s treatment of his previous wife and Sanford makes me positively LIVID. Neither of these men represent me or my commitment to true family values, which are rooted in loyalty, love, honor, respect, and self-sacrifice not just “social issues” that can be used to garner votes.

At present, the Democrats are providing good proof that they cannot give all the promised benefits to all the separate groups in their coalition and that their ideas and values are not in harmony with that of most Americans- most Americans want less government, not MORE government “regulation” and interference in their healthcare, they want more accountability and transparency rather than a White House that asks citizens to “flag” them when other citizens say things the White House does not like, and they want a return to American exceptionalism not a President who constantly apologizes to foreigners for “sins” America has not committed.

It is true that there are issues with health insurance, for instance a lack of competition due to the present system where we cannot buy health care across state lines, we cannot have prices explained to us by health care providers, and for the most part we have to go through whatever plans are chosen by our employers instead of choosing for ourselves from all available plans. Unfortunately, as many are discovering, none of the present plans being proposed by the Democrats address these issues: they ignore the root cause of lack of competition and then seek to ameliorate the ill effects with government spending and other measures of centralized planning that are supposed to somehow reduce costs.

Evidently, many Americans are not buying this and as a result the Democrats are facing a backlash of angry protestors and a potential fracturing of their base. This may indeed bode well for the Republicans, after all, it would seem, the Republican Party is really the only other game in town. If you don’t vote for a Democrat then you have to vote for a Republican, but if you vote for a Republican will they actually be any better than the Democrat you voted out?

This is Ping Pong Politics, we keep going back and forth, voting for a Democrat, then a Republican, and the cycle is always the same- overall the core ideals and values that most Americans hold on most of the issues are undermined NO MATTER WHO WINS the election!

First, Identify The REAL Problem, and Admit That You Have A Problem

If the problem is was merely that, collectively, the Democrats and the Republicans fail to deliver on their promises of benefits and of fidelity to the ideas and values of the People they represent then perhaps a national level solution would be possible, but this is not the real problem and therefore a solution to this problem on a national scale is not feasible or possible. The effects of the real problem may be national, but the real problem is LOCAL.

That’s right, I did not write that wrong, the real problem is local.

Let me explain this to you in more detail.

The problem is that the power of individuals over their own lives and what happens in their immediate vicinity in their family, their private associations or enterprises, and their immediate local community, is fading fast: it is now an “open secret” that elections are ineffective as a means of influencing public policy and that unelected entities, including unions, agencies, and special interest groups, control public policy no matter WHO gets elected to office. To repeat myself- the problem is LOCAL.

We have to be honest with ourselves and ask: what is more important, that we get benefits as some seek or that we see our favored ideas become national standards of conduct as some seek OR that we restore and maintain a STRUCTURAL limitation on how much real power any group or individual can exercise, leaving individuals, private groups, and local communities as much freedom to govern themselves as is feasible?

Whether you want benefits or ideals, or even both, you have to ask if you, small groups of like-minded people working together privately, or a gathering of local citizens acting consensually are more trustworthy and capable than some large scale entity you can’t control or some “elected” politician who has made a career out of, basically, LYING?

Those who really believe that, regardless of the benefits they want or the ideas and values they believe are best for society, the power to decide what benefits or ideas should be pursued belongs in the hands of individuals, private groups, and local communities PRIMARILY are “populists”. A true Populist thinks that individuals, private groups, and local communities run directly by the consent of the People have the most wisdom and are the supreme authority.

Some might propose that we need a third party that will return power to individuals and local communities. This has not worked: the structure of our politics is such that there will always be only two major parties, which is why third parties have not been successful.

I would propose a much more localist approach and a strong realization amongst average citizens that “Democrats” or “Republicans” are not the problem and, therefore, a win by either of them cannot really be the solution.

Understanding The Problem and The Solution

The problem is that we allowed a massive-scale, nationally centralized power structure to evolve. We went from a nation of what Thomas Jefferson called “ward republics” (local communities where individuals, churches, private entities, and a face-to-face Town Meeting held sway over almost every aspect of life, with individuals and families being the largest sphere of authority over their own lives) to a nation where over 40% of our economy and over 30% of our land are controlled by State or Federal Government and where wealth is concentrated in few hands so that less than 5% of all Americans who reach age 65 will be financially self-sufficient.

This power structure includes those individuals and those institutions that support it, derive benefits from it, and perpetuate its power, including career politicians, special interest groups, the SEIU which is nothing more than an organized mob of entrenched federal and state “workers” who seek big government for the sake of job security, the Federal Reserve and the entire financial system including Wall Street’s billionaire fat cats, the education establishment, particularly the NEA and those “tenured” professors in the University system, Hollywood’s unions and studio executives, the owners and executives of the “news” media which are completely at the beck and call of, and who come out of, these organizations, and top leaders of BOTH of the major political parties.

Taken together this elitist system has reduced most States to mere Provinces and YOUR local community to a mere “colony” which has NO real local government over anything of any significance.

The problem is, to repeat, the Elitist power structure itself: not merely the Federal Government but the whole apparatus of this system which includes State Governments that act as its obedient servants and NEVER effectively stand up to it. Those who are focused on “States Rights” need to ask whether those same States allow for maximum private and local autonomy because you cannot protest against a loss of your authority if, on the other hand, you are not respecting the authority of individuals, private entities, or local communities.

If the problem is too much power over economics, information, education, culture, business, and politics by too few people, those who profit from and run the entire apparatus of Elitists, from State government employees in the SEIU to Hollywood elitists who control culture, and the Party apparatus, then the solution is to increase power at the lowest possible levels, the level of individuals, the family, private enterprises and associations, and local communities.

A Path of Peaceful Civic Disobedience

Elitists will NOT give up their collective powers, those who are part of the Elitist machine may fight amongst themselves in internal, factional disputes, but unless individuals and local groups act on their own to exercise their inherent rights and authority Elitism and Elitists will never be stopped by mere “elections.”

There must be a unilateralist Populist resistance at the local level which is to the Elitist power structure what the American Patriots were to the British Crown. The idea that a politician who is elected to State or National Office will be able, or willing, to strip Elitists, from the State level up, of their immense power over our lives is absurd and childish.

Local governments and private associations are going to have to decide whether or not they own their own inherent right to Popular self-government or whether they will let such entities as the SEIU, the NEA, and State of Federal agencies dictate to them what is best or desirable for their local people, their needs, and their interests. Local school boards will have to fire the NEA, local governments will likewise have to fire the SEIU, and local people will have to be willing to stand up and tell ALL elected officials: we will not tolerate any outside intervention in our internal affairs, Popular self-government is superior both in inherent authority and in long-term efficiency to Elitist rules, policies, or what have.

We do not SERVE the NEA or the SEIU, we do not SERVE the EEOC or the IRS, we do not SERVE the EPA or the State or Federal Education departments: they do not have any justification to interfere in local affairs when we choose to exercise our rights to Popular self-government.

We have to decide whether a Popular consensus of local citizens, who OWN the community, have more power than these Elitist-run entities. We have to decide whether our local communities will continue to act as mere colonies serving the crown unconditionally or free Popular, democratic republics limited only by basic, common sense respect for human dignity and human rights.

The power to make this choice transcends all other powers anybody else might claim to have, it comes before and over-rides every corporation, organization, court, legislature, treaty, or what have you that might oppose it or seek to prevent it from being exercised. You cannot outlaw freedom, you cannot outlaw the consent of the people in their communities, you cannot VETO the sentiment or wishes of the people who OWN their local communities as citizens and electors, in whose hands SUPREME legislative, judicial, and executive authority rests.

We have to decide whether we own our communities, and our lives, or whether we will let others have power OVER US. Quite simply, LOCAL “civic disobedience” in a peaceful exercise of our own inherent powers as the OWNERS of our own communities is the only real chance we have to actually stop and reverse Elitists in their constant power grabs over our lives.

What Is Needed Is Not Likely To Occur

At present, the likelihood that people will actually stand up and exercise their inherent right to local, Popular self-government as citizens who OWN their local community is slim to nil.

The American people are upset at the Elitists, but they haven’t recognized how inter-connected the Elitists are; some don’t like the Democrats, some don’t like the Republicans, some don’t like the SEIU, some don’t like the NEA, some don’t like the national “news” media, and etc. but FEW can see clearly that all of these seemingly separate power-groups are part of a whole Elitist system based on the Elitist notion of the supremacy of the few over the lives and property of the many.

Whether due to social conditioning, narrow self-interest, or lack of education as to the history of freedom in the world and in America, most people most of the time will not be able to see that the real battle is not over which party has more seats but, rather, over who gets to decide what happens in YOUR community.

Very few have the intellectual honesty, the historical knowledge, AND also the personal courage to see that the real question is this: whether some “union” or “agency” will RULE our lives or the local people working individually, privately, or consensually as a community will determine such things as how to care for the needy, what kind of health care they want, how to pay for roads, what will be taught in their schools, what constitutes marriage, and etc.

I will say it, knowing that I am probably NOT going to be listened to: The battle is not between “States” and the Federal Government, it is not between “Democrats” and “Republicans”, and it is not between this or that interest group. The battle now is exactly what it was in 1776- it is a battle to decide whether the individual citizen will have maximum DIRECT control over what happens in their community or whether, at best, they have only LIMITED and indirect influence over powers that generally are not accountable to them and whose interest are not identical with their own. It is a battle between Populism and Elitism!

It may very well be that if the Democrats keep doing things as they have been doing them (especially by dismissing all opposition on the basis that the people who oppose Democratic Party Elitists on the same grounds they opposed Republican Party Elitists are responsible for what the Elitist Republicans did while in power) that the Republicans will possibly return to power.

A Republican win may, perhaps, slow down the march toward Elitist Neo-Totalitarianism but electing Republicans without tackling the deeper issue of Popular self-government at the local level over and against the Elitists from the NEA, the SEIU, State and Federal “Agencies”, national news media quasi-monopolies, and special interest groups will result in more of the same- Ping Pong Politics that can only culminate with a near 100% control over every aspect of your life by Elitists.

While it is probable that you will NOT “get it”, the simple truth is that you really only have two choices: the path of Ping Pong Politics which leads to Elitist Neo-Totalitarianism or the path of Popular self-government at the local level, which leads to more personal Independency.

Buzz this!