Sometimes, I begin to understand why people don't seek to learn too much about the way the world works.

We have certain subjects we are comfortable talking about and arguing about.  We debate tax policy or zoning codes, and stick to areas where we can disagree comfortably.  The media has its limits, looking at crimes and small thefts, but not examining bigger issues.

There is a widespread assumption the battle in American politics is between the big business policies of the right versus the big government policies of the left.  While this might be occasionally true, what if the greater truth is big business and big government are comfortably working with one another, and the real loser is the people.

Who represents us amidst a sea of money and profits in the billions.  I wonder, but I already know the answer.  I think many others do also, but we don't want to believe these things so we pretend.  But the truth is still true.
 
 
I believe the "Tea Party" movement will diminish far more quickly than most people anticipate.  It does not make me happy to see this happen, but the decisions and conflicts that are happening today make me think that it is inevitable.

The basic concept in all marketing is that you want your product or service to appeal to the largest number of possible consumers.  When it was first introduced last year, the "Tea Party" represented a fresh movement for citizen protest, that was not explicitly linked to any one party or ideology, and that recognized that Bush as much as Obama were just as responsible for the growth of a rapidly expanding state.  There were Democrats, Republicans, and Independents motivated and hopeful.  This is rapidly changing.

With the Democratic Party controlling the government, their more liberal wing is in ascendancy and has been pushing with surprising force and speed to expand the role of government.  Despite loud and vociferous protests, they have continued forward and are now actively pursuing a strategy of division, where they seem willing to stand and fight for their beliefs.

In contrast, the Republican Party has made extensive overtures to the "Tea Party" movement after the drubbing they took in 2008.  With the Democrats offering no alternative that would be acceptable to these voters, the nature of our system is such that the small government voters are coming en masse into the GOP, despite many having reservations.  Promises are being made, but will they be kept?  I tend to think not, but more on that later.

Recognizing their problem, that they lack the infrastructure to compete with the forces of the conventional left, the Republicans are trying to co-opt the "Tea Party" into their ranks.  Through funding, name recognition, and the selective use of media, I believe they are succeeding.  I've watched over the last few months how a message of liberty and limited government is being subtly expanded to seem more like the GOP platform, with values and military flexing being added.  There is, perhaps, a new coalition forming in this, as both the GOP and "Tea Party" will be changed by their encounter, but it strikes me as a bad marriage for both political reasons and practical ones.

As stated at the beginning, the real value of the "Tea Party" was that it was perceived as independent.  It meant people had a reason to listen.  If the GOP provided that, there would not have been the need for this movement.  Now that the "Tea Party" is quickly becoming "Teabaggers" in the eyes of much of the public, unfortunately defined by the most extreme elements, their efficacy will decline and politicians will keep them at arm's length.  Being loved in a primary, neglected in the general, and forgotten once elected will not endear these voters to the politicians who are now pandering to the "Tea Party" movement.

For their part, I think the Republicans will find the voters whom they assume are their new groundswell of support will not stay behind them.  Should they succeed in 2010, there will be high expectations that will not be met because of the divided nature of government, the corrupting influence of money, and the impracticality of seeking so much reform at once.  It won't happen.  But the politicians are raising such expectations with campaign rhetoric, as I watch repeatedly, and should a few be fortunate enough to get elected, I wonder whether the amount needed for re-election will be enough of a draw to encourage those first compromises.

Contrary to popular belief, politicians are not usually bad people.  They are, however, often vain, and rarely like to lose.  The rationale becomes that I make one deal so that I can fight for another day.  That is why many successful politicians position themselves as reasonable and moderate (especially in fairly drawn districts), because they can shift to reach the largest number of voters.  I am betting most of the conservative constitutionalists will soon discover this fact for themselves to the lament of their current supporters.

You can see some fault lines emerge where the movement and politicians will part ways.  But between the expectations of ideological purity from the base, and the pramgatic calculations of the politicians, hearts will be broken on both sides.  If you're still not convinced, look at some of the issues.  The values stand that the GOP is bringing to the "Tea Party" means government regulation about how to live, anathema to liberty.  Or, look at the aggressive foreign policy posturing:  How can you spend indefinitely in wars without bankrupting a budget?  I could go on, but I don't think I need to do so.

Desperation over the successes of the Obama Administration have forced this alliance and I suspect it will hold through the 2010 elections to good benefit in many places.  Electoral success is a priority of most "Tea Party" groups, and you see the leadership of these movements becoming GOP leaders like Dick Armey through FreedomWorks and other similar organizations.  It is true that the movement has no leader, but that is because no one had the money or media savvy to make it so.  As that changes, so changes the movement, the identification, and the grassroots nature.  The Republican Party will gain new infrastructure from this and will change somewhat, but I don't think it will be anything other than an elephant with makeup in the end.

In 1994, promises were made by a starry eyed Republican Congress.  By 2006, judge for yourself the successes of their accomplishments.  Republicans, conservatives, limited government, Contracts with America, and promises of a smaller state.  What happened?  Why did it happen?  Would it happen again the same way?

If you read here often enough, you know that I think it will, and you know why I think that.  The nature of the two-party system, how it selects winners and bend lines, and how it is funded makes this inevitable.  It's winning politics, and losing government.  In the "Tea Party", there was hope for change based on principle first, but as winning becomes more important to those frustated, the future loss will be twofold:  loss on principle, lost in a party.

I've never been happier to be an independent, but as a fan of liberty, localized government, and sanity, I sometimes feel that it is a very lonely place to be.  I hope more of you will join me there.
 
 
While everyone has been understandably focused on the upcoming health bill, that at this time is scheduled to be voted upon on Sunday, I've seen lots of interesting arguments made.  I have a pretty fair understanding of those who support it and those who oppose it, but I haven't read many political analyses of the consequences for the Congressmen voting on the bill.

For Republicans, it is a very simple calculation to vote "no" in accordance with the desire to stand opposed to the President, the congressional majority, and in agreement with the wishes of most party members, the strongest conservative movements, tea party independents, and others.

For Democrats, from a purely political perspective, I think it makes more sense to pass the bill.  For better or worse, they've chosen this as the ground where they are going to fight and 2010 will be a referendum on the health care legislation.  It has become immaterial whether the bill passes or not that this will be the issue (failing some unforeseen complication like a major terrorist attack) of voting preference.  If the bill is not passed, the conservative base will be energized, and the liberal and progressive constituencies that back most Democrats will be demoralized.  Conversely, if the bill passes, the majority of Democrats will at least have an issue on which they can mobilize their own network of support agencies.

If it passes, this will be a big part of the reason why.  Having decided health care is the issue, they cannot invest a year on the subject without some results.  An imperfect result still allows them to claim a major victory according to their rhetoric.  Every poll suggests that there will be a price to pay in November for this, but that is now true in any event.  With a passed bill, the Democrats' own troops will rally more, and it is easier to defend action than intention alone.

This is the logic of politics, which will satisfy no one wanting to discuss the bill on the merits.  I wish more people did just that, wish that Congress didn't grease up bills for passage, and I am glad to people are getting to see in detail, in this debate, how bills are made to pass.  But I also know what happens with too much wishful thinking.

I respect protests and the right to do so immensely, but I have noticed one thing.  If the people you protest against know you aren't voting for them, that you were actively opposing them from the beginning, and that you will soon be against them, it is hard to persuade them.  The money might be better spent on lawyers and campaigns than how it has been thus far.  Just my thoughts.
 
 
One of the privileges of having been involved in grassroots politics for an extended period of time is that I get invited to see many things that happen behind the scenes.  Not everything, of course, but enough to understand how people think and what motivates them.  It is those things which worry me.

We live in a society replete with metaphors.  We exaggerate casually, and tend to insert drama into everything we say.  I hope that it is only this that I observe when I listen to so many people describe those whom they disagree with in such a hostile fashion.

I don't believe this a nation where we are truly at war with one another, where a neighbor who views things differently is an enemy, where a party that acts in opposition is traitorous, or that people are that awful.  As much as anyone, I believe there are systemic problems that may very well destroy our economy and our way of life, if not corrected.  But I don't think that we, the people, are each other's enemies.

I have many friends who are committed and passionate Democrats.  I have more friends who are Republicans with the same vigor.  They can all be good people, who disagree, and who look for different solutions to problems.  I find that they all are willing to listen to me because I treat them seriously and with respect.  I make my arguments for limited government and personal liberties, and they know what I believe trumps who I associate with, and we value each other.

I do a lot of work with the Tea Party movement, but if they think that change will come by castigating that very large of percentage of Americans who disagree with them as enemies, then they are fools.  If you accept that you cannot persuade someone your ideas are correct when reason is on your side, then you cannot believe in self-governance for people because you are admitting that people can't make those judgments.  It is arrogant, it is divisive, and even in success, it will spring a failure far worse and more radical than what it seeks to remove.

The left is no better, and their current attempts to ram through policies they know that most people don't support only ups the ante in a turf war that keeps growing.  New institutions, allies, spending, and manipulation.  We make new political classes that lack the civility of the parties, and simply seek to force their ends.  Is persuasion truly dead and impossible?  I know so many who think so, and I sometimes feel like one of the last voices of reason.

I am so happy to be an independent because I stopped playing that game.  I am going to say what I think, what I support, and dump the labels.  What does being a conservative mean anyway when one person is a constitutionalist believing in truly limited government, one person wanting a protective theocracy, and yet another a free market extravaganza.  Useless, misleading, and even if most people think they like the term, who can truly tell me what it means?

I imagine, to some, I probably come off sounding like an apologist.  I'm not.  I'm a realist.  I know that for most people, politics is just looking at issues that affect their lives and looking for solutions.  That is the conversation I'm having with people, and I hope we find our future there together.
 
 
One fun thing about being an independent is getting to call things as I see them.

For those who have been following political news, you'll know that CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) was held today.  To the surprise of many there, none other than Ron Paul won the straw poll.  His congratulations:  a smattering of boos.

Here's what I don't understand, and one of the biggest reasons why I'm glad not to be a Republican anymore.  How can you claim to be a conservative, that believes in limited government, and then argue that government should regulate how we choose to live our lives and that we should dictate to others how they should live not just here, but also in other nations?  Anyone who has spent more than ten minutes studying the history of the places on Earth of which we are most frightened cannot help but discover our long and nefarious involvement there.

It is this hypocrisy that makes honest people sick.  If you want government to be big where you want it, and small where you don't, you might as well call yourself liberal because the philosophy is the same.  And to those who would call this moral relativism, that is only true if you believe that group identities should be given higher priority than those of individuals.  The founders didn't believe that, and more people are waking up to realize that.

Wait until the next election cycle.  It is no accident that more Americans are becoming independent each day, and when the Republican Party fails to follow the mandate that exists, to get big government out of Washington, then it will be the true victim.  The Democrats, current unpopularity aside, will survive because they know what they believe in:  government designed to solve social problems.

If you are a conservative, by your own definition, then I ask this:  What do you believe the purpose of government should be, and who believes as you do?
 
 
Last night, I was at a meeting with a number of progressives.  Unlike many of the people whom I know, I try to actively consider viewpoints that run counter to my own, and am proud to have friends who disagree vigorously with me.  Debate and discussion is such an important part of the political process, and though I usually find myself arguing, I find myself learning more for the conversations that I have.

What I am learning that for as much dissatisfaction as exists on the right, the left is equally displeased with how things are going in Washington.  I talked to people who were angry about a President who ran a campaign promising transparency, ending a war, and helping the economy, and who saw either no results or outright lies.  They were angry, and much as conservatives felt betrayed by some Republicans, they were progressives who felt betrayed by the Democrats.

It leads me to wonder who represents the people.  It has almost become such that the political class just represents itself and the donors who perpetuate their success.  While money has always bought influence, it is hard to find any time where it was so blatant, unapologetic, and cynical as today.  We need reform.

Whatever your views, we need people to step up who are not part of the process.  I believe this can only succeed if we begin taking power back for ourselves as citizens.  Huge government allows for huge corruption, and whether you believe the state should be larger or smaller, I think everyone can agree that when politicians have to actually face and know their constituents, they will be held more accountable.

Decentralization of power is becoming ever more important in my mind, and I'm determined to help wherever I can to make this happen.
 
 
The bills that are floating in the House and Senate for health care reform are absolutely terrible.  More terrible still is that I can say this without even saying the first thing about health care.

Whether you believe health care is a right or not, whether you believe government should or should not provide a solution, the process alone should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in financially sound, well rooted reform for the future.  The passage of this bill has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the ideas (which we know must be true because no time has been given for reading of any section of the legislation), but it is a desperate attempt to simply pass something.

That bribes are casually being bandied about to ensure passage is nothing but the most disgusting of legislative politics as usual.  I hope the good people of Nebraska, Louisiana, Connecticut, and those other states where Senators basically have managed to include several hundred millions of kickback dollars will be remembered for such when their respective terms end.  Health reform is too serious an issue to be bought in this way, to be bungled with a bad bill, and to be nothing to everyone.

Were I a liberal, I would ask how this bill provides for public health care for everyone: it doesn't.  I would ask how it protects a woman's right of choice: it doesn't.  I would ask this and more, but people on the left already are and we see unions and other prominent left sympathetic constituencies lining against final passage.

Were I a conservative, I would ask how this bill will be paid for: no one know.  I would ask how it will save costs: that doesn't matter.  I would ask this and more but expect nothing but attacks and threats.  I already know how many have lined up on the right to defeat this, but they are silenced by the majority.

But my question is this:  if there is a bill that so many people oppose on so many reasons, and that seems to be capable of passage only with such blatant bribery, why should it be passed it all?  A good bill, which addresses the serious issues of health care reform, should have been written deliberately with concerns for both the costs of the program, the needs of those not served, and mindful of the fact that millions of Americans who do have health care do not want and cannot afford to see their services lessened or made more expensive by government intervention.

I think there was a majority, on both sides, who could have come together on that basis, to build something better and lasting.  But that is not this bill, and the legacy of this Congress will be that it chose to go it alone, ignoring the will of the people, and butchering the chance for better health care reform.

2010 is coming.  Remember.
 
 
I left the Republican Party.  I actually made the decision on my birthday, but I have been waiting for a few days to talk about why I have done this, and to better know how I feel about it.  Indulge me as I tell a story which might be a little long, but that I want to share.

One of the great blessings in my life are the many interesting conversations that I have with people on a regular basis.  I am not someone who chooses my friendships based on ideology, though I know many people who are of a certain mindset.  Through those discussions, I've learned that the things that bind us are far greater than those that separate us once we go beyond the labels.

Those who know me best would tell you that I am a person who is driven by ideas, and by helping others.  As I illustrate through this blog and the many other things I do, there is a constant battle to find the ground where the ideal and possible intersect, and that is where I stand.  After many weeks of thought, I realize where I wanted to be was no longer where I had been.

I became a Republican shortly after leaving college because I was disaffected with the way government operated.  Through firsthand knowledge, I know the inefficiency of bureaucracies, and why big government is a bad idea.  I joined the GOP hopeful that it would be a better approach, and respect the idea that freedom is better than security.

My experience has been mixed, and that surprised me.  I found people who would support having freedom for business, allowing money to be made in whatever way best possible, but that would seek to restrict how individuals would live their personal life.  It struck me as a calculating sort of path that neglected what I thought should be the guiding principle:  liberty.  Free people, left alone, do great things.

I know there are many who share my same frustrations, both with a vision that is too narrow, and with a national party who doesn't follow that.  The Bush Administration grew government faster than any other prior to our current Presidency, encouraging a massive bailout to the worst offenders in clear contradiction of any reasonable capitalist view, and that same party seems destined to me to miss the point of what is happening here.

It is one of those commonly said things that we live in a two-party state and that is simply how it will be.  Maybe that it is true, but it shouldn't be.  We alternate between elections between increasingly radicalized liberal and conservative camps where the very stability of our state comes into question with each new election cycle.  Massive changes happen, and government piles atop government.  We refuse to talk to one another as we bunker down with our camp, and say we are right.

I don't know if I'm right.  I know I have important ideas though, and I want to talk to people who both agree with me and disagree with me.  I think I can convince others, but I am not coming with any label that I do not choose for myself.  I am coming with ideas that are both very old, and always new.  I want people to talk to one another, to choose for themselves, and to take power back.

The parties are corrupt, just as the process is corrupt.  The whole thing is so inundated with money that it would be a miracle for any citizen to find justice and fair representation.  I don't think you can fix that from the inside.  I respect those who work hard with the duct tape trying to make things better.  They are my friends and I will support them, but it is not the path that I choose to take.

You know, when I made the decision to become an independent, the thing that surprised me was how easy it became for me to laugh again.  When you're in a party, you adopt this mindset of defending your own, and sometimes you find the words coming from your mouth don't always match the ideas in your head.  You do what you think is necessary, as you try to defend your position, not allowing the other side to take what you have.

Not me.  I will walk back and forth, crazy though some will call it, and see if I can't talk common sense.  Some will listen, some will not.  I will support people who have good ideas, and oppose those who do not.  But, I will not do so because a group believes this, or I need votes from that.  That is what got us in this trouble, and it isn't what will get us out.

To my dear Republican friends, understand this:  Even if the best scenario, even if the best candidates controlled and represented the Republicans at every level of government, and even if there was no corruption, we would still only have half a nation.  In my county, we would represent only a quarter of the voters, and we cannot build something to last with that.  Us vs. them has to end if we are to reduce government.  My time is worth more to me than that, and so I begin to think differently.

Just because it is unlikely to succeed, as the pragmatist in me knows all too well, doesn't mean I am wrong.  I can live with that, and I feel renewed.
 
 
"He who does not remember his past is doomed to repeat it" said Santayana, and I find myself thinking that is happening again.

In 2007, we collected thousands of people across the nation in support of a candidate whose sole driving focus was the Constitution.  Although it was a campaign that was unprofessional in many ways, and fraught with what others would consider devastating political errors, the Ron Paul Campaign for President attracted more money and more new supporters into the political process than anyone, including those involved with it, ever dreamed possible.  It also failed to achieve its goals in the end, and now we can look at why this was.

I wrote a 180 page book about the campaign that I had once posted elsewhere, but it has taken me a few years of reflection to realize the problem.  If you're going to challenge the system, you need to understand all the obstacles to entry that serve to make it impossible for truly limited government views to succeed.  Government is just one part of this, even if it is the central location.  The parties themselves, through the funding process, serve the same purpose.

Operatives I respect tell me that you need to raise several million dollars just to compete for any Federal office.  Assuming the people who want to run for these positions are not selfless millionaires already (a rare breed), what trades do you think must be made to get this money?  Do you think that millions are given just to reduce government?  Or, alternatively, do you think those giving such large amounts expect some sort of return in Federal funding?  A project for the district?  Pork and influence?

Maybe it is the way it must be.  But, I choose not to believe that.  The grassroots is coming to a moment of reckoning where it must either pick the path that it has tread before, trying to work within a party for change, or find some new outlet for expression.

In 2007, I remember advocating that we work within the party.  We had hundreds of members, a shown willingness to donate both time and money, and a desire to effectuate change more conservative than any Republican could dream.  We were laughed at, dismissed, and those who got involved either ended up leaving in disgust or simply gave in with the hope of accomplishing anything.

People don't understand that joining a party is like joining the military.  If you become a committeeperson, your responsibility and your commitment is to helping whomever the party decides is the person, putting your interests behind theirs for the perceived greater good.  Candidates and officeholders ignore this freely, but party people cannot and find themselves in an increasingly awkward position.  What do you do when your party calls on you to support someone who isn't bad, but who stands for something you would simply not consider supporting?  Do you give that up?

We all make compromises, but how far can you go before you lose what motivated you in the first place?  How many of us know people in either party who simply have winning as their justification, where the initial causes that motivated them have long since vanished in the strict demand of expediency?  Do you think people will continue to follow you, the same people who acted on principle, when you have to make these arguments?

It is not for me to say what any person does for themselves, but I've learned a lesson.  I know what I believe, I know what I have to support, what I cannot compromise, and that the only way I can feel like I am saying what makes all the time and effort worth it to me is to remain true to my beliefs at all times.  I cannot make that compromise anymore, and I won't.  For my friends who find themselves in a similar position, I ask that you think what you would do for yourselves.

I don't have a perfect answer or alternative.  There isn't one.  But I know that you can't get to the right place if you're heading in the wrong direction.
 
 
I am often amused by irony.  For as much as people who are on the political right like to complain about learned helplessness and dependency on systems as things that people should overcome, their attitude when it comes to facing the truth about political parties can be downright sheepish.

It is one thing for a person to stand loyally by a party that they feel accurately represents the vast majority of their views.  I get that.  But, to argue that one needs to remain with a party because the primary motivation is fear of what might succeed should the inadequate party fail in its efforts strikes me as a sorry way to be involved in politics.  I know I am not the only one who finds the idea of defensive voting loathsome.

We live in a republic where we can vote.  We, through no force greater than ourselves, have the ability to remove and replace any official we choose through voting.  We choose who is and is not viable.  We can ignore the media, and we can ignore the parties.  We can remember that America was not built by people who said what was sensible, but rather by people who said what was just.

If your goal is to slow the expansion of government, then that is all you can hope to succeed in achieving.  But if your goal is to create something different, then you must realize that you will have to think and act differently.  You need to aspire to more and ask yourself, what do you want?

I ask myself these questions too.  I am willing to lose for what is right rather than win for what is wrong.  But, I will not be silent, and I think neither should any of you.