The road to Damascus: Sue Lowden, Danny Tarkanian, Sharron Angle
I smell a genuine revolution brewing in Nevada. Ron Paulites, take notes.
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." -Joseph Sobran
After reading an article out of the Las Vegas Sun, it became self-evident to me that the mainstream media is going to be the Nevada GOP's biggest opponent. I noticed that the Las Vegas Sun went out of its way to quote a Monetarist/Chicago Schooler who defended the stimulus. Boy, would I love to debate that guy. I felt compelled to respond to this article and offer a few thoughts about the race.
I wanted to preface what I am about to say by explaining where I come from politically. I started out as a loyal Republican in high school. In fact, I remember the days when my former Governor Jesse Ventura had a radio program (before he became Governor), and I used to call into his show. He referred to me as "the staunch Republican." After witnessing years of misfeasance and corruption on the part of government and elected officials, my surprise quotient dipped into the negatives. With so much misfeasance and political crossdressing, it is hard to know who to trust and what to believe.
My political epiphany came with the anthrax vaccine issue. The program was inaugurated by a Democratic administration, continued by a Republican administration. The late Congressman Jack Metcalf, whom I had the pleasure to get to know before his passing, was one of the fiercest critics of the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program. He was a Republican. When you opposed the program under Clinton, you were called a "right wing conservative." But under President Bush, I was referred to as a "left wing liberal" for opposing the same exact policy!
FYI, I had to get three of the shots shortly before my EAS date (for some reason, the policy for my unit was to make us take the shots even if we were about to get out of the military). In fact, two of the shots I received after my final physical. That created a problem for service-connection, to say the least. No, I didn't get out on a medical discharge. Nicest letter of recommendation I have ever received came from my Company First Sgt. In case you are wondering exactly how I was affected, I went hypothyroid, which is unusual for males in their twenties. And that is just one of the health problems I ended up with. (BTW, here is an issue that somebody could take up.)
On one hand, having hypothyroidism is a burden. But there is one redeeming part to the cross I bear: I empathize with people. I love people, and I want what is best for my countrymen. In fact, with hypothyroidism it's almost like you become more sensitive to your surroundings. Hypothyroidism ages a person. I have a little confession to make: sometimes, when I see what is happening to our country, I cry. What animates me is my concern for everybody's future. I am almost in tears as I write this. For me, taking up economics became a catharsis. But I digress here.
I believe a robust debate amongst the GOP contenders is healthy. My guess is that whatever candidate emerges from the pack is going to be stronger. I don't believe Republicans should run to the center,.....or the right, or the left.
Several years ago, I wrote a piece in memoriam of the late Senator Paul Wellstone. In it, I pointed out that the old ideas of left and right are gone. The words center, right, and left are all relative. Center of what? Do we really need an eclectic combination of Republicans and Democrats? From what I can tell, it seems to me that both parties have triangulated in on the worst of the other's positions: interventionism abroad and home. What we need is a candidate who will carry the banner of liberty.
When I was in the Marine Corps, part of my unit got to go on a special trip to Iwo Jima. I had the once in a lifetime opportunity to go to the top of Mt. Suribachi and see the monument at the exact spot where the flag was raised almost sixty-five years ago. I can say that I have been to the mountaintop. As I reflect on that experience, I am reminded that those serving in the military don't fight and die for political parties.
Photograph taken by me in 1998
That Sue Lowden donated to Harry Reid twenty years ago is inconsequential. That Danny Tarkanian donated to Congresswoman Shelley Berkley is inconsequential. These are non-issues that shouldn't be on the table. I have another confession to make: I was close to voting for Barack Obama.
Here is a photograph of me - not looking very photogenic - shortly after my shoulder was fused - due to a military service-connected injury - with Congressman Dennis Kucinich and his wife from 2007 in Las Vegas
On some issues, I am considered to be "left wing." On other issues, I am considered to be "right wing." When it comes to a border fence, I am 100% oppposed to the idea. Somehow, that makes me "left wing." I don't believe we should be in a state of perpetual war against a tactic. Meanwhile, we seem to have completely forgotten about Osama bin Laden. I believe, like Edmund Burke articulated, it is impossible to have a government that behaves aggressively abroad and not represent a danger to liberty at home. That, too, earns me the label of "leftist." I believe habeas corpus is the bedrock of western jurisprudence. Is that a left wing idea or a right wing idea? I believe the demolition of the Fourth Amendment firewall against tyranny is incompatible with genuine conservatism. It is issues like these that need to be debated.
The problems that we are going to be facing will require more than quarrels over transitory issues such as earmarks and nominal cuts in tax rates. Earmarks shouldn't be conflated with spending, as 100% of earmarks could be abolished, but government spending still increases. There can be cuts in nominal tax rates, while the real tax burden rises.
So long as Congress's spending orgy remains intact, we will not have had an overall net tax decrease. All government spending must be paid for one way or another. Whether it is through direct taxation or inflation (i.e., creating the money), it's a tax. There is no objective difference between the government taking the money you have in your pocket and duplicating the money you have in your pocket, consequently reducing the value of your money. It is called the inflation tax. It's a stealth tax, but a tax it is. Borrow and spend, print and spend, or tax and spend - it all leads to the same place.
Right now, the Congress is running huge deficits. Some may think the way to solve this is through higher taxes. Some have argued for a nicer sounding consumption tax - lipsticking the pig. But let's not forget that producers must consume in order to sustain the process of production. (That is why investment can only come out of savings.) Thus a consumption tax is a tax on production. We do not suffer from insufficient taxation. We suffer from excessive government spending.
This means we have to make dramatic cuts in government expenditures. This also means that platitudes will be insufficient. If one favors reducing the tax burden, the question is: how do we get there without reassessing the role government ought to play in our lives? Unless we can arrive at a much lower, explicit target for the government's role in our lives, all talk about tax cuts will be meaningless.
So the question I have is: what gets cut? Politically, entitlement programs are the least feasible place to start cutting. But at the same time, the Republican establishment has removed the overseas empire from the table. It seems to me that the most politically feasible place to start cutting is on foreign aid and the overseas empire.
Understand the times we are in. There are immutable economic laws that make political realignments inevitable. We witnessed the first one in 2008. The incumbents are going to defeat themselves in 2010, and we will get another. They will continue until Washington gets it right. With economic disintegration will eventually come the disintegration of the political system itself. I smell a genuine revolution brewing in Nevada. I sense that every candidate for U.S. Senate running in the GOP primary is a part of this revolution.
I believe it is important that we bring heterogeneity to Washington. Supermajorities are dangerous. I strongly encourage everybody - Democrats, Republicans, independents - to support whatever candidate wins the GOP primary - even Sue Lowden.
I have spent some time picking on Sue. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. I can't say she would be my first choice. I believe she is being mishandled and has been off-message. I think she also blundered by having the party walkout on its own convention. But let me say something in her defense here. What I am about to say should cause concern over the state of affairs in this country.
In order to put Lowden into context, I believe we need to put the present political system into context.
I was reflecting on the case of Igor Olenicoff. Google the name, since I am sure you probably haven't heard of it before. The man has assets valued in the billions. He was born in Russia but became an American citizen. He had some of his money in a Swiss bank account. The U.S. government went after him on the pretext that he had evaded taxes. His sentence? Repatriating his money to the U.S. banking system.
Understand what the implications of this are. If the government can trap capital in, it can trap people in. In the overall picture, Lowden is stuck in this bad system as is everybody else, and she is as genuinely concerned about the direction of the country as is every other candidate. So all you Ron Paulites out there, take notes.
This is my proposal to all of the candidates for U.S. Senate: sign a pledge to support whoever wins the primary. And with that, I am now going to vaporize myself - figuratively, not literally.
Mark served honorably for four years on active duty in the Marine Corps infantry, and was a Libertarian endorsed candidate for a municipal office in 2002. He has held the NFA Series 3 license (commodity futures and futures options broker) which he did a voluntary withdrawal on so that he can trade futures for his personal account. Since the year 2000, he has spent much of his free time reading the great minds of the Austrian School of economics, such as Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, et al.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
Mark served honorably for four years on active duty in the Marine Corps infantry, and was a Libertarian endorsed candidate for a municipal office in 2002. He has held the NFA Series 3 license (commodity futures and futures options broker) which he did a voluntary withdrawal on so that he can trade futures for his personal account. Since the year 2000, he has spent much of his free time reading the great minds of the Austrian School of economics, such as Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, et al.