Justin Raimondo: Why they hate Rand Paul

[Peace&Freedom]

assume history has had lots of groups who were once interested in liberties. Why has none of them thrived? It's because they were outnumbered. Strength often lies in numbers, and many times it takes a group effort.

the point is this--no one wants to join a group that cannot find cohesion amongst itself, because people want a sense of security that when things fail, there is someone else you can fall back on. A group that is constantly bickering and looking like enemies to each other will be extremely unattractive to new blood. This is why libertarian party failed. People think it's just all good natured bantering and gossiping small disagreements and cute cats being herded-- it's not. It's a grave danger for liberty minded people to behave that way missing any sense of urgency and priority. If you cannot find cohesion in your organization, you will never draw support. At this rate, your revolution will fail too. You will lose that war in the upcoming civil unrest.

The LP did not fail, it was failed, by an establishment in America that actively seeks to structurally marginalize and sabotage all alternative political movements, regardless of whether they operate with internal harmony, and regardless of whether they work outside or inside the two corporate-controlled parties. You do realize all the other third parties have also not gotten traction, whether or not there was infighting going on? Doesn't it strike you as strange that all of these parties have the same degree of trouble breaking 1% from election to election, across the entire US?

The bickering within a third party is a minor factor, at best, for why there has been no electoral progress for decades, despite great candidates fielded across those decades in all the states. It has much more to do with the fact that both of the major parties are controlled by major interests (big banks, big biz, big military contractors, big lobbies, etc) whose money and influence are used to create a phony 'mainstream' designed to keep real alternatives from power.

Those alternatives are structurally suppressed in the US system, where 95% of districts across the country are gerrymandered to ensure only hack Democrats and hack Republicans beholden to those interests gain and maintain power. Liberty movements within the big parties are consistently co-opted, in order to mostly neutralize their agenda from getting anywhere. The system is hardwired for the statists to prevail---that is why the LP and other alternatives do not succeed. Missing the mark, by complaining about their bickering, is like criticizing a rape victim for being bitter.

 

[torchbearer]

The LP did not fail, it was failed, by an establishment in America that actively seeks to structurally marginalize and sabotage all alternative political movements, regardless of whether they operate with internal harmony, and regardless of whether they work outside or inside the two corporate-controlled parties. You do realize all the other third parties have also not gotten traction, whether or not there was infighting going on? Doesn't it strike you as strange that all of these parties have the same degree of trouble breaking 1% from election to election, across the entire US?

The bickering within a third party is a minor factor, at best, for why there has been no electoral progress for decades, despite great candidates fielded across those decades in all the states. It has much more to do with the fact that both of the major parties are controlled by major interests (big banks, big biz, big military contractors, big lobbies, etc) whose money and influence are used to create a phony 'mainstream' designed to keep real alternatives from power.

Those alternatives are structurally suppressed in the US system, where 95% of districts across the country are gerrymandered to ensure only hack Democrats and hack Republicans beholden to those interests gain and maintain power. Liberty movements within the big parties are consistently co-opted, in order to mostly neutralize their agenda from getting anywhere. The system is hardwired for the statists to prevail---that is why the LP and other alternatives do not succeed. Missing the mark, by complaining about their bickering, is like criticizing a rape victim for being bitter.

and some of our "friends" keep repeating the propaganda against competing parties.

 

[Federico]

The LP did not fail, it was failed

Communism did not fail, it was failed.

by an establishment in America that actively seeks to structurally marginalize and sabotage all alternative political movements, regardless of whether they operate with internal harmony, and regardless of whether they work outside or inside the two corporate-controlled parties. You do realize all the other third parties have also not gotten traction, whether or not there was infighting going on? Doesn't it strike you as strange that all of these parties have the same degree of trouble breaking 1% from election to election, across the entire US?

No, this is not strange at all. Ours is a first-past-the-post system; what would be extraordinarily strange is if any third party regularly garnered a significant fraction of the vote.

The bickering within a third party is a minor factor, at best, for why there has been no electoral progress for decades, despite great candidates fielded across those decades in all the states. It has much more to do with the fact that both of the major parties are controlled by major interests (big banks, big biz, big military contractors, big lobbies, etc) whose money and influence are used to create a phony 'mainstream' designed to keep real alternatives from power.

Those alternatives are structurally suppressed in the US system, where 95% of districts across the country are gerrymandered to ensure only hack Democrats and hack Republicans beholden to those interests gain and maintain power. Liberty movements within the big parties are consistently co-opted, in order to mostly neutralize their agenda from getting anywhere. The system is hardwired for the statists to prevail---that is why the LP and other alternatives do not succeed. Missing the mark, by complaining about their bickering, is like criticizing a rape victim for being bitter.

The parallels between these comments and those made by cultural Marxists about how the Wage Gap between whites/males and blacks/women is a result of the systematic oppression of women via Patriarchy and blacks via Racism would be very amusing if it weren't also slightly sad.

But hey,

 

[Federico]

and some of our "friends" keep repeating the propaganda against competing parties.

Third parties exist as tools to use against the two major parties, siphoning the votes of radicals such as yourself in order to punish incumbents for deviating too widely from those positions taken by people in the interest group you represent. They are not a serious threat to take over and never will be.

 

[torchbearer]

Third parties exist as tools to use against the two major parties, siphoning the votes of radicals such as yourself in order to punish incumbents for deviating too widely from those positions taken by people in the interest group you represent. They are not a serious threat to take over and never will be.

perfect example.
of course, i like the line- "We don't need a third party. What we need is a second party. The Republicrats now share the same governing policies." nothing changes from bush to obama. same big government bullshit.
so yeah, the LP is the biggest second party we got.

 

[Federico]

perfect example.
of course, i like the line- "We don't need a third party. What we need is a second party. The Republicrats now share the same governing policies." nothing changes from bush to obama. same big government bullshit.
so yeah, the LP is the biggest second party we got.

This is the nature of democratic politics. Are you not familiar with the median voter theorem? Any party that tried to deviate too far from the status quo would get eaten alive and almost never win major elections. See: the LP.

 

[torchbearer]

This is the nature of democratic politics. Are you not familiar with the median voter theorem? Any party that tried to deviate too far from the status quo would get eaten alive and almost never win major elections. See: the LP.

the structure of the liberty wing of the gop is made up of people who were trained in the ranks of the LP.
reality works a lil' different than works of fiction.

 

[Federico]

the structure of the liberty wing of the gop is made up of people who were trained in the ranks of the LP.
reality works a lil' different than works of fiction.

This seems like a non-sequitur. If it's relevant to the conversation we were having in some way I can't discern, kindly let me know, thanks.

 

[torchbearer]

This seems like a non-sequitur. If it's relevant to the conversation we were having in some way I can't discern, kindly let me know, thanks.

there would be no liberty wing in this state party if it weren't for the second party to work as essentially a shadow party.
like team romney in nevada, but in reverse.

 

[Federico]

there would be no liberty wing in this state party if it weren't for the second party to work as essentially a shadow party.
like team romney in nevada, but in reverse.

Ah, gotcha. That may well be true, in which case I think my point is strengthened: The LP's purpose is not to pose a serious threat to the two-party system.

For the record, my voting strategy in the last three general election cycles has been: (L) if one's running, then (R) if one's not and there's a (D) running as well, no vote if the (R) is running unopposed. Write in "Ron Paul" for President if it's '08 or '12.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This is the nature of democratic politics. Are you not familiar with the median voter theorem? Any party that tried to deviate too far from the status quo would get eaten alive and almost never win major elections. See: the LP.

The median voter theorem was created or is invoked by the establishment (note the Ivy league originator of the concept, Hotelling) to provide cover for the elite's conjuring the perception of what the status quo "mainstream" is supposed to be in the first place. Through controlling the media and academia in addition to political funding, especially from the WWI era onward, a small minority (through power and money) basically manufactured the perceived consensus or status quo.

We went from a country and political class where most people understood the importance of limiting federal power, opposing private central banking, and staying out of war or intervening abroad, etc, to one where few people have this understanding. How did THAT Grand Canyon wide change happen, if the status quo never budges? Why didn't the politicians who advocated for those changes "get eaten alive" when THEY were the deviators? Obviously, the 'median' theory is leaving out something, namely the elite's creation and reinforcement of a false 'mainstream' that paints non-statist views and parties as marginal. IAW, a structural suppression of alternatives.

 

[Federico]

The median voter theorem was created by the establishment (note the Ivy league originator of the concept, Hotelling) to provide cover for the elite's conjuring the perception of what the status quo "mainstream" is supposed to be in the first place. Through controlling the media and academia, especially from the WWI era onward, a small minority (through power and money) basically manufactured the perceived consensus or status quo.

Are you claiming that the median voter theorem is wrong?

Also, perception is reality. The majority of democratic voters get their idea of what "mainstream" means from the elite. You seem to acknowledge this when you use Chomsky's "manufacturing consent" line. What I'm not sure you understand is that manufactured consent is still consent.

We went from a country and political class where most people understood the importance of limiting federal power, opposing private central banking, and staying out of war or intervening abroad, etc, to one where few people have this understanding. How did THAT Grand Canyon wide change happen, if the status quo never budges? Why didn't the politicians who advocated for those changes "get eaten alive" when THEY were the deviators? Obviously, the 'median' theory is leaving out something, namely the elite's creation and reinforcement of a false 'mainstream' that paints non-statist views and parties as marginal. IAW, a structural suppression of alternatives.

The status quo changes all the time, my comment was poorly worded. What I should have said was "Any party that tried to deviate too far from [the median voter's preferences] would get eaten alive and almost never win major elections. See: the LP."

The median voter theorem does not claim to be a Unified Theory of Everything. It simply says that a first-past-the-post system will produce two parties that put forth similar platforms. So what we have is predictable and understandable.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

What I suggested (which seems to have slipped past your condescending comprehension) is that the median voter theorem is irrelevant to this issue. The status quo can be radically manipulated, and in fact has been in the examples mentioned, making downstream discussions of first-past-the-post effects of it moot. Whether the manufactured consent is real consent or illusory, it can be fundamentally altered BEFORE and APART from the systemic effects of a status quo. The invoking of the concept just provides cover for the elite's manipulation of factors that are antecedent to the first-past-the-post effects. Since major change happened before, without the politicians involved being marginalized, it means the median voter is not necessarily the key factor that produces or prevents the change.

The elite created the present form of the status quo by constructing the infrastructure for it through control of the media, academia, and major funding for most political campaigns. The duopoly that may result from median voter dynamics is merely the result of a manipulated origin of the environment from which it was created. Change the establishment, you get a new status quo, consenting to a new mainstream. Meaning radical change CAN readily happen, because the change is effected at a level above that of median voter dynamics. So your stigmatizing alternative movements and parties is fundamentally flawed, their success or failure at change depends on how they evolve change at the 'steering establishment' level, not the 'current mainstream' level.

The success of the Paul campaigns and liberty movement has been tactically at the higher level, as it has developed ways to challenge or displace the current establishment, towards forging a new one and new resulting mainstream. Building a national grassroots that is distinct from both a minor party and a GOP faction, circumvents statist-establishment controlled marginalization of both major and minor parties. Money bombs invented a new way to provide serious money to a campagn apart from special interest money. Paul's running a third party style issue campaign in a major party nomination defeated the elite's usual non-coverage of their issues as marginal. And so on.

Through such devices, "unmentionable" subjects like the fed, non-interventionism, et al became regular discussion, showing the media's marginalization of such subjects were artificial and not part of a natural "status quo." The fact that the status quo does NOT change all the time is testament to how tightly the current establishment values projecting their "mainstream" construct through the corporate media and hack politicians.

 

[Federico]

What I suggested (which seems to have slipped past your condescending comprehension) is that the median voter theorem is irrelevant to this issue.

Which issue is that? I thought we were talking about why the Republicans and Democrats have the same governing policies - why nothing changes from Bush to Obama - why we get the same big government bullshit. The median voter theorem explains perfectly why this occurs - because that's what people want. Any party or politician who promised to radically reduce the size of government in a real and meaningful way would get absolutely destroyed in a general election.

The status quo can be radically manipulated, and in fact has been in the examples mentioned, making downstream discussions of first-past-the-post effects of it moot. Whether the manufactured consent is real consent or illusory, it can be fundamentally altered BEFORE and APART from the systemic effects of a status quo. The invoking of the concept just provides cover for the elite's manipulation of factors that are antecedent to the first-past-the-post effects. Since major change happened before, without the politicians involved being marginalized, it means the median voter is not necessarily the key factor that produces or prevents the change.

The elite created the present form of the status quo by constructing the infrastructure for it through control of the media, academia, and major funding for most political campaigns. The duopoly that may result from median voter dynamics is merely the result of a manipulated origin of the environment from which it was created. Change the establishment, you get a new status quo, consenting to a new mainstream. Meaning radical change CAN readily happen, because the change is effected at a level above that of median voter dynamics.

I agree with all of this. Nothing to add.

So your stigmatizing alternative movements and parties is fundamentally flawed, their success or failure at change depends on how they evolve change at the 'steering establishment' level, not the 'current mainstream' level.

I think this misses the mark. The reason I stigmatize alternative parties (not movements) is that I think they are an inefficient method of steering the establishment. Note that the Paul campaigns and liberty movement have taken place within the Republican party, and their successes have largely been as a result of, as you say, becoming the establishment. This is a much harder trick to turn when working outside the two-party system, which has created all sorts of obstacles to affecting change from without. Change from within is just a way better play.

The success of the Paul campaigns and liberty movement has been tactically at the higher level, as it has developed ways to challenge or displace the current establishment, towards forging a new one and new resulting mainstream. Building a national grassroots that is distinct from both a minor party and a GOP faction, circumvents statist-establishment controlled marginalization of both major and minor parties. Money bombs invented a new way to provide serious money to a campagn apart from special interest money. Paul's running a third party style issue campaign in a major party nomination defeated the elite's usual non-coverage of their issues as marginal. And so on.

Through such devices, "unmentionable" subjects like the fed, non-interventionism, et al became regular discussion, showing the media's marginalization of such subjects were artificial and not part of a natural "status quo." The fact that the status quo does NOT change all the time is testament to how tightly the current establishment values projecting their "mainstream" construct through the corporate media and hack politicians.

+1 to all of this.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

And where we disagree is on the change from within the GOP matter. When I say the liberty should displace the establishment, I'm, talking about the one that controls both the big parties, not the vassal establishment that is a major party. Absent change at the steering level, I do not agree that reforming the GOP is the most efficient way, since the point is the the real establishment suppresses alternatives both within and without the major parties (co-op from within, marginalize from without), and have consistently crushed within-the-GOP movements. If anything, statists have tended to crush liberty movements within the major parties more efficiently than those from without.

Note that the actual core of the Paul campaigns and liberty movement have NOT taken place within the Republican Party (the Pauls have succeeded to the extent they have because they developed their own power base and infrastructure apart from the existing GOP machine). The liberty grassroots developed apart from both the big party infrastructure and minor party structures. Likewise, developing a new media establishment and education funnel that is not beholden to the ones dominated by, or dependent on the elite special interests controlling the current versions, is the key to replacing the statist order going forward.