Saturday, May 02, 2015

It's Not Supposed to Make Sense

Yesterday I had a long conversation with a person who was trying to make sense of the Freddie Gray riots in Maryland and the Mike Brown riots in Ferguson. The person had moved from Baltimore to Utah in reaction to the high crime rate.

The point I tried to make in the conversation was that the political game being played between the left and right is not supposed to make sense.

The demonstrations prove that the left can get thousands of angry people marching in every state at the snap of a finger.

These protests are tempered by the fact that our Commander in Chief is a left wing community organizer.

The Alinsky model of community organization uses a network of activists and agitators to organize people into angry mobs. The community organizers occasionally flex their kollective muscle by marching mobs on the street. Scared politicians then give special favors to the people who control the machine.

The events that drive people to the street are unimportant. For that matter, community organization is most effective when the events really don't make sense.

Sadly, Mike Brown was acting like a thug on the day of his fatal encounter. Mr. Brown bullied a shop owner and was shot after bullying a police officer. Although I have a greatly concerned with the situation faced by black people in this nation, I don't find Mike Brown's case as compelling as say the case of Darien Hunt.

The Mike Brown case quickly became the catalyst for progressive protest precisely because the case was not compelling.

To understand this, one has to look back at the Alinsky Model. The Alinsky model is dependent on conservative reaction to a protest. When conservatives, and most objective viewers, look at the tape of Mike Brown robbing a store and pushing aside its owner, they see a thug. The investigation seems to show that Mr. Brown tried intimidating an officer during the arrest by taking his gun. This resulted in a fatal shooting.

Once conservatives are drawn into reaction, progressives can play off the reaction to deepen divisions.

This leads me back to an inherent problem with "conservatism."

"Conservatism" is a reactionary ideology that was created in England by the Tories in the early 1800s. Conservatives consolidate power by reacting to the actions of the progressive left.

This sets up an extremely dangerous system of action and reaction that can lead to societal break down and war.

The process of action and reaction in Europe led to two world wars in which hundreds of millions of people were killed.

The Ferguson and Baltimore riots were tempered by the fact that the Commander in Chief is a left wing community organizer who desperately wants to distance his administration from the riots.

The problem the GOP faces is that if we have a Republican who is aggressively promoting the label "conservative;" the left will be able to amplify the division until their protests are magnitudes greater than the current protests.

Progressivism had created a real problem.

IMHO, the first step to solving this problem is for Republicans to recognize "conservatism" for what it is. Conservatism is a partisan ideology developed by the Tories.  The Conservative Party was created from the Tory Party in the 1830s. English Conservatives still call themselves Tories.

The Tories were the people who fought against the American Revolution. Both the US Founders and the GOP came from the Whig Party.

The really sad truth is that the term "conservatism" was popularized during the Civil Rights Movement. The GOP deployed the term "conservative" to attract Southerners who were disaffected by the Civil Rights Movement (The Dixiecrats).

Not only does the term "conservative" come from the Tories. The term "conservative" is directly associated with negative reaction to the Civil Rights Movement.

Looking back at the 2012 primary campaign we see that GOP candidates engaged in a shrill debate about which candidate was the most severely conservative. The Republican Party then lost the election.

The term "conservative" turned millions of voters from the GOP and handed Barrack Obama a second term.

Imagine the improvement that would take place if Republican candidates wholeheartedly rejected the label "conservative" and concentrated on the ideals of the United States and the liberating aspects of the Party of Lincoln.

Distancing the GOP from the term "conservative" would reduce the ability of the left to raise people in protest and it would soften the effects of action/reaction politics that occur within the left/right split.

The GOP has married a term that no only is diametrically opposed to the ideals of the US Founders. The GOP has married a term that amplified division in Europe until Europe was ripped apart by war. The GOP has married a term that directly undermines its century old tradition of supporting civil liberties and human rights.

The GOP has married a term that drives millions of people away from the Republican Party and its vision of liberty.

The GOP has married a term that causes the GOP to lose election after election and puts our nation into the hands of the worst elements of the progressive left.

The biggest improvement that the Republican Party could make in the lead up to 2016 would be to divorce itself from a term which was coined by the Tories in an effort to rebrand the Tory Party as modern.


In conclusion. The protests in Baltimore and Ferguson make little sense to Conservatives. The idiotic decision that the GOP made in turning its back on liberating history of the Party of Lincoln to accept the ideals of the Tories makes even less sense.

Left/Right politics is absurdity on steroids.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

The Left/Right Split Leads to Culture War, Riots and Destruction

The freedom movement needs to win the war of ideas and not the partisan grub for power.

Progessivism is a bankrupt ideology. If there were people in the opposition willing to discuss and develop ideas; the opposition could make hay of the Left at the moment.

I was watching videos of both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama trying to distance themselves by the violence that is created by their style of politics. These leaders are a truly pathetic lot.

The Right is unable to offer a coherent alternative to the divisive rule of Barrack Obama because the Machiavellian Right has nothing to offer but its own version of division.

I have to drum the point. The Left/Right Split was created by a reactionary movement in Europe. Neither side of this split reflects the ideals of the founders.

The Conservative Party, and "conservatism" was created from the scattered remains of Toryism in 1831 by Sir Robert Peel who was appointed Prime Minister by King William IV. It is an inherently Machiavellian ideology that consolidates power by voicing support for reform without enacting reform.

The stated goal of Conservatism was to conserve the class structure of the monarchy.

The US Founders were not fighting to conserve the class structure of the monarchy. They weren't even Tories. The Tories were the people who aimed their muskets and canonade at the founders.

When Nathan Hale stoically proclaimed, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country," the Conservative Tories were the people who wrapped a noose around Mr. Hale's neck and took that one life.

Adherence to a Machiavellian ideology created by the Tories in reaction the US Revolution cannot restore the ideals of the US Founders.

The progressive left is an ideology that evolved from the "enlightened absolutism" of King Frederick the Great of Prussia and developed through Hegel and Marx.

The Left/Right split gives us a false dichotomy. The reactionary right wants to use the consolidated power of the state to advance a class structure. The left wants to use the consolidated power of the state to advance social change.

Both sides of this false dichotomy seek economic and political consolidation. They simply disagree on the purpose of the consolidation creating a intense culture war which systematically diminishes liberty.

The Left/Right split creates an echo chamber which amplifies division.

This Left/Right split Europe apart and finally resulted in genocide.

While I was watching images of the riot in Baltimore, I was taken with the thought: "What would be happening right now in Mitt Romney won the last election?"

If Romney were true to Conservatism, which holds the consolidation of power over over advancing liberty, we would see a detached Congress passing unpopular legislation to reward GOP partisans.

In all likelihood, there would have been incidences with black men dying at the hands of the local police.

The nation would not be looking at Clinton and Obama tyring to distance themselves from the Democratic progressive base. What would happen is that the press and nation at large would be pinning frustrations on the GOP.

The riots would be worse and the result of the riots would be to move our nation even further left.

I found myself thankful that Obama won the election as it helps the world see that the frustrations of the nation are the result of his failed leadership and not the failure of the American ideals in liberty.

As for the GOP. I find myself staring in horror that the Right is continuing to force culture war and the Machiavellian ideology of the Tories (ie conservatism) down our gullet and wishing that I could somehow convince the shrill conservative voices on the right to look at the mote in their own eye and research the origins of their own failed ideology.

Conservatism did not come from the Founding Fathers. It is a Machiavellian ideology created by the Tories. Conservatism is not the original ideology of the GOP. Conservatism was used as a marketing ploy to draw the Dixiecrats into the GOP.

People who scream on the radio that "conservatism" is the answer are essentially screaming the ideology of King George modified to appease racist rejection of Civil Rights.

If the GOP continues to pursue its path of culture war and Machiavellian Conservatism instead of the beautiful ideals of the US Founders; the GOP is likely to create a political dynamic in which radical progressives tear our nation apart with riots that make Baltimore and Ferguson look tame.

Unfortunately, the only way to ever break out of this cycle would be for people to discuss ways to solve our nation's problems by advancing liberty. Unfortunately, conservatives will stop any and all conversations about advancing the ideals of our founders in their manacle pursuit of power.

I watch the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore and shutter thinking that our nation's future is bleak as long as the GOP turns its back on the ideals of the Founders in favor of the Conservative fascination with Machiavelli and the class society favored by the Dixiecrats.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

No Feedback on the Kickstarter Campaign

Not surprisingly my Kickstarter Campaign has received no feedback.

The primary reason that I started the campaign was to get feedback. I had just spent seven years trying to hold a meeting about free market health care reform. In seven years, I had been unable to find anyone in Utah willing to talk about health care reform.

I admit that starting a Kickstarter project just to get feedback is pathetic. I live in a state where people simply do not talk to each other.

I came up with the idea for the project back in the 1980s as a thought experiment. I filed the idea away simply as a topic of conversation if ever I met a person interested in discussing public policy. I look back and realize that I've gone three decades without finding anyone interested in talking about an interesting topic.

I decided at the beginning of year that I wanted to self-publish a few of the ideas that I had worked on as books. My heart was set on using Outskirts Press. But they charge a minimum of $700 per book. I'd have to sell 100 books to cover the cost of publishing. iUniverse has similar.

I thought I'd try Kickstarter to raise $800, which would cover the set up fees and a fee for submitting the book for an LCCN number.

This idea has failed. Since I am working on this and a few other books, I thought I might publish through Amazon Kindle.

To my delight, I discovered that Amazon had acquired a print on demand publisher named Create Space. If I understand their contract correctly I can publish the book and order printed copies of the book for the print-on-demand price for the book. The free service includes an ISBN and I can submit the book for a Library of Congress Number for just $25.

Apparently, Lulu.com has also switched to the Print on Demand model. Unfortunately, Lulu.com only takes works written in Microsoft Word. I am scribing the book in Notepad++. I have a big text file with basic SGML mark up.

Anyway, by going the Create Space route, I no longer need to come up with an upfront publishing fee eliminating the need to try to presell copies of the book.

Unfortunately, my inability to get any feedback brings up the horrible truth that I am sitting here writing a book that is unlikely to be read by another human. I am also brooding on the fact that I am stuck in a state full of closed minded dullards.

This is not what America should be. In America, it should be possible to find people willing to discuss important issues of the day. This book on tax-reform is a dull topic. Health Care is a more important topic. Why is it that Utah Republicans and dead set against public discussion of free market health care reform?

The reason that Republicans are adamantly opposed to discussing free market health care reform is an ideology imported from England in the 1950s called "Conservatism."

Conservatism is an ideology that came from the Tories. The goal of conservatism was to preserve the class structure of the English Monarchy.

American Conservatism was crafted by the GOP in the 1950s and 1960s to attract Southerners disaffected by the Civil Rights Movement. The American Conservative Movement was based on the Conservative coalition crafted by Sir Winston Churchill.

To understand Churchill's coalition, one has to understand English partisan history.

Conservatism was created in the 1830s as an effort to rebrand the Tory Party as moderates. The Liberal Party, like the US Founders and the Republican Party, was created in the 1850s from the Whig Party. The Liberal Party supported free trade and freedom of religion. The Liberal Party fell apart when people realized that, if given the right to vote, Irish Catholics would vote for independence and would expel their British overlords.

The Liberal Party fell apart in the early 1900s and was displaced by the Labour Party which promoted socialism. Conservatives took to calling socialism "liberal."

Winston Churchill was a classical liberal. He and other classical liberals formed a coalition with the Conservatives to oppose the social liberal policies of Lloyd George.

Stepping forward in time. Chamberlain, the guy who appeased Hitler, was a traditional conservative.

As a classical liberal, Churchill understood that one needed to defend freedom. Churchill formed a coalition with anyone he could against Hitler.

William F Buckley sought to form a coalition with classical liberals and conservatives. Barry Goldwater tried running on this platform. His platform pulled in the Dixiecrats, but Establishment Republicans balked and Goldwater failed miserably.

Nixon formed a coalition between social conservatives and The Republican Establishment, Nixon won spectacularly.

The GOP fell into crisis after Watergate. Reagan managed to scrape together a broad-based coalition and won.

George Bush the First and George Bush the Second revived the Nixon coalition between social conservatives and the establishment. The first Bush started one war, then lost to Bill Clinton. The second Bush campaigned on "compassionate conservative." He started two wars, engaged in unprecedented deficit spending and pursued economic policies that threw our nation into a tail spin.

The Tea Party started with the promise of reviving the Goldwater coalition between social conservatives and classical liberals.

Shrill conservatives systematically drove everyone out of the Tea Party and it floundered; so we are now back the GOP being a closed party dominated by the establishment and social conservatives. The party has become intolerant toward the classical liberal ideas.

This whole thing is so depressing.

The fact that I am a pariah really doesn't matter. That the GOP appears to have returned to the path of slamming the door on free market ideas is troubling.

Conservatism is the ideology of the Tories. It was imported by the GOP for the dubious goal of drawing the Dixiecrats into the Republican Party. The Tories were against the US Founders. The Dixiecrats are racists who rejected the Civil Rights Movement. The Republican Party traded its beautiful legacy as a party of liberty for the garbage ideals of conservatism.

I am thinking that if I self published several books, I could hit the road and maybe find a place where classical liberal discussion is appreciated. But, quite frankly, I see myself writing stuff that I know no-one will read.

Since there has been no response, and I don't anticipate any, I am going to let the Kickstarter campaign run its course, but I will stop promoting it.

The way I see it, people have to try hundreds of different things. Most paths lead nowhere.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Should the GOP use PPI Tests to Assure Ideological Purity of Candidates?

I need to emphasize that, like most Americans, I am not a member of the Republican Party.

Since American politics is dominated by two parties, people who want to actively participate in their governance have to find ways to sneak past the party apparatus.

Conservatives have a particular problem with Libertarians and Classical Liberals* who try to sneak into the Republican Party.

In recent interviews, Utah GOP Chairman James Evans suggested that the GOP use PPI-style litmus test to assure ideological purity of Utah Republican Candidates.

PPI refers to the "Personal Priesthood Interviews" that young Mormon men endure to prove their fealty to the LDS political hierarchy. In his interviews, Mr. Evans suggests the PPI litmus test be used specifically to weed out Libertarians who routinely try to sneak on to the Republican side of the ballot.

The events leading up to this suggestion are rather interesting.

Utah has a caucus system. Conservatives have been adept at using the caucus system to control candidates.

The caucus system involves a large number of small meetings to elect delegates. Poorly funded groups can get a slot on the primary if the group is well organized.

Specifically, during the Tea Party, Tea Party radicals were able to get Jason Chaffetz and Mike Lee on the ballot. Even worse, Senator Lee displaced the establishment candidate Senator Bob Bennett.

Upset that Tea Party radicals were able to use the caucus system to displace an establishment candidate, the Utah establishment began a campaign to replace the caucus system with a primary system.

The primary system selects candidates by mass ballots. The primary system allows well funded establishment candidates and big media to control who appears on the ballot.

Above all, a primary system could help prevent radical groups like the Tea Party from infiltrating the Republican Party and penetrating it with radical ideals (like those of the US Founders).

Personally, I like the fact that the Tea Party was able to get candidates on the ballot. I delight in the rare occasion when an outsider group is able to take down an incumbent of the establishment.



As for my opinion:

I consider myself a Classical Liberal (which is a close kin to Libertarian). I hate the idea of closed parties that employ litmus tests and ideological filters to assure party purity.

Ironically, the Party of Lincoln was once a classical liberal party. The party was formed from the Whig Party in the 1850s to oppose the Kansas/Nebraska Act which threatened to expand slavery into the Western US. The GOP sought to emancipate the slaves and supported Civil Rights up unto the 1950s.

Classical liberals, who held sway in the GOP during its formation, opposed Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes and literacy tests which were designed to disenfranchise blacks and immigrants.

But that was a long time ago.

The Conservative Movement captured the Republican Party in reaction to Civil Rights Movement.

(Conservatism, as I am sure you all know, was created in 1834 by King William IV and Sir Robert Peel in an attempt to modernize and rebrand the Tory Party as a moderate. Tories were the people who fought against the US Revolution.)

As Conservatism is essentially Toryism rebranded, it does not surprise me to see Conservative Leaders talking about applying ideological filters to lock out free market radicals.

The funny thing is that the PPI ideology filter proposed by James Evans would probably filter out both the US Founders along with Fremont, Lincoln, and the founders of the GOP.

But Conservatives captured the GOP fair and square. It's their party now. If Conservatives want to impose PPI-style filter to lock out Tea Party types ... that's their decision.

Who knows, if Conservatives lock enough people out, we might see the formation of a new party that actually supports the ideals of freedom instead of the laughably corrupt GOP.

Influence of the LDS Church on Utah's GOP

Utah Policy had Dan Jones ran a survey about LDS Church influence in Utah politics.

Predictably, Mormons tended to approve of the influence their church had on state politics. Non-Mormons disapproved.

The telling information in this survey is that the responses from people who identified themselves as GOP were in line with the Mormon response. Here are two of the results:

"Among Republican Utahns: 15 percent said too much; 67 said about the right amount of influence in the Legislature; 13 percent said too little; 6 percent didn’t know."

67% + 13% = 80% in favor.

"Among Protestants: 84 percent said too much influence; 16 percent said about right; 0 percent said too little influence, and 0 percent didn’t know ... Among Catholics: 79 percent said too much influence; 18 percent said about right; 0 percent said too little influence; 3 percent didn’t know."

80% of Republicans favor the strong influence the LDS Church has on Utah politics while 84% of Protestants and 79% of Catholics disprove of this strong influence.

This survey shows a huge gap between the views of Protestants and Catholics and the Republican Party.

Living in Utah these last several decades, I've come to see the Utah GOP as simply a political arm of the LDS Church. Non-Mormons are basically locked out of the Utah Republican Party.

Now, I need to state openly and clearly that, like most Americans, I am not a member of the Republican Party.

But, I would like to challenge members of the GOP to question if this domination of the Utah GOP by the LDS Church is healthy for their party?

Is this what you want: A party that is dominated by a single political hierarchy with everyone else (Catholics, Protestants, etc.) simply locked out?

Monday, April 20, 2015

Role of Information in Our Society

Pundits tell us that we live in the information age.

Since we live in the information age, it seems to me that people occasionally talk about the role information plays in our society. This discussion should include debate about the distribution of information.

Most of the data that affects our lives was collected by big government agencies and big businesses to serve big government and business.

I question if this is a healthy trend.

If there were other people on this planet who considered the centralization of data an unhealthy trend; then people should talk about ways to break apart the centralized databases.

My current kickstarter campaign is to produce a book about a tax reform plan called "The Object Tax." It is named after Object Oriented Programming.

From an information perspective, the goal of the reform is to break apart the centralized database held by the IRS into Massively Distributed Database which is hosted by independent application service providers.

The Object Tax replaces payroll withholding with a thing called A Tax Aware Account. These accounts would be hosted by third party providers. Workers will pay their taxes when they withdraw money.

Economists would note that the reform just transformed the tax system from a production tax to a consumption.

I am hoping that computer programs and system engineers would notice that the reform just transitioned the tax collection system from being a centralized database into a massively decentralized object database.

Personally, I think we can look at the form of databases in our society to see if our nation is on track.

If our society is dominated by centralized database, then we are on track to creating a highly centralized class society. If the databases are highly distributed, then we are retaining a free society. IMHO, replacing a centralized database with massively distributed database is a good thing. The hard part of my job is convincing people that this type of thing matters.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Kickstarting an Object

Big news. I just launched a kickstarter project to raise funds for a book to be called "The Object Tax." The goal is to pre-sell 40 books at $20 a piece. I will blog about this project on the URL: ObjectTax.Blogspot.com.

If this Kickstarter project is a success, I will consider self publishing other works about topics mentioned in this blog.

The Object Tax is quite interesting. The proposal is for Congress to launch an Open Source Project to create a system of Tax Aware Accounts as an alternative to the current tax withholding system. It is named after Object Oriented Programming.

In computer speak, the Tax Aware Account is an object that wraps around a bank account. When you withdraw money, the program would calculate and pay your taxes. So, if you deposited $1000 and your progressive tax rate was 20%. When you withdraw the funds, the account would send $200 to the government and give you $800.

I am hoping the project appeals to people who are interested in advancing open source programming as well as to people looking for innovative approaches to tax reform.

As you see, the object design metholodogy encourages people to think about a topic from an abstract design perspective. Approaching tax reform from a design perspective gives people unique insights on the flow of money through the economy and the effects of taxation at different levels.

The Object Tax simply states: Let's approach tax reform as if it were a computer project. Approaching taxation from this perspective gives additional insight. The way I see it, the more insight we have on the effects of different tax proposals, the better.

This Kickstarter project is my first stab at self publishing a book.

I had considered self publishing works in the past. I decided against the idea because I worried that I would not be able to make enough sales to cover the cost of publishing the work.

I live in Utah. Utahans are a tad hostile to creative thought. Years ago, I tried helping my next door neighbor, Ryan Hiller, sell an album he had recorded when he was 17. In three years, I managed to sell one CD for one penny. Fortunately, Ryan was smart enough to move to San Diego where people support independent musicians.

I set my Kickstarter goal at selling 40 books for $20 a pop. This would raise $800 minus Kickstarter fees. My $800 goal isn't quite enough to pay all of the publishing printing that I will face in self publishing the work, but I think 40 copies is a reasonable target.

The Kickstarter campaign ends on May 13, 2015; so, I will be spending this next month nervously watching the funding bar to see if I get any pledges for the project. I will post the chapters of the book on the blog ObjectTax.blogspot.com as I finish editing them.

Wednesday, April 01, 2015

Conservatives and the Established Religion

It is sad to watch the GOP burn the political capital built during the campaigns against the excesses of the Obama Administration on conservative culture war issues. The big news of the day are efforts by religious groups to promote discrimination along with a little culture war battle by Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen who advocates making church attendance on Sunday mandatory: (see video)



I suspect that Ms Allen was simply trying to make a thought provoking comment. The proposal came during a debate about gun control legislation. Gun control is a culture war battleground. It is an area where people on both the left and right are prone to inject their their religious beliefs.

The video jumped out at me as I watched it shortly after reading the "The Tamworth Manifesto."

The Tamworth Manifesto was written by Sir Robert Peel in 1834. Sir Robert Peel, a member of the Tory Party, was appointed Prime Minister by King William IV to lead Parliament through the radical changes brought on by "The Representation of the People Act of 1832." The reform act redistributed the boroughs to reflect demographic changes of the Industrial Age. The act extended suffrage to the upper middle class and ended the tradition of the king appointing the Prime Minister.

The Reform Act destroyed the political base of the Tory Party which depended on "rotten boroughs." The rotten boroughs were sparsely populated districts where the Burgess was appointed by powerful families.

The Tory Party had burnt the last of its political capital in its stand against representative democracy which Tories saw as tantamount to mob rule.

The goal of the Tamworth Manifesto was to lay the foundation of a new moderate party that would conserve the existing class structure of Great Britain while conceding to those popular reforms that Sir Robert Peel felt were based on "real grievances."

The new party was called "The Conservative Party." The Tamworth Manifesto is foundational document of "Conservatism."

Interestingly, a main thrust of the Tamworth Manifesto was to conserve the supremacy of the established religion. Here is Sir Robert Peel in his own words:

Then, as to the great question of Church Reform. On that head I have no new professions to make. I cannot give my consent to the alienating of Church property, in any part of the United Kingdom, from strictly ecclesiastical purposes. But I repeat now the opinions that I have already expressed in parliament in regard to the church Establishment in Ireland - that if, by an improved distribution of the revenues of the Church, its just influence can be extended, and the true interests of the Established religion promoted, all other considerations should be made subordinate to the advancement of objects of such paramount importance.


To understand the manifesto, it is important to remember that the King is the titular head of The Church of England. Anglican Bishops took an oath to the King. The "Established Church" refers to The Church of England. Church property refers to churches owned by the church/state complex. The Church Establishment in Ireland is referring to Anglican Churches built in Catholic communities. Irish Catholics saw these state owned churches as a form of oppression.

The phrase that jumps out at me is the statement: "all other considerations should be made subordinate to the advancement of objects of such paramount importance [i.e., the established church]."

The foundation of Conservatism is a belief that all issues must be made subordinate to the advancement of the established church.

In contrast, the US Founders tended to be members of the Whig Party or people with Whiggish sentiments.

Curiously, the framers of the US Constitution had used the term "establishment of religion" in the First Amendment which reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


The conservatism being established by Sir Robert Peel seems to be fundamentally at odds with the ideals of the US Founders.

The Conservative Party has been a dominate party of England for 180 years. Conservatism was imported to the United States by the likes of William Buckley (who went to high school in England and college at Yale). Conservatism became a favored ideology by the opponents of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.

Conservatism is simply Toryism rebranded.

The GOP was formed in 1854 by members of the Whig Party who were opposed to the expansion of slavery.

The idea that the state should advance the established religion is fundamental to conservatism, but it is antithetical to the ideals of the founders of the United States and Lincoln's Republican Party. While it is tempting to dismiss Sylvia Allen's proposal of mandated church attendance as flippant musings of a culture warrior, I fear that the proposal is yet further indication that this thing the right calls "conservatism" really is British conservatism imported.

Anyway, it is really sad watching the GOP disintegrate over culture war issues.

Of course, like most Americans, I am neither a member of the Republican Party nor welcome in its rank. I am just one of the millions of independent Americans ruing the fact that both the Left and Right have abandoned the ideals that made America exceptional.

Sunday, March 01, 2015

Irony at CPAC

Apparently a group of protestors at CPAC stomped out of a speech of Jeb Bush because they considered Jeb Bush to be too much of an establishment candidate.

Conservatism, by definition and tradition, is an ideology that prefers the established over change.

Seeing conservatives protesting against a fellow conservative for being too establishment is irony in action.

Conservatism is an 180 year old ideology that was established when right wing thinkers found it necessary to rebrand the English Tory Party in 1834*.

In this 180 years, the conservative movement has flip flopped on numerous issues. At times it supports protectionism, at other times it cautiously flirts with free trade. At times it flirts with religious tolerance but abruptly reverses its position when tolerance threatens to disrupt the established order.

The one and only consistent principle that the Conservative movement has held since the rebranding of the Tory Party as the Conservative Party has been preference for the existing social order over the specter of social change.

Conservatives will tolerate free trade up to the point that it threatens the established class order. Conservatives will tolerate religious tolerance up to the point that it threatens the established class order, etc..

Like most Americans, I am not a member of the Republican Party. Conservatives have systematically driven out anyone critical of conservative hypocrisy. I suspect that Jeb Bush will win the GOP nomination in 2016 precisely because he is the establishment candidate and conservatism always favors the established class structure over social change.

As for the people who stomped out on Jeb Bush ... perhaps they should read US History. The Tories were the people who fought against the US Founders. If you were attracted to conservatism because you believe in the ideals at the founding of this nation; then you actually found the wrong place at CPAC.

You have to remember, the Tories did not rebrand their party the Conservative Party out of love for liberty. They rebranded the party because the Representation of the People Act of 1832 forced a redistricting of English boroughs. The power base of the Tory Party lay in sparsely populated boroughs. The Conservative Party allowed measured tolerance of religious and economic liberty because doing such was necessary for the political survival of the party's members.


Since the rebranding of the Tory Party, Conservatism has been nothing more than measured free market rhetoric to the extent that freedom does not disrupt the social order.

And, I am sorry, but such measured freedom is not a substantial foundation for a free and prosperous society.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

William F. Buckley's Conservatism

There are many different definitions of conservatism. Which brings up the huge question, where is one to find the definitive core of "conservatism."

Is the definitive core of "conservatism" those few months when the Tea Party was fun and open to ideas or is the definitive core of conservatism, perhaps, that 180 year history as the ideology of a major political party in a leading industrial nation?

I've been receiving a great deal of grief for my assertion that one will find the definitive core of conservatism in the Conservative Party of Great Britain.

Many American Conservatives point to William F. Buckley (1925-2008), with his Ivy League education and patented transatlantic accent, as the father of conservatism.

It turns out that Buckley's transatlantic accent came about because he was educated abroad.

Who would have thought a person educated abroad would have a unique accent?

It turns out that William F. Buckley went to high school in England.

Now, I am not surprised when I find out that graduates from America's progressive public high schools can't add, can't name the major political parties in the US or can't find Florida on a US map. I suspect that this Beaumont College in Old Windsor, where Buckley when to high school, had slightly higher academic standards than progressive schools.

I suspect that Buckley was aware that Neville Chamberlain of the Conservative Party was the Prime Minister and that the opposition was a coalition of the Liberal and Labour Party.

NOTE: There are multiple parties in English politics. If a politician can stitch together a majority vote from the various parties, the politician forms a government and becomes prime minister. Those in the minorities parties form an opposition government led by the leader of the largest opposition party. When Buckley was in England, the Liberal and Labour Party formed an opposition coalition led by the Labour Party.

It is because the Liberal Party and Labour Party formed an opposition government to Conservative Governments that conservatives lump the libertarian ideals of the original Labour Party with the socialist ideals of the Labour Party under the heading "liberal."

Anyway, while it is tempting to say that William F. Buckley invented a new ideology called "conservatism" from the aether. The fact that Buckley went to school in England tells me that he was aware of the fact that England had a political party called "The Conservative Party." The fact that Buckley's ideology lumps socialism under the header "liberal" seems to reflect the fact that Buckley lived in England when the Labour and Liberal Parties formed the opposition to the Conservative government.

I hope that it is clear to anyone with half a brain that Buckley was importing his thoughts about English parliamentary politics to the United States.

I apologize to people living in Great Britain. But I reject wholly this idea  that Buckley's ideas about British parliamentary politics makes a strong foundation for American political philosophy.


I contend that the defining core of conservatism is found in the Conservative Party of Great Britain in 1834 and which has had a 180 year history of being a primary force in the politics of Great Britain.

The term "liberalism" comes from English politics as well, but has been poisoned with time.

It appears that the driving force of early conservatism in 1834 was Sir Robert Peel (1788 – 1850) who created a coalition between the British establishment of England the aristocracy of England (the establishment were derisively called Tories) and moderates from the Whig Party.

In forming the Conservative Party, Peel drew heavily on the conflict between Edmund Burke (1729-1797) and Charles James Fox (1749-1806).
Apparently, Sir Robert Peel supported free trade and religious tolerance while traditionalists in the conservative movement did not.

The Liberal Party was formed in 1859 when followers of Sir Robert Peel left the Conservative Coalition to form a coalition government with members of the Whig Party. The Conservative Party of 1859 was primarily a party of those who supported the establishment and regulated commerce.

The Liberal ideal of religious tolerance touched on the hairy issue of Catholic Emancipation as Catholics in Ireland sought independence. Liberals who were opposed to Irish Home Rule left the Liberal Party to form a coalition with the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party changed its name to the Conservative and Union Party. The Liberal Party fell into minority status and eventually disappeared. NOTE: Members of the Labour and Liberal coalition created an ideal called "Social Liberalism" that was fundamentally at odds with the classical liberalism of the previous century.

Key moments in the 180 British Conservative tradition involved opposition to free trade (in 1859) and opposition to religious tolerance.