Lobbyists too powerful because government is too powerful

As a member of the Libertarian Party, I frequently get e-mails from national party Chairman Mark Hinkle and Executive Director Wes Benedict. I read them and usually delete them. However, today's message from Mr. Hinkle gets right to the root of the problem with big government. I am quoting it in full:

"President Obama is currently caught in a bit of a scandal over his pledge not to take campaign money from lobbyists.

"According to the New York Times, 'Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.'

"It's unfortunate that the president has added one more to his pile of broken promises. But it's not at all surprising.

"Our government has far too much power and money at its disposal. The inevitable consequence is that businesses, organizations, and individuals will work very hard to guide that power and money in their own favor.

"In fact, it often seems like politicians intentionally create incentives for people to try to bribe them.

"Businesses especially will fight for more corporate welfare, and also for regulations that stifle potential competitors. What choice do they have? If they don't fight for those special government favors, then someone else will, which will put them at an increasing disadvantage, and might drive them out of business.

"A recent Economist article pointed out that over the last ten years, companies that lobbied heavily had a much bigger increase in stock value than those that didn't. Executives might conclude that if you're not lobbying, you're ripping off your shareholders!

"And of course, these entities that stand to benefit from government favors will work hard (and spend hard) to get friendly politicians elected.

"Some people feel that massive campaign finance regulations will stop this unholy bargaining. It won't. When the dust settles, campaign finance restrictions usually just make life easier for incumbents and harder for challengers. We Libertarians know that only too well.

"I have to remind myself, lobbying isn't essentially a bad thing. It's an expression of our right to 'petition the government for a redress of grievances.' It provides information to politicians. But when politicians get in the habit of handing out favors, you can bet everyone is going to run up to the trough.

"The only way to reduce the power of lobbyists is to reduce the power of government. That choice rests with the voters. If voters keep electing Democrats and Republicans, then the power of government and lobbyists will continue to grow. If voters start electing Libertarians, things will change."

Besides voting Libertarian, the only long-term solution to lobbyists is to decentralize government so much that lobbying becomes impractical, except by local citizens and businesses.

Memo to the General Assembly: Get it right this time

For the third time in five years, the Libertarian Party of Ohio has won a lawsuit to gain ballot access.

Judge Algernon Marbley granted the Libertarian Party of Ohio’s request for a preliminary injunction in Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted that protects ballot access for the party through 2012, including for Libertarian candidates already on the November 2011 ballot in Akron and Troy. (The previous cases are Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell [2006] and Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Brunner [2008, case merged with Moore v. Brunner]).

The opinion states that Ohio's ballot access laws (Ohio Revised Code sections 3501.01 and 3517.01) cannot be justified on constitutional grounds, but rather operate to protect the Democrats and Republicans from competing ideas and candidates. In particular, Judge Marbley states that requiring a minor party filing deadline 90 days before the primary, coupled with a signature requirement of 1% of the voters in the last gubernatorial or presidential election forces minor parties to recruit candidates and circulate petitions at a time when people are not interested in politics. The opinion is 12 pages long and very easy to read. It gives an interesting history of ballot access in Ohio, with a few references to the same struggle in other states. In Judge Marbley's view, Ohio has a long history of suppressing minor party ballot access, and among the larger states, has the least diversity in political party options.

The injunction was specifically addressed to the Libertarian Party of Ohio. It is not clear how much it will help the Constitution, Green, and Socialist Parties. (Click on the Alternative Parties tab under the masthead for additional information on all four parties).

To her credit, former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner got the message, and granted ballot access to six parties in 2010; but the Republicans in the General Assembly tried earlier this year to trim it back with HB 194. (Applicable text is incorporated in the Ohio Revised Code references above).

The Libertarian Party is 40 years old and appears on the ballot in 31 states. While it currently has only 7,000 voters in Ohio, that number is growing. There are several local officials elected as Libertarians, and voters will elect more this year. We are not going away. Get over it, and get it right.

Virtual buckeye to Bill Yarbrough

My dream ticket

I still believe that trying to elect a President and Congress that will reverse the trend toward bigger government is an exercise in futility; but at the same time, it is unchristian to completely lose hope. So with that attitude, I propose the dream ticket for the Republican and Libertarian Parties:

Ron Paul and Karen Kwiatkowski

Rep. Ron Paul

Ron Paul does not need much introduction. He is the gadfly Congressman who opposes the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; is a stickler for the feds obeying the Constitution, and wants the Federal Reserve Bank to be audited. No better man can be found for reversing the destructive trend we are facing in America.

But you may be thinking, Karen who?  Karen U. Kwiatkowski (SourceWatch biography, Wikipedia biography*) is a retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force. She is very knowledgeable about military matters and understands strategic issues. With this background and experience, she can reassure fearful Americans that demilitarization will not leave us as vulnerable to the terrorists and Chinese as they might think. Her knowledge is not limited to military matters. She can speak articulately to the needs of families and education (and why they are not the business of the federal government!). She is a regular contributor to the libertarian website LewRockwell.com, and has appeared twice in The Ohio Republic (via LewRockwell, of course). At the same time, she is relatively young (50), energetic, and provides a nice counterpoint to Ron Paul's sometimes dry, academic style. And I have no doubt that, if it became necessary, that she would make an effective President in her own right. She is also a registered Libertarian and a candidate for Congress in Virginia's Sixth District.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.)

I do not propose Ms. Kwiatkowski because she is a woman, but let's face it, we need a woman as President or Vice President. We need someone to counteract the excessive hubris that pervades the District of Coercion. Those who are impressed with Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin need to think about their weaknesses, as well as their strengths.

Pairing the wise, grandfatherly Ron Paul with the vigorous Karen Kwiatkowski is a winning strategy for regaining our freedom in 2012.

* Minor correction to the biographies. The article that got her started politically was in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Getting real

Over on Facebook, an interesting discussion has taken place on my friend Bill Yarbrough's wall about how (or whether) the Libertarian Party should interact with the Tea Party. The struggle in the Party is between those who would insist on absolute fidelity to the Party Platform in all decisions, and those who understand that (as my Republican political mentor, Robert E. Levitt* put it) "the purpose of the ... Party is to elect candidates." In other words, we need to be faithful to our values, but understand that, in politics, our values are a destination. Decisions made by Libertarian officeholders will fall short of the Platform's goals, but the Libertarian must be held accountable for bringing us closer to them.

Bill, who has the virtue of being both a Libertarian and a realist, puts it this way:

I agree the country and state are not ready for a third party - and they don't have to be. The Libertarian brand simply has to overcome obscurity to the point that one really good candidate wins one prominant U.S. House seat. That should be ...the focus - one winnable race of note. From there, the sky's the limit. The LP needs to sink all its money into a winnable race before the [realists] of the world will find us worth their time.

A political party that cannot elect candidates is useless. On the other hand, neither of our major parties appear to be grounded in principle, even though many of their candidates and officeholders are personally so grounded.

On the Tea Party side, there is complete agreement on where we need to go -- and total confusion as to how to get there. Some Tea Partiers are libertarians who want less government across the board, but others are conservatives who embrace the social constraints and militarism favored by many Republicans. Because many of the most visible supporters of the Tea Party are Republicans, there is a perception that the Tea Partiers are nothing but GOP hacks. Part of this confusion stems from the amorphousness of the Tea Party. The Tea Parties and related organizations stem from many roots. As Bill Yarbrough observed, to properly judge a Tea Party, one has to look at each individual local organization.

Leadership and members in both movements need to understand that candidates and officeholders can only work with the legislation as it is. Legislators can amend bills and try to persuade others toward our Platform goals -- but they can only vote on what is in front of them.

Thomas Sowell reminds us of this reality in today's Townhall:

One of the good things about the Tea Party movement is that it resisted the temptation to actually form a third political party, which has been an exercise in futility, time and time again, under the American electoral system.


But, if the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party becomes just a rule-or-ruin minority, then they might just as well have formed a separate third party and gone on to oblivion.

It is not in the interest, either of the Tea Party or of the people, to insist that Congressmen or state legislators commit political suicide in support of a long-range goal. For example, I agree that Congress should take a hard line both against raising the debt limit and raising tax rates; but if we don't completely balance the budget, we are not sacrificing our principles. We are still moving toward our goals. We are preparing Congress and the people for a greater victory later on. The point is, that victory will not come until we take the intermediate steps.

On a personal note, Mr. Sowell also explains why I should not run for office:

Writers can advocate things that have no chance at the moment, for their very writing about those things persuasively can make them possible at some future date. But to adopt the same approach as an elected member of Congress risks losing both the present and the future.

* Robert E. Levitt (1926-1997) was a Republican state representative and longtime chairman of the Stark County Republican Party. I worked as his executive director 1978-1982, where I got quite an education in political reality.

Is there hope for liberty in our time?

Jacob Huebert, a resident of Columbus, presents a realistic view of the liberty movement today. He disproves the notion, widely held by the Left, that there is a lack of intellectuals either among libertarians, or in Ohio.

Why I am a Libertarian

... with a capital L. News release from the Libertarian Party Apr. 5 about Paul Ryan's alternative federal budget:

Libertarians say Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton

WASHINGTON - In response to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's new budget proposal, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:

"Americans hoping to get real about our national debt just got sucker-punched by Republican Paul Ryan.

"Republicans want to spend $40 trillion over ten years. That averages a staggering $4 trillion per year. As recently as 2000, federal spending was only about $1.8 trillion.

"They also want to increase the federal debt from $15.0 trillion to $23.1 trillion. I hope our children and grandchildren enjoy paying interest on that extra $8.1 trillion.

"People should not judge the quality of this Republican plan by the standard President Obama has set. Everyone knows Obama is a big spender. Democrats rarely campaign on cutting government. What this budget shows is, Republicans are hypocrites. They have no intention of cutting the federal government down to size. In 2021, Paul Ryan still wants the feds to be spending 19.9% of GDP. That's a higher percentage than during Democrat Bill Clinton's second term. In 1997, federal spending was 19.5% of GDP, and it dropped to 18.2% by 2000. Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton.

"Another unfortunate but predictable thing about Paul Ryan's budget is that it continues to mollycoddle the Pentagon. Paul Ryan is the Military-Industrial Complex's best friend. He apparently can't find one penny to cut from Obama's bloated levels of military spending. Only a big-government Republican could come up with language like 'reinvesting $100 billion in higher military priorities.'

"It's interesting that when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House from 2001-2006, they did nothing to shrink government, or even slow down government growth. On the contrary, back then, Paul Ryan was busy voting for expensive foreign wars, No Child Left Behind, and the huge 2003 Medicare expansion. More recently he's voted for the TARP bailouts and even ethanol subsidies.

"We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."

Remember what I wrote last fall about Republicans and their "Pledge to the Gullible."


 

Congress passes major cuts to federal budget

From the Libertarian Party website.

I really couldn't end this day on the downer I posted earlier.

Indiana state senator and state Libertarian Party victimized by e-mail hoax

Update Mar. 24: The Indiana Libertarian Party learned late yesterday that the e-mail purportedly sent by a state senator demanding that the Libertarian Party to keep postings about gay marriage to a minimum was a hoax. The Indiana Libertarian and Republican Parties are co-operating in the investigation. I have removed the e-mail (there being no point to keeping it up), but am retaining my comments at the end.


***

Gay marriage is a political issue for two reasons: (1) because the state decided that it wants to regulate marriage through the issuance of a license, and (2) because our health care benefits are structured around marriage and families. If the government got out of the licensing business (or made it neutral, as in "whatever is is what it is") and we returned to a free market in health care, the issue would go away on its own.

I do not like the idea of gay marriage myself, but I would rather see religious organizations working to persuade people of its immorality, than to have its existence or non-existence dictated by the state.

Additional candidates to consider

I have already written pieces on:

• Ken Matesz (L) for Governor
• Charlie Earl (L) for Secretary of State
• Matthew Cantrell (L) for Treasurer of State and
• Robert Owens (C) for Attorney General

Here are some other candidates I like:

• Bill Yarbrough (L) for State Senate, 3rd District (Eastern Franklin County). He is working hard to get the position, has reasonable positions on issues affecting Ohioans, and actually has a shot at winning.
• Lawrence Binsky (L) for State Representative, 20th District (Eastern Franklin County). He is a small businessman who will, like all Libertarians and Constitutionalists, for lower taxes and more efficient government. He is also a positive, refreshing, alternative to the slugfest taking place between his opponents.
• Eric Deaton (C) for U.S. Senator.
• Travis Irvine (L) for Congress. Don't confuse him for a Republican. He skewered the Pledge to America with this and some other very creative YouTube advertising.
• Rep. Jarrod Martin (R-Beavercreek) for re-election and Sen. Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland) as State Representative. They were staunch supporters of the state sovereignty resolutions, and for getting the Feds off Ohio's back.
• Rep. Kris Jordan (R-Delaware) for State Senator, who also supported the state sovereignty resolutions.

There are many other good candidates out there -- I just listed the ones I know. Please vote intelligently and remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

A picture says a thousand words

This is a photo from the Ohio University Post in Athens, showing the three candidates for the 6th Congressional District in a debate at the Athens Public Library last night.




This is the Post's caption: "Republican candidate Bill Johnson and Democratic incumbent Charles Wilson shake hands after laughing at a comment made by Libertarian candidate Martin J. Elsass at the Candidates' Forum for the Sixth U.S. Congressional District Race at the Athens Public Library yesterday. 'I will say that I can agree with both of them, neither one of them should be elected,' Elsass said." (Photo by Kaitlyn Bernauer for the Post)

Virtual buckeye to the Ohio Libertarian Party in Facebook.

Plain Dealer endorses Libertarian for treasurer

The Cleveland Plain Dealer endorsed Libertarian candidate Matthew P. Cantrell for Treasurer of State (via Independent Political Report):

In a campaign for Ohio treasurer that produced more light and less mud, Matthew P. Cantrell, the young Libertarian candidate, probably wouldn’t get a second look. That would be a mistake — especially in light of glaring deficiencies that make both major-party candidates unattractive options. Cantrell, 28, has the best professional preparation for the job. He understands the treasurer’s core duties and supports their continuation. In other words, he’s not running for the office just to dismantle it.

According to Ohio Libertarian Chairman Kevin Knedler, this is the first time a major Ohio newspaper has ever endorsed a Libertarian for statewide office.

Charlie Earl for Secretary of State

I am beginning a series on third-party candidates that I like. They are not formal endorsements, but are recommendations for your consideration.

As I suggested last week, Libertarian Charlie Earl is a man who says exactly what he thinks. Think of him as the antidote to the evasive, fork-in-the-tongue politician. Think of it as a quality we really need in a Secretary of State.

The elections for statewide offices are particularly critical this year, because they will determine the makeup of the State Apportionment Board, which draws the districts that will be used in elections for the Ohio General Assembly during the next decade. Membership consists of the Governor, the State Auditor, the Secretary of State, and one member from each major party in each house of the General Assembly. Ohioans have been frustrated for years with the gerrymandering of districts to favor incumbents of one party or the other. There was an excellent proposal on the ballot in 1983 for "Fair and Impartial Redistricting," but it was complex and difficult for most people to understand, which led to its defeat.

The best chance we have this year for fair and impartial redistricting -- and to ensure that election laws are administered fairly -- is to elect a Secretary of State who is neither Democratic nor Republican. In the last twelve years, we have suffered from two very partisan Secretaries of State, a Republican who saw no conflict between his office and actively promoting his party's Presidential campaign and a Democrat whose impartiality has been called into question in her votes to break deadlocks in county Boards of Elections.

While no stranger to the Statehouse -- he was a State Representative from Bowling Green in the early 1980s -- he is not a professional politician either. He has also been an energetic campaigner, as his Facebook page will attest.

His platform consists of five planks:

1. He strongly believes that no action should be taken that violates either the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution.

2. On elections, I'll let Mr. Earl speak for himself (from his website): "Dedicated to enforcing free, fair and efficient elections, Charlie will strive to insure that every legal state citizen who is registered to vote can rest assured that her/his vote will be counted fairly and efficiently...and once for each election. Those who chose to willfully skirt, break or violate Ohio's registration, voting and tallying laws will be vigorously prosecuted. The right to vote is a privilege that must be cherished, honest and forcefully protected."

3. He believes that petitions for ballot access should always receive the "benefit of the doubt" in favor of the petitioner, rather than assuming that all petitions are corrupt, inadequate or incomplete.

4. As I suggested earlier, Mr. Earl, as a Libertarian, would be the swing vote on the State Apportionment Board that ensures that no backroom deals or districts protecting incumbents will prevail.

5. The Secretary of State is also responsible for the filing, registering, and licensing most businesses. Mr. Earl wants to streamline the process for small startups, and when necessary "drop the hammer" (his phrase) on enterprises who violate their contractual obligations and do harm to their customers and to the business environment in the state.

Charlie Earl is definitely an alternative worth considering.

Why third-party candidates can't get traction

The media are not interested in fair coverage. Following is a letter the editor of The (Toledo) Blade by Charlie Earl, Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State, whom I shall feature next week. The letter appears in Mr. Earl's Facebook page. One thing about it -- if you're looking for a Secretary of State who says exactly what he thinks, Charlie Earl is your man.

It was revealing for me to read your endorsement of Jon Husted for Ohio Secretary of State. I have no problem with your endorsement, per se, because you are a private enterprise. I do question your reasoning, your diligence and your understanding of the office of the Secretary of State. Your reasoning is flawed, in my view, because of two critical elements. You cited Jon’s “experience” without acknowledging that many citizens are frustrated with career politicians. You also failed to mention that Husted has skated near the precipice of ethical behavior. It seems that someone who has demonstrated an inability to observe reasonable ethical practices should NOT be the chief elections officer in Ohio.

Your diligence seems to be lacking because I reside a mere 14 miles from your “tower of power,” and NO ONE from The Blade has made any attempt to contact me since I announced my candidacy in January. So, apparently you arrived at your endorsement while sporting an information deficit. In addition, I was involved in the reapportionment process in the Eighties when Husted was still in grammar school.

Your lack of knowledge about the Secretary of State functions is probably your most egregious error. When a Constitutional officer is responsible for the registering process, voting procedures, tallying methods, petitioning oversight and apportionment, does not it seem preferable and logical that the Administrator be unencumbered by partisan pressure and concerns? You have endorsed another “experienced” partisan hack who probably wants to run for governor rather than be entirely focused on the Secretary of State office.

Given your history you probably don’t have the courage to print this. If you do not, I will not be surprised.

Charlie Earl
Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State
Bowling Green

I noticed that the Columbus Dispatch also endorsed Mr. Husted. I guess Mr. Earl would be too difficult for the handlers to handle. Which is a good reason to vote for him.

How to fill the $8 billion budget hole

Ken Matesz, Libertarian candidate for Governor has an answer; but frankly, it takes my breath away. According to Marc Kovac at the Kent Record-Courier, Mr. Matesz wants to:

(Full text of speech)

• Eliminate the Ohio income tax by fiscal 2013


• Cut state spending by 40%


• Immediately stop all state borrowing


• Sell the Ohio Turnpike, the state universities, the Bureau of Workers Compensation, and all state parks and lands


• Allow video slots at horse racing tracks


• Reduce the prison population by 25,000 inmates

I do not agree with all the points in the plan above (the Ohio Turnpike is a net revenue source that we need right now, and I have some problems with selling all of the state parks; though perhaps some of them could be targeted for sale). But his plan has one cardinal virtue. It is a plan, in contrast to the silence of his opponents.

"Neither of my high-dollar, special-interest-supported opponents is prepared to make the tough choices that will position Ohio to become the freest, most business friendly, most family friendly and most productive state in the union," he said...

He added, "We don't need a few more decades of Democrats and Republicans with the same policies that got us to where we are today. There really is no difference between the policies of Kasich and Strickland. Both of them are big government politicians, big spenders, who continue to offer no real solutions."

Mr. Matesz's plan needs some tweaking; but again, at least it is a plan, and he deserves credit for formulating a solution to Ohio's toughest challenge. True leadership requires us as citizens to accept that the solution to a problem may be hard to take -- but will greatly benefit us later.

As I wrote in an earlier headline, Mr. Matesz has laid down the gauntlet. Will either of his opponents pick it up?

Remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Ohio needs solutions, not spin.

Libertarian lays down the gauntlet on income tax

The Libertarian Party announced yesterday that its gubernatorial candidate Ken Matesz will announce a detailed plan for resolving Ohio's projected $8 billion deficit for 2011-2012. The plan will include a gradual abolition of the Ohio income tax.

No such plan appears to be forthcoming from either of the major party candidates.

The announcement will be held on Monday, Sept. 13, 2 pm, in the Ladies' Gallery at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus.

"Serious problems call for serious candidates. The Matesz campaign and the Ohio Libertarian Party are ready to step up to the challenge with a detailed plan that eliminates the deficit while cutting taxes. The other major party candidates are unprepared to tell you their plans because they have none," said Libertarian Party Chairman Kevin Knedler.

Ken Matesz is committed to cutting the income tax

In fact, the Libertarian candidate for Ohio Governor is committed to cutting it out. In this video he observes that one of his opponents [Republican John Kasich] is starting to back away from his announced intention to do the same. Mr. Matesz explains why he is holding fast, and why it is important for Ohio that the tax be eliminated, along with the $7 billion it represents.

Unfortunately, he did not discuss how he would handle the budget in light of such a cut; but he has promised another video in which this issue will be addressed. Mr. Matesz's website is www.mateszforohio.com .

Is constructive change possible?

I think so -- but let me share with you a correspondence I had with a friend of mine last night, who will only be identified as Q. I'll call myself A:

Q: Do you think that participation in the system as it exists now is necessary to bring about peaceful secession, or can it be achieved without direct participation?

A: I suppose peaceful secession would be possible without direct participation in the system -- especially in a revolutionary situation in which the federal government bared its teeth against the states or the people -- but I have difficulty picturing how it would work, because our fellow Ohioans are so attached to the rule of law that they would not be likely to accept a change by any other means.The beauty of peaceful secession within the system is that it is achieved through the rule of law. A government thus instituted will immediately be accepted many nations (other then the rump USA and others under its thumb) as legitimate.

I also think it would be easier to pull off. Granted, right now -- especially given the response of many of our friends to Glenn Beck's rally, during which my stomach did flip-flops, it seems unlikely and to many, hopeless. But my experience agrees with Rush Limbaugh (Aug. 5) that secessionism isn't the "rantings of extreme kookism" anymore.

Ohio historically has been one of the most pro-Lincoln unionist of states, but my personal encounters with people suggest a rapidly growing acceptance of secession (especially if attempted gradually after a few nullifications of federal law). Ohioans today are less likely to be hostile to secession in principle than convinced that it will not work, or that it will result in an extremely violent federal backlash. If a poll were taken today, I think 20-25% of Ohioans would be open to secession, nearly double what I estimated from a Zogby poll two years ago.

One of the problems with promoting new ideas in this state is that people are likely to say that they won't work before they consider the idea's merits. Ohio [is] a tough environment for an intellectual.


Q: Personally, I'm having trouble finding a reason to participate directly (elections, etc.) these days. Almost as if it gives "them" credence, if you know what I mean. And so many are so blind. Things really shake them to their core and they hold on to false truths so tightly. I was there once, but libertarianism came so much easier to me I think. I'm not sure why, but I feel like I wasn't nearly as thoroughly brainwashed as many I encounter these days... or they're genuinely just so diametrically opposed as to be hopeless... I haven't decided.

A: Libertarians are still in the wilderness. While it seems to be an obvious answer for people like us, a lot of people perceive the Libertarians to be wild anarchists. In my opinion (and I've talked about this with Ken Matesz*), there are shades of Libertarian just as there are shades with everything else. The "conservative" Libertarian (I'm calling myself one of those) is one who believes that some government is necessary at all levels; but with very little federal government, a little more state -- or even better, a weak national government in the State of Ohio -- and all the local government the people want (I call this decentralism).To more directly address your concern:

If I were not a classified state employee**, I would be working on [a Libertarian] campaign for State Senate. His district appears in polls to be nearly evenly divided between the R and the D (there is no incumbent running), and he has an outside shot of winning with, say, 38% of the vote. I think we all need to be involved in the system, but we must have the courage to actively support and build up the Libertarian (or if that is too extreme for you, the Constitution) Party as (1) a viable alternative to the "two evils", and (2) a base on which the secessionist movement will grow when the time comes (and I am confident that it is coming soon -- within two years). In the meantime, we need to prepare our fellow Ohioans for accepting the actions that will be needed to restore liberty.

----

Now, I half expect a frequent commenter to this blog to come in with his Constitutional arguments as to why it is impossible for a state to secede. However, he has yet to satisfactorily answer this question of mine:

When can we come to the conclusion that the federal government is fouled up beyond all repair; and when we reach that conclusion, what can we do about it?

His answer, in essence, is to apply the Article V amendment process -- one that we have shown to be dangerous to liberty, and one which the current power élites are likely to respect about as much as they do the rest of the U.S. Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Constitution. It was divinely inspired, and if followed, would effectively protect our freedoms. But the revolution will come when the people realize that in the last ten years it has become a dead letter.


* Libertarian candidate for Governor.
** Who is barred from partisan political activity by section 124.57 of the Ohio Revised Code. In this post, my toes are probably touching the line marking non-compliance, but as I understand the letter of the law, I am not crossing it.

Effect of third-party candidates unpredictable

There has been a great deal of talk about how votes for Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates will influence Ohio's elections, particularly for House of Representatives. The conventional wisdom seems to be that both the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists appeal principally to conservative voters; therefore, votes for those two parties will help the Democrats.

However, as Gongwer pointed out last Friday, the Libertarians do not fit so simply into the conservative mold, since the party also favors same-sex marriage* and legalization of drugs -- both positions that are traditionally associated with Democrats. The Libertarians are fielding 23 House candidates this year. According to Gongwer, about half are in districts closely contested between the major party candidates.

The mainstream media, as usual, are not taking third-party candidates seriously; but in an election year where voters are clearly disenchanted with both major parties, maybe they should. Keep in mind that in multi-party elections, something with which the United States has very little experience, the dynamics change. A strong Libertarian candidate in a closely contested race could win with 35-40% of the vote! A few Libertarian State Representatives could have enormous influence in a chamber in which neither the Republicans nor the Democrats had a majority. (Of course, the same is true of the Ohio Senate, but it seems unlikely that the Republican Party will lose its majority there).

Virtual buckeye to the Ohio Libertarian Party, via Facebook.

* I disagree with the Libertarian Party on this point.

Doublethink

In George Orwell's novel 1984, the residents of socialist "Oceania" spoke an updated form of English, called Newspeak. The purpose of the language was to limit the ability of an individual to think creatively by reducing the number of words and ideas that can be communicated. For example, every idea that could be construed as contrary to the will of Big Brother could only be expressed as crimethink.

Doublethink is defined in the novel as

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth "

Libertarian candidate for Governor of Ohio Ken Matesz (without saying so in as many words) believes that the Republicans are practicing doublethink. According to House Minority Leader John Boehner:

“House Republicans are leading the drive for smaller, more accountable government and better solutions to the challenges facing our nation.”

Uh-huh. Mr. Matesz observes that memories must be growing shorter and shorter. He reminds us that before President Obama's stimulus package of 2009 came President Bush's stimulus package of early 2008, which President Bush called "a booster shot for our economy." At the time, it was said to prevent the onset of the recession.

Agreed, Bush’s spending spree was smaller, at “only” $168 billion, but it was a government stimulus program nonetheless. Proponents want to argue with me that Bush actually wanted to send checks to the little guy, so that makes it better. Sorry guys, government spending is government spending, no matter what it is spent on – your mortgage or someone’s pet alternative energy project. Either government spending solves the economic doldrums or it doesn’t. I know that government spending always hinders the free market economy; it’s not just the spending programs put in place by Democrats that do damage.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Not a single Republican voted for the Obama "porkulus" package, but President Bush's stimulus received support from every Ohio Republican in the Congress! Including, of course, Rep. Boehner. Who also voted for the Wall Street bailout.

Now, Rep. Boehner, why should we believe you? There is an old saying, "Fooled once, shame on you; fooled twice, shame on me." Rush Limbaugh is saying that voting Republicans back into the Congress is a better solution than secession. Seems to me that Mr. Matesz has made clear that a Republican comeback will do nothing but continue the insanity we are now experiencing with a few cosmetic changes.

There is only one way to get government to act in the interest of the people. And since we know that the interests of both Republican and Democrat are in continuing the present system, the only way to do that is to throw both parties out and vote Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and independents in!

A better solution is to throw the Republicrats out of office in Ohio, replace them with Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and independents, and then declare independence from the United States -- but that's a step that even Mr. Matesz is not ready to consider.

If you think you can explain how electing candidates from the major parties will solve any problems that both of them had a hand in creating, you're welcome to post a comment!

You get what you vote for

Ken Matesz, Libertarian candidate for Ohio governor, echoes on his Facebook page something that I wrote for the current issue of the Liberty Voice:

As a “third-party candidate,” I get to hear this one phrase so many times I practically hear it in my sleep: “A vote for a third party is a vote for the
__________(insert party name).”

Funny thing about this is that my third party had no hand in the current economic mess. Libertarian policies did not produce the Federal Reserve Bank that slashed interest rates making the housing bubble possible. Libertarian philosophy or policies did not encourage banks to lend to those who can’t really pay back their mortgages. Libertarian philosophy would NEVER have bailed out Wall Street or car companies the way Republicans and Democrats did. Libertarian philosophy and policies do not allow spending to exceed revenues. Libertarian policies are always 100% anti-tax to the highest degree possible. Libertarian policies did not drive the deficit to nearly $2 Trillion and the national debt to nearly $14 trillion. Libertarian policies would not allow a congress to regularly increase the debt ceiling as both Republicans and Democrats have done for decades.

So while both parties have made a royal mess of our economy for decade upon decade, it’s the third party candidates, like me, who get blamed for getting poor officials into office. This is like saying a death-row inmate was killed by an electric shock because he desperately wanted to live! Think about it. Such an inmate might have three choices: to die by lethal injection, to die by the electric chair, or to find a way to be free and stay alive. His chances of freeing himself may be slim, but who would blame him for trying? Would you say that it was because he chose freedom that he was killed in the electric chair? Or would you say he was killed by lethal injection because he wanted to escape to freedom? People who vote for alternative candidates want to be free. They understand that it’s the two hard-to-distinguish-from-each-other parties that have slowly killed the economy with their lethal injections or electric shocks. One party shocks the economy with excess taxes; the other injects it with spending that exceeds revenues. I want to be free and live without that pain and unconstitutional meddling. I would ALWAYS choose to find a way to free myself from that merry-go-round.

Don’t you want to be free? Don’t you want to be able to look in your children’s eyes and say, “I’m sorry things are such a mess, I did everything I could to make us free.” Or will you turn to your young one and say, “Well, it didn’t look like we would have much chance of survival, so I chose to feed us all poison.”

Those who “won’t vote for a third party because it means the Democrats will win” are saying, “I don’t want to kill the economy with taxes, I want to destroy it with excess spending.” Same difference. Either way, you get a mess. Most people, of either party, will agree that the political environment is a mess. Yet they insist that the only way to fix it is to keep voting for the same two parties that have been messing things up for 75 years or more. Strange how it all works, isn’t it. You vote for the lesser of two evils and, amazingly, you end up with evil. What an insight: You get what you elect.

Makes sense to me. I wonder why it makes sense to so few others? Maybe they've been brainwashed into thinking that no one except the Demopublicans can win an election?