Saw my reply to Wondy got mangled. Here it is in its entirety...
Those that want to engage in violence at this point are complete idiots. We are no where near the point of corporatism, fascism, tyranny, or whatever you want to call it where armed resistance is required. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be more than happy to water The Tree of Liberty if needed to. I just think that most of our current problems could be remedied without it at this point.
I don’t think we are really too far off on this. It is just a matter of how we see it. You see it as something we are heading towards. I see it as something that is already lurking beneath the surface waiting to make itself fully known.
Further, I agree that, as a whole, we are much better off than in most countries. It’s like Rand Paul pointing out that the poor family was watching cable on a nice tv in one of the adds ran against him.
Also, honestly, I don’t really expect all of the pay-for-play culture and corruption to be weeded out. I’m fine with being called cynical about this since I’m totally not looking for some bright-eyed idealist solution to the problem but I’m not a believer in some pre-corruption utopia. I expect there to be some corruption. There is in any system. Always has been and always will be. What really goads me is that it has become so blatant, prevalent, and overt.
That is my biggest worry. Though I guess this is to be expected due to my support, I agree with Paul in saying that we are already bankrupt. We’ve just been trying to control the collapse. The problem is that they are also going bankrupt in regard to tricks to keep the dollar afloat. On top of that, the most disturbing thing I’ve heard recently—partly influenced by the debt relief agenda of OWC—is a Nixon styled “controlled inflation.” It won’t work. Though I think it can be argued that a lot of the economic boom in the eighties can be contributed to it, it was bad enough when they did it in the seventies. They had a few things that helped them weather the storm that we don’t: industrial/manufacturing backbone, less competition, more savings, etc… Without these tools, I think any move towards floating us out of debt is just going to lead to a country of millionaires like in Zimbabwe.
And, I can agree with that somewhat. It pained me to see that so many of those in the crowd were so illiterate when it comes to government and economics. I’m glad they can get that something is wrong. But, if they don’t know what the SEC is or its role in the economy blowing up, then I can’t help but feel they should either get a clue or get the fuck lost. I just trend more towards trying to clue them in. Still, it doesn’t mean that they are completely stupid when it comes to politics. I think there are some buzzwords that they would respond to rather quickly—though, IMO, wrongly. One of those is Citizens United. While I think I may have been critical of this decision in the past, I’ve refined my opinion somewhat to be that it hasn’t been clearly counter-balanced in a reasonable way. I have no problem with Wall Street throwing all two-plus trillion they are sitting on into 2012 so long as people can see who donated how much to what. The problem is when you get to the SuperPACs that don’t have to disclose any of this information not to mention the excessive and, often backdoor, nature of lobbying efforts. No amount of money Wall Street can throw into an election campaign is anywhere near the power of one well paid guy in a “public servant’s” ear. I guess my point here is that you have to start them out on what they know even if what they know about what they know is wrong. My personal experience with this is that it goes both ways. Some will open their mind and others will just look mind-raped as they call you a fascist. I keep going because I don’t care that ninety-nine out of a hundred may call me a fascist so long as that one “gets it.”
The most sympathetic of any commentator I’ve seen has been Judge Napolitano on Fox Business.
What I’ll say quickly in Paul’s defense is that he is playing the long game. Unfortunately, I don’t think he is able to be as clear on his platform as he can (and has) been. If you have ever heard him speak in a non-election season, then you have probably heard the curt honesty that any real fix isn’t going to be pleasant in the short-term. Still, it would be nothing compared to the pain that we’ll feel if we just continue to use band-aids to patch what requires surgery. You just can’t sell people on the notion that a little pain now is much more preferable than a lot of pain later. So, the message—while strong—has been a little watered down.
Gingrich intrigues me because he hasn’t been as active as he could be. Hence, my belief that he is looking more towards a seat at the table rather than being the guy carving the turkey. Still, compared to all the other candidates, I think he is the only one with real solutions. And, maybe, he is just sitting back and letting the others implode early while gaining traction slowly. He’d definitely get my vote. The only other problem would be Dems trying to paint him as the Grinch or Scrooge…again.
I understand wanting to beat Obama. I’m just a little concerned that it will just lead to another lesser of two evils election. Again, I try not to be too idealistic. But, I still think we can find a candidate who is less-devilish enough to really buck the “politics as usual” standard. That’s all I’m asking for.
Again, I have no doubt that there are a lot of professional protesters, plants, co-opters hangers-on and idiots in the crowd. And, in that regard, I do tilt in favor of the Tea Party in trying more to point out and run out those types. The OWC crowd has definitely made some mistakes like accepting open endorsement from Unions. I’m not saying that they should’ve not allowed union members to join them just that they should’ve been more cautious in embracing endorsements that clearly signaled co-option and partisanship. They weren’t. Still, there is a strong voice in the inner workings of the movement that are trying to rebuff such efforts. I stand by them. I’m not thoroughly convinced of our/their success but, I still fight the fight.
Further, I think some of the items on their Occulists are fairly silly. Don’t get me wrong. I’d love for the government to eat twenty-years of student loan debt. It would free up a lot of money that could be put into economy and savings. On the flip side, I think free college education is stupid and would only do more to hurt the economy. The colleges are teetering on the edge of, if not already fallen into, the trap of being degree mills. It hurts the value of those who worked hard to get their degree, regardless of study, when you over fill the pool with those that partied hard and only got by because of the grading curve (with some exception given to the plethora of blank-studies programs that serve no useful purpose other than to indoctrinate). While I think we need more engineers, scientists, and such; I don’t think we should discount liberal arts as a whole because of the agenda driven nature of many of the programs it offers (once again, see blank-studies programs). There is still value in “classical liberal” education. It just needs to be resuscitated and dug out of the current morass it is buried in.
I know I didn’t address everything. But, time is short and I have to get ready to see my cousin rock it out bluegrass style. Anything I missed, let me know and I’ll follow up after the concert.
