Ron Paul, You're logic is flawed.

For anyone who trully wants to understand the appeal of Libertarianism that drives many of the Tea Partiers, you should read what Ron Paul has to say http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml. Ron Paul, while technically a Republican, freely admits he is trully a Libertarian politically, so what does that mean? Put simply, true Libertarians believe the Federal Government is far too large and should be a much smaller and weaker entity than it currently is today. They as a whole normally back the dissolving of the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve for being examples of too much government. True Libertarians also believe the Government shouldn't legislate morality and as such don't support the idea of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. This isn't because they support gay marriage, they just don't see how it's any of the federal government's business. That's actually the best way to describe Libertarians, they live the philosophy of "None of Your Business" towards the government and for many in America that kind of philosophy makes sense and I would have to agree...but not entirely.

Dr. Paul is a believer it a "True Free-Market" in which there are few government regulations and the economy and businesses are allowed run their own course whether it be successful or disasterous. Such a system sounds very good on paper but I find many faults with it. For example, there is nothing in Dr. Paul's Free Market that keeps Monopolies from forming and controlling the economy but yet he rails against Monopolies at the same time....Dr. Paul also denounces Keynesian economics, which is the system most if not all Western nations economies have used since the early 20th century. What is Keynesianism? Basically its an economic policy advocating a "Mixed" economy, in which the economy is in private hands and government influence plays a major factor in the economy as a whole. Is Keynesianism a perfect economic policy? Of course not, and there is no such perfect economic system. A True Free-Market system as advocated by Ron Paul is also far from perfect because with no government oversight we would have to rely on American corporations and businessmen to be honest and not exploit both the economy and the people...And who honestly believes that? Even with regulations and government oversight American businesses are still filled with corruption and purposely exploit the system to their own benefit no matter what the cost to average Americans. Do you think they would behave any better without supervision? A "True" Free-Market, while being more free from government interference is also liable to become corrupt and overbearing in its own right. So which is better? That is a question I cannot answer simply because I am not an economist, but to completely denounce Keynesianiam is to ignore one the major factors that shaped America's Post-War economic boom in the 20th century. And for this, I find Ron Paul's logic towards it flawed..

Could the Whigs Learn something from the Liberal Democrats of the U.K. ?

Believe it or not, we Americans could learn something from our allies across the Atlantic. Just last week, the U.K. witness something they had never seen before, a televised/live political candidate debate. We Americans are rather used to such things as they've been going on since the 1960 Presidential Election and as such many in the U.K. tuned in. What was the result of this debate? Well for those who know little of foreign politics, current British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is not exactly popular and most observers in Britain have predicted his party, Labour, will lose the next Parliamentary elections on May 6. Before the debate it was widely predicted (and even accepted) that the Conservative Party led by David Cameron would defeat Brown but there was some certainly on whether either major party would win a true majority. How could that be? Well unlike the USA, Britain has a major third party influence. The Liberal Democrats has since the late 80's won roughly 20% of the vote in UK elections and have played a small but largely unimportant part in UK politics. That has all changed this year. Even before the debate it was believe the Liberal Democrats could play "Kingmaker" this May for which ever party offers them the best partnership. The Debate changed all that. The leader of the Liberal Deomcrats, Nick Clegg, was able to not only charm the viewers and audience, but also mock the bickering of the two major parties. "The more they attack each other, the more they sound the same," Clegg rightfully pointed out. Now doesn't that sound familiar? Clegg also pointed out that politics as usual is what caused the UK's financial problems and political scandals and that a different path was needed. Since that debate, two new polls have put the Liberal Democrats ahead of Labour and even ahead of the Conservatives in one poll.

But because the UK's somewhat dysfunctional electoral system, even though Labour is third in most polls, they could come out with the most seats (though still not enough for a majority)...We American can relate to such confusion. The UK has a electoral system similar to our "Winner Takes All" system called "First Past the Post" which limits the ability for third parties to win a great deal of seats. Most in the UK predict if the Liberal Democrats do well, they could form a Alliance government with Labour and in return they will likely demand election reform to move the UK closer to a proportional voting system (which favors smaller parties like the Liberal Dems). So what can the Modern Whig Party learn from this? Plenty.

While it's not likely a major third party prescence will appear here in American this year or even 2 years from now, we do now know that it is possible for such to occur even with our Winner Take All voting system. In fact, on the Semi-Official Modern Whig Party Facebook group I and several other members debated possible election reform that increase fairness and allow our voice as citizens to be better heard in our government. Such talk of reform, while likely a long way off, nevertheless gives some of us hope that we could one day see such success for our party in the future. Something else to learn from the Liberal Democrats is Message. The Liberal Democrats have the right platform for the UK right now. They are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. For this reason the Modern Whig has something in common with the Liberal Dems, both have platforms that reflect how alot of their citizens feel about issues that are important to them. So if I was the MWP leadership, I'd be watching this election in the UK very closely..Cheers!

Six Signs of Hope..

Here is a great article from the Fiscal Times on some positive signs that the American economy is slowly recovering..Enjoy!

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/The-Economy/2010/04/01/The-Economy-Six-Signs-of-Hope.aspx

Ignorance is Bliss..

"The best argument against democracry is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill



A sad but very true statement, and this past year has only proven that point. Many of us know the truth, but you will never hear the major News Media ever talk about it..Not FOX, not MSNBC, and definitely not CNN...Our politicans will never say it...All because they fear the truth will either upset, offend, or anger the people of the United States of America..but someone has to say it, and it might as well be me...

The Average American voter is...STUPID. Period.

No one likes to say it and the average voter will either nod their heads in agreement or go into a rage but if everyone knew this our political landscape would be so much less dysfunctional..but then if everyone knew we wouldn't be so stupid now would we? You may laugh at this but it is the sad truth here in America...

Historian Rick Shenkman wrote a book several years ago that was largely ignored by the Average American (huge shock) but should be a pre-requisite for all American students. He gave the book a fairly controversial title but for good reason, because if he hadn't no one would have probably read it! Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter was published in 2008 and in our current heated political climate its words ring more true than when they were published..

In his book, Shenkman describes how easy to is for Americans to access information about events around the world or how our government works using the Internet, especially compared to just a few decades ago..but he also points out a stark and troubling fact..Even though Americans have this great access to knowledge, the majority choice not to use it and instead either relay on News Media to give them the facts or simple don't care. The ignorace of American voters in the area of civics is especially worrisome. A 2007 study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that on average American college students scored under 55 out of 100 on a test over basic American Civics. Sadly I can atest this truth from my experiences in college. And I can also sum it up rather easily..

Most Americans care very little about politics unless it comes to affect them personally. They see it as someone else's job to know such things so they don't have to research every issue being debating in Washington D.C....To be honest I can understand such a stance, because in these hard times Americans often have too much on their plate to know what's going on in Washington these days and instead rely on News Medias like FoxNews and MSNBC to provide them with the "facts", and there lies the average American voters greatest mistake. To trust the News Media to truthfully and objectively report the news in today's world of Partisanship is foolish but understandable. It has gotten so bad today that many believe most Americans actually prefer partisan News Media which they use to explain why CNN's ratings are tanking but FoxNews and MSNBC are the top Cable News outlets. I don't busy this myself, I think it has more to do with CNN's inability to actually debate the issues as opposed to just taking a middle road path like they are now.

The Truth is News Media discovered the average American's ignorance long ago and now exploit it...Whether it be with good-looking hosts and anchors or having controversial personalities, they are looking to get as many viewers as possible, simple as that. That sad thing is these News Media companies still try to pretend as though they are not biased politically when anyone who actually watches them all of them and does their own research and quickly find that they are not..but there again lies the problem...that's simply too much work for most Americans. They are content with trusting TV personalities to give them the "facts" instead of looking into such things themselves.

There are some who say we shouldn't be hard on our uninformed fellow citizens..but there is distinct line to draw. There are those are for whatever reason ignorant of the world around them (whether foreign, domestic, or political) not because they wish to be but because they find their own lives and problems more important and I have no problem with those people. My problem is with those who seemingly embrace such ignorance or allow others to do the thinking for them..because such people are indeed a danger to any Republic and allow the few to heavily influence the many and allow for the spread of not-so "facts" and only further deepens the partisan divide in our political system...

So I call on my fellow Americans, Don't allow others to do the Fact-checking for you, whether it be Liberals or Conservatives. For those of you who have the time, take 10 minutes a day to actually research the issues for yourselves and then see how the News reports it and see if they are telling you the truth...And for those of you out there who don't even know how our government works; if you are unsure about something, don't be afraid or ashamed to look it up. But don't be ignorant, because of all the problems our nation faces today, ignorance is possibly the most dangerous. Remember, Knowledge IS power!