Big Whig News!

Well it is official, the American Centrist Party has merged with the Modern Whig Party. This merger, in the works for a little while now, unifies two of the largest moderate American political parties and shows that interest in this movement is continuing to rise which is amazing when considering how polarized our political environment it is in America today. Some 16,000 new members have now joined the Modern Whig Party giving the MWP some 46,000 members and hopefully the newly merged leadership will guide the MWP to greater scope in American politics and I wish the MWP congrats, Cheers!

Oy Vey...

I hate to say it..but I told you so..Several posts back I discussed the relative stupidity of American Voters on how our very political system works and its history. Some of you may have read it and thought, "surely the American voter can't be that dumb" or something along those lines..but now we have more proof of our own stupidity...Two websites, Findlaw.com and the American Revolution Center have recented published polls that should make all Americans shudder and think.

Firstly, the website FindLaw discovered that roughly 2/3 of those who participated in their poll couldn't name a single U.S. Supreme Court Justice..which while understandable considering how relatively little we see of the Supreme Court is still a saddening fact that all Americans should pay attention to..

Secondly, the American Revolution Center sponsored a national survey with 1001 participants to determine how well we Americans understand basic Civics and facts about our very Revolutionary War and the results are..well, Pathetic. As such I will let you read the results for yourself..

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2010/06/findlaw-survey-can-you-name-the-supreme-court.html

http://www.americanrevolutioncenter.org/node/89

Today In Iowa Politics..

I rarely discuss the politics of my home state of Iowa but today I feel moved to do so...The big race for most of us Iowans this year is the Governors race. Chet Culver (Democrat) has certainly not impressed many Iowans with his performance the last 4 years and as you might expect there are many who challenging him this fall, but before that happens we have to get through the Republican Primary first. The two main contendors for the Republican nod are Terry Brandstad and Bob Vander Plaats. Brandstad is a former governor who served 4 full terms in the 80's and 90's here in Iowa (a total of 16 years) and is very well liked by most Iowans because he came in during a rough economic patch in Iowa and left office with a historic budget surplus (which has long evaporated)...Bob Vander Plaats has tried to run a few times now and lost the Republican nod in 2006 and settled for being a Lt. Governor candidate instead and still lost to Chet Culver. Regardless of who wins, most polls in Iowa show Culver losing. So what are the big issues here in the middle of nowhere? Funny enough they are issues that are big issues across the nation. Gay Marriage is one of the key issues for the Republicans this year. To those who didnt watch the news much last year, Iowa became on of the few states in the US that allows gay marriage after the Iowa Supreme Court threw out Iowa's traditional marriage law and authorized gay couples to marry. This caused a big uproar in the state but the Democratic governor and legislature largely ignored it which means by Iowa law the gay marriages can't be legally stopped until likely 2012 or later.

This is where the two main Republican candidates differ. Bob Vander Plaats claims that if elected he will issue an executive order putting a stay on same-sex marriages. He claims the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and "created" law instead of interpretting it and therefore that legitimizes his possible actions. However for those of us with at least a basic understand on how our legal system works can tell you such an executive order is unconstitutional and illegal. The courts would more than likely throw it out and cause a constitutional crisis here in Iowa. Such an executive order would be like President Obama saying he didn't like the Supreme Court's ruling on something and issuing an executive order to block the ruling...It's ridiculus and the fact that Vander Plaats continues to claim this to me just makes me dislike him more..to the point that if he wins the Republican primary for governor I will vote instead of Chet Culver who while a crappy governor overall at least he knows his constitutional limits...His main opponent Terry Brandstad has stated that while he doesn't approve of the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling he also thinks we should overturn the law the right way (via the legislature and state-wide referendum). And for that Mr. Brandstad, I will vote for you and wish you the best..and for Mr. Vander Plaats, you sir are a Dumbass...Cheers

Catching Up..

Sadly I've been busy with work as of late and hadn't had any inspiration for writing..But considering the recent events in the last few weeks I think some catching up is in order...

Firstly, I'd like to discuss the controversial Anti-Immigration bill signed into law in Arizona. The law has been applauded by the Right and decried by the Left. There have been large and sometimes violent protests against this new law and there have been calls for boycotting business with Arizona (including a traveling warning from the Mexican government). On the Right it has been hailed as a state's effort to do what the Federal government has failed to do. From my studying of this bill, I find that both sides have flaws in their argument.

Flaws with the Left's Arguments:
1. Most of this law mirrors Federal statutes on illegal immigration including have proper identification if you are an immigrant (visa or green card for example) and if you are here illegally you are breaking the law and will be treated as such.
2. The protests have been more like controlled riots and have been treated different by the so-called "Main Stream Media"..which seems to compared them equally with Tea Party protests which while filed with stupid signs and angry words were lacking in the same kind of violence seen in these Anti-Arizona protests.

Flaws with the Right's Arguments:
1. You has to wonder about a law that Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police didn't want passed and for good reasons. As police chiefs and sheriffs here in my home state of Iowa have said, such a law is inherently expensive and hard to enforce. In all likelihood most independent observers believe such a law will be expensive for Arizona so don't be surprised if Arizona's taxes go up in the next few years..
2. The Right claims Arizona is doing what the Federal Government has failed to do (and in turn something President Obama has failed to do) in securing the borders..But considering how much the President has had to deal with since taking office I don't believe Immigration Reform could have been explored properly anyway but regardless I have one big question for those on the Right..Where was this outrage of finger-wagging when President Bush was in office? For 8 years under his presidency nothing really changed on the border in terms of reform. I do give Bush credit for setting into motion the enlargement of Border Patrol agents, building better barriers and overall improved border security but such actions are only attacking the symptom and not the true problem. More importantly Immigration Reform was brought up during his Presidency but the Feds wimped out (both Republicans and Democrats) of doing any real reform because they didn't want to risk their political careers.

So while both sides make some good points they also both have major flaws in their reasoning. So how do I see this controversy? Firstly, considering how the Federal government has floundered in Immigration Reform, I understand what Arizona is trying to do with this bill. But having local police try to enforce such a law is tricky. The likelihood of racial profiling and discrimination is high no matter how specific this law may be simple because of human nature. Border Patrol and ICE agents are trained on how to better determine illegal from legal residents for which state police are not as well trained for. Could such training be improved? Of course but that takes time and the bill is now law so the possible of profiling and discrimination remains, hence why such laws are always so tricky. The cost of such a law is also likely going to be a problem and the idea that someone can sue the police/law enforcement because they dont think they are doing a good enough job is a terrible idea. Because such an ability will likely lead to abuses and make Police departments focus too much on illegals and less on other areas of crime in fear they are going to get sued if they don't. If it were not for that provision I would likely support such a bill...

Long story short, a largely O.K. bill but leaves a lot of loose ends and we will have to wait and see how they are tied up..

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