This movement is apparent in two co-occurring phenomena -- the Tea Party and the surging interest in libertarian philosophy. Those of the political class, Democrats and Republicans alike, have reacted badly to these phenomena. The establishment Republicans kept their distance from the Tea Party movement until the Massachusetts Senate election; now, it seems, there is a rush by prospective candidates to claim that "I am a Tea partier, too," even though many of them are not.  The Democrats alternate, sometimes rapidly, between slandering and scoffing at the Tea Party. Witness the immediate Democratic reaction to mildly-libertarian, Tea-Party-endorsed Rand Paul's primary win in Kentucky -- the slanderfest began within 24 hours. Meanwhile, Rand Paul and those like him continue to rise in popularity, while the audiences for libertarian commentators like John Stossell and Glenn Beck continue to rise.

Those of the political class of course pay lip-service homage to American social traditions -- but it is not what they say, but what they do that counts. Analyzed in terms of David Hackett Fischer's description, the list of offenses by the political class against America is lengthy and damning:

* "capitalist in its economy" -- The political class, Republican and Democrat alike, have worked assiduously to replace free-enterprise capitalism with a Federally-run mercantilism. In the world of Federal mercantilism, politicians and bureaucrats pick the economic winners and losers, bestowing blessings on favored industries (ethanol) and connected companies within industries. The free market is increasingly viewed as an annoyance, if not a hindrance. Despite the recent catastrophic failure of social engineering by economic manipulation, we hear calls for more "regulation." In Federally-run mercantilism, the "cure" for failure is more of the same. Barack Obama condemned George Bush for overspending the Federal budget by $300 billion or so per year -- but his "cure" is to overspend the Federal budget by $1.3 trillion per year. Q.E.D. And don't kid yourself that our state governments are any better -- Federal mercantilism applies to them, too, and the flow of money, the picking of winners and losers, mandates that they play the game by the same rules.

* "libertarian in its laws" --  The political class, Supreme Court included, has "re-interpreted" the Constitution and has adopted new laws which are distinctly anti-libertarian -- inimical to liberty. The Kelo decision by the U. S. Supreme Court typifies this terrible trend. The framers of the Constitution sought to guarantee that government would not seize the property of citizens except for public uses and that citizens whose property was taken would be justly contemplated. In the brave new world of Federal mercantilism, any government can take anyone's property and turn it over to a favored person or company on the bare promise that the favored one will someday pay more taxes. In the libertarian concept, the government is obligated to protect its citizens from the crimes and depredations of exploiters, but now the government plays the role of accessory to the crime. Again, don't kid yourselves by thinking that state governments are any better -- most of them apply the "law" exactly as it was stated in Kelo.

* "individualist in its society and pluralistic in its culture" -- What we see now are "identity politics" and "wedge issues." The Democrats have won control of Congress and the White House with these tactics -- the Republicans are not guiltless, but the Democrats are far better at such things. This sorry state of affairs has recently been exemplified by the attacks on the Arizona illegal-immigration law, which was condemned publicly by Democratic officials who hadn't bothered to read the law in question, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Most of what the liberal Democrats have said about the law is false but in the world of identity politics and wedge issues truth does not matter; all that counts is hammering away at the wedge.

Most of those engaged in the movement are not political types — if they had any involvement in politics before, it was tangential or sporadic. Instead, they are folks who would rather be raising their families, minding their business, tending their properties, and otherwise living (not talking about) the American dream. Their involvement in a political process bears witness to a serious purpose.  Their willingness to suffer the slanderous beat-downs that the political class visits upon such upstarts testifies to a stoic determination to see things through to the finish.

Fortunately, America is still democratic in its politics and so we still have the vote. The restoration movement aims to stop the destruction of the traditional American social system and I hope it can muster the votes to make a difference in the November elections.

Griffith was an avid supporter of the traffic-violation "abuser fees" sponsored by his business partner, Rep. Dave Albo. Even after publicity concerning the discriminatory "abuser fees" resulted in a firestorm of protest, Griffith backed Albo on the matter. The "abuser fees" were admittedly designed as a means of raising revenue --  a stealth tax.

Griffith was the sole sponsor of a law which seriously restricts the rights of Virginia citizens to a jury trial when sued for damages. In Virginia, a person sued in a General District Court for $15,000.00 or less is not entitled to a jury trial. However, prior to 2007, the Code of Virginia allowed "removal" to Circuit Court -- where a jury trial is available -- in cases where someone is sued for $4,500.00 or more. Morgan Griffith introduced and sheparded through the Virginia General Assembly a bill which repealed the "removal" law. Now anyone sued for $15,000.00 or less is stuck in General District Court with no right to a jury trial.

That amount of money is very substantial for working families and small business owners in Virginia. A judgment for $10,000 or $15,000 might be enough to push someone into bankruptcy, even though there is a substantial defense to the claim which a jury might recognize but which would get short shrift in the collection-agency atmosphere of a General District Court.

Why would Griffith sponsor such a law? He has a history of supporting, and being financially backed by, corporate and business interests. Here are the top-20 Griffith campaign contributors for the past 10 years:

$73,000     Virginia Assn of Realtors
$72,052     Virginia Trial Lawyers Assn
$64,500     Dominion Power
$62,750     Virginia Bankers Assn
$58,250     O'Bannon for Delegate - John – Richmond
$54,000     Nutter for Delegate - Dave --    Christiansburg
$43,750     Virginia Auto Dealers Assn
$42,500     Altria
$36,462     Virginia Cable Telecom Assn
$34,500     Allen Allen Allen & Allen – Richmond
$34,500     Verizon
$34,000     Anthem
$30,555     Home Builders Assn of Virginia
$27,500     Alpha Natural Resources
$24,250     Genworth Financial     
$23,250     Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Assn
$23,200     NRA Political Victory Fund
$21,000     Anderson Financial Services/LoanMax – Alpharetta, GA
$19,750     Virginia Health Care Assn
$19,000     McGuire Woods – Richmond

A full list is available here. Most of the donors on this list either employ lobbyists or hire out as lobbyists of the Virginia legislature. LoanMax, for those unfamiliar with this company, is an often-sued car-title lender.

If 9th District Republicans want to oust Rick Boucher, they need to make a better choice. Morgan Griffith is not someone I can support and I suspect that many independents will feel the same way.

Wikimedia image; click on image for larger view.

Wikimedia image; click on image for larger view.In fiscal year 2009, Federal spending on "mandatory" items plus net interest was about $2,399,000,000. Federal income from all sources was $2,105,000,000, leaving a deficit of $294 billion BEFORE anything was spent on national defense, infrastructure projects, or grants to study the sex life of hornytoads. The projections for F/Y 2011 are $2.416 trillion and $2.567 trillion, leaving a positive balance near the tipping point -- but the income numbers assume a 22.5% increase in personal income tax revenues, a 115% increase in corporate income tax revenues, and $16 billion in new revenues from health care reform. The likelihood of these rosy forecasts actually happening are slim.

Even if the increased revenues do come to pass, all bets are off if interest rates rise faster than projected. And the Feds to acknowledge that, by and by, rates will rise. Factoring in the trillion-dollar-per-year increases in national debt and increasing rates of interest, net interest is projected to rise from $188 billion in F/Y 2010 to $840 billion in F/Y 2020.

Question: Do you think the "deficit commission" might propose new taxes?

1. Yes.

2. Hell, yes.

3. Oh, yeah.

4. All of the above.

You can check the numbers yourself HERE.

The Arizona law -- S.B. 1070 -- originates at the state level, so it is not thousands of pages long and doesn't require a lawyer and a c.p.a. to translate. There is a provision which states:

This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of united states citizens.

If someone can find the section which requires or condones "racial profiling," please let me know ASAP!

Here is a link to the Arizona law: Arizona S.B. 1070.

If it is true that "insanity" can be defined as repeating the same self-defeating behaviors time and time again while expecting different results, then, I'm afraid, the great majority of my fellow Americans qualify as political lunatics. We -- I include myself to acknowledge past acts of political madness -- vote for a Democrat who promises "change" or a Republican who promises "frugality" and we get politics as usual. Nothing changes, taxes go up, spending goes up, liberty suffers.

If one thing should be crystal clear, it is this: The "wasted votes," the votes which are "thrown away," are those cast for Democrats and Republicans.

In 2000, I liberated myself from two-party politics and voted third-party for the first time in a Presidential election.  And it was a liberating vote -- in light of subsequent events, I am happier now than ever that I am responsible for neither Al Gore nor George Bush.

If the major parties were running Satan and Beelzebub for office, would you vote for Beelzebub because he is "the lesser of two evils?" Not this citizen; if those are the choices, I'm a write-in for Jesus.

Here's my advice. Stop listening to the two-party rhetoric. Examine you own beliefs and values. Then have the courage of your convictions, find your conscience, clear your vision and vote accordingly. If that leads you to vote for a Republicrat or a Demopublican, so be it; but please, never be afraid to vote third-party because others waste their votes routinely.

Mistake me not -- I do not condone rude or obnoxious behavior in public discourse. But that is not what the "civility" advocates are targeting.  Certainly, one can be polite while explaining, for example, that someone else is a corrupt jackass who should be removed from office.

The Democratic Left, having engaged in the most uncivil discourse imaginable for a half-dozen or so years, has suddenly become the leading proponent of "civility." This should tell you all you need to know about the motivations which underlie the "civility" pleas.  They know that citizens become weary of political squabbles and they hope to fool voters into believing that their new-found love of "civility" is commendable.

On the naïveté side, a belief that there ever was or ever can be "civility" in American politics betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of politics and government. The naive believe that government will function better if only we can all be civil and well-mannered about the process. News flash for the naive: what you see happening in Washington now is American government at its best.

I repeat, at the risk of being rude and obnoxious: what you see happening in Washington now is American government at its best.

Government is by its nature self-serving, corrupting, and wasteful. Government is useful to the extent that certain problem-solving functions must necessarily be handled collectively and by force or threat of force; beyond strict necessity, government is wasteful at best and harmful at worst. The true nature of the Federal government has been put on display in the last year of the George W. Bush administration and the first year of the Barack Obama administration in its full, Technicolor, surround-sound glory. What the naive don't realize, or don't want to admit, is that this is the reality of government.

And this is why the Founders of this Republic intended limited powers for the Federal government, and why we need to restore, not civility, but restraints on the power of government.

It seems inevitable that the reins of government sooner or later fall into the hands of an elite. The United States government is now effectively controlled by an elite which doesn't admit its existence but which is very real. The members of this elite like to refer to themselves as "the best and the brightest." They effectively control both Washington and Wall Street and frequently move between those two venues.  Like all elites, they believe that they know what is best and that they are entitled to govern.

Our present governing elite, which includes both Democrats and Republicans, became entrenched by using tax revenues to buy votes. When their various social engineering policies failed and the economy tanked, the elite did what elites always do -- it protected itself.  Washington bailed out Wall Street, bigtime, and then bought votes wholesale with a "stimulus" package loaded with pet projects and payoffs. Note well that most of the jobs "saved" by the stimulus spending were government jobs.

What enables this elite to continue in power is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, authorizing Congress to impose taxes on incomes. Our money thus becomes its money, and so-called "Federal"  money is used to pursue its agenda.  The states have been reduced to subservience by a simple technique -- income earned by their citizens is taxed by the Federal government, which then doles out "Federal dollars" to state governments with strings attached.

The process has now run completely out of control. The income tax has been revealed as a tool of evil which will, if left in place, destroy the liberties of the citizen who pay it.

The simplest solution is to repeal the 16th Amendment. No more Federal income tax.  Of course, the prospects of that are nil unless some serious changes are made in Congress and in many state governments. Yet I believe that it will happen -- if not before national bankruptcy, then shortly thereafter.

Which brings me back to "civility." The closer our country comes to financial meltdown, the more insecure the position of the "best-and-brightest" elite -- and the more we will hear calls for "civility." Translation: "we know what's best for you; we're the ones entitled to govern; shut up and pay your taxes."

The only intelligent response to that is "civility be damned."

FURTHER READING:

Obama calls for return to civility in politics

Elder Bush decries lack of civility in politics

Civility in Politics: A Modern Myth

Politics: Is Civility Dead?

A call for civility in politics: Where have you been?

"The political system itself helped bring on the Civil War.  The mechanism assembled over the first half of the nineteenth century turned around binary choices between two parties and only two parties.  Party regulars demanded that true loyalists were all or nothing. To be undecided and open to persuasion was to be less than a man.  As the two-party system strained and broke in the 1850s, American voters took this habit of mind with them; they felt driven to dichotomous choices of Republican or Democrat, Union or Confederacy. Voices of caution and moderation were drowned out beneath charges of cowardice and betrayal.  With each decision the next round of choices became even narrower: yes or no, now or never, with us or against us."

Substitute “2000s” for “1850s,” and (say) “Secular Progressivism or Traditionalism" for "Union or Confederacy,” and ask yourself whether this description rings true in 2010.

It was not that long ago that Ronald Reagan was a clear voice of reason in American politics. He is attributed with the observation that “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” That was then.  How quickly, it seems, that the Reagan conservatives, Democrat and Republican alike, have forgotten Reagan.

I have been a student of history since I could read – certain school marks notwithstanding – and in my early years enjoyed visits to the household of Tony and Phyllis Stein, Tony being a fellow newspaper journalist of my father and the Steins having become family friends.  Tony Stein had a library chock-full of books on the American Civil War. I suspect he had tracked down one copy of everything published on the subject; there were that many books.  My brother Chris and I took the first opportunity to retreat to the Stein reading room and haul out a few volumes for study and perusal – and not once did we squabble over who got a book first -- there were that many volumes available.  We slipped into accounts of the Civil War so intently that Phyllis Stein had the seriously mistaken impression that we were quiet, well-mannered, and well-behaved young boys.

Much of the “history” of the American Civil War, it turned out, was distirted by fictions, from both North and South.  The underlying causes were of course related to slavery, but the threads of the national fabric unraveled in strange ways.  At some point it dawned on me that the Civil War simply happened – no one really expected it, the country was unprepared for it, and the headlong leap into violence resulted in a war of unanticipated carnage and destruction. At some point, up to no later than the eve of the first battle of Manassas, say, the Civil War could have been avoided. But it had happened anyway.

Thus I was struck by the second marked passage of Ayers’ evaluation of “What Caused The Civil War?”:

"Slavery was a profound economic, political, religious, and moral problem, the most profound the nation has ever faced.  But that problem did not lead to war in a rational, predictable way. The war came through misunderstanding, confusion, miscalculation.  Both sides underestimated the location of fundamental loyalty in the other.  Both received incorrect images of the other in the partisan press. Political belief distorted each side’s view of the economy and class relations.  Both sides believed the other was bluffing, both believed that the other’s internal differences and conflicts would lead it to buckle, and both believed they had latent but powerful allies . . . that would prevent war."

I ask again – does this not begin to sound familiar?

No, I don’t believe that a second civil war is imminent; but then, in January 1860, virtually no one foresaw what was to come in the next several years.  To be sure, there is no real danger that one side or the other of our current political mess will intentionally start a war. But only some wars are started intentionally.  Nazi Germany knew full well that attacking Poland in 1939 would bring about war with France and England; Hitler wanted that war and was prepared to fight it.  Imperial Germany in 1914 did not intentionally go to war but instead it mobilized in preparation for war, bound by a treaty with Austria-Hungary, then matters lurched forward with preparations on both sides, and the Great War happened.  A war for which neither side was truly prepared and which neither side knew how to win. A war prompted by a gunshot in a far-away place, Sarajevo, well outside of the realms of Germany, France, and England, which took the brunt of the carnage.  

Thus, studying history convinces me that some wars simply happen, with the proximate cause of hostilities being that someone began to prepare for war.  The proximate cause needn’t be close at hand, and in the Middle East, there is a rogue nation preparing for war.  Eventually, if Iran is not brought to heel – and under our present government, that appears unlikely to happen – there will be a serious war and it may spread to our homeland.

There are signs that Americans are choosing sides – perhaps subconsciously – in anticipation of a more violent future.  There are fewer who report themselves as being “independent” or “moderate” and more who report themselves as “conservative.” Rifles and ammunition have been selling briskly throughout the country for more than a year. The first year of the new Federal administration has been marked by incidents of violence in the homeland. Ayers’ description of America in 1860 becomes increasingly apt for America in 2010.

And often it seems that we can only watch the gathering storms.

* * *

Ronald Reagan, again: “History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

“One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns.”

“I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it. On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values — at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world.”

The nature of the beast was exemplified by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who, after meeting with the President, announced with cameras rolling that her agency had followed the necessary procedures (and thus was absolving itself of any blame).  Ironically, in the context of Federal government culture, every word she uttered was true and correct.  Her agency made no mistakes and committed no errors. Instead, the State Department had reached the practical limits of Federal success.

Federal agencies do a wonderful job of slamming the barn door shut once the horses have gotten out.  This has been going on for weeks, and will continue for weeks to come: shutting down the Newark airport when an inattentive guard leaves his post and someone walks through the chokepoint unmolested to kiss his lover goodbye; scrambling F-16s when a drunken passenger gets out of hand on an airliner in flight. SLAM! SLAM! SLAM! (Just what were those F-16s going to do to get that drunk under control? Well, I suppose shooting down the plane would get the job done, but . . . . )

So here’s what we can expect: Barn doors will be slammed shut loudly and often for a while, adduced as proof of agency competence and alertness.  At the same time, more lone gunmen (mostly with bombs, rather than guns) will be sent to make terror attacks.  They will be supported by jihadist organizations bent on designing weapons which escape detection, but they will not be in cells in the United States, and thus they will be harder to detect.

In the short run, there is only one way to deal with the lone gunman – profiling. That’s a dirty word in the political Left.  It marks you as a bigot, or a racist, or a reactionary, or something else nefarious and morally repulsive.  To serve the high moral purposes of progressivism, we must not profile; instead, we must use inherently inefficient and less effective methods like random selection.  You search a Nigerian, you’d better search a Norwegian as well, or you’re politically-incorrect toast.  Muslims coming from Yemen must not be treated any differently than a group of small-town midwestern Methodists returning from a trip to the Holy Land.  Most citizens realize that profiling is necessary, see Rasmussen Reports, 63% Say Political Correctness Kept Military From Preventing Ford Hood Massacre, but the progressivist tail will keep wagging the Federal dog for the time being.

Prior to the Christmas Day attack, most Americans -- Republicans included -- had been lulled or gulled into a pre-911 mindset.  See Gallup (December 2, 2009), Majority of Americans Think Near-Term Terrorism Unlikely.  Ironically, the Obama administration reacted by (1) blaming George Bush and (2) characterizing the attack in terms descriptive of a "lone gunman" in order to minimize its significance. Correct on both counts.  Despite the shoe-bomber attack in 2003, the Bush administration did not push for choke-point profiling of individuals, but opted for making all of us take off our shoes -- the more inefficient choice -- and thus demonstrated unwittingly the practical limits of Federal success.  Many Americans therefore owe their lives to the slow learning curve of Al-Qaeda jihadists.

So here’s what else we can expect: Because the present administration is heavily influenced by the political Left, it will avoid profiling as long as it can.  It matters not that airport profiling has substantial public support.  See Rasmussen Reports, 59% Favor Racial, Ethnic Profiling For Airline Security. And sooner or later, another lone gunman will slip through the inefficiencies of government. We can only hope he has no better a detonator than the Christmas Day bomber and pray that there’s an athletic young Dutchman sitting nearby.

Republican candidate Bob McDonnell

Oh, He Probably Shouldn't Have Said That -- In a related story carried by the Associated Press, Virginia Senator Jim Webb is reported as saying that the nation "is watching to see whether Democrats can win the governor's race and other statewide offices." Oops! This is contrary to the Democratic Party line, which minimizes the importance of the Virginia election.  Maybe Senator Webb didn't get the memo.

Winning Your Own Neighborhood -- It is extremely difficult to win an election if you can't carry your neighborhood, and it looks like Creigh Deeds is about to be shellacked in his own bailiwick.  Deeds hails from the Shenandoah Valley area but the Mason-Dixon poll shows this to be McDonnell's strongest region, by a margin of 67% to 29%. If you recall the 2000 Presidential election -- and who doesn't? -- you know that Democrats blame their ticket's loss on the Florida vote count and/or the Supreme Court decision in Bush versus Gore.  But the fact is that Al Gore couldn't carry his own neighborhood, that is, the state of Tennessee.  Regardless of the Florida outcome, if Gore had won his home state he would have been elected President in 2000.  So it seems likely to go with Deeds, as his home folks prepare to vote for McDonnell.  True, Deeds may poll slightly ahead in McDonnell's native ground, Fairfax County, but McDonnell is well ahead in his present home area of Hampton Roads.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Virginia Election — Mason-Dixon Poll Corroborates Republican Lead

Virginia Election -- A Hammer and Tongs Finish

Obama’s Belated Virginia Effort Running Against The Tide

Virginia Polls Confirm Big Lead For Conservatives

In Virginia, Dems Dis Deeds As Republicans Roll

As of this writing, the polling data indicate a substantial conservative margin among likely voters.  The reports for the week of October 21-28:

Poll                        Date    Sample     (R)     (D)   Margin 
Rasmussen Rpts     10/28   1000 LV    54      41    McDonnell +13
Daily Kos/R2000   10/28    600 LV    54      44    McDonnell +10
Suffolk U.              10/28    400 LV    54      40    McDonnell +14
Roanoke Coll.        10/27    569 LV    53      36    McDonnell +17
SurveyUSA            10/26    502 LV    58      41    McDonnell +17
PublicPolicy            10/26    729 LV    55      40    McDonnell +15
Wash. Post             10/25   1206 LV   55      44    McDonnell +11
VCU                      10/25    625 LV    54      36    McDonnell +18

Although the Democratic ticket was polling as close as 7 points in the previous week, every poll released this week has put the Republicans up by 10 points or better.  The results given above are stated for the McDonnell-Deeds contest for governor but the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general follow suit.

The eight individual polls display a range of results from +10 to +18 points and some of them have relatively small sample sizes.  Differences in methodology and political orientation may make for a certain degree of variation in results. Nonetheless, the aggregate of all eight polls covers 5,631 likely voters and individual differences to some extent cancel out when the numbers are aggregated.  The weighted average margin for the Republicans is +12 points, more than double the reported undecideds. 

Typically, an election narrows in the closing days, and this one may.  But there is not much room to play with for the Democrats; even if they win all of the undecideds, they're still down by 7 points. 

There are several significant trends reflected in the data.  While Democrats who intend to vote strongly support the Democratic candidates, relatively fewer Democrats intend to go to the polls.  Republicans strongly favor their candidates and are more likely to vote.  But the biggest factor is independent voters, who are likely to vote Republican by a margin of almost 2 to 1. This represents a strong turnaround from the 2008 Presidential election.

None of the Republican candidates can be described as "charismatic," or even "exciting." Or, frankly, all that interesting. They are essentially standard-issue GOP suits more likely to be thought of as "reliable" and "conservative." But they are politically savvy and have campaigned well, making the Virginia election a referendum of sorts on both state and national economic issues.  In that regard, the Virginia results may be significant for the 2010 mid-term elections.

Personally, I favor the Republican candidates, but without much enthusiasm.  There is no candidate in the statewide races with a strong libertarian orientation and there is no third-party alternative on the ballot.  As usual, it is a lesser-of-two-evils choice. The special Congressional election in New York's 23rd District is far more interesting because the third-party candidate may do better than make a good showing -- he is in a good position to win.