Category Archives: Republicans

Why I align with BLEXIT …

BLEXIT is a movement that asks black Americans to think critically about their relationship with the Democratic Party.  The movement’s primary premise is that the Democratic Party has taken the black voter for granted, offering nothing of substance in exchange for the decades of significant support the black electorate has provided to Democrats.

Like most blacks I have been put off for years by the brush off Democrats impose on blacks especially during and after election season.  You always know when it is election season when a politician of the white, Democratic hue drops by a black church in search of good optics, electoral support, and donations.  You have to wait two, four, or six years before most of them come around and visit again.

The usual push back from Democrats is, “If you blacks leave us, who are you going to turn to? The Republicans? The GOP hasn’t done anything for you.”  Of course the GOP has not done anything for blacks.  Blacks haven’t received anything from the GOP because blacks haven’t offered a vote in exchange for anything from the GOP.  That is how politics works.  Besides being a blood sport, politics is about an exchange.  If blacks want something from the GOP, they will have to offer the vote or some other thing of value, i.e. donations, in exchange for a political package.

But the aversion blacks display to the Republicans should now be spread to the Democratic Party.  The Democrats and the Republicans have a duopoly on the electoral process having secured their positions as the two most dominant parties and grantors of political packages in America’s politics industry.  They have successfully kept third parties from mounting significant challenges to their market dominance, but as in any consumer society, the rational move for black voters should be to play off the two competitors against each other.  Make the parties compete for the vote and donations.

With 13% of America’s population, BLEXIT has to take on more meaning than just walking away from the Democrats.  BLEXIT should be about holding the vote back until one party decides to offer something of greater value that the other party cannot match.  Effective BLEXIT will require rank and file voters and black political leadership to design a strategy and implement tactics that keeps blacks relevant in a changing political environment.

It is doable, and my intent over the next few weeks is to demonstrate how it is doable.

What Americans consider as political power is not enhanced by impeachment trial…

For most Americans, political power is wrapped up in the vote, their ability to select the the candidate of their choice to occupy a public office.  Political power is about engaging in various forums i.e. courts, voting booths, administrative hearings, etc., in order to get other political actors, i.e. voters, public officials, media, business firms, etc., to get you what you want.

In a republic, the electorate hopes to see gains in political power manifested in the officials they choose.  Donald Trump with the aid of approximately 62,984,828 popular votes and 304 votes in the Electoral College became the manifestation; certified by America’s electoral process as the chief executive who would exercise political power specifically on behalf of those whose political values he asserted to share during his campaign.

The approximately 65,853,514 American voters not sharing Mr. Trump’s political values via their elected agents in the U.S. House of Representatives have decided that to wrest political power from Mr. Trump that impeachment of the President is their best strategy for placing political power into the hands of the Left.  To paraphrase U.S. Representative Al Green, Democrat from Texas, failure to impeach Mr Trump today would result in his re-election.  This lack of faith in the Democrats’ ability to beat Mr Trump in the voting booth should be most telling about how the Democratic Party assesses its own power of persuasion over the American electorate, an incapacity that does not get too much attention.

What does impeachment get you?

If the Democrats are successful in removing Mr Trump from office, the immediate gains in their political power will be reflected how? Yes, among their base Congressional Democratic approval ratings may receive a bump because they would have delivered on their promise to remove Mr Trump, but in order to increase their power, they would need to take the Senate in the fall as well.  Will the Democrats be able to spread the taint of a disgraced U.S. president to his Republican colleagues in the Senate or will Republican voters be emboldened to do everything in their power to ensure that the Senate stays in Republican hands?

But even if the Democrats are able to win control of both Houses of Congress in the fall combined with a removal of Mr Trump, what does that say about the voter’s political power?  What does this say about the importance of the vote?  Is it okay that close to 300 individuals in the Congress would in effect invalidate and throw out the 63 million popular votes and 304 Electoral College votes?  Shouldn’t the electorate, with just over seven months to go to the 2020 general elections, be allowed to determine whether or not Mr Trump receives another four years in the White House?  What does impeachment say about how seriously Congress takes the exercise of democracy?

More importantly, what does the impeachment say about individual political power? One takeaway is that individual political power is severely diluted on the national level due not only to one vote being merely one vote among 130 million votes, but is increasingly made irrelevant by the actions of a handful of men and women in Washington.  Americans may be so caught up in the “we, we, we” of this impeachment trial that they run the risk of not being able to answer the “so what?” question when the trial is over.

Where the benefits of democracy don’t equal its costs …

It is no wonder that democracy is taking a hit in popularity around the world.  Democracy’s dwindling efficacy, if it ever had any, is being exposed in the world’s most noted “democracy”, the United States.  Where significant portions of the American populace is stressed over their inability to create an economy that works for them, that stress is compounded by an electoral system that they have no control over.  This is ironic in a society where “democracy” promises that one person’s vote is as important as another person’s vote.

I would argue that participation in the national vote is less important a tool of individual political power and more important in the validation of national government’s rule over the individual.  National government has to demonstrate that it has validity with the people and does this with a national tally.  National government has to consistently show why it has the power to tax 300 million people and what better way to get “permission” than to encourage the election franchise.  Ask people to describe what the returns are to their vote and they would be hard pressed to describe any tangible benefits that may equate with any tangible hits they take on their wallets when taxes are due.

As an avenue of political power, the vote has not succeeded in aligning the tangible costs of tax liability with any tangible benefits of government.  While one can speak of the benefits of a standing army, harbors, highways, and medicare, most cannot define what the actual cost to the taxpayer is.  The taxpayer does not even demand an itemized bill from government so that she can verify the returns from the tax dollar she pays for alleged benefits.

Nor does it behoove government to offer up an itemized bill.  The blow back and scrutiny from the public would be too much for legislators to address.

Conclusion: Impeachment is a campaign tool on steroids …

What should be asked by the voter is how does impeachment increase my political power. What message does impeachment send about the benefits I receive from government?  Does impeachment increase my ability to influence government? As I have shared before, I see impeachment as a distraction.  Impeachment is a campaign tool on steroids, clearly used as a marketing tool by one political faction to gain public support for a political power grab.  Democrats hope their attempts to remove the President will taint Senate Republicans with the end result being control of both Houses of Congress.

I just don’t see such a power grab, where electoral power is circumvented by an impeachment process, resulting in more political power for the individual.  If anything, it shows how weakened American democracy has become.

Toward a republic: The reining in of democracy …

The dilemma of the masses …

I don’t see any benefit from “people politics.”  I think the notion of democracy, where each person gets a say in choosing who leads a society, has fooled people into believing that it takes the masses to get anything done.  I agree that one person can’t move the mountains necessary for creating a society, but it doesn’t take a large mass of people either.  Masses are considered by a small number of leading individuals as either a battering ram that knocks down perceived doors to power or as the sponge that absorbs the costs of building a society with the gains going to the leader of the pack.

The masses always end up with scraps that depreciate in value.  They are so busy working to pay the taxes that fund that venture capital firm called government that they make no time to participate in the management of society.

Frankly, I like it that way.  The tyranny of the masses of people who operate on their passions and misinformation frightens me.  Just listen to C-SPAN’s Washington Journal any morning and you will cringe at the misinformation that emanates from some of the callers’ mouths.  While I do not believe that citizens should be deprived of basic needs, I don’t think that the masses of citizens should be involved in policy making.  I would be dishonest by saying that the franchise of voting should be open to all.

On the contrary, it needs to be denied to most.  The best way for the individual to enjoy maximum protection is for all avenues that trespass on her liberty to be closed or severely blocked.

One example of the severity of mass ignorance is the removal trial of President Donald J. Trump occurring in Washington.  The Democrats, uncertain of a victory over Mr Trump by any of its current candidates for their party’s nomination, have created a narrative designed to enrage and engage the electorate, the narrative being that Mr Trump abused his power by withholding military funds from the nation of Ukraine and that Mr Trump’s refusal to proffer White House staff for testimony before the House during its investigation of such abuse amounted to the “crime” of obstructing Congress.

The Democrats target rich environment of voters includes those who, rather than educating themselves on how the law defines presidential power or how the law defines abuse of that power, base their preference for impeachment on their genuine dislike for the President’s personality.  The Democrats rather have an uninformed angry mob going into the voting booth this November versus an informed one.

Hence the dilemma of the masses. On the one hand, an uninformed tool easily riled by a party leadership. On the other hand, a mob that has no problem tainting a man’s legacy with charges found nowhere in the Constitution or federal statutes.

Time to rein in democracy ….

American democracy, at least on the national level, needs to be reined in.  The Democrats would not be able to create consternation in the electorate for the purpose of generating momentum to the ballot booth if the electorate were not so easily reached.  One approach would be to get rid of the popular vote and go to an enhanced republican system.  While the voter continues to vote for their state representatives and state chief executives, state legislatures would be responsible for selecting from their own bodies the representatives to Congress.  Congress would then be responsible for selecting the president and vice-president from its chambers.

The biggest benefit from an improved republic would be that in one fell swoop, voters could punish state representatives that selected the congressmen that voted for an ineffective or criminal president.  Washington would stay on edge.  To ensure that the needs of citizens are addressed first, Washington might stay focused on domestic issues versus adventurous campaigns abroad.  The Executive and the Congress may find themselves in greater coordination on policy knowing that ineffective policy behavior by one branch of government severely impacts the other.  Less conflict and more cooperation and communication would reduce the chances of the reckless impeachment behavior we are seeing now in Washington.

Conclusion ….

Democracy isn’t working.  Democracy, by offering a passionate, uninformed mass to weigh in on the selection of leadership, creates gamesmanship that stokes fear rather than reason.  It needs to be reined in.

Republics are to keep the masses at bay, not to include them…

The purpose of governance …

The purpose of taking over government is to control its spoils.  The tricky part is to keep the barbarians from knocking down the gates, an act that may result from the perception that those who have captured government will not allocate an equitable portion of goods, resources, and capital i.e the spoils, to the masses.

The governing class in a republican form of government must then find a way to maximize the prestige and power it garners from taking over government while minimizing the amount of public capital allocated to appeasing the people it rules.  Resources are finite and the governing class can’t afford to have the instrument used for the day-to-day management of the citizenry and the channeling of power and prestige to the governing few to go bankrupt.

The issue then, for those who wish to take over government, is which approach to governance will bring about maximum prestige and power at the lowest cost of paying off the barbarian.  I recommend a political market approach based on transparency.

The market approach of American democracy …

American political governance is limited by the vote buying/selling transactions of the political market.  To garner the right to govern as an elected official, you have to win the vote.  What the candidate is willing to pay for this vote depends on her view of government’s role and her ability to convince the electorate to align its perception with her view.  She will not be transparent about her personal gains from winning office, preferring to tout the benefits that she can help shuttle to Americans as her rationale for running.  She will make the mistake of painting herself as selfless or altruistic.

All market transactions, including political market transactions, are two-sided. The voter/consumer seeks some type of economic relief via a government program, or some cultural win via a statute or regulation, and the elected official is willing to sell her a program in exchange for support in the form of donations, campaign volunteer time, or a vote.  All political parties participate in these transactions.  The voter/consumer must remain aware that these offerings are not being done for altruistic reasons.  They are being done out of the elected official/producer’s self-interest in garnering the power and prestige that comes with elected office.

The benefits of elected official/producer transparency …

When sitting across from the person you are negotiating with, you want as much transparency as possible as to their interests.  Knowing the real value they place on an item they intend to buy from or sell to you helps you to better price your offer.  As an elected official/producer, being transparent with the voter/consumer has three immediate benefits.

First, if the candidate for an office is upfront about their self-interest in running, they can avoid or mitigate the consequences that come from a lack of clarity.  The voter cannot come back and claim that the then candidate now elected official was anything but honest, a virtue many Americans claim to adhere to.

Second, if the candidate is transparent as to their self-interest, she creates a channel within which she can gauge the reasonableness of the voter’s demands.  In other words, the voter has a better understanding of the value of his vote for the candidate and can adjust his demands accordingly.  There will be fewer surprises as to the cost the candidate has to pay in order to secure a continuous flow of power and prestige.  She has a better idea not only of the voter costs for garnering her power and prestige, but can now explore a wider array of options for meeting voter needs at the lowest costs possible.

Another benefit of transparency is that by establishing up front her desire to garner and maximize power and prestige, the candidate will be viewed as transparent going forward during other transactions.  This creation of “good will” can only create for the elected official more opportunities to increase the political capital necessary for deploying the cost effective programs that she can exchange in the future for more votes.

It won’t be the programs that keep the barbarians from knocking down the gates.  It will be the transparency and the perception of honesty that flows that will keep the masses at bay.

Conclusion: Republicans can be transparent without being ogres….

Strength flows from transparency.  Republicans should not be afraid to tell the electorate, “I seek the power and prestige of the office because of the benefits (emotional, psychological, financial) that will flow to me, but I acknowledge those benefits won’t flow to me unless I meet your needs.”

America is a republic and as such, its political power is held by the people and its elected representatives.  What the definition does not tell you is that both groups do not, cannot, and should not rule equally.  What too many choose to describe as “American democracy” is a system that is not based on mass rule, but based purposefully on minority rule.  Because American democracy is in fact based on minority rule (one only need look at the discarding of the popular vote after the November 2016 general election), Republicans especially should take the lead in transparency in governing.  Transparency has a chilling effect on political tension and can only serve to secure Republican political power going forward.