Blog

How Romney Can Win

Anthony Comegna — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:32:53 +0000

He must court the Paul vote. Duh. But it’s not the Paul vote that (likely) you or I would cast–it’s the moderate Paul vote, and yes, yes, there IS a moderate Paul vote. The moderate Paul vote are the Paul supporters who largely flocked from Obama’s anti-freedom agenda of pro-war, pro-drug war, anti-fucking-magna carta, and anti-Internet freedom. I had at least two students this past semester, potentially a handful more, who said they simply could not vote for Obama again because of things like the war in Afghanistan, the NDAA, and SOPA. They said they would be voting either Paul or Johnson. They would not consider voting for the platform or person of the current, also anti-freedom, version of Mitt Romney. IF, however, Romney were to embrace several more Progressive or libertarian positions (end the War on Drugs, end the foreign wars–least likely to happen–, proclaim the sanctity of Internet freedom, denounce the NDAA and Obama’s radicalism in claiming the right to throw away the key on citizens–or anyone else!–, and perhaps attack Bernanke and the power and scope of the Fed), he would likely be guaranteed a victory because he could pull enough center-left, moderate, center-right votes from Obama (a huge chunk of which are new to the Paulitariat) to get the crucial 1-2% that he will need to go ahead. The election is sure to be extremely close, and the economy is certainly not going to get better before it gets worse (though the media will spin it that way), so this will remain–especially after shit goes down in Tampa–Romney’s best chance to win the presidency.

The Problem with Paul

Anthony Comegna — Mon, 14 May 2012 12:11:13 +0000

The problem with Paul–for the media and status quo, at least–is that Paul’s movement is from below and is consequently one they can neither adequately document and statistically describe (a powerful tool of the state) nor relate to in any way. The powerful and influential herders of men are slow to realize when they’re being mortally threatened because they inevitably grow fat and lazy on the labor of others. The present food for thought is the latest wave of Paulitarian delegate-selection successes in Oklahoma, Arizona, and (perhaps) Virginia. Paul will, once again, claims a significant number of those delegates heading into the convention, even if still Romney-bound (which may not be a factor after all–in which case, shit’s serious meow). That means a takeover of the Republican Party is well underway and Mitt Romney would be, in the best of all possible worlds, a puppet-in-chief of the good guys for once. While the libertarians running so much of the show start dismantling the state, we’ll be preparing the careers of several young Paulitarian legislators (Justin Amash, anyone?) and moving the revolution forward. After doubling, tripling, or quadrupling our strength in so many states, TPM sums up the progress and future of the Paul campaign quite well: ” No one is sure exactly how many delegates Paul has accumulated — the New York Times puts him at 104, but he may have far more as supporters take over defeated candidates’ slates and even elect delegates bound to support Romney on the ballot. The only thing certain at this point is that the movement is growing more and more difficult to contain.”

The Joy of “Stealing Votes”

Anthony Comegna — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:27:01 +0000

Coming off a highly successful weekend of commandeering the Republican Party, the Paulitariat rests and absorbs the elite’s reaction–or, at least, I do. Team Romney, I feel quite confident, is in panic mode. States they were supposed to have locked-up are toppling to Paulitarians one-by-one. According to at least one observer (and it seems that there is distinct merit to the claims, though I have not verified them entirely), the delegates which are BOUND to Romney but are Paulitarians at heart (there are many, many, many of these shadow-warriors being elected out there, too) may abstain on the first round of balloting at the national convention, and if strong enough, could deny Romney the nomination essentially through a vote of no confidence or “delegation nullification.” This would then open ALL BOUND DELEGATES to non-binding voting, and in that situation, the convention is brokered. Surely that’s a terrifying scenario to a man who has expected to be president for the last 8-10 years. Well, naturally many of the old guard see their power waning fast and slipping away to fresh-faced Paulitarians who hate the welfare-warfare state foisted on us all by the “Greatest Generation.” In this excellent breakdown of Paul’s chances in Idaho (another likely delegate victory, either outright or in shadow-warrior form), a local party hack is reported as saying ” “When I show the video [explaining the Paul campaign delegate strategy], everybody sits up in their chair and says, ‘Can he do that? That is like stealing my vote!’ ” When I encounter this sort of a plea–that we would be stealing votes–I can’t help but think in reply, “Funny, your votes steal money and lives all the time!” It’s nice to have the tables starting to turn.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/05/06/2105276/paul-backers-seek-second-opinion.html#storylink=cpy

Onward, Libertarian Soldiers

Anthony Comegna — Wed, 02 May 2012 23:28:54 +0000

Of course, libertarian soldiers are not the kind that unconscionably hire themselves out as guns and dupes for the vicious state. Libertarian soldiers fight for precisely the opposite and do so in a generally non-violent fashion. Libertarians, in contrast to many other radical intellectual traditions, rarely employs violence of any sort as libertarians are naturally inclined toward free market processes–that is, absolutely voluntary interactions among individuals. When–as they inevitably will–people act aggressively toward one another and violate rights, libertarians are inclined to sort out the problem with as little violence and coercion as possible. There is, therefore, little to no room for the state in a libertarian society. Well, take the Ron Paul campaign and the ever-powerful Paulitariat as key examples. This revolution–and it is, without a doubt, a revolutionary philosophy being advanced–is being fought capitol-to-capitol as an effort at a full overhaul of the Republican Party. Absolutely, most libertarians (myself, naturally, included) do not give a damn about the Republicans, but should the Paul forces be successful, all the more power to them. Dismantling the state is the goal and peaceful intervention within the structure of power itself is, so far, wildly successful. States are being stealthily taken over one-by-one and we will soon see the fruits of our endeavors. Who can doubt, for example, that Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Alaska, and perhaps a few others will soon be ramping up their drug legalization schedules, privatizing more elements of state governments, and pushing for an ever-increasing crunch on federal powers? No one knows quite what kind of bloc Paul will have at the convention in Tampa, but with the Paulitariat invading the houses of power across the country, it will only be a matter of time until we once again have the ear of the king firmly within whispering distance.

How Ron Paul Could Still Win and Why No One Will Know for Sure Until August

Anthony Comegna — Wed, 02 May 2012 17:12:55 +0000

Rachel Maddow, despite her general snarkiness toward libertarians and libertarianism–rooted entirely, it appears, in raw ignorance–is generally very good in her coverage of the Ron Paul campaign. In this particular segment, she very clearly and carefully explains the current state of affairs in the delegate selection process and provides an accurate assessment of the campaign’s path forward: The goal is to get as many Paulitarians to infiltrate the national convention as possible by taking over the delegate selection processes and state parties in as many places as possible, but especially the caucus states (which, so far, Ron Paul has dominated). In addition, unbound delegate slots are being gobbled up in as great numbers as possible. Those delegates still bound to vote for Santorum on the first ballot will remain a strong bloc, and if Paul is able to acquire enough shadow delegates, Romney may still be denied a nomination on the first ballot. At the very least, the convention will be PACKED with Paulitarians–many of whom will be bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot despite their libertarian proclivities. This is a strategy as old as American politicking and it is quite a sound one, especially in the medium-term. If not elected this cycle, a libertarian president is a distinct likelihood moving into the next decade.

Revolution is Brewing in Minnesota

Anthony Comegna — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:32:46 +0000

My oh my! The power elite is awfully upset that their game is getting wrecked by the Paulitariat. They absolutely despise the plebes who push back to regain their stolen rights. The fact that we oafish swine would pollute the Republican Party with “Ron Paul Libertarians” is infuriating, nerve-wracking, and intensely confusing to these people, the petty tyrants who compose the “good old boy network” of governing officials, national, state, and local. In this particular case–the nomination of Minnesota congressional district 5 congressional candidate (and supposed–though not confirmed by his terribly vague website–libertarian Chris Fields over neocon (and likely Santorumite) Lynne Torgerson–Torgerson reported that at the nominating convention, ” The Convention was overrun by Ron Paul Libertarians. More than 2/3 of the delegates were Ron Paul Libertarians. When I mentioned that we were at a Republican Convention, they laughed out loud.” Wellity, wellity, well! It seems that her precious Republican Party, the vehicle through which she and her intellectual ilk maintain their petty tyrant status and the riches and control it provides them, is being hijacked. Of course, this is a trend spreading rapidly throughout the 50 states (some more than others), that is replacing worn-out neocon fools and hucksters with vibrant, young, interesting Paulitarians. The revolution is coming, and coming on strong. It takes structural change, though, to ensure success and that’s exactly what the Paulitariat is busy about doing.

Libertarian Fascists, and Other Bits of Foolishness

Anthony Comegna — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:02:58 +0000

Yes, yes, there actually are people out there who do not distinguish between libertarianism (a support for free markets–that is, voluntary interaction–and distaste for the use of force) from fascism (…the opposite). Proof? Here it is. Probably, many of you have seen this video advertised at the top of your YouTube returns for “Ron Paul” (I have the search page itself bookmarked and already set to filter by date so I can instantly access the latest RP electro-swag). Okay, take this time to watch the short video. Notice right off that FDR is hailed as some sort of populist hero to the People, when the biggest businesses were very much happy with the course of the New Deal–in fact, wealth was far more concentrated at the end of the Depression than at the beginning; and by the way!, who do you think profited the most from a little thing called World War Two?! But it’s not all bad. In fact, everything from 2:29 on is perfectly true. The problem, though, is that it has ALWAYS been true that corporations have been largely free from government controls…Well, to put it more accurately, THEY MAKE THE CONTROLS because corporations have ALWAYS been creatures of government (the act of incorporation itself is a grant of special privileges from the government–privileges NOT OPEN to common people who do not petition and pay for incorporation) and have ALWAYS been incredibly influential in government. It’s the nature of the beasts, after all. Corporations use their wealth and power to influence government–the monopolist of law and order in society–toward their own enrichment, almost always at OUR expense. The solution, then, is not to empower governments “against” corporations–since corporations were created by and largely control governments–but rather to weaken both by eliminating government’s ability to grant special privileges to some and withhold them from others, the power of government to MONOPOLIZE any goods or services, and to ALWAYS allow free and open competition for anything anyone is willing to voluntarily pay for, INCLUDING the goods and services rendered by government forcefully. By the way, it should come as no surprise that Smedley Butler is a libertarian hero.

Jack Welch, the Market, and Ron Paul

Anthony Comegna — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:18:59 +0000

Jack Welch, GE chairman and part-time political commentator, here notes that the GOP ignoring or insulting Ron Paul–and more importantly, the Paulitariat–would almost certainly spell the electoral doom of the Republican Party. Approaching the issue from the CEO’s point-of-view, Welch realizes that to be productive and efficient, the best firms do not take firing employees at any level lightly–haphazard or problematic firings can seriously impair said firm in the future, whereas gently or pleasantly firing someone tends to prevent backlash. The nominee–surely Romney thinks along similar lines as Welch, though Santorum’s generally hopeless–MUST, Welch determines, treat the Paulitariat with respect and real consideration (”concessions?”), signaling a serious shift from “catering to the neocons” toward libertarianism. If the party does not act, it will fall. I would never ever ever consider voting for Romney alone, but for a GOP that makes serious indications that it’s willing to implement much of the libertarian credo…How can we ignore them under such circumstances? Romney, should he be the nominee, will either show himself for a hack, through-and-through, or a moderate reformer, willing to at least slice away at the corrosive tissues infecting our body politick.

Brokered Convention–>President (Rand) Paul?

Anthony Comegna — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:27:51 +0000

What’s going on in the Republican Party is transformative and historical in its proportions. We’ve seen this before. The Whig Party went through this in the early 1850s and it evaporated. The result was a far stronger, more effective political coalition, the Republican Party, which enjoyed dramatic (and, of course, horribly destructive) success after temporary losses couched around significant gains. It happened again in 1912, when the Republicans split between Roosevelt and Taft, handing Wilson the election, but guaranteeing Republican ascendancy after the Wilson disaster (in the eyes of the public, if not worshipful historians). It also happened in 1976, when the Republicans again split, this time between the moderates and the Reaganites (with neocon and libertarian wings, the former being dominant), in which the Republicans again lost but emerged stronger for the effort–though the libertarian wing all but disappeared into the neocon fold. The current shake-up is between the Romney moderates, the Santorum-Gingrich neocons, and the Paulitarians. As odd as it sounds to say, this is political analysis, so strange bedfellows (to quote a neocon of a different stripe) are not uncommon; the only political figure I imagine that can unite enough GOP factions to win the nomination would be Rand Paul. The father would be unacceptable to the neocons, who would undoubtedly flock to Rom over Ron, but the son is seen as less ideological and more grounded in reality. He talks tougher, yet milder–not as fiery and “anti-American”-sounding as his dad. In fact, he seems positively PRO-military! It should be noted here that I have significant and meaningful disagreements with the younger Paul on the subject of “national security,” as does his father, but the fundamentals of Rand’s foreign policy and the great bulk (probably upwards of 95%) of the details of his policy are consistent with libertarianism. His deviations in key areas that are more significant for their symbolism than their actual function (like Guantanamo Bay), confuse and consequently attract the neocon faction, making Rand appear more friend than foe, while he is basically able to lock up the entirety of the Paulitarian vote. How, in a brokered convention, could Romney triumph over the man that Mark Levin himself declares to be a wonderful patriot and all that rot? We all know that Ron doesn’t really want to be president, so perhaps we should all be angling to hook his son to the ticket at the first opportunity and run away with a resounding victory. The Republican Party can either go the way of the Whigs or reform itself and, as Jesse Benton recently put it, stop catering to the neocons. It’s time they relinquished control of the party to us.

Ron Paul is the Candidate from Below

Anthony Comegna — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:47:26 +0000

Take a look at this article (or is it a blog post?–can’t really tell) on “Ron Paul’s Devious Plan to Steal the Presidency.” The author positively drips venom at the mention of the name Ron Paul. He obviously has nothing but contempt for the rabble that constitute, in our political present, the Paulitariat–that segment of our society (tending to support Ron Paul) which values liberty and voluntary interaction above all else; those of us who are unwilling to “shut up and take it.” The Paulitariat, like the proletariat of the Marxists, forms a distinct class within American society–and, if Nock is to be taken literally (which may not be such a bad idea, I think), human societies everywhere–and operates as such within larger historical movements and moments. The libertariat, if you are to historicize rather than presentize the term, resists power and control over others, especially and most significantly when institutionalized and involuntary. Their strong ideological convictions tend toward the libertarian, like the radicals of Rediker & Linebaugh’s The Many-Headed Hydra, who were linked across the Atlantic world by similar worldviews and anti-power philosophies. Often, I claim, the libertariat and the proletariat are the exact same or extremely close. While there may be differences constituting insurmountable gaps (understandings of market systems, exchange, value, preference for collectivism vs. individualism, etc.), the interests of the libertariat and proletariat very often are the same. Take Tom Paine and “Common Sense,” for example. Paine was no leftist by Marxist standards. He was fully in favor of private property and extreme individualism. He was, for all intents and purposes, a market anarchist of yesteryear (much like Ron Paul is in the current day–he favors absolute secession to the individual level [short version]…what could be more anarchistic?), which fully qualifies him as a libertarian by any definition of the term. Paine was no agrarian who wanted to dissolve property rights–they were the very tools through which people navigated their interactions with one another, defined their spheres of rights and liberties versus those of others: the rules according to which people could regulate themselves without the need for a coercive state. Paine sought the dissolution of power to the individual level, or as much as the people desired. Coercion had no place in his Age of Reason. The state, according to Paine, could only breed conflict as those with preexisting power from peaceful, socially-acceptable sources could monopolize force in society and use the power of the state for their own ends. Thus, would exploitation become socialized and intensified. Rather, Paine argued the state should be minimal if not non-existent, and power would be neutered, serving only those social purposes valued by the people who impart power voluntarily. Such a perspective can unify 95% or so of the interests and values of left-anarchists (the good Marxists, as I call them) and the libertariat, the Paulitariat. Incidentally, it’s a damned good reason for the left to abandon Obama, the tool of the power elite and status quo, and support the rowdy people’s candidate, the man who doesn’t want to control you and force you into anything. Vote for the antinomian, the pirate, the Quaker, the Tom Paine of our day, the only peace candidate and the only anti-corporate candidate. Vote from below!–and always remember that the libertariat has no interest in using force against anyone. If it’s not voluntary, it’s not liberty.