John Adams sums it up nicely:

“If worthless men are at the head of affairs, it is because worthless men are at the tail and the middle.”

Anyone who claims that your one vote really makes a difference in national elections is delusional.

They’ll be quick to point out the handful of close elections in history, such as the 2004 Florida contest between Bush and Kerry.

But that brings me to my point: Would our nation really be that different today had Kerry won instead of Bush?

Would Kerry have eroded our freedoms and spent our money more than Bush?

I highly doubt it — at least not in any substantive way.

Status-quo Republicans and Democrats are virtually indistinguishable.

As political economist Gunnar Myrdal stated,

“Political parties . . . have to take up a fighting position at least at election times when they have to stimulate the lazy and undecided voters to vote, and to vote for them. All politicians . . . have, however, an interest in preserving favorable conditions for the normal day-to-day cooperation and collective bargaining among them all.”

He added that,

“We tend to arrive at a situation where there is a large measure of agreement among all the political parties. They sometimes even compete in propagating new and constantly more sweeping redistributional reforms as levels of income rise.

“In any case, we have seen very few examples, if any, where the coming into power of a more conservative political party has meant a substantial retraction of reforms previously carried through by a party which was further left.”

As long as you vote for status-quo candidates, your vote doesn’t matter. Regardless of party, you’re still going to get the same things: unsustainable debt, overblown spending, more inept bureaucracy, more global intervention, less adherence to the Constitution.

The current debate among the GOP is which candidate has the best chance of beating Obama.

I’ve heard countless people say that any of the current GOP candidates would be better than Obama.

Really? Based on what version of history and for what reasons?

Both sides of the aisle gave us the TARP bailouts. Both sides passed the Patriot Act. Both sides vote for entitlements. Both sides give lip service to cutting spending, while our budget and debt continue to balloon.

Republicans: If you vote on the basis of who is most likely to beat Obama, you’ve already lost the battle and your vote is pointless.

This is yet another example of freedom-lovers fighting election-cycle battles, rather than a 100-year war.

To restore our freedoms, we must break free from our current partisan gridlock, where our freedoms are eroded year after year regardless of which party is in power.

In short, we need more Independents and less party loyalists.

Freedom-loving Republicans must stop focusing solely on trying to beat Obama, and instead must shift their efforts to winning a 100-year war for freedom.

Furthermore, all citizens must realize the limitations of elections and put their right to vote in context.

Yes, the right to vote is important. But it’s mostly symbolic of deeper issues.

Freedom isn’t preserved by citizens who do little to preserve it outside of elections, then show up angry at polls.

It’s preserved by citizens who build families and small businesses. Who educate themselves and their children about freedom and the Constitution. Who deeply understand the issues rather than accepting the talking points and 30-second media sound bites from status-quo politicians.

All the populist rantings about beating Obama and the dangers of “splitting the vote” are deceptive distractions blinding voters from the real points:

1. Vote status quo and you’re going to get status quo — regardless of party.
2. The impact of your vote is limited and must be put in context. Far more important than voting is how you educate yourself, raise your family, become a producer, and serve your community.

Defending compensation he received from Freddie Mac, Newt Gingrich said today,

“It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington. We just tried four years of amateur ignorance and it didn’t work very well. So, having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing.”

I’m not nearly concerned about the Freddie Mac compensation as I am with Newt’s attitude that we need a Washington political expert running the White House.

This is precisely the attitude that has robbed our freedoms over the past century — that centralized planners and experts out of touch with real Americans ought to be in charge, and empowered to get ever deeper into our lives.

Obama’s failures haven’t resulted from his inexperience with Washington, but rather from his attitude that America can be managed from Washington — and Newt Gingrich obviously shares this attitude.

We don’t need someone with the ambition, experience, and skill to navigate Beltway politics and finesse new bills through the bureaucratic system.

Rather, we need someone who understands what it’s like to run a small business in small-town American while daily running the gauntlet of federal regulations.

We need someone who understands how excruciating it is to operate a small, local, organic farm while competing against industrial farms who receive government subsidies.

We need someone who understands how to touch the heart and impact the mind of a child on a personal level, not someone who thinks they know how to administer public education from a remote office 3,000 miles away.

We need someone who understands that the real economy-saving innovations will come from entrepreneurs, not technocrats.

We need someone who understands how to raise a family, not someone who knows how to raise campaign funding.

We need someone experienced with voluntary, heartfelt charity on the ground, not someone experienced in spending other people’s money from high-rise buildings and cubicles.

We need someone who understands how to balance a household checkbook, not someone who understands how to balance macro liquidity and inflation.

Washington politicos may think they’re the head of America and that they’re in charge.

But the heart of America carries the real power and the true solutions: regular citizens going to work, paying bills, raising families, building businesses, educating children.

Washington is getting increasingly out of touch, incompetent, and domineering.

Washington insiders may be able to work the system, but rarely see the system for what it is.

So, Mr. Gingrich, as proud as you are of knowing Washington, I’m looking for someone who knows America.

Why can’t the freedom movement seem to get any traction?

Why have we lost battle after battle for at least the past century?

It’s because we tend to make the good the enemy of the perfect, the pragmatic the enemy of the ideal.

To be clear, it’s because the most passionate among us have adopted a rigid, dogmatic, uncompromising “either-or” stance in the fight.

Rather than winning hearts and minds in the trenches inch-by-inch, we drop rhetorical nuclear bombs and make enemies of potential supporters.

There’s one critical distinction that explains this tendency and, if understood, can overcome it and make all the difference to our success:

Do we view the fight for freedom as an election-cycle battle, or as a 100-year war?

These vastly different mindsets generate completely different strategies and tactics and produce completely different results.

If we view the fight as an election-cycle battle, the battlegrounds are primarily political and governmental.

The tactics include:

• Public, energetic, and angry marches and demonstrations
• Passionate, vitriolic, and partisan commentary that preaches to the crowd and riles the base but fails to win new supporters
• Literal, logical, and personal argumentation
• Directing energy primarily at getting individual political candidates elected

But in a 100-year war, the battlegrounds are cultural and educational, and the short-term tactics above shift to the following long-term strategies:

• Personal, lifelong, classical education in the quiet of our homes
• Respectful, thoughtful, open-minded discussion with people across the whole spectrum of belief, with the intention of winning hearts and minds, rather than simply spewing passion or proving how smart and “right” we are
• Symbolic, metaphorical, and artful story-telling and persuasion
• Directing energy toward reforming education, building families and communities, and becoming successful entrepreneurs (see the three choices in FreedomShift by Oliver DeMille)

In a 100-year war, we moderate our passion and smarten our strategy.

We heal the roots of our demise, rather than hacking at the symptomatic leaves.

We work from love, rather than anger.

We reform from the outside-in and bottom-up, rather than the top-down. In other words, we focus on fixing ourselves, rather than Washington.

We understand that studying Montesquieu in our homes is far more effective than waving banners in the streets.

We spend our time and energy teaching the rising generation the depths of freedom and political philosophy, rather than debating opponents in chat rooms and on radio and TV shows.

We build successful small businesses, rather than complaining about losing jobs overseas.

In a 100-year war, idealism and pragmatism aren’t mutually exclusive. We’re more concerned with direction than destination.

In other words, we don’t reject particular policies because they’re not ultimate, black-and-white ideals.

Rather, we judge them based on whether or not they take us closer to the ideal, however slight the progress.

In a 100-year war, we learn and teach principles, rather than fight candidates.

To be perfectly clear, we don’t waste time forwarding mass emails about the status of Obama’s birth certificate.

Most importantly, in a 100-year war, independent freedom lovers create an inclusive tent, rather than an exclusive club.

For example, many conservatives denigrate environmentalists, or as they’re disdainfully labeled, “tree-huggers.”

But many of these environment-conscious, thoughtful people are also highly-conscious and passionate about local, organic food production and sustainable agriculture — which is a primary battleground for freedom.

So rather than building on common beliefs and bringing these people into the tent of freedom, many conservatives banish them with narrow-minded labels.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is also a favorite target of many conservative commentators.

But wise freedom-lovers would do well to harness their energy.

The truth is that they raise a critical point that most conservatives fail to see: Vast inequities in wealth distribution and power are, in fact, killing America — every bit as much, if not more so, than governmental wealth redistribution from rich to poor.

The government does favor those with capital over those with little or none, big businesses over small businesses, which creates these unfair and unsustainable inequities.

We don’t have to occupy Wall Street with them, but we can at least be wise enough to recognize where we agree in order to work together toward a more free, just, and sustainable society.

We can start winning more friends and creating fewer enemies. We can be pragmatic coalition-builders, rather than dogmatic clique-builders.

I’m as passionate about freedom as anyone — freedom is my mission.

But passion alone isn’t going to win the fight for freedom.

The war will be won through wisdom.

Rick Perry’s infamous “Oops” fumble during last night’s presidential debate is, of course, spreading like wildfire.

Predictably, many pundits have declared it to be his downfall.

Perry isn’t my choice for president.

But to anyone deciding not to vote for him on the basis of his poor debating skills, I ask this:

Since when was debate skill a critical criterion for an effective president?

As Charles Kessler recently wrote in his thought-provoking article, “Debating the Debates,” in the Claremont Review of Books:

“The tradition of presidential debating is not only relatively new (Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 was the first), it tests an art or aptitude that is irrelevant to the job.”

In fact, the reason why we continue getting status quo, pandering politicians is because we judge and elect them based on how charismatic and well-spoken they are.

Not on the substance of their character, or the resoluteness of their courage. Not on the depth of their knowledge, or the reach of their vision.

Not on their understanding of and adherence to the Constitution. Not on the clarity and wisdom of their foreign policy — the primary role of the executive.

We vote for them based on how well they stir our emotions, rather than how well they defend our freedoms. (Can anyone say “Hope and Change”?)

Presidential debates are a circus act. They draw high media ratings, but give us very little depth regarding the beliefs, characters, and abilities of our candidates.

No truly free citizen would base their voting decision on sixty-second debate sound bites.

As Charles Kessler would say, the debates may be good Saturday Night Live fodder, but they’re hardly the venue for determining who would make the best president.

The fact that I’m politically unaffiliated makes a lot of people uncomfortable; they want to know exactly where I stand.

There’s a misguided perception that Independents hold an insipid, contradictory hodge-podge of middle-ground beliefs because we can’t make up our minds.

Just because dogmatic ideologues can’t squash my holistic beliefs into their narrow box of prejudicial “truth” doesn’t mean I don’t live by resolute principles.

So for those wondering where I stand, here is my Political Independent’s Manifesto:

• The classical philosophy of constitutional and personal liberty guides my political beliefs, actions, and votes — not one-sided party ideology.

• All man-made parties and ideologies have truth and error, and no political party has a monopoly on political and economic truth.

• Because of human nature, centralization of power corrupts people and principles. I am therefore intrinsically suspicious of all federal politicians and policies — regardless of party.

• I judge and vote for federal politicians based on how well they understand and adhere to the constitution, as proven by their voting record, not their rhetoric.

• I judge politicians and parties not by what they say, but by what they do.

• Both Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for our current fiscal, economic, political, and cultural problems, and for the steady decline of freedom in the past century.

• As parties, neither Democrats nor Republicans offer legitimate, deep, and lasting solutions to our deeply-embedded problems.

• Freedom is the result of treating all individuals, institutions, and entities equally before the law, regardless of race, color, gender, wealth, or status. Generally speaking, Democrats are the party of big government, while Republicans are the party of big business. Both approaches stratify society, intensify unhealthy class structure, and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of few.

• Ultimately, in a democratic republic, the People are to blame for any loss of freedom. Freedom depends far more on what happens in the minds and hearts of individual citizens than what happens in Washington.

• Our problems will be solved and our freedom restored to the extent that citizens and leaders can see beyond party platitudes, shed ideological blinders, and think holistically and generationally.

• I am far more concerned with forms of government, rather than issues. For example, repealing the 16th and 17th amendments (forms) will do far more to restore our freedom than hacking at the leaves of illegal immigration (issue).

• While Democrats emphasize compassion and Republicans emphasize self-reliance, both are equally vital in a free and healthy society. These two values are not — at least should not be — at odds with each other. Ideally, compassionate service should be performed voluntarily, not through the force of government. Regardless, it should be a high and honorable aim for all free citizens no matter what party they belong to.

• I believe in local autonomy and diversity. I support certain policies on the local or state level that would be inappropriate and unconstitutional on a federal level. Local and state governments should influence citizens much more than the federal government. It’s not about being for or against government, but rather how much government for what specific purposes and at what level.

• Neither of the two major parties have a clear, coherent, and freedom-based foreign policy. The current mainstream neoconservative foreign policy of interventionism, nation-building, promoting global “democracy,” and waging “war on terror” is misguided, inimical to freedom, and if unchecked will ultimately lead to de facto empire. I believe that American interests are far better served and that we will be much safer and more free by dramatically scaling back our military presence in the world; by being a light to the world, not a policeman.

• Our freedom will not be restored by any party, but rather by independent-minded, liberally-educated private citizens who see and act beyond the limitations of party.

Recommended Reading:

• FreedomShift: Three Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny by Oliver DeMille
• “Beyond Liberal & Conservative: Independents, Post-Moderns, & How to Really Understand the Issues” by Oliver DeMille
• “Breaking Free From the Two-Party System” by Kyle Roberts
• “Rising Above the Partisan Stage Show” by Chris Brady
• “Are Republicans Really the Party of Fiscal Responsibility?” by Stephen Palmer
• “The Lost Decade?” by David Brooks
• “America’s Seven-Party System” by Oliver DeMille
• “Independents & the Tea Party Movement” by Oliver DeMille

Delve into this week’s must-read articles:

“An Unconstitutional Killing: Obama’s Killing of Awlaki Violates American Principles” by Ron Paul

“Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced.”

Makes you wonder how, exactly, Obama’s foreign policy differs from Bush’s and how in the world he ever won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers warned of this precise thing:

“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”

“The Forever Recession (and the Coming Revolution)” by Seth Godin

“Job creation is a false idol. The future is about gigs and assets and art and an ever-shifting series of partnerships and projects. It will change the fabric of our society along the way. No one is demanding that we like the change, but the sooner we see it and set out to become an irreplaceable linchpin, the faster the pain will fade, as we get down to the work that needs to be (and now can be) done.”

“The Lost Decade?” by David Brooks

“…the ideologues who dominate the political conversation are unable to think in holistic, emergent ways. They pick out the one factor that best conforms to their preformed prejudices and, like blind men grabbing a piece of the elephant, they persuade themselves they understand the whole thing.”

Here are this week’s must-read articles:

1. “The Roman Arena of the Death Penalty” by Leonard Pitts, Jr.

“People dress that need up in rags of righteousness and ethicality, but occasionally, the disguise slips and it shows itself for what it is: the atavistic impulse of those for whom justice is synonymous with blood. If people really meant the arguments of high morality, you’d expect them to regard the death penalty with reverent sobriety. You would not expect them to cheer.”

2. “Brother Beck Jumps the Shark” by Bryan Hyde

“Glenn Beck could use his considerable influence as a peacemaker — if he was willing to remove his ideological blinders. Instead he is choosing to foment that conflict by acting as a willing propagandist for the Israeli government.”

3. “Obama Rejects Obamaism” by David Brooks

“The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too. The president was stung by the liberal charge that he was outmaneuvered during the debt-ceiling fight. So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach.”

4. “On Empire” by Oliver DeMille

“The love of liberty is so natural to the human heart, that unfeeling tyrants think themselves obliged to accommodate their schemes as much as they can to the appearance of justice and reason, and to deceive those whom they resolve to…oppress…”

As much as I’d prefer him to the establishment, inconsistent, hypocritical, media-darling panderers in the Republican lineup, Ron Paul will never be our president.

However, he serves an invaluable purpose in the debate.

It’s not primarily to keep the other candidates honest, although he does help with that.

It’s not to remind us of the need to abide by the Constitution, although he certainly does that.

It’s not to showcase refreshing consistency, although he’s the most consistent candidate since George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al.

It’s to explicitly expose to the American people how perversely biased our media is, in order that we can learn to see past the vested interests and make more informed and wise decisions.

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” -Joseph Story in Commentaries on the Constitution

Even and especially if you think Ron Paul is a crankpot fringe freak, if you believe in freedom, you should be disgusted by Paul’s media coverage (or rather, the lack thereof).

I’m assuming the media bias against him is so blatantly obvious that I don’t have to prove it.

Here’s a small sample from Jon Stewart’s Daily Show:

 
Every freedom-loving American, regardless of which political candidate they favor, should be leery of media censorship and agendas.

More than that, you should resent media bias.

Who are they to decide for you what candidates and issues matter to the debate? Do you really trust them to give you the full, un-spun truth?

If you resent Washington for trying to run your life, you should resent the media for trying to control and manipulate your opinions.

This is not to promote Ron Paul. It’s not to prove to anyone that his views deserve a full hearing.

Vote for Perry. Vote for Romney. Vote for Huntsman or Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, or Santorum. Write in your own candidate. Vote for whomever your intelligence and conscience dictate.

But whatever you do, don’t vote for the candidate that was force-fed to you by the biased media.

Intensely study all the issues. Give every candidate a fair hearing — digging deep past surface-level media coverage. Check them for consistency. Examine how they’ve proven (or not) that they’ll abide by the Constitution.

Then cast your vote with confidence that you weren’t a media stooge in a rigged game.

“Loose Change Final Cut” is a documentary by Alex Jones detailing apparent evidence that the 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have been orchestrated by our own government.

Watch it and draw your own conclusions.

Here’s what I think about the possibility that 9/11 is a conspiracy:

It doesn’t matter.

Two reasons why it’s a red herring:

1. Whether it’s true or not, there are plenty of known reasons that we should be preparing for difficult times and fighting for freedom.
2. It’s more important to be prepared to replace conspiracies, incompetence, and injustice than it is to be fighting against them.

Dealing With The Knowns

We don’t know for sure if the Bush administration perpetrated a vast conspiracy in order to convince the American people to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We don’t know about all of the back-room deals that happen in high-level settings that directly affect our freedom.

We often don’t know who we can trust in the media and the government.

But what does all that matter?

We do know America is heading rapidly towards bankruptcy. We know we’re swimming in pornography. We know that about 55 million babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade.

We know the 16th and 17th Amendments struck a crippling blow to the checks and balances of our beloved Constitution. We know the federal government has far more power than it was ever intended to have.

We know the executive branch is too powerful and that the judicial branch has begun legislating from the bench.

We know we’re dependent on oil from countries that harbor animosity towards us.

We know our education system is in shambles. We know the average American spends over $1.20 for every dollar that they earn, and that most of us consume more than we produce.

Aren’t the known factors enough to motivate us to prepare and to fight to restore the Republic?

What more do we need to tell us that we face serious trouble? How much more evidence is required to shock us out of our apathy?

Even if 9/11 was a conspiracy, it doesn’t change what you and I should be doing on a daily basis.

I don’t know how many conspiracies have cost us freedom.

But I do know that freedom cannot be perpetuated unless enough citizens have read and deeply understand the principles found in The Federalist Papers, Democracy in America, The 5,000 Year Leap, A Thomas Jefferson Education, Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Politics, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Les Miserables, War and Peace, A Tale of Two Cities, The Spirit of Laws, Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, the writings of Shakespeare, The Wealth of Nations, The Prince, Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents, Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, and hundreds of other classics.

I do know that strong families and communities are the backbone of all free nations and that you and I must do all in our power to build them.

I do know that to maintain a constitutional republic requires that its citizens become constitutional scholars.

I do know that our love of God must be stronger than our love of entertainment.

I know we must spend less than we earn and produce more than we consume.

I know that you and I have individual, unique missions to perform and that the world suffers if we don’t live up to our potential.

I know that the integrity of a nation — or lack thereof — is a direct reflection of the integrity of its individual citizens.

Our duty to live these truths remains regardless of conspiracies.

Preparing For Replacement

Of those who spend their lives investigating and exposing conspiracies and being angered by them, how many of them actually have the depth to replace them with sustainable forms?

Of those who rail against the Federal Reserve, how many have a specific plan to replace it?

Of those who hated George W. Bush or hate Obama, how many have the character and ability to replace them as President?

Awakening to injustice is but the first step toward freedom. Preparing for and being worthy of maintaining freedom is a far more important and arduous process.

Those who hate oppression are a dime a dozen; those who have the knowledge and ability to instill proper forms of liberty are worth their weight in gold.

Whether our current difficulties are the product of conspiracies, evil-doers, apathy, or plain incompetence, the road to freedom remains the same: common citizens living private and public virtue, becoming liberally educated, and instituting proper forms of government, then being vigilant about maintaining them.

The possibility of conspiracies does nothing to change the fundamental nature of freedom and what it takes to maintain it.