Wanted: A Role for "Outsiders" in This Election Season

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

I
know I should have watched the Republican National Convention this
past week from the first day – to keep informed, and all that. However:
(1) There was never any doubt about the chief outcome, which was
to nominate King George, Jr., a politician's son, as candidate for
the next US President; (2) there was little doubt that with the
departure of firebrands like Pitchfork Pat, and with Christian conservatives
an increasingly muted force, this would be the tamest and more carefully
orchestrated convention in recent memory; and (3) last weekend I
ate something that didn't agree with me, and on Monday when the
convention started, my gastrointestinal tract was still in recovery
and did not need any more disruptions.

Now
having watched bits and pieces of this convention for the past two
evenings, and followed the discussion on the Web, I find myself
still having the audacity to ask what I thought were obvious questions:
where were yesteryear's denunciations of so-called group rights?
Where were the criticisms of affirmative action, which, last time
I checked, was still going strong despite a few legal setbacks?
Where were proposals to check the advances of the homosexual agenda?
Where were the criticisms of unlimited immigration? This last, when
mixed with the dominant multiculturalism of the media and academic
worlds, promises in another generation or so to leave us with a
"nation" more akin to the former Yugoslavia than the Republic
bequeathed to us by Madison, Monroe, and the rest of the Anglos
in Philadelphia 213 years ago.

Likewise,
there was little about abortion, nothing about prayer in schools,
nothing about getting rid of the US Department of Education, created
by President Jimmy Carter without Constitutional authorization.

Come
to think of it, the closest thing to controversy or unpredictability
occurred when The Rock, the Samoan-born professional wrestler, took
the microphone. He used it to thank his fans.

On
the first night, viewers were subjected to Colin Powell's appeals
for a more "inclusive" Republican Party. He invoked the
name of central-statist Abraham Lincoln. He basically accused Republicans
of being a bunch of racists and…the Republicans ate it up! Powell,
who believes in affirmative action, is the perfect "new Republican"
for the new age: a respected member of a minority group who is also
a Washington insider and statist extraordinaire. We were also treated
to highly visible appearances of representatives of almost every
group except straight white Christian males – who remain the bulk
of the electorate most likely to vote Republican. The level of touchy-feeliness
seemed so high that the straight white Christian males who were
in attendance probably wondered if they had wandered into the wrong
convention. Had they been beamed by Scotty or ridden a time warp
into the Democratic Party Convention by mistake?

Pardon
my sarcasm. But to state the obvious, we straight white Christian
males have been sold down the river by this incarnation of "mainstream
Republicans." So what should we do? Support a third party?
There is the Reform Party, which will probably nominate Pat Buchanan
at their convention next week. There is also the Libertarian Party,
which has again nominated Harry Browne.

I
continue to be told by family, friends, acquaintances, and enemies
that a vote for anyone except King George, Jr., is a vote for Gore.
At best, a vote for Buchanan or Browne is a "wasted vote"
because "he can't win." I can envision Democratic Party
loyalists telling those they hope to prevent from bolting en masse
that a vote for Ralph Nader, presidential candidate of the socialist
Green Party, is a vote for Bush.

Hello!
Let's think this through. How are elections won? If Bush wins, it
will be because more people voted for him than voted for anyone
else. The same for Gore; the same for anyone with his hat in the
ring. While there are certainly levels of resources available to
these two politician's brats that are not available to outsiders,
outsiders can win, at least at the state level. Jesse Ventura
proved this when he ran for Governor of Minnesota on the Reform
Party ticket and defeated his rivals. Moreover, the outsiders' messages
have gotten out this year. Buchanan is no stranger to the
public, having made numerous appearances and issued a multitude
of statements. Nor is Nader, obviously. Even Harry Browne and the
Libertarians have established their presence on the Internet, if
not in the dominant print media, which may not be dominant much
longer given the explosive growth of electronic new media.

It
needs to be said: Bush is not entitled to our votes. For
too long, now, men and women of conviction, especially about the
need to limit the increasingly powerful reach of Big Brother, have
bought the idea that "you have to vote Republican because you've
nowhere else to go." Establishment Democrats have held a lot
of well-meaning black voters captive with an equivalent line. Currently,
the Democrat Establishment is scared, uh, green, of Nader.
Nader, after all, is too leftist to attack openly in these politically
correct times. He has hammered at too many issues Democrats claim
to care about, such as the environment and low wages. Yet Nader's
appeal to unionized workers makes him a definite potential threat
to Gore.

It
is practically a cliché among believers in free markets that
competition encourages initiative, risk-taking, and excellence.
Lack of competition yields the opposite: mediocrity, playing it
safe, and in the case of the political arena, a one-way street with
all traffic flowing left. The Demopublican cartel has almost destroyed
genuine competition in the political arena. This is why this election
so far provides us with a choice between a mediocre "moderate"
Republican (I do not recall hearing George W. utter the "c-word"
once during his acceptance speech – perhaps I missed it) and a socialist
Democrat.

What
we really need is some bona fide competition in this year's contest – the
sort of competition so far being denied us by the Commission on
Presidential Debates. This Demopublican cartel-owned outfit will
most likely deny everyone except Bush and Gore spots in the fall
debates, ensuring that no threatening issues are raised or uncomfortable
questions asked.

Bush
and Gore will trade orchestrated disagreements over the predictable
things, and will debate the fate of, e.g., Social Security, and
how the federal government can spend a surplus that probably does
not exist. They will not debate multiculturalism (for example).
Nor the future of our role in the World Trade Organization or the
United Nations. One might speculate that the Demopublican cartel
learned its lesson in 1992, when 20 million voters were willing
to support Ross Perot even after he turned out to be nuts. The last
thing the Demopublicans want is to offer another outsider the opportunity
Perot had. Especially one with an articulate philosophy of government
and its constitutional limitations, something we have yet to hear
from George W., will not hear from Al Gore, and never heard from
the Perotistas (which, by the way, was why the Reform Party was
vulnerable to the Buchanan Brigade's takeover).

If
this convention serves no other purpose, it illustrates the ongoing
leftward drift of our political establishment. It does so even better
than W.'s pathetic response to attacks on his appearance at Bob
Jones University – as well as BJU's abandonment of a private policy
to which its leaders had a perfect right, in a free society. When
Dole visited BJU in 1996, no one said a word. That is the growing
power of political correctness in this country.

Cal
Thomas, the Christian conservative commentator, penned a recent
column outlining five ways Bush could lose this election. (1) Let
Al Gore set the agenda for the next three months. (2) Let the media
set the agenda. (3) Let the government set the agenda. (4) Fail
to say that we can do better (as opposed to attacking the Clinton-Gore
contingent). (5) Fail to remind the voters where the real power
in society lies, which is with them.

It
seems to me that the PC crowd has already set the agenda. That essentially
wipes out (1) through (3), since that crowd now controls the Democrats,
most of the media, and most of the government. I'm not sure where
this leaves (4) and (5), but the prognosis is not good. The Republicans
have set themselves up for a fall, by showing all-too-clearly that
they have ceased to fight the battle of ideas. Bill Anderson, in
a recent column in LewRockwell.com, is right on the money. Our problem
is not "gay-bashing," or too few minority quotas; it is
statism. You won't get the solution to the problem of statism
by voting for a Republican any more than you will a Democrat. Both
parties are owned, lock, stock, and barrel by statists. Republicans
do not really want to scrap the idea of the federal government micromanaging
the country; they simply want to replace the Clinton-Gore regime
with a Bush-Cheney regime.

That
brings us to the main issue: have we as a nation reached the point
where the Demopublican cartel has such a lock on power that no outsider
has any hope of staging an upset? This is really not a good way
to pose the question, because if those in the cartel have a "lock
on power" it is we, the voters, who have given it to them.
The answer lies with however many people believe that only a Demopublican
can win and refuse to consider supporting anyone else. If they believe
that Bush, Jr., is a good bet because he will at least drag his
feet as the country goes down the road to a socialist New World
Order, and that no one who would get us off this road has a chance,
then they will vote for Bush, Jr. It may, of course, be that many
straight white Christian males whose own gastrointestinal systems
are still in recovery after this past week, will elect to go fishing
on election day. I have read serious appeals by Christians to secede
from American politics altogether, although that doesn't seem to
me much of a solution.

It
may also be that at least some of America's voters have listened
to the outsiders and decided they dislike or disagree with what
they have heard. They either trust expanded government, or at least
don't see it as a threat to them personally. Many others can't be
bothered. They are too busy spending money on credit, then popping
a Miller Lite and watching Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?
In either case, that means there is little that can be done this
go around.

It
has long been an adage that we get the government we deserve. If
America's voters cannot think all this through, then they deserve
whichever politician's brat wins the White House in November.

Oh,
I almost forgot: the print media went out of their way to make us
aware of the protesters outside the convention. What they were protesting?
What kind of moron thinks we haven't drifted far enough to
the left: into political correctness, into special provisions for
every group except straight white Christian males, into internationalist
statism? One protester, in a brief interview – apparently in between
violent assaults on police – did mention not liking what "the
ruling class stands for." I wonder if these hippies born out
of their time would know the real ruling class if they saw it.

Speaking
as a straight white Christian male, I can only say: it ain't us!

August
5, 2000

Steven
Yates
has a PhD in philosophy and is the author of Civil
Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action
(San Francisco:
ICS Press, 1994). A frequent contributor to LewRockwell.com
and The Edgefield Journal, he lives and freelance writes
in Columbia, South Carolina.

Steven
Yates Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts