I am not a Republican

If you have been reading my blog over the past several weeks as I campaigned for Trump, you might be under the impression that I am a Republican, but that is not the case. I have never been a registered Republican. However, while I didn’t go to the Republican Party, the party did indeed come to me by becoming more nationalist and populist. I didn’t change, but the Republican Party sure did.

In the historic watershed year of 2016, Donald Trump defeated the neoliberal elite of the Republican Party. At the same time, the neoliberal elite of the Democratic Party carried the day by railroading Bernie Sanders. So, campaigning for Trump was an easy choice in such a clear-cut battle between globalists who wanted to erase our borders, and nationalists who wanted to restore our borders.

Sure, Trump is a little too necon-y for my taste, and Sanders was a little to socialist-y, but nobody is perfect. I don’t think that the candidates themselves had a clear picture of what was happening. But the election results make the mandate clear, and up-and-coming politicians should be able figure out which way the wind is blowing now.

It wasn’t neocon war-mongering, trickle-down economics, or conservative moralizing that won the day. Those stale issues did not implode the Democratic Blue Wall. The fact that the Rust Belt states flipped from blue to red tells the story. That region was first devastated by “Right to Work” laws that created relatively-cheap labor in the Sun Belt. Then a wave of “free trade” treaties created dirt-cheap labor in foreign lands. And those laws were created to facilitate a huge wealth-transfer program from middle-class workers to robber-baron billionaires.

Trump promised to put an end to Ross Perot’s Giant Sucking Sound convincingly enough to sway voters. Now he has to deliver in order to keep his electoral-college majority.

Well and good.

But will I change my party affiliation from Independent to Republican? That remains to be seen. I’m still not convinced that the party’s transformation is going to stick. The team just doesn’t have a deep bench. After all, if something happened to Trump, could Mike Pence be counted on to lead the revolution? Not hardly. When Pence was in Congress, he voted for every globalist trade agreement that came before him. Having a Koch-brothers guy like Pence as president would be the end of the revolution.

Speaking of the Koch brothers, I once voted for David Koch for Vice President. That was during my first presidential election in 1980 when Koch was the running mate of Ed Clark on the Libertarian ticket. I had become a Libertarian after reading Robert Ringer’s book, Restoring the American Dream which I found by browsing at Walden Books.

Back then, the Libertarian Party seemed fresh and revolutionary, and free-market ideology appealed to me because it seemed to sweep away corruption. Then I saw Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose on PBS and was baffled. How could something so revolutionary be on government TV? I wondered about that for decades until I finally learned that PBS was set up as a propaganda outlet of the military-industrial complex. Here’s what I wrote in my first book:

“PBS was founded to promote the Vietnam War. In the 1960s, television rose to power, and its news journalists were very critical of the war. So, President Lyndon Johnson set up PBS and made Frank Pace, Jr. chairman. Pace was a former Secretary of the Army, and a former CEO of General Dynamics Corporation, a huge defense contractor.”

As a Libertarian, I was also baffled by free-trade treaties like the GATT. How could all of these evil governments be expanding freedom by tearing down artificial borders?

Thinking back on it, libertarian ideology was definitely a form of brainwashing. Even when Ross Perot became famous for his Giant Sucking Sound in the 1990s, I still couldn’t figure it out. It took 30 years before I finally realized that the Libertarian Party was just a propaganda arm of the robber-baron Koch brothers.

The first critical thing I wrote about the global economy on my blog was “Google Doesn’t Get the Global Economy” in July 2009. It was triggered by IBM when they told their engineers that if they wanted to keep their jobs they had to relocate to India. As a former IT worker myself, I was aghast. IBM was forcing people to move to a Third World hellhole, get malaria, and work for local wages, i.e. $2 per hour. That was so blatantly evil, not even the most rock-ribbed Libertarian could deny it.

Shortly after that, I changed my party affiliation to Independent and began to regard Libertarians as the useful idiots of the robber barons. And I became a rapacious critic of globalism. My next such post tore into CNBC’s globalist/libertarian Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, who I described as Dumb as Bag of Hammers when she blessed the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs to China. After that, I went on a seven-year long, Archer-style rampage against the globalists.

A central tenet of the libertarian brainwashing is that all labor unions are inherently evil, and that labor is a commodity. But of course, once you start thinking of people as expendable, it is only a short hop to slavery. And indeed, we have seen many cases of slave-like working conditions, not only in the Asian supply chains of multinational corporations, but right here in the USA. Funny thing is that libertarians are vehemently anti-slavery, but support policies that lead directly to it.

Now, I am what I like to call a middleclassitarian: I want to restore the policies that created America’s historic, huge, and prosperous middle class. A standard of living that billions around the world literally drooled over. In my view, the bedrock of the middle class was comprised of the sharply restricted immigration policy adopted in the 1930s, and the traditional protective tariffs that sheltered our growth into a super power. The tariffs kept jobs in, and the low immigration quotas kept the cheap labor out. Labor become a little bit scarce, and instead of using workers up like so many lumps of bauxite, employers had to bid for their services, and treat them well. Both of those foundations have been smashed, and consequently, the middle class has been ravaged.

2012 was my first election as an ex-Libertarian. In previous elections, I had voted for any Libertarians on the ballot, and if there were none, I voted for Republicans. I don’t think I ever voted for a Democrat, who Libertarians consider to be communists. But Mitt Romney was one of the robber barons who, at Bain Capital, personally fired American workers, and sent their jobs to China – and got rich in the process. So, I had to vote to strike him down, and pulled the lever for Obama. I didn’t expect anything from Obama, but I really enjoyed punching Romney in the face. It seemed like a small thing at the time, but as we now know, that was the end-of-the-line for the neoliberal elite in the Republican Party.

Note: one of the ways that the Republican Party came around to my way of thinking was the way our enormous food-stamp population is viewed. Romney, of course, is infamous for his “47% comment” but Newt Gingrich also deployed a “lazy black people on food stamps” line of argument during the 2012 primaries. After I pointed out that the majority of the people on food stamps were white, Gingrich was forced to stop. My position was that the vast bulk of the food-stamp population was not lazy, but rather were the victims of globalization and mass-immigration. In 2016, the Republicans stopped their ridiculous, conservative moralizing. Instead of having a globalist like Mitt Romney scolding them, poor people had a nationalist/populist like Donald Trump promising to help them out of poverty. And that made all the difference.

4 thoughts on “I am not a Republican

  1. This is an excellent blog posting which explains in great detail why someone would abandon the doctrine of economic libertarianism (classical liberalism).

    Not only are many libertarians useful idiots for the globalist billionaires, they are often the biggest promoters of the political-economic interests of our adversaries of the United States (Russia, Red China, and even Cuba and Vietnam). Despite the utopian rhetorical eyewash, much of the libertarian and modern conservative movement are really arms of the multinational corporations and investment banks. These globalist institutions in turn profit from trade with America’s enemies and foreign trade rivals.

    The issue is not economic freedom and private property per se. The larger issue is the divorcing of national patriotism and morality from our big business elites. Part of this stemmed from the heavy helpings of libertarian and pro-big business/anti-labor viewpoints which are deluged in the schools of business and finance. Milton Friedman, Greg Mankiw, Peter Drucker, and Theodore Leavitt are some examples of the pro-big business, anti-labor, and libertarian viewpoints that are doled out in the schools of business, finance, and economics. Ideas which call for what I term Balanced and Nationalist Capitalism are generally crowded out of academia. Much of the mainstream media and K-12 education also support internationalism as opposed to any sense of economic nationalism. This needs to change and it will take a mass movement supported by wealthy patriotic businessmen (Jack Davis, Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, Dan DiMicco, etc.) to carry this agenda forward.

    What did it for me was when the libertarians and even many of the modern conservatives slowly became the worst apologists for Beijing and even Moscow. Virtually all Republicans voted to give Putin Permanent Normal Trade Relations in November 2012. That was an Obama-Clinton initiative by the way. And yes, we all knew that Putin was anti-American and still wedded to expanded Russian power on the world stage. It was known through the revelations of Russian military and intelligence defectors (Sergei Tretyakov, Stanislav Lunev, Vil Miryaznov, Alexander Litvinenko, and others) and intrepid journalists such as Bill Gertz that Moscow continued to gear up for war after 1991 and subvert the US. Yet the Republicans and corporate Democrats were wedded to free trade, globalization, and the donor class. Same goes with China. Many of the so-called freedom loving, US-loving, red-white-and-blue Tea Party Republicans all voted against bills that would have controlled the dumping committed by crony capitalist and state-owned corporations domiciled in Red China. So much for their fealty to God, Family, and Country.

    Trickle down and union busting proved to be an abject failure. The promises of Reagan and the supply siders were hollow. Ironically, the biggest employment engines in the 1980s and after were the government and service sectors. In my view, that’s problematic for the long term viability of the free enterprise system both in terms of purchasing power and the effects on the tax base. The size and scope of the welfare state increased simultaneously with union busting, open borders, and free trade. Low wage employers received government subsidies thanks to Bill Clinton’s “welfare reform.” It didn’t attack the true reasons behind unemployment and underemployment (open borders and free trade).

    This state of affairs needs to be reversed in order to ensure our national survival. I’m afraid that radical change could only come about through a national catastrophe that will be difficult to paper over through short term solutions (low interest rates, more government spending and welfare, quantitative easing, etc.) A world war with the Sino-Russian alliance would also prove our real vulnerabilities, since our defense related supply chains are largely globalized and even controlled by hostile regimes).

    I’ve lectured and written on the issues mentioned above. Please keep up the great work!

    1. Indeed. We got a nasty taste of our military vulnerability in Iraq. Here’s what I wrote in my book:

      “During the conquest of Iraq, many American troops were killed and maimed because we didn’t have the manufacturing capacity to make the special, super-strong steel needed to harden Humvees against IEDs, (improvised explosive devices). There were only two armor-quality steel mills left in the USA – and both were owned by foreign companies! One of them by a Russian company!”

      In a war with a major nation, we would likely discover many more such vulnerabilities – the hard way.

  2. This is quite interesting, and maybe you should put that cathartic explanation in a more easily accessed permanent spot on your blog. For a long-time I thought I was the only one who has considered much of Big Corporate America to be anti-patriotic. Let’s face it, corporate elites who make millions can simply walk away from their jobs after committing crimes (and pseudo crimes) which tear the country apart. Most ppl now believe in their hearts that every decision should be made with one criteria: does it make me money or not. The ppl who have such loads of cash (ok, I’m a little jealous) that they can store it in a foreign country to avoid paying taxes are not real Americans in my honest opinion. Their fathers and grandfathers usually have not served in war or any armed forces; yet they think they are the ones that are owed some kind of allegiance from the masses and are the ones making the calls on where and when we deploy forces. I would slap a tax on every one of the jobs/ wages lost to any third-world underpaid workforce. Smacks of liberalism, yes, but the loss of jobs for ppl of average intelligence is ridiculous at this point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *