'I've Made My Decision — I'm Out.' Glenn Beck Leaves The Republican Party
Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 7 months ago to Politics
The Republican majority has been disappointing. Beck is right about them giving up on immigration and O'care. I changed to Libertarian years ago but our options are limited.
they have been after us ever since. . argh. -- j
Haven't heard from them since.
I probably will go to at least one event. My primary motivation will be just to meet people. At my level of contribution, no one close to the president is even going to know who I am. That's not so for Congress, so going to the events can actually make a difference. With Hillary there's a chance, though, because I know people who have worked closely with her in the past.
I do not know Hillary at all. She comes off as a ruthless politician, but I haven't researched her that closely.
You're not the only one, so sorry to direct this to you, but why do you carry on saying this kind of shit? You've never met me and have no idea. If I really were sucking up to decion-makers to get a handout, I probably would have slick narrative to the contrary. I could parrot the bullshit talking heads yell at one another, and you'd somehow think I'm righteous. This point is moot b/c AS is not about me but the ideas.
Instead of just making a rude offhand comment like this, you could at very least contact me and tell me about the stuff you're doing. Maybe I would be able to help.
It's not about you alone, but it's really unfortunate that I found AS a few years ago and then found a group dedicated to it, and people like you act like complete dicks to someone you've never even met. For all you know I could be doing great things promoting liberty in my little corner of the world.
I like AS and the notion of a board dedicated to it, but this is tiresome. If you want to make this about me personally, why not laud me as a hero for reaching contacting the ATF and President Obama's staff in opposition to the ammunition ban? (That fight's not over, BTW.) But seriously, if this is a contest for personal righteousness, which I think is anethetical to AS, why not say, "Gee, I wouldn't do it that way, but maybe you're getting real results"? Why the dickishness?
"Why do you carry on saying this..." Strange... I do not recall doing what you have intimated and characterized in this way... From your response, I believe you have overreacted. Careful or one might think I alone have struck a nerve were it not for your comment that "you're not the only one,.." Prior to this exchange I do not recall challenging you. Since I am "not the only one" you might take that into consideration.
...Just pointing out what "appeared" to be a contradiction with your adherence to the philosophy and one you may wish to consider, challenge or clarify by elaboration. It is not about you personally.To my knowledge, you have, until now, been at least capable of refraining from name calling. I respected that. It is not my fault the comments you have made carried these possible implications. It is our business to point out the contradictions and implications for all to learn from and recognize. I see from further comment you have protested and wish to remove doubt regarding your intentions. Good. I hope so. I am not a mind reader, but it is clear to me and others, that you have produced a mixed bag of comments. Some quite in line with the philosophy and laudable, and others that are blatant contradictions. If you are honest about it and try to see it from my perspective, it should be clear how one could proffer the possibility I did. It was after all, not stated as fact, only an observation... an easily drawn inference that needed clarification on your part.
Well, now we have it. So be it. I can accept that.
If I supported candidates and made comments anathema to objectivism here, I would expect people to call me on them. Multiple possibilities could be responsible... unclear expression, misunderstanding on your part, or simple misunderstanding on mine.
There was no animosity on my part. The clarification was needed. The name calling was beneath you.
I hope you can get past that.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I agree, but it goes both ways. It seemed like you likened me to an AS villain. Sorry I vented on you. I don't even know you.
I stand by the claim that a lot of nastiness comes from AR fans, as if they missed the entire point AS and Fountainhead and use it as a self-righteous fig leaf over their primary interest of being a jerk. This is unfortunate b/c it means it's hard to have discussions with AR fans, and what's worse it causes people to think the books are about politics.
That comment and this discussion belong in its own thread, not as a response to you.
So, now I am a jerk and objectivists are self righteous, miss the entire point of the novels, have a primary interest of being jerks. And YOU find it difficult to have discussions with AR fans...
I don’t know why I should help you understand why you sometimes get unfavorable reactions from Objectivists, but I will try to address some of your recent comments.
Some could be, rightly or wrongly, perceived as “characteristic” of AS villains though your actual intent and actions may be contrary. For instance, one problem is your willingness to associate with politicians that are the biggest advocates of policies contrary to Objectivism when you should be denouncing them. The Republican Party is bad but the Democratic Party is much worse. Most are proponents of collectivist mob rule particularly on economic issues. They constantly spout off about “our Democracy” without recognition of the fact that we were founded as a Republic with democratic elections. They are the bigger proponents of collectivism, statism, economic egalitarianism, redistribution, socialism and altruism. Altruism is absolute anathema to the philosophy and it is a major motivator among democrat liberals. They are not friends of free markets or capitalism. They are the biggest advocates of a mixed market bordering on socialism. The Obamacare law is only the latest most prominent example. It was shoved down our throats without one single Republican vote. Yes, the Democratic party of today is worse. They reward sloth and punish the productive, have never seen a tax increase that they didn’t like, refuse to cut any excess spending except the defense budget and it is one of the few things the Constitution actually demands/ authorize the federal government to spend tax money on. They fund cronies like the Solyndras and GEs etc., etc. while displaying hypocritical outrage over Haliburton… They brazenly lie and slander like Harry Reid did on the Senate floor regarding Romney’s taxes and now that he is not running for re-election and is called on it, he has nothing to lose, no remorse and is proud of it since “Romney lost”, which was his motivation. And the MSM doesn’t care because they are sycophants. If things were reversed they would have crucified a republican. This bias largely causes many republicans to fold on principle since the media and the democrats shamelessly always circle the wagons, twist facts, question the motives of others, and scream racism, sexism, homophobia and any other feigned outrage they can conjure. Also you do not believe the books are about politics. They are. Rand made it clear that AS was the embodiment of her philosophy put into the form of a novel. Her other books also carry strong political messages that align with her philosophy. Her academic works reference passages of the novels. Her philosophy, like any fully developed philosophy, has a political aspect to it. It must, because philosophy deals with how we see the world, how we interact with each other and govern.
You suggest that you don’t know us and that we don’t know you. It is true that we have not met, but we have had over a year and a half of reading your thoughts. We may believe you are a fine person and hold no personal animosity and yet find your full appreciation and understanding of the philosophy wanting. Some of your comments demonstrate you are on track and others that you are off base and do not yet see the contradictions. Your words and professed actions are what we have to work with. We take you at your word and you protest the implications. Some associations/actions you have admitted to are going to be seen as tacit approval of enemies of Liberty, limited government, free markets and objectivist philosophy. Thus some will see you in that camp. Your comments make it about you.
I do not believe it is in your best interest to start a thread as you have suggested to dissect your past contradictions. I do hope you will study the more academic writings and how they relate to the novels. I understand everyone does not come to the same understanding at the same time. Please consider the full context of the material on this site and check your premises. Some here no longer have my patience or any more interest in helping you. In spite of your continued name calling, I have no desire to rip on you, only to help you see the areas you need to work on.
With all due respect,
O.A.
I go to more non-political events. And I haven't been going to them much recently b/c I've been travelling, but now I'm not and proably will go again.. The last one I recall going to was a bycicle federation event. Before that we went to a fundraiser related to cows, LOL, that I cannot even recall the details of. I am not looking for a specific type of client. My wife tends to have a lot of gov't-worker clients, but 70% of Dane County has at least one person working for some type of gov't. Most of my clients got started with one person taking a risk while his life partner worked a state gov't job to pay the bills. Anyway, I have never yet used gov't connections to win business. I tried once to help a client win part of the job when the city was putting in Internet service downtown, and they didn't win any of it. So if I'm seeing gov't largess, which I'm not, it's not working.
That's all logical. The one part I reject is that one party is "more in line with free markets and less government". I actually did not know you thought one party was better. If you assume parties don't matter for liberty, then it sounds like you're just changing the topic from what I'm actually saying to personal attacks and nitpicking. We can be talking about some issue like reducing gov't spending, and people respond, "but you voted for President Clinton/Bush/Obama who expanded gov't cost, intrusiveness, and the federal deficit, so you *personally* caused this problem!" The topic is changed from a discussion of liberty to whether some individual we haven't met has done enough personally to fight for liberty.
[CG trying to be a self-righteous jerk]Quit buying into political salemens' narratives and do something to make a positive change. How can you claim to be an objectivist when you are actively undermining liberty?
No. My being a jerk probably won't explain anything. Objectivism and liberty are not venues for me to be self-righteous. They're too important for that. They're not the natural state for humankind, either, so we need to put constant effort in to maintain them.
It's normal that we won't accept each other's program 100% b/c we're not the same people. If you think step 1 in increasing liberty is to first get everyone to agree on every details, there will never be a step 2. This is true for any group but esp liberty-minded people who tend to think for themselves.
Dominique seemed to see out relationships she didn't want: Toohey, Peter, Wynand.
This makes me want to read the whole huge book again.
In our world today, do you say support people who want strict adherence to the Constitution, at first to raise the issues and then maybe later to win?
You have proven through your admitted choices of candidates, and repeatedly voting for Obama, that you have no interest in accomplishing what you claim are your goals.
Indeed they do. Maybe boycotting the process will lead to change. Maybe change will happen from people like me operating within the mainstream system.
Neither approach is guaranttee to work or fail. It's possible I've done more to influence legislation and executive actions than someone who contributed only to libertarians who mostly did not win.
I meant positive change, more liberty, not changes that repress liberty.
Revolution could lead possibly to more liberty, as you say, or possibly less. I do not want a revolution. I want incremental increase in liberty.
"Maybe change will happen from people like me operating within the mainstream system."
and your action: voting for Obama twice,
and Obama's constant actions to reduce liberty and increase the power of the state,
I logically concluded that you were stating that your act of supporting Obamas policies (that reduce liberty and increase state power) was the change that you favored.
Since you have also frequently claimed to be against more state power (in spite of the actions you have taken in voting for more state power) I projected that the only way to achieve your stated goal of less state power was through an eventual revolution caused as a result of increasing state power. Thus my statement:
"Eventually changes that repress individual liberty and encourage dictatorship will lead to revolution and possibly to freedom."
Your stated goals are in direct conflict with your actions of voting.
One more example,
Statement: "I want incremental increase in liberty."
Action: you vote for Obama twice
I don't really mean that, though, because maybe those candidates are raising the issues. And maybe if enough people do what you do, they'll reach critical mass.
Please stop the nonsense that if I'm not doing your program I'm undermining liberty.
Do you want the glory of being able to say "MY candidate won!"
What does it achieve?
You advocate for support of
anti-liberty politicians and parties
You advocate for incremental
increases of liberty. That's like
saying I'm freer than you because
my leg chain is 6" longer than
yours. You either want liberty or
you just want your 6". I suspect,
given liberty, you wouldn't like it.
I stopped believing in the parties steadily over the next few years. That does not mean I stopped voting or lobbying mainstream candidates. I just stopped believing either mainstream party would increase liberty.
Sometimes I suspect that's half the people who go to church, and I agree that is a contradiction. :)
I don't go to the "church" of political parties or candidates. I haven't signed on to any domga or creed. I try to think for myself and accept the world as it is.
The economy contracts for two quarters in 2016, but somehow people remember how the banking crisis peaked in 2008. People were so hopeful for change, and they feel disappointed to be back in a similar situation, with the 6-year expansion being anemic, 1% less growth than a typical expansion. Maybe the president and gov't can do anything about it. The pendulum swings to a Republican, who has a scandal, leading to a libertarian candidate.
This candidate uses the precedent of expanded executive power to cut gov't programs or force them to do nothing even if the president cannot shut off funding. The president uses these powers to declare some of the Gulches that are forming open-trade zones with lower taxes and regulation. He publically refutes critics claims that they are just places for money laundering, drug running, tax evasion, and human trafficing. He even hints that the ones that come up with good policies might be a model for other places.
After a few years, large companies invest in the Gulches. It becomes politically hard to undo what happened in the early 2020s. States are more and more forced to give up power and control.
Scott Walker, mainly because of the work he did in Wisconsin on their budget and standing up to their unions. Maybe he can stop the rush to a greater deficit compliments of Obama. The dimocrats pull the "He doesn't have a college degree" out of their hat trying their best to find anything to throw at him and change the subject. Maybe they should talk to Bill Gates about being a success without a degree. Worth mentioning is the fact that we have no solid proof that Obama has a degree. Supposedly he has, but he has blocked all attempts to learn about his past. Can we be sure he has one after suffering through six years of his lies? Maybe what we’ve learned and seen about him is enough.
Along with Scott Walker I'd like to have Ted Cruz because he's able to give it back in spades to the Dimocrats and marginalize them. The DNC tried to attack him over his recent speech where he said the world is on fire. Saying he had terrified a young girl (thanks to the New York Times) was quickly shown to be a lie. When interviewed she showed that she was not terrified of anything he had said and even called him Uncle Ted.
The GOP needs a fighter, not a crybaby and not one that caves in continuously. Maybe one that would start impeachment proceedings.
I'm convinced that as few republican governors like him, by being so un-Obama like, actually won the last election for Obama. No republican has ever won without winning Ohio and yet Ohio, because of Kasich's policies, was doing better than most states in 2012. Because of that they voted for the incumbent president.
Now if Ben Carson and Scott Walker get booted like Herman Cain did, it opens the door for the money candidates (Jeb Bush) and Kasich can then scoot in as the upstart contender, but I just don't see it happening this time. Marco Rubio is rumored to be in, as is Rand Paul. That makes for an awfully crowded field of highly-recognizable names for Kasich to overcome.
Lastly, let's remember that Kasich couldn't even carry Ohio for Romney in the last election. Now I'm not arguing that Romney was the best candidate, but if you can't help carry your state, you're not going to get a lot of love from the RNC, and you need their vote (and money).
Governing is pretty hard. Sometimes things come up where you have to put the desires of those who elected you before what you would prefer personally. I had one such incident when I was my faculty senate's president. That incident moved me from conservative to libertarian.
Ron Paul=Libertarian
Hillary Clinton=Fascist
Barak Obama=Socialist
These politicians are extremely far apart on the political spectrum and you have said things in the past supporting each of them. It's hard to understand. If Obama does something right I recognize that but I still would not support or vote for him.
Ron Paul killed himself in the 2004 and 2008 runs with his stupidity on foreign policy so soon after 9-11. I think the guy has the economic policy side right, but he'd be a disaster on the foreign stage.
Fascist describes Hillary very well. She plays all the same games Hitler did to get elected, and she is just as shrill, egomaniacal, hateful, spiteful, and arrogant, just less articulate. If you learned nothing from Whitewater or email-gate, you are a fool. Hillary would follow Obama's disdain for Constitutional Law.
Barak Obama isn't a socialist per se, but rather a wanna-be sovereign dictator. Obamacare to some is a socialist policy, but in reality it's a half-way point to total autocratic rule. The same with his immigration and taxation policies. He sees his boot firmly on the necks of anyone who opposes him while he greases the palms of those connected to him. He despises anyone who stands up to him - which is why he went after Netayahu like he did.
You have a choice. Vote for evil or don't vote for evil. Then explain one day to your kids when they asked what happened to Civil Rights.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
I have yet to find a Political party that will just take the Constitution as the best guideline to come along, and stick with it. Period. Don't tell me about abortion, gay marriage, religion, Allah, foods to eat, fat to have, what to drink or how many cow pies I can leave in my pasture. Hold me accountable for the harm I do to others. Hold others accountable for the harm they do to me. Let me pay a small amount to support common things needed (police, fire, etc), don't make me pay for someone else, your special interests, funding companies doomed to fail, or overseas children starving. LMTFA. That's my party. Haven't seen it yet, so I guess I am just a rogue element. I think Ben_C came pretty close to nailing it.
Who's with me?
At this point the existing GOP leadership should just melt into the Dems and make room for a new party.
Those RINOpubs need good kicks in the butt.
list over the past few years, so his leaving is sustained
since awhile ago. . good. -- j
As for the GOP, I believe it can be saved -- mostly because its hostility to liberty is strictly a generational thing. ALL of the party's potential leaders who are under 30 appear to be libertarians. As the older generation die off, they will get control, just as the anti-abortion and anti-gay elements of that party have already lost, permanently, by dying off. (Libertarians are already enough of the GOP's membership that it will never win another presidency with a candidate who isn't acceptable to libertarians.)
Actually, I agree. I registered that way but am not actually a paying member of the LP of PA. There are too many one-issue libertarians. If some democrat would just promise to give them their hemp he could probably siphon off 20% of the L vote.
Like Objectivists, they will also tend to fight tooth and nail over every jot and tittle of a policy. I'm for every change that moves us forward toward the complete embrace of liberty. In any election, unfortunately I feel like I tend to have to vote for the one that will infringe my liberties less.
But hey, really? Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are the best the main stream parties can do? Has it really come to that? If so, Hillary will win solely because she is a self-identifying female (did I get all my PC terminology correct there? :) )
Load more comments...