Random Thoughts

I've long been a believer that socialism doesn't win national elections in the United States, at least when the election is an honestly-contested, fair fight. After all, the most recent Battleground poll data available shows that 59% of Americans consider themselves somewhat or very conservative - compared to 36% who consider themselves somewhat or very liberal.

Nevertheless, as things stand at this moment, the presidential race is being led by one of the most liberal candidates in history, who only a few days ago openly acknowledged to a voter his intent at re-distributing wealth within America. It's not like he can hide who he is anymore - which is normally what is necessary for a socialist candidate to win in this country.

So are current poll numbers reflective of the massive voter fraud that is taking place on Senator Obama's behalf? It's hard for me to believe that this alone could make up for the 23% difference between conservatives and liberals.

Is it the appealing sound that socialist rhetoric has to it during times of economic crisis? Has the left-wing dominated Democrat party finally found the perfect time to throw their achievement-punishing sales pitch to the public?

Is it the cult of personality that has grown up around Senator Obama, that has displaced interest in issue stands?

What's the explanation?

**********

And speaking of the documented voter fraud that is taking place throughout the nation, I find it interesting that, during the last two presidential election cycles - when a Republican won - left-wingers, including those in Congress, howled that the election results were not valid, based on their unverified allegations of voter intimidation and fraud. But now that a liberal Democrat stands poised to carry the day in an election - the results of which many have genuine reason to have little or no confidence in due to documented fraud - the silence from the left is deafening.

**********

I find it striking that Senator Obama's plan for bringing about economic recovery in the United States does not allow for the concept of ecomic growth, or the creation of wealth. His plan - as expressed to the afore-mentioned voter - revolves around taking money/wealth out of the economy and putting it in the hands of the government, so that it can re-distribute the wealth as it sees fit.

It seems that, to the left, prosperity is a zero-sum game, in which there is only an unchanging set amount of wealth in existence, and therefore the gains of some must be offset by the losses of others. So, if somebody's got to win, and somebody's got to lose, why not let the rich be the losers? After all they've got it to spare.

There seems to be no allowance for the idea of the creation of new wealth, in which case there is more prosperity brought into the system, and in which case everyone can indeed enjoy more, as there is a larger pot for every citizen to draw from, based on his willingness to work for it.

The fact is that the amount of wealth in our system never remains static. If it is not growing, which the capitalist system gives it the best opportunity to do, it is shrinking. Take $100 away from a rich man in order to funnel it through the government, it will be something less than $100 that comes out of the other end of the system to be given to some other citizen - unless we can develop a government agency that operates for free.

What's more, penalized enough, the citizen who actually produces that $100 will be incentivized to eventually take all his wealth out of the system altogether, as some heavily-taxed industries have already done in the United States.

Even Senator Obama has been heard to say that he may put off certain tax increases if the economy doesn't strengthen a bit first. Why would he say something like that? Is it because, maybe deep down, he recognizes that higher taxes do not spur economic growth, or even recovery? Why should I vote for a candidate who essentially acknowledges that his plan for economic recovery in the United States doesn't work unless the economy doesn't need to recover?

Still Beating the Horse, Because It's Not Dead Yet

Have we forgotten what a unique idea it was that the founders of this nation had 230-something years ago? After years of living – and languishing – under the authority of a distinct ruling class, a class that was closed off to any not blessed enough to be placed there by chance of birth, these men had the crazy idea that “average” people with a healthy dose of common sense and a reasonable work ethic could manage the affairs of their own nation. These Classical Liberal thinkers decided to kick against the idea that only a select group of high-born people could be trusted to run the affairs of a nation.

Instead, a group of men – with little to no experience running a national government – decided to strike out on their own, even giving a voice to the people of the land in determining who would actually occupy positions of power in the new government. Over time, that crazy idea allowed the development of what is now, and remains – despite its present woes – the dominant nation on earth.

Much of the rhetoric we are hearing in the current campaign for the nation’s highest offices is that one – only one, mind you – of the four candidates on the two major-party tickets is not ready to take up the reins of power immediately, if elected. The candidate’s lack of experience is arguably the one issue that is raised the most by her critics. And, interestingly, the experience issue is raised only with regard to her, with very few exceptions.

Sarah Palin is a natural-born American citizen. She has lived in the United States for the last fourteen years, and she is over the age of thirty-five. As far as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson are concerned, she is qualified to be President of the United States – as is, by the way, Barack Obama.

It is interesting to note the absence of any other qualifying factors for the presidency placed in the original Constitution itself. There is no mention of a required level of education. There is no mention of accepted universities for potential presidents to attend. There is no mention of required years of experience in a particular position.

The idea of additional qualifying factors, such as the ones mentioned, is one that has taken hold in the consciousness of the nation following the passing of the nation’s earliest generations. And it is fascinating to see how so many in the chattering classes, and so many in the general populace, cling to this extra-constitutional idea, especially in view of what it has wrought for America.

Upset about the current financial crisis in the United States? It was brought to you by “leaders with experience.”

Upset about the war America is fighting? It was brought to you by “leaders with experience.”

Upset about the problem with unaffordable fuel prices? It was brought to you by “leaders with experience.”

Dissatisfied with the performance of the President and the Congress, as the vast majority of Americans are? They are, almost to a man, “leaders with experience.”

And yet, despite all this, the American people have been convinced by misguided purveyors of “information” that continuing to keep the same group of people in Washington will somehow magically eventually make things better, even while these same people have been on the watch as the present problems have developed. How can this be?

Because, over time, we have replaced the notion of the necessity being led by the “high-born” with the notion of the necessity of being led by the “high-educated” or the “high-experienced.” Average citizens, despite the ability to run successful businesses, design new technologies, and solve real-world problems have been fed the line that they can’t do the job that their congressmen and presidents do. And they have bought into it, despite the fact that a large portion of these Americans don’t believe the president and congress are doing such a hot job themselves.

The dilemma for those who believe that experience breathing the rarified air within the hallowed halls of Washington is necessary to be able to lead the nation is this: If the American people cannot be trusted – with their lack of experience – to run the nation, how can they be trusted to choose who does?

Those who want to justify their vote this year, one way or the other, based on the experience issue, are standing on very thin ice – logically speaking. On one side, the Vice-Presidential candidate – in the eyes of some – doesn’t have the “requisite experience.” But on the other side, it is the Presidential candidate with the same problem. If this is a disqualifying factor for the one, why not the other? Why is it disqualifying at all?