Problems in the Romney Candidacy and the Death of the Old Right
By: Guest Authors
It seems the survival of the Romney candidacy boils down to the up-coming debates. His election spells whether or not conservatism will survive as a philosophy in the United States. Unfortunately, whether he is victorious or not, old conservatism will be dead.
Mitt has no choice but to take on the Federal Reserve and its central planning, but he is not. The Federal Reserve is destroying the dollar and the middle class while enabling war, overspending, false market signals, and the transfer of wealth to warfare and welfare rent-seekers. But of course, the rent-seekers (warfare and welfare), in association with the bureaucratic insiders have already bought both the Republicans and Democrats whichever government is in power. Thus, the question becomes whether or not the new Republicans are truly conservatives at all.
The Republicans have to come the realization that they will never balance the budget if Mitt plans to preserve Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security while ratcheting up military spending to 4%. It is a lie to say otherwise. Mitt must make clear the danger of a bond market crisis in the future if we continue down the road we are pursuing. Our ability to defend ourselves will be nil, and we will wind up being forced to make economic and military concessions, which will erode our sovereignty and ultimately our constitution.
The reasons why Mitt must take on the Federal Reserve’s and Q.E. are multiple but the question is – will he?
First and foremost, dollar debasement hurts the middle class, senior citizens, and the poor whose savings and fixed incomes are destroyed as the purchasing power of the dollar declines.
Second, Q.E. hurts business that sell in domestic markets as well as those, which have to import materials because of the weakening dollar. As per the Federal Reserve’s stated goals, this policy does not help employment in the domestic market, but does help the balance sheets of the large international corporations. Moreover, Q.E. in the name of assisting exporter distorts productivity because the currency debasement sends a false economic picture which clouds market signals.
The debasement of the currency also has already started a currency war. Other nations have the right to pursue this measure, as one nation debases their currency to get an economic advantage. As can be seen on the international stage, the world is in a race to the bottom its currencies. We may believe we are prosperous, through our currency debasement it is a false prosperity based on a weaker dollar which in the long-run are unsustainable (don’t fight the Fed though).
Finally, currency debasement with fiat money expands the number of dollars in circulation, which is inflationary and drives up costs across the board. Eventually, these dollars will have to be retracted owing to inflation. When that occurs, the export market will be the one that suffers the greatest damage because they have received false market signals to ramp up production on the unsustainable basis of currency devaluation.
The Wall Street Journal reported on 10/1/2012 that exports have represented half of the economic growth during the “recovery.” This is true. However, what has been the driving force of exports? – The debasement of the dollar through O.E. The Federal Reserve’s policies are unsustainable and are a major reason why there is no growth. They have trapped the U.S. economy in the Keynesian “liquidity trap.” There is no growth precisely because rates are too low and unsustainable. They fail to see that savings and production are what drives growth, not consumption. Moreover, the Federal Reserve has backed itself into a position where it cannot allow rates to rise because its irregular methods cause it to own so much toxic debt that it cannot allow rates to rise without bankrupting its own and all of its member bank’s balance sheets. How many people believe we are in for a soft landing. Rather, it will be a day of reckoning.
The second aspect of Mitt’s campaign, which is tied to the issue of economy, is that Mitt needs to dump the legacy of neo-conservatism represented by the former Bush administration. The Neo-conservative control over the Romney campaign spells the end of traditional conservatism.
Neo-conservatism believes in big government and foreign interventionism and finds its roots in Trotskyism and the Democratic Party up until 1972. This philosophy has hijacked the Republican Party as can be seen by the events at the Republican National Convention. The convention was a sham to falsely conjure a united front in the Republican Party, when clearly there is not. It will be to the detriment of the Republican Party in the long-run that they stifled debate in favor the pre-selected Establishment candidate. Simply put, the Republicans are no longer Republicans of old. This is not the party of Taft or Goldwater. The Party’s slow transformation started under Reagan although he held to some of those principles. It is precisely because of the Establishment’s takeover of the party through the neo-conservatives, there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats. We are given the illusion of a choice, but in the end the policies are always the same – much to the detriment of this country.
Does anybody want a return of the Bush administration? Sadly, Mitt has a preponderance of Bush advisors who are giving him bad advice. Mitt needs to dump the Council of Foreign Relations advisors and put America First. As noted above, the question is how much do they own him? It seems clear that we already have our answer.
Nations have interests and our foreign policy should be based on American interests, not on a globalist agenda that has slowly destroyed the U.S. economy and has led the U.S. to venture abroad to ethnocentrically slay monsters in the name of the false god of democracy where we have no real strategic interest. Everywhere where we have intervened through overt or covert methods has backfired against us. Is it not time for a reassessment of how the U.S. projects itself, not a continuation of the same policy by both the Democrats and Republicans? Our policy makers have gone against the words of Washington and Adams and what we are seeing is not traditional republicanism. The question of the U.S. losing its leadership in the world is a false question, which has trapped us into the idea that non-interventionism means world appeasement rather than the United States basing its foreign policy on real interests. Our rivals have watched and helped engineer our economic and military overextension and e remain vulnerable to economic or military terrorism while our policies further inflame. We are explicitly playing to the strategy spelled out by Bin Laden. At the same time, we tear ourselves apart domestically with the thought control brought to us by our enemies in the form of Gramsican-Frankfurt School-New Left Marxism all of which has been enabled by our co-opted Establishment and has prevented us from having a serious discussion about our domestic and our foreign policy because to do so would be politically incorrect. Our Establishment has been deceived (see deception strategy-scissors strategy) and has deceived itself to the point of hubris, in its perception of how the world works.
We need to be an impartial nation that makes America’s business just what it is – business – while brokering a real peace, not a one-sided policy for war on behalf of another nation’s interests which in the end has no exit strategy and will lead to the inevitable destruction of the American economy. Looking over the years, Orwell’s 1984, is not such a far-fetched concept anymore.
BY: William L. Marcy IV, Ph.D.
We are driven towards domestic bankruptcy and perpetual foreign interventionism by the Establishment. With either party, the banks and rent seekers will profit from these actions while the federal government expands its power and doles out wealth to its interest groups. This is corporatist fascism and in the long-run is unsustainable. They tried it in Argentina and Italy. It did not, and still does not work.
Our country needs a new enlightenment or a re-reading of those classical thinkers: Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Ricardo, Hobbes (as a warning), Spencer (not a distorted reading but what he actually says about the industrial and the military states in Man vs. the State), Bastiat, Weber, Von Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Rothbard to name a few. Ayn Rand will not cut it alone.
Sadly, true conservatism is lost on the Republican leadership, which has no depth because it is no longer based on intellectualism but rather on who you know and power over the federal government to aid those who put you there – now they wonder why their candidate is struggling. Is it only an illusion, which is perpetuated by our co-opted institutions (media, government, academia), all that is left of our Constitution and country?