…for Re-founding the Original American Republic

Incumbrepublocrats: n. The sham duopoly of incumbent ruling elites, tricking complaisant sheeple into believing they need frequent sheering for the welfare of the herd, and have a choice of shepherds promising, yet never quite providing, eternally green pastures in wolf-free zones. See: Incumbrepublocrats

Those of us who are political junkies, and/or passionate about an issue or ideology, tend to lament so-called voter apathy and how uninterested so many of our neighbors seem to be, about political matters we regard as critically important to the future of our country. These sheeple are content to blithely follow any glib demagoging bellwether, and foolishly trust their shepherds to keep them in clover. While we spend an inordinate amount of time and effort attempting to awaken them from their indifference, they cavort blissfully through much simpler lives, oblivious to any good reason to allow political squabbling to complicate them.

Perhaps we should be noticing what so many of them do, which enables them to tune out obsessive political debate. It seems to matter not how actively engaged we become; our prodigious efforts rarely make much difference in the end. The inexorable slide into the pits of tyranny is continuously advanced by ambitious oligarchs, in both wings of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. For the most part, after a busy year of selecting, campaigning hard for, and even electing worthy candidates promising reform, little actually changes in Sodom by the Potomac. Alas, power corrupts… rather quickly, and nearly always.

Whomever we might vote for, the entrenched bureaucracy effectively wins every election. Perhaps we should rethink the Civil Service system, which was supposed to be an improvement over the ‘Spoils System,’ of patronage jobs for government servants. At least before, we could throw ALL the rascals out with a change election. Now, this unelected, under-worked, and grossly overpaid cabal of bureaucratic busybodies merrily carries on, growing their budget and micromanaging our daily lives. Once again, they bemusedly watch our freshly elected reformers being schooled by the old Pro’s, in the art of maintaining incumbency – job one for a career-minded Incumbrepublocrat.

These starry-eyed newbies quickly learn the fine points of organizing fundraisers, milking K Street, angling for plum committee seats, and of course, shoveling pork. To get on the fast track to national fame and personal fortune, all that is required is to disregard their oath to defend our Constitution, shirk their real duty, break sundry campaign promises in order to demonstrate loyalty to their caucus over their constituents, and blithely kick our burning issues further down the proverbial road, just past the next election. Soon, dispensing reelection pork becomes much more important to their career, than futile attempts at reform.

Yet, the fault is ours, for not establishing de facto ‘term limits.’ All that would be required to force reform on Congress is to refuse to vote for an incumbent ever again, no matter how much we might like an individual. Imagine the corruption and partisan nonsense that would evaporate, if they had to abandon the seniority-based power structure, because serving in Congress was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I submit that even if a star were occasionally replaced with a dud for two years, the leveling effect of dispensing with the power of incumbency and seniority, for old bulls in safe districts, would far outweigh the loss. Why should the power reside in the districts with the least discerning voters, who are most easily bought with pork?

Is there any wonder so many of our neighbors choose ‘none-of-the-above,’ by the simple expedient of not bothering to vote? Why should they vote, when it just validates and encourages the devious bastards? Boycotting the polls avoids the risk of disappointment on election night; or inevitable frustration in the future, when the individual one worked so hard to help elect, discards principles for political expediency. They may not be able to articulate it; but on an intuitive level folks grok that our political process is little more than carefully choreographed Kabuki Theater, which they find boring. Only a political junkie could appreciate the choreography enough, to be captivated by the entire scripted performance, the outcome of which is seldom ever in doubt to the insider elites.

Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, has published a very informative article titled, “A Primer for Rich Donors Who Got Taken to the Cleaners by Republican Consultants,” which is well worth pondering carefully. Not only for its subject matter, which is interesting enough; but also for the insight provided, regarding how mechanistic our political process has become. To the political consultants who manage modern campaigns, we voters are not regarded as individuals with real issues to be addressed; we are merely numerical data with identifiable proclivities, which can be sorted, classified, and manipulated for a desired result.

He offers some interesting statistics:

“Of the 100% of Americans who exist, about 66% are eligible to vote. (These are all rough estimates.)

40% are actually registered to vote.

25% of the total American population will probably, actually go vote.

Therefore, a candidate needs 13% of the population to win.

But, and this is a big but, of the 25% of the population that can and does vote, 9% will vote straight Democrat usually and 8% will vote straight Republican.

That leaves 8% left.

2% of that 8% of people will be single issue voters. Of that 2%, most of the single issue voters will tilt slightly to the GOP on issues of guns or abortion, but there are also single issue pro-choice voters, single issue anti-gun voters, single issue gay rights voters, etc.

That all leaves 6% of the population. In other words, to win an election, a candidate must really get 4% of the population to support him because that is the majority of the undecided 6%. A Republican must get a bit more, but then can draw from single issue voters a bit more than Democrats.

Those percentages are the foundation of the data. But the data is more complicated than that.

To win a campaign, a campaign must win a state or a lesser division of a state.

Each state is broken down into congressional districts. Each congressional district covers parts or all of counties or, in Louisiana, parishes. Each county is further divided in precincts. Each precinct is divided into census tracts.

A campaign can determine a pretty solid estimate of how many votes it needs to win by going down to the precinct of each county in America…”

It goes on, and I recommend reading the whole thing; but the part I wish to focus on here, is the percentages of actual voters. The next time you hear a politician say, “The American people want…,” please realize he is blowing smoke. At most, 9 or 10% of American people want what he is selling enough to bother to vote for it. A similar percentage prefers what his opponent is selling enough to vote for that; and the remainder of actual voters will most likely cast a negative vote, against the more onerous of two unwanted agendas, and/or unappealing candidates.

Notice the percentage of unaligned voters, which are fought so bitterly and downright nastily over, by the two wings of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. Currently, only 8% of the population consists of reliable independent swing voters, open to persuasion. That seems rather small, until one realizes that it is a third of all actual voters, roughly equivalent to the size of the voter base of either wing of the Incumbrepublocrats. As long as this duopoly can contain them within their so-called ‘two party system’ paradigm, the winning side will be the one that persuaded about 5 out of the 8% to vote with them, to reach the 13% required for victory.

Yet, by their very nature, swing voters are not ideologues; or their own ideological proclivities are not reliably embraced by either wing of the oligarchs’ duopoly. Most are so-called moderates or centrists, caught in the middle between the battling Politically Correct Class/Race Warriors on the Left, and the Piously Correct Culture Warriors on the Right, without much interest in either cause. A good many are individualists who, like the vast majority of nonvoters, just wish to be left alone to live their mundane lives as they choose, unmolested by busybodies from DC. They may or may not have an affinity for an existing minority party; but demagoguery and pragmatism usually persuades them to vote for the ‘lesser of (the electable) two evils.’ Few are ever voting FOR the agenda or candidate of one party; but instead usually vote defensively AGAINST those offered by the other one. Else, they would likely be reliable Republicans or Democrats.

Now notice that if a new Rogue (so-called ‘Third’) Party were to be taken seriously, and offered that 8% of unaligned voters an attractive viable alternative to the entrenched duopoly, a very close three-way race could ensue. Indeed, if more or less evenly split three ways, a winning plurality would require the votes of only 9% of the population. With the right message, resources, plan, and execution, there is no reason the new party wouldn’t be viable. If its agenda offered REAL Hope for definitively specified REAL Change in the nature of our Federal government, the prognosis for victory actually looks rather encouraging. It gets even better with further thought.

Taken seriously and considered viable, with well-known, well-spoken, and charismatic candidates (E.g. Sarah Palin, Alan West, Newt Gingrich, et al – to name three rogue Republicans currently out of office, with demonstrated ability to get attention, inspire a crowd, and take the heat…) the national media could not ignore, it could undoubtedly pull significant support from those the Incumbrepublocrats currently count on as their reliable bases. Ironically, it could easily become the ‘lesser of two evils’ play for the ideologues of either, if polls showed their own Party’s chance of winning slipping. Personally, after all these years (since Reagan) of being admonished that I must hold my nose and vote for the charismatically-challenged ‘Progressive  Lite’ Republican candidate, to prevent the more Progressive Democrat from winning, I rather relish the idea of Republican ideologues potentially being faced with the same conundrum. Moreover, it is likely that the excitement fostered by a REAL Liberty agenda, could entice considerable numbers of perennial nonvoters to register and vote with us.

There are legions of nominally fiscally conservative, yet socially tolerant, moderates on either side of the Left/Right divide, who find the ideologues on their own Party’s fringe, only marginally less frightening than their opponents. These folks might easily be persuaded to abandon the internecine feuds with their more dogmatic extremists, to join a movement closer to their own vision of what the Federal government should be. If we could agree to make it a Federal level only party, intent on returning all social issues and programs to the individual States where they belong; we could be a big melting pot of diverse citizens, with profound differences over the culture issues. Yet, all could be in full agreement regarding the necessity of reining in the bloated and out-of-control Federal bureaucracy, which is grossly over-regulating our daily lives, crippling our economy, taxing us beyond reason, and spending our posterity into bankruptcy.

Probably the best reason to consider this option is that we urgently need a pressure relief valve, to avoid another civil war. It is a simple fact that the incessant culture war between the two authoritarian wings of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly, is irreconcilable and beyond compromise. Neither the Politically Correct far Left, nor the Piously Correct far Right, could ever agree to give up their righteous quest for control of our society’s mores. It is a fight to the finish, and if we keep at it on the national stage, actual civil war is inevitable. Our regional cultural differences have become too great, and it is imperative that we permit blue States and red States to set their own standards, and disempower them from meddling in each other’s affairs, with the coercive levers of the Federal government. With a return of the primacy of the Tenth Amendment, the whole secessionist movement could fold their tent.

I submit that a serious adult effort, with adequate financial backing, competent consultants, state-of-the-art data tools and social networking, etc. should be formed. Then, we need to sell a ‘re-founding’ message, intent on returning to the principle of federalism and the severely limited Constitutional republic our Founders bequeathed us. We would only support those candidates intent on carefully dismantling unnecessary Federal bureaucracies, rather than grow them. They must agree to expedite privatizing or leaving to the individual States, healthcare, retirement programs, and any other Federal ‘entitlement’ program even worthy of existence (States desiring generous social programs, would be required to tax their own citizens to pay for them; but Federal taxes would be drastically reduced). Perhaps most important, our candidates must agree to end the FED, return to the treasury the responsibility of issuing sound currency backed by gold and silver real money, and balance the Federal budget immediately, rather than ten years hence.

Imagine the specter of inveterate individualists, TEA Party seniors, contumacious OWS college kids, enthusiastic Paulbots, frustrated Liberty loving Patriots, libertarians of all persuasions, perhaps other third parties, even avowed anarchists, all joined in a common cause, working toward breaking the stranglehold, which the cabal of oligarchs controlling the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly have on our political process. Add in the percentage of heretofore-apathetic nonvoters, who might be enticed to participate if they thought their efforts could make a difference for a change, and the oligarchs would be terrified. I look forward to discussing the possibilities, and if there is enough interest, formulating a plan of action to give it a go.  ◄Dave►