Maverick Philosopher

An Appeal to Democrat Voters

Righteously pissed off by the depredations of our political enemies and their long train of  outrageous lies,  abuses, and slanders, my tendency is to urge a girding of the loins for a long battle in which we give them a taste of their own 'medicine.'  But there is a complementary approach that may work with the less vicious and self-enstupidated among them.  After all, the majority of Dems are useful idiots who are, all things considered, not all that bad as people and somewhat open to a honeyed appeal. All avenues toward the betterment of our constitutional republic and the world as a whole must be explored. Hear Steve Cortes:

In the aftermath of any big victory in life, there is a natural human tendency to gloat a bit…or maybe a lot. But in the wake of the amazing Trump and America First electoral success of November 5th, those of us in the patriotic populist movement should, instead, make a humble, thoughtful, and heartfelt appeal to our fellow citizens who voted for the Democrats, but are persuadable.

Millions of them, no doubt, voted blue with the best of patriotic intentions. Many of them simply pursued the comfortable path of well-worn political behavior patterns. Others were surely misled by the constant barrage of propaganda from legacy media platforms. Still others live busy and complicated lives – especially in stressful times like these, created by Biden and Harris – and do not follow politics closely, for understandable reasons.

For all of these voters, here are the three most compelling reasons to at least consider joining our America First cause -- and to vote Republican into the future.

Elections Have Consequences

Conservatives are hobbled by their virtues, one of which is civility: we are loathe to "give as good as we get." But now that our side has power, we must not hesitate to use it against our political enemies. The destructive swine will squeal but we should show them no mercy.  There must be no compromise with those out to overturn our very system of government and who lie brazenly about their intentions.

Roger Kimball puts the point very well:

“Elections,” Barack Obama told a group of cowering Republican lawmakers early in 2009, “have consequences.” He then drove the point home by reminding them, “I won.”

In truth, Democrats tend to understand this law of the political universe more clearly than do Republicans.

The usual rule is this: when Democrats win elections, they wield power. When Republicans win elections, they seek, or at least agree to, compromise.

In Suicide of the West, the political philosopher James Burnham quotes the nineteenth-century French writer Louis Veuillot, who summed up the essence of this political dialectic in one elegant sentence. Quand je suis le plus faible, je vous demande la liberté parce que tel est votre principe; mais quand je suis le plus fort, je vous l’ôte, parce que tel est le mien. “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.”

For examples of the latter, I invite you to ponder the behavior of Joe Biden’s Department of Justice, especially the behavior of the despicable Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, these last three and a half years.

Had the Democrats won the 2024 election, we would have seen many more examples of this principle in action. Assuming the Dems had kept the Senate, we would have seen them dispense with the filibuster, thus turning that chamber into what outgoing West Virginian Senator Joe Manchin called “the House on steroids.” They would have packed the Supreme Court, adding a few new “progressive” members to the bench to counter the power of Justices like Clarence Thomas. They likely would have imposed term- or age-limits on the Justices as well.

Elsewhere, I endeavored to provide a brief inventory of the “consequences” of a Harris victory. Donald Trump would have been bankrupted and jailed. It is likely that the same thing would have happened to Elon Musk. Just as John Kerry promised, the First Amendment would have been gutted if not discarded altogether in order to further the censorship and surveillance regime of the woke, progressive elite. A virtual ban on fracking and the mining of coal would have been enacted, further depressing America’s prosperity. The trans insanity of the last decade would have been extended, destroying women’s sports and disfiguring, mentally as well as physically, many thousands of confused teenagers.

The country just dodged that fusillade. What now?

Read the rest and do your bit. We can beat the bums into the dirt if we work together. It's a noble fight and it's just beginning.  Beat back better!

Ten Reasons not to Vote Democrat

Originally posted 5 November 2012. Slightly redacted. Things are far worse now.

......................................

The Dems are the left-wing party in the U. S. Almost all Dems nowadays are leftists.  It's not 1960 any more and you geezers out there with your sentimental attachment to the 'Democrat' label need to wise up. 

1. Leftists lack common sense. As witness their lunatic stand on photo ID at polling places.  I have written several posts on this topic.  Here is one.

2. Leftists play the race card every chance they get.  There is plenty of evidence in my Race and Leftism categories.

3. Leftists, also known as 'liberals,' are anti-liberty.  As witness Obamacare's  individual mandate, to give just one example.

4. Leftists have a casual attitude toward crime.  See Britain and the Barbarians and other posts in the Crime and Punishment Category.  They oppose capital punishment even though this is exactly what justice demands in certain cases.  With their unhealthy and immoderate love of underdogs, leftists champion criminals while ignoring the concerns of decent citizens, even when the criminals are responsible for their 'sub-canine' status. Conservatives stand for the rights of the accused, due process, and equality before the law. Leftists distort and subvert these high principles. 

5. Leftists smear their opponents and then issue hypocritical calls for 'civility.'  What passes for argument among them is the hurling of SIXHRB epithets: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, bigoted. (acronym via Dennis Prager)  For example, if you oppose illegal immigration then you are a xenophobe; if you carefully argue against Obamacare then you a racist; if you give reasons why marriage is between a man a woman you are dismissed as a bigot.  If you oppose the slaughter of innocent human beings which is abortion you are waging war against women and interfering with their 'health care' and 'reproductive rights.'   If you point out the very real threat of radical Islam, then you are dismissed as an  'Islamophobe' with a mental illness.  And then there are the inevitable Hitler comparisons and the repeatedly thrown F-bomb, 'fascist.'  'White supremacist' and 'white nationalist' are other terms of abuse hurled scurrilously and without definition.

6. Leftists are weak on national defense and naïve about foreign policy. 

7. Leftists are fiscally irresponsible.  Unlike his predecessor, Obama made no attempt to put the existing entitlements on a sound fiscal basis.  Instead, he started up a new one!

8. Leftist are anti-religion. 

9. Leftists have  no proper appreciation for the Second Amendment.*

10. Liberals have no proper appreciation of the Tenth Amendment and the notion of federalism.

Addendum:  Tony H. writes to say that I forgot one:

11. Liberals are economic illiterates.
True.  Of course, I wasn't trying to give a complete list of reasons to oppose Obama and the whole leftist gang.  There are a lot more reasons than ten.  How about this one:

12. Liberals are linguistic hijackers.  They routinely distort the English language for their ideological purposes.  This is actually worse than lying.  To lie successfully one must use language properly, in accordance with the going conventions.  Misuse of language  is a subversion of the rules of the communicative game.  There are examples in my Language Matters category.

One particularly egregious example is the use of 'voter suppression' to refer to common-sense demands for proper ID procedures at polling places.  This shows that the scumbags of the Left will do anything to win. "The end justifies the means." Right out of the commie playbook.

For even more reasons, see The Constructive Curmudgeon who has worked himself into a fine, and justified, lather over Obama's abominations.  

_________________

*In 2012 one might still say that if leftists showed as much respect for the Second Amendment as they do for the First, gun ownership would be mandatory.  But now in 2024 things are far worse, as I said at the top. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and the rest of their scrofulous globalist-totalitarian ilk are gunning for the First Amendment too, as you must know if you have been paying attention. 

Vote Third Party, Waste Your Vote

This is a re-post from 6 November 2012. Since then, I have found no reason to alter my position. Perhaps you can supply me with one.  

..........................

Did you perchance vote for Gary Johnson for president? Then you wasted your vote on an unelectable candidate and helped Barack Obama's re-election.

The truth of a view does not depend on its popularity.  But the political implementation of a view does depend on the electability of the candidate or candidates who represent it.  If politics were merely theoretical, merely an exercise in determining how a well-ordered state should be structured, then implementation would not matter at all.  But politics is practical, not theoretical: it aims at action that implements the view deemed best.  Someone who votes for an unelectable candidate demonstrates by so doing that he does not understand the nature of politics.

Even if Johnson is electable in the sense of (i) satisfying the formal requirements for being president, and (ii) being worthy of the office, he is not electable in the specific sense here in play, namely, possessing a practical chance of winning.

When one votes for any unelectable candidate one merely squanders one's vote.  If you are a libertarian, then your views are closer to those of Romney than to those of Obama.  By voting for the unelectable Johnson, you help someone win whose views are diametrically opposed to your own instead of helping one whose views are partially consonant with your own.  Now that is stupid, is it not?  It shows a lack of practical sense.

If you won't vote for an candidate that does not perfectly represent your views, then either

A. you are a utopian who fails to understand that politics is about action, not theory, in the world as it is, as opposed to some merely imagined world; or

B. you falsely think there is no difference between the major party candidates.

The same reasoning applies to those who vote for Jill Stein.  You are wasting your vote on an unelectable candidate.  You are making a statement all right, but nobody cares and it won't matter.  But I hope you lefties do vote for her: you will be helping Obama lose.

Addendum 10/28/2024.  As you may have noticed, Jill Stein is back! And so once again I hope you lefties do vote for her: you will be helping Harris lose.  

Ten Reasons to Vote Republican

By Peter Kalis.  This list, reproduced here verbatim, receives the plenary MavPhil endorsement. I will only add that the first item in the order of listing is also the first in the order of importance.

1. I believe a nation that doesn’t take its borders seriously doesn’t take itself seriously.

2. I believe in a Reaganesque approach to foreign policy. That is, peace through strength.

3. I believe in an independent Supreme Court whose decisions are grounded in the Constitution and statutes it is asked to apply. From the ascension of Earl Warren as Chief Justice in the mid-1950s and for a half century thereafter, the Court acted as a super legislature and handed down a continuous thread of left-leaning decisions with little or no foundation in the Constitution. In response, Republican leaders did not seek to pack the Court or impose term limits on its Justices, as Democrat leaders routinely do now.

4. I believe that merit, not immutable characteristics like skin color or gender, should drive personnel and admission decisions and the distribution of governmental largesse.

5. I believe that biological males, however they might identify, do not belong in girls’ and women’s sports or in their locker rooms or restrooms.

6.I believe that excessive government spending results in burdensome taxes, mountains of debt, bureaucratic bloat and inflation.

7. I believe that overregulation imperils innovation.

8. I believe that many institutions of higher learning have dangerously replaced an emphasis on critical thinking with ideological conformity.

9. I believe that toleration of anti-semitism on American campuses and elsewhere is a stain on American history and that aggressive support of Israel against its enemies is in our national interest and is justified by an informed view of the history of the Middle East and the Jewish people.

10. I believe in a growth economy and that the “secular stagnation” heralded by the Obama Administration undercuts opportunity for all Americans.

Long live the Republic! Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. This an excellent time to be investing in precious metals in the broad sense of  the term.  Au sits at $2738/oz at the moment. But Pb has come down in price. Stock up. Catacomb Joe reminds us of the old Boy Scout motto: "Be prepared."  

Thinking of Voting Third-Party?

Don't be a fool! (Political abstinence is also folly.)

Invective-free explanation over at Substack.

Universal Suffrage

I wrote, on 4 March, 

The war is over the soul of America.  The question concerns whether we should (i) preserve what remains of America as she was founded to be, and (ii) restore those good elements of the system bequeathed to us by the Founders, while (iii) preserving the legitimate progress that has been made (e.g. universal suffrage), OR whether we should replace the political system of the Founders with an incompatible system which can be described as culturally Marxist.

As I was writing clause (iii) I realized that some to my Right, people I consider friends, whose intellect and judgment I respect, and with whom I agree on many fundamentals, would take issue with my endorsement of universal suffrage. They are against it. Two points in response.

The first is that the 19th Amendment, ratified 18 August 1920, will never be overturned.  The Amendment states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." And so the question whether female citizens should have the right to vote, while of historical and theoretical interest, has no practical importance whatsoever. 

The second point is that, even if it could be overturned, it ought not be. Now I concede to my friends on the Right that women as as a group are not as politically astute as men as a group.  Their political judgment is inferior to that of men. This is a fact, and a fact is a fact whether you like it or not. We conservatives stand on the terra firma of a reality antecedent to human wishes and dreams. 

What I have just asserted is enough to bring down the wrath of  many feminists upon my head. They will hurl the 'sexist' epithet at me. And I will reply: It can't be sexist if it is true, and it is true.  This is a special case of a general principle: It cannot be X-ist if it is true.  Candidate substituends for the variable include 'age,' 'race,' 'species,' 'able,' and others. Particularly knuckleheaded is the accusation of 'ableism.' 

I have said enough to establish my conservative bona fides.

Why shouldn't the 19th Amendment be overturned?

Yesterday, on C-SPAN, I watched Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) rake Christopher Wray, FBI Director, over the coals. She did a superb job, a job as good as any man could do. So I put the question to my friends on the Right: Do you think that Stefanik should not have the right to vote and participate in the political life of the country?

To nail down my point, here is a list, off the top of my head, in no particular order, of just a few females  who are lot better politically than a lot of men I could mention:

Jeanine Pirro, Maria Bartiromo, K. T. McFarland, Tulsi Gabbard, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Mollie Hemingway, Tammy Bruce, Faulkner Harris, Diane West, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Heather MacDonald.

Will the friends to my Right dismiss these women as wholly unrepresentative outliers? Do they have arguments? What might they be?

Are There Aptronymic Initials?

I should think so. Bernie Sanders' initials are 'B. S.'

The man is a destructive fool, though not as destructive or as foolish as Joey B.  Proof here.

It's a funny world. In the private sector it is often the very best who rise to the top; in politics, the very worst.  Is there anyone in the Biden  (mal)Administration who does not illustrate my point?

Should Felons Have the Right to Vote?

Obviously not, as I argue at Substack.

But at this late date in the Decline of the West, appeals to reason are becoming increasingly pointless.

From a purely theoretical point of view, it is fascinating to watch one's country enter the ash can of history. It is a philosophical moment  inasmuch as "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings at dusk." (Hegel) Some consolation may be derived therefrom. 

Unfortunately, we are not mere spectators of life's parade; we are condemned to march in it as well.

Having given up polemics for Lent, I will say only this much to you who voted for the Senile Puppet: You have a lot to answer for.