Does The Republican Establishment Want To Lose?
April 30, 2012 by Bob Livingston
Most of the Republican voters find Romney less than slightly palatable. Whereas 2008 nominee John McCain was truly a bitter pill, Romney is a bitter pill with a thin honey coating. If you swallow it fast enough, maybe the bitterness won’t make you retch.
Conservatives recognize that Romney is not one of them. They see through the veneer the elites have pasted over him. He’s trying to sound conservative, but it’s not working. Americans know a phony when they see one.
But the message being pounded home by the elites through the mainstream media is that Romney is now the nominee; and more specifically, that he’s the Republicans’ best hope to beat Obama in November. Republican talking heads continuously take to the airwaves to push this meme.
But in the back rooms they don’t really believe it. According to POLITICO, if you give the “Republican professionals” a truth serum, they’ll tell you they think Romney will lose.
The article reads:
But under the table, there is pervasive pessimism among Republicans about Romney’s prospects this fall. It’s apparent in rampant discussions about which Republicans will run in 2016—talk that obviously presupposes a loss in November—and it’s downright glaring in private conversations with GOP officials on Capitol Hill and in consulting shops across Washington.
And the skepticism about Romney isn’t just a Beltway phenomenon. Rank-and-file Republican voters are also uncertain he can win, though it’s the chattering class that is most bearish.
What’s going on here? Are Republicans (I mean the elites and string pullers, not Joe and Jane Republican Voter) trying to lose?
Robert Ringer recently asked a similar question when writing about a GOP gathering in Arizona. He wrote:
What is it that causes the mushy masochism that drives Republicans to seek out disaster year after year, decade after decade? It wasn’t enough that the Republican Party stubbornly picked yet another RINO automaton, apparently believing that the 2008 election disaster was just an aberration. No sir, it had to taunt conservatives by bringing McMush back from the dead and pushing him on stage, front and center, with MittMan… And, of course, Romney had his moderate mode on cruise control, once again being careful to say nice things about Der Fuhrbama. He said he liked him as a man, but felt his decisions were disappointing. Aw … shucks, Mitt. You brought a tingle to my leg.
It seems clear that the Republican establishment — or at least the behind-the-scenes party apparatchik — is once again trying to lose, which brings us to the question of why. What is to be gained by a Republican loss? I posited one theory last fall. But now I believe there is a better answer. But before I get to it, a short history lesson is in order.
The Republican Party grew out of the ashes of the Whig Party. The Whig Party was a single-minded proponent of what party leader Henry Clay called the American System: protectionism, government control of the money supply through a central bank and government subsidies for railroads, shipping and other favored industry. It was a corporatist or fascist system based on British mercantilism.
As economist Murray N. Rothbard wrote in The Logic of Action II, it was “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.”[i]
Edgar Lee Masters described the Whig Party thusly:
Clay was the champion of that political system which doles favors to the strong in order to win and to keep their adherence to the government. His system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises… He was the beloved son [figuratively speaking] of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt, and a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone. His example and his doctrines led to the creation of a party that had no platform to announce, because its principals were plunder and nothing else.[ii]
Or as U.S. Senator John Taylor of Virginia (1753-1824) put it in his book Tyranny Unmasked, it was a system that benefited a “monied aristocracy.”
Abraham Lincoln was a Whig who idolized Clay. He served as a Presidential elector for the Whigs in 1840 and 1844. When the Whig Party imploded in the 1850s, Lincoln switched to the Republican Party but assured Illinois constituents there was no difference between the two parties.[iii] He brought the American System along with him, and it has formed the basis for the actions of the Republican Party ever since, years of vacuous rhetoric from Republicans as being the Party of small government and a foil to Democrat nanny-state big government policies notwithstanding.
For years, the monied aristocracy used the Republican Party and its statism (or corporatism or fascism, whichever is your favored word) to benefit its friends and partners. Now the monied aristocracy has a new use for the Republican Party.
They — the monied aristocracy — believe the time is ripe to end the faux two-party system, remove all pretenses that the United States is a republican government and usher in the age of direct democracy. Another loss by the Republican Party because of an unpalatable, unelectable candidate may well do this.
The elites have been laying the groundwork for this for some time. All of the elites in government — both Rs and Ds — and in the media tell us each day that the United States is a democracy. This has been going on for years. It was no accident that they have used this word. They have used it for so long now that it is rarely challenged.
Knowing the disaffected American voter will need some place to turn, the monied aristocracy has created what it calls a new system. It’s a place for the voter to go with the belief that there is an alternative system that is better because it sets aside party labels. It’s called Americans Elect, and it purports to allow an opportunity to pick a President, not a party. It calls itself the first nonpartisan Presidential nomination and its listed “declared” candidates are Buddy Roemer, Rocky Anderson, Laurence Kotlikoff and a host of others. “Drafted” candidates include Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg, a couple of clowns and a few others.
On the surface it sounds fine and dandy. But we always look beneath the surface, and things are not as they seem.
In The Huffington Post, Lynn Forester de Rothschild writes:
The message is clear: as politicians become more partisan and less effective at governing, the electorate is ready for a radical restructure of our election system itself. Voters are refusing to be held hostage to the self-interests of either party. Thankfully, in true American fashion, our civic society has built the tools to meet the challenge; for the first time in our history, the means exist to level the electoral playing field for an independent candidate.
While a small minority may indeed be saying this, it is not the message I’ve heard from the electorate. However, it’s one the elites, advocating a New World Order, would love to see come about. They have combined Europe under one umbrella (though the union is seemingly coming apart at the seams), but they have not been able to bring about a combined North America. The United States remains too factionalized, too States’ rights-oriented, and the two-party system and Electoral College only serve to perpetuate it. Voters are no longer under the thumb of the corporate mainstream media.
But who is this Lynn Forester de Rothschild? She’s married to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, the head of the richest family in the world (NM Rothschild & Sons, the Rothschild bank and former head of De Beers). She is also on the leadership board (read chief funder of) Americans Elect.
And she states the crux of her goal: “Simply, both the political environment and the tools are in place for a total disintermediation of our political duopoly.” And a move to what?
According to The Daily Bell it’s a move to direct democracy.
The governor (sic) of New York, Michael Bloomberg – an elitist worker-bee if there ever was one – is a big supporter of an element of direct democracy, which includes the elimination of the two-party system.
But what is it REALLY? Well … it is basically a full implementation of the USSR’s communist system that died 20 years ago! The idea is that a technocracy of the elite can present candidates who are the most “competent” at administration. The corollary to this, of course, is that one must accept EVERY FACET of the CURRENT system to accept that one is voting purely for competence.
In other words, if people do not like the current corporatist/authoritarian/totalitarian/militarized state that is being constructed around them, they’re simply plumb out of luck. That’s because the candidates on this “best of all worlds” won’t be running on how to CHANGE what’s going on – only on how to administer it BETTER.
Just take a look at how Bloomberg, a supposed nonpartisan independent who is in fact a big government nanny-stater, is governing New York City. He’s pushed through myriad laws to restrict peoples’ diets, choices and activities, and monitors every street corner with Orwellian “telescreen” cameras. But remember, he’s looking out for the best interests of New Yorkers, as all nanny-staters do — or claim they do.
Direct democracy — as Bloomberg illustrates — is just another form of tyranny. John Adams warned: “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
The U.S. Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government. Don’t fall prey to wiles of the monied aristocracy. Don’t reach for their version of hope and change again.