Cruz, Trump, Iowa and New Hampshire and a divided GOP

The American Presidential election is getting uglier.  I am not talking about the Democrats – not a single one of their candidates can be considered in any way attractive.

No, I am referring to the Republicans. 

We will see, within the next few weeks, a falling-off of some of the hopefuls.  Who will remain comes down to how they do in Iowa and New Hampshire, I strongly suspect.

My thoughts are that Trump, Cruz and Rubio, possibly also Bush, will survive the major blood-letting that will follow New Hampshire but then what?

Trump is the leader in a number of primary states but not overwhelmingly so.  When the cull starts, to which candidate will that drop-out’s supporters go?  I am not sure that these will be anything other than evenly split amongst the three or four remaining and so we may end-up with a floor vote at the National Convention because no candidate has sufficient delegates to gain the nomination.  We’ll see.

My support is for Cruz.  I admire his consistency and his policies and the fact that, though in Washington, he is not of Washington, the same way that Rubio is.  Trump has the momentum but I believe his lack of substance will start to be compared to Obama.  Good oratory but how will he deliver.  Making deals in business is not the same as in politics.  Also Trump has flip-flopped so many times, that will become more and more of a concern.  That and his support for liberal Democrat policies and candidates in the past will start to negatively resonate with heartland Republicans.

The attack ads phenomenon against Trump will escalate, as the field thins.  His hob-nobbing with leading Democrats and their supporters, will become more and more of an issue, I predict.  As will his previous speeches, which will come under much greater scrutiny.

This scrutiny will not just be from his GOP opponents.  The liberal media are lapping him up, at the moment.  They see him as a useful fool who will dispose of the highly credible Cruz but if he starts to move towards being the nominated candidate, watch them circle like sharks and devour him.  They won’t let him upset the coronation of Queen Hillary.  They will tear into his bankruptcies and his property deals, his business partners and so on.  He has a lot of baggage on which they can feast!

Trump’s recent escapades with the FoxNews debate speak to an arrogance that will start to toll against him.  We know that the American media has the rarely found affliction of being spineless, toothless and brainless, all at the same time, however, even they will start to tire of the ever-more extreme statements and antics of Trump.  They won’t stand in solidarity with Megyn Kelly – that’s a given – but they will, I suspect, start to scale back the coverage or find ways to provoke ever-more outrageous comments from Trump.   Trump’s arrogance and crude behaviour will be his downfall (or at least I hope it will).

I am not an American but of all those that I know, not one would mock those that are afflicted with a physical disability, as Trump has done.  While some of them probably support Trump, I am sure they are embarrassed by his ducking-out of the last debate.  Who knows?  Maybe he had advance knowledge that video clips of past speeches would be played and so his flip-flopping would be there for all to clearly see. 

Incidentally, Trump made much of his rival event being in aid of veteran charities.  One of those that was said to be a beneficiary is called Wounded Warriors.  According to a recent ABC News investigation, this charity manages, through lavish internal expenditure and generous executive salary packages, to devote just over 60% of funds raised, to its veteran beneficiaries.  This as compared to other veteran charities which spend north of 90% of the money they raise, on the people for whom they raise it.   Still, it’s the thought that counts, I suppose.

The Twittersphere was alive, earlier today, with speculation about the sexual orientation of Marco Rubio.  Very strong suggestions that he is or was a homosexual.  That won’t bother many, especially in the media, but it will disturb the heartland GOP.  It will be interesting to see how this story runs.

Coming at the end of eight years of Obama mis-rule , with failed domestic and international policies, a weak economy , greater race division and an unanswered terrorist threat and so on, this should be a great year for the GOP.  That Hillary Clinton, with e-mail gate and Benghazi still hanging over her, is still being spoken of as the likely winner of the Presidential race, is very, very worrying.    Hillary should be in prison awaiting trial not in the race for the White House!  And yet, at the moment, the GOP is in a state of undeclared war. 

The GOP establishment don’t like Cruz.  He has upset them too many times.  Ruling elites, of whatever hue, don’t like principled politicians.  Politicians that you can trust to not be bought and to stand and do the duty they were elected to do, worry the GOP establishment – how can such politicians be controlled?  Of course, they can’t.  So now GOPe has to work against Cruz and start to open-up to Trump, while secretly hoping that Rubio starts to move the needle in the upcoming primaries and Trump starts top falter.  It is a dangerous game that they are playing. 

The Tea Party wing of the GOP, recognise in Ted Cruz, a candidate who will do what he says he is going to do.  The Tea Party are very active and energised.  Ally them with the Trump supports who will defect as he starts to lose ground and GOP has a winning combination.  People that are angry, people that are focused and people that will get out the vote.

Iowans and New Hampshire voters – you know what to do and who to do it for!

Conservative Soul

Sorry music lovers, this isn't a piece about some long lost strain that emanated from a rich enclave in America's South.  This is about the missing soul of conservatism.

Frit is the word used by the late and former UK Prime Minister, Lady Margaret Thatcher to describe someone who is frightened.  That term seems very apposite to describe modern day conservatives in both the UK and the US.  

I have posted here before concerning the lack of focus amongst America's conservatives -  http://bit.ly/1kiLq2r - so, today, I want to concentrate on UK conservatives but I think that there will still be resonance for US ones, as well, so stay tuned!

The UK will shortly be 'celebrating' four years of a Conservative 'led' coalition.  I use the term led because nominally, that is supposed to be the case.  The Conservative Party have the highest number of MPs in the House of Commons and considerably outnumber their Liberal Democrat partners, and yet one regularly comes away with the notion that it is the Lib Dems that are the senior partner.  It isn't just about better press management, by them.  Look at the policies of the Conservatives and see if you can find those that can be called truly Conservative.   Ok, how about just one? 

Europe is always touted by the media, led by the in-thrall BBC, to be a very divisive and electorally damaging issue for the Tories.  We are regularly 'told' that voters don't like to see a divided party and that the factional fighting within the Conservative party will make them unelectable.  And yet, these same voters are also, in large numbers,  said to be skeptical of the whole Euro project.  These same voters want to see a changed relationship between the UK and the European Union.  This is what is 'promised' by David Cameron along with a post the next  General Election, referendum.  I sense though that people just don't trust the Conservative leadership to deliver.  Cameron states that he wants to remain in Europe and will campaign on that basis, in any referendum, which kind of preempts his view of the choice that will be put before the British people -

 "Well we went and had these discussions with the EU and they agreed that, going forward we, the great British people, can have our MPs, sitting in the 'mother of all parliaments' decide on whether or not we retain British Summer Time (or insert some other meaningless non-concession).  Of course, negotiation is about compromise, and so we had to concede that in future, Britain's economic policies will be first approved by our colleagues in the EU, before we put them to the House of Commons, so that we know that they are aligned with those of the other EU states.  Yes we also had to cede control over foreign affairs to the EU but, with my former colleague, Nick Clegg, now the EU High Commissioner, we know we have a friend who will look after British interests and don't forget, while we had to give up the Pound Sterling, as an independent currency, we did manage to get the name of the Euro changed to the Pound"  

 Back to reality:
Why then aren't the Conservatives using their historical opposition to statist/corporatist institutions like the European Union and pushing this as a policy to the electorate?  Providing a real choice on Europe, for a change.  I know some will say, that this is what the UK Independence Party does but I really can't see them making the breakthrough in significant numbers to radically change the political make-up of Parliament. So it has to be the Conservatives that do this.  But first they need to regain their 'soul'.

The name of the Conservative Party in the UK is more properly, The Conservative and Unionist Party.  The Unionist tends to be forgotten by some because of its past associations with Ulster Unionists and their seeming intransigence (imagine! They wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom!!).  However, the party's roots are in maintenance of the whole United Kingdom and yet...
Consider the referendum that will occur in Scotland this year.  Where are the weekly or daily speeches by the Prime Minister and other leading Tories, extolling the virtues of a United Kingdom over a split one?  Where are the monthly ones?  Any speeches?  All we get are minor passing references buried in other keynote addresses.  If the Scottish electorate were some girl that the Unionists were trying to woo, then our apparent indifference will drive her into the arms of the Scottish Nationalist cad, who roguishly offers to take her away from an over-bearing parent and into the bright sunny uplands.  Where is the robust defence of what the 'union' means?  Where are the vigorous attacks on the economic lunacy that is presented as Scotland's future?  The attacks on the ever-encroaching state presence on Scotland's landscape?

If I were a Scot, I would look at the indifference shown by the Conservative and Unionist Party and think that since the Tories 'cannot be bothered with putting up any kind of fight for Scotland, then I cannot  be bothered with them or with the Union.  Maybe Salmond has a point!'

It is though on economics that the Conservative soul is found to be most absent.  

Consider.  At the tail end of the 1980s, communism was in its death throes (thanks in large part to Thatcher and Reagan's policy of confronting communism and showing to all, its inherent flaws).  Its slowly, slowly sister ideology, socialism, was also tainted by its association.  Even now people can look back at communism and see it for the human and economic failure that it was.  Nazism (which incidentally was based on socialism, though socialists and labourites get offended when you point this out), led to the slaughter of many millions of innocents but think on how many millions  Stalin and Mao and  Pol Pot and their communist fellow travelers massacred.

And yet, instead of seeing the adoption of capitalist and small government principles and the retreat of socialism, we have seen that governments of every hue, continued with the creeping implementation of socialism.

The UK's Conservatives have been complicit in this when out of office and we continue to see this with the current government.  The idea of moving the needle on public spending by a meaningfully noticeable amount seems alien to the current Tories.  True conservative values require that the state steps back, that the starting premise is why should the government be involved in doing this at all and why can it not be left to the private sector?  Instead there is no 'rolling back the frontiers of the state' but mere tinkering at the edges.  Does anybody think that Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan would consider the current crop of UK Tories and American Republicans as 'conservative'?  Or would they see them as faintly pink quasi-socialists?  I believe the latter, you will take your own view.

These 'socialist-lite' Tories follow such defeatist policies even when in opposition, such as supporting the UK Labour parties bail-out of over-extended banks.  They wrap-up such an anti-capitalist policy in words that could be lifted straight from the Communist Manifesto and then blindly follow Labour through the division lobbies and support such dangerous and costly legislation.  Again, they allow the Bank of England to devalue currency by simply printing more of it, via Quantitative Easing  and then rationalize the whole thing by saying that there is no alternative and that they are making cuts to public spending.  Even when they know that the cuts that are being made are, despite all of the grandstanding and soundbites from the Labour Party and its mouthpiece, the BBC, tiny, and represent barely a scratch on the surface of the bloated beast that is state spending.

So, if you are a conservative, what can you do?

In the USA, the Tea Party represents a more conservative option.  They are touted as a divisive 'faction' within the Republican Party but I sense that they are actually a far greater influence than the 'old' Republican establishment yet understand.

For UK Conservatives?  I couldn't recommend UKIP, though their policy on the EU - offering a straight In/Out referendum is sound.  Their other policies, seem quite limited and seem to have patches of socialism running through them.  In fact, I would go further on the UKIP EU policy and say that this is the right one.  I don't think that the EU can be reformed, I do not believe there is the political will to do so.  For evidence refer to Francois Hollande's comments last week.  Still though, for me, UKIP is a one-trick pony. 

I think what is needed is a UK Tea Party - or a Tea Party done in the UK style.  That is, Conservative Associations adopting candidates that understand what being a conservative means.  That understand the need for a complete re-alignment of the social contract between government and the governed, with power and responsibility moving from the former to the latter. 

Of course this will take time but when you see people like Tim Yeo being de-selected by his constituency association, one lives in hope.

Please pass this post on to any Conservative Party members that you know and tell them that the future of conservatism lies in their hands.  All of us need to get active and breathe new life into the soul of conservatism and to use every opportunity to roll back the frontiers of the state and state control. 

The power of Twitter and the Anglosphere

I have been thinking about Twitter recently (apologies if not using the copyright symbol is somehow wrong!) and its power for good.

I am also reading a book called "How we invented freedom", by a UK Member of the European Parliament - Daniel Hannan - highly recommend the book and Dan's tweets and articles - very 'sound' on Europe and the freedoms that 'Anglosphere' democracy brings.

The book (is that the right phrase for a Kindle version?  I dislike putting e in front of everything!) brings to the fore all those things which many of us almost take for granted - the primacy of the rule of law, no one being above it,  property rights and the importance of contracts and above all, freedom of speech, religion and assembly.   The book tracks the establishment of common law and the basic principles of same, from the pre-Norman invasion of England  through to the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and onto the US Constitution and eloquently shows, the flow of these basic principles runs common to all of these documents and to those ideals that the Anglosphere hold dear.

It seems to me that those basic rights are under threat as never before.  Now the threat isn't National Socialism from the German Nazis or Communism from the Soviet Union, no the threat comes from within.

Part of the threat comes from a comfortable place called complacency - long established rights are taken for granted by 'indigenous' Anglosphere peoples and the slow erosion of these isn't noticed or widely remarked upon.  Arbitrary punishment is meted out by governments , especially the US's, via drone attacks, for example, and people move past that news item or, if they stop to think, justify it on the grounds of national security.  Similarly, people are stopped and searched at airports around the world and have various petty restrictions put upon them, in the name of security.

People are finding that freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, except that most politicians and main stream media shy away from negatively commenting on Islam and it's adherents.  Look at what happened to Phil Robertson.  He is a reality TV personality on an American TV show called Duck Dynasty.  In an interview he stated, amongst other things, that he wasn't attracted to men and he likened homosexuality to sin.  Cue outrage from the homosexual lobby in the USA and their supporters in the media at his 'hate crime'.  Now, Phil espouses Christian values and for those that believe in the right of free speech - something on which America was founded - his freedom to say such things is exactly that - a right.

A right as in something that he inherently has - not something that he (or you or I) is given. 

I have never seen the Duck Dynasty show but all I have read about Phil Robertson and his espousal of deeply held Christian beliefs suggest to me that nothing that he said, in the magazine interview, could be construed as being in any way surprising or controversial.  Similarly if Ayatollah Khameni, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the same things I wouldn't be surprised.  In fact the only thing that would surprise me is if the media actually reported or in any way commented upon Khameni's speech.  The teachings of both Christianity and Islam consider homosexuality a sin.  Whether you agree with that or not, is your opinion and I for one am happy to support your right to hold such an opinion - that's what free speech is about!   What free speech isn't about is stifling the saying of things with which you or I disagree. Period as they say in the US!

So back to Twitter and its power for good.  The A&E TV channel that broadcast Robertson's show, suspended him for a period, after disassociating itself from his comments.  Normally, that would be the end of Phil's TV show and fame.  However, right-thinking people got to work on Twitter and brought the story to a far wider audience than would have normally been the case.  A petition was raised and boycotts of A&E and its advertisers and sponsors were organized and, low and behold, Phil's suspension was lifted.  Encouragingly, he did not have to refute his beliefs or sayings, in order to achieve this.  The right to his free expression of speech was met.  In my humble view, Twitter played a great part in spreading the message and generating the climb-down by A&E.  Now I do not think for one single minute that the war is over and the 'powers that be' have seen the light and will 'allow' free expression.  I think that this is a battle won but this will need to be continuously fought for these cherished freedoms to be retained.  Incidentally, the 'allow' with is because I am uncomfortable in considering that someone allows another person to exercise a right.  No one can give you something which you already have!

Problem is though, that Twitter and other social media are under attack.  There are the overt attacks, where those that would deny freedom, talk-up so called trolls and make the attacks from these people, a justification for the curtailment of the liberties of all.  Then there are also the less obvious methods of attack - such as the USA's Internal Revenue Service using social media to identify groups and individuals from the Tea Party or other anti-Obama administration tweets, and then subject them to special attention from their audit teams. 

Dan Hannan, in his book, rightly confronts the facade of rights that some countries have or had and posits that it is the historical depth of these rights, within the Anglosphere, that gives them meaning.  He talks about the constitution of the former Soviet Union granting it's citizens all sorts of rights but no means for the citizen to actually exercise them.  I hope though that he is wrong in suggesting (I haven't yet finished the book, so maybe he does change his view later) that the places where the fundamental human rights can survive are restricted to those places that have historical links back to England and it's Magna Carta and older common law antecedents.  Hope, because these places (and this isn't meant to show an anti-immigration stance) are fast becoming a cosmopolitan mix, where the inhabitants do not all share the historical connection with England.  Hope, because I want those people who look to the UK, America, Canada and Australia and want to emigrate to those countries, look not just at the material benefits that settling in those countries will bring, but also at the traditions of individual freedoms, that have made these countries, what they are!