On the Conservative Movement...

One of the more interesting political lessons I have learned in life came in the form of a term paper for a Political Science class.  The paper began as a comparison of political party platforms over the past 100 years.  It turned into a study of something very different from my original intent.  It morphed into a study in how the Republican Party has suppressed the Conservative movement in America for well over 100 years.

My first discovery was that of a little known third party called the Prohibition Party.  Sure, you’ve heard of Prohibition…and the repeal of Prohibition, but what most Americans are completely unaware of is that there was actually a long-standing political party called the Prohibition Party that went far beyond just the alcohol issue.  During its modest rise, it was the voice of what Liberals today would call “the Righteous Wing”.

The Prohibition Party was the first party to call for the abolition of slavery in its party platform.  The Prohibition Party was the first party to call for women’s suffrage.  They were on what we today would call the right side of any number of social issues.  Unfortunately, the Prohibition Party was also the first party to call for an income tax.  To their credit, they soon recognized the error of their ways and became the first party to call for a repeal of the income tax.

The Prohibition Party was, essentially, the conservative right wing movement of the mid 1800’s to early 1900’s, though it still exists marginally to this day.  They were and are distinctly Christian in tone and, much like the current Constitution Party, every Prohibition Party platform has begun with an acknowledgement of God and His blessings.

What I discovered about their political platforms…and those of the Republicans…was that virtually every single significant plank of every single platform of the Prohibition Party showed up four years later as planks in the platform of the Republican Party.  It was a fascinating "coincidence".

Understand that this was the very era during which the Republican Party was infamous as being the party of big business (which holds true to this day despite the best efforts of Conservatives).  But…in order to bring more voters under its tent, the Republicans essentially absorbed the social conservative movement, undermining their independent efforts by commandeering their positions on social issues…and all other issues just for good measure.  “After all”, as the Republican reasoning went, “it isn’t like it matters what we put in our platforms.  Platforms are just words and promises that we have no intention of keeping anyway!”  As with the Democrats of today, their philosophy was, "SAY ANYthing to gain power, then you can DO anything you wish."

There is a tendency among well-meaning folks to believe that we should always work together to bring about “change from within”.  We have seen this attitude reflected in the modern conservative movement over the past 30 years as they have worked to change the Republican Party from within during the Reagan era and beyond.  At times they’ve even been "allowed" some impact.

What these neo-conservative folks need to realize, however, is that…it’s not going to happen!  This has been the Republican political tactic for well over 100 years and they have gotten exceedingly good at “appealing” to the moral majority…at “appearing” socially or even fiscally conservative…only to go to Washington and end up “supposedly compromising” and voting with moderates or even liberals.

The very point of this article is to point out that the Republican Party is still today (and will be tomorrow) the party of Big Business.  It is in their interest, just as it is in the interest of the Socialists (I mean, the Democrats), to kill all competition in the form of small business opportunity.  It is a necessary and pragmatic evil to them that they must tolerate those “naïve conservatives” in order to gain power.

As we have watched the collective merger of corporate America, it is almost as though the anti-trust laws don’t even exist anymore.  Both parties clearly favor (in practice) drowning any would be entrepreneurs in red tape and regulations, though out of differing motives of which I will write elsewhere.  (And...don't even get me started on the social issue side.)

I thoroughly enjoyed (and was completely disgusted by) the story out of Georgia about three young girls who had their lemonade stand shut down by police because they failed to secure the necessary business license, peddler’s permit, and food permit…along with paying the accompanying fees of $50 per day.  Can anyone seriously say with a straight face that our nation has a free market economy anymore?  Is this REALLY the kind of nation we want for our children?

It is time for a FOuRTH Party!  Not just “yet another third party”… Not just another party of protest… Not just another party centered around some rich, charismatic personality…  Certainly not just another party of some “lesser evil”…  And, frankly, not some religiously or ideologically narrow single-issue party appealing only to some fractional segment of our free society.  All such attempts represent errors of third parties past!  It's time for the FOuRTH Party!

It is time for a true political alternative that stands for what’s right and true for ALL Americans...a government that acts only upon what we can more or less all agree upon.  It is time for a political alternative that uses social media and new more-open ways of conducting party business so that every person literally does have a voice in the process.  We have the technology to change the face of politics in America, and it is time for people to connect with people and circumvent entirely the back-room dealing, old guard, dysfunctional parties of days gone by.

Welcome to the FOuRTH Party!  YOU ARE at the heart of the foURth party!

On Moral Hazard...

Various economists have talked recently about the bail-outs of banks and other “Too Big to Fail” companies in terms of “Moral Hazard”.  The idea of “moral hazard” is that…if such banks or other companies know that they are going to get a bail-out, they will invariably take greater risks and not fear the consequences.  (There’s a good educational video on this topic at the following link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SdtoKeFTi0 )  I am, in a way, glad that this issue has arisen, because it forced me to learn about this concept called “moral hazard”.

There is also another aspect of moral hazard called “information asymmetry” in which a “party that is insulated from risk has more information about its actions and intentions than the party paying for the negative consequences of the risk. More broadly, moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information.” (source: Wikipedia)

For example, Congress and debt limit increases...!  This is a great example of moral hazard on a Congressional level!  If debt limit increases are virtually automatic (as they have been in the past), then moral hazard comes into play and Congress will just keep spending over any reasonable limit because the consequence of default has been removed…at least, until we get to complete bankruptcy.  Those in Congress know that they are going to bail themselves out of the jam and there will be no immediate consequence.

More to the point, let’s just substitute the debt limit issue into the description of “informational asymmetry” above:  A party (Congress) is insulated from risk (of default and of being voted out of office)…  Moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions (Congress) has a tendency (like the “buying” of votes) or incentive (like not taking the blame for making the hard but right choices) to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information (voters).

Didn’t follow…?  Congress has an incentive to not address the spending issue; no Congressman (at least, no Congressman who hopes to be re-elected) wants to be the one to suggest cutting Medicare benefits or Social Security benefits or Education spending or Research funding or any number of other things.  They would be painted as heartless; I believe the phrase “killing old people” was used recently with respect to the Tea Party.  So, Congress has a tendency to not only continue spending on those programs but to add new programs as a way of buying votes from still other constituents.  Voters receiving such benefits are much less likely to vote out the Congressman who made their benefits possible.

Similarly, Congress funds huge projects through various businesses and that benefits those same Congressmen through reciprocation in the form of campaign contributions from those same companies and their employees, campaign contributions that (in turn) insulate the Congressmen from any real danger of being removed from office by voters who must overcome the disinformation about (and character assassination of) the opponents of these sitting Congressmen through the barrage of campaign ads that their “war chest” affords them.

All of these factors add up to a greatly reduced risk to a Congressman of suffering any real consequences at the polls.  The more Congress spends with grateful companies (and the voters that work for those companies) and the more voters that qualify for various benefits, the more all of those voters will be reluctant to remove their benefactor from office.

And what happens when 55-60^% of the voters receive benefits, work for government entities, or work for the companies that hold huge government contracts?  How would we EVER reduce the size of government?  In a very real sense, big government creates its own moral hazard dilemma.

A failure to bail out the banks and other companies would have been exceedingly painful, economically, but such pain is necessary in order to maintain the integrity of any free market system.  Ditto with our government!  Not allowing Congress to raise the debt limit would create exceedingly painful consequences for America, but such pain is necessary in order to regain the integrity of our government and remain a free people.

If the U.S. has to fail in order to set things right again, then it has to fail.  I would greatly prefer that Congress simply do the right thing and stop running up the debt in the first place, but if they are irresponsible and will not listen to the American people, then eventually the world will clue them in to the fact that “Enough is enough!”

Debt Limit increases must no longer be automatic.  In fact, the debt limit should not be raised at all for the foreseeable future…and, no, that does not automatically mean that we would default on our debt.  It means that spending would have to be harshly cut back in order to not default, a situation caused by the overspending.

It’s a little like a husband and wife arguing about her excessive shopping (or his) and charging the credit cards up to and over their max.  If she knows that he is going to get mad but, in the end, he’s going to pay the over-charge fees and raise the credit limits every time, then she will just keep charging.

If, instead, he stops getting the limits raised (and stops paying the bill), the credit card company will do what he apparently couldn’t – force her to stop spending what she doesn’t have.  Painful?  Sure.  Bad credit score, steeper default interest rates, having to finally start paying the cards down plus still try to live…and live, now, not just within their means (which they’re not used to doing) but live on even less than that until the debt is paid.

This is where we are as a nation.  The party is over.  It’s time to act with some self-discipline or we will plunge our nation headlong into economic oblivion…where old people…and young…really will die.

On Legislating Morality...

I’ve heard it said, “You can’t legislate morality.”  Usually, the topic is one where a social conservative seeking a more decent society is being chided by a social liberal or libertarian.  “You can’t legislate morality?”  I beg to differ…

Society believes it is wrong to kill, so we have laws against murder.  Society believes it is wrong to steal, so we have laws against theft.  Society believes it is wrong to wear corduroy, so we have fashion police who will ridicule you.  (There’s no accounting for taste. lol)

In truth, I would suggest to you that all proper legislation should be an attempt to set forth society’s moral stance on the issue at hand.  If you show me a law that does not legislate morality, I’ll show you a law that is probably discretely designed to put money into somebody’s pocket.

The real issue is…who gets to decide what is moral?  There was a time when the morals of our citizens were fairly uniform and the stance of the majority was generally an ethical position.  Most Americans held to a fairly Judeo-Christian ethic, even if they were not religious.  That is hardly to say that our national values were always correct.  Just ask someone who only counted as 3/5^ths of a person, constitutionally…not that blacks or women were allowed to vote back then anyway.  But… Should we trade one flawed ethic for a dozen other flawed ethics?  I don’t think so.

It’s a little like the young person who looks at the flawed parenting of their own parents and thinks, “I’m not going to make the mistakes that my parents made raising me!”  No, you’re probably not.  You will discover a whole new set of mistakes to make, often worse mistakes than those of your parents.  And at times, we do make the same mistakes.  Why?  “…because I said so!  That's why!”

Unfortunately, that time of even moderate uniformity has pretty much faded, especially on issues like abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, entitlements, etc.

There are those who would suggest that the government should just stay out of personal issues.  But…to what degree?  If you believe that theft or murder is not a big deal, should society let you just do your thing?  Of course not.  The argument is made, however, that some so-called crimes (like drug use or prostitution) are really just “victimless crimes” and should not be prosecuted or even outlawed.

But...these are not victimless crimes.  Children and innocent by-standers are, indeed, impacted by such activities.  Even smoking, for instance, victimizes those in the immediate vicinity who are forced to inhale the poison or vacate the area (which is not possible or practicable at times).  Even those claiming to be conservative (Rush Limbaugh, for instance) don’t seem to understand the basic conservative principle that “your personal liberties stop where mine begin.”

So, when there is a conflict between the liberties of one person versus another, whose liberties should prevail?  The “natural state” should prevail.  In the case of smokers, the “natural state” would be the right to breathe clean air.  It’s not that different from a next door neighbor playing loud music in the middle of the night.  Their right to play loud music stops where your right to a night’s sleep begins, because peace and quiet is the “natural state”.

Similarly, a child’s right to a safe environment (and sober, responsible parents) outweighs that parent’s freedom to get drunk (or high).  A driver’s right to get home safely outweighs another driver’s freedom to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  A factory worker’s right to stay safe on the job outweighs their co-worker’s freedom to come to work impaired.  And so on…

Sorry to my Libertarian friends, but no matter how you try to justify it, you are simply wrong on the drug issue and other such issues of personal liberty without consideration for moral responsibility.  There are almost always unintended victims when we do immoral things.  Thus, the government does have a role to play…in legislating morality.

Our young nation is trying to “grow up”, and as we pass through this adolescence of national life, we are in the throws of a rebellious period in life.  Hopefully, we will realize that we are not more wise than our forefathers and we will return to some measure of ethical behavior and the ways of old…but without their mistakes.

On Abortion...

Perhaps, more than any other topic in the past 50 years, abortion has been a seminal issue on the stage of American politics.  Though it has been pushed aside to some extent by the horrendous economy, abortion raises the level of emotions in religious circles and in non-religious circles, alike.  It evokes strong, heart-felt responses on all sides, so much so that we start to forget the real issue.

The pro-choice argument has been flawed in that it relies primarily on emotional hyperbole.  Unfortunately, the pro-life argument has been equally as flawed, often relying on religious justifications.  In a land where we acknowledge genuine freedom of religion, an argument based upon one’s religious beliefs simply cannot stand.  Likewise, emotional clichés are hardly a rationale for legislation either.  So, I thought we might be well served to examine the issue from a more scientific perspective.

There is only one major ethical/moral reason why abortion could be considered “wrong”.  If abortion is the taking of a human life, then it has to be considered wrong.  If abortion is not the taking of a human life, then it is nobody’s business but the mother and the doctor.

So, is abortion tantamount to murder? …or is that emotional hyperbole from the pro-life side?  To investigate this from a scientific viewpoint, we should agree upon some semblance of a definition… Murder is to kill (or end the life of) an innocent living human being.  If any of those four elements (innocent, living, human, being) is not applicable to the unborn child, then we cannot rightly consider abortion to be murder.

Is the unborn child living?  Well, the unborn child, in its earliest stages may not have a heartbeat; it may not be breathing or thinking, but there is certainly biological function, of a sort.  There is growth.  There is cell division taking place.  If we found those properties in some something on Mars, we would certainly contend that we had found “life” on Mars.  So, I think the “scientific” answer would have to be that it is at least “living tissue”, but…living tissue of what nature?

Is the unborn child human?  Well, again…from a purely scientific angle, the cells have genes that would clearly distinguish it as homo sapiens.  That argument is pretty straightforward, but…

Is the unborn child a “being”?  Is it an organism separate and distinct unto itself, or is it a part of the mother’s body?  Again, going back to the genetics, the unborn child has a genetic make-up entirely different from that of its mother.  Certainly, at this stage in its development, the unborn child is “parasitic” in form, but that does not make it “a part of the mother’s body”.  If that same mother had another parasite, say, a tapeworm, would we not recognize that the tapeworm was a separate living organism, though parasitic in form?

Likewise, the fact that the unborn child is not yet in its final form does not disqualify it as an “organism”.  Would we say that a caterpillar is not an organism because it is not yet a butterfly?  Ridiculous…

Finally…  Is the unborn child innocent?  Certainly, there is an absence of any guilt for the child who has not yet been born.  Even if the pregnancy was the result of a rape or incest, the child, itself, is innocent, and no civilized people can justly execute the innocent for the crimes of the father.  If we want to execute the father, then we can talk.

It is evidence of the upside-down world in which we live and the twisted minds of the pro-choice movement that they would see the death penalty as some kind of moral equivalent to abortion and call pro-life supporters hypocrites for supporting the death penalty.  The pro-choice crowd ignores the critical factor of “guilt” in proclaiming the capital punishment to be “murder” by the state.  They would have us kill the innocent and let the guilty live.  Plainly, it is “evil”…pure evil.

Still, the unfortunate fact is that even many pro-life proponents are not really pro-life.  If one thinks of (or treats) the unborn child any differently than they would, say, a 4-year old child, then they are hypocrites.  The unborn child is either a living human being or it is not.

So, if a mother discovered that her 4-year old child was actually the spawn of a rapist, would she be justified in killing the 4-year old?  What if it were the result of incest?  Could we, in good conscience, kill that 4-year old?  Oh, but…now it is the so-called pro-lifers that resort to the emotional arguments.  Sorry, but no…  Abortion is either wrong because it is the taking of an innocent human life or there is nothing wrong with it in any case.  Period.

Even in a situation where the life of the mother is involved, we have to consider the fact that we have two patients.  Might we have to harm one in order to save the life of the other?  Possibly.  Doctors run into similar ethical questions in dealing with Siamese twins, occasionally.  This situation is no different.  If both lives can be saved, then every effort must be made to spare both lives.  If they cannot both be saved, then they can’t.  Still, it is a matter of mind-set…  Do we even consider that we have two patients?

At the very least, those who hold a legitimate moral stance against abortion should not be compelled through their tax dollars to pay for abortion.  This, in and of itself, is morally and ethically wrong.  Our government should not ask this of tax payers any more than they should compel drafted soldiers to kill or be killed when they have a conscientious objection to killing.  No federal funding should go to any organization which performs or promotes abortion.

Our Mission...

^the  FOuRTH Party

     “We are DONE with the EVIL

   of choosing the lesser of two evils!” 

This is the battle cry that inspires the FOuRTH Party.  We are the party of “moving forward toward the hard solutions”, the party of “going FOuRTH”, making the best aspects of our rich heritage available to all citizens.  If you’re a social and fiscal conservative who has been disenfranchised by the existing political leadership and…if you use social media, then you ARE (or can be) an active part of the FOuRTH Party.

Background:

The two-party system has failed to provide sound leadership for our country.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem capable of pledging their political lives, political fortunes, or political honor to the worthy cause of preserving or restoring the liberties that our Founding Fathers (and others after them) gave their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor to establish.

Both Democrats and Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they do, however, believe in slavery, as they enslave our children’s children to massive debt held by the Chinese and others through reckless and irresponsible spending which they have used in the “buying” of votes and influence.  Those to whom you owe a debt are your masters.

The best known third party (the Libertarian Party) may stand for fiscal restraint and limited government, but they are a poor fit for the socially-conservative ideology of mainstream America.  Other third parties tend to be too narrow in scope or inclusivity to be viable alternatives to the two major parties.  Hence, the need for the FOuRTH Party…

We’re used to hearing about the “political spectrum”, but the real political picture is far more complex than a simple “Left-Right” scale.  Even the two-axis table below is far too simplistic, but the FOuRTH Party occupies the fourth quadrant of that political table.  We are both, fiscally and socially conservative, as is much of our country.

Political    Ideologies	Socially    Liberal	Socially    Conservative
Fiscally    Liberal	Democrats	Republicans*
Fiscally    Conservative	Libertarians	FOuRTH Party

*In trying to be “all things to all people”, Republicans

      don’t fit into any category very well, but they are

      (ultimately) still the party of big business which

      “tolerates” influences from social conservatives.

The FOuRTH Party is a new and different kind of political party built upon the communication technology of the 21^st century.  And yet…

The FOuRTH Party is also an old and traditional kind of party built upon the ideology that made America great.

The FOuRTH Party is a solutions-based organization.  Instead of merely pointing a finger and assigning blame, we believe that true leadership involves asking the question:  “How do we go FOuRTH from here?” (…which inspired the unusual capitalization of our party name.)

To understand American politics, one simply must understand that the Democratic Party is all about socialism and creating a tipping point of voters dependent upon the government for a significant portion of their income (through government jobs and entitlement programs) which creates a de facto socialist state before the general public becomes fully aware of their motives.

The Republican Party, however, has always been the party of big business and, although they tolerate and try to bring social conservatives under the umbrella, their real aim is to create a national version of the old “company town” where the company owns the town and pays you in a currency that is worthless outside of the town, money that ultimately ends up back in the company’s pocket.

Until we understand these two evils of socialism and unrestrained capitalistic greed, we cannot understand the forces that play us against each other and thrive upon our foolishness and ignorance.

We are not just another third party.  We are, indeed, the FOuRTH Party!  Get involved, stay tuned, and stay connected for future posts on various FOuRTH Party platform planks and positions.