Skip to main content

Party Politics: Buying Votes, Whatever the Cost

Much fanfare has surrounded the purported origins of the Republican Party over the past several generations. 

While operating from a measure of truth, the history of the Republican Party has been largely repurposed for political palatability. 

Notwithstanding the popular misconception that the party was the pure manifestation of good over evil, the abolitionist party dead set against slavery, the Republican Party was actually born out of far less inspiring motives held by the Whigs, the mercantilistic wing that served to promote the Hamiltonian “American system” of unbridled nationalism. 

In contrast to their glossy abolitionist veneer, the Republicans even proposed the regrettable Corwin Amendment, what would have become the Thirteenth Amendment, to actually preserve the “domestic institution” of slavery in perpetuity. 

Lincoln and the Republican Party’s progenitors, chiefly Henry Clay, actually supported the deportation of blacks from the United States through the American Colonization Society, and they never had any intentions of emancipating the slaves in the United States until they acknowledged the military and political advantages of that strategy, whereby the Union could conscript freed slaves into their ranks and later exploit their votes at the ballot box. 

Ironically, Lincoln and the Republican administration — when both the Senate and the House were dominated by their party — failed to abolish slavery in the border states, which remained with the Union during the war, for the entirety of the Lincoln administration. 

Even in Lincoln’s so-called “Emancipation Proclamation,” the former POTUS exempted all states allied with the Union, where the executive order would have had possible precedent to apply — the order was both unconstitutional and invalid in the Confederate States

Despite the party’s ulterior motives, their strategy benefitted them handsomely: most blacks voted with the GOP for several generations, until Roosevelt’s New Deal, and later the New-Frontier and Great-Society administrations of Kennedy and Johnson, which promised political advantages to minorities in order to compete for votes with a Republican Party that had virtually become a political dynasty. 

Ultimately, the "anti-slavery" platform of the fledgling Republican Party was tantamount to the "equality" and "social justice" messaging of today's Democratic Party. 

These are devices for political bodies competing within an apparatus that lends far too much credibility to brazen conviction and poetic pronouncements, and Lincoln and his Republican cronies were simply masterful in exploiting these weaknesses in the political system. 

At the conception of the Republican Party, the extant Hamiltonian agenda of sweeping nationalism conflicted with the Jeffersonian vision of splintered confederations comprised of sovereigns with more adequate political representation: Jefferson foresaw several confederations across the North-American continent, where unique and local interests would be best represented by still limited central governments with whom the original confederation could negotiate treaties and alliances. 

Boosted by the prospects of special interest groups, namely Northern industry, the Republican Party sought to limit the expansion of Constitutional provisions by limiting the compact's unadulterated application to the western territories. 

While dressed with ornate claims of moral correctness, the Republicans supported this initiative, a modified constitutional republic, for the economic and political advantages offered by limiting the prospects of Southern planters in that region, whose laborers served to undermine wages for unskilled labor and competitive advantage for Northern industry. 

The Republicans were then, as they remain today, the party of protectionism. From the Morrill Tariff to Smoot-Hawley and the Trump tariffs, import taxes have been their weapon of choice to promote their principal agenda: nationalism. 

Where the Republican Party is found deviating from the subject of business interests, one is likely to hear praise for the armed forces. 

While the subject of “national defense” is familiar in modern discourse, the proposal exists antithetical to the very Constitution that the instrument purports to defend. 

The Constitution “provide[s] for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [to] suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” 

It also specifies that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use [of raising and supporting Armies] shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” 

Oddly enough, the Constitution served to prevent the central government from usurping too much power, from becoming too militarily omnipotent, as the Founders appreciated the perils of one central authority with too much vested power. 

For this particular reason, the Founders and the Constitution expressly appointed Congress as the only body authorized to declare war and provide short-term appropriations for designated defense purposes. 

Beyond those occasional appropriations, the several sovereign states remained responsible for themselves. 

What’s more, the United States constituted a confederation of sovereign and independent states, not a nation. As such, the Constitution provides for a defense appropriation on the basis of Congressional approval for the purposes of “common defence,” not “national defense.” 

Indeed, the Constitution and its preceding Articles of Confederation never formed a nation, and as such never intended to produce a standing apparatus for national defense. 

Unfortunately, the unthinking forces under the ill-gotten control of the central government appear poised to obediently execute the unconstitutional orders of the politically-minded parasites presiding over them, serving ultimately to eliminate every vestige of the ethics which once uniquely characterized and allied the sovereign states and persons of the Union. 

It is, thus, far more likely today that the soldiers of the central government will be deployed to preserve the status quo and their revenue channels than anything else that they have been imagined to defend. 

All the while, the respected members of the armed forces, who have never read the Constitution or the surrounding history, will scarcely acknowledge the violations they’ve committed while following orders, and they will be all too happy to oblige so long as they are compensated to remain rationally ignorant. 

This is the nature of mankind and politics: to make poetry of life is to be dishonest with oneself or, which is worse, to swindle others into false worship.


Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators  —  who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes  —   who have fallen victim to the groupthink phenomenon, responsible for their nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes; and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their professed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's