← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 14156 | Posts: 31 | Started: 2004-06-12
2004-06-12 18:43 | User Profile
[url=http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest17.htm]Constitution Party: The Real Alternative[/url]
The Constitution Party isn’t really a “third party”. We are America’s first party - the party of Adams, Madison, Jefferson, George Mason and George Washington - the party of limited government and empowered people. We hold out an idea not a fist full of dollars. We have a different constituency.
Today, few Americans are prepared to strike out in a radically different political direction as part of a small band even if they recognize the ultimate rightness of the project. However, the number of those few is steadily increasing. The Constitution Party stakes its future on that trend.
2004-06-12 20:21 | User Profile
The surprise LP candidate, Badnarik ([url]http://www.badnarik.org/[/url]), bears a striking ideological resemblance to the presumed Constitution Party candidate, Peroutka. Both strongly appeal to a return a return to the Consitution under an 'original intent' reading. That is in the nature of the CP, and it was Badnarik's distinctive theme as as Libertarian candidate.
Beyond that, both are right-to-life, although Badnarik thankfully thinks it is a state issue. Badnarik may also be a mild restrictionist on immigration, although this isn't mentioned on his website. Peroutka, on the other hand, call for a moratorium on immigration!
They probably differ on how to fund the miniscule Federal Govt. they both want--Peroutka seeming to court the protectionist vote, although rather obliquely. All kind of hard to tell.
Right now, it looks like Peroutka has the better organization. However, since the Badnarik campaign was such a surprise win, he might pull ahead. Hard to tell if either of them will get any media notice. Really, they ought to combine their campaigns, with Badnarik as the VP candidate.
2004-06-12 23:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]The surprise LP candidate, Badnarik ([url]http://www.badnarik.org/[/url]), bears a striking ideological resemblance to the presumed Constitution Party candidate, Peroutka. Both strongly appeal to a return a return to the Consitution under an 'original intent' reading. That is in the nature of the CP, and it was Badnarik's distinctive theme as as Libertarian candidate.
Beyond that, both are right-to-life, although Badnarik thankfully thinks it is a state issue. Badnarik may also be a mild restrictionist on immigration, although this isn't mentioned on his website. Peroutka, on the other hand, call for a moratorium on immigration!
They probably differ on how to fund the miniscule Federal Govt. they both want--Peroutka seeming to court the protectionist vote, although rather obliquely. All kind of hard to tell.
Right now, it looks like Peroutka has the better organization. However, since the Badnarik campaign was such a surprise win, he might pull ahead. Hard to tell if either of them will get any media notice. Really, they ought to combine their campaigns, with Badnarik as the VP candidate.[/QUOTE] They'd be a real danger to the establishment if Peroutka would just settle for Roe v. Wade going back to the states like it used to be, and stop immigration until we can figure out how the current English dominated culture can be maintained, how many illegals are here, etc.
But, of course, there's that one all or nothing component that screws it all up, as with Buchanan. They could change the US (and the world) for the better, but these guys insist on digging their heels in like spoiled children for extreme measures that sink the boat.
The federal government has no damned business regulating abortions. It's a state issue. The federal government has a constituitonal role to preserve national sovreignty. So, these third parties seem to go against their goal of constitutional government roles on certain pet issues. They violate their stated principles but not making the adjustments needed to win. Peroutka is actually preserving abortions by his stance. Many states would outlaw them if allowed. But, if he is prone to extremes, I don't want him in there anyway. That's the way "no compromise" GW Bush is.
2004-06-12 23:34 | User Profile
I agree that abortion should be a state issue. However, I do not think that Peroutka is claiming that states cannot outlaw abortion. Rather, he claims that if they don't, the Federal Government can make them, because States must be 'Republican' in form, which includes respecting each individuals right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' His interpretation of Constitutional law is here certainly no worse than that of our esteemed Supreme Court Justices. :-)
Peroutka will alienate some pro-choice voters, but other than that his stance on abortion strikes me as politically quite safe. I don't see the dangers you do. I am pro-choice myself, btw. Thus your reaction suggests to me that it is you who a problem with political compromises, not Peroutka.
[QUOTE=All Old Right]They'd be a real danger to the establishment if Peroutka would just settle for Roe v. Wade going back to the states like it used to be, and stop immigration until we can figure out how the current English dominated culture can be maintained, how many illegals are here, etc.
But, of course, there's that one all or nothing component that screws it all up, as with Buchanan. They could change the US (and the world) for the better, but these guys insist on digging their heels in like spoiled children for extreme measures that sink the boat.
The federal government has no damned business regulating abortions. It's a state issue. The federal government has a constituitonal role to preserve national sovreignty. So, these third parties seem to go against their goal of constitutional government roles on certain pet issues. They violate their stated principles but not making the adjustments needed to win. Peroutka is actually preserving abortions by his stance. Many states would outlaw them if allowed. But, if he is prone to extremes, I don't want him in there anyway. That's the way "no compromise" GW Bush is.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-13 00:33 | User Profile
My problem is Constitution Party does not take a stand on Ethnic Nationalsim. Any Nationalist movement not built on the idea of "blood and soil" is doomed to fail. America's system of government was made for an Anglo-Saxon Nation and will only work for an Anglo-Saxon Nation. Our Freedom came from ideas of our "Rights as Englishmen."
2004-06-13 01:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I agree that abortion should be a state issue. However, I do not think that Peroutka is claiming that states cannot outlaw abortion. Rather, he claims that if they don't, the Federal Government can make them, because States must be 'Republican' in form, which includes respecting each individuals right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' His interpretation of Constitutional law is here certainly no worse than that of our esteemed Supreme Court Justices. :-)
Peroutka will alienate some pro-choice voters, but other than that his stance on abortion strikes me as politically quite safe. I don't see the dangers you do. I am pro-choice myself, btw. Thus your reaction suggests to me that it is you who a problem with political compromises, not Peroutka.[/QUOTE] Whew!! Yeah, I'm sure you're pro-choice and very comfortable with Peroutka's decision. :yawn: Demanding that rape or incest victims have their rapists' or molesters' chidren is a politically safe and of a non-extreme nature?...I don't think so. It's his choice. Zero or fewer abortions within a year, and change so many other issues for the better, or not.
A fetus, with zero recollection of the fetal experience trumps a 12 year old child forced to have a rapist's or molester's child? Even at that, I'm willing to concede that horrible situation in certain states extreme enough to allow it...Peroutka isn't. And, I'm accused of not compromising. Yeah. That Brooklyn Bridge still for sale for $1000?
Oh well. Taking you off of ignore lasted for about 20 minutes.
2004-06-13 01:47 | User Profile
All Old Right sound deranged. Yes, I am pro-choice, but the issue isn't very important to me, and I like Peroutka's views on immigration and cutting spending.
I couldn't really make out what the fine gentleman was saying in the rest of his rant. Maybe someone else can interpret it?
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Whew!! Yeah, I'm sure you're pro-choice and very comfortable with Peroutka's decision. :yawn: Demanding that rape or incest victims have their rapists' or molesters' chidren is a politically safe and of a non-extreme nature?...I don't think so. It's his choice. Zero or fewer abortions within a year, and change so many other issues for the better, or not.
A fetus, with zero recollection of the fetal experience trumps a 12 year old child forced to have a rapist's or molester's child? Even at that, I'm willing to concede that horrible situation in certain states extreme enough to allow it...Peroutka isn't. And, I'm accused of not compromising. Yeah. That Brooklyn Bridge still for sale for $1000?
Oh well. Taking you off of ignore lasted for about 20 minutes.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-13 01:53 | User Profile
Calling for a moratorium on immigration is a pretty good start. In any case, I do not think it politically expendient for a political party to specifically mention ideas such as the need for 'an Anglo-Saxon nation.'
How do you hope to achieve the construction of an Anglo-Saxon nation, btw? Mass deportation, that sort of thing? The idea brings a gleam to my eye, but I know I might just as well hope the non-white residents of the globe dissapear mysteriously into small puffs of smoke.
I can't really understand all this negativity concerning the Consitution Party. It's a political party, not work of art. Don't expect it to be perfect. It embraces 90% of the ends of American conservatism, and doesn't include any truly non-conservative views.
[QUOTE=Faust]My problem is Constitution Party does not take a stand on Ethnic Nationalsim. Any Nationalist movement not built on the idea of "blood and soil" is doomed to fail. America's system of government was made for an Anglo-Saxon Nation and will only work for an Anglo-Saxon Nation. Our Freedom came from ideas of our "Rights as Englishmen."[/QUOTE]
2004-06-13 02:09 | User Profile
This message is hidden because darkstar is on your ignore list. :yawn:
2004-06-13 02:38 | User Profile
Drats, sending me to Coventry, are ye? 'Tis a shame the technical side of such remains a bit obscure, matey.
[QUOTE=All Old Right]This message is hidden because darkstar is on your ignore list. :yawn:[/QUOTE]
2004-06-13 03:22 | User Profile
I vote for the Constitution Party when I get a chance.
I would almost say that being racial would unnecessarily hurt the Constitution Party. But, they don't have any success that would be hurt, and probably never will have.
2004-06-13 05:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][url=http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest17.htm]Constitution Party: The Real Alternative[/url][/QUOTE]
For the record, here's another party that claims to be the "only real alternative"
[url=http://www.americafoundingfathersparty.org/]American Founding Fathers Party[/url]
2004-06-13 05:48 | User Profile
Does the Constitution Party claim to have the 'only' real alternative?
It is of course mostly the idea of 3rd party politics that matters, rather than real prospects for power. Even then, debate about such matters pales in comparison to the importance of stimulating debate on pro-white policies and identities. So when hearing about 3rd parties, one must always have several large sacks of salt ready.
But I'd note that it looks like the Constitution Party will have the backing of AmCon, maybe even a PB endorsement. That might make it an interesting vehicle to spread useful ideas. Anything is possibe, given how truly awful Bush and Kerry are. In all honesty and seriousness: these are worst candidates in living memory.
As far as I am concerned, the main trick is to have Bush lose while true conservative ideas get some consideration, whether they come from the LP, the Constitution party, AmCon, the American Taxpayer's Union, or just wherever. If a 3rd party can help with this, then the GOP will suck up some of its ideas, and maybe we will at least get some GOP leaders who will want to do something about illegal immigration or out-of-control spending. Even just a few would be very nice.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]For the record, here's another party that claims to be the "only real alternative"
[url=http://www.americafoundingfathersparty.org/]American Founding Fathers Party[/url][/QUOTE]
2004-06-13 08:05 | User Profile
Ideologically, I love the Constitution Party, but tactically....I've voted for about a dozen of their candidates since the first time I did so in 1990, including their 1996 national ticket of Howard Phillips for President and Joseph Sobran for Vice-President. That ticket got 175,000 votes, or 0.2% of the total i.e., 6th place. They've never done that well either before or since. Nader, despite his myriad flaws, actually got 2.8 million votes last time, nearly 3% of the total, and he could well do better this time (I retract my previous statement that Nader was guaranteed to do worse this time around than in 2000; I now believe I was mistaken about that). If he breaks the 5% threshold established by the FEC, he'll be eligible for Federal general election campaign funds in 2008 (or his successor will be). In light of those realities, I'm inclined to cast my ballot for the least of three evils, as it were, rather than for a Michael Peroutka who is, sadly, not going to have any impact on the 2004 race. If Peroutka could raise his profile, I'd sing a different tune, but he can't (the media will only permit one 3rd party candidate, at the very most, during any given Presidential election, which is one reason Buchanan did so poorly last time).
2004-06-13 19:40 | User Profile
Certainly, one reason to vote for Nader is to convince people that 3rd Parties can be real players. From my perspective, however, the negatives of seeing quasi-socialist 'green' politics in the spotlight far outweight the benefits. Environmentalism is going to be the death of us, if we are not careful-- particularly given the anti-family stance of the current environemental movement.
But I don't agree that the media leave room for only one 3rd party at a time. PB was shut out primarily because of his message, not because of 3rd party problems. To overcome his 'negatives,' there has to be some kind of political event that changes either puts immigration and the Zionist lobby into the spotlight in a way it hasn't been yet, or some GOP leaders have to give some attention to these issues (possible with immigration if Bush loses).
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Ideologically, I love the Constitution Party, but tactically....I've voted for about a dozen of their candidates since the first time I did so in 1990, including their 1996 national ticket of Howard Phillips for President and Joseph Sobran for Vice-President. That ticket got 175,000 votes, or 0.2% of the total i.e., 6th place. They've never done that well either before or since. Nader, despite his myriad flaws, actually got 2.8 million votes last time, nearly 3% of the total, and he could well do better this time (I retract my previous statement that Nader was guaranteed to do worse this time around than in 2000; I now believe I was mistaken about that). If he breaks the 5% threshold established by the FEC, he'll be eligible for Federal general election campaign funds in 2008 (or his successor will be). In light of those realities, I'm inclined to cast my ballot for the least of three evils, as it were, rather than for a Michael Peroutka who is, sadly, not going to have any impact on the 2004 race. If Peroutka could raise his profile, I'd sing a different tune, but he can't (the media will only permit one 3rd party candidate, at the very most, during any given Presidential election, which is one reason Buchanan did so poorly last time).[/QUOTE]
2004-06-13 20:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]From my perspective, however, the negatives of seeing quasi-socialist 'green' politics in the spotlight far outweight the benefits. Environmentalism is going to be the death of us, if we are not careful-- particularly given the anti-family stance of the current environemental movement.[/QUOTE]
Funny you say this, since historically Whites are the only ones who care about the environment they live in. Two VDARE columns highlight this, and expose how the "Right" has inherited some faulty anti-environmentalism from its pro-corporate libertarian cousins:
[url]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/conservatives.htm[/url] [url]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/conservation_program.htm[/url]
The direction of these two pieces above is a positive one. More and more I find myself moving toward the endorsement of a "racialist version" of the Green Party.
2004-06-13 20:36 | User Profile
Sailer shows that the GOP might be alienating some white voters who environmentalists. However, that tells us little about the current environmentalist movement has the correct view.
This is obviously a complex issue, but the fact remains that many whites at least ostensibly limit their family size because 'it's good for the environment.' Likewise, environmentalists is caught up in worldview based on 'limits to growth,' which turns out to de facto be about limiting the economic and population growth of the West. 'The rest,' of course will continue to grow, as the West decides 'to remove itself from history.'
For me, population growth is not the issue. The issue is population growth based on massive racial and cultural conflict, lowering overall standards of education and IQ, and abrupt strains on the housing and economic sectors.
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Funny you say this, since historically Whites are the only ones who care about the environment they live in. Two VDARE columns highlight this, and expose how the "Right" has inherited some faulty anti-environmentalism from its pro-corporate libertarian cousins:
[url]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/conservatives.htm[/url] [url]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/conservation_program.htm[/url]
The direction of these two pieces above is a positive one. More and more I find myself moving toward the endorsement of a "racialist version" of the Green Party.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-14 04:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Funny you say this, since historically Whites are the only ones who care about the environment they live in. Two VDARE columns highlight this, and expose how the "Right" has inherited some faulty anti-environmentalism from its pro-corporate libertarian cousins:
[url]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/conservatives.htm[/url] [url]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/conservation_program.htm[/url]
The direction of these two pieces above is a positive one. More and more I find myself moving toward the endorsement of a "racialist version" of the Green Party.[/QUOTE]
I don't get the sense that Sailor himself is moving toward the Green Party in any way actually.
Underlying liberal environmentalism is the assumption that the world would be paradise if every single person died tomorrow. Obviously, nobody actually believes that. What environmentalists feel deep down is that the world would be paradise if everybody died ââ¬Â¦ except, of course, for them and their friends. In reality, environmentalism is essentially a form of status competition in which environmentalists demonstrate their moral superiority to the mass of humanity.
Which I think pretty much his the nail on the head, as modern, liberal environmentalism is a postmodernist, Adornoish movement
2004-06-14 06:58 | User Profile
PaleoconAvatar,
I agree in some ways, but the problem is real "Environementalism" is a small movement. For the most part the "Environemental Movement" is just a new cover for marxism. Just look at the Sierra Club immigration fight, when marxism and "Environementalism" come into conflect marxism always wins. On the other hand some ideas from the old "Environemental Movement" might fit well in the Right. Some one once called the "Environementalists" Watermelons, Green on the outside; Red on the the inside.
2004-06-18 02:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]My problem is Constitution Party does not take a stand on Ethnic Nationalsim. Any Nationalist movement not built on the idea of "blood and soil" is doomed to fail. America's system of government was made for an Anglo-Saxon Nation and will only work for an Anglo-Saxon Nation. Our Freedom came from ideas of our "Rights as Englishmen."[/QUOTE]
here here !
2004-06-24 22:08 | User Profile
We need a party that stands for White interests first, last, always.
Supporting a party built around any other concept is a waste of time.
The hour is late folks. Asians, Africans, Mexicans -- every day more and more of them are hitting our shores. Hispanics just became the majority in Texas. They are already the majority in California. That means the two biggest piece of the electoral pie are now controlled by hispanics. Then there is Florida and New York. Both of those states have substantial hispanic populations.
No one in either party will dare oppose affirmative action, set asides, quotas, and immigration with Hispanics controlling the electoral map.
So we need a party to speak for White people. And we need one before it's too late.
2004-06-24 22:34 | User Profile
JoseyWales and Valley Forge,
Thanks for your reply, yes a nationalist party must must be built on the idea of "blood and soil." [QUOTE]My problem is Constitution Party does not take a stand on Ethnic Nationalsim. Any Nationalist movement not built on the idea of "blood and soil" is doomed to fail. America's system of government was made for an Anglo-Saxon Nation and will only work for an Anglo-Saxon Nation. Our Freedom came from ideas of our "Rights as Englishmen."[/QUOTE]
2004-06-25 03:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Ideologically, I love the Constitution Party, but tactically....I've voted for about a dozen of their candidates since the first time I did so in 1990, including their 1996 national ticket of Howard Phillips for President and Joseph Sobran for Vice-President. That ticket got 175,000 votes, or 0.2% of the total i.e., 6th place. They've never done that well either before or since.
You voted for a ticket that had Joe Sobran on it?
2004-06-25 08:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Hispanics just became the majority in Texas. They are already the majority in California.[/QUOTE]
While your point is very well-taken, your data on California (while inevitably going to true soon on our present trajectory) is rather mistaken. California no longer has a White majority, but it still has a White plurality of about 47% of the state's population, i.e. around 50% higher than the figure for Mestizoes.
2004-06-25 08:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]You voted for a ticket that had Joe Sobran on it?[/QUOTE]
I had that good fortune. I'm not 100% certain that Sobran was the Constitution Party nominee nation-wide, but he was the Veep nominee of the Constitution Party's California affiliate, i.e. the American Independent Party.
2004-06-25 13:44 | User Profile
Sobran was the original VP candidate in [B]2000[/B], but he resigned from the ticket seven months before the election. I believe that the CA AIP, state affiliate of the Constitution Party, carried VP nominee Frazier. I don't know who the VP nominee was in [B]1996[/B], if they had one at all.
2004-06-25 15:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]We need a party that stands for White interests first, last, always.
Supporting a party built around any other concept is a waste of time.
The hour is late folks. Asians, Africans, Mexicans -- every day more and more of them are hitting our shores. Hispanics just became the majority in Texas. They are already the majority in California. That means the two biggest piece of the electoral pie are now controlled by hispanics. Then there is Florida and New York. Both of those states have substantial hispanic populations.
No one in either party will dare oppose affirmative action, set asides, quotas, and immigration with Hispanics controlling the electoral map.
So we need a party to speak for White people. And we need one before it's too late.[/QUOTE]
Interesting observations as to the need. But as always with hardcore WN's, I get the sense that this talk about the "need for a party" is just rhetoric, and that any concrete efforts to form a political party more sensitive and rzponsive to white interests will be fought tooth and nail by most of those stylingthemselves "White Nationalists". It arises out of their basic mentality
One possible reason why the degree of support for the far right does not show up in election results is that the most extreme rightwingers will have nothing to do with the democratic process and abstain. This is particularly true of those connected with the so-called Kameradschaften which form a network of mutually independent, neo-Nazi secret societies.
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=14213]Gothic in Germany - Where Neo-Nazi and Satanism Meet[/url]
As we can see from recent events here, this mentality is not confined to the so-called Hollywood Nazi's etc.
Practically, I wonder sometimes if any groups are as hostile to the real White people they see and work with every day than a lot of the people that characterize themselves as "White Nationalists". That's may be in part why those groups have such negative perceptions, and why they prefer to maintain their seceretive status, on the internet as elsewhere.
2004-06-25 16:08 | User Profile
I've actually come around to agree with you that this is a fair point.
I think the solution is to proceed with building a party that is responsive to White interests -- explicitly responsive to White interests -- and if the hardcore types don't want to participate, fine.
People who are pro-White, but not "hardcore," shouldn't let the hardcore types monopolize the discussion and exclusively define what it means to defend White interests.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Interesting observations as to the need. But as always with hardcore WN's, I get the sense that this talk about the "need for a party" is just rhetoric, and that any concrete efforts to form a political party more sensitive and rzponsive to white interests will be fought tooth and nail by most of those stylingthemselves "White Nationalists". It arises out of their basic mentality.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-25 16:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I've actually come around to agree with you that this is a fair point.
I think the solution is to proceed with building a party that is responsive to White interests -- explicitly responsive to White interests -- and if the hardcore types don't want to participate, fine.
People who are pro-White, but not "hardcore," shouldn't let the hardcore types monopolize the discussion and exclusively define what it means to defend White interests.[/QUOTE]Appreciate your agreement. Although, like we saw on the American Renaissance thread, agreement on how far a party needs to go in being responsive to white interests is sure to be a sticking point. Even the term "explicitely" will be used as a wedge.
That is after all always the main disagreements between hardcore WN's and the rest. Does a party have to stand for expulsion of Jews and immediate re-implementation of segregation to be a legitimate repository of white interests, and are organizations like Am.Ren. to be viewed as traitor organizations? That is always the line hardcore types, undoubtedly among whom are a few clever A.P.'s, always seem to want to push you to. That's one of the reasons why practically in this election year we are left grasping at straws like the Constitution Party.
2004-06-26 08:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Sobran was the original VP candidate in [B]2000[/B], but he resigned from the ticket seven months before the election. I believe that the CA AIP, state affiliate of the Constitution Party, carried VP nominee Frazier. I don't know who the VP nominee was in [B]1996[/B], if they had one at all.[/QUOTE]
Sobran was the Veep nominee who appeared on the California ballot in 1996. He may not have been nominated for Vice-President by the Constitution Party, but he was, apparently, nominated for Vice-President by the American Independent Party (which serves as the California branch of the Constitution Party, even though its technically a seperate party). So they may have had someone else in the other 49 states, but here in California, Sobran was on the '96 ballot. Its not even a question; I remember it like I remember my own name. I can only speculate about exactly why he was listed as the 1996 Veep candidate in California, but I know for certain that he was, for I voted for him.
2004-06-26 20:30 | User Profile
O.K., If you say so.
[url]http://www.wordiq.com/definition/United_States_Constitution_Party#Presidential_and_Vice_Presidential_nominees[/url]