Alan Keyes
The "Platform Republican" aim- -to restore confidence in the conservative voters' independent strength
By Alan Keyes
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." (Thomas Jefferson)
On more than one occasion, I've likened the elitist faction's twin-party sham to a long- running con game. It's the kind of thing the IM force on Mission Impossible often did to get cooperation or information from their adversaries. In terms of today's technology, we would say that they constructed a virtual reality in which team members played roles intended to get their mark to do or say what was needed.
This kind of elaborate deception is a form of compulsion. It bespeaks a tyrannical impulse I have talked about before (The Thought Tyrants) in the context of the elitist faction's determination to silence all discussion about Obama's eligibility (or lack thereof) for the Office of President. By limiting the purview of ideas and possibilities people have to consider, tyrants and would-be tyrants aim to structure their choices. They have a point, since its difficult to make a choice you either can't conceive of or dismiss as contrary to your character or abilities.
At one time, elections in the United States were actually intended to offer people a real opportunity for rational choice. Deception was commonly a part of the process, but mainly as a means to achieve the decisive objective, which was to persuade people to cast their vote for you.
Today, deception is the substance of the electoral process, in much the same way the aim of a good movie is to draw people into the story and characters it depicts. The ostensible purpose of a movie is to entertain — i.e., to offer people a pleasant way to pass the time. The aim of the current electoral process is to "beguile the time," which is to say, so mold the voters' sense of it that they feel compelled to move this way or that, regardless of their actual preferences. The fabrication is more cleverly executed than the electoral contrivances in the countries of the old Soviet Empire. But the compelling purpose is the same — to translate the pervasive fear characteristic of tyrannical regimes into an outcome that gives the appearance of choice where there is in fact no freedom.
This year's Romney/Obama match-up is the first in my lifetime that involves two candidates so obviously similar in the content and suppositions of their official actions that it's hard to see the significant difference between them. Both sides are therefore seeking to play upon fear and prejudice to poke and prod people to the polls. There, like thoughtless cattle, voters will submit to be counted on their way to what amounts to their institutional slaughter as a sovereign people. For when the smoke clears, either way the election goes, the effectual reality of their sovereignty as a people will be gone.
In this situation, the most imperative thing is to get people to wake up and in some way signify to one another their rejection of the sham. In terms of preserving their liberty, the election is not about which of the twin party candidates they choose (both mark the end of liberty). It's about whether they will exercise their choice in a way that throws off the mental shackles that presently make them feel bound to choose between the candidates they're offered, though neither represents them.
Some way is needed to vote, and be seen to have voted, for neither of the choices offered. But unless voters who thus negate the party sham find some positive way to signify their strength, the demonstration effect of their actions will be lost. This means that they must concentrate their votes on a positive gesture, one that affirms their commitment to restore republican self-government, while at the same time demonstrating the independent political strength the friends of liberty have to depend on.
The GOP Platform offers a point upon which real conservatives can concentrate these positive votes. The Platform is repudiated by the GOP wing of the elitist faction. But they must nonetheless tout its conservative character in order to bring conservative voters to the polls. Moreover, though imperfect in some particulars, the language of the Platform represents the longstanding and very real commitment of a solid majority of GOP voters to the founding principles and moral spirit of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Such people may not always reason correctly from those principles to this or that application of them. But it is their real goal to apply them — something we cannot say for Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and their elitist faction cohorts. Also, by concentrating on a result that aims to produce the largest possible number of votes for the GOP's Congressional and Senate candidates, the Platform Republican approach reminds Americans that the legislature is the main capacitor of the people's constitutional power.
The "Platform Republican" approach to the 2012 election is not about lifting up some candidate or other. It's about lifting up the confidence of the people themselves, so that they will once again be struck by the importance and feasibility of asserting their independent electoral strength. And it's about doing so in a way that escapes the arrogant dictation of the elitist powers now smugly assuming that they have rendered any such escape impossible.
Will you say no to Obama? Will you say no to Romney? Will you say no to socialism, whatever party label it wears? Will you join in giving an unmistakable, visible political mandate to the GOP's "platform Republicans"? If you will consider the "platform Republican" voter strategy for the 2012 election, just send me an email at alan@loyaltoliberty.com. Put "Yes I will" in the subject line. No further message is needed. Of course, your additional thoughts and suggestions will be welcomed. As the implementation of this approach develops, I'll send email updates to the reply address you use. Also, please share this idea with others, so they can consider it for themselves.
September 13, 2012
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." (Thomas Jefferson)
On more than one occasion, I've likened the elitist faction's twin-party sham to a long- running con game. It's the kind of thing the IM force on Mission Impossible often did to get cooperation or information from their adversaries. In terms of today's technology, we would say that they constructed a virtual reality in which team members played roles intended to get their mark to do or say what was needed.
This kind of elaborate deception is a form of compulsion. It bespeaks a tyrannical impulse I have talked about before (The Thought Tyrants) in the context of the elitist faction's determination to silence all discussion about Obama's eligibility (or lack thereof) for the Office of President. By limiting the purview of ideas and possibilities people have to consider, tyrants and would-be tyrants aim to structure their choices. They have a point, since its difficult to make a choice you either can't conceive of or dismiss as contrary to your character or abilities.
At one time, elections in the United States were actually intended to offer people a real opportunity for rational choice. Deception was commonly a part of the process, but mainly as a means to achieve the decisive objective, which was to persuade people to cast their vote for you.
Today, deception is the substance of the electoral process, in much the same way the aim of a good movie is to draw people into the story and characters it depicts. The ostensible purpose of a movie is to entertain — i.e., to offer people a pleasant way to pass the time. The aim of the current electoral process is to "beguile the time," which is to say, so mold the voters' sense of it that they feel compelled to move this way or that, regardless of their actual preferences. The fabrication is more cleverly executed than the electoral contrivances in the countries of the old Soviet Empire. But the compelling purpose is the same — to translate the pervasive fear characteristic of tyrannical regimes into an outcome that gives the appearance of choice where there is in fact no freedom.
This year's Romney/Obama match-up is the first in my lifetime that involves two candidates so obviously similar in the content and suppositions of their official actions that it's hard to see the significant difference between them. Both sides are therefore seeking to play upon fear and prejudice to poke and prod people to the polls. There, like thoughtless cattle, voters will submit to be counted on their way to what amounts to their institutional slaughter as a sovereign people. For when the smoke clears, either way the election goes, the effectual reality of their sovereignty as a people will be gone.
In this situation, the most imperative thing is to get people to wake up and in some way signify to one another their rejection of the sham. In terms of preserving their liberty, the election is not about which of the twin party candidates they choose (both mark the end of liberty). It's about whether they will exercise their choice in a way that throws off the mental shackles that presently make them feel bound to choose between the candidates they're offered, though neither represents them.
Some way is needed to vote, and be seen to have voted, for neither of the choices offered. But unless voters who thus negate the party sham find some positive way to signify their strength, the demonstration effect of their actions will be lost. This means that they must concentrate their votes on a positive gesture, one that affirms their commitment to restore republican self-government, while at the same time demonstrating the independent political strength the friends of liberty have to depend on.
The GOP Platform offers a point upon which real conservatives can concentrate these positive votes. The Platform is repudiated by the GOP wing of the elitist faction. But they must nonetheless tout its conservative character in order to bring conservative voters to the polls. Moreover, though imperfect in some particulars, the language of the Platform represents the longstanding and very real commitment of a solid majority of GOP voters to the founding principles and moral spirit of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Such people may not always reason correctly from those principles to this or that application of them. But it is their real goal to apply them — something we cannot say for Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and their elitist faction cohorts. Also, by concentrating on a result that aims to produce the largest possible number of votes for the GOP's Congressional and Senate candidates, the Platform Republican approach reminds Americans that the legislature is the main capacitor of the people's constitutional power.
The "Platform Republican" approach to the 2012 election is not about lifting up some candidate or other. It's about lifting up the confidence of the people themselves, so that they will once again be struck by the importance and feasibility of asserting their independent electoral strength. And it's about doing so in a way that escapes the arrogant dictation of the elitist powers now smugly assuming that they have rendered any such escape impossible.
Will you say no to Obama? Will you say no to Romney? Will you say no to socialism, whatever party label it wears? Will you join in giving an unmistakable, visible political mandate to the GOP's "platform Republicans"? If you will consider the "platform Republican" voter strategy for the 2012 election, just send me an email at alan@loyaltoliberty.com. Put "Yes I will" in the subject line. No further message is needed. Of course, your additional thoughts and suggestions will be welcomed. As the implementation of this approach develops, I'll send email updates to the reply address you use. Also, please share this idea with others, so they can consider it for themselves.
See also: "To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com and BarbWire.com.
© Alan KeyesThe views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
