Cruz’s Silence is DEAFENING.

Cruz’s silence is deafening, and that’s a good thing. He’s doing what all good warriors do: getting out of the way while your enemy is self-destructing. And when even HuffPo gets it, you know you’ve fought the good fight. I’ve been saying this for a month. You can’t lose if you hold fast to principles. It may take a while to look like you’re not losing, but it will come.

The only point of disagreement I have with the piece is that Cruz is “smiling.” He’s not smiling. He’s aggrieved. But not for himself, for the Republic. This isn’t fun for anyone who loves the Constitution, or America’s ideals.


Via The Huffington Post, August 14, 2016: As Donald Trump Self-Destructs, Ted Cruz Is Probably One Of The Few Republicans Smiling Right Now by Mario Almonte, PR Strategist, Commentator

2016-08-10-1470852710-5052205-Ted_Cruzcropped-thumbTed Cruz must be a happy camper these days. With Donald Trump spiraling into an epic meltdown not seen since Britney Spears shaved her head, he is among only a handful of Republican leaders who stoically refused to endorse Trump from the onset. As such, he is poised to emerge with incredible political capital and a national reputation as the only major Republican who refused categorically to be “a servile puppy“ to Donald Trump. Even more importantly, unlike the Bush clan, Cruz was the only Republican who showed up at the Republican National Convention and told it to Trump’s face. He told the audiences to “vote your conscience,” which promptly got him booed off the stage.

Although the Trump organization had been given copies of Cruz’s speech hours before he spoke, Cruz’s refusal to “say his name” immediately elicited angry cries of “traitor” from fellow Republicans like Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani, the former who had “turned over his political testicles long ago,” according to Cruz’s former campaign manager, Jeff Roe. Cruz’s popularity plummeted among Republicans in the days following his speech and pundits wrote his eulogy.

Immediately following the Democratic National Convention, Donald Trump began to unravel in a series of stunningly bizarre and self-destructive rants that included insulting the family of a soldier killed in action. Republicans have begun to come out en masse to denounce his actions and say they might even vote for Hillary Clinton. These included Senator Susan Collins, 50 security experts who signed a letter calling Trump unfit to be President, and other lawmakers and business leaders. Congressman Mike Coffman even ran an ad saying, “Honestly, I don’t care for him much.”

Hillary Clinton has now open up a double digit lead over Trump, according to some surveys. Director of NATOSource Jorge Benitez called him, “The most dangerous man in the world.” Donald Trump’s mental health is even becoming an issue. House Speaker Paul Ryan, despite Trump’s initial refusal to endorse him, easily won his primary race against Paul Nehlen, a “Donald Trump-inspired opponent.”

Today, the growing consensus is that Trump is poised to lose the election. The New York Daily News took it further and called for Trump to end his campaign now, “in a reckoning with his own madness.” The sentiment seems to be supported by the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, which finds that nearly 1 in 5 Republicans want Trump to drop out.

Cruz has been quiet, these days, watching the show. Only recently, the world was calling his speech at the Republican National Convention political suicide. Might they soon be calling it his golden ticket to the White House?

###end

Love is Love. Until it’s Not… Part 2

Matt Walsh at The Blaze is quickly becoming a favorite writer. He lays down logical progressions with scorching sarcasm. He’s done it again here on the topic of “marriage” as it is now defined, which is to say, not at all. As I wrote in my previous post, the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Obergefell was a Hallmark card without a limiting principle and it was clear to anyone with eyes to see that there would be spectacular backfires in its wake, and here we are again.

Enjoy.


If All Love Is Equal, This Incestuous Mother And Son Couple Should Be Celebrated

Matt Walsh is a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.

mother-son-620x313.

Another dispatch from Sodom. The Daily Mail reports on the controversial romance of a New Mexico couple who reconnected after many years apart and fell instantly in love upon meeting again. It would be like something right out of a fairy tale, if not for the fact that the two lovebirds are related. Not just related, but mother and son.

If you’re currently in a place where it would be inconvenient to suddenly start projectile vomiting all over the walls, I’d advise you to refrain from clicking the link I provided. The story is dark, twisted, and stomach-churning. It’s not necessary, nor medically recommended, that you read all the sordid details yourself.

In an act of heroic self-sacrifice, I already endured the whole article so that I could give you a summary. It goes like this: The mother, Monica Mares, gave up her son, Caleb Peterson, for adoption when she was 19 and he was a baby. Their paths crossed again some 20 years later, and soon after that fateful reunion they decided to strike up a sexual relationship. Incest is still illegal in all 50 states, so one or both of them may wind up in prison for several months. They’ve now taken their plight public in hopes of rallying the most progressive and fearless members of our tolerant society to their defense.

They make a strangely familiar case. They say they are in love. They say their love is just as loving as anyone else’s love. They say they aren’t hurting anybody. They say they’re consenting adults. They say this is none of the government’s business.

They even have the requisite sciency-sounding name for their lifestyle choice. They claim they’re experiencing “GSA,” which stands for “genetic sexual attraction.” As everyone knows, any fetish is automatically legitimate if it can be turned into an acronym. And there’s another name, too, because just one creepy euphemism isn’t sufficient anymore. Incestuous couples are members of the “consanguinamorous” community. There are many consanguinamorous folks who want to have sex with their brother/sister/mother/father/uncle/etc., and, as the reasoning goes, if a lot of people wish to do a certain thing then that thing must be OK, even natural.

Gee, where have we heard these rationales before?

The article kindly provides a reminder to anyone who needs it. An incest activist (yes, those exist now) by the name of Cristina Shy is interviewed about the Mares case. Shy is in a relationship with her half-brother, and, ironically, does not seem very shy about it. She now spends her time campaigning to see that her particular brand of deviancy is normalized and accepted in the mainstream. Shy may be severely deranged both mentally and spiritually, but she does make a pretty salient point here:

‘Our whole community is watching this case and looking for updates. It needs to be brought to the attention of everybody in the country and people need to start thinking differently. It was the same with gay people just a few years ago and now they can get married they are accepted. Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there’s no domestic issue. We are in love, we want to be together but we are related. That shouldn’t be a deciding factor.’

It’s consensual, it’s not hurting anyone, and we’re in love. If that was good enough for gay “marriage,” why isn’t it good enough for a brother and sister or mother and son? On what possible basis can we exclude poor Monica and Caleb if, on the strength of these very same arguments, we have declared gay “marriage” an immutable human right endowed upon creation by God Himself?

It certainly seems that these justifications apply to both in equal measure. Let’s go through and test them out:

1. It’s consensual.

Nobody denies that two adult men can indeed consent to “marry” each other, but can we deny it in the case of Monica and Caleb? He’s 19, she’s 36. They have agency over their own bodies. Their reunion happened when the son was a legal adult. That means they both made their own choices, God help them. Nobody was forced into anything. There was consent, without question.

When applying this logic consistently, it becomes immediately apparent that consent is not enough to morally or even legally justify something on its own. Our culture says that as long as two people want to do something, then it must be OK. But we see that just because a mutual agreement has been reached does not, in and of itself, mean that whatever was agreed upon is good or ought to be legal.

If mere consent were enough, then the three sickos arrested a few years ago for digging up a corpse to fulfill their necrophiliac fantasies ought to be given a presidential pardon. Sure, their victim didn’t consent, but she wasn’t alive. All of the living participants consented, yet the act was still illegal. Why? Well, we can come up with some peripheral reasons — you can’t trespass at a cemetery, for instance — but the real reason, beyond any other, is that it’s just plain wrong. Morally wrong. And despite all of the half-baked protests against “legislating morality,” almost everyone still agrees that in some cases a thing ought to be illegal primarily because it’s immoral. That’s what it means to be human beings living in a civilized society.

This is the main reason why incest between adults is illegal: it’s wrong. Debased. Animalistic. Revolting. Even the most libertarian minded person in the country probably isn’t too upset about laws against incest. And whatever practical reason they offer for their objection, the real reason, even if they won’t say it, is that they find it perverse. And sometimes that’s enough. Or it used to be.

2. It’s not hurting anyone.

Yes, incestuous couples have a much higher risk of conceiving babies with birth defects, but contraception and abortion are also legal. Moreover, our laws say that an unborn child is not a child while it’s still in the womb. It’s precisely in this stage of development that the non-child child, if he were conceived and allowed to live, would develop. Whatever harm done to a person would therefore occur at a point when the person isn’t a person. So that argument goes out the window.

Besides, gay sexual relationships between men are physically harmful and are much more likely to lead to any number of diseases, not to mention the psychological effects manifested in sky high rates of depression, suicide, and drug abuse. If that doesn’t count as “hurting anyone,” then surely incestuous relationships cannot be said to qualify, either.

It could be argued — accurately, in my view — that aside from the birth defects, legalized incest would hurt society by fundamentally perverting the institution of the family. Yes, people who harbor incestuous fantasies may act on them regardless of the law, but it would be incredibly damaging for the State to officially declare, “OK, the relationship between son and mother, brother and sister, uncle and niece, is now a legitimate forum for sexual exploration. Also, you can get married. It’s all good! Nothing matters!”

That sort of declaration would (further) undermine and subvert the family, which would indeed be quite harmful. But again, we’ve been told that it doesn’t matter if something harms society or the family. All that matters is how the people directly involved in the act feel about it. If that’s the logic, then Monica and Caleb are good to go.

3. Love is love.

This is really the whole crux of the thing. It’s the reason why the Supreme Court decided to pretend that a right to gay “marriage” was embedded mysteriously into the Constitution. Love is love. Two people have right to love each other. All love is equal. All love is the same. Nobody’s love is better than anyone else’s, and so forth.

As the love struck Caleb put it: “This is about whether I have the right to love someone. And I sure as hell have the right to love Monica. You can’t tell people who to love or who not to love.” Just replace “Monica” with “Maurice” or “Michael,” and the left would consider his argument bulletproof. If we must accept and legitimize all love, how can we possibly deny young Caleb? He does love his mother, that much is clear. Too clear, really.

Now, I happen to believe that they’re expressing their love in a severely disordered way, and that their particular brand of love should not be turned into a legal institution, nor should it be considered a good enough reason to allow the institution of marriage to include mothers and sons. Yes, they love each other, and nobody has ever said that a mother should not be allowed to love her son, or that a man should not be allowed to love another man, but some of us have said that those kinds of love should not be expressed through sexual intercourse and they cannot be fortified by the covenant of marriage. The maternal love from mother to son is beautiful and good, just not when it’s turned into a fetish. That has been the logic, anyway, but it’s no longer available. We’ve been informed that love is love is love is love is love. If that’s all it takes for Adam and Steve to get married, why not Monica and Caleb?

If you accept the progressive premise in the former case, you cannot suddenly abandon it in the latter. It makes no sense. You’re being intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

Of course, these are not the only rationales offered for gay “marriage.” There are others:

I was born this way.
I can’t choose who I love.
It’s [current year]!
I have a right to be happy.
I should have the same right as people who do not share my proclivity.
This kind of sexuality exists in the animal kingdom.
Don’t be narrow minded.
Stop judging.
Stop imposing your religious beliefs on me.
And so on.

Under each argument, right down the line, without exception, Monica and Caleb qualify. As do folks in the bestiality and pedophile and polygamist communities. A slippery slope? No, there is no slope. It’s a straight plunge into the abyss. ”Traditional marriage” was a separate and distinct thing, and could be justified using arguments that don’t apply to anything but itself. It existed on hard ground and was built on a solid foundation with walls and a roof and everything else. Once you tear all of that down and dig out the ground from underneath it, the descent into utter madness and depravity is inevitable, sudden, and unstoppable.

Progressives spent decades calling the slippery slope argument against gay “marriage” a fallacy, so they are now reluctant to admit that everything conservatives said in that regard was plainly true, and will soon come to fruition. But they’ll be less bashful about it as time goes on. In fact, some have already grabbed the dynamite and tried to blow open the floodgates.

Slate ran an article not long ago calling for the legalization of polygamy. A college professor from New York released a book recently, offering a “philosophical analysis” of adult-child sex. This is another in a long line of progressive attempts to not-so-subtly normalize pedophilia. Time Magazine posted an editorial several years ago asking whether incest should be legal. And, always on the forefront of liberal lunacy, Canada was told by their Supreme Court a couple of months ago that bestiality is permissible, so long as there is “no penetration” involved. Sadly, as far as I’m aware, nobody has come to the defense of our necrophiliac friends yet, but I’m sure they’ll have their time in the sun soon enough (although I suppose they’d prefer to operate at night).

This is why conservatives, what few still exist, cannot afford to compromise or give up ground. When you forfeit the truth to appease the mob, you will never get it back. If you relent and concede that the truth does not matter in one case, how can you expect to suddenly assert its authority in another?

It may be too late to win the gay “marriage” argument now — at least for a while — but we cannot give up making the argument, however fruitless it may seem. If we do, then we will not have it available to us when the left comes knocking with pleas for polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and whatever other twisted horror they can conjure in their heads. It’s clear that once they argued for one perversion, they really argued for them all. And so we must argue against them all, or else we have not really argued against any.

###end

Love is Love! Until it’s Not…

This was all so predictable.

In case you missed it, a son given up for adoption and his birth mother, reunited now that he is 19 and she is 36, are in love and want to be married. They cite the Hallmark card known as the majority decision in Obergefell for justification and they are 100% right – on the law, if not the morality.

36E86C3600000578-3725551-image-m-33_1470412208712Obergefell’s decision was written so extra-judicially, so grievously absent a limiting principle, that the law is on their side and no matter how many “Ick!”‘s the right AND the left utter, too bad.

Notably, the right is upset because – really – do I even have to articulate it? The left is upset because it makes them look bad. As if any sentient adult couldn’t have seen this coming a mile away.

Why do lefties always not see the inevitable backfire* of their stupid ideas? Every. Friggin’. Time.

Oh well! You built that, gang!

Enjoy Steve Deace’s column below. I couldn’t possibly have said it better myself.


Dear Rainbow Jihad,

Why isn’t there any room at the end of your LGBTQWTF gender-bending train for a mom and her son who like to get busy with one another? Where do you get off denying consenting adults their feelings?

After all, “love is love” and “same love” and all that, right?

If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against two consenting adults at all?

Comments on at least one progressive website are calling this incestuous New Mexico hook up icky and gross. Um, why, pray tell? Whatever happened to “love wins?”

Or have you been lying to us this whole time?

Because it seems to me poor Monica Mares, 36, and her son Caleb Peterson, 19 — who Mares didn’t raise and offered up for adoption after she had him as a teenager — are cruel victims of a terrible double standard. They face up to 18 months in prison if found guilty of incest at a trial next month. But all they have done since they reunited with each other last Christmas is love each other. They lived happily together in Mares’ mobile home with her two youngest children, and Mares’ youngest son even began calling Peterson (his brother) ‘dad’.

A little strange perhaps, but in a world of ‘my two daddies’ and Bruce Jenner winning ‘woman of the year’ honors, I would have thought ‘who am I to judge’ was standard-issue moralizing by now. A new book was even just released called Pedophilia and Adult-Child Sex, which is described as “a philosophical analysis” of what “intuitively strikes many people as sick, disgusting, and wrong. The problem is that it is not clear whether these judgments are justified and whether they are aesthetic or moral.”
C’mon, man, get on the right side of history! All the cool kids are doing it. Do you bigots want to go back to banning interracial dating or something?

Mares, for her part, at least has the courage to sprint to the progressive Valhalla when others only dare to crawl. What an inspiration, that wonderful mother of nine. In fact, she is so unfazed by the threat of jail, she insists she would even give up the right to see all her other kids should the courts demand she choose between them and her mother lover.

Why on earth would anyone stand in the way of such a powerful urge, perhaps their one and only shot to be who they truly are?

“We (are) both consenting adults,” said Peterson. “It’s just like the gays. This whole case is about whether I have the right to love somebody and I sure as hell have the right to love Monica. You can’t tell me who to love, who not to love.”

That’ll preach. Go tell it on the mountain, Caleb, over the hills and everywhere.

If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against two consenting adults at all?

“But what about genetic birth defects,” you say? Have ye not heard of the sacred right to kill your own offspring? They wouldn’t stop yelling about it just a few weeks ago at the Democrat National Convention. It’s all the rage.

Bottom line: Every child must be a wanted child, and if that child ain’t wanted, Dr. Gosnell is ready and waiting to see you. I fail to see what the problem is. Besides, what if a father and son want to get their freak on? Since neither has a uterus, there’s no risk of a conception, so why not let their freak flag fly?

I sincerely hope you precious snowflakes/social justice warriors aren’t just as guilty of “discrimination” as those bitterly clinging to their guns and their Bibles. Where is your sense of diversity? Your desire for tolerance? Where is your ‘get your government out of my bedroom and my ovaries now? Where is your sense of justice here?

As we speak, Mares is forced to walk the streets and suffer shameful indignities at the hands of those who approach her on the street and “call me incest.” Can anyone say “hate crime?” If there’s no place for BYU in the Big 12 Conference because it refuses to sanction sex among non-married heterosexuals on campus, then there’s no place for this blatant bigotry, either.

You’ve already heroically shut down businesses for not participating in homosexuality, as well as moved the NBA all-star game because North Carolina dared to deny men in skirts and lipstick fulfilling their fantasies in the girls’ bathroom. So what on earth are you waiting for? Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Not to mention fair is fair. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So get equal already. If this applies to the homosexual couple recently “married” by Vice President Joe Biden, please explain why it doesn’t apply to Mares-Peterson. And no, crickets chirping isn’t an answer. Let freedom ring!

“Sometimes the easy way isn’t the best way,” Peterson said. “Sometimes we have to make that life decision that’s going to change and affect everything but when it comes down to it, it’s worth it.”

That’s powerful stuff, which once again proves that heroes don’t always wear capes, my friends. Sometimes, they just really, really, really love their moms.

###end


* I have written previously on another spectacular backfire resulting from Obergefell here.

#NeverTrump7 = BREAK GLASS in CASE of “A Republic, if you can keep it” EMERGENCY

I’ve had this tweet pinned since before Memorial Day:

A week or so later, I was thrilled beyond description to see this paragraph in The Hill:

And then June 4th I see this, Dear GOP Convention Delegates: Declare Your Independence”  by Steave Deace at Conservative Review, which I have excerpted below the line.

I sure hope this is the beginning of something…

If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why do we have conventions anyway? Who are these delegates? These crazy people on the floor with the straw hats and the pins and the red/white/blue shirts?” Steve offers an answer* but I would like to offer my own.

What if the primary winner dies? (God forbid! And I mean that sincerely. As catastrophic as I believe a Trump – or Hillary – Presidency would be, we don’t want anyone harmed. Ever.) Think about it. What if it’s right now, the beginning of June, 5 weeks from the convention, 5 months from the November election. We’ve just had a year of campaigning. Seventeen candidates, save one, dispensed with. What if something happens?

We couldn’t POSSIBLY get a 50 state mulligan (57 states & territories, actually, but let’s not be persnickety). There’s NO WAY we could have a do-over. For the OBVIOUS logistical reasons, but also the Constitutional question. The people had their say. They cast their votes, chose their delegates. It’s done. You can’t disenfranchise those millions of people. You just can’t.

Thus, the delegates system. THAT’S WHY THEY’RE THERE. “Break Glass in Case of Emergency.” Now, typically, they vote the way their states voted and it’s desperately anti-climactic, the nominee having achieved 50%+1 of his party’s popular vote and 50%+1 (=1237) of his party’s delegates.

But we don’t have that this time. Trump’s achieved roughly 40% of the popular vote of his party. 2 of every 5 Republicans. 3 of every 5 Republicans voted NOT Trump. Perhaps not affirmatively negative (!) but OTHER than, to be sure.

And the delegates “win”? Hardly resounding. Trump will be sent limping to Cleveland. The stupid frickin’ corrupt RNC purposely crowded the field with a dozen candidates knowing Jeb was worse than beige-Volvo-vanilla and needed the field fractured to emerge with the most votes/delegates.

Then Trump happened. And it backfired spectacularly. S-P-E-C-T-A-C-U-L-A-R-L-Y.

I won’t go through the whole history of 2nd ballot Presidents (or 2+ ballots) but it’s happened before. Several times. We got Lincoln that way.

Anyway… Trump should be any sane, sentient, moral person’s own personal red line. I can’t vote for him. I can’t. With Hillary or Donny it’s like being forced to choose which I wanted amputated: Hands? Or feet?

I choose neither.

I choose BREAK GLASS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY.

*I did not include that portion of his article below, but you can see it in his original text.


DEAR GOP CONVENTION DELEGATES: DECLARE YOUR INDEPENDENCE

…(The new book, “Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate” is) co-authored by Curly Haugland, a 17-year veteran member of the RNC, who also currently sits on the powerful rules committee for the convention[.] The book uses the RNC’s own actual rules to make its case all GOP delegates are not bound to vote for Donald Trump (or anyone else as the nominee) who violates their conscience. …

If Haugland is right, and he is on the rules committee after all, then not a single GOP delegate is bound to vote for Trump as the Republican nominee. Especially given that Trump’s politics and character make him a far better standard bearer for the Democrats.

And lest anyone think this sounds like Obama picking and choosing which laws he’ll uphold, these RNC rules are in place to protect the system from just such a leader. See, this is how a republican form of government works. The popular vote puts a check-and-balance on the political class, but elected representatives (in this case delegates) put a check-and-balance on the unbridled passions of a wayward electorate. It’s why the Founding Fathers gave us mechanisms such as juries and the Electoral College in the first place.

This is now your role in preserving our constitutional republic if you are a GOP delegate.

This is why our representatives take an oath “so help me God” and not “so help me will of the people.”  …Never fear, delegates. You have the green light. Now all you need is the same sense of duty and courage that drove our Founding Fathers to dedicate their lives, fortunes and sacred honors to a cause that would keep generations of Americans free from the various and relentless yokes of tyranny.

Oh, and that doesn’t mean “let’s compromise and move passive-aggressively on the floor to make Ted Cruz the running mate because, unity.” If you admire Cruz’s courage of conviction, and see him as a future standard bearer for our ideals, you will dare not paint him into such a corner. … Cruz has taken more flack on our behalf than pretty much any Republican in recent memory, so he deserves a much better fate than that no-win scenario. Instead, focus your ire where it belongs. …

Don’t let the media that hates you pick your nominee (again). Insist this July that we will be led by a leader who respects the laws of nature and nature’s God, instead of a crude populist whose tantrums seduce us from both the left and the right. The country deserves much better, as does the party of Lincoln and Reagan which you now steward. It’s either that, or we may sadly look back years from now as the moment you helped accelerate American Exceptionalism’s collective fade to black.

###

Friends Don’t Let Stupid Friends Vote. Here’s How.

Know how Ted Cruz won Utah with 69% of the vote? And won most of the caucuses handily? And most of the Republican-only primaries? 

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz has offered a brilliant, near-term, totally doable solution to the problem of a “Dancing With the Stars” electorate, and it doesn’t involve any odious “literacy tests”… except it sort of does.

He offers what we may one day call “The Utah Solution” to stupid people voting and fouling up our Republic. He makes who votes bottom-up+self-selecting rather than top-down+we-know-what’s-best-selecting. He envisions a system 100% open to anyone who cares to participate yet by its very nature, separates the wheat from the chaff.

I offer a few salient paragraphs below, as it’s a long read, but when you have fresh coffee, take some time with it and read the whole thing. It’s great.


THE CASE FOR REFORMING PRIMARIES

By: Daniel Horowitz | June 02, 2016
.
…Until 1912, most states still used the convention method during presidential elections, but that changed with the emergence of Teddy Roosevelt as the progressive leader. As Professor Sidney Milkis, a noted scholar on the progressive era, observed, Roosevelt’s “crusade made universal use of the direct primary, a cause célèbre.” Roosevelt went on to win most of the primaries, but conservative Howard Taft won the states that still had conventions and therefore won the party’s nomination at the national convention. However, Roosevelt’s views lived on through the election of Woodrow Wilson. It’s no coincidence that progressives succeeded at changing the nominating process precisely as the “newly emergent mass media” became dominant in our political culture, as Milkis puts it.

.
Sound familiar to our time? Mass media and campaign advertisements determining the nominee among “the people?” As one groups of political scientists declared in a 2004 study on the effects of direct primaries, “the direct primary stands as one of the most significant and distinctive political reforms of the Progressive era in America.” While the 17th Amendment is what allowed progressives to ensure half the country would elect senators in line with the views the elites use to manipulate the masses, the institution of direct primaries ensured that even in conservative states only progressive Republicans would be able to survive the money/media/name recognition juggernaut. 100 years later, with a progressive oligarchy in Washington, they can declare mission accomplished.

But Aren’t Conventions Smoked Filled Rooms?

Progressive proponents of direct popular vote primaries complain that conventions allow the party hacks to choose the nominees behind the doors of “smoke filled rooms” without the input of the people. And undoubtedly in some states in the 1800s that is exactly what happened. But the convention model we are speaking of – “the Utah style convention” – achieves the perfect middle ground between the tyranny at both ends of the spectrum from oligarchy to pure democracy.

In Utah, every neighborhood holds a caucus meeting where people who are familiar with each other debate and discuss the races at hand. They select a delegate to represent the precinct at the convention. In the Beehive State, there are 4,000 delegates – all selected by the people in a process that tends to attract high information voters. This is true representative democracy our Founders envisioned, one which would foster an informed patriotism.

The benefits of representative conventions to choose party nominees include the following:

In most states the selection process would be dominated by grassroots activists.
Money and media would play a relatively minimal role in choosing the nominee.
Conservatives could put numerous Senate seats and dozens of House seats in play per cycle in the 25 more conservative states. The threat of numerous senators and House members in the South and Great Plains knowing that a Mike Lee-style conservative could down them at a convention the same way Senator Bob Bennett was defeated in Utah could instantly change their behavior. At present, primary challenges are so unsuccessful they rarely serve as a deterrent in the long-run.

The prospect of winning with a grassroots ground game, without the need for a massive money and media campaign, would attract better conservative talent to run for office.
The requirement to show up for precinct caucuses would automatically end the odious practice of “early voting” in primaries, which not only has a disruptive effect in fluid presidential primaries, but hurts insurgent congressional candidates who tend to surge during the final week – after “voting” has already begun.

Selecting state government officials through conventions would help build up a cadre of state governments that push back against federal tyranny. At present, Republicans control the trifecta of state government in 23 states, yet conservatives cannot count on a single state to consistently fight for conservative values because either the governor or state legislative leaders are part of the GOP establishment black hole.

Our Founders left us a republic – one which was divided between the rights of the individual and the powers of the states and federal government. The federal government itself was divided into three branches, which were supposed to serve as checks and balances against each other. That system has gradually been replaced with a political party system. Conservatives can’t even rely on a conservative party to save us, even as the federalist system has collapsed. …

(The entire article, well worth your time, is here.)

###