Strain Out a Gnat and Swallow a Camel: How Reverse Statism Endangers the Republic

If you want to send a message to Washington, you must speak in its language. Washington only comprehends the electorate’s desires based upon the margin of victory between the winning candidate and the losing candidate from the opposing major party.

If Obama wins, third party votes will go unnoticed and unheeded, and liberals will take the victory to be an electoral mandate to buckle down on the policies we don’t want.

Third party votes do not say, “I don’t like either candidate, so I’m voting for a better choice,” but rather, “I’m comfortable enough with the way things are to spend my vote on a losing cause.”

If Romney wins, the message will be that Americans want Obama out of office NOW, and prefer the general direction that Romney is willing to take. The Romney administration will receive this as an electoral mandate to move as far away from Obama’s worldview as possible.

THE PHARISAICAL PATRIOT: "Ugh, that gnat! I'd rather be dragged through the desert than use that filthy blade." (Click to enlarge)

You might think that your one vote in a liberal district is meaningless anyway – although of course if everyone subscribed to that idea and resulting course of action, it would make a huge impact. Even popular vote-wise, every vote for Romney is a slap in the face of Obama. Every vote for a third party candidate is mere graffiti on the wall.

Many third-party voters are humble and well-meaning, and many are just angry and feeling insubordinate. Either way, I ask you to respectfully reconsider the situation. America made one of the worst decisions in her relatively young life four years ago, and to prolong it would be painful for generations to come.

I now present to you a pamphlet on the 2012 election and Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Hopefully it will answer all of your questions.

Romney praying before making a commencement speech. (Jae C. Hong AP)

But Mitt Romney’s a Mormon! (Fear not)

Our White House has been residence to Unitarians, at least one likely Deist, and multiple Freemasons. Is Romney’s Mormonism really any weirder?

Romney walks down the central staircase inside the Statehouse during a ceremony marking the end of his term as governor on Jan. 3, 2007. (Josh Reynolds/AP)

Romnesia: Misconceptions about Romney’s record

Romney is often mocked for being inconsistent. In reality, he has been consistent in a way that would be difficult for most of us.

THREE-WAY WRECK: George H.W. Bush, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton at the second presidential debate of the 1992 election season. Due to America's mostly winner-take-all system, third parties virtually never win, but can still influence the outcome of elections. Scholars speculate that Perot's candidacy might have given Clinton victory, since Perot garnered 19% of the vote that most likely would have otherwise gone to Bush. (AP Photo/Marcy Nighswander)

Reverse statism: A reality check for voters considering third party

If you think an election that can’t be won with your ideal candidate is an election not worth winning at all, think again.

Also of interest: My research paper “Odd Ones Out: Why Third Parties Don’t Fit in the American Political System“.

Just remember: The Federal Reserve. The United Nations. Osama Bin Laden on the loose. The 2008 Financial Crisis. Obamacare. What do these things have in common? Third party voters along with conservatives and libertarians who refused to vote were complicit in their existence.

UPDATE (11/06/12): Why The Founder Of Has Already Voted For Mitt Romney; Former Libertarian candidate: Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for libertarians.

In Batman, the good guy and the rich guy are one and the same…

Is Mitt Romney…Batman?

He does have that super hero jaw line…


(Thanks to my sister Rachel for making the header.)

UPDATE (07/19/2012): My appearance on Demetri Ravanos’ show Morning Drive will be broadcast tomorrow morning on Talk Radio 850 WPTF in Raleigh, North Carolina. Listen online here:

If you’ve read and listened between the lines these days, you’ll find out that I’m the girl to blame for comparing Mitt Romney to Batman. Here’s the link to the transcript of the segment in which Rush Limbaugh read an excerpt of my article on the air:

I also got to talk about this a little bit on The Perdie Patriotic hangout. I called in from a dorm room at Samford University, where I am staying this week for the America’s First Principles of Freedom Seminar by the Alabama Policy Institute and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (I come on at about 11:08 minutes in):



I have not yet seen the film The Dark Knight Rises (its release date is July 20th in fact), but I just came across an article by Nathaniel Botwinick in National Review that adds more detail to the initial analogy I portrayed:

…In The Dark Knight Rises, Bane appears to have much more in common with the violent anarchists associated with Occupy Wall Street than with Governor Romney. He leads a major assault on Gotham’s financial district and stock exchange — in scenes that were filmed in their analogous Manhattan locations to further emphasize the theme of class warfare. Bane then announces that he is handing the city over to the 99 percent. Do these appear to be the actions of a former hedge-fund CEO?

Bruce Wayne is a more plausible stand-in for Mitt Romney. Both men succeeded in the private sector. Bruce Wayne is supported in his endeavors by his controlling stake in Wayne Enterprises, a multinational conglomerate, while Mitt Romney’s success at Bain Capital helped him achieve financial independence. The death of Bruce Wayne’s parents drives him to become Batman, while some speculate that the untimely end of George Romney’s political career propels Mitt Romney. Furthermore, the biggest supporters of both Bruce Wayne and Mitt Romney often say that no one knows who these men truly are. (There are even small echoes: In Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies, the Batmobile is based on the “Tumbler,” a military-prototype vehicle. Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, achieved his greatest success in the automotive industry with the sturdy, compact “Rambler.”)…

There is nothing wrong with using creative cultural references to communicate a message. As I was taught in speech class, orators of the past could connect with audiences through references to the classics, but more frequently now we find ourselves having to make references to things a bit closer to home, like popular culture.

The point in all of this is that opponents of Mitt Romney who tried to use the “Bane” villain as propaganda against him were shallow and made a mistake. Anybody who thinks beyond the sound of the name “Bane” can see that their analogy backfires. Furthermore, wealth is not inherently evil, and as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Mitt Romney demonstrate, it can be and often is used to create and provide positive things.

What I appreciate about the Is-Mitt-Romney-Batman discussion is that it is a creative opportunity to open up dialog on why and how voters have been led to judge Mitt Romney differently from Barack Obama, and what that means for American society. This will in turn bring us back to the important issues of this year’s election, and help voters be more prepared to determine which candidate is best equipped to run the executive branch of the United States government.

I plan to expand on this theme at my column “Not Your Average Read” at The Washington Times Communities in the weeks to come.


War Over Women: Hilary Rosen, Ann Romney, and what American women want

Mitt and Ann Romney with their five sons, five daughters-in-law, and sixteen grandchildren. (Romney family photo)

So, here’s my latest column in the Communities at The Washington Times…

Rosen vs. Romney: The equality of homemakers and the relate-ability of presidential candidates

Who really has a “dark ages” viewpoint of stay-at-home motherhood, and what does relate-ability have to do with being qualified to run the executive branch of U.S. government?

“Hilary Rosen might not have intended to slight stay-at-home moms when she said that Ann Romney ‘has never worked a day in her life’. No decent person who has a clue about motherhood would want to do so because it simply makes no sense.

If you have been raised by a stay-at-home-mom (like I have) or have simply observed the fury that ignited in response to Rosen’s comments, you’ve probably been informed that stay-at-home moms work harder than Congress and actually know how to spend within a budget they’ve been assigned. Stay-at-home moms save the government expense by providing childcare (and often education) for their own children.

‘The homemaker has the ultimate career,’ C.S. Lewis is often quoted as saying. ‘All other careers exist for one purpose only – and that is to support the ultimate career.’

As conscientious consumers, homemakers also stimulate the economy by saving for and buying best for their children, and ultimately raising and investing in future taxpayers.

Furthermore, choosing to live within one provider’s income when able to do so opens employment opportunities for others.

That being the case, Rosen might have intended only to say that Mrs. Romney can’t relate to women who work outside of the home and thus cannot relate to typical American economic challenges.

But the problem with this is that Rosen’s conclusion is illogical…”

(Click here to continue reading)

Here are some thoughtful comments I received:

“…People seem to project a lot on Mrs. Romney. Rich woman – must sit around doing nothing, eating bonbons and hiring nannies to raise her sons. Makes me wonder whether her critics even like their own children, since they’re so ready to believe that a mother who could afford not to would make sure not to raise her own children. Mrs. Romney appears to be doing something right – by all accounts her sons are decent, sharp, and have taken advantage of their many opportunities to lead good lives. Not a spoiled Paris Hilton himbo in the lot of them. Money can buy advantages, but it can’t buy character. That’s learned.

Whether the Romneys are good parents doesn’t seem to me to be in doubt. Whether Mitt really understands the problems facing most Americans is another issue, one I expect to see debated a lot. Given the propensity of the Obamas to live large and lavish, I’m not ready to assume they understand “working class” people any better than the Romneys. And given Michelle’s fondness for $2,000 sun dresses and designer fashion, I’m not sure their supporters have much room to make an issue of the Romney houses and lavish living. It would be better all around if we stuck to the issues and accepted the fact that Obama and Romney are both wealthy. Wealth doesn’t preclude empathy or wisdom, and poverty doesn’t grant them.”

- JWPicht

“…All the sound and fury signifying nothing parses “never worked a day in her life” from its context and turns it into an issue  – out-of-the-home-working vs stay-at-home moms – that Rosen never intended. Rosen, as a PR consultant amongst other things, is smart enough to know that you that you don’t attempt to clarify in this situation – it will just sound like back-peddling – you just take the hits and wait for it to blow over. But it’s an artificial debate, manically seized on by right-wing pundits who see that Romney is losing the female vote by the proverbial street.

So let’s get back to the realities behind the gender gap. GOP controlled legislatures, after their big sweep in 2010, have being putting anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-equal pay legislation on state law books the length and breadth of the country. Unlike the Rosen controversy, that’s not a manufactured notion. That’s why there’s a gender gap…

- RapidEddie

RapidEddie is making a common mistake by assuming that liberal positions on social issues are all that women really want. Has no one noticed that women are a big part of this “GOP controlled legislature” change?

As I mentioned in an article last year:

“…When I interviewed Kellyanne Conway about the midterm elections last year, I brought up the point that in the House of Representatives, the number of pro-life women increased by 60% while pro-choice women diminished by 16%. There are also more pro-life women governors than abortion rights women governors now.

‘It turns on its head what has been the conventional – albeit false – wisdom that for a woman to prevail in politics, the cost of admission is that she be pro-choice and abortion,” said Conway. “That simply is not true. As America’s voting population has become more pro-life and more conservative generally…that’s being reflected now in the elected officials that they elevate.’…”


IT'S NOT JUST WOMEN BEING DEVALUED - IT'S HOME BEING DEVALUED. Historically, home has gone from being the busy hub of work and entertainment for all family members to becoming the place where people are only supposed to hang out when they’re not working (hence the reason why it’s easy to dismiss stay-at-home moms as non-workers). But technological revolutions have started to bring the productivity of home full circle. Perhaps there has never been a better time to be home!