*Written by Rob Rimes.

I was late watching this debate, as I had to check the replay. Unfortunately, I wasn’t home and I was unable to take serious notes on it. I was at my boss’ house due to it being the annual national sales meeting for my real job and between the alcohol and festivities, this thing was hard to watch in any serious sort of manner. I regret not being able to give it my full attention but the whiskey and wine were flowing, the girls were distracting to say the least and the copious amounts of food transplanted from several of the world’s most exotic regions somehow took precedence over watching the most recent episode of ‘Three Tyrants and a Wizard’. I do apologize as I have been trying to chronicle every damn one of these things but there are just so many, seven this month alone, and turning down a chance to literally spend the night at a party thrown at the mansion of the Indian version of Caligula is incredibly hard to pass up. Bourbon soaked tits are better to stare at than three dudes arguing over their dicks and the fourth shaking his head because America’s fallen so far that we’re literally having a debate about three dicks.

Now I did go back and read the transcripts from the debate and I did watch Ron Paul’s highlights – the only important parts, as the other three’s highlights would’ve put me to sleep in my hungover stupor. If it wasn’t for my boss’ brother handing me a Bloody Mary when I walked through the office door this morning, I’d probably be curled up in a ball under my desk hiding from the flickering power-draining headache-inducing fluorescent lights over my head. Needless to say, I am not a Bloody Mary fan by any stretch of the word, as it just conjures up the thought of drinking vodka with some ketchup spilled in it, but that fucking cocktail hit the spot today and I’m about 70 percent recovered from guest-starring in the Bollywood version of ‘Eyes Wide Shut’.

I know I’m rambling about my drunken escapades and that might disinterest you, as you came to this article to experience my certain style of critique on these things, so for that I’m sorry. I will do my best to give you the rundown of the debate, as I saw it between nude champagne showers and Chilean sea bass dodgeball.

So I’m just going to go down the line and analyze the candidates one-by-one starting with Rick Santorum. He started by talking about illegal immigration, border fences and telling the story about his immigrant family for the umpteenth time. He got into it with Ron Paul on foreign policy and failed miserably as he tried to cover up the fact that he’s a goddamned idiot on the affairs of Central and South America. I’ll write more on this when I get to Ron Paul, who owned Santorum like a twenty dollar prostitute. Santorum goes on to bitch about Fannie and Freddie and in turn blasts Newt and Mitt for playing personal politics and distracting everyone from discussing the real issues. On the subject of space, Santorum said that America is a frontier country and space is the next frontier to conquer. He calls for the private sector to be more involved with NASA but doesn’t fully support government being out of it. On health care he goes on and on about how awesome he is for trying to create health savings accounts. If you were so awesome, you would’ve got it done pal! He then gets into a health care argument with Romney that is neither interesting or worth writing about but what the hell, I’ll give you the nutshell version. Basically it went something like this:

Rick Santorum: “Fuck Romneycare”
Mitt Romney: “But it was only at the state level Ricky Baby!”
Rick Santorum: “I don’t care Mitt! You’re a bitch and you gave Obama the blueprints to evil!”
Mitt Romney: “Ricky Baby, you’re so silly!”
Rick Santorum: “Jesus Bible! No health care for the gays!”

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich spent most of their time arguing about who was a bigger bastard while both looked like big bastards. Mittens talked about “self-deportation” again. If these guys believe in such a thing as an effective way of handling a situation, can we get them to believe in “self-governance”? If they trust those illegal immigrants to leave on their own accord after sneaking in here in an effort just to come back in a way that is much more difficult, they’ve got to believe that we’re all capable of managing every other aspect of our lives? I mean, they are putting blind faith into something so farfetched that they’ve got to be down with just saying “fuck it” and letting us run our own shit, right?

On the immigration subject, Newt says that Romney is the most anti-immigrant candidate out of the four. Romney gets all pissy and pulls his two Latino cards. The first he pulls is Marco Rubio, the Cuban American senator that came to his defense on immigration. The second card Mitt pulled was Mexico, as his father was born there. I was born in a hospital bro, that doesn’t make me a doctor!

Romney and Gingrich argue about immigration for awhile and then they argue about Fannie and Freddie and who is the biggest crook. Newt, once he gets away from the lame feud for a minute, goes on some tangent about making a moon base. Newt later said that Jacksonville was going to get big pimpin’ because the Panama Canal was widening and would bring them more boat traffic. Shortly after that we were treated to a Santorum-Gingrich-Romney three-way which was like stumbling upon a middle-aged homosexual version of Cinemax at three in the morning. It was a bitch and rant fuck fest that no one in their right mind needed to see, unless of course you’re into middle-aged gay men. If you are, I mean absolutely no disrespect. Do ya thang homegirl!

Fuck all these queens, let’s get to Ron Paul, the only adult in the room. On immigration, he says that if we had a working healthy economy we wouldn’t be so worried about the immigration issue as we’d be looking for workers to fill jobs. He adds that the way we are handling our borders is actually harming our economy. He points out that we don’t have the right amount of resources on the border and that we should pay more attention to our border instead of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

On the Latin America issue, Ron Paul says, “Free trade is the answer.” He throws in the fact that we’d be a lot better off if we practiced free trade with Cuba. He adds that he doesn’t like the idea that America thinks that they can go down to Central and South America and try to dictate which kind of leaders they need down there, as it is none of our business. He says that the best way to influence other nations isn’t by telling them what to do, it is by practicing friendship and free trade. Paul then references Santorum who said that we have to stand up for these nations. Paul explains that standing up for nations often times comes with us imposing ourselves on the people of these countries while picking their dictators, undermining their government and sending them a lot of money. He warns that this sort of tactic always backfires and the people we are “supporting” end up hating us. Ron Paul calls Rick Santorum’s ideas on foreign policy the “bully way”. Paul adds that he knows a better to way to work with people other than using force. Santorum shakes his head, mumbles some stupid crap and then changes his tampon while wiping his bitch tears. Checkmate Paul!

Ron Paul is asked if Mitt and Newt should return the money they’ve made off of Fannie and Freddie and he responds to thunderous applause when he says, “That subject doesn’t interest me a lot.” Paul says that Fannie and Freddie should have been auctioned off right after the crash came. He said that if it was sold, the problem would’ve been “cleansed” by now. Ron Paul says that he’s been trying to prevent this stuff which is why we need to end the Federal Reserve.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asks says that Ron Paul, if elected, would be the oldest president ever. He asks Paul if he would make his medical records public to show the people that he is healthy. Blitzer basically wants to paint Ron Paul as a geezer who could croak tomorrow and I find the question to be repugnant, just as I found it distasteful when the same issue was brought up with Ronald Reagan years ago. Paul said that he’ll prove how healthy he is by delivering an open challenge to all the other candidates to face him in a 25 mile bike ride in the heat of Texas. Ron Paul face-palmed the shit out of Wolf Blitzer and the other candidates with that answer. He also took a shot at Wolf himself when he jokingly pointed out that there are laws against age discrimination and that Blitzer should be careful. Wolf, after getting bitchslapped, tries to cover up the stupid question by asking the other candidates if they’d release theirs. What a tool.

On space spending, Ron Paul says that he would only approve funding on stuff that fits under defense. He says that going to the Moon and Mars is fantastic but that it could be done better by the private sector if their hands weren’t tied. Ron Paul then takes a shot at Newt, saying that he has stretched the truth with all his “balanced budget” claims from the days when he was Speaker of the House. Ron Paul is taking solid shots backed by facts and there is nothing that can be done about it when he brings these guys a dose of the truth. Strangely, Newt Gingrich was very polite and gracious to Ron Paul all night and gave him props for his ideas in several areas.

In the end, the debate was lightyears better than the NBC debate a few days prior. CNN does the best job, in my opinion, and I’ve watched every single one of these debates. Kudos to Wolf for rocking the house, even with a few prickish questions. Ron Paul owned the motherfucker, Santorum did decent if you are into his religio-fascist bullshit while Newt and Mitt looked like a few bickering Tinas arguing over the last pack of Lee Press-On Nails at K-Mart.

And that’s all I got because I immediately returned to my whiskey-scented orgy on the south lawn.

Grading Scale:
Grade A+: Ron Paul
Grade C-: Rick Santorum
Grade D+: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Mitt Romney

*Best debate moment in recent memory:

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Some concepts are so commonplace that we rarely spend any time evaluating them, taking them for granted. Human beings spent centuries converting carbon dioxide into oxygen without ever understanding the complexities of their respiratory system. How many apples were seen falling from trees before Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity? Why is water unquestionably more important than diamonds, yet unquestionably less expensive (if you are curious it’s because of the economic law of diminishing marginal utility.)

An example of this phenomenon in political science is the concept of a political “right” and a political “left”. Fascism, we are told, is a “far-right ideology” while socialism and communism are “far-left”. George W. Bush is “right-wing” while Barack Obama is “left wing”. If Sarah Palin is a “far right” politician, what does that make Ron Paul? Is prohibition “left-wing” or “right-wing”? What is the “right-wing” position on civil rights? The clarity of definition is needed.

Where did the notion of a political right and left come from? The French Revolution. It was first during the National Assembly where those in favor of conserving the monarchy arranged themselves on the physical right while those in favor of revolution were moved to the left. This division would remain as the Legislative Assembly replaced the National Assembly in 1791.  This alignment of French politicians established the political spectrum: reactionaries on the right, revolutionaries on the left, moderates in the center.

While France and her European neighbors were countries founded upon monarchy, state-religion and nationalism, America was founded on liberalism (of the classical variety, today referred to as libertarianism) – it is important to understand the consequences of this difference. By changing the political foundation of a country, you change the political spectrum of the country. George Washington is a revolutionary figure in Europe, but a reactionary figure in American history.  Therefore an American conservative and a European conservative are of two very different ideologies.

While the French Right would go on to support reactionary causes such as a return to monarchy and re-establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be nonsensical to connect these beliefs to the American Right. Likewise it would be similarly nonsensical to arbitrarily connect the position of a certain modern political party to a side on this timeless political spectrum; it is the position an individual or party takes that places them to the left or right. If the Republican Party tomorrow advocated the establishment of Christianity as a state religion, this would be a revolutionary act and a violent rejection of the wishes of America’s Founders.

While Marxist socialism has failed when implemented, Karl Marx is still arguably the most influential philosopher of modern academia. This point is made quite clear whenever one finds an intellectual who views political or economic matters in terms of “class”. Sociologist Robert Maclver in his book The Web of Government wrote:

The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged.

It is quite easy to point out the failure of this position. Constitutionalist Ron Paul, for example, has been the most vocal critic of the Federal Reserve in modern American politics; one of his major criticisms of the reserve is its providing unchecked power to bankers and politicians in American fiscal policy. Deregulation of industry, considered a “far-right” position, empowers consumers at the expense of politicians, bureaucrats and corporations. Unless one wishes to attempt to label the Tea Party as a “far-left movement”, this is an indefensible definition of the spectrum.

So is President Bush, a man who bailed out the banks, advocated for an increased Federal role in education, and a large advocate of international welfare a right-wing President? Is fascism a right-wing ideology, in the American sense? (National Socialism was a return to the policies of Otto von Bismark, which is why it was even considered right-wing in a German sense.)  Is it reactionary to kill abortion doctors?

I think the issue of Gay Marriage provides an interesting view of the right-left spectrum. Are progressives, who are advocating against a Christian bias in government, on the right of this issue? No. Progressives don’t simply want equal treatment, but want to use government to elevate a homosexual relationship to the same level as a heterosexual relationship – an attempt at social engineering. Conservatives (and I use the term in it’s modern usage), similarly want to use government to keep homosexual relationships lower than their heterosexual counterparts, typically grounded on a religious position. This too, I contend, is not a right-wing approach.

The problem, a true American classical liberal would say, is the role of the State in the process.

The reactionary position would be for the government to get out of the institution of marriage entirely. Instead of marriages, which should be between a couple and God, a civil union would be a contract between two sovereign individuals and their government. What’s the difference? To illustrate I will point to the Golden Girls. The sit-com placed three widows and a divorce into a house that became a pseudo-family. The relationships were all platonic, and neither of them would have had interest in marrying another. What they would have had interest in, however, is securing similar familiar rights for occasions such as hospital visitation and financial matters. Blanche should have been able to have a civil union with Rose, with all the benefits and liabilities a contract like that would secure.

This solution retains the philosophy of self-governance advocated by the Fathers, is religiously value-free, and serves to eliminate any attempt (be it progressive or Christian) at social engineering.

I have come to consider the 20th Century to be a Dark Age of Western Civilization; a return to the statist collectivism champions of liberty thought the Enlightenment destroyed. The 1900’s saw the perversion of such key concepts as liberalism and individual rights, best demonstrated with FDR’s Second Bill of Rights. The irony of today’s divide between conservatives and liberals is that neither side is conservative or liberal – it is only a libertarian (not to be confused with a Libertarian) that can intellectually claim to be either an American conservative or a classical liberal. For most of the 20th Century, America has had the choice, not between right and left, but of a traditionalist progressive or a secular progressive. Let’s not allow the same to be said of this century.