This morning on WRKO Jeffrey Kuhner interviewed the “Lone Republican,” Boston Herald columnist Holly Robichaud, who wrote a column very critical of Scott Brown’s late decision to not run for the U.S. senate seat that was left open by John Kerry. The special election is June 25th.
I normally don’t link to the Boston Herald, because they archive their articles after only a week or so, and you have to pay to see it after that. And I am sure that most readers here are not interested in going through some pay-registration thing just to see some article I have linked. As I have noted in the past, these print dinosaurs still haven’t assimilated to the Internet. I am not going to link to something that won’t be there after only one week, while my post that is linking remains for an indefinite period. In other words, the Herald should want other blogs and websites to link to them, to get more readers to their site, more clicks on their ads, free of charge. But I digress. For this particular Robichaud column, I will make an exception.
Anyway, Ms. Robichaud wrote in her column, among her criticisms of Scott Brown,
… he has disenfranchised far too much of his original base. First to go was the Tea Party. He lost its support during a speech when he denied the party’s contribution to his victory. Brown kicked to the curb the fiscal conservatives when he voted for Dodd-Frank and President Obama’s phony jobs bill. He chipped away at his lunch bucket supporters when he voted for Obama’s fiscal cliff deal that raised payroll taxes. More recently, Brown jilted Second Amendment enthusiasts with his support for an assault weapons ban ….
And Ms. Robichaud in the WRKO interview was again very critical of Scott Brown, who, had he given the state Republicans more advance notice of his decision not to run, they could have had time to get more money and get signatures for ballot petitions. The Republican candidate (if there is one) will oppose either Rep.Ed Malarkey (D-Loonyland) or Rep. Steve Lynch (D-South Boston). The party primaries are on April 30th.
But, like many other misguided souls who naively get involved in politics, Ms. Robichaud has typically put way too much faith in a political hack who has presented himself as just a “regular guy,” who believes in freedom, justice and the American way (or something like that).
In the radio interview, Robichaud expressed her disappointment in Brown, stating that his delayed announcement of non-candidacy has been a “betrayal” to the party. She said, “I have stuck by him…” and “I stood by him,” etc. And in her Herald column, she wrote in the first paragraph, “With less than 23 days to get 10,000 certified signatures for the ballot, the timing of his decision is like leaving a bride at the altar.”
Now, now, now. If she feels like a bride left at the altar by Scott Brown, perhaps it is time for some introspection and reexamining her understanding of the importance and necessity of politics and politicians.
But you see, as the late Jerry Williams pointed out many times on his radio talk shows, politicians are a different breed of human being.
What attracts most politicians to the world of government and The State is power and control, becoming a part of the apparatus in society that has artificial authority given to it, that has monopolies in security and ultimate judicial decision-making that the entire population is compelled by law and by force to have to use. It gives this certain class of people — the Rulers — the right to be above the law, and the power to have the rest of us schmucks show obedience and submission to them. And that’s it.
Scott Brown is no different from the typical sleazebag pol, like Romney, McCain, Ed Malarkey, John Kerry etc. etc. Brown was a state representative who took advantage of a special state senate election to replace then-Sen. Cheryl Jacques, and then as a state senator, he took advantage of a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. In other words, Brown is really a political opportunist who likes government power.
My guess is that Brown voted for the Dodd-Frank atrocity because he foresaw Elizabeth Warren (the architect of Dodd-Frank) as the Democrat nominee in the 2012 U.S. senate race, and Brown wanted to say that he supported that legislation as a means of removing a possible issues-related political weapon that Ms. Warren could have used against him in that race. He did not vote for Dodd-Frank out of principle, in my opinion, because no one could have done that, given what a load of crap it is.
But putting faith in these kinds of people in the world of government and politics is really a waste of time, energy and resources. It is better to spend such time and money advocating the dismantling of all these intrusive, immoral and unconstitutional government programs. And if you must support any politicians, only support those who really will dismantle (not “reform”) all these
communist socialist bad policies. (Like Ron Paul.)
Regarding the pols themselves, and those who hang out with them and those in the Press who act as their stenographers, and those who place themselves in the category of “elite,” or “intellectuals” (Hah! I’m not describing Scott Brown as an “intellectual,” not by a long shot!), as I wrote in my article Politics or Principle, “Too many people just seem to be attracted to the addictive power of the State, and tend to join in the popular witch hunts against those who advocate a society of actual independence under the Rule of Law.”
And in that article I quoted Hans-Hermann Hoppe from his article on Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State. I was mainly using Hoppe’s article to point out that the change from the natural elites and genuine intellectuals to the kinds of power-grabbers, opportunists, parasites and phonies we have now coincided with the increase in size and power of government:
Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes that the “natural elites” of earlier times achieved status and success through their own natural abilities and talents, were characterized by wisdom, bravery and farsightedness, and acted as “judges and peacemakers” out of a genuine sense of duty to others, and often without financial compensation. But their status changed as democracies evolved:
The fortunes of the great families have dissipated through confiscatory taxes, during life and at the time of death. These families’ tradition of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership have been lost and forgotten. Rich men exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortunes directly or indirectly to the state. Hence, they are often more dependent on the state’s continued favors than many people of far-lesser wealth. They are typically no longer the heads of long-established leading families, but “nouveaux riches.” Their conduct is not characterized by virtue, wisdom, dignity, or taste, but is a reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientation, opportunism, and hedonism that the rich and famous now share with everyone else.
Because of the monopolization of law and justice in modern democracies, Hoppe argues, the role of the “natural elites” was taken over by the State apparatchiks as the expanding power of the State was further encouraged by the intellectuals.
On the other hand, while the natural elites were being destroyed, intellectuals assumed a more prominent and powerful position in society. Indeed, to a large extent they have achieved their goal and have become the ruling class, controlling the state and functioning as monopolistic judge.
This is not to say that democratically elected politicians are all intellectuals (although there are certainly more intellectuals nowadays who become president than there were intellectuals who became king.) After all, it requires somewhat different skills and talents to be an intellectual than it does to have mass-appeal and be a successful fundraiser. But even the non-intellectuals are the products of indoctrination by tax-funded schools, universities, and publicly employed intellectuals, and almost all of their advisors are drawn from this pool.