A Party in the Dark

Keeping the Party in the Dark:

An Analysis of a District Republican Convention
James Duvall, M. A.

“It seemed crooked to me.”
Jami Duvall, age 13

I am a Republican.  I feel that the country is going to wrack and ruin, and I want to do my part, not to hasten that wreck, but to try to avert it.  At least if it happens I want to be able to say I didn't just stand there and watch.  I have always been a voter; my first vote was cast for Ronald Reagan; but I suppose my political interests first began to mature when I started attending the Teaparty.  This is a Grass-roots political organization to encourage participation in politics at the local level, and to help ordinary people inform themselves and others about what is going on in our country and the world.

Knowledge is power.  When you know you can't help getting involved.  When you realize how few people actually run this country, and how few people really take part, then you realize that just a nudge or two in a certain direction can sometims really make a difference.  One vote on the right committee, or in a key precinct, can literally determine the political future of the country or state for quite a long time, often against the wishes of the majority.

It is with this knowledge and in this spirit that I got involved in the local Republican party convention, and I am reporting my views and impressions of the challenges and problems involved.  I wish to tell you why I think that though many people you meet agree with the platform and positions of the party they do not agree with its hands-off élitist attitudes, and the political maneuvers designed to maintain the control of certain privileged characters, mostly with money.  This a charge that you hear in the press regularly, and which I have now experienced first hand.

First, I object to the fact that we had a cadre of party “leaders” installed upon the platform when the Convention began.  We were not introduced to these people and many of us did not even know who they were.  The chairman, who for lack of knowing his name, or who he is, or who even installed him, I shall call Mr. Not-a-Hair-Out-of-Place, did not bother to introduce himself or anyone else.  Those whom I did know did not inspire my confidence, Mr. Sheriff Korzenborn, of whom I had heard something politically inappropriate, Ms. Tammi Wilson, whom I shall call “yellow legs” because of the ridiculous way she was dressed, and of whom I knew only how bad and intemperately she had acted at our Boone County convention, and there were a few others. 

I try to make myself informed of what is going on around me, and of course I notice everything.  (I hope I am not getting to be some kind of Hedda Hopper of North Kentucky politics.) 

Several of the committee people I had reason to doubt the credentials of, and will state that knowledge here.  First, there was Ms. Rachel Jacobs, a paid political operative.  I do not think that people who work for our elected official should be placed in these positions.  There is too much temptation to work for certain political candidates and officials instead of the good of the people and the party.  Second, there was Mr. Scott Kimmich.  When I saw him in the registration area I asked someone what he was doing here; the last I knew of him he was the chairman of the Democratic party in Boone County.  I have an article in which he is requesting the resignation of our local jailer, Mr. John Schickel, for becoming a Republican.  Now, I respect someone who becomes a Republican from conviction, but I do not respect an opportunist.   What have we here?

The first and main issue I will take up is the refusal to seat the delegations from two Kentucky counties.  This was unconscionable.  I must here express and vent my moral outrage.  The only comfort I have is the knowledge is that sixty other delegates, almost half of those present, agreed with me.  With six or seven more people we could have defeated élitism and ignorance (for a large number of people simply were not aware of what was at stake).  If I had had two minutes on the stand to explain the situation both delegations would have been seated by an overwhelming majority.  As it was they had a slight majority, and in the United States of America the majority rules, even if they aren't well informed on what they are voting about.  That is part of the risk of our system.  But that doesn't make wrong right; an action approved by a majority can still be repugnant and morally reprehensible.  This one certainly was.

Now it needs to be rectified to the extent that it can.  I plan to introduce a motion at the next meeting of the Boone County Republican party to condemn this action, to give our apology to the delegations not seated, and to call on the district and state conventions to issue formal condemnations and  apologies for the action.  This is only right.

I would also like to have a recall vote on the current district officers, starting with Mr. Not-a-Hair-Out-of-Place, and Yellow Legs, and replace them, instead, with people who are sensitive and open.  I am tired of the machine.  Knowledge is power, a term coined by our first major American author, Washington Irving.  I want the process to become a means by which those who are interested enough to take part can inform themselves of the issues, and with this knowledge make a difference.  This should be the real business of the party, which is not simply a means of political control.  It appears to  me that as the thing operates now it is a means of keeping as many people as possible in the dark.

All committee meetings should be open for observation to party members, certainly to other delegates.   This is the way grass-roots information is generated. 

As it is the committees become tools for political manipulation.  I don't like it, and I think a whole lot of other Republicans agree with me.  I guess I will know before long whether or not people agree with me.  Perhaps no one will speak, maybe no one really cares, but it is important for someone to tell the truth, even about us Republicans.

How are we kept in the dark?  Well, besides not even being introduced to the “leaders” of this party convention, we were given slates of candidates, most of whom we didn't even know.  Could not at least everyone nominated have stood before us, so we would know who they were?  I think that is a pretty pitiful business. 

It is like Russia where they used to pass out the ballots in sealed envelopes and everyone took one and dropped it in the box.  Once a man opened his ballot and the secret police jumped on him:  “What do you think you are doing?”  “I just wanted to see who I was voting for.”  “But that is not allowed, Comrade, it's a secret ballot!”  And that is just about the was it was at the supposedly free Republican district convention held in Hebron yesterday.  It was practically a secret ballot, since the list of names did not correlate with faces, and there were no alternative slates or candidates permitted.  Again, I think that's a pitiful business.  However, if you are interested in control rather than a free flow of ideas that's the way to handle it.

Also,  we voted that the temporary rules become the permanent rules, but who of us had even seen the rules?  I am sure there are all kinds of subversive “Exception 319a” —  these-rules-only-apply-when-the-big-shots-say-so, type of things.  Just imagine the possibilities and you will understand.

Why would the “leaders” of the Republican district convention want to exclude two county delegations?  This is a good question, but I am afraid the answer stinks.  I am not afraid to tell you that both delegations were legitimate.  I talked to the delegation from Harrison County for about twenty minutes.  You see my grandmother was born in Harrison County, and I have visited there, and we had plenty to talk about.  The delegates were Edith Rowand and Bryan Lutz.  I promise you they were exactly who they said they were; they were not Communists or Democrat spies, as Ms. Rachel Jacobs seemed to think. 

Then there was the delegation from Lewis County, they weren't spies either, I knew them personally, Judge Thomas Massie and his beautiful wife, as well as the Lewis County chairman, whom I met at the meeting, a fine young man.  Someone “lost” their paperwork.  I can believe it was lost, but who “lost” it, Ms. Jacobs?  You cannot convince me that these people were not legitimate representatives of their respective counties.  I knew that, Rachel knew that, a lot of other people knew that.  We are talking about a total of five people to be seated as delegates.  You would have thought it was a subversive horde trying to take over the entire meeting.  So why weren't they seated?  Apparently it was a personal pique on the part of Mr. Geoff Davis, Rachel's political master.  That's why I think political operatives should not be placed (note I said placed) on these committees.  And it was in such contradiction to what he said.  My son noticed that.

Jami Duvall, my son, was the youngest person present at the meeting.  He is thirteen years old, and a very intelligent child, and so his perspective is important to me.  I note that in five years he will be of voting age, and I think a certain amount of political education is necessary to be qualified to vote.  When the vote was made not to seat the two delegations my son whispered to me that Mr. Davis had said in America everyone got to take part!  He didn't know Mr. Davis was the reason they were not seated.  Why this dichotomy of speech and action?  I think we see it a lot in our politicians, and we need to take them to task for it. 

On the way home I asked my son what he thought of the whole thing, and he said, “It seemed crooked to me.”  There it is in a nutshell.  I think it would appeared the same way to any fresh-faced youngster.  Do you wonder why young people get cynical, and don't get involved in the process?  Their innate sense of fairness would condemn this kind of action of not even letting others get on the playing field?  That is similar to those Republicans who objected to Ken Moellmann running for office.  Some of us think even Libertarians have a right to play the game!  Those who don't include others are furthering the élitist fascistic agendas of the likes of Hillary and Obama.

I think any young person, as well as many older people would have considered this action in refusing to seat five legitimate delegates to be little, and élitist.  It was a political slight aimed at exclusivism, and that is a major charge made constantly against Republicans.  Unfortunately it is a true charge.  We are going to change that, now, because it has to be changed if the Republican party is going to take the leadership initiative that it must take if the country is to survive with any semblance of liberty and sane freedom.  If it is even to survive financially.  This is why I am going to introduce my motion for apology.

I have a lot more that I wanted to say, but I will limit myself to just a single plea that we start doing things because they are right, not because they further a narrow partisan agenda.  First, those who voted against this outrage have reason to be pleased.  There is still decency and right in this country and in our party.  You and I know that “follow the rules” can be used by certain people to install Nazis or Communists.  Instead, we must let our hearts go out to our fellow men (without letting our heads turn into mush),  more especially when they are men and women of our own party.  As it is the rules seem to be the exclusive property of the élite, Mr. Not-a-Hair-Out-of-Place's people.  We need to break that stranglehold, and introduce the rules of public discourse, in which heart and head work together to include every voice, and to work together to reach conclusions that are right.

So let us be a voice for good and right.  Let's try to do things in such a way they don't appear crooked to the younger generation who will be in the game with us in just a few short years.  If we are determined to treat our fellows as we would be treated, that is, to follow the Golden Rule, we will have initiated the most basic platform for regenerating America.    Our convention failed yesterday, but the error need not remain.  The almost-majority minority expressed their contempt for this treatment of our fellows.  I find encouragement in this fact.  I believe together we will overrule the spirit of faction and controllishness in the end, and this can be the beginning of something beautiful:  love for each other in spite of our differences.  It is the only answer.  And this will become a permanent legacy to future generations.

James Duvall, M. A.
Big Bone University
Nec ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem.Big Bone, Kentucky

Note:  I recommended a book to several people at the convention.  This is Jonah Goldberg,  Liberal Fascism:  The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (2007).  You can read this with great profit, but remember it is not only Democrats who are fascists.  Fascism is rule by an élite, and this we had an example of yesterday.  Let's don't fall for it again.

The Grass-Roots Federalist

Federalist Paper No. 9

"Union a Safeguard against Faction and Insurrection"

James Duvall, M. A.

with Jami Duvall, age 13

Grass-Roots Teaparty Boone County Kentucky

Meeting of 27 Feb 2012 Florence, Kentucky

Hamilton begins his paper with the statement: "A firm Union will be of the Utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection." He never really proves this statement; rather he clears the field of some objections so that this will become self-evident. Hamilton answers the objections of those who oppose Union on the grounds that a Republic can never be large. He points out that some of those opposed are consistent enough to propose the division of the larger American states then in existence.

This Hamilton considers to be folly. The chief grounds advanced by those who opposed the Union were certain passages in Montesquieu's "Spirit of the Laws" (1748). Hamilton proceeds to show that elsewhere Montesquieu explicitly elaborates how a Confederacy of Republics can enjoy the advantages of both a Republic and a Monarchy.

Montesqieu says that a larger confederation of Republics will not squabble among themselves, like independent Republics. If there is insurrection in one of them, they will have means to quell it. If one part propagates abuses, then the healthy parts can band together to correct the problem

Hamilton does not say there will be no factions or insurrections. He does not say there will be no abuses — he says there will be safeguards, and means to correct the problems through division and balance of power. Hamilton almost assumes there will be abuses, but that there will almost automatically be moves to counter the abuse — up to and including the use of armed force.

Hamilton points out a major strength of the Federal system: The constituent states are not supersceded by the Federal Government, but are an integral part of the system. Federalist Paper No. 50 goes into much more detail concerning the partition of powers, and there it is pointed out that there are under this system two separate systems of government under our Constitution, "the compound Republic of America".

This division or separation of power is the most important feature of our system of government. Hamilton states five principles of government understood better in his time than they had been in the past:

Note: At the meeting these principles were stated and elaborated by my son Jami, age 13.

1. Distribution of Power into Branches.

2. Checks and Balances within the Legislative Branch. There are two houses, each with its own powers and relations to the rest of

the government, that is the Senate and the House of Representatives.

3. The institution of an independent Court system. The other two branches had a part in appointing the judiciary, but could not diminish salaries, and the justices held their appointment for life, on good behavior. (A good behavior qualification should be inforced for the other two branches also!)

4. Elective Representation. This gives the People a larger share of the power.

5. Enlargement of the scope of the Republican system. Republics, it was now known, can be consolidated into a larger Federal system.

This fifth point is the one Hamilton is arguing for throughout the Papers, and he is concerned here to remove some of the objections made to large Republics. This system is equal both to the challenges of defending from enemies abroad, and taking care of internal disturbances.

Note: After some discussion the floor was returned to the original speaker, who produced a copy of Montesquieu's "Spirit of the Laws", remarking that it was in such bad shape it had probably been Hamilton's copy.

Book 9 chapter 1 of the "Spirit of the Laws" begins: "If a republic be small, it is destroyed by a foreign force; if it be large, it is ruined by an internal imperfection." This is exactly the subject Hamilton is discussing.

Montesquieu goes on to name other Confederate Republics at the time he was writing (1748), particularly Holland, Germany, and the Swiss cantons. Holland he says is made up of fifty smaller republics. All of these are considered by Europe to be "perpetual republics". Such a Republic, he says, can withstand external force and support itself without internal corruption. "The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty."

Therefore there are two benefits: (1) the benefits of small republics, and (2) externally they possess the advantages of large monarchies. There is no doubt this passage was in the minds of our founders in framing the Constitution. Montesquieu discusses the importance of each of the confederated states having a republican government. (Bk. 9, ch. 2)

Notice this is quaranteed by our Constitution. Article 4, section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

This article of the Constitution embodies the ideas Hamilton is discussing in Federalist Paper No. 9, and is an outcome of the theories of Montesquieu concerning the federation of Republics.

Note: A paper by H. L. Mencken about the importance of the Constitution in limiting government and preventing abuses, was also read, as follows:

The Constitution

A constitution is a standing limitation upon the power of the government. So far you may go, but no farther. No matter what the excuse or provocation, you may not invade certain rights, or pass certain kinds of laws. The lives and property of the people are at you disposition, but only up to a plainly indicated point. If you go beyond it, you become a public criminal, and may be proceeded against, at least in theory, like any other criminal. The government thus ceases to be sovereign, and becomes a creature of sharply defined and delimited powers. There are things it may not do.

This device is probably the greatest invention that man has made since the dawn of civilization. it lies at the bottom of most of his progress. It was responsible for the rise of free government in the Greek city states, and it has been responsible for the growth of nearly all the great nations of modern times. Wherever it has passed out of use there has been decay and retrogression. Every right that anyone has today is based on the doctrine that government is a creature of limited powers, and that the men constituting it become criminals if they venture to exceed those powers.

Naturally enough, this makes life uncomfortable for politicians, and especially for the more impudent and unconscionable variety of them. Once they get into office they like to exercise their power, for power and its ketchup, glory, are the victuals they feed and fatten upon. Thus it always annoys them when they collide with a constitutional prohibition. It not only interferes with their practice of the nefarious trade—to wit the trade of hoodwinking and exploiting the people: it is also a gross affront to the high mightiness. Am I not Diego Valdez, Lord Admiral of Spain? Why, then, should I be bound by rules and regulations? Why should I be said nay when I am bursting with altruism, and have in mind only the safety and felicity of all you poor fish, my vassals and retainers?

But when politicians talk thus, or act thus without talking, it is precisely the time to watch them most carefully. Their usual plan is to invade the constitution stealthily, and then wait to see what happens. If nothing happens they go on more boldly; if there is a protest they reply hotly that the constitution is wornout and absurd, and that progress is impossible under the dead hand. This is the time to watch them especially. They are up to no good to anyone save themselves. They are trying to whittle away the common rights of the rest of us. Their one and only object, now and always, is to get more power into their hands that it may be used freely for their advantage, and to the damage of everyone else. Beware of all politicians at all times, but beware of them most sharply when they talk of reforming and improving the constitution.

The Baltimore Evening Sun, 19 August 1935.

Boone County Grass-Roots Teaparty of Kentucky

The Grass-Roots Federalist.

Federalist Paper No. 9        "Union a Safeguard against Faction and Insurrection"

                                                                                         

Science and Censorship

My children are watching "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein. I tried to get this video on Interlibrary Loan and no university library in the country had a copy. Talk about censorhip! It was impossible to borrow, so we bought it. That is my vote for freedom of speech. This video should be watched by anyone interested in academic freedom, or freedom of any kind; besides it is very funny in places. Why else would chidren from four to fourteen be so interested! They find the interviews with scientists interesting too, except they can't stand Richard Dawkins. Vive la Intelligent Design!

 

James Duvall