home  |  book  |  blogs  |   RSS  |  contact  |

I Want a President Who Cares About People Like Me The Only Privilege in America is Liberal Privilege

print view

Please! Let's Lose This "Independent for President" Rubbish

by Christopher Chantrill
June 09, 2015 at 12:00 am


JAMES GLASSMAN is a good guy, but he’s ankle-biting when he complains that an independent candidate has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting into the presidential debates in 2016. His inspiration is a poll-gazing piece by the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib.

In his piece Seib tells us that Americans would love someone to take down Wall Street. “Big banks and Wall Street have too much power in Washington,” we say. And we think that “The economic system is stacked against the middle class, and government policies are making that worse.” Then he quotes from a WSJ/NBC poll to tell us that Americans would love an independent to run for president.

No kidding! And a Rick Santorum or a Bernie Sanders running as an independent candidate is going to make a blind bit of difference?

Gerald Seib has a bunch of other faux populist issues to tempt us with, but my horse refuses at the first fence. Anyone that says that big banks and Wall Street are a problem is still living in the feudal age. Banks and nation states go together like ham and eggs. You can’t have a nation state and its standing army without credit markets, and that, up to now, means banks. And it means Wall Street in the US or “the City” in Britain to flog the government’s debt to the middle class. Of course banks and Wall Streeters get too chummy with the politicians; they are both in the government debt business.

So why do so we ordinary people rail on about banks and Wall Street? I’ll tell you. We are peasants or clients of some great corporate lord and don’t have a clue how the economy or the nation state works, and we like it that way.

So what about the idea that “the economy is stacked against the middle class?” Sorry, but I don’t have any patience for that notion either. The system is stacked against the middle class because the middle class votes for government entitlements. These entitlements cost a ton of money, roughly speaking one trillion dollars a year each for government pensions, government health-care, and government education (see usgovernmentspending.com for details). Where do you think all those trillions come from? They come from taxes on labor, mostly. For the average middle class person, that means a pile of payroll taxes and federal income taxes stacked up against them. Don’t like it? Then vote to privatize pensions, health care, and education.

In fact, of course, the average middle class person is terrified by the idea of living without all those entitlements, and so the band plays on, and the taxes, and the banks, and the Wall Street, and the two political parties.

And as for an independent presidential candidate, what difference, at this point, would it make?

When the day dawns that the middle class says: you can take your taxes and your entitlements and shove ’em where the sun don’t shine, on that day it won’t matter whether there are two parties or independent candidates or presidential debate commissions. Because if the American people really wanted limited government, it wouldn’t matter how many political parties and banks and Wall Streets and presidential debate commissions were stacked up against them.

To show how phoney-baloney Gerald Seib is, you only have to look at his table of WSJ/NBC poll results. Table says that 67 percent of Americans are positive about the idea of a presidential candidate who is “an independent candidate not affiliated with either party.” Isn’t that special? But at the bottom of his table is a rather less popular idea for a presidential candidate: “a tea-party movement leader.” Only 33 percent of Americans are comfortable with a tea-party presidential candidate.

The tea party result shows that the whole “independent candidate” idea is fake. People love the idea of an independent candidate in the abstract, but when you put a label on it particularly a label like “tea party” that Democrats and liberals have worked hard to marginalize with political “hate” speech you find that an independent candidate is not exactly what the American people had in mind. If such a candidate should appear, then liberals and their political operatives with bylines would convince the American people that the guy was a whacko bird and an extremist.

Last time we had a significant independent candidate it was Ross Perot in 1992. He appealed to disaffected Republicans that didn’t like the increased taxes they’d got from President “Read my Lips” Bush. Perot helped elect Bill Clinton by siphoning off votes from the Republican ticket. Of course Gerald Seib knows this. For a liberal newsman from the Journal’s news division, what’s not to like?

Jim Glassman? He should know better.

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.

Buy his Road to the Middle Class.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.




“But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.”  —Freddy Arbuthnot
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison

Civil Society

“Civil Society”—a complex welter of intermediate institutions, including businesses, voluntary associations, educational institutions, clubs, unions, media, charities, and churches—builds, in turn, on the family, the primary instrument by which people are socialized into their culture and given the skills that allow them to live in broader society and through which the values and knowledge of that society are transmitted across the generations.
Francis Fukuyama, Trust

Hugo on Genius

“Tear down theory, poetic systems... No more rules, no more models... Genius conjures up rather than learns... ” —Victor Hugo
César Graña, Bohemian versus Bourgeois


“We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.”
E. G. West, Education and the State

Faith & Purpose

“When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of ages—they seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings, and that a refusal to use the means appointed was a damning sin.”
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990


“When we received Christ,” Phil added, “all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.”
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh


A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ’merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy

Faith and Politics

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable... [1.] protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; [2.] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... [3.] the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Pope Benedict XVI, Speech to European Peoples Party, 2006

China and Christianity

At first, we thought [the power of the West] was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity.
David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing

Religion, Property, and Family

But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family. Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit


Conservatism is the philosophy of society. Its ethic is fraternity and its characteristic is authority — the non-coercive social persuasion which operates in a family or a community. It says ‘we should...’.
Danny Kruger, On Fraternity

US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism

presented by Christopher Chantrill

Data Sources  •   •  Contact