I’m an “Antigovernment Extremist”!

    We were astonished recently to discover that an organization of which we happen to be a member is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of "antigovernment Patriot groups," and that the SPLC has asked the government to devote more resources to meeting the threat posed by ourselves. The "Patriot group" in question is the Wellsboro (PA) chapter of the Constitution Party.
    I suppose that we should be flattered by the attention. On a good evening we might have a turnout of a half a dozen or so. We recently held a meeting at a local donut shop where we hatched antigovernment plots while we feasted on the house specialty. (It's amazing what a sugar high will do for one's patriotic fervor!) But the fact of the matter is that the SPLC's list is an outrageous attempt to smear a group of peaceful, law-abiding citizens exercising their right of free assembly.
    The SPLC's website describes "Patriot groups" as groups that "define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order,' engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines." In a letter that the SPLC sent to Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, SPLC President J. Richard Cohen stated that "In the last four years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of conspiracy-minded, antigovernment groups." He claims that the number of such groups grew from 149 in 2008 to 1,360 in 2012. Mr. Cohen warned of "the rage that is building in certain quarters," and stated that "the country has seen an increase in right wing domestic terrorism as the number of hate and antigovernment groups has increased in recent years." He urged Mr. Holder and Ms. Napolitano to "establish an interagency task force to assess the adequacy of the resources devoted to responding to the growing threat of non-Islamic domestic terrorism."
    It appears that Mr. Cohen is something of a conspiracy theorist himself. The SPLC has not yet posted its 2012 list of "antigovernment Patriot" groups, but its 2011 list is on its website. It contains the names of 1,274 organizations. Noticeably absent from the list are any radical left-wing groups. Presumably the Tea Party is a threat to civilization, but Occupy Wall Street, Moveon.org and ACORN are not. Does this betray a political agenda on the part of the SPLC?
    But what about the "tremendous increase" in the number of "conspiracy-minded, antigovernment" groups? On closer inspection it turns out that of the 1,274 groups listed, 174 of them, or 13.7% of the total, are local chapters of the Constitution Party, including our little cabal in Wellsboro. Multiple local affiliates of other organizations are on the list as well. When considered as nationally organized groups, the number shrinks considerably. Moreover, Mr. Cohen claims that there were only 149 such groups in 2008. Yet the Constitution Party has been around far longer than that. It appears that the "tremendous increase" is more the result of the SPLC's statistical gathering techniques than any real change in the political landscape.

    But is the Constitution Party really a "conspiracy-minded, antigovernment" group that defines itself as "opposed to the 'New World Order,' engages in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocates extreme antigovernment doctrines"? We might begin by asking, what is a "New World Order"? If we called it "globalization" instead, would it make a difference? Is it only right-wing "antigovernment" groups that are alarmed by the reach and scope of multinational corporations, and the wealthy elite that controls them? Is the world being taken over by Bilderbergers? What about the "1%"?
    And what constitutes "an extreme antigovernment doctrine"? We in the Constitution Party simply believe that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted in the sense originally intended by its framers. It is a little hard to see how one could be considered "antigovernment" by being patriotic and upholding the Constitution. We seem to recall that even President Obama himself recently took an oath to "faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will, to the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Does this make him "antigovernment"? Or would he be "antigovernment" only if he actually meant what he said? It appears that one man's orthodoxy is another man's "extremism."
    What is especially insidious about Mr. Cohen's letter is his attempt to link the Constitution Party to "domestic terrorist plots," and his call for increased government surveillance. This is, in fact, the mirror image of the bigotry and intolerance that his organization decries in others. Is this the future of democracy?

Here are the links to the relevant websites:
Southern Poverty Law Center 
Constitution Party 

To see the 2011 list of "Patriot" groups click on this link:
"Patriot" groups-2011 

The Other Candidates

     Well it is now less than one week to the US Presidential election, and to hear the mainstream media tell it there are only two candidates running for the office, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  To some of us the menu is unpalatable.
     President Obama is personally likeable, and as far as I can tell honest and sincere.  But his record is lackluster at best.  His policy decisions have often been muddled.  He appointed a bipartisan commission to study the debt crisis, and when it issued its recommendations he ignored them.  He has not proposed a serious budget in three years.  His health care reform program is a bureaucratic monstrosity.
     Mr. Romney is undoubtedly an astute businessman, but he gives the distinct impression of simply telling audiences what they want to hear. His plan to handle the deficit is incomprehensible.  He doesn't want to cut defense spending, doesn't want to raise taxes, and waffled on his running mate's plan to reform Medicare.  He wants to lower marginal tax rates, but won't state which credits and deductions he would eliminate to make up for the lost revenue.
     Both candidates are enamored with a grandiose vision of spreading American democracy abroad and reforming the Islamic world.
     Frankly, both candidates represent what is wrong in Washington today.  They are more intent on getting elected than they are in finding real solutions to the problems that beset us.  There has to be a better way.
     Actually, there is.  President Obama and Mitt Romney are not the only candidates running for president.  There are, in fact, a number of third party candidates who deserve our attention.
     Virgil Goode is the Constitution Party's candidate.  He is a former congressman from Virginia.  The Libertarian Party's candidate is former Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico.  Both the Constitution and Libertarian parties are in favor of balancing the budget immediately, ending the war in Afghanistan, auditing the Federal Reserve, and protecting Second Amendment gun rights. There are some sharp differences between the two parties, however, particularly in the area of social issues.  The Libertarian Party is calling same-sex marriage a "fundamental right," and is in favor of legalizing marijuana.  The Constitution Party, on the other hand, wants to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and is strongly pro-life on the abortion issue.
     Former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson is running for President on the Justice Party ticket.  His position is similar to that of the Libertarians on a number of issues, including the war in Afghanistan and ending the war on drugs. But Anderson also wants a single-payer national health insurance plan and a federally funded jobs program.
     Dr. Jill Stein is the candidate of the Green Party, and she would also like to see a federal jobs program.  She likes to call her plan the "Green New Deal."  It is not certain how either Anderson or Stein would pay for such a proposal.
     Third parties play an important role in American democracy.  They typically address issues that the major parties don't want to touch, and put forward new ideas.
     Many conservative voters are inclined to vote for Romney just to get Obama out of office.  But it makes little sense to vote for Tweedle Dee just to remove Tweedle Dum.  We cannot sustain the current level of deficit spending forever.  To balance the budget we must reform the entitlement programs, cut defense spending, and reform the tax code.  In short, we need to act on the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson Commission.  The reason we don't is because each program and each tax break has its own constituency, and the the politicians are afraid that they will be cutting their own throats if they take a scalpel either to the budget or the tax code.
     Are you "throwing away your vote" by voting for a candidate who has little chance of winning?  You are throwing away your vote by voting for a candidate who doesn't really believe what you believe, and who is part of the problem rather than the solution.  The way to make your voice be heard is by supporting the candidate who is saying what you want to be said.  The third party candidates deserve to be heard.