gene's blog

Gabriel Topor and I attended the No-Labels convention in NYC yesterday. What an event! The No Labels movement is a manifestation of modern Whig philosphy, no doubt in my military mind!

Somehow the concept of bipartisanship has been spun into something that is a social, or socio-political good. MWP would like all to really think about this for a moment. Think about what bipartisanship has truly effected, empirically, and then decide whether it is a public good.

If I put my "Whig Zen-see" X-ray goggles on, I seem to be pushed to the following conclusion:

Ladies and Gentlemen, as we oft reference "faux leadership", or the distinction between true leaders and followers, I thought we might coin a Whiggy phrase here that exemplifies our general view of The Hill - LEADERS IN NAME ONLY - LINO.

Candidly, the clear distinction between leaders and followers didn't hit me until I went through the leadership course in the Whig Academy.I could feel it viscerally, but it wasn't yet defined until then. It suddenly became painfully clear to me what true leadership is, and that we were surrounded by faux leadership or LINO's.

November 17, 2012

Dear Mr. President,

We modern Whigs extend our congratulations to you Mr. President on your electoral victory. The Nation has spoken, keeping you, our President, in the White House, yet at the same time still electing the some of the "opposition" party to other offices. Our citizens are exhibiting a proper sense of balance as well as bold social progression that their representatives ought take note of.

Picked this off another wesbite, not a political one, where one citizen types this:

" You can't force people to become fed up. Governments can bring people to the point where they are fed up. This is occuring right now but it's not going to happen over-night. There is a need for patience.

It's going to take time for the movement to grow from (a) grassroots to a forest.

We are all blind in one area or another so we have no right trying to lift the blindness of others through personal attacks and name calling, while pridefully not considering our own blindness first".

Mitt's demonstrated little "Whigginess" so far, and MWP wont endorse either of the "corporates" in principle. We like TJ! This Presidential election is all up to you!

Yet, I am curious to know what members and others here think about it.

My first, and yet only, Whiggy take away was to observe that Ryan is, hands down, more of a leader than V.P. Biden. In fact, V.P. Biden represents the follower as self proclaimed leader more than anyone else in the mix, followed closely by his running mate.

A prelinary sketch of my impressions from our 2nd annual....

The candidates that were present with us, Pat and Joe, are exceptionally high caliber individuals. I can only hope that our movement continues to attract this caliber of leader.

We collaborated and sharpened our pencils on many points and issues, and setup procedures to continue to do so.

We somewhat successfully ran a web based convention, although we know now that next time we'll need dedicated personnel to prior test each system to ensure proper and timely scheduling for those joining us remotely.

Yes, that's right! In listening to Shankar Vedantam and Steve Innskeep in today's Morning Edition report "Why Compromise is Bad in Politics" http://www.npr.org/2012/03/13/148499310/why-compromise-is-terrible-politics
I realize that it is indeed the mission of modern Whigs to bring what today's actors call BAD politics to the fore!

Not being any sort of psychologist puts me at a distinct disadvantage when I set out to illustrate the pervasive illogic of today's American political paradigm using simple psychology. In today's blog I would like to at least touch upon the politics of hate.

Hate has become a primary emotion targeted/played upon in electoral campaigns. Not education, not enlightenment, but hate. What makes our politics so vitriolic, and why has this been magnified over the last few decades?

Now, for a die hard modern Whig to get up on his or her "soapblog" and start with a religious quip about a specific group, you ought realize that there is some cognitive dissonance going on. I mean, we've been called the "amoral" party by some, as we do not espouse individual morality publicly. I've found this ironic ( or maybe moronic), as at the time we were labled amoral by some, we had more than one member of the National Executive Committee serving in their church, as an elder, or missionary, or deacon.