Do Conservatives Deserve to Lose?

John Eberhard

I am going to reprint several articles in my blog and newsletter that I think are really on the money in terms of describing the political scene in America. The article below is by Dr. Oliver DeMille, the founder and former president of George Wythe University, and a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership.

I think Dr. DeMille has an excellent point below about the way Democrats and Republicans act when the going gets tough. Democrats gather round the wagons, while Republicans throw their fellow Republicans under the bus.

Do Conservatives Deserve to Lose? (Link to original article)

by Oliver DeMille

After the 2012 election, Mitt Romney faced ongoing attacks by a number of liberal pundits; but amazingly he also received a lot of attacks from conservatives, including former supporters.

Dole, McCain and Palin endured the same thing. In contrast, the last three losing Democratic candidates for president were strongly supported by most liberals and eventually two of them were made Secretaries of State and the other the head of the Democratic Committee by President Obama and other Democratic leaders.

When a college girl was ridiculed by the Right for making a liberal comment, President Obama called her to express his support.

President Bush stayed away from such “controversial” things. Indeed, liberals frequently use controversy to further their goals, while conservatives too often just shy away from such opportunities.

Crisis Management

Most conservatives want to avoid crises, while liberals see crisis as the best way to promote their views.

As a result, liberals win more than conservatives.

There are many other examples of this difference between how liberals and conservatives treat people on their own “side.”

Of course, some conservatives are loyal to each other and some liberals attack their own, but on the whole the Left is much more unified than the Right.

For the staunch conservatives reading this: say what you want about liberals, but they stick together.

If conservatives were as loyal, they’d run the country. Literally.

This lack of conservative unity is rooted at least partly in fear of the media.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire

The mainstream media generally has a left-leaning bias, and many conservatives want to avoid criticism at all costs.

But if you haven’t been criticized, you probably aren’t making much of a difference–especially in a field as important as freedom.

Just consider the alternative. What would happen if every time a conservative was targeted and ridiculed by the media, the response was a huge outpouring of strong, vocal support from all conservatives, independents and freedom-loving people?

The Left does it. Why don’t conservatives do it more often?

If they did, more people would muster the courage to speak out boldly for freedom, and we’d put forth very different candidates and elect very different national leaders.

Moreover, a lot more regular people would listen to the freedom message.

The Left wins more often because it is more unified.

How obvious is this? If we are divided while the other side is unified, we will surely fail.

The Definition of Insanity

Conservatives are losing the battle for America, and to turn this around they must stop trying to impress the mainstream media. It will never work anyway, and the more they try, the more splintered they become.

In the process of attempting to avoid criticism, the Right is losing battle after battle to the more unified Left.

The way this works is shockingly sad, and it bears repeating:

· The Left attacks someone on the Right, precisely because his or her ideas have merit.

· The elite media joins the attacks.

· Then (once the person promoting the new idea is targeted and ridiculed by the Left and the mainstream media), others on the Right do an amazing thing–they distance themselves or join in the attacks!

As long as this is the way conservatives do things, they deserve to keep losing.

And lose they will.

The Right may win a few elections, mostly in strongly conservative states, but overall the decades ahead will go to the side that is most unified and loyal.

If conservatives become better at this than liberals, they’ll lead. If not, they won’t.

Loyalty and unity are the first keys to success and leadership. Those who don’t understand this are destined to fail.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Tytler Cycle, Part 4

By John Eberhard

I am writing this article in the weeks after the 2012 election. Certainly conservatives everywhere are in shock.

I believe the Tytler cycle explains a lot about what is going on in America, and specifically the re-election of Barack Obama. I have written three other articles about the Tytler cycle (1, 2, 3).

Alexander Tytler was a Scottish historian who lived at the time of the American founding fathers. Tytler stated:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

  • From bondage to spiritual faith;
  • From spiritual faith to great courage;
  • From courage to liberty;
  • From liberty to abundance;
  • From abundance to complacency;
  • From complacency to apathy;
  • From apathy to dependence;
  • From dependence back into bondage”

First of all, a comment of my own about what makes this cycle happen and what makes it inevitable. In my religion I believe that all men are basically good, but by committing harmful acts they fall away from goodness and begin to do evil. They can be recovered to good and rehabilitated, but this is often a difficult process and the person has to be willing to change himself.

So at least for the present time, there are evil people in the world. And there are enough of these people in the world that they will work ceaselessly to pervert any free government or society and move it toward apathy, dependence and bondage.

We see politicians endlessly offering free handouts. Welfare, food stamps, rent assistance, on and on. We even see politicians offering free handouts like welfare and other goodies to illegal immigrants, and judges saying that it is unconstitutional to take away these free handouts (how does the Constitution guarantee free benefits to anyone, let alone someone who is not a citizen and has even broken the law to come here?). I think that at least some of these people are evil acting people, moving the country on purpose towards dependency and bondage. They know what they are doing, and their end game is bondage (for you, not them). They want massive power and to hang onto it as long as possible. And they can’t get as much power as they want in a free society.

Two factors make me say that we are now in the dependency stage of the Tytler cycle, and moving into the bondage stage.

1. The Percentage of the Population on Public Assistance

Take a look at the graph below, from Fox News.

From 1983 to 2011, we have gone from 30% of US households getting government benefits, to 49.1%. For anyone who’s not very good at math, that’s almost half of US households collecting some type of government assistance. Even 30% is a shocking figure but nearly 50% is beyond bizarre.

Take a look at this graphic showing US civilian labor force participation, i.e. what percentage have jobs.

It goes from 67.5% in 2000, to 63.5% in 2012. Check out the steep decline after Obama takes office in 2009.

A friend told me he saw a segment on TV in the last week where a woman was interviewed, and asked about whether she was going to get a job. She said no, because between welfare and food stamps and rent assistance, she was collecting $3,500 per month. And when she was working, she was only making $3,000 per month. So she wasn’t going to bother to get a job. $3,500 per month is $42,000 a year! That’s just a little less than the US median household income.

Tell me that that isn’t an incentive for people to sit at home and produce nothing. No contribution to society or the economy. A total parasite.

And what type of politician or official would set things up so someone could collect that much in public assistance? Does he have the best interests of the United States at heart? Obviously not.

Here’s another issue here to think about. How did we get to the point where people think it’s good or OK to just be a parasite and live off the production of others? What happened to educating people with a strong work ethic? What about the concept of exchange, or working to receive money and then using the money to buy things you need?

What happened to the stigma attached to being a leech on society? Why doesn’t that lady feel ashamed that she is sitting on her butt collecting money for doing nothing? Why aren’t her friends and relatives telling her it’s not OK? She thinks it is OK to an extent that she is willing to announce it on national TV.

Clearly people are no longer being educated with a strong work ethic, and the stigma attached to being a bum has been removed.

2. The Re-Election of Barack Obama

After I have had a chance to digest the data, I will write another article on how it was that Obama was able to be re-elected.

But for now I’ll discuss what this means in terms of the Tytler cycle.

Clearly, if 50% of the households in America are receiving some kind of government handout, then as Tytler says:

“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Obama has been more overt than any other president about pushing free benefits. His administration has openly pushed for more and more people to receive food stamps, and food stamp consumption has increased by 41%. I have heard that this administration has even run promotional campaigns to get more people on food stamps and remove the stigma attached to it.

So that 49.1% of American households that are receiving public assistance, who do you think they are going to vote for? Which candidate has the reputation of being in favor of more free government handouts?

Obama of course. Romney is probably perceived as being too much into business and jobs and “Geez I’d have to get a job!”

So if 49.1% of households translates into nearly half the population, that’s a heck of a voting block, isn’t it? And that’s obviously been Barack Obama’s strategy and the Democratic Party’s strategy for the last 50 years.

I saw a graphic that someone posted on Facebook after the election, saying that Romney offered jobs, but the public did not want them. That’s a scary idea, but it’s probably close to the mark. That, to me, more than any other factor, says we are in the dependence part of the Tytler cycle and moving into bondage.

The End Game

What is the end game of getting a larger and larger percentage of the population onto the dole? First of all it is financially unsustainable. The federal government is already borrowing huge amounts to pay all these entitlements and the public debt is piling up. The level of federal debt is already at a level where it will be a crippling burden to future generations, and Obama has no intention of stopping or slowing down, even though he occasionally says that.

So the end game is total dependence, and then total bondage. Tytler says we will see financial collapse (as we are seeing in some European countries and even with some US cities and states) and then into a dictatorship. If you check out some of the Executive Orders Obama has issued, giving him ridiculous levels of power over our food, water, communications systems, it looks like martial law.

What We Can Do

Even though, per Tytler, we may have to go through a bondage cycle, I don’t believe we should all go into apathy about it. I think we should accept that there will be some hard times ahead and our country will suffer from the work of some bad men.

But I think we should continue working hard, doing what we can to educate people on key principles:

  • We need to educate people on the concept of exchange and that it is not OK to get something for nothing and be a parasite on society. It doesn’t matter that it is being offered by the government. People need to work for a living and be independent and they need to be taught that, apparently. Incredible but true.
  • We need to better instill a work ethic in people around us, especially in our next generation. Show them the satisfaction of working hard and accomplishing something and producing products and services that are high quality that other people are willing to pay their hard-earned money for.
  • We need to educate people that it is not bad to achieve more than other people. This is the basic lie that the liberal/socialist/statist uses. He says that if you work hard and achieve a lot, that it is bad and you shouldn’t do it. You’re taking the bread out of someone else’s mouth. It’s a complete lie.
  • We need to educate more people on the principles of political conservatism: less government, lower taxes, personal responsibility and the free market, and also educate them about the dangers of socialism, dependency and bondage.

Unfortunately the mainstream news media, Hollywood, and our education system are spewing out liberal-socialist propaganda constantly.

So we have our work cut out for us. But it is more important than ever for each person to do something along this line, to educate people around you. Get discussions going. Discuss these issues with your kids at the dinner table. Discuss them with friends after work. Start a book discussion group (I can recommend a great list of books to read). Post things on social media sites.

If we all do something, we can pull through the bondage period more quickly and emerge out the other side. That’s what I want to see. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The 2012 Election – Democratic Party Strategy

By John Eberhard

We have been hearing for a while that the 2012 is the most election in our lives, so much so that it’s almost a cliché now. But nonetheless I believe it is true.

This election is shaping up to be a battle over a simple concept. The Democrats, with President Obama stridently in the lead, have decided to become the party of the free handout.

Here is the simple sequence strategy that the Democrats have selected over the last 40-50 years:

  1. Offer goodies to the public
  2. Tax at high rates to fund the goodies offered
  3. Spend like drunken sailors, then when they find the high taxes won’t cover it, fund all that with heavy borrowing
  4. Count on the recipients of the goodies to vote Democrat

There are various sub-plots to this strategy, like refuse to enforce immigration laws, let tons of illegal immigrants into the country, give them lots of free goodies (and thwart the public’s efforts to stop the flow of free goodies), eventually grant them amnesty, gain millions of Democratic voters for life.

It apparently doesn’t occur to them that:

  1. The ones who produce the tax money that fund their goodies get tired of it
  2. You can’t go on with high deficit spending and borrowing forever
  3. They have promised more than they can deliver, in terms of unfunded liabilities with Social Security, Medicare, and public employee pensions
  4. What they are doing is destroying the country, with crushing debts, weakening of the dollar, and an ever increasing percentage of the population that doesn’t support themselves

Sometimes I wonder whether or not Democratic leaders know that they are destroying the country, because you can’t possibly incentivize sloth and dependency without getting a greater and greater percentage of people on the dole. And you can’t build or even maintain a great country with a majority of people sitting at home collecting welfare checks.

So do they know they’re destroying the country and don’t care? Are they in it for the short term and to hell with posterity? Or are they so stupid they believe their own demented rhetoric? Or are they destroying the country on purpose? You decide.

In the past the Democrats have worked in this direction (goodies, taxes, borrowing, votes), but they always sort of tried to hide the fact. They seemed to rightly know that this wasn’t a good thing for the voters to know.

But President Oabama has decided to eliminate all pretense. For example:

  • Under Obama, food stamp consumption has increased by 41%
  • 51% of all households today receive some sort of government assistance
  • Early in Obama’s term, the Democratically controlled Congress under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid eliminated the extremely successful welfare reform from 1990s that got millions off the welfare rolls and into a job
  • Recently Obama eliminated the work requirement for welfare, which had been in place for decades

Obama is solidly banking on the assumption that there are enough people in America now that are addicted to the government handout, that they will vote for him again. He has worked diligently throughout his term to increase the size of that group.

His Justice Department has gone to court to stop states from putting voter ID laws into place. Why? So Democrats can get more people to vote who shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Key Question

So the question before us right now is – are there enough people on the government dole to re-elect President Obama, despite the fact that he and his party are obviously destroying the country?

Have we passed the tipping point where there are enough people to just keep voting for free handouts, regardless of what it will do to the country?

My hope is that we haven’t, and I’m urging everyone to vote Republican in November.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

An Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters

By John Eberhard

The United States is heading down a dangerous road. 50% of all U.S. households receive some kind of public assistance. Roughly the same percentage pay no taxes.

Common sense says that that is mathematically unsustainable. But Democrats have bloated government spending and government borrowing to continue to fund unsustainable entitlements. And the number of people on food stamps and other government assistance has rocketed under Obama, not to mention the fact that the Democrat controlled Congress did away with the welfare reform that was enacted in the 1990s.

Historian Alexander Tytler, a contemporary of the American Founders, stated “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Meanwhile we have a mainstream news media that is fully in the tank for any liberal candidate, concept or idea, and won’t even report anything positive about any conservative candidate, concept or idea, despite the fact that conservatives make up 46% of the population compared to 20% liberal.

But you know all this. That’s why you support Ron Paul, because he’s for fiscal responsibility and returning to upholding the Constitution. And I have to say that in many things, I agree with you and I agree with Ron Paul. We need to have a balanced budget and get rid of the national debt, get rid of bloated bureaucracy, and start applying the Constitution.

But it’s time to give it up.

What do I mean by that? Well, recently I read that Ron Paul basically suspended his campaign, but urged his supporters to continue to try to disrupt the activities of Mitt Romney.

And I happen to know quite a few Ron Paul supporters, and have been active in a political forum where I have spoken a number of times on conservative political values. And most of the Ron Paul supporters I have spoken to have asserted that whether or not Ron Paul is nominated for the Republican ticket, they will still vote for Ron Paul, even if they have to write him in.

But it’s time to face that fact that Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination. We haven’t even had the CA primary yet, but it’s pretty much wrapped up that Mitt Romney is going to win the nomination. And winning a few delegates here and there isn’t going to do it for Ron Paul.

So even though Mitt Romney is not my idea of the ideal Republican candidate, it’s time to support him and stop trying to “disrupt” his activities, whatever that means.

Why? Because the Ron Paul supporter vote could be the thing that turns the tide and puts Romney into office, and throws Barrack and Michelle Obama out on the street so they can indulge in one permanent vacation. You could help make Michelle’s dream of walking out the front door of the White House and never coming back, a reality.

And yes I’ve seen your stuff on Facebook, saying how Obama and Romney are the same and they’re all part of the one world order. So it doesn’t matter which one gets elected.

But that’s where you’re wrong.

Yes I know the Republican Party is far from the perfect entity in terms of upholding the Constitution and fiscal responsibility. But let’s look at some facts:

  • Barack Obama is really like no other President in my lifetime. While we have had creeping socialism for over 100 years, he has put the whole effort into warp drive, and is steering us toward the cliff at warp 8.
  • It was 100% Democrats in Congress who voted for Obamacare. Not one Republican vote in the House or Senate.
  • It was Republicans who gave us welfare reform in 1990s. True it was Bill Clinton who signed it but the Republican Congress created it. And it was one of the most successful reform measures ever, getting lots of people off the dole and back into the workforce. Then it was Democrats who three it out the window as one of the first things the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate did.
  • Obama is running for re-election basically on a platform of attacking capitalism. Throughout his entire Presidency he has attacked business, attacked producers, waged class warfare, pushed for the rich to pay more in taxes, and pushed for more people to get on the dole.
  • Getting a Republican majority in the House is probably the only thing that has kept the Democrats from pushing through cap and trade, card check, and other liberal wet dream legislation.
  • Obama is committed to bankrupting the coal industry and pushing energy prices up to unaffordable levels. His Energy Secretary said he wants to push gas prices up to the level of Europe.
  • It has been Republicans who have fought for budget cuts and Democrats who have fought them tooth and nail.
  • It has been Republicans who have fought raising the debt ceiling.
  • It is the so-called Blue States which have been under Democratic Party control for the last 30-40 years that are going off the cliff financially the quickest.
  • Obama has refused to approve the Keystone pipeline, estimated to produce over 100,000 jobs. Romney says he would approve it as one of the first things he would do.
  • The level of accumulating debt under Obama is significantly higher than any previous President. I have seen figures indicating that his level of debt is equal to all previous Presidents combined.

I could go on. But the point is, that Obama and his cohorts have been doing everything they can to basically destroy this country. We could argue about whether or not they are doing it on purpose. But the destruction should be obvious to anyone who has not drunk the liberal Kool Aid.

Recent polls I have seen put Romney and Obama nearly neck and neck. Now a number of events between now and election day could significantly swing it in one direction or another, like the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare for starters.

But right now it’s a close race.

And I think that whether we have Romney or Obama matters a great deal. Would Romney reverse everything that Obama has done? No. Would he support a total return to the Constitution? No. Would he support getting rid of the Departments of Energy and Education? Probably not.

But he is a supporter of capitalism and someone who actually understands how capitalism is supposed to work, i.e. a meritocracy, the market deciding winners and losers, property rights, rewarding producers, etc.

I was reading an article the other day that was saying that Obama is not really the problem, he is the result of the problem. We have a society made up of people who have been seduced by the idea of easy credit, and now a bigger and bigger segment is being seduced by the idea of living on the dole, letting the rest of us support them.

The recent financial crash came as a wake up call to some of us, realizing we couldn’t keep refinancing our mortgage to pay off our credit cards every year (i.e. living above our means). But many people haven’t woken up, and some have fallen deeper into the entitlement mentality.

I think the fact that the race between Obama and Romney is neck and neck is a scary thing. Don’t people see the things Obama has done? And why is it the Republican Party keeps nominating the most liberal guy in their own field? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Why can’t we get a principled conservative up there?

Well it could be the fact that our mainstream media has descended to the point of being a liberal propaganda machine. But it’s also the society, the population, the civilization. They like the easy way out, not paying taxes, having someone else pay their way. Class warfare sound good to them. That’s why Obama’s numbers aren’t at the bottom, at least not yet.

My point is that it’s going to take time to convince a population that has been sold a bill of goods, that they can live above their means, that someone else can pay or should pay, that there is such a thing as a free lunch.

Ron Paul has created a big effect. He has launched a big idea. Do I agree with everything he says? No. But he has pushed ideas of fiscal restraint and adhering to the Constitution forward into the public consciousness. But it’s going to take time for those ideas to take root. Hopefully we can do it and not descend into riots like the babies in Europe when they threaten to take their free lunch away.

Letting Obama get re-elected would be in essence allowing him to keep the throttle down as the train goes barreling off the cliff. Voting for Romney slows the train down, giving time for conservative principles to take root.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

How Obama Plans to Become a Dictator

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The History of Political Correctness

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off


By John Eberhard

Liberals in America, and President Obama in particular, have made a lot of noise in recent years about “fairness,” or “social justice.” Obama’s message is that some people have too much money, and way back in 2008 on the campaign trail, he told Joe the Plumber that everyone benefits when we spread the wealth around.

Since then he has demonized the wealthy, and stated repeatedly that they are not paying their “fair share” in terms of taxes.

Let’s take a look at some of these basic, fundamental assumptions. This idea is that a system that allows some people to make lots of money while others have far less, is fundamentally unfair. So to address this, Obama and other liberals seek to implement redistribution of wealth, heavily taxing the wealthy and giving that money to those with less money.

Just in case anyone does not know, redistribution of wealth is an idea that originated with Karl Marx in “The Communist Manifesto.” I recommend reading it if you have not. Many liberals today scoff at and try to misdirect us from this fact, but it is true that redistribution of wealth is a socialist/communist idea, that has been gaining more and more traction in the United States for the last 80 years.

Redistribution of wealth is already in existence in America in many different forms, from progressive taxation (where those with higher incomes pay higher percentages of taxes), to welfare, to food stamps.

But let’s take a look at another issue related to this that I have never seen discussed anywhere else. Let’s examine the issue of “fairness.” What is fairness really?

Liberals believe that fairness exists when you take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor, so that the amount of money everyone has tends to even out. This is the egalitarian model or concept. Everyone is supposed to have the same or similar amounts, or “equal outcomes.” This supposedly eliminates the “unfair” situation of some having more money than others.

But who is that concept of “fairness” fair to? What group does it emphasize? What group does it put all of our attention on? And what group are the liberals mainly thinking about in their equations?

The poor of course. All of liberals’ concentration is on the poor. They put all of their attention onto the least productive members of society. All of their systems and policies and regulations are built around helping the least productive members of society and flowing more money to them.

What about the most productive members of society, entrepreneurs and business owners? They are routinely demonized, and taxed at higher and higher levels. Is this system fair to them? Not only is the redistribution model not fair to the most productive members of society, it doesn’t ever even worry about what’s fair to them. It does its best to penalize them.

There are certain individuals who make society function. Not only are these people not being rewarded for their efforts, they are being stamped upon.

The top 1% in terms of taxable income paid 37% of all taxes in American in 2009. The top 10% in terms of taxable income paid 70% of all taxes. See here. Yet Obama says they are not paying their fair share and need to pay more.

By viewing the graph on this page, you can see that the percentage of overall taxes paid by the top 1% has been rising since 1980, from 19.05% in 1980 to 38.02% in 2008. That’s nearly doubling in 28 years, for the math challenged.

And the percentage of overall taxes paid by the bottom 50% has fallen during that time, from 7.05% in 1980 to 2.7% in 2008. And 49% of all US households paid no taxes at all in 2008.

Beyond that, we could look at the idea of incentives. There is an old saying that if you want to get rid of something – tax it. And if you want to get more of something – subsidize it. So as far as incentives go, we are encouraging people to produce less, by heavily taxing those who produce and giving handouts to those who don’t work.

And beyond that, what liberals are creating is a large dependent class, people who are losing the ability to fend for themselves and who without that government handout, would fall flat. Is that “fair” to those people? Is it “fair” to the poor to make them dependent on the government?

I will take it out of the realm of a rhetorical question by answering it. NO! It is not fair. It is not fair to the poor to make them more dependent. It is not fair to the country to create a huge dependent class. It is certainly not fair to those who actually create all the wealth and jobs and prosperity in this country to demonize and tax them to death.

Demonizing those who own businesses and create wealth is another major point directly out of the “Communist Manifesto” (written by a man who barely worked a day in his life). Today we call it “class warfare” and Obama is one of its biggest proponents.

What is Fair?

True fairness is for people to be able to keep the fruits of their labors. True fairness is for people to have a chance to provide for themselves and be truly independent. True fairness is allowing those who are ambitious to work harder than others and make more money, and to be able to keep the lion’s share of that money. And true fairness is where everyone would pay taxes for the government services that they receive, at the same percentage of their income.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Government Unions and the Bankrupting of America

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Back to Political Basics

By John Eberhard

I recently spoke at a political forum in Glendale, CA. I decided, in light of the Occupy Wall Street protesters spouting Marxist complaints that were old 100 years ago, that it would be good to “get back to basics,” by which I mean taking a look at definitions of some of the basic words and ideas that make up politics. I also videoed the forum and if I have time I’ll edit and post video of it.

This article is a modified version of my talk at that recent forum.

We’re going to cover definitions and basic ideas of several political philosophies.

Many of these definitions have changed dramatically over the last 50 years, and many dictionaries feature outdated and incorrect definitions. I have endeavored to find definitions which reflect the current reality.


“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

Yahoo Education

“An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”



1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


“A political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people. The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, with the ideal of social justice replacing the profit motive. Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans, although many social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid (once derided by their opponents as “socialized medicine”) and Social Security are socialistic in effect, since they are controlled by the government and effect a measure of income redistribution that could not happen if market forces were the sole factor in the economic life of society.”

American Spirit Political Dictionary
(Unfortunately at this time this excellent dictionary is no longer online)


“The political system under which the economy, including capital, property, major industries, and public services, is controlled and directed by the state, and in that sense is “communal.” Communism also involves a social structure that restricts individual freedom of expression. Modern communism is based on Marxism, as interpreted by the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Ilyitch Lenin (1870-1924).”

American Spirit Political Dictionary


“In political speech now in the U.S. a liberal is a person who believes it is the duty of government to ameliorate social conditions and create a more equitable society. Liberals favor generous spending on the welfare state; they exhibit a concern for minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged and often see these conditions as a product of social injustices rather than individual failings. This also applies to crime and juvenile delinquency, where liberals are as concerned with removing the social causes of such behavior as they are with detection and punishment. Liberals also tend to be concerned about environmental issues, the defense of civil liberties, and do not favor excessive military spending. The label of liberal is something that many politicians now seek to avoid, since it is out of keeping with the public mood. In the presidential campaign of 1988 George Bush used this to telling advantage, labeling his Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis a liberal, and making the term sound subversive and un-American. President Clinton tried to distance himself from traditional liberalism in his campaign of 1992, calling himself a New Democrat instead.”

American Spirit Political Dictionary

Liberal Policies

  • Higher taxes
  • More spending
  • Big government
  • More of the welfare state
  • Redistribution of wealth
  • Favors affirmative action
  • Favors government funded health care (Democrats voted in Obamacare)
  • Against federal immigration laws
  • Many against gun ownership
  • Gay rights
  • Environmental movement
  • Pro abortion
  • Victimology

Currently liberalism is very much aligned with Democratic Party leadership nationally in the U.S.


“A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)”


Conservative Policies

  • Lower taxes
  • Less spending
  • Smaller government
  • Against the welfare state
  • Believe wealth belongs to those who earn it
  • Against affirmative action
  • Against government funded health care (No Republicans voted for Obamacare)
  • Some for and some against federal immigration laws
  • Most favor gun ownership
  • Many against gay rights
  • Many against the environmental movement
  • Many, not all against abortion
  • Believes in personal responsibility rather than victimology

This list contains what I observe to be true conservative principles, which are not necessarily the same as what all Republicans stand for. However, all true conservatives are in the Republican Party. Most of the above are what the Tea Party stands for.

Keynesian Economics

The economic theories and programs ascribed to John M. Keynes and his followers; specifically : the advocacy of monetary and fiscal programs by government to increase employment and spending”


“Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and, therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle. The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936. The interpretations of Keynes are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy.”

“Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector — and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.”


“The idea that large increases in government spending will bring the economy out of recessions and depressions”

John Eberhard
(I added this definition myself to try to simplify things)


  • History’s defining element is the class struggle, i.e. rich against poor
  • Assigns victim status to poor, they are victimized by business owners who grow rich off of their work
  • Redistribution of wealth
  • Hostile to business owners, sees them as victimizing workers
  • Government takes over business
  • Throw out the business owners and executives. The people then run the businesses.

When you see these ideas today, you will know where they came from.

Interesting note: Marx, who wrote extensively about the plight of the worker, barely worked a day in his life himself, living first off his mother, then off his friend Frederick Engels after his mother died.

Cultural Marxism

  • Expands on the idea of Marxism, with its victimization of the poor, to other groups that it considers have been victimized (blacks, women, Hispanics, gays)
  • Idea of redistribution of wealth or advantage to favored groups considered victimized
  • Origin of affirmative action

2011 Gallup Poll

  • 42% conservative
  • 37% moderate
  • 21% liberal

In past Gallup polls going back to the 1960s, the liberal element has never numbered over 22%.

Interesting to note that a segment numbering 21% happens to control all the mainstream media, Hollywood, and college faculties today

Quotes from Jefferson

 “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Thomas Jefferson

“It is incumbent, obligatory, necessary, required, mandatory and binding on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. This is a principle, which if acted upon, would save one-half the wars of the world.”
Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Thomas Jefferson

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Thomas Jefferson

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Thomas Jefferson

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“The pillars of our prosperity are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Marketing in Cleveland

Untitled Document

Marketing in Cleveland
By John Eberhard

(Note: I recently sent out this article in my marketing newsletter, then realized it is just as valid as a political commentary.)

This article is going to be a bit different than most of my Internet marketing articles. This one is more about economics.

Back in August I traveled to Cleveland, Ohio, where I grew up, to spend a few days visiting with my father who was 92 years old and whose health was failing. In the past few days I visited Cleveland again to pay my final respects.

During the first trip in August I drove around my old stomping groundswhere we lived when I was younger on the east side of Cleveland, and then where we lived when I was in junior high and high school on the west side.

I was struck, particularly on the west side, with how economically depressed the area seemed. The houses still seemed well maintained, but many of the businesses were vacant and the area had the feel of a ghost town. It was starkly different from when I grew up there, and starkly different from where I live now in Los Angeles, which seems more active and vibrant economically.

Of course I know that the U.S. and the world really is in a major recession. So businesses are hurting everywhere. But the west side of Cleveland seemed particularly hard hit.

What caused this major shift, with Cleveland being listed as one of the most economically depressed cities in the U.S.? And what do they need to do to come out of it?

The Third Wave

So now I’m going to get all philosophical and intellectual on you (you’ve been warned). A few years ago I read a book called “The Third Wave” by Alvin Toffler, the author of Future Shock. In the book Toffler discussed what he characterized as the “third wave,” basically the information age or the computer age, with the first wave having been the agricultural age and the second wave being the industrial age.

One of the aspects of the information age which Toffler described was that different countries entered each of these ages at different times. So countries like the U.S. and the UK and other European countries that had entered the industrial age relatively early on, were now leading the way into the information age. And another aspect of this was that previously undeveloped countries were now entering the industrial age.

What I realized from this was that in the 21st century, there would be a sort of division of labor between countries. Previously second or third world countries, as they entered the industrial age, would now become the centers of heavy industry for the world, handling things like steel production. And early industrial countries like the U.S. would now lead the way with information products, like computers and software and high tech.

Following this line of reasoning, you could look at previously heavy industrial areas like Cleveland and Detroit, and where heavy industry had left, you’d be pretty certain that they weren’t going to come back again.

When I was a kid Cleveland had been a heavy steel and auto production town. Many of my friends’ fathers worked in the steel mills. Now those mills are gone. In fact, there is a big shopping mall there where the big steel mill used to be.

Now we could argue about what caused the steel factories to leave, and maybe it was the unions, and I’ve heard people argue that it is bad that we now get most of our steel from Korea. And we could look at how the unions have affected the big U.S. car companies and how they have all been in or close to bankruptcy.

And I’ve heard people argue that it is bad that we now depend on other countries for certain products, and that we as a country need to be self contained and totally self sufficient and produce everything we need.

While I do agree that the U.S. needs to be more energy self sufficient, I do not feel we are ever going to get the toothpaste back in the tube when it comes to heavy industry leaving the United States. Many of these other countries have lower wage levels and it makes sense business wise to have them do the manual labor, industrial type jobs.

So where does that leave the U.S.? And where does that leave Cleveland? And what do businesses in Cleveland need to do to get back to vibrant condition?

Well what Cleveland needs is the same thing that any other city needs. And what businesses in Cleveland need to do is the same as what businesses everywhere need to do:

  1. Accept that we are in a new age, an age where the U.S. is and will be dominated by information or technology oriented products and businesses.
  2. Innovate new products and services in the information or technology sector. Become the next Steve Jobs in your particular niche.
  3. Work hard and deliver good service.
  4. Market your better mouse trap aggressively so the world knows about it and can buy it (you were wondering when I was going to mention the word “marketing,” weren’t you?)

I think if we all do that, Cleveland, and the whole U.S., can get things going again and get back to the financial prosperity and vibrancy that we all desire.

Visit Our Web Site and Blogs

Common Sense Government Blog for John Eberhard’s newest articles

Common Sense Government Views Blog for articles by John and two other conservative authors

Please visit for more of our older articles, plus a resource center with conservative books, news, web sites, and more.

Common Sense | 13509 Simshaw Ave. | Los Angeles, CA 91342 Home | Articles | Resource Center | Newsletter | About Us | Contact Us
Copyright © 2011 All Rights Reserved.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off