Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1996 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. It compares Bob Dole with Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential campaign.]

It looks like Bob Dole is going out of his way to give the election to Bill Clinton, which is probably good for America. Dole as the Republican candidate is the best thing that Clinton has going for him in his reelection bid.

In the character department, Dole wins without a contest. (But then to find someone who could lose to Clinton in the character department would be difficult.) Unfortunately for Dole, character does not seem to carry much weight in American politics. As for policies, little distinguishes Dole from Clinton.

On issues, such as abortion, homosexuals, and immigration, to name a few, where Dole could gain support by distinguishing himself from Clinton, he fails to do so. Instead of comforting the social conservatives, who are the core of Pat Buchanan’s support and a large part of the Republican Party, Dole is ignoring, teasing, confusing, and antagonizing them. He is working hard to lose their support. Still, he is correct in that these people are unlikely to vote for Clinton. However, if he does not court their support, many will support a third-party candidate or stay home. Historically, Dole has been closer to Clinton on most issues than he has been to Buchanan.

During the campaign, Buchanan forced Dole to take a strong pro-life stance. Since Dole has secured the nomination, he has moved away from that position. He has become noticeably accommodative to the abortionists. (When voting on bills directly dealing with abortion, Dole has taken a pro-life stance. When voting on bills dealing indirectly with abortion, such as “family planning” legislation, he has generally backed the abortionist position. He has also supported nominees for the Supreme Court who are pro-abortion.) Little difference between Dole and Clinton exists on the abortion issue.

Moreover, he seems to have joined the enemies of the Second Amendment. For a number of years, he supported the right of people to own guns to defend themselves from a despotic government. In recent years he has joined those who seek to deny the people this right. He was instrumental in the passage of the Brady bill. Furthermore, he supported the crime bill that banned “assault weapons” and prevented the introduction of a bill to repeal this ban. Again little difference between Dole and Clinton exists.

Both Dole and Clinton are internationalists, i.e., favor using U. S. troops to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Both pushed for the passage of GATT and NAFTA. (These “treaties” have nothing to do with free trade other than giving free trade a bad name. Their purpose is to transfer the control of trade to an international body and strip members of the pacts of their sovereignty.) Both favor most-favored-nation treatment for China, the greatest tyranny on the planet. No real difference exists between Dole and Clinton in foreign policy and foreign trade.

That Dole would abolish affirmative action programs is doubtful. He opposed Republican Reagan’s rescission of Democratic Johnson’s executive order that mandated affirmative action for companies doing business with the federal government. Also, he supported the 1991 “Civil Rights” Act, which is the quota law that now serves as the main federal affirmative action law. That Dole as president would push to abolish affirmative action is incredible. Once more, no real difference exists between Dole and Clinton.

When Clinton first started pushing for socialized health care, Dole was a supporter. He offered compromises that would increase the chances of the program passing the Senate. He only became an opponent of socialized health care when public resistance became widespread. Later, he promoted a bill that would increase federal regulation of private health care by regulating health insurance. This bill moves the country closer to Clinton’s goal to socialize health care. Again Clinton and Dole are the same.

Moreover, Dole has historically supported higher taxes. Newt Gingrich once described him as “the tax collector for the welfare state.” [Some have said that Dole never saw a tax that he did not like.] Tax reduction under Dole is no more likely than tax reduction under Clinton. Both favor heavy taxation.

Furthermore, Dole has been instrumental in getting enacted into law the food stamp program, Martin Luther King’s holiday, American with Disability Act, and other programs that Clinton supports. What difference is there between the two? No significant difference seems to exist in their policies.

In running for the presidency, Dole has followed the advice of Richard Nixon. Nixon advised Dole to run as a conservative to win the nomination and then as a moderate or centralists for the election. If Dole wins the election, America will get what it got with Nixon. The conservatives will get the rhetoric. The liberals will get the action. This would make a Dole administration much like most other post-World War II administration.

One of the great paradoxes of post-World War II American presidential politics is that the greatest growth in the federal government has occurred under Republican presidents. People who would like to see programs advocated by Clinton implemented should support Dole. Those who oppose Clinton’s programs should support Clinton. As shown above, there is not much difference between Dole and Clinton on the issues. However, Dole will be much more successful in implementing Clinton’s programs than Clinton. Clinton will face too much opposition from the Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress to have much success in getting his programs approved. Moreover, his administration will be too distracted by scandal to do too much damage to the country. On the other hand, the only opposition that Dole would face in getting essentially the same programs approved would be from principled conservative Republicans in Congress of whom there are only a few.

Again the American voter is presented with a choice between the lesser of two evils. The apparent lesser evil, Dole, may be a greater evil because he will be more successful.

Copyright © 1996, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

Newt Gingrich: a Liberal in Conservative Clothing

Newt Gingrich: a Liberal in Conservative Clothing

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1995 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

Is Newt Gingrich a liberal in conservative clothing? Being a member of the Council on Foreign Relation (CFR), he has done little to oppose moving toward a one-world fascist state. He supported both NAFTA and GATT. (That GATT would have been passed by the new Congress is doubtful, which is why Clinton, who is also a member of the CFR, pushed to have the lame-duck Congress vote on GATT. Gingrich did not oppose GATT being brought before the lame-duck Congress, many of whose members had been voted out of office. He feared that the new Congress would defeat the “treaty.” He has been successful in keeping the House of Representatives from reconsidering the “treaty.”)

In order to consolidate his control over the Republicans in the House of Representatives, Gingrich came up with the “Contract with America.” Although the Contract contained several needed reforms, its purpose was not to reform the U.S. government, but to control the freshmen Republicans. The freshmen Republicans had been elected by people who wanted real reform and who wanted the illegal power that the U. S. government had usurped returned to the people and their States. While the freshmen Republicans were running on platforms to bring the U. S. government back into its constitutional bounds, the Contract guaranteed that only minor inconsequential changes would be made. It has prevented real reform from occurring. The Contract served to turn the anti-Washington feelings that swept so many incumbents out of office into an endorsement of the old-line establishment Republican Party.

Since Gingrich has been elected Speaker of the House, he has processed to accumulated unprecedented power into the office of the Speaker. Obviously, he does not believe in the dispersal and decentralization of power as do true conservatives. He is rapidly becoming dictator of the House of Representatives, especially of the Republicans in the House. In the name of reform, he is using his power to promote himself and the establishment. Furthermore, he uses his power to promote pseudo reforms and to thwart real reforms. This consolidation of power will enable him to deliver the votes for the establishment when the time comes. The vote will be for more, not less, government and socialism. With this power, Gingrich will be able to prevent real, needed reform from occurring.

Gingrich’s debate with President Clinton illustrates that Gingrich does not oppose liberalism. His arguments and disagreements with the President are over details, not principles or substance. (The primary purpose of the debate was to elevate the standing of the President in the eyes of the public. In achieving this goal, it was somewhat successful.)

Gingrich has also supported giving the President even more power by giving him the line-item veto on budgets and repealing the War Powers Act, which limits the amount of time that the President can commit the armed forces without a Congressional declaration of war.

A good indication of the direction that Gingrich is pulling the House Republican is the reaction of the establishment press. When Gingrich was pushing his Contract, the press perceived this as a move to the right, and Gingrich received much negative treatment. Since then the establishment press has learned how hallow much of the Contract is. Also, since becoming Speaker, Gingrich has made clear that he does not oppose a one-world fascist state, but he plans to deliver the votes in favor of issues that support such a state.

Another indication of Gingrich’s liberalism is his voting record. One conservative index shows Gingrich voting to the left of Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-professed socialist representing Vermont. He left the Democratic Party because it was too far to the right. According to this index, Gingrich is more of a socialist than the socialist is.

Gingrich is an establishment conservative. He is part of the establishment that has controlled the United States government most of this century [i.e., the twentieth century]. In spite of any rhetoric to the contrary — and virtually no rhetoric to the contrary has occurred — he supports a one-world fascist state. As the consolidation and concentration of political power into the U. S. government are necessary to achieve the goal of a fascist world state, he cannot be counted on to oppose the consolidation and concentration of political power in Washington — much less reverse the trend.

[Moreover, how Gingrich has treated his wives is reprehensible. He left his first wife while she was in a hospital suffering from cancer for his second wife. {When Deb was in the hospital, a few times a nurse would comment on me being there every day. I replied that I was not Newt Gingrich.} He left his second wife when he later decided to campaign to be President because she was not pretty enough to be the first-lady.]

Copyright © 1995, 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

Conservatives and Their Worship of Equality

Conservatives and Their Worship of Equality

Thomas Allen

Mainstream conservatives, establishment conservatives, neoconservatives, social justice conservatives, and their kindred (hereafter, referred to as “these conservatives”) dominate and control what now passes for “conservatism.” Anyone on the Right who dissents from their underlying philosophy of equality and democracy and their praise of Lincoln and the work of the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction — except to condemn the Radical Republicans for not finishing the task of genociding the Southerner — is ignored, purged, or deplatformed. Moreover, these conservatives are statists, centralists, and racial nihilist. They are the Girondists of the American political spectrum. Examples of these conservatives are Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, George Will, Karl Rove, William Kristol, and Harry Jaffa.

For these conservatives, equality is the higher law, to which even the Constitution is subordinate. (Using the higher-law argument, the abolitionists precipitated the Civil War, and the Radical Republicans destroyed the fundamental principles of the original Constitutions.) Equality governs all. It is the primary and essential principle of conservatism — the very essence of conservatism.

Many of these conservatives distinguish between the equality of rights and opportunity, which they claim to support, and equality of condition, which they claim to oppose. However, this distinction is sophistry. In this world, obtaining equality of rights, opportunity, and condition is impossible. Moreover, the demand for equal rights and especially equal opportunity naturally and eventually leads to the demand for equality of condition. (Equality of rights and opportunity can only be proven by equality of condition.)

Rejecting the notions that the United States are a genetic country, these conservatives support the notion that the United States are a propositional country. Their purpose is to spread equality and democracy throughout the world. (Like all statists and centralists, these conservatives refer to the United States in the singular, “the United States is” instead of the plural, “the United States are.” Consequently, they contradict the Founding Fathers and nearly all other Americans before the revolution of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans. The Founding Fathers and most other antebellum Americans referred to the United States in the plural.)

To these conservatives, the only clause in all the founding documents of any importance is the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. This declaration of equality is the primary, if not the sole, reason and purpose for the existence of the United States. According to these conservatives, the purpose of America’s political founding was not the establishment of republican self-government. Instead, the purpose was the establishment of equality.

These conservatives fail to recognize the paradox and hypocrisy in praising the Founding Fathers, the original Constitution, and their philosophy of States’ rights (federalism, localism, and decentralization) while simultaneously praising Lincoln, who destroyed the Constitution and the Union formed by it with his war, and the Radical Republicans, who destroyed States’ rights with the fourteenth amendment.

For these conservatives, Lincoln is the divine lawgiver, who recalls the country to its providential mission of equality. Like Moses calling his people back to the worship of the true God, Lincoln called his wayward people back to their conventual promise of equality.

Equality has now evolved into diversity. Thus, every nonwhite in the world has an equal right to settle in the United States. Moreover, no White American has any moral or political right to prevent this racial and cultural transformation of their country.

Along with the worship of equality has come the elevation of Martin Luther King, a Communist frontman, to the Olympian of great conservative forefathers. Such an elevation of a Communist sympathizer may seem strange until one realizes that these conservatives have usurped nearly everything that King advocated.

An essential part of these conservatives’ program of sacrificing all on the altar of equality is the eradication of the traditional South. They thoroughly loathe the Antebellum South and everything related to the Confederacy. The South needs to be remade into an egalitarian society where Blacks and Whites can breed themselves out of existence. Moreover, the South needs to be fully purged of its sin of opposing the Puritan Yankee and his industrialization and globalization. Further, these conservatives see the Civil War (their term for the War for Southern Independence) and Reconstruction as a righteous cause well-worth the million-plus lives lost because of them. However, they bemoan the failure of Reconstruction to destroy completely the Southerner and his culture and ethnicity.

According to these conservatives, the War and Reconstruction were primarily, if not solely, about equality, democracy, and race. Economics, culture, religion, and other issues and differences were of little or no importance, except where they related to the sacred equality, democracy, and racial nihilism.

Most of these conservatives consider the traditional, pro-Confederate Southerner a greater threat to the country than the invading hordes of third-world nonwhites. To these conservatives, no differences exist between the South and Nazi Germany.

Opposed to these conservatives are the traditional Southern conservatives, who care little for abstract universals, such as equality. The traditional Southern conservatives do not reject the equal dignity of all human souls in a spiritual sense or to all being equal before the law. (Today, the United States have a two-tier justice system: one for the common man and one for the ruling elite and some of their agents.) However, they do oppose using governmental powers to obliterate social differences.

Joining the traditional Southern conservatives in their opposition to these conservatives are a few pariah conservatives. All these cast-off conservatives have one thing in common: They do not worship equality or Father Abraham. Moreover, they abhor the Radical Republicans and their reconstruction of the South. Instead, they continue to adhere to the original Constitution, and the traditions and founding principles of the United States.

Moreover, these conservatives defend the welfare state. However, these conservatives seek to manage the welfare state more efficiently than liberals, progressives, and socialists. Their worship of equality explains why these conservatives seek to make the welfare state of the liberals, progressives, and socialists operate more efficiently rather than dismantling it.

Furthermore, these conservatives favor foreign intervention and wars in the name of spreading equality and democracy. Even globalism grows out of their lust for equality — although globalism leads to a two-tier system: the global elite on top and the masses on the bottom, who are at least equally slaves of the elite.

Distinguishing between these conservatives and liberals, progressives, and socialists is often difficult. While giving lip service to the original Constitution, these conservatives praise the radical transformation that the Radical Republicans caused and that their descendants, the Progressives, enhanced and extended. By claiming equality as a conservative principle, even the guiding conservative principle, these conservatives stole the key ideology of the Left.

Like the liberals, progressives, and socialists, these conservatives adhere to the Robespierrean motto of “liberty, equality, fraternity.” Also, like the liberals, progressives, and socialists, these conservatives abhor the underlying principle of the American Revolution: “life, liberty, and property.” Like them, these conservatives prefer equality to liberty (because liberty creates inequality, equality and liberty are incompatible).

Most conservatives fall between these conservatives and their conservative opposition. They are the confused conservatives. Although most admire Lincoln, only a few admire the actions of the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. Also, most esteem King highly. Moreover, most do not hate the South. After all, many are Southerners. While they oppose flooding the country with nonwhites, most tend to be racial nihilists. Although they object to nonwhites coming into the country illegally, few seem to have any objection to large numbers of nonwhites entering the country legally.  Most are not States’ rightists on principle. Unless the federal government opposes an issue that they support, most confused conservatives are centralists. Only when the federal government opposes their particular issue do they become States’ rightists. Furthermore, most confused conservatives confound liberty and freedom with democracy and equality — believing that they are essentially the same. Moreover, most lean toward the welfare state; rare is one who wants to dismantle it. For the most part, confused conservatives are more inclined to ally with these conservatives than with their opponents.

References
Gottfried, Paul. “From the Editor: Thoughts on Bradford v. Jaffa.” Chronicles, February 2020, pages 34-38.

McClanahan, Brion. “The Reinvention of Reconstruction.” Chronicles, February 2020, pages 31- 35.

Trask, H.A. Scott. “The Great Debate: Lincoln’s Legacy.” Chronicles, February 2020, pages 34-38.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.