Rick Perry Retracts his Support of Fast Track

Breitbart has the story.

This is evidence of what I wrote in my post below, Republican Fast Track supporters are feeling some serious heat from their base. Perry recently came out in support of fast track. He got hammered for it. Now he has changed his position. I’m not criticizing him. I’m glad he changed his mind. We need to keep the heat on. We’re moving the needle.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Rick Perry Retracts his Support of Fast Track

  1. weavercht

    That’s great news. The US economy has really been gutted since the 1990s.

    Maybe we can force the Democratic Party to take up the banner of free trade, with the Republicans taking up a populist banner. In truth free trade is part of globalism, so Obama *should* support it.

    Whether there’s a trade agreement involved or not isn’t the entire issue. “Free trade”, in both senses of the word, encourage greater international interdependence, which is to say globalism.

    Our side has been tricked on this issue by libertarian sophistry. The annoying “small government vs. big government” battling muddies over “globalism and centralisation vs. autarky and subsidiarity”.

    The conservative movement has been misled by ideology, not only big money. We see with trade that big business, which is to say *capitalism*, can be a problem. All problems are not the result of evil “Marxists” who deny the libertarian faith in favour of a heretical faith. Capitalism can also be a problem even if the narrative doesn’t fit to a script.

    Like

    Reply
  2. weavercht

    What’s frightening to me is how libertarians put up the argument that if we but get rid of trade agreements and allow for true free trade, then we’ll enjoy utopia.

    No matter what happens, they continually argue we’ll only reach Heaven on Earth when we stop rejecting Libertarian God’s word by minimising government.

    They argue undeveloped, sparsely populated, remote, often agricultural societies, worked well with far less government; but we don’t live in such a society today.

    A few America-first trade protections combined with immigration-protections would actually create an environment (a larger middle class) that would naturally demand less government. It’s not good enough for the libertarians though.

    Like

    Reply
    1. hawthornecht

      Libertarians are against TPP, as they were against NAFTA et al. There are certainly some regime hacks claiming to be libertarian or conservative who front for globalist interests of course.

      Like

      Reply
      1. weavercht

        Oh I know they are. It’s useful to ally with them against the trade agreements, sure.

        But I fear conservatives being absorbed into the libertarian position.

        I’m also intending to convey in the previous post that libertarians should support non-libertarian positions to achieve libertarian ends: specifically trade protections and a higher minimum wage.

        This is to say, libertarians should allow themselves to be absorbed by conservatives. Resistance is futile. Join the real opposition to socialism 🙂

        And you know full well it’s usually libertarian arguments that dim conservatives use.

        Like

  3. roho

    So much get’s complicated by philosophy and ideology. Globalism is nothing more than a “Revolving Door Of Bribery And Corruption”. When we look at the new careers of defeated or retired congressmen it’s obvious. ( When Senator John Doe votes in favor for Widgets Inc. he receives large donations to his campaign war chest. When he retires, he goes to work for Widgets Inc. as a lobbyist, and returns to Capital Hill.)

    Simple “Crony Capitalism” corruption that must be made illegal.

    Like

    Reply
    1. weavercht

      “Simple “Crony Capitalism” corruption that must be made illegal.”

      How?

      I suggested there be an aristocracy, given some amount of powers, that is prevented from owning property, like monks. But apparently that’s “extreme”.

      Bribery seems to go hand-in-hand with democracy. You could perhaps make it so the state does all the candidate advertising, but people would still find a way to help their candidates-of-choice, which would mean money would retain an advantage even if the advantage were lessened.

      Even though if you did bring about a better democratic system, do we really want the average voter voting? The voting pool needs to be restricted somewhat.

      Like

      Reply
  4. roho

    Unfortunately, this has been going on since the Roman Senate. The difference now is the informed voter not being so naïve and being more suspect.

    {How do we change it?}………….I don’t know. But in most crimes and corruption, the fear of the punishment has to be greater than the desire for wealth. 😉

    As for voting restriction, we did that during “Jim Crow” with voter registration. (I would support only allowing “Property Owners” to vote.) That would eliminate a lot of Marxist.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  5. hawthornecht

    Weaver, in my happier moments, I think myself the Anarch, and in this time period, I associate with libertarians as they are the vital interest, where paleos, white nationalists, and so forth, are something between monks, luddites, and Death cultists–that is, for all my respect, I don’t see them as a living thing anymore. You’d be better off as a libertarian–which can mean anything, and taking the fight right to the heart of the beast, the young. Try and peel off a couple, and build a cadre.

    Like

    Reply
    1. weavercht

      Off topic but in reply to your being an “Anarch” at times:

      The GMO obsessed want free markets, because they know only a state could stop them. And it’s easier to destroy than to preserve. So, however it’s approached, a state will be requisite.

      It’s tough for me to disagree with your reply otherwise, as I interpret it.

      As for a cadre, I’m actually making progress with a website and some material. And I’ll post more carefully under a new pseudonym, though I won’t really hide the switch. I’ll continue under the same here.

      Like

      Reply
    2. weavercht

      My argument for why libertarians should support nonlibertarian policies to achieve libertarian ends is:

      government expansion is often attempted on a crisis. Environmental threats, economic disparity, Muslim terror, and future economic collapse.

      If libertarians aimed to support government action that would expand the middle class, this crisis at least would be diminished, resulting in less pressure for larger government.

      And subsidiarity is a great roadblock to leviathan.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s