The Return of the Non-Professional Politician

I would like to see non-professional politicians return to the fold.  These are people who might have some means of independence, or who are guaranteed a role in politics in spite of not being a politician at all.  In America, Donald Trump may well be a good example among others although he still must be popular to be elected.  Another example comes to mind, to take a religious one,  were bishops, who often came from their own constituency but their job was not as a professional politician.  Now you might ask why this would be so important for our nations.

The reason is that professional politicians’ livelihoods are completely dependent on their elections which are by and large done by popularity.  To gain popularity, politicians simply look at what is popular and leftist memes have dominated politics for decades.  The theme of inequality has been particularly predominant in all its forms and under the present lot, it really is no different.  So politicians have largely adapted their messages and agendas around solving the issues of inequality.

Unfortunately, this has been disastrous even though it was popular.  Alas, what is popular may not be what is best.  From extraordinarily high taxes in order to insure that some paid their ‘fair share’, that pushed businesses and people away to minority quotas, to disparate application of the law, to the destruction of institutions that promoted excellence but that lacked diversity, such as the promotion of judges to high courts, the left’s equality virtue has done much harm.  Worse, there is no sign of it letting up.

Even worse still, the politicians’ will to survive and thrive pushed them to try to select their own voters in order to guarantee their successes.  The term gerrymandering comes to mind.  The literature on the term would lead one to conclude that this is mostly a conservative phenomenon, but the corruption and lack of concern for the spirit of an election is highly indicative of a leftist mindset.  Worse still than that was the leftist push to import immigrants who they could count on for votes, displacing the people they ought to be protecting.

In the past, there were people who had power and their power was not dependent on their popularity, they were independent.  This seems to me like an antidote and counter to popular will.  What we have now is a runaway machine.  Politicians rely on popularity to gain power but can use their power to ensure their popularity.  This must be stopped and I propose that we try to include more non-professional politicians into politics because of their independence much like the statesmen of yesteryear who saw it as a duty and not as a job.


Will the United Kingdom Change Policies in Response to Trump?

The Tories won the last election, thank God, and with radical leftist Jeremy Corbyn elected Leader of the Labour Party, I think it is quite likely that Tories will win the next election too, given how fringe the Left has become.

The two most likely candidates for the next Prime Minister are Boris Johnson and George Osborne.  The Right Honourable George Osborne is the more likely candidate of the two.  Which means that in all likelihood, he will be the next prime minister.

George angered Tories when he strongly supported gay marriage.  He is socially liberal.  I admire his fiscal acumen, but his leftist leanings are distasteful.  I recall him saying that the reason Mitt Romney and the Republicans in America lost the last election was because of their socially conservative policies and ideas.

There is some truth to that, I recall the rhetoric of the War on Women, and I recall its importation to the UK during the last election.  However, I don’t believe his notion that conservatives must adopt socially liberal stances in order to survive and compete now.

If anything, I would say that most people have shifted towards socially conservative stances after witnessing what happens when socially liberal people gain power.  People have had enough of the pink and blue haired lunatics, the violent immigrants, the removal of centuries-old Christian traditions from public life, the stifling political correctness, and the taxpayer funded handouts for everyone and anyone.

I wonder if George Osborne will take notice of what is going on in America right now.  He claims people shifted away from traditional stances, yet right now it seems that Trump is winning with a traditional-conservative platform.  He wants to end open borders, which is the issue of our time, and at least personally seems to be opposed to gay marriage which was a much larger issue a few years back.

Last time around, George Osborne said conservatives must shift to the left socially, and now that things are shifting to the right, will he say that Conservatives must shift to the right, or is it his own personal leftist bias and not a political reality that conservatives must ‘adapt’ and ‘modernise’ by shifting leftward?

I very much doubt he will renounce any socially liberal positions.  But politicians would do well to note that the future isn’t necessarily a leftist one.


Why Follow a Tyrant?

It is sort of funny to hear Americans complaining about what they perceive to be the latest breeches in their rights.  Often, they will argue that the Constitution gave them some right, and now it is being taken away.

But how did the Constitution come to exist?  American colonialists were upset with how they had no representation in Parliament, so they sent letters and ultimately this led them to wish to part ways with the Kingdom of Great Britain.  This was ultimately settled through the Revolutionary War.

The Constitution was created to prevent what the colonialists said was tyranny, that they experienced before the war.  So what this means is that if people feel their rights are being taken away, they could just decide that they have had enough, much like was done in the past.  But strangely, no one ever does this.

Conservatives are never willing to actually fight for rights, they just refer to the Constitution as if it had some sort of immortal ability to decide right from wrong.  Ultimately, the Constitution was borne out of numerous frustrations and disagreements that led to a fracture between a colony and its imperial powers.

They even complain about Barack Obama’s lawlessness, yet they do nothing about it.  They just sit around and say: “Back in George Washington’s era, this never would have happened, I am outraged”.  But George Washington fought for rights.

So, please conservatives, if you feel your rights have been violated, don’t just refer to the Constitution as if it were the ultimate in morality.  You will actually have to fight for your rights sometimes.