Year Two Begins

This is day one of the second year of the Spherical Model blog. If you read just occasionally, you may not have a clue about the meaning of the name. The Spherical Model is an alternative to the right/left line model for looking at political ideas. You can read in much more detail at SphericalModel.com.

The purpose of the blog is to look at examples and ideas that come up in the news or in life, to support the Spherical Model concepts. From March –December 2011 I wrote weekdays (and a few Saturdays). Since the first of 2012 I’ve gone to posting three times a week. The archives might be worth checking out. Writing that much in a year is a good sized book’s worth of material (222 posts as of today).

I continue to search for easier and clearer ways to convey the Spherical Model ideas. I hoped that by now I would have a video (at least what I could accomplish with my simple camera and very limited technical skills) to give a visual Spherical Model lesson in about five minutes. Still working on that. The raw version of Take I is actually on my computer, but not yet usable.

So, in lieu of actual video, today’s anniversary celebration post is the script for the video:

The Spherical Model

Is there a better way of looking at political ideas than right or left?

Because there is nothing innately conservative about the right or innately liberal about the left. In fact, the directional terms come from the seating arrangement of European parliaments, in which conservatives favored retaining the monarchy while liberals were in favor of people’s power.

So the typical line model used to describe political ideas as right and left is just a seating arrangement. Yet we’ve come to think of this line as a spectrum.

We tend to think of the far ends as extreme, assuming there’s some virtue in being balanced in the middle. We refer to our nation as center right—just a little more conservative than exactly center.

But what are the extremes? Do we assume communism or socialism at the extreme left, and fascism at the extreme right?

[line with communism and fascism as the extremes]

That can’t be right, because communism and fascism are both totalitarian statist tyrannies, just slightly different flavors. Nazi means “national socialist party” and the communist Soviet Union’s name was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So if Nazis and communists aren’t diametric opposites, then what are the logical extremes? How about total government control, or tyranny, versus total lack of government control, or anarchy? 

That’s better. Then freedom is that perfect balance in the middle.

But wait; there’s a problem with this model: It’s common in history for people suffering in anarchy to turn for relief to total government control—anything for security. But in this model, as a people move to the left, they have to pass through that balanced freedom section. You’d think that it would be very common for someone to stop and say, “Hey, this freedom is good. Let’s stop going leftward and stay here.” But that pretty much never happens. But going directly from chaos to state control is common.

Plus, notice that there’s not that much difference between the tyranny of the state and the tyranny of anarchy. Total government control means the state has all the power—the police, the military. The state can do what it wants, and the mere citizen is without any rights except what the state decides to grant. Anarchy, on the other hand, means that power belongs to whoever is stronger and meaner than the next guy. If you threaten to beat people up (or kill them) if they don’t give you all their belongings, and you’re strong enough to mean it, then you have power. If someone else is stronger or better armed than you are, then you have to yield power to them.

In other words, anarchy, while less organized, is power in the hands of the strongest and best armed—just like a tyrannical government.

So maybe government tyranny and anarchic tyranny are pretty close to the same thing.

[bring anarchy and tyranny together at one end, with freedom at the other end]

So tyranny and freedom are really the opposite extremes.

Not bad. But it puts all those different kinds of tyrannies in the same location, and maybe there are differences worth noting.

This simple line doesn’t give us the dimensions we need. So what if we use three dimensions, a sphere? If we draw a line at the equator, we can separate freedom (northern hemisphere) from tyranny (southern hemisphere). And then we can draw a longitudinal dividing line, with more local interests in the western hemisphere and larger interests—from state to nation, to international, in the eastern hemisphere.

We call this the Spherical Model.

Down here in the south, you can see that one side of tyranny is the chaos of anarchy, and the other side is the totalitarian control of government tyranny. It’s easy to get from one to the other—which is what much of world history has shown us. You can have communism, socialism, and Nazism as separate points in their quartersphere, based on how much control they exert on their people (southern direction), or how far they plan to expand (toward the eastward extreme of world domination).

Up in the freedom zone, location is mostly a matter of whose interest. Free people don’t yield power to a governing authority beyond the appropriate interest. Families make their own decisions about the care, upbringing, and education of their children. Communities on up to cities and counties decide on local law enforcement and protection needs. States (or provinces) deal with their particular infrastructure and laws. Only very limited powers would be granted to a nation—as are enumerated in the US Constitution. And that sovereignty would never yield to an international power, but would cooperate with other free sovereignties concerning international issues.

If we identify ideologies according to level of control exerted onto free people, and also their level of interest, we can identify location on the sphere. And that will tell us how close we are to thriving in the freedom zone—up here above the 45^th parallel.

We can use the spherical model again for economic ideas: the north will be free enterprise, and the south will be controlled economy. Those differences have direct relationships with political ideologies, so we can overlay the economic sphere right over the political sphere and see how things interrelate.

And what about social ideologies? Again, we can use the same sphere; the north will be civilization, and the south will be savagery.

Let’s define civilization in a specific way: families remain intact and thriving; neighbors—and neighboring entities—live among one another in peace; free enterprise thrives, and poverty becomes meaningless; creativity abounds; people generally self-restrain, but when they don’t, laws and appropriate authorities deal with the lawbreakers in fair and predictable ways.

Savagery is exemplified by broken families, strife, poverty, cruelty, lack of progress, and unpredictable and unfair enforcement of arbitrary rules. Just as you see in organized crime, gangs and tribal warfare in the southwest anarchy quartersphere, and in the various flavors of totalitarian regimes in the southeast quartersphere. So the civilization/social sphere overlays the other two.

In fact, if we can identify the formula for civilization, we’re set up to spread freedom and free enterprise in the interrelated spheres.

The question becomes, then, not which is better, left of right? But what are the principles of civilization, which then allow for freedom and prosperity?

There’s no too far north extreme; there’s only getting north enough and doing what it takes to stay there, generation after generation, without southward slipping.

Stand for Truth

Yesterday the news was dominated by the sad tidings of the death of Andrew Breitbart. I had been unaware of his previous heart attack and was stunned to hear of his death at the young age of 43. I pray for his family, who will most miss him. But I pray also that we will be able to continue progress in a way he pioneered.

Andrew Breitbart, file photo

I don’t remember exactly when I became aware of him, but I became more aware when he and crew came to Houston following the 2010 election to record the stories of voter fraud and interference committed unilaterally by the Democrats. I wasn’t recorded (my challenges were minor compared to many), and I didn’t meet him. But there were people on video at his site that I had seen and met at trainings provided by King Street Patriots’ True the Vote project.

Catherine Engebrecht, head of King Street Patriots, wrote a touching newsletter to honor him yesterday. Among the many remembrances yesterday, this was one of my favorites:

When faced with the challenge of expressing your heart it is often said that words do not do justice. Andrew Breitbart knew how to use words for justice; the impact his words have had on our country is truly immeasurable.

When history folds in on our generation, and our children speak of who we were, they will speak better of us because of Andrew and God willing, they will still speak freely, because of the war Andrew fearlessly fought for so many years.

My friendship with Andrew began in 2010. We'd been sued, we'd been slandered, we'd been all but silenced. Why? A simple miscalculation. We thought that a citizen's volunteering to uphold election integrity would be a good thing; a thing no one could find fault with. How could you be against True the Vote? What we know now that we didn't know then is that in present day America if you tell the truth, and if that truth threatens power, then you will be attacked. Not debated. Attacked, intimidated, smeared, destroyed. Then we met Andrew.

He said "let me be your rodeo clown". In rodeos there are bulls, bull riders, and rodeo clowns. When a bull rider gets thrown he is at the mercy of the animal until the rodeo clown, the bravest one in the arena, shows up to distract the bull long enough to turn its attention to the clown. If there is a hit to be taken, the clown takes it for the sake of the bull rider. Let me be your rodeo clown, let me take the hit, so you can come back to ride another day. What is the measure of a man who would willingly take the hit, over and over and over and over again, so that truth could ride one more day?

There are many depraved, godless, evil animals out there right now, writing and saying horrible things. I can assure you those things are not true. None of them. Andrew sought the truth, supported the truth, told the truth. The more these animals spew, the more they out themselves as the pitiful lot that they are.

Andrew spoke often of and dearly loved his family, he was passionate about his country and countrymen, he knew the stakes of the battle he was in and even still he warred on without reserve.

Today our country lost one of its greatest patriots. Our hearts are broken - but our resolve is redoubled. 2012 is for you, Andrew.

Onward - Catherine Engelbrecht

There was a Facebook page created to honor Breitbart, OneMillionBreitbarts.  I really like the sentiment in this explanation paragraph (found by clicking about):

When I first heard that Andrew Breitbart had died suddenly of natural causes early Thursday night, March 1, 2012 (at the wildly young age of 43) I went through the same set of emotions most Conservatives probably experienced: disbelief, shock, anger, followed by an enormous sense of sorrow: Sorrow for his unfairly shortened life... Sorrow for his wife, Susie, and the four children he left behind… But more than anything I felt an enormous sense of emptiness and sorrow for our country. Because in the length of time it takes for a heart to stop beating, America lost more than a media pioneer, personality and political ‘showman’ (through he was all of these): it lost perhaps the Right’s strongest voice and most powerful advocate for Capitalism, Conservatism, and the United States Constitution. My next thought was: Dear God, there’s no one to take his place. But that’s not entirely true. Because while there is no one person who could ever take Andrew Breitbart’s place on the political platform, there are millions of us who have been touched by his spirit and his passion… to help complete his mission to return America to its former greatness. And that’s why we’ve created this page: to enlist one million people—to fill Andrew Breitbart’s shoes and continue his work. This is more than simply a cute idea to get “likes”… it’s a movement that’s just getting started, one that will give voice to a man who fought tirelessly for us all. Stay posted… keep sharing.

I clicked like, to see what comes. I want to believe that the many media outlets Andrew Breitbart set up to get the truth out will continue, and will keep paving the way for more and more truth. It's a mission worth continuing. I believe (and I think Breitbart believed this) as a people, when we see clearly what is true, we will make the right decisions for preserving our blessed nation under God.

Who Is the Establishment?

I’ve been puzzled by the constant insistence that an expensive barrage of Romney attack ads are decimating his opponents. They complain it’s unfair and harms the process. I’ve had to look for those attack ads; they’re nonexistent here in Texas so far. (For various reasons, the Texas primary is still up in the air. We only know it won’t be on the originally scheduled April 3^rd, and may be all the way into June. So no need to campaign here right now.)

What we do get is a constant barrage of anti-Romney ads. This past couple of weeks, during every commercial break on just about every talk radio station, enough times to practically memorize it, we have heard this ad from Time to Choose, a pro-Gingrich PAC [proviso: I did not do an exact transcript, so this is what I remember, based on the wording at the Time toChoose website]:

The Republican Party is at a Crossroads. There’s a battle going on between the establishment minority, and the conservative majority. Between the GOP establishment that wants to protect its own power at all costs, and the conservative majority that wants power returned to the people.

The establishment minority wants us to hold our noses and vote for the Massachusetts moderate. They tell us he is the best man to beat President Obama. They tell us he is the best we can do.

We’ve been down this road before. They gave us Gerald Ford. We got [crashing noise]. They gave us Bob Dole. We got [crashing noise].  They gave us John McCain. We got Barak Obama.

Now they’re trying to give us a Massachusetts moderate. Don’t let them. Not this time….

So the question at hand is, who is the GOP establishment? And how do they control so many voters in so many states?

It seems to me that if someone served in Congress for two decades, including a stint as Speaker of the House, and then stayed in the DC area to push for various causes, one might consider that person part of “the establishment.” Quite often, Gingrich teardowns of opponents are only true if you substitute his name in, in place of the opponent.

I googled the anti-Gingrich ads, since we haven’t seen them here. There’s a collection here. Only those listing Romney as approving the message are from the Romney campaign. Any others are by a Romney PAC, which can by law have no contact with the campaign. There may be some technical details that aren’t true, but I can’t find any. In fact they seem scrupulously true, and where it is opinion, those opinions are expressed with clear rationale. Hardly something to follow up with untrue attack ads, as Gingrich has done.

What about anti-Santorum ads? There are some of these credited to Romney that are actually done by Ron Paul people. But Restore the Future, a pro-Romney PAC, did this one:

Again, it’s scrupulously true. It may be that each and every point can be answered with reason by Santorum, but except for some painful minutes during the last debate (answering mainly Ron Paul), Santorum hasn’t spent the time explaining.

Is this so unfair that Santorum’s response should be to do robocalls recruiting Michigan Democrats to mess up the GOP primary vote? I think not. And apparently even that underhanded tactic didn’t work.

That question, then, comes up again: Who is this GOP establishment? The RNC has been all about fundraising, but every time they call, it’s absolutely all about defeating Barak Obama, not about pushing a candidate. And if they were pushing a candidate, what is the likelihood that they would choose a governor from a very blue state who never cozied up to them in DC? For that matter, how would a Massachusetts former governor become part of the establishment, or even acceptable to such an entity?

Becoming acceptable consisted of spending millions of his own money on a first campaign, going up against a much-disliked but chosen “establishment” candidate, and then stepped out of that race gracefully, and instead of going back home to enjoy his wealth with his family, he continued to campaign—for others. Rick Perry was a beneficiary of that. So were countless other candidates for governor, senate, congress, and also for John McCain for president. Because, as Romney articulated then and now, the important thing is to keep the liberals like Obama from taking away our freedoms and making America worse.

He worked tirelessly and selflessly, not even certain it would ever be worth running for president again. But his selflessness did indeed ingratiate him to many who got elected. So, among current Congress and Senate, yes, there are far more endorsements for Romney than for Gingrich and Santorum, who were their colleagues in those august bodies. Because he’s been an inside-the-beltway pal for so long? No. Because he worked so hard to put forward conservative ideas and promote conservative candidates wherever he could.

What I see happening is that the negative press (72% negative on main stream media, nearly 60% negative on Fox, plus some vitriol from Mark Levin and a fair amount of negative from Rush Limbaugh) tends to convince people that Romney is not a reliable conservative. Then, when it’s nearer time for a state to vote, they start seeing Romney in person, and hearing more of his own words. And, despite what pundits say, he is believable and engaging, and able to connect with people. Plus there’s the fact that everything he says, and everything he reveals about his record, shows a consistent conservative.

So it isn’t some far-off “establishment” that is making Romney’s nomination look likely; it is many people, across many demographics, looking for the best alternative to Obama. We may have found him and just don’t all know it yet.

He's In the Army Now

My new car window sticker.

This post is somewhat personal today. My middle son, Economic Sphere, was sworn in to the Army and flew off to basic training. His sweet little wife came downtown with Mr. Spherical Model and me to the MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) to see the ceremony and say goodbye until after basic training.

We’re proud of our son, and the Army seems very pleased to have recruited him. He has a college degree and has been married a few years, so he’s more mature and knowledgeable than many. He also had some ROTC experience in college. So he’s likely to be used as a leader.

When he first told us he was considering the Army, I thought it was his backup plan if he didn’t get a job out of college. But, while he would have taken a very good offer, to please us, the economy was not healthy enough to offer that alternative. And this is what he really wanted to do all along. But after the stress of college, he had to get back in shape. He started losing weight before moving in with us last summer, and then, once he made his decision certain, he got more serious about working out and dieting. He lost a total of 60 pounds, putting him under the requirement (which I think is maybe a little too lean for someone as tall as he is). And he passed all the physical requirements with flying colors.

That's him, tall one in the middle of the far right row.

A recruiter had originally told him that there might be a specialty in finance that could become a career. But that turned out not to be the case; finances are generally outsourced to the private sector nowadays. But Economic Sphere was still very positive about wanting to take whatever was available. After the entrance aptitude test, his high scores opened doors that weren’t open for everyone. His area of specialty following basic training will be intelligence, in crypto-linguistics. An additional test showed that he would qualify to learn a level three language (the most difficult), but what language he actually learns will depend on the military’s need. He will also get a top secret clearance, which can open opportunity doors in the future as well.

His assignment after basic will be at the defense language institute in California. He was born in California, but left before he was two. We have some good memories from there. I have to say, though, if you’re going to live in California, doing it with housing provided and no kids in school yet is a good way to enjoy the climate. Mr. Spherical Model and I will have to visit.

Each of the recruits did solemnly swear:

…that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulation and the uniform code of military justice, so help me God.

I’ve been worried, as a mother, about a son going in to the military when we have a commander-in-chief that I do not trust to be wise. But I am hopeful that a year from now that will no longer be the case. Still, when I heard that he was swearing to obey the orders of the president, I had a twinge of worry. Economic Sphere reminded me afterward not to worry, because he cannot be expected to violate the uniform code of military justice. And I know he will know that code, because he tends to remember everything he learns. He also told me that officers do not swear obedience to the president, only to the Constitution and the code, so that no president can use the military to usurp power over the nation’s citizens.

I am also comforted, as a mother, that his skills will be valuable in a way that is likely to keep him out of harm’s way. He would have been willing to go into infantry, and he had asked me at one point if I’d be mad at him if he did that. I said no, I wouldn’t be mad; I’d just be frantic with worry for a very long time. His recruiter, whom we met yesterday, had gone infantry. And he’d had only 12 days’ notice for his mother to get used to the idea. I have had many months to get used to the Army idea, and a full month knowing what his area of specialty would be. My burden has been light, which I appreciate.

In Economic Sphere’s ceremony, there were a dozen recruits, from the various armed services, shipping out today. There was another ceremony with as many more immediately afterward. These are all brave volunteers, willing to serve our country during difficult times. We have good reason to be proud of these young men and women, and thankful for their service. I plan to keep them in my prayers, especially my son.

Formula for Success

There is a formula for avoiding poverty in America:

1.      Don’t have sex before age 20.

2.      Don’t have sex until after marriage.

3.      Stay married

4.      Obtain at least a high school diploma.

I first wrote down this formula back in 2001, in the notes I took at a lecture by Richard Wilkins, who was then a co-founder of the World Congress of Families, and is now head of the Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development. I’ve come across the list a number of times since, and included it in a post last April 4^th. The formula, along with lots of backup data, have risen in public awareness lately due to the latest book by Charles Murray: ComingApart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. (The book was mentioned by Newt Gingrich in Wednesday's presidential debate in Arizona.)

Murray tends to write about data in a way that stirs up a hornets nest. This was true with The Bell Curve in the 1990s, and to some extent with Real Education a few years ago. While I don’t always agree with his analysis, his wealth of data is always enlightening.

This book looks at class differences in whites in America to avoid differences related to race; it’s not a racist treatment, but rather a way to look at differences aside from race. Looking only at whites, then, is a statistical control. What he finds is that there are some rather surprising differences between the newer wealthy and the stuck lower classes. There are many aspects of the growing divide that may be worth talking about another day (when I have finished reading the book), including a separation that makes the leader class more and more out of touch with the lesser classes. But today what interests me is the social formula so many of the wealthier are using. This summary comes in the article “Charles Murray’s Book of Virtues,” by Heather Wilhelm, February 2^nd:

In the new upper class, which amounts to about 20 percent of the country, out-of-wedlock births are rare: around 6-8 percent. For the more dysfunctional working class, which accounts for around 30 percent of the country, the number is mind-boggling: 42-48 percent. The numbers also turn a few stereotypes on their heads: In the lower working class, for instance, the rate of church attendance has dropped at nearly double the rate as that of the supposedly secularized elite.

America's working class, Coming Apart argues, has increasingly forsaken traditional values like marriage, religion, industriousness, and honesty—and, as a result, it is rotting from within. Happiness levels are down; participation in the labor force is down; television watching (an average of 35 hours a week) is up.

In short, those who have discovered the value of living the laws of civilization (as we outline at SphericalModel.com, keeping the Ten Commandments and valuing and protecting family as the basic unit of society) find themselves not only living a happier and more satisfying civilized life, but they enjoy economic prosperity and greater opportunity to participate in political leadership.

By several measures the Spherical Model family is in that top 20%. And we do indeed live the laws that lead naturally to prosperity rather than poverty. But unlike the subject of much of the book, we don’t feel distant from the less prosperous; we are very willing to share the formula, rather than isolate ourselves.

So, with something of a proselytizing spirit, let me share some comparison data: Only 10% of children in two-parent families live in poverty. But 50% of children living with a single mother live in poverty.[*] This is not intended to make struggling single mothers feel worse about their situation. Their burden is tough enough. But we need to recognize that accepting single parenthood as an equally valuable situation as a two-parent home is not only inaccurate but harmful. We must not encourage more problems for more people by subsidizing them.

Churches and local charities are a much better way of helping than the awkwardly broad brush of government. Locally, someone with social skills can work with the person in need to encourage living the civilization formula: no more sex outside of marriage; find ways to improve skills to become more self-sufficient; supplement the parent with community help (scouting, youth sports coaches, and other family serving auxiliaries), so that the deficits inherent in the single parent’s situation are mitigated, and the next generation is aimed toward more economically rewarding civilization, rather than being trapped in perpetual poverty patterns.

Poverty doesn’t have to be permanent. But the way out is much more likely to come by living the formula the successful use, rather than following the pattern that has so consistently led to poverty. Success won’t necessarily come instantaneously, but it can come within a single additional generation.

---

[*] Craig H. Hart, Ph.D., “Combating the Myth that Parents Don’t Matter,” address delivered at the World Congress of Families II, Geneva, Switerzerland, available online at www.worldcongress.org.

Studying the Constitution

Back in the 1770s-80s, the founders were an unusually well-educated group of men, considering they were farmers and shopkeepers in the world’s frontier. They had a list of readings in common, which led to their concepts of natural rights granted to men and women by God. And it is this understanding that led to the writing of our brilliant founding documents: The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

I’ve often felt driven to educate myself somewhat along the lines of the founders. A couple of years ago I went to an all-day seminar provided by the National Center for Constitutional Studies (nccs.net). I’ve also used their curriculum to teach homeschool students from elementary through high school. Another good source is Hillsdale College. Last fall, in honor of Constitution Day in September, they provided a free six-week course of lectures by Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale, introducing the Constitution. It’s a good review, still available, and free of cost.

Right now Hillsdale College is offering even more. They have developed their core course on the Constitution for online study—also for free. Constitution 101 will be ten weeks of lectures, readings, discussion, quizzes, and all you’d expect from a college class. It is part of Hillsdale’s mission to educate, and they take seriously educating as far and wide as possible, particularly these constitutional essentials of our culture. (Their magazine Imprimus is another example of their spreading knowledge mission, also free.)  The course started Monday, but you can sign up and catch up at any time. The only thing you miss by starting late would be the active Q&A.

Here is the lineup of lecture titles, and the various lecturers:

1. The American Mind
   Larry P. Arnn
   Monday, February 20
2. The Declaration of Independence
   Thomas G. West
   Monday, February 27
3. The Problem of Majority Tyranny
   David Bobb
   Monday, March 5
4. Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny
   Kevin Portteus
   Monday, March 12
5. Separation of Powers: Ensuring Good Government
   Will Morrisey
   Monday, March 19
6. Religion, Morality, and Property
   David Bobb
   Monday, March 26
7. Crisis of Constitutional Government
   Will Morrisey
   Monday, April 2
8. Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution
   Kevin Portteus
   Monday, April 9
9. The Progressive Rejection of the Founding
   Ronald J. Pestritto
   Monday, April 16
10. The Recovery of the Constitution
    Larry P. Arnn
    Monday, April 23

I’ve already enjoyed the first lecture and started on the readings, the most pertinent segments of some essential founding readings. Here’s this week’s list:

1. “Letter to Henry Lee”—Thomas Jefferson
2. “On the Commonwealth”—Marcus Tullius Cicero
3. “Nicomachean Ethics”—Aristotle
4. “The Politics”—Aristotle
5. “Discourses Concerning Government”—Algernon Sidney
6. “Second Treatise of Government”—John Locke
7. “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union”—Abraham Lincoln
8. “The Inspiration of the Declaration”—Calvin Coolidge

All of the readings are made available online, but they are all taken from the book Hillsdale’s text The US Constitution: A Reader, which you can order: http://www.hillsdaleusconstitution.com/

Just to be clear, I have no connection to Hillsdale, other than someone who subscribes to things they offer. I just appreciate a good deal on some essential learning, so I want to share. I hope you’ll join me in this study of our beloved Constitution.

Delving into Data: Part II

On Friday we looked at some of the data about how states have historically voted since 1960. Today we’re going to dig a little deeper to see if this data can tell us anything about this year. For your review, I'm including the (almost too small to read) charts again.

First let’s take a look at Tier 1 Republican states: Arizona, Oklahoma, Utah, Nebraska, Idaho, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Of these, all but Arizona have voted for the Republican presidential candidate every election except 1964. Arizona voted GOP that year, but Democrat in 1996 only. So what was going on in 1964? That was Barry Goldwater against LBJ. Goldwater only took six states. Arizona was his home state; the others were Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina. The first four of those states were also outliers in the 1968 election, voting for the third party segregationist candidate. In other words, it was not likely Goldwater’s conservatism that appealed, but his racism. The Tier 1 Republican states probably didn’t vote in favor of LBJ’s liberal policies so much as they voted against Goldwater’s unsavory policies; none of the Tier 1 states ever had slaves or particular race issues.

George Romney, Mitt’s father, ran (among others, including Nixon) against Goldwater in 1968. People today like to characterize that as the moderate candidate vs. the conservative. While there were a number of conservative positions put forward by Goldwater that have since become basic doctrine, back in the 1960s, the matchup was more likely to be seen as sane vs. insane. Think, for comparison, of Ron Paul’s anti-Israel foreign policy—with vitriol.

All of the Tier 1 states voted against Obama in 2008, so it’s likely we can count on that position again. Of Tier 2 Republican states, Virginia and Indiana are the outliers. They voted Democrat in 1964 (the same year the Tier 1 states voted Democrat) and again in 2008. The “historic” opportunity to vote for the first black president, especially with the alternative being a weak conservative, probably caught them; now that the results of that mistake are clear, they are not at all likely to go Democrat again this time.

There were 22 states that voted against Obama in 2008; it is practically guaranteed that all 22 will vote against him again. So the question is, really, which of the ones suckered in to that “historic” thing now know better?

Colorado has gone Democrat only in 1964 (the outlier Goldwater year), 1992 (Clinton’s first, but not his second race, when 3^rd party Perot was a factor against the GOP), and 2008. Since the Obama error is considerably worse than the Clinton error, logic would say they will go against Obama in 2012. No guarantee, but that is a possible 9 electoral votes.

Then we’re down to Florida and North Carolina. Florida went Democrat in 1964 (Goldwater again), 1976 (against Reagan, but they are adjacent to Carter’s Georgia), 1996 (Clinton’s 2^nd term, another 3^rd party Perot interference), and 2008. Floridians voted for Bush narrowly both times. So they’re questionable. As my son Political Sphere points out, Florida has people who couldn’t read a ballot, and then tried to overturn an election by looking at “pregnant chads.” Having our future depend on them makes us feel vulnerable. But the state, with 29 electoral votes, is definitely worth fighting for. They have been voting regularly for GOP governors for quite a while, so that is a positive.

North Carolina went Democrat only in 1960, 1964, and 1976. Up until 2008, they went GOP seven straight times. Let’s hope it was just the “historic” problem, and they will self-correct, for another 15 electoral votes.

In the top 4 tiers, the only real question is Florida. If we assume the scenario that the GOP gets all of the top 4 tiers, as we showed in the last post, that’s 212 electoral votes.

In lower tiers, the GOP will also get Georgia, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and West Virginia—all of whom voted against Obama in 2008 when we didn’t know how bad he would be. That is another 45 electoral votes, putting the GOP candidate at 257. Another 13 electoral votes means a win.

Of the remaining states, let’s look at those who voted GOP recently before 2008:

·         Ohio                            GOP in 2000 and 2004             18 electoral votes

·         Nevada                        GOP in 2000 and 2004               6 electoral votes

·         New Hampshire            GOP in 2000                             4 electoral votes

·         Iowa                            GOP in 2004                              6 electoral votes

·         New Mexico                 GOP in 2004                              5 electoral votes

Ohio alone could do the job, or any other three. Plus there is the possibility that any historically blue state might notice the abysmal result of the Obama vote. Almost any loss could mean defeat for Obama.

This assessment is based mainly on history. There is no guarantee that demographics have stayed the same. For example, Texas voted Democrat four of five times from 1960-1976, but has voted GOP in every presidential election since. Some migration has happened with people leaving high unemployment places to places with more opportunity. The better opportunity places tend to be conservative, places that resist big government interference.

National polls show two conflicting things: low and sinking approval ratings for Obama (despite the mainstream media as his propagandists), and slight leads for Obama against specific GOP opponents. But the polls don’t say who was polled. A fair poll would be numbers that relate to registered GOP and Democrat voters, and should be likely voters. Polls tend to be canvass more Democrats than Republicans, and not necessarily those who vote. So polls tend to be skewed against Republicans. Also, the national polls do not show where the voters are. If there is a preponderance in urban areas and blue states, the poll is skewed against Republicans in a way that is particularly inaccurate in relation to the electoral college.

The point is that, ten months out from voting day without a chosen Republican candidate, there is quite a lot of reason for us to hope for change, so we can get our country back.