Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Rise of Third-Party Libertarians. . . in Britain

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The United Kingdom Independence Party call themselves democratic libertarians.  The leftists call them right-wing extremists.  They emerged from an anti-federalist movement, and the were forged from the popular frustration with the failed policies of big government socialism championed by most British politicians.

In Great Britain, it is time for the pendulum to swing the other way. . . way over to the other side.

The primary objective of the UKIP political party is for Britain to withdraw from the European Union, and to push for a more conservative political landscape by inserting more traditional libertarian values into the system.

UKIP supports reducing taxes, using a voucher system to enable people to see health professionals outside the government controlled healthcare system, supports the monarchy, opposed the disestablishment of the Church of England in 2012, has been non-committed on the immigration issue but tends toward tougher immigration enforcement, opposes governmental definitions of marriage to protect faith-based groups and churches into being forced to perform same-sex weddings, support the concept that the idea of man-made global warming is a hoax, and propose an increase in Britain's defense spending - a list that pretty much lines up with the Tea Party in America, aside from the monarchy and established church, two concepts that have never been a part of the United States, and would be in opposition of the American Constitution here in the States, anyhow.

Sounds good to American conservatives, doesn't it?  Heck, it even shows that in the right conditions (parliamentary conditions are more conducive to such a happening than in a constitutional republic) a third party can rise up and grab the reins.

The pendulum swinging to the right in the United Kingdom is the natural result of failed leftist policies, and the natural cyclical nature of politics.  The Founding Fathers that created the American Republic were very aware of such cycles, and were determined to slow the pendulum down so that it remained closer to the centrist position of the United States Constitution, rather than enjoy such wild swings of extreme measures.

The popularity of the UKIP has caught Britain by storm.  The whole landscape of British politics is in the process of changing.  In upcoming elections UKIP is in position to take over the House of Commons, unseating Prime Minister Cameron, and doing so with a massive landslide.

The election in October, if it follows the trend of recent polls, will humiliate the Tories, and justify the defection by Conservative MP Douglas Carswell to UKIP.  Voters are ready for change, polling that the current Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, is ‘too keen’ on staying in the EU; refuses to ‘shake up the Westminster clique’; has lost control of the UK’s borders; should cut both spending and tax; and should bring in new laws to make it easier for voters to sack MPs in between general elections.

This really IS a political earthquake, writes Damian Lyons Lowe, chief executive of poll firm Survation.  Mr Carswell has been accused of betraying his party, but that is not how the vast majority of his constituents see him.

The election, if it is a landslide, could mark a continuing change in Britain, as well.  If Mr Carswell lost or won narrowly, other like-minded Conservatives toying with going over to UKIP would probably conclude it was far too risky. But if he wins with a record-breaking swing, as polls suggest he could, they may decide it is more risky to fight the next election as a Tory candidate than as a UKIP one.

And that would change the landscape of British politics decisively.

There is a danger with UKIP, as well.  They do not necessarily embrace the political dynamics of a republic as American Conservatives do.  They are pushing more for direct democracy, which the the U.S. Constitution framers warned could be as dangerous as a tyrannical big government.  Democracy leads to mob-rule, violence, spilled blood, and ultimately right back to an oligarchy of a fashion they had originally rejected.  In a direct democracy there are no checks and balances, and it is easier for a particular ideology to fool the people, and then vote themselves into power.

The changes in the United Kingdom are good because the people are moving away from leftism, but there is concern, for if they move so far from leftism that they become a democratic mob, the road back to a tyrannical oligarchy will be swift, and painful.

Not quite the Glorious Revolution, but the changing tides in British Politics could be for the good. . . for a while.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: