Monday, March 7, 2016

Republican Anarchists

The 2012 GOP nominee's advisers are examining what a fight at the convention might look like and what rules might need revising.

…two senior Republican Party insiders told CNN that the convention scenario is now dominating a lot of conversation in GOP fundraising circles. To be sure, both of these sources are skeptical about Romney being able to execute this plan, but both believe that there is a real attempt underway to try to do this.

A “fight at the convention”; “what rules might need revising.”

Let’s look at a standard definition of anarchy:

…a state of society without government or law.

So, if you can just change the rules, this would seem to be “a…society without government or law.”

…political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.  Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

Social disorder, disruption, turmoil – like a pre-planned floor fight at the convention.

…confusion and disorder: Synonyms: chaos, disruption, turbulence; license; disorganization, disintegration.

Confusion, disorder, chaos, disruption, turbulence…never mind, I am just copying the last one word for word.

Mainstream neocon Republicans are planning anarchy – in the bad sense of the term.


The lenses inside of me that paint the world black
The pools of poison, the scarlet mist, that spill over into rage

-        From The Anarchist, lyrics by Neil Peart

This describes those mainstream neocon Republicans to perfection.


  1. Isn't this democracy at it's best? Rules/laws changing daily on a whim?
    The whole U.S. government is Anarchy, there is no order or security. No one knows what tomorrow may bring in the way of the State.
    Insecurity is the master's plaything, this is one reason why people continue to vote, hoping, beyond hope I think, that reason and security will result from it. But the State cannot allow it, we always need to have chaos, otherwise, why would we need the State?

  2. I suppose a dictionary definition for any word is a good place to start, but I'd like to suggest that the absence of a ruler (i.e., a person who makes rules for others that he himself does not have to follow) is an adequate definition of anarchy: that there would be no law does not follow. To have no law, specifically no laws against violating people, their property, their reputations, or their trust, is to bring about chaos. Archy -- that is, a situation where there are rulers -- is notoriously chaotic. The Republican and Democrat parties, and for that matter republics and democracies, are by nature chaotic. That the means by which they choose their leaders is chaotic is to be expected.

    Anarchy is a good thing. Chaos is a bad thing. My own view is that the inclusion of "the absence of law" in the definition of anarchy is one means by which elitists go about defending their privileges (i.e., private laws). Trying to rescue anarchy from the smear of chaos is probably a vain effort, but until a better term comes along, it's all we've got, and we need to treat it with respect.

    1. Henry

      I take it from your comment that you are new around here. Try this:

      Or this:

      I understand quite well the appropriate definition of anarchy.

      Please stick around, as I am always happy to have more guests.