Paulites looking for another straw poll victory

NEW ORLEANS -- Coming off their victory in the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, supporters of (FreeLiberal.com columnist) Congressman Ron Paul are trying to make another splash this weekend with another win. The Southern Republican Leadership Conference is this weekend, with speeches by noted Republican politicos and networking opportunities for conservative activists.

The Paul-affiliated Campaign For Liberty has a presence here and more Paulites are expected to arrive tomorrow in time for the Congressman's speech. A donor has provided several tickets through C4L discounted to $30 from the face value of a couple hundred dollars. "Evangelicals for Mitt" is making a push to get Romney supporters to attend and vote. Palin partisans are making their presence known also. Gov. Gary Johnson, a Paul ally and potential 2012 candidate himself, is here too.

The straw poll voting goes on all day today and tomorrow, with results announced Saturday evening. Meanwhile, MSNBC reports that if Paul wins again, the losers will pressure future Republican confabs to cancel their polls.

Campaign Finance Reform

The recent Supreme Court decision striking down restrictions on corporate electoral speech has made campaign finance a hot issue. There is even talk of a constitutional convention call to draft an amendment to counteract it and create a system of public financing. Given the likely composition of just the Virginia delegation to such a convention, I am not sure this is a risk I am willilng to take. What I do want to do is below the fold.

Because each and every directly elected federal officer (counting the members of the Electoral College - which actually elect the POTUS) represent a state or the District of Columbia, I question whether federal campaign finance legislation is appropriate at all. It certainly has not decreased the power of economic interests in relation to the citizens. If anything, we are worse off than we were before Watergate.

If there is a federal law in this area, it should simply empower the states to regulate campaign finance as they see fit. If states also wish to establish a system of public finance, they can do so. If they wish to ban out of state donations, they should be able to do that too. I would probably draw the line against allowing them to regulate political ads, although this may be a state constitutional issue and not a federal one. Trusting the states is dicey, however, as they may not play fairly in this area nor would I want to tempt partisan majorities into testing the waters.

Some states would, undoubtedly, set up a system of public finance. Others might require that campaign committees not accept out of state, corporate or PAC donations or channel them blindly through party committees (which could even distribute them equally to all candidates). Some states will be more progressive than others, but this might be a good thing as innovative states may shame others into change. If other states allow more visible corruption to occur, this may well become an electoral issue - in fact, it is sure to become one if one party too obviously feeds at the corporate trough. This is, perhaps, the best way to ensure good behavior. Nothing we have tried to date has.

The Tea Party's Future

Jack Cafferty asks the question on his CNN blog about the future of the Tea Party. I was just about to blog about that and see no reason not to post a paragraph on his blog and more on this one. The Tea Party, at least at the leadership level, is Republican astroturf goaded by one of your main competitors. It was never anything but a GOP activity designed to rally the base, especially the economic conservatives. The poll should have asked what Republican party offices activists have held in the past if you really wanted to know the true nature of the "movement." Now, there is a thread of people who want both more economic justice and less government who the movement was gunning for, but the reason they were being mobilized was to revitalize the GOP, not form a third party. Time will tell whether the GOP gets them or not.

Carl Milsted believes that the most fertile ground for a new party are members of the Christian Left and people that can be classified in his political matrix as "Left Leaning Freedom Lovers" which would support a mix of libertarian and democratic policies, as well as "Social Liberals", which favor a mix of Libertarian, Green and Democratic views. When I took his political quiz, I lined up right on the line between these two groups, neither of which is really represented by either party. From its stated positions and past support for Constitution Party folks, it is more likely that Tea Partiers would fit in Carl's Economic Conservative category, which is quintessentially Republican (although many hard core Republicans are in his Social Conservative area - however these care less about taxes than abortion, gays and immigration).

My bet is that many of the people who are liking the Tea Party (outside its Republican organizers) want more economic freedom but are not necessarily happy with the Republican social conservatives. The Republican Party will never be a home for these people, although they may vote Republican if Obama does not get the economy back on track soon. Of course, if the immigration debate comes to a head, they may just stay home if the Republican social rhetoric gets ugly (which it likely will).

The recent losses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachussets did not come because the Republicans are gaining in popularity, but because the new Obama voters stayed home or have moved, graduated or were not mobilized on election day. In time, these voters will turn out more frequently while the older Tea Partiers continue to die off (sometimes in a blaze of infamy). Anchor babies will also soon age into the voting population, even without immigration reform. I doubt they will vote with Republicans who wish to deny them their natural born citizenship.

Indeed, freedom lovers will tell you that the best way to reduce immigration is to quit restricting the ability of immigrants to work. They will then become less attractive to American employers because they cannot be exploited if they no longer need documentation (or if they, gasp, join the Union like American workers).

The Tea Party may force a third party, but only because they contain enough anti-immigrants to make the GOP look like the KKK, while at the same time radicalizing people who want both more freedom and more justice (the Christian Left and Christian Libertarians). Even if the Christian Left does find a home in the Democrats (like we did in 2008), we won't stay there and the Democratic Party and the ranks of the independents will eventually get too big to not lead to a third party by 2016, except that this "third party" will likely be a second party by then. It all depends on the positions held by the two top contenders to replace Obama that year. Whoever loses the nomination may take their marbles and go found a second party. My bet is that the Democrats will fracture on corporatism vs. populism, what to do about the deficit and abortion. That's 2016, however, not 2010.

Reid's Goosey Gander

It never ceases to amuse when karmic payback plays itself out. Somehow or other, people generally and politicians especially don't seem to get the universal truth that you reap what you sow. Or what goes around, comes around. Or even Seinfeld's "even Steven."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid illustrates the lesson once again. His hushed toned voice and seemingly even temper belies a man who will make the nastiest, most histrionic overstatements in public to "win," not apparently realizing that his bad karma will boomerang and smack him upside his head.

A few weeks ago, Reid said this:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down. Stop everything. Let's start over,” Reid said.

“If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said: Slow down. It is too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough.

Surely we can agree that health care is an important issue, and we can buy that Reid believes it's as fundamental as emancipation or suffrage, but it strains credibility – big time – to suggest that ObamaCare is anything like the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the US Constitution. Those amendments were discrete and specific. The currently pending health (really) insurance legislation is complex, complicated, and voluminous. Reid's lame attempt at analogy would (or should) be laughable for the fair minded. (OK, I'm open to hearing how the analogy holds, but I admit to being more than a bit skeptical!)

That was December. Now in January, this news item about Reid is reported:

Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeking to quell the uproar from a report in a new book that he called Barack Obama a 'light-skinned' African-American who lacked a 'Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' is mounting a full-fledged damage control effort to save both his job and his political career.

What's interesting is that much of Reid's statement seems true. Obama IS light skinned. There IS a manner of speaking that I suspect most people – black and white – would identify as an African-American's voice, and Obama generally doesn't sound like a black man, although sometimes he does, especially when he's ringing a more populist tone. Politicians do this all the time, sometimes sounding wonkish and sometimes sounding down-home. It's no big deal to recognize that.

It IS, however, embarrassing that Reid was caught in a moment of candor about the sitting President, who has a black father and white mother, but was raised by his mother in Hawaii and Indonesia. Reid seems to suggest that Obama is not authentic in his manner, but rather is acting. Blah, blah, blah...you get the point.

I would not be surprised to see Reid joining Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan in the soon-to-retire-from-the-Senate camp in the coming weeks.

Even Steven!

-RC

Ed Thompson Back on the Scene

Ed Thompson, the one-time Great White Hope of the Libertarian Party is running for the Wisconsin senate as a Republican.

Read Bob Capozzi's review of A Remarkable Man, a movie about Ed Thompson.

Election Post-mortem

As anyone with a television, newspaper or Internet connection knows, Republicans have captured governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, for the first time since the civil war, a progressive candidate has beaten the conservative in the 23rd congresssional district of New York, and gay marriage was stopped by referendum in Maine (barely) while medical marijuana was enacted there. The implications of each race will be analyzed below the fold.

In Virginia, the election was not even close as newly registered young and African American voters stayed home. Even though, at the last minute, the Catholic Church engaged in a full-court press on values issues, primarily abortion, this was not an issue that was highlighted by the winning candidate. Indeed, the Governor of any state has little to say about abortion, since Roe v. Wade quite correctly bars state action on this issue beyond regulating late term abortions (because who is and who is covered under law is quite properly a federal civil rights question under the 14th Amendment and because until someone is given legal recognition, their interests cannot constitutionally be considered by the state - which is why women have a right to privacy in obtaining abortion services in the first trimester until and unless Congress moves the date). Sadly, the voters that stayed home and the Catholics who voted for the Governor-elect will find that his economic policies will not benefit either them or the unborn.

In New Jersey, the result was surprisingly close, given the outgoing Governor's unpopularity. In both cases, the race was not decided on hot button social issues, but rather on the competence of the opponent. There was not victory for values based conservatism in either race. Indeed, in the only race where ideology and values were the focus of the race, the conservative candidate was beaten in a race which should have been an easy Republican victory. While that says as much about the nomination process as the race, it still provides a lesson on what the Republican Party needs to do to stay alive. From what I have heard about conservative preparations for 2010, however, this lesson seems lost on them. In the short run, what NY-23 means is another Democratic vote for health care. It almost makes me hope that this one vote is the margin of victory in the House of Representatives.

The fact that the election was close is actually quite telling. Five years ago, when citizen votes against gay marriage were more common and were largely a reaction to actions by the Mayor of San Francisco when he took constitutional interpretation into his own hands by performing gay weddings, the margins were much bigger. They are steadily growing smaller and as older, more conservative voters "age out," will likely go the other way.

More importantly, they show why it is not good for governments to put individual rights up to a vote. Luckily, the federal constitution can be used - and has been used - to overturn such folly - as it did when Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay rights legislation. This amendment was overturned by the federal courts because it was precipitated by malice towards gays and lesbians (such malice is hardly a Catholic virtue - indeed there is nothing in canon law which mandates or even allows legal discrimination against gays and lesbians). These precedents are being used in an effort to overturn California's Proposition 8 and I have every confidence that this challenge will succeed and be applied to all 31 instances where state constitutions were used to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. As I have said elsewhere, this misquote of scripture originates in the Genesis myth (and Catholics do now believe the story is mythical, not factual) and was used by Jesus not to condemn gay marriage but to affirm the equality of women within marriage.

When I was in marriage preparation with my soon to be wife, we were taught that neither the Priest nor the state make the marriage, rather the sacrament is performed by the two people getting married. It is only recognized by the state and witnessed by the Priest (and congregation). I was taught the same thing in Catholic High School. Aside from bigotry and a quaint (and unscientific) view of sexuality by a celibate clergy, I see no reason why this teaching does not apply equally to homosexuals. Indeed, if we wish homosexuals to listen to the Church regarding spiritual matters, we must listen to them when they inform us of how their sexuality occurs to them - especially if we are counseling monogamy. Telling young people that they are disordered leads many of them to suicide and equating promiscuous and monogamous sex leads some to situations where they acquire HIV. To a very real extent, our blood is as much on our hands as when society allows abortion (if not more so).

When (not if) the federal courts mandate gay marriage, I would hope that the Church celebrates them as a comfort to the families, since weddings (unlike marriages) are about the families letting go of their child (or parent) in favor of the new spouse. It is better that this letting go happen in the protective embrace of the Church, which can then use the occasion to counsel monogamy and fidelity in these relationships (which would be countercultural). Opting for gay marriage as a lesser thing actually damages marriage as a concept more than celebrating marriages would. Indeed, domestic partnership is not a good substitute for the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The Maine election also shows that, even if the public does not agree, the elected legislators in "blue states" are coming around to marriage equality. This has implications for when marriage restrictions are overturned by the federal courts. With Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco as Speaker of the House, I cannot foresee any amount of backlash that will lead to a congressionally initiated constitutional amendment overturning such a ruling. Such an amendment could only come by constitutional conventions called by the states. If blue state assemblies cannot be counted on to ratify such an amendment (or even call the convention), there is no stopping marriage equality.

This issue was also important in the Attorney General's race in Virginia. I still find it troubling that the Attorney General-elect has vowed to fight for the obviously federally unconstitutional amendment to the Virginia Constitution which prohibits legal arrangements which simulate marriage, since he must vow to uphold the federal constitution. Of course, I think the closest he will be able to get to such a defense is joining in an Amicus Curie brief when this issue finally gets to the Supreme Court. I doubt he will even be able to write it (although from what I have heard of his legal skills, I hope he is the one to write it since I do not wish him success in such an endeavor).

Lastly, the easy passage of medical marijuana in Maine is also telling on the general prospects for conservatism. With the sexual revolution, marijuana use was a harbinger of the 60s (which actually began in 1959 in terms of cultural transformation according to a new book on the subject). If conservatism were really on the march, this effort would have failed. As opponents of such measures rightly point out, this is a toehold on general legalization and the end of their war on drug users generally. Just thought I would point that out to take some of the wind out of their sails after last night.

Isn't It Good, Norwegians Would?

Now that the chatter over Obama's winning the Nobel is subsiding, a few observations:

+ Obama deserves credit for changing the tone coming from the USG. His predecessor was shrill, sanctimonious, and one-dimensional. Obama started the tonal change during his campaign, confirmed his commitment to tonal change in his Inaugural Address, and reconfirmed it in subsequent speeches.

- Obama's actions for peace have been mixed at best. Talk is cheap, ultimately. Internationally, US militarism seems to've been dialed back infinitesimally. Domestically, unpeaceful Washington command-and-control policies have been dialed WAY up, from high to hyper.

= It's just a freakin' award. Deal with it.

-RC

Using Unions to Destroy FedEx (and hurt the US economy)

The problem with government regulating every facet of the US economy is that invariably, politicians are swayed by the electoral or campaign-donation-making power of the various interests at play, not the merits of the arguments on either side. This scenario is currently being played out in a struggle between shipping giants FedEx and UPS.

George Will had an excellent piece about the situation several weeks ago. Basically, UPS wants to hamstring its main competitor FedEx by forcing it to adhere to stricter labor laws that give more power to the labor unions. This despite the fact that in the early 1990s, Fedex actually attempted to convince Congress to give UPS the ability to operate under the same rules under which FedEx operates.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has already passed the "bailout" of Big Brown. It is up to the Senate to stop this unwise and unnecessary legislation. In fact, rather than forcing more labor regulations on UPS, Congress would be providing the US economy a real stimulus if it reduced the ability of labor unions to tie up not only these, but other businesses attempting to get by in today's economy.

Oh, and while we're on the issue of shipping companies, as my friend Paul Jacob writes, now is the time to privatize the US Post Office as well!

Number 1699 from the "Own Worst Enemy" Files

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4

Or is that the "Not Ready for Prime Time" files?

While I agree with much of the abstract theory that Chris Matthews's guest espouses in this clip, if he'd asked me whether he advanced his cause on this day, I'd say No. Stay home. Or leave your gun. And don't take the interview. And if you do, change your shirt. You will be portrayed as a dangerous rube, perhaps a would be Lee Harvey Oswald.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how he concludes that a thousand people with a gun in a crowd enhances safety.

-RC

Frank and the Fine Art of Evasion

What's your take on this:

For me, this was a very smart politician who could not stand the scrutiny. The CNBC interviewers are highly sophisticated, unlike most journalists, in finance and markets. Frank was subtly demogoging the issue of executive compensation, but his practical sounding "solutions" don't wash. Realizing that his evasions weren't working, he feigned that he felt disrespected, as he persisted in changing the subject. The interviewer was getting a bit rude, so this was Frank's out.

-RC

Did you know?

The obligations of the federal government exceed the GDP of the world? I wish I'd had this fact for use at the Tea Party!

Overstatement for (Ill) Effect

Timing may not be everything, but it accounts for a lot. Experiments, including thought experiments, are wonderful things, but half-baked ideas should not be floated at inopportune times, I suggest.

Our anarcho friends don't seem to get this. I've previously blogged in '07 that their fascination with the anarchic territory formerly know as Somalia seemed unripe to me.

Nearly two years later, we get this: Anarchy by Land Means Piracy at Sea.

But it keeps coming. Patri Friedman -- Milton's grandson -- is floating (literally) his ideas "seasteading," floating non-States.

He says: "In the modern world, however, bad policies are the result of human action, not human design. To change them we must understand how they emerge from human interaction, and then alter the web of incentives that drives behavior."

I challenge the premise. "Bad" policies look to me to be "designed," not spontaneous, invisible-hand inventions. Surely the proportion of "badness" is often generated by unintended consequences, but the prime mover is the design itself. So, for example, the looming demographic timebomb that is Social Security and Medicare were designed through legislation, made worse through more legislation.

It's all so frustrating! The growth in government leads those of us who want peace and liberty to react, sometimes rashly. Look, Somalia is paradise! Hey, let's float our own Utopia!

We seem to want to meet a dysfunctional construct (statism) with a virtuous construct (anarchism). But maybe the problem is the very idea of constructs themselves. Undoing dysfunctional constructs is slow, hard, tedious, and imprecise work.

But it seems unavoidably necessary work.

-RC

More on "Wind Downs"

My last blog "What, Me Worry?" suggested that Geithner's plan to "regulate" non-bank banks wasn't such a bad thing. But, then, I've been gathering more data and now I'm not so sure.

Geithner has a tendency to say "your government" is doing X, Y or Z to protect you. So, while I am OK with facilitated bankruptcies, I'm having agida over Geithner's approach. Chapter 11 may need revising for situations like AIG, but Geithner's condescending paternalism is bracing. Scarey, even.

In the context of the times, Geithner's plate is too full, in my judgment. He's trying to do too much, too fast. And, frankly, what he's doing now is already directionally incorrect, IMO.

So, the concept of wind-down bankruptcies (vs. Chapter 11) seems a worthwhile concept to explore, but not now, and not with this cast of characters.

-RC

What, Me Worry?

Short take on Bernake/Geithner's "wind down" plan:

I'm not too troubled by it. While rightists are spinning this as the end of the world, I think they're either being disingenuous or they don't understand it.

Bankruptcy laws seem to have failed us, at least when it comes to REALLY BIG enterprises, especiallyfinancial enterprises. Politically, they seem to be "too big to fail." While I'm not buying it, the reality is that if they DO fail, the bankruptcy process may not be adequate to stem cascade failure.

Instead, Bernake and Geithner seem to want another mechanism, call it bankruptcy-lite for the systemically significant. AIG is a poster child for the systemically significant. I'm not a bankruptcy expert, but it seems plausible that the bankruptcy process may not be equipped to absorb a mammoth like AIG.

A "wind down" process -- involving facilitating asset sales, debt and equity re-rating and a liability work out -- seems sensible. Such a process may not technically be Chapter 11, but it is an alternative that rings reasonably true.

-RC

Collective Guilt?

OK, sure, the AIG bonuses seem especially over the top. But behind the outcry seems to be an assumption that ANYONE at AIG is somehow responsible for the firm's demise. Is that fair?

Each cog in the machine should NOT be held responsible if the machine fails, seems to me. Top executives, sure. Perhaps the mastermind of the derivative trading strategy.

But everyone? Nyet.

Some of the people at AIG have special knowledge of time and place. Some of them have contracts. If those contracts are to be broken, then ANY contract can be broken.

Do we really want to go there?

-RC

On "Targeting"

One for the "really frustrating" files: During the debates over the stimulus and omnibus spending bills, Obama seemed to cling to the notion that government should "target" spending to get things moving AND to make "investments" in long-term growth. Even if we assume that spending is the way to go to dig our way out of recession, is it necessarily so that "targeting" is the way to do it?

Is government and the political process even vaguely equipped to target?

Boy, would I like to hear the case FOR it. Because I cannot think of one. Observation of machinations on Capitol Hill seems to indicate no, it can't. It's much more a function of who controls the appropriations process, who's more skilled at horse-trading for their specific constituents.

But, please, give me a counter in this page's "comment" section.

-RC

Who Would You Rather Spend Your Tax Money

Considerable outcry is being heard by Republicans over earmarks in recent weeks (despite the fact that there were no earmarks in the stimulus bill). Let us clarify that Earmarks are provisions in law or in committee reports directing that appropriations be spent in a particular matter. They are part of a two stage process, the first being the setting of an overall budget which determines, in general, the total amount to be appropriated. The second is the passage of appropriation bills - or an omnibus bill if the process goes awry - as it did more often then not in the past several years.

Earmarks come from either the Executive or, more likely, the legislature. Not spending the money is not an option - this would require recission and/or reconciliation legislation to lower the budget line. Since the money is being spent anyway, who would you rather spend it:

- Your Senator or Representative, often at the prompting of your locally elected officials or some local business or university (or even you)
- An assistant Secretary appointed by Barack Obama
- A grants officer or contracting officer who got to where they are now by keeping their head down - often at the recommendation of a review board made up of federal retirees or employees who got to where they are by keeping their heads down and conforming/

So, now how do yo feel about Earmarks?

Obama Bold

Barack Obama seems to assume to be "bold" is what works to solve challenges. He uses the word "bold" an awful lot. Let's test the premise.

Bold would seem to suggest a certain audacity, something not quite "radical," but a marked shift in direction. But boldness can take many forms, including an irresponsible and rash one.

He seems to believe that history bears the "bold response" out. For instance, FDR was "bold" when coming into office, amplifying the marked trajectory of government-spending increases started by Herbert Hoover. Is that "bold"? Could be, as "bold" is a highly subjective term. Did it work? One only need to look at unemployment rates until the US entry into WWII to conclude that it did not work.

Perhaps the Red Scare is another page to take from history. JFK's response was to send a man to the moon. Certainly bold. Not obviously effective, however. The space program could easily be viewed as a tremendous boondoogle that yielded little -- microwave ovens and Tang seem benign enough, but couldn't they've been invented in a more direct manner?

LBJ's Great Society was "bold," but it did little to decrease the percentage of the population in poverty. Indeed, it may well have trapped people there, breeding dependency and despondency.

Boldness sounds good. It excites people. Pragmatic peaceful moderation seems to bore people, not feeling "activist" enough.

Odd. Pouring gas on a fire seems bold, too, and yet contra-indicated.

-RC

Deranged Hope for Failure

The Entertainer Rush Limbaugh is confused, or hateful, or both, IMO.

We should want "success" for all. We should NOT want "success" for a dysfunctional, unfair, unpeaceful AGENDA.

We need to -- or we should -- separate "sins" from "sinners."

Kinda basic, actually.

-RC

A Gigantic Stockholm Syndrome

"Stockholm syndrome"
NOUN:
A phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to his or her captor.

The past week marks a break for this hombre. I thought that Obama might be an improvement over Bush, and the less-bad option over McCain. That still could be so, but it's increasingly looking like our new President is on a mission to cripple the economy for decades.

Bush and the Republicans were fiscal drunken sailors. It was an 8-year keg party. Obama and the Democrats seem to be defining "change" to mean shots of Tequila, perhaps even Jägermeister.

Which got me thinking about the Stockholm Syndrome. Government policies created an imbalance in the financial world. That led to the Meltdown of 08-?. Obama's response? Let's have a LOT more government.

Surely we'd expect government spending to rise...that's what it does. I'd hoped that perhaps there would be some shifting in priorities, but Obama has presented us with a barrage of firehoses, spewing full blast.

And a lot of people do seem to be buying it. I can only conclude that they do so based on the Stockholm Syndrome. The captors have somehow evinced the sympathies of the electorate. Weary of Bush's gun-butt treatment of humanity in Iraq, the Patriot Act, waterboarding, etc., Obama seems intent on sucking the lifeblood of the people so the partying can go on unabated in DC.

Say what you will about Wall Streeters: When things are "going well," they do tend to be prone to a herd mentality. But they become awfully insightful on the downside. They aren't buying the "change." We have already seen the indexes fall to 1997 levels. Today may mark the day when we "give back" another year or two.

This will all work out, somehow or another. But the ride will be awfully bumpy.

-RC

Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) illustrate in the video below just how ridiculous things in Rome have gotten. I tend to agree with much of Graham's substance, but when Boxer points out that Graham's gang have just finished eight years of drunken-sailor spending, including on the Iraq War, Graham's silence is oh-so-telling.

I was almost waiting for one of them to say: "Mom, he started it."

Oy.

-RC

Is it just me...

...or has Phenom Obama stumbled badly out of the gates? Admitted tax evaders (Geithner and Daschle) chosen to high-profile cabinet posts. (Alleged) payola scamsters Richardson and Blago dominate the headlines.

This seems more stumbling than usual for an incoming administration. So far, my sense is that Obama himself is not responsible for these missteps...it's most likely poor staff work.

Could be that the government has simply become too big, too cumbersome, too corrupt to the root that mortals simply can't manage it. And, while I believe the stimulus has disaster written all over it, I simply can't imagine that even the most ardent progressive D could be proud of the specifics. The "plan" seems only calculated to be payback to various constituencies.

I say this as one who preferred Obama slightly to McCain, with a gun to my head.

Cooler heads may prevail on the stimulus, making it less bad. But the inmates do seem to be running the asylum.

Same as it ever was....

-RC

Stimulus for Meth Addicts

OK, near as I can detect, there are basically three camps on the theory of using stimulus (that is, increased deficit spending) to trigger economic recovery.

1. Do basically nothing, and let the markets re-correct through the liquidation process.

2. Cut taxes to reinvigorate risk takers, who will create economic growth and jobs.

3. Spend like crazy -- perhaps even irresponsibly -- to unleash the animal spirits.

Let's stipulate that #3 is insane. 1 and 2 are attractive, but they have practical challenges.

Peter Schiff claims that the liquidation process has to proceed unimpeded because the "incompetent," as he says, need to be weeded out. There's a lot of truth in that, but I have a hard time characterizing what's happened this last year economically on the incompetent business managers. Rather, my take is that government policies so distorted the economy that there are a lot of essentially innocent bystanders.

The Rs mostly seem to emphasize tax cuts. Problem with that is they are so weak now, and they continue to use trickle down rhetoric, that it's hard to take them seriously.

This situation cries out for bottom-up tax cutting. Best idea I've heard is a FICA tax holiday. If that were the core, it could be layered with investment tax credits, equipping government buildings with solar panels, unemployment extensions, and perhaps loans to state's teetering on bankruptcy.

Not perfect, but more likely to get things moving and satisfy certain agendas.

Also not going to happen, but one can dream.

-RC

I guess this'd be "progress"

One of the Republican congressmen who sat down with Obama this week reports that the president said the reason the New Deal didn't work was it wasn't BIG enough.

Interesting. While I can't say I agree that stimulus has to be massive to jump start the economy, I consider it a small victory that at least some progressives are FINALLY recognizing that the New Deal didn't work. The numbers are just too obvious to conclude otherwise, yet, for decades, progressives believed the New Deal worked.

-RC

Confusingly Hypocritical Times

Is it just me, or is the Beltway Dance just getting too much to watch?

The Rs are saying most of the Ds stimulus won't work to stimulate because it doesn't take effect for years, right?

Yet the Ds didn't want to increase domestic oil drilling because IT wouldn't take effect for years on the price of oil, right?

The prospect of new oil supplies, the Rs said, will change expectations on the oil market.

The prospect of stimulus will change expectations in the overall economy, say the Ds.

Could it be that both are correct and incorrect? Expectations DO change incentives and behavior. But new oil won't change current supplies.

Can the economy be stimulated? Maybe yes, maybe no, in the short run. If everyone's bummed, they're unlikely to produce and consume, that's for sure. Getting them UNbummed's a tricky thing.

Hypocrisy doesn't do it for me.

-RC

The End of Ideology

In the past week or so, pundits seem to frequently repeat a recurring theme: Obama represents the "end of ideology." I'm not sure what they mean by that, so I'll speculate.

To end "ideology" seems to be a fool's errand. People have ideas that we might call "thought systems" that each uses to measure, analyze, and assess the pageant we call life and its happenings. From the smallest aspect of our personal life, like what we're going to eat for lunch, to the largest cosmic questions of existence and meaning, it seems inescapable that the human condition is one of ideology.

During his inaugural address, President Obama touched on a different ideology that he intends, at least, to execute his office's responsibilities. He said:

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

What I suggest the pundits really mean is an end to "confrontational and dogmatic moralism." That is, most of human history could fairly be characterized by individuals and their like-minded kindred spirits cohere into camps who believe that X is absolutely correct and that those who disagree are wrong, even evil. It is, in a sense, a model for perpetual war, first of ideas but all-too-often of bloodshed and violence.

Those invested in maintaining that tradition bristle at Obama's call for pragmatism, for what works. I don't. Indeed, I embrace it. For, while ending ideology is foolish, expecting others to give up their ideology is even more foolish.

This is not to say that I believe much of what Obama proposes will work. Hardly, in fact. What he has trotted out so far sounds contraindicated, dysfunctional and even counterproductive. I have been impressed that, so far, he's not resorted to proclaiming that his is the right and only, but rather his best judgment in this time and place.

I do get the sense that Obama understands the difference between "mediation" and "compromise." In mediation, two or more parties are brought together where they articulate their views and the mediator works to craft a solution that most can at least live with. In compromise, parties are asked to "give up" their values for a solution that, more often than not, no one is pleased with. Mediation works to find the transpartisan ground, sometimes creating synthesized solutions not imaged by any party. Compromise takes one from Column A and one from Column B and puts them on the same plate, even if they do not work together.

Mediation is slower and much harder work. When it does work, however, great things can happen.

Are we entering a new age of mediation over conflict and compromise? Perhaps. But we should remember that old habits do indeed die hard.

-RC

Free Liberals Find Victory in Hesse

From the Independent:

Mrs Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) headed by Hesse’s right wing Prime Minister, Roland Koch won over 37 percent of the vote in the state and pledged to form a coalition with the Free Democrats who won a record 16 percent of the vote – the party’s best showing since the 1954.

From the FDP website:

The Free Democratic Party (FDP) is Germany´s centrist liberal party stressing fiscal responsibility, cultural tolerance, and market economy. With its belief in more freedom for more citizens, the FDP firmly holds that economic freedom and personal freedom are closely connected. The German liberals fight for a dynamic, creative, open, and prosperous society. The kind of freedom the FDP cherishes is not freedom from responsibilities but the freedom to engage in a responsible conduct for one´s own life and for the lifes of those around us.

/KDR

Outside the Bailout Box

Watching President-Elect Obama yesterday on Meet the Press, I was impressed. While I mostly disagreed with him, he's impressed me as a thoughtful, wise individual. For instance, I was convinced that he understands the concept of "moral hazard," which I can't say about most pols and the populace generally.

In a sense, I agreed with him that some sort of bailout of the domestic auto industry will happen. It's like when it rains and I have plans for an outdoor event...I wish it were not so, yet precipitation happens.

Of course, bailing out GM, Ford and Chrysler are really bad ideas on a lot of levels. But, if it's to be inevitable, I wonder if there's a way to do it that is least injurious.

Governments have large auto fleets. Why doesn't President Obama pre-pay the Detroit 3 for a fleet replenishment? At $25 billion and an average of say $30,000 per vehicle, that's about 834,000 cars and trucks. The Feds don't need that many, so they can disperse them to the states and counties in lieu of federal payments. They might even offer them to government employees in lieu of pay, with terms of, say, 0% for four years. Or even ship them as in-kind foreign aid, as an offset, of course.

The optics would be even better if this pre-payment plan was for hybrids only.

Such pre-payment serves as a form of a bridge loan, but it could also be positioned as part of Obama's green shift. Ultimately, though, it would not be a bailout, but rather an acceleration of the normal course of doing government business, i.e., fleet maintenance. It could be close to net neutral for taxpayers, which is far better (or less bad) than what's on the table now. It could even be a net positive for taxpayers, considering the cost to taxpayers of increased unemployment that a failure of the auto industry would entail in the short-to-intermediate term.

-RC

UPDATE: I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, and he suggested something very similar to my suggestion. A bit chilling, yes, but then I'm a transpartisan.

Out of the Woods?

Human history has been characterized as a pendulum, swinging from one extreme to the other. Sometimes the swings are wide and fast, other times slow and short.

And sometimes fast and short.

We seem to be in a fast/short cycle. The stock markets, which quantitatively reflect our collective aspirations and fears, have been gyrating wildly with wide swings. Recent days have seen an upswing, as Obama has been naming names that soothe. No, William Ayers will not be named Secretary of Re-education Camps. Reverend Wright will not be Minister of Reparations.

But, then, Mumbai happens. And then Bangkok airport happens.

It never ends, of course, but at some point, we will grow weary of this severe acting out.

-RC

Heterodoxy Becomes a Movement

Mort Kondracke wants in on the Brooks anti-"Traditionalist" game. Add Ponnuru and a whole host of other conservative heretics to the list, and you've got a movement.

Like the others, Kondracke's article is framed solely in terms of who can win, not who has the truth. The value of an idea for Kondracke depends on whether it will make the GOP popular.

And then there's Kondracke's Brooksian contrast between "Fundamentalism" and "Pragmatism."

(As if you don't need certain fundamentals to judge what's pragmatic. A thing is only useful (pragmatic) if it leads to something good. So you have to believe something is good to be able to decide what is pragmatic. Reasons always have been and always will be prior to actions. Principles are the arche.)

This should be interesting to watch.

Ponnuru Goes Heretic Too

Given Ponnuru's "Rebooting the Right" over at Time, it seems Brooks was right to label him a "Reformer." Or a Groupist, as I would say.

In fact, the frequency of posts like this on The Corner has me wondering whether anyone in the conservative intelligentsia is thinking about what it means to be a conservative except in terms of what will get conservatives into power.

Or is it just that framing things in terms of winning and losing power is the only way to make what you say flashy enough for people to be interested in reading it? Is political commentary now reduced to the "Action" genre (to the detriment of "Drama" and "Comedy")?

Give me a battle of ideas, if we must have action. But make it hinge on winning in the sense of surviving the elenchus, not in the sense of majority vote.

Bailout Second Thoughts

No, I still believe the Big Bank Bailout is a mistake. But, to be fair, here are two articles worth reading and considering.

Charles Krauthammer, whom I disagree with more than not, had this to say, including: "No government would let the electric companies go under and leave the country without power."

That's kinda compelling, actually. Put another way, when a corporation goes into receivership, a court determines the disposition of the assets. Sometimes, the entity is kept alive, for the assets would be impaired if the going concern didn't keep going. A dramatic dislocation -- in Krauthammer's case, no electricity -- is in no one's interest. It's not so much "too big to fail," it's more like "too important to fail."

Whether the Bailout stemmed cascade failure of the financial markets -- we can't know. I am open to the possibility that the impact of such a scenario was too important to the general welfare, but perhaps more receivership should have happened before Paulsen's hasty plan was rolled out.

Then there's Tyler Cowen's take. He seems to suggest that widespread receivership would have been MORE expensive for taxpayers than what was done. The choice was between two bad options.

When the web is as tangled as it is, undoing it is not prone to simplistic, knee-jerk retorts.

-RC

Post Election Wrap Up

There is quite a lot to talk about today. Before we start - THAT ONE WON! Whoopee!

First, there is the historic significance of Barack Obama's election. Second, allow me to speculate on the transition. Third, there is the future of the Republican Party and the Pro-life movement and finally there is California Question 8, which annulled thousands of gay marriages. Much of this is a retread of prior columns on some of my web pages, however, most of this has not been seen here or together.

As to the historic nature of the Obama election. When inauguration time comes, what you won't be hearing is the phrase "descended from African slaves." As coverage of his father's home villiage in Kenya shows, he is a first generation American (on his father's side) from Africa. He has adopted the culture of the descendents of slaves, as he has also adopted midwestern culture (I also resemble that remark from everything after the word also - as my father was an Iowan, ) His value is, therefore, as a symbol rather than as a fellow striver as he did not experience the racism in the bad old days. Speaking as a civil rights advocate in the DC Statehood movement, I hope that he will add some substance to the symbolism by dealing honestly with the District of Columbia - not by endorsing or signing voting rights, but by both working for statehood and by (at last) appointing an Administrator for the National Capital Service Area. This was required in 1974 under the Home Rule Act but it never happened so as to avoid any talk of consolidating federal police forces and arranging to compensate the District for services rendered to the NCSA. More than signing the Freedom of Choice Act (which would be a slap in the face to his Catholic supporters, in the unlikely event it passed, doing something for the District would be a good symbolic first act.

That is just one aspect of the transition. The second is Rahm Emmanuel, his pick for chief of staff. My bet is that the Congressman will be the junior Senator from the State of Illinois on January 20 of next year, although he would be an asset to the Obama Administration. Another aspect of the transition is tax policy. Much work has been done over the last four years on the topic of Tax Reform. One of the most promising proposals is a Value Added Tax with a simplified high income personal income tax. Michael Graetz has a well expalined proposal in this area. A variation on this is to transfer the responsibllity for non-retirement payroll taxes to the employer and to remove the deductibility of wages and salaries from business income taxes, allowing for a lowering of rates and the transfering of employee deductions for health care, childcare, the child tax credit and any VAT prebate and Earned Income Tax Credit for retirement payroll taxes still extant. If tax increases are necessary to stabilize the Medicare trust fund and fund health insurance reform, the expanded Business Income Tax (which would also be filed by sole proprietors and partnerships) would be the natural vehicle. To make such enhanced funding more palatable to conservatives and libertarians, provision of private insurance up to the state average could be credited against these taxes.

The Republican Party and the Pro-life movement have pretty much shot themselves in the foot. The Rove contingent in the Bush campaign got McCain and Palin to go ugly and appeal to an ugly streak of what is euphemistically known as "cultural conservatism" aka racism. If the GOP brand name wasn't bad enough under Bush, it got even worse after this campaign. Meanwhile, certain Catholic bishops who are involved in the pro-life movement overplayed their hands in denouncing Barack Obama's position on abortion rights. If the movement were smart, it would abandon its electoral connection with the Republican Party and work with the new Administration to legally protect late term fetuses by recognizing them by federal law (which the soverign legislature - Congress - can do under both its original powers and its power to enforce the 14th Amendment.)

The movement will need to do some inside work to work toward this point. National Right to Life should figure out what protecting human life really means in terms of the law. It will find that most of its members like the concept of protecting the unborn, but would be quite unwilling to give first trimester fetuses or their heirs access to the courthouse for medical malpractice or retribution for their deaths - or even coverage by life insurance policies. An equally protected fetus could not be protected at a level less than that of a born infant, which means that if the mother ordered the abortion, she is as culpable as the doctor and that once a fetus is recognized as a person, there is no keeping the trial lawyers and prosecutors out of the picture due to its newly acquired rights to equal protection under the law. These interests must also be weighted against the general health of women - as protecting children too early would mean the death of the practice of obstetrics before the 24th week, which would also harm children. It is time to end the emotionalism in the pro-life movement and take a look at the cold hard options. If they don't do this, their membership will more and more see through their apparent opportunism - promising much but delivering nothing but money to fund National Right to Life and money and voters to the Republican Party. At to the GOP, it needs to be declared dead.

Finally, reports are already coming in of lawsuits to reverse Proposition 8. I thought these would have resulted when Virginia passed its anti-marriage/anti-contractual relationship amendment - but legal remedies depend on direct injury - and if no one challenges the contracts of their gay loved ones, no remedy is needed. Victory in California may be short-lived for the homophobes, as gay couples can use the Scalia dissent in the Texas Sodomy case to justify their equal protection rights to marriage - since he positied that if sodomy were not illegal there were no legal grounds to deny full marital rights. If California were smart, they will quit after the first loss in federal court. If it goes to the Ninth Circuit, they will surely lose. If they appeal to the Supreme Court, it will be the end of all state marriage bans. I doubt they are smart enough to see that, since they are delusionable about the justice of their cause - that is unless they wish to generate a backlash resulting in Constitutional Amendement at the federal level. However, given the current composition of the Congress, there will be no such Amendment. If the election results show anything, it is that the new American majority is tolerant of gay marriage. As time goes on, this toleration will increase. This just goes to prove that some people exist as an example of what not to do.

Dawg Catches Truck

Now what are you going to do?

(For those who don't know, "dawg" is a term for a male friend in Ebonics.)

Obama probably has gotten the idea that his task ahead is daunting, to say the least. He can't go wrong if he chooses the peaceful path consistently. That won't happen, but if he picks it more times than not, everything's gonna be all right.

If, on the other hand, he plays horse trader and exponent of expedience, it's gonna be a LONG four years.

-RC

Faint Praise of "Change"

With likely President Elect Obama riding to the White House on the admittedly vacuous and hackneyed slogans involving the word of "change," some question: What do you mean, Obama? Change for change's sake?

Sloganeering is advertising – image making. It's a tone, not a policy prescription. It's easily mocked and dissected, but such criticism misses the purpose of the slogan. In 1964, Barry Goldwater's slogan was "In your heart, you know he's right." That was an appeal to test one's values to see whether or not Goldwater's message was in alignment with the voter. In that case, it didn't work too well.

So Obama's desire to "change," he's really asking: Do you believe the country needs a change of direction? It appears that a majority will agree with that today. "Country first" is all well and good, but mangled bodies in Walter Reed and golden-parachute-paid-for mansions in the Hamptons, not so much.

Think of slogans as the uber pitch to the electorate, the opening statement to the jury. To criticize the slogan as empty is to miss the point.

-RC

Who Are Prominent Libertarians Voting For and Why?

Libertarians are an interesting bunch. They all believe in limited government and individual liberty, but their animating beliefs vary widely. The folks over at Reason Magazine asked several nationally-prominent libertarians including comedians Drew Carey and Penn Jillette which of the presidential candidates would be getting their vote. Check out the results of this interesting informal survey here. Let's just say that if libertarians were voting, the race would be between Obama and Barr with McCain a distant third (if you don't include "none of the above."

The End of Liberty?

Those of a pessimistic mindset might be thinking about exit strategies about now. A likely Obama win -- coupled with one-party rule -- means the US will be like France or worse. (And if somehow McCain pulls out a win, the gloomsters might be expecting riots in the streets not unlike the MLK-assassination period.)

Make no mistake: These sorts of things could happen.

For this hombre, however, liberty is first and foremost a state of mind. If one believes that one is free, then what happens on the Daily Stage of Drama Writ Large affects us not one whit.

We kid ourselves if we ever thought Liberty would be won just on logic and arguments alone. I strongly suggest that Liberty is first a matter of the heart; minds will follow.

Resisting the forces of force only gives those forces more power. We've heard it before, but resistance really is futle. Give them the conflict they want, and it feeds that beast. Conflict is their friend, but it's not freedom's friend.

Perhaps we should consider the words of Paul Atreides character in Dune: "I will bend like a reed in the wind."

Bringing that home a bit, Liberty is an inside-out phenomenon, not outside-in. Obama and Congress will do what they will, just as W and his Congress did. What does that have to do with our state of mind?

If the answer is "nothing," it's time for the next level. That's when the real fun begins!

-RC

Election Day Surprises

C-SPAN was asking about surprises on election day. Even some Obama supporters were chiming in saying they think the voting may be rigged, while GOPeons are toting the party line saying that McCain may pull it out at the last minute.

I no more believe that the election will be stolen than I believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim born outside the US. All of these things are urban legend.

If there is a surprise, it will be how badly the down-ticket Republicans do. There may hardly be a Republican Party after November 4th. John McCain is kidding himself if he thinks that an underdog undercurrent will save him from electoral infamy. I suspect that the reverse is true. Republicans in their heart know they will lose and will stay home. If there is any surprise, it will be Texas voting for Obama.

Peace, Love and Better Understanding

As a follow up to my blog on this mythical period of deregulation, this piece from the Wall Street Journal further cements the case. If anything, this has been a period of more-intrusive regulation.

But we can't have facts get in the way of fairy-tale narratives, now can we?

-RC

Follow the Money

Interesting report here. It finds that 79% of campaign contributions come from outside the Congressional district of the candidate.

That seems wrong to me. While I don't believe political free speech should be infringed, something seems rotten in Denmark when outsiders are having that much influence.

Here's a constitutional solution to the problem. Congress sets the compensation for its members. Why not penalize their compensation for every dollar their campaign takes from outside their district?

-RC

Who Wrote This Script?

In the same news cycle, a skinhead, white separatist, neo-Nazi plot to kill Obama is foiled. And the emblem of R corruption in the Senate, Ted Stevens, is found guilty. Make that the senior senator from Alaska.

Doesn't matter that McCain crossed swords with Stevens over pork. Doesn't matter that Palin eventually came out against Stevens's Bridge to Nowhere. This is all conspiring to make the Rs look really, really bad.

Sow, then reap. Get it, yet?

-RC

Help Me Understand

Lawrence Summers, D economics guru, states something here that I've been perplexed about:

The rap is that the Credit Crisis was caused by Washington's "deregulatory" mood in recent years. And yet no one, including Dr. Summers, ever bothers to tell us what are some examples of the deregulatory pendulum swing. I guess Glass-Steagall is what they are referring to, but Sarbanes-Oxley was a massive RE-regulation. Are the financial regs more or less voluminous today than they were 20 or 30 years ago? I'd be shocked if they have actually been reduced.

I guess if they just keep repeating a "fact" over and over again, we are supposed to assume it's true.

-RC

Diabolical?

The things you hear on CNBC!

This morning, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said, among other things, that the thing to do now if for the Treasury to "go long" -- meaning sell long-term bonds. Rates are low and time is needed to get the economy out of the ditch.

And, he reasoned, the Bailout and plethora of financial interventions are bound to manifest in higher inflation (CPI) in the next few years. This will have the effect of making the long-term bonds cheaper still in the intermediate term.

In short, the Feds should go out and get some cheap money now that will become cheaper still when the chickens come home to roost.

Of course, the cheapest money of all would be to get serious about cutting federal expenditures, but somehow or other, that's off the table.

In the context of the current cesspool, Gregg may well be right from a technical perspective. I'd prefer to hear some sensible ideas to exit the cesspool. Silly me!

- RC

First Hundred Days of the Obama Administration

This is not prognostication per se, but rather extrapolation coupled with a dash of reading the tea leaves.

On January 20, 2009, Barack H. Obama will assume the Office of the President of the United States. While the nation and the world will be still roiling from a severe economic downturn, his speech will be watched closely and around the world. Regardless of one's views of Obama's policies, the moment will be electric, as a man of color will be our nation's first.

Obama's transition team will – between November and January – quickly realize that Obama's campaign promises simply cannot be implemented in the throes of recession. On the other hand, they will also realize that the iron is hot, even red hot, for Obama to announce some bold moves early on. Here's a sampling:

• Accelerated exit from Iraq. Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place and way too expensive.
• Increase the gas tax 50 cents a gallon. This will fund accelerated and unspecified public works projects and some alternative energy research.
• Transaction tax on all securities trades, designed to fund in part the Wall Street bailout. Wall Street should fund itself.
• Doubling of the estate tax.
• Double the personal exemption for federal income taxes. This is the best they can do to provide bottom-up tax cuts.
• Increase unemployment coverage from six months to one year.
• Refundable tax credit for medical expenditures for the uninsured, taking the idea from McCain.
• Cap all individual tax preferences at $100,000 per year. Obama will realize that he should not raise rates, yet this has the effect of moving toward his idea of tax equity.
• Doubling of food and medical aid for world's most needy, paid for by cutting military aid.

Not surprisingly, some of these ideas have a Free Liberal ring to them. He'll no doubt do some ill-advised things. Massive new regulations of Wall Street comes to mind. Some "fair trade" initiatives seem likely.

Thank God for massive deficits!

-RC

Not Losing Ugly

The end of our long national nightmare is almost over. Hopefully before 2012 we will find a way to push the start of the process to closer to the election.

That being said, the handwriting is pretty much on the wall for John McCain. He now has a choice. He can listen to the Bush holdovers in his campaign or he can fire them and go out with some personal dignity.

Let us hope he ends on a high note, for all of our sakes.

The FDR Solution...

...to the housing crisis:

Plow down excess housing stock. FDR did it with agriculture, why not housing? Less supply leads to higher prices.

Problem solved ;-)

-RC

Cause for Some Optimism

The chattering class all seem to agree: Obama/Biden will win, and the Ds will strengthen their hold on Congress. To the extent McCain/Palin had a shot, the financial panic has made that impossible, barring a miracle or a huge October Surprise.

In the last debate and since, Obama has the aura of a man in full control of his faculties. Fully on message. Respectful, yet forceful. Able to swat away the "consorts with terrorists" jab without appearing defensive. He even turned McCain's "I am not George Bush" defense into a weakness for McCain. Obama has, in short, tapped into the huge reservoir of disdain for Bush and the Rs, yet has inoculated himself against the charge of socialist plant, controlled by his Weather Underground svengali William Ayres.

Sarah Palin's been reduced to a ridiculous figure, referring to herself on SNL as a "Caribou Barbie." That's clever, but do we really want Barbie in the Oval Office?

So, things are grim for those of us who desire liberty, and find both the Rs and Ds irredeemably corrupt, correct?

Not so fast.

Assuming an Obama win, he will most likely inherit a recession and two wars. The markets have become so responsive and sophisticated (albeit bi-polar), Obama's maneuvering room will be highly restricted. Pursue even more deficit spending, and the markets will seek safer havens. Add more regulation, and corporations will shift resources off shore.

So, with the fiscal and monetary levers largely not available to him, he'll need to focus on things that do work, things like his bottom-up perspective. If he actually does cut taxes, he'll unburden the lower deciles proportionally more. He's advocating corporate tax cuts to incentivize (or reduce disincentives, technically) job creation.

Obama's spending and healthcare proposals will almost assuredly have to be scaled back.

Meanwhile, the Rs will have to do some serious soul searching. Penance as a minority party seems indicated after eight years of profound corruption.

Some freedomistas take a late-70s, head-for-the-hills posture. Could be that's prudent. Things have gotten awfully wobbly. Yet, at the moment, it seems more likely that we shall muddle through yet again.

-RC

Abortion Politics

Is it Libertarian or Free Liberal, or even Pro-Life, to build ones career (like run for City Council in Wassila) to stand up for the rights of the unborn without saying how you would enforce these rights? Or is this just slimey politics, building up your political career on a pile of unborn, although very tiny, corpses?

Hail Mary Pass for McCain

Obviously, going ugly is not going well for John McCain.

Talking about taxes might actually be helping him, although probably not enough.

What might help him (although it is likely too late) is to release a really radical tax plan. He could promise to implement the tax plan of Michael Graetz, who advocates a Competitveness Tax Plan (Michael was Bush I's Director of Tax Policy) which removes the responsibility for filing taxes from 100 million Americans. For the full picture, see his book, 100 Million Unneccessary Returns. Here are the details:

- a 10 to 15% Value Added Tax,

- cutting Corporate Income Taxes to 15%,

- leaving payroll taxes in place (avoiding a fight on this issue until another day),

- restricting the payment of personal income taxes to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for families, with a tax rate between 20 to 25%

- the payment of a prebate through either Smart Cards or a refundable credit at payroll of payroll taxes (including a greater payment than taxes owed) which would include both a payment to compensate low income earners for the cost of the VAT and an Earned Income Tax Credit.

To pass this, he could effectively throw down the gauntlet to voters to elect Republicans to Congress.

It might work. However there are three problems.

- The public will likely not elect Republicans to Congress in large numbers.

- This will be seen by voters as the last ditch effort that it would be.

- Fiscal conservatives (including many Free Liberal readers and writers) will resist a residual income tax - especially one which balances the budget.

Why am I giving John McCain free advice? Because I have my own variation on the Graetz plan.

I would increase the prebate/EITC to living wage levels of $500 per dependent per month (including spouses). This rate would decrease abortions, if not elimiate them. Certainly no one would be aborting for moneterary pressures. McCain (or Obama for that matter) could even sell such a tax benefit in this way and make it a right to life issue (although this would embarrass the fiscal conservatives in the right to life movement).

I would pay for this by ending the deductibility of wages and salaries for business income taxes and make sole proprietors file as businesses (which they would want to do to get the tax benefits). I would also transfer all non-retirement payroll taxes to the business income tax so the only withholding for most people would be their FICA retirement taxes

A portion of the retirement taxes would be channelled into a Personal Retirement Account holding stock in their employer and/or a Mutual Insurance Fund of all such employee-owned firms. Small businesses who are not Chapter S or Chapter C will also be able to pay into the Mutual Fund rather than the government. The mutual fund would also hold bonds transferred from the Social Security Trust Fund. Socialist Security would be transferred to Corporate Socialist Security. It would actually be cheaper than the dead hand of government, because for most people their companies would do the paperwork - likely with no additional added cost to administer than their current retirement plan. In fact, we would all save in broker fees as employee-ownership displaces the secondary securities market.

If McCain were really smart, he would propose my plan - although he won't, since the left would not go along with it or him (he is as much the issue as his proposals - and frankly a last minute attempt would not help the perception he is a little unstable) and the right would not go for the redistribution. The centrists may like it eventually. I have confidence they will, but not in 11 days. Like I said earlier this week, a new party is necessary for a plan such as mine. It violates the orthodoxy of both existing party's way too much for either to pass it.

Where Will the NeoCons Go?

First, the term "neocons" needs a bit of precision. By it, I mean those committed to an aggressive foreign policy, first and foremost. Bellicose attitudes toward jihadists and their enablers; Iran; Russia; and North Korea. For starters.

Second, embracers of the notion of National Greatness. And, third, ambiguous views of social policy.

Bill Kristol is a neocon. Near as I can tell, Chuck Hagel isn't. Probably most Rs aren't actually neocons.

My guess is we'll see the real neocons go back to the Ds should Obama win. They are power f-ers, and they seem compelled to ply their sick proclivities with those who wield power. They will seek influence over the powerful at all costs. They are Brutus, in short.

Old-style conservatives – today's Gerald Fords – will stay with the GOP. And the evangelicals will turn inward toward their Good Book. They will prepare themselves for the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012, a.k.a., the Rapture.

Libertarian-leaners will do what they do best: Carp. And over-prescribe long-term solutions and engage in "I told you so's" while Obama and Congress address a myriad of crises that are bound to pop up. Most of the "solutions" will hide the real costs of their "reforms." Once again, the next generation will pay for the foibles of today.

Free Liberals, of course, know that cycles are what they are. Equilibrium will be found, and technology will advance. Peace will come, although not until the Dark Night of our Collective Soul is acted out.

Or not.

-RC

Taxes as the Defining Issue

Issues may come and go, but the defining issue in any party is their tax plan. For the GOP, they can dawdle on abortion all they want, but what really brings 'em in is their insistence on cutting taxes on the wealthy. What defines the Democrats is their propensity to raise the same taxes and to punish anyone who touches Social Security. Abortion rights is almost a litmus issue for the Democrats, but not totally. Remember, Governor Casey was allowed on stage, only the delegates booed him off. They did not boo off his son years later.

To go outside the orthodoxy of either party on taxes one must found a new party. Transpartisanship is not enough - new partisanship is necessary. Democrats will never pass a consumption tax and the GOP will never add an income tax on top of a consumption tax. The only way around this resistence is clearly to form something new.

Carl Milsted and I share similar tax approaches to wage taxes and credits for poor families. I think that is the basis enough for a new movement that neither mainline party will touch.

After this election is over, there will be room for a new party, as the Republicans may not exist for long and the LP won't do what it takes to be the second party.

Joe the Plumber's Taxes

The candidates spent nine minutes tonight talking about Joe the Plumber's taxes. Joe is buying his business, which makes $250,000 per year and is wondering why Obama wants to tax him more heavily.

Obama muffed the answer, as have most Democrats when faced with the argument that small businesses will suffer if we raise taxes on the wealthy.

The fact of the matter is, that if Joe the Plumber hires someone, that employee pays the tax on those wages, not Joe. Joe will only pay at the higher rate for money that he himself earns and for the profits that are made on equipment markup and the wages of others. If he personally pockets a quarter million dollars after hiring others, he can afford the higher rate. If he wants his taxes to go lower, he can hire someone and his tax rate will go down.

The dirty little secret of higher taxes is that they cause business owners to expand BECAUSE wages paid are deductible. In that way, higher taxes actually lead to more jobs, since the only way a business owner can keep his wages constant when taxes go up is to do more business, often by hiring more workers. It certainly won't cause job loss.

"Martialling" Forces in the Name of Expediency

"May you live in interesting times."
--Chinese Proverb and Curse

The state of play in the Republic, circa 2008, is worrisome. The markets continue to gyrate, spooked by the prospect of a calamitous crash rivaling the big ones of the 20th century. Yet all eyes waited for yet-another Washington solution. No one was sure whether the latest panacea would be rushed forward this weekend, so the gamblers on Wall Street weren't sure whether to sell everything or buy, hoping that we'd found a bottom. Perhaps Happy Days would be here again, why not buy at the bottom?

The tug of fear and greed were more or less a tie, as the markets closed on Friday, down mildly on a percentage basis. (These days, a down 1.5% performance is mild.)

Goldman Sachs's Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen announced late Friday afternoon that his Bailout will now be used to recapitalize financial institutions directly. My preliminary research indicates this is unprecedented.

What's most interesting to me is that this is all being done by a lame-duck administration. Without the discipline of facing re-election, I'd suggest the Bush Administration watch this short video from the Cato Institute. Perhaps they'd feel validated by this, but they should at least have a moment of pause, if not revulsion, for the profoundly dangerous precedents they are setting.

-RC

Iceland: Adversity Creates Opportunity

This news story caught my eye. The nation of Iceland is on the brink of bankruptcy.

Freedom lovers in the US frequently point to the Founding Fathers as demi-Gods who created a near-Paradise on Earth. While there's much to admire about the Founders, they didn't get everything right.

But, Icelanders have the stronger claim on The Freedom Experiment. In 1000 AD, Iceland had no government, and all was well for hundreds of years.

Should modern Iceland use this opportunity to get back to their basics, it shall be a sure sign that the Age of Aquarius is indeed upon us!

Not holding my breath....

-RC

CNN has a problem

For anyone following CNN's Electoral and Poll maps, you know that CNN has a problem. Obama has pretty much sown up the Electoral College with leads in Ohio, Florida and Virginia. This is not good for them. One, if it is sown up, they don't have a story. Second, since they tilt left, they don't want to depress turnout for the leftist. Yet, if you look at both match, you can't help but get the impression that the Fat Lady is warming up.

Nasty Sarah on a Snipe Hunt

On Thursday last, Sarah Palin debated Joe Biden in a performance that worked for her, but did not do too much for the ticket. The next day, she goes on an attack tour linking Senator Obama with former radicals who live in his neighborhood.

Being young and conservative, she does not seem to realize that yesterdays radical is todays elderstatesman. Manyconsidered my former boss, Marion Barry to be a radical. Given my days in the DC Democracy movement, many consider me a radical.

Perhaps Sarah was a radical of a different sort. Remember, she went to Idaho for college, where more than a few people don't like folks that look like Obama. Perhaps she learned a few code words she is using new in a line of attack that could be called ugly, except that it is ungentlemanly to call a female politician ugly - so one must say nasty instead.

The other possibility is that the McCain camp invented this line of attack for her as a way to get back at her for throwing John McCain under the bus in her debate. When I was a tenderfoot on my first campout, my patrolmates gave me a paper bag and sent me into the woods after a little bird with the admonision to say "Here, snipe, snipe, snipe, snipe."

My guess is that this is what is now happening to Sarah Palin. Now, I was smart enough to know that I had been had. Let's see if she is, because if she isn't making a coded racial attack will not serve her well in 2012. It will likely end her career this year - unless the GOP is permanently writing off the African Americans.

Lucy in the Chocolate Factory

Today markets remind me of the hilarious scene from the old I Love Lucy show. Lucy and Ethel take jobs in a chocolate factory, wrapping chocolates. The conveyor belt malfunctions, and spins too quickly.

Now, think of Paulsen and Bernanke as Lucy and Ethel. The faster the economic woes come, the more they panic. They only add to the dysfunction.

So, watch for the Fed to enact an emergency cut of the Fed Funds rate today or soon.

Can you say: Pushing on a string? I knew you could.

-RC

Railroaded?

With the Bailout from Hell, well, railroaded in as law, Free Liberals and free marketeers of all stripes might want to consider a post mortem of the event.

An equilibrium-disrupting disaster? Yes.

A case of the elites pummelling the popular will? Yes.

A shakedown operation? Yes.

A pathetic response from free marketeers? Frankly, yes.

Watch this interesting clip from the good people at Cato on their takes during this dark period of American history. While I agree with just about everything Cato's people said, there's a moment at the very end when a CNBC commenter calls Cato's approach, "The no-Methadone approach to kicking heroin."

Simply saying "no" to bad policy doesn't seem to work. While some ideas were floated in the fight to stop the Bailout, they seemed tinny and off-point.

Sometimes, you need to fight fire with fire. Most of the time, "first, do no harm" is wise counsel. But not always.

We can engage in the arena, or we can carp near the exits. In this particular game of chicken, our car went over the cliff.

-RC

Texas Governor Rick Perry: Libertarian Visionary or Jerk?

The libertarians over at the Reason Foundation recently named Texas Governor Rick Perry an "innovator in action" for his innovative approach to tolling and leveraging private money for a transportation called the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Lew Rockwell recently blogged on the topic, essentially calling Perry and Reason "fascists." What's a libertarian to think? Personally, I come down on the side of Perry and Reason. I don't see how leveraging private money to fund transportation projects is fascist. One would also think that a fellow like Rockwell would have concerns about the current transportation system which can only be called socialistic. Anyway, given its cutting edge nature, Perry and Reason are certainly controversial figures in Texas as this story discusses.

Insulting the troops

Does anyone else find this rhetorical flourish insulting:

PALIN: "Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure."

Bush uses this point, too. It seems to be an unresponded to point in the Republican playbook, and I guess it sells.

But, it presumes that the troops are not adults. If Official Washington were to ever actually admit that Iraq was a mistake, and policing a civil war is a mistake, let's get out, that the troops would be demoralized, perhaps collapsing into a collective fetal position.

To be on the side of the troops is to get them out of a deeply inappropriate situation.

-RC

Short Take on Joey B. v. Annie Oakley

Or Biden v. Palin. Substantively, both of course frighten me, for slightly different reasons.

But last night's debate was more about establishing the reality of both characters on stage. Joey B. is the smart-alecky kid from down the block who gets good grades, but hides it from his class. He acts like he hates going to church, but he secretly enjoys enjoys volunteering at the soup kitchen. And he tells the best jokes, charming everyone he encounters.

Annie Oakley speaks in a vernacular that has to be authentic, droppin' the "g" almost always, peppering her emphasis points with "gosh darn," "bless their hearts, they're doing what they need to do," "say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again," "Now doggone it," etc. Of course, Annie used the term "counterinsurgency strategy" far more smoothly than the deeply conflicted preppie cowboy who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And, while Obama and McCain are both surreal characters, we now know that Biden and Palin are – or at least appear to be – quite real. So, we again have yin and yang, a certain balance.

I'd say Annie won the contest over who is more down home. And her gaffes were minimal, so methinks that we'll be seeing her again even if the Ds triumph in November.

-RC

In the Arena, But Not of It

It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. -Theodore Roosevelt

John "Strangelove" McCain says he's a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. I think he's right about that, in a lot of ways. From where I sit, that's not a mindset I want in the White House. Globetrotting bull in a china shop. Tinkerer with the private economy, meaning you and me.

The quote above that McCain often cites is a good one. There IS something "heroic" about being engaged in the challenge of the moment. Today's challenge is the Wall Street credit crisis. The elites say: Just Do It. The purist know nothings: Do Nothing, Let It Be. And, btw, this is to be expected, and then they recite a long list of obscure and not so obscure root causes to what's seems to be happening in the arena at the moment.

Is it possible that both camps are correct and incorrect? I say, "Quite possibly."

Is it plausible that Hank Paulsen -- a sophisticated financial sage, to be sure -- could in a week's time come up with just the antidote to triage the patient? Jeez, that seems highly unlikely. Assuming Paulsen is not just bailing out his buddies, someone SO engaged in the arena lacks the perspective to rise above the crisis, find the right course of action, and bring it to us from On High, etched on a tablet of Truth. Let's get real!

Many of those who oppose this -- the partisans and the Know Nothings -- are using this crisis to exorcise their favorite theory: "It's all the Fed's fault." "It's greedy capitalists fault." These are valid opinions, but these opinions seem well out of the arena. Some are even suggesting lowering the capital gains tax rate as a solution to the crisis. While lowering the capital gains rate has much merit, it's not obvious how it solves the current challenge, at least in the short term.

There may well be a technical solution to the short term challenge. Boring and obscure, but the accounting rules changed a few years back to reign in an abusive balance sheet practice: Mark to model. There's no market for these mortgage-backed securities, so we'll guess what they are worth, is the upshot. It was replaced by the more standard mark to market practice. A good idea...value an asset at what the market says it is.

Unfortunately, the market for mortgage-backed securities has dried up. If these financial firms mark to market, they mark to $0. Since many of these firm's capital base is overweighted in these toxic securities, this could trigger massive sell-offs as a means to keep capital ratios solvent. This leads to panic and even more widespread bankruptcies. The arena is not a pretty sight.

Perhaps an accounting change is all that's needed to let the financial system find its equilibrium so that we can all get back to our pursuit of happiness.

I'd like to see cooler heads REALLY prevail during this episode of Life, but we shall see.

-RC

Hold Onto Your Hats!

OK, today's market break was big, yes? The biggest in history in nominal index points, at least.

Listening to Speaker Pelosi's "pep talk" speech calling for passage of the hasty bailout was sickening in its revisionism. Majority Leader Boehner's counter equally sickening, claiming that 12 Rs woulda voted for it had Pelosi not given such a "partisan" speech.

Give me a break!

Silly season is on parade in DC. These folks can't help but make this a campaign issue, and for that, I guess I'm pleased. The Paulsen Plan stinks, and his rhetoric for it was repulsive. Do This Or Else comes across as a threat. The Ds, mostly, say, OK, we'll do this but only with This, or else. This game of Counter Chicken is so unbecoming, and yet these putative adults say these things with a straight face. Impressive in its pathology, I suppose.

My lean at the moment is for a big drop in the markets tomorrow. We've already given back to '05 S&P 500 levels, why not '04, too?

Cleansing must happen. Excess cannot stand. Things must return to equilibrium, on way or another.

-RC

Pensions as Golden Parachutes

As the Paulsen Bailout Plan seems to be shaping up as more or less predicted, I got to thinking:

While I certainly don't like taxpayer financing of lavish (if contractual) golden parachutes of inept bankers and Wall Streeters, why stop there? Congress, the Administration, and many regulators were clearly asleep at the switch, or even prime movers of the financial dominoes that are thudding to Earth as we speak.

Why not takeaway their pensions? Why should taxpayers pay for such ineptitude?

Might be karmic justice....

-RC

"It's the End of the World...

...as we know it. And I feel fine."

-REM

Well, alrighty, then. Washington Mutual went down last night, whilst Bush and The Boys and Girl had what must've been scintillating conversation yesterday. Did they get a good night's sleep last night, or were their heads and egos swelled beyond recognition? (WAMU holds my mortgage...maybe JP Morgan will lose the records!)

Add to the mix that Monday is Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) begins at sundown on Monday, September 29. Generally, this trading day is slow, but who knows this year?

My guess is today will be a game of chicken. I'm predicting (guessing) a "small" bailout of, say, $100 billion vs. $700. They'll position it as a "tranche" for the MOST at risk mortgage-backed securities.

Who needs soap operas when we can watch As the Potomac Turns 24x7x365?

-RC

Obama and Barr to Debate

James Plummer asks, "Who will debate Obama."

Obama could most certainly help himself by choosing to debate Bob Barr. One, it promotes Bob Barr, who has been campaigning rightward and will certainly take votes from disaffected McCain voters. McCain's suggestion of "working on the economy" versus campaigning is utterly ludicrous and no doubt turns fiscal conservatives off. Two, by debating Barr, Obama can showcase his economic policies and highlight that the old man (McCain) cannot handle multiple tasks simultaneously -- not a good flaw in the age of terrorism.

Nader can be excluded by the commission for not providing "balance" to the debate (even though I think the idea of a one-dimensional spectrum to be flat wrong.)

/KDR

Who will debate Obama?

So John McCain is ducking out of the debate Friday night, apparently. Will Bob Barr, Ralph Nader or another candidate show up in Florida offering to fill McCain's seat and challenge the Chosen One to a debate? It's an obvious move to make here.

If I Were a Cynical Democratic Strategist...

...I would be counseling the leaders of my party to act as if we were onboard the Paulsen Plan, but to load it up with as many Christmas Tree ornaments as possible. Executive compensation, foreclosure relief, stimulus packages, more regulation. Just as they have done. Then I would say to up the ante, require more oversight of the Treasury. Or perhaps create a new czar of mortgage-backed securities. Talk like you're with the Administration to save Wall Street AND Main Street, but that this must be done responsibly. Haste makes waste, after all.

Such a head fake could induce the fawning herd on Wall Street to believe that the deal won't get done. Those affluent sufferers of ADD would panic, and cause the Dow to plunge perhaps another 1000 points...a big (if inflated) number.

Now, were I a Republican strategist, the only thing that trumps economic insecurity is physical insecurity. War tends to trigger intense feelings of physical unsafety. That billion dollars of aid to Georgia had to have some strings. Pakistan is a boiling cauldron. Lebanon or Syria? Good candidates. Perhaps even Venezuela. This would cast foreign policy expert John McCain in a whole new light, backed up by Sarah Palin's rifle. The yin/yang of it all is just too winning.

Thankfully, I'm neither. Frighteningly, these are likely not original thoughts. Heaven help us.

-RC

Baldly for McCain

WTNT, a talk radio station in the DC area, now calls out "McCain" during its station ID. Home of William Bennett, Laura Ingraham, and Dennis Miller, I bristle when I hear this blatant political endorsement.

You?

-RC

Sarah Palin's Flaws

Much of the mainstream media is focused on her inexperience (or lack thereof, her religious views, and her attempts to play both sides of the pork issue, but Sarah Palin has some more serious flaws from a libertarian or free liberal perspective. First and foremost is her willingness to be completely co-opted by the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party despite views on other issues that would be considered more grass-roots conservative or even populist rather than neo-con.

Another major flaw (as Jacob Sullum over at Reason points out) is her efforts to undermine Alaska's liberal marijuana laws. She may be the conservatives' darling, but those two major flaws on what I consider to be core libertarian issues make the so-called "libertarian case for Palin" rather weak.

Strangelove-onomics

The Palin Bounce seems to have started to wane. Identity politics gets you a lot, but it don't necessarily win you the prize. So, while national polls are still averaging a slight edge for Strangelove McCain, we have a dead heat brewing.

In three days, the Dow is down 7%. Lehman, Merrill, AIG are associated with Republicans, fair or not. Sarah Palin's rifle cannot undo that. Another shock to the system could convert current market jitters into the equivalent of a psychotic break.

If that happens, Strangelove should consider a beach chair next to Bob Dole. The Old Lions of the Senate can muse wistfully about what could have been....

-RC

Reason Mag for Palin?

In addition to the article that both Mr. Gessing and myself have linked to, there seems to be at least one other that explicitly takes up the libertarian case for Palin.

And this one is by none other than Reason's Radley Balko.

I think Mr. Balko misses the fact (which I discussed here) that it is Palin's treatment of state earmarks ("Palin, for example, vetoed 300 pork projects in Alaska in her first year in office" -Harsanyi) that is most indicative of what her approach to federal earmarks would be as VP

But he brings out a number of issues which I haven't seen many (if any) people discuss. At least not in the positive light Mr. Balko puts on them.

I'd suggest reading the whole thing.

The Libertarian Case for Palin

I'm not saying I agree with it (I would never consider someone a libertarian who supports unnecessary wars like the one in Iraq), but here is the libertarian case for VP candidate Sarah Palin.

As an Alaskan, she certainly lives a more "libertarian" life-style than any of the three Senators in the race. Is a quasi-libertarian VP candidate enough to attract many libertarian votes?

Biden knows when life begins for him, but it's a private issue

That's what he claimed on "Meet the Press" today.

I'd just like to say that I'm glad a big-government politician like him still recognizes the public/private distinction.

But really: if when life begins is different for you than for me . . . if it's a private issue . . . then who is the government supposed to protect from being killed?

"What are you cops doing here?"

"We're here to stop that murder behind you, Sir."

"How did you find out I was alive? That's a private matter. For all you know I might consider myself undead."

"Well, you filled out the 'I'm Alive Form' down at the Department of Life, Sir."

"Oh, right. I forgot about that. Well, I guess I've given up my right to privacy on the issue of when my life began. Carry on then."

Analyzing Barack Obama's Tax Plan

We at the Rio Grande Foundation spend a vast majority of our time analyzing and discussing New Mexico-specific issues and policies. But, I was given a chance recently by a national syndicate to write an opinion piece on Barack Obama's tax plan.

With wall-to-wall coverage of the conventions and the campaigns, I humbly submit my $.02. Check the article out here.

"Being There" in '08

2008 reminds me of 1979, when the Peter Sellers film Being There was released. About a simple-minded gardener named Chance who somehow is propelled into a position of power and celebrity, one's thoughts turn to this year's line-up of pols wanting to "serve" the People of the United States of America.

Obama, for example, is someone I'd like to play hoops with, seems like a smart, decent enough fellow. Not especially accomplished, and not ready for president by any contemporary metric.

McCain? All I can say is watch his eyes VERY closely next time he's on TV. There is something not quite right there. He can make jokes about his age, but in times of troubled waters, an angry old man in the White House isn't a scenario to relish.

Palin? Charming, attractive, strong, possibly even principled by pol standards. One gets the sense she knows who she is, a big plus in my book. Ready for the crushingly complex world of the White House? Maybe...in four years. The extreme social views concern me, though, a lot.

Biden seems least like Chance Gardener to me. The fact that he's a self-admitted windbag gives me pause, too, as it indicates potential megalomania. NOT a quality one likes to see with actual power.

Somehow, we'll muddle through, but there's GOT to be a better way to select a president.

-RC

Motivated by Obama

There's a great little ad running on Facebook. It says,

"Register to Vote."

Above it is a picture of Senator Obama.

This election is *about* Barack Obama. We are not voting for or against McCain, we are voting for or against Obama.

Americans are motivated by Obama.

Except those pesky third party people. :-)

/KDR

The Libertarian Case for Palin

David Harsanyi makes a good case (though his thesis is limited).

He even throws in a Paul-Palin comparison I hadn't heard before.

Not that I'd heard any Paul-Palin comparisons before.

-MT

(h/t Adler)

Rearguard Action

Gene Healy of the Cato Institute seems to have become a leading critic of the Imperial Presidency. He's written a book called The Cult of the Presidency and an op-ed entitled A President, Not a Savior.

From a legalistic, technical perspective, he makes a great point: The Constitution is not a call for the President to be a sort of national pastor. It's a nation of laws, not men, and of limited government.

Still, while I'm a big fan of Calvin Coolidge's style, Silent Cal would likely not get elected in the modern context. Eisenhower's hours on the golf course would today be called detached and even lazy.

Today's pols need to appear engaged and energetic. They need to display leadership qualities, and to uphold a certain ethical and moral reputation. In fact, virtually all don't, but they do spend a lot of time cultivating qualities that they don't actually have. Hypocrisy is never attractive, yet they try to maintain a virtuous image.

Shakespeare told us "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." An Athenian in Rome may well prefer to play by Athenian rules, but it won't sell in Rome.

Can a pol be a principled advocate for limited government and yet display the sort of public character necessary on today's stage? Methinks yes. Ron Paul has done it. Bob Barr is doing it. Are they perfect? Are they consequential? No, and not so much...yet.

Politicians, including presidents, need to convince broad cross-sections of the population that their ideas are both virtuous and practical. Healy seems to fight a rearguard action, in which the president just stops the wheels of government by dryly stating, in effect, "Not our job." I'm not liking the odds of such an approach working.

Stay tuned for the next decade or so. People, in their hearts, yearn to breathe free.

-RC

God's Behind Gustav's Hitting New Orleans

At least that's what some prominent Dems seem to think:

Michael Moore (video)

Former DNC Chair, Don Fowler (video)

Needless to say, conservative politicos don't approve (h/t Hot Air, Weekly Standard)

Who is Sarah Palin?

I almost fell out of my chair eating dinner tonight when Brian Williams asked the question on air tonite. At least he said it and not someone in the Obama campaign.

If the GOP is smart, they will make tee-shirts and signs with the slogan "Sarah Who?!!" to make fun of that reaction at the convention. If they do, it will be one of those moments that live in history.

Who she turns out to be depends on the events of the next week. If Michael Huckabee turns on his organization to support her, she may well be the next Vice President of the United States - as well as the 45th President if McCain is true to his word and only runs for one term - or dies in office. This assumes that he learns to live with a Democratic Congress and offers a lot more compromise than the current occupant. This is not the time for gridlock.

Of course, if I were in the Bush White House, I would be very afraid of Sarah Palin as President. When she gets a full briefing on all that they did regarding the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Liberation, she is likely to have some of them hauled away before the Statute of Limitations runs out on their crimes - although there may be no such limitation on war crimes - so they may really be sunk.

Unless she proves to be an empty shirt (notice I am being PC and did not say empty blouse or empty skirt - oops, I just did) - put in as a token and not a team member - then she will be the front runner in 2012 - even if the GOP loses (assuming the GOP actually survives a loss - since they are in serious trouble in congressional races).

If I were McCain, I would question whether winning is such a good idea. It is within the realm of possibility that the House and Senate may develop veto proof Democratic majorities - in which case they may just pass whatever they want and gut the Executive power. It has happened before post-Watergate and is likely to happen again.

Sarah Palin may end up running as the standard bearer of some new party in 2012. That is Sarah Who.

Hail Mary from the 10 Yard Line?

OK, I only got one of two VP major-party picks back in June. It appears that Romney was the runner up.

The selection of Sarah Palin has a desperate feel to it. Yes, she has an interesting background and personal story, but her resume is roughly as thin as Obama's. Perhaps -- oddly -- that's the point. Just as experienced as Obama, and a woman, somehow makes some sense. If the Ds are going to play identity politics, so will we, seems to be McCain's marker.

But she's unknown to most of America, designed to appeal to the Soccer Mom/NASCAR Dad set in Middle America. Hunter/fisher, mother, ethical reformer. I get that. Romney was just too rich to run with McCain...both living in a world of privilege that few will ever know. Palin is "real." She firms up the conservative base, even takes it to another level, given her gender.

Still, the desperation of using such an incredibly transparent tactic is surprising. It feels like a 60-yard Hail Mary when a quick post pattern seemed more appropriate.

Might work, might not.

The Rs and Ds have outdone themselves in stooping to theater over substance this go 'round. Hope we won't pay TOO high a price for the next four years. They are making it very easy for millions to vote Barr or Nader.

-RC

Stopping Pork: The Final Frontier

Whether you like John McCain or not, he has undoubtedly been one of Congress's undisputed leaders in fighting Congressional pork-barrel spending. Recently, Jonah Goldberg who will be coming to Albuquerque for a breakfast and book signing hosted by the Rio Grande Foundation, wrote about how Sen. McCain could capitalize on his leadership against pork-barrel spending as a means of getting elected to the White House.

As Goldberg points out, Alaska is one of the most significant recipients of federal "pork" projects. What Goldberg doesn't mention is that New Mexico actually gets more money out of Washington than even Alaska (according to the Tax Foundation). Maybe we can get Mr. Goldberg to write an article about the porky behavior of New Mexico's elected leaders?

It will also be interesting to see if McCain can make his anti-pork efforts an issue in the campaign. So far, it doesn't seem to be a prominent issue.

How Hillary Wins

What does Hillary want? To be president. How to do it? The surest way to make this happen is to get John McCain elected president.

If Barack gets elected and does well (in the political sense), it will be eight years before Hillary has her chance. If Barack gets elected and does poorly, a Mark Sanford Republican can win in 2012, pushing Hillary's coronation back 8 - 12 years.

Her best hope is to get a shot in four years by helping elect John McCain. Her supporters apparently may begin this effort in the next several days.

For the rest of us, we benefit from continued nastiness between the major candidates. A growing cynicism about the circus of politics could eventually lead to eye-opening realizations of the inherent limitations of government to run our lives.

/KDR

Obama - Biden

The choice has been made. I'll take that crow with ketchup.

The Main Stream Media was right after all, it was Biden. He brings national security to the table as well as Catholicism. He also has enough of a spine to effectively argue with any Bishop who tries to deny him communion for his defense of abortion rights - at last I hope he does. Kerry was a disaster in that regard, chalking it up to pluralism - how wishy washy. Protecting fetal rights in law sounds good until you analyze who would be sent to jail and what effect that would have on society and on women and girls. One can agree that 1. abortion is wrong and 2. criminal action to stop it is misguided. Most Americans actually believe that, because by and large it makes sense and is why I favor economic incentives to carry the child to term and provide families with kids with a middle class lifestyle, all with as little direct government involvement as possible.

Embarrassing Video of Nancy Pelosi

Along with 7 other newly released Jan Helfeld videos, Nancy Pelosi's interview gives insight into the mental and philosophical weaknesses of America's great leaders.

View the YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/janhelfeld

The videos speak for themselves!

/KDR

Biden Shows Obama is Post-Racial

Right?

How else can you explain the fact that Obama picks a guy who said this, and this, and this?

The choice of Biden is especially ironic since it was Biden's "clean/articulate" remark about Obama that killed his candidacy. If I remember correctly (how many years long has this campaign been now?).

I guess Obama is just a forgiving guy. But can he forgive the "7-11/Indian" remark? Is he like Jesus, able to forgive sins against other people?

Prognostication Scorecard

I'm not a great handicapper, but I'm not bad, either.

I basically picked Biden here.

I'll stick with the Strangelove/Romney call.

Heaven, help us.

-RC

On "Pay Grades"

In some circles, Barack Obama's statement that he takes the view when human life actually begins and should be protected is above his "pay grade" has been lampooned.

Ouch!

I say "ouch" because that's my view, too.

The otherwise thoughtful Peggy Noonan rhetorically asks: "To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?"

OK, I'll answer, Ms. Noonan: Conception begins a potential human life. When that potential human life deserves to be treated with the full rights of an actual human life is beyond my pay grade, too. No, it's not a car, not a 1948 Buick. Are these serious questions, Ms. Noonan, or mere rhetorical flourishes?

Obama demonstrated with this statement a sense of humility, a quality that I value in myself, others, and most especially politicians. Perhaps Ms. Noonan does not. Perhaps she admires those (zealots?) who believe they have all the answers. Good for them, I say, but I am disinclined to vote for someone who posits the perfection of their opinions. Scary!

I do, however, respect the pro-life view. I would say to those that believe that abortion is murder, this:

Is it not obvious that the pre-born are different than the born? If you wish to convince us that the pre-born should have full human rights, please do your best to convince those of us who don't. While I agree with you that Roe v. Wade was inappropriately decided, is it not obvious that the horse is out of the barn? Getting full rights for the pre-born will require you to convince a broader number of people of your position. Snide swipes at open-minded pro-choicers seems to alienate more than persuade.

Noonan goes on to take a swipe at "parsing" on complex issues. I for one had to fight the urge to eyeroll. It seems obvious that complex, complicated issues sometimes require some reflection.

Life, sad to say, is not a comic book.

-RC

Down is Up?

Lew Rockwell believes the current economic downturn is "good news."

His analysis is pretty right on from where I sit. Artificially induced economic bubbles burst. It's helpful when this happens to, first, not repeat the dysfunction, that is, don't re-inflate and re-regulate the conditions prior to the bubble bursting. Instead, seek means to avoid future bubbles.

To call the current economic jitters "good," though, seems tin-eared. The economic "patient" is sick, it needs to heal, which takes time. More of the same government "solutions" are indeed contra-indicated, and tend to exacerbate and extend the sickness.

Two million foreclosures is not "good," as I see it. It's an excellent way to alienate the foreclosed and those on the edge of foreclosure.

-RC

A Prediction - Obama/Clark

By the time this is read, it might be overcome by events.

My prediction is that Obama will pick General Wesley Clark as his running mate. I say this because Wednesday nite at the Democratic Convention will be devoted to national security. Because Clark has not already been announced as a speaker, it is likely that he will speak in the Vice Presidential slot.

This is going to piss off the brass, as Clark was hardly one of the go along to get along officers they love so much. Since retirement, he has publicly opposed the neocon agenda of activism in the Middle East, enacted largely to give the military a post-Cold War mission. His selection will telegraph the probable defense policy, leading to a new peace dividend after Iraq has been released from occupation and al Quada rooted out of Afghanisan and Western Pakistan. There will likely be fewer brass hats to go around in a few short years, which scares the careerists to no end.

This might also put Virginia back out of play, except for the fact that much of the military votes in Florida or some other home state. Of course, if Webb is the nominee instead Virginia will be strengthened for Obama.

Clark on the ticket will certainly make it interesting. It will certainly keep Obama safe from right wing nut jobs, as they will think twice before making Wes Clark the Commander in Chief. He knows where the bodies are buried and he might dig them up in the top spot. Hopefully he will be given a free hand to undo all that Cheney did. John Kerry's biggest mistake was not putting him on the ticket in 04. He would have cleaned Cheney's clock in the VP debate. He will certainly outclass either Romney or Huckabee, or anyone else the GOP has to offer. (Fair disclosure, this could be wishful thinking on my part, as I was a Clark supporter in 04 - does it show?).

No Respect for Huckabee

If you read the pundits, you would think that Mike Huckabee was never on the ballot in the GOP primary - even though he garnered the second highest number of delegates and dominated the primaries in the South - a key to the Republican base. Just sample the talking heads and writing keyboards. David Broder is among the most aggregious Huckabee ignorers. In his latest piece on the subject, Mike was not mentioned at all, although Romney was (even though Huckabee got more delegates and has no discernable base). Recent polls of Huckabee hounds show that his voters may do what Clinton voters threaten to do - stay home - and especially if Romney gets the VP nod. Broder can only shape the news so much. The reality is that Huckabee has to be on any short list. If he is ignored, there is an opening for Bob Barr in the South. Now wouldn't that make news.

" Some political hygiene would seem to be in order."

Droll line from the WSJ's coverage of the Stevens indictment!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121737532663995153.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Debt-Mail, All Over Again

In a year in which the Rs and Ds are putting up their weakest candidates, and serious if very long shot third-party candidates of substance are challenging the majors, it seems apropos to consider worst cases. Odds seem high that Obama will be our next president, mostly unless he makes some really bad mistakes between now and November or Americans retain a closeted racist attitude in large numbers. McCain's been uninspired and uninspiring, and his propensity to rationalize further war seems unattractive to a war-weary nation. Two former congressperson's, both hailing from Georgia, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney, have decided that their former parties are simply too corrupt to cotton any longer.

It's hard to argue with Barr and McKinney, yet we have to assume that neither will live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year, nor will Ralph Nader. An individual vote is mostly a symbolic gesture, since no single vote is mathematically consequential, despite what they told us in high school civics class. Voting one's conscience makes abundant sense this go 'round.

Obama, the fear goes, could be the next Jimmy Carter. McCain – Dr. Strangelove. So, those who will vote non-R or -D have to ask the practical question: For whom do we root, if not vote for?

During the Reagan years, the D Congress accused Reagan of "debtmail." That is, clampdown on tax rates, which in turn caps the ability to spend incrementally more. It sorta worked, as spending growth at least slowed under Reagan, even with increased defense spending.

Obama, for all his coercive economic promises, will walk into the White House next January with the economy shaky, or perhaps recovering from the current slowdown. Growth does allow a president more latitude, but it seems unlikely that the current deficit and debt levels will be anywhere near solved. So, he'll have few options. Yes, hopefully he'll have to good sense to exit the Iraq blood and money pit far more quickly than McCain, which all else equal helps stem the red ink.

But, with a globalized economy, it seems highly unlikely that Obama will launch a wholesale attack on the private economy. If he does that, capital will exit to higher uses off shore. He's far more likely to tinker with the tax code, put a patch on the health insurance gap, make baby steps toward a greener technological base (probably subsidizing the "wrong" thing), and so on. "Yes, we can," will become "let's try this tweak."

Non-optimal steps, and probably missteps, but so long as Americans can keep practicing some ingenuity, methinks we survive 'til 2012. We're due for a major technological breakthrough, like computers were in the 80s and 90s.

This, versus WWIII in Iran? A no-brainer.

-RC

Libertarian-Liberal Alliance

Jane Hamsher interviews the always interesting Bob Barr....

The Power of Mumpower

When I ran for Asheville City Council 7 years ago, one of my opponents was Dr. Carl Mumpower. He won, I lost. "Dr. No", as he's come to be known for his resistance to creeping collectivism on the city council, has secured the Republican nomination for Congress and is using it as a bully-pulpit to demand that Republicans adhere to their stated principles. As the Wall Street Journal reports:

Carl Mumpower dropped all campaign activity against first-term Democrat Shuler in North Carolina’s 11th district until Republican Party committees in at least half of the district’s 15 counties sign on to the GOP’s “core principles” and agree to work against elected Republicans who stray from them. “I had to find some way to get their attention,” Mumpower said. “To tell them, ‘I’ve got the wheel guys. We’re on my watch now.’

In a letter to the 11th District GOP chairman, he explained that the he considers that standing for principles is "Job One" and getting elected only follows after this task has been accomplished.

The New Republic captured the outrage of establishment Republicans:

I would hope that "Mumpower!" becomes a dirty word around the NRCC offices, since it's one thing for a token opponent in an uncompetitive district to pitch this kind of ideological tantrum, but Shuler's conservative district ought to have been a good chance for a GOP turnover.

While Mumpower has talked about "Principles Not Politics" ever since I first encountered him, campaign insiders tell me that Mumpower has been reading Ron Paul's "Revolution: A Manifesto" and this has even further emboldened him.

The power of Mumpower is that when one person is willing to put himself on the line and buck the status quo, others realize that they too must stand up for what is right. Otherwise, we all die, whimpering for mercy.

It's a revolution, after all.

/KDR

Addendum: 12pm. Leonard Harris passes along an amusing candidate cartoon about how challengers take down incumbents. Mumpower's next move?

Turbett on Bill O'Reilly's Fast and Loose Politics

Center for Liberty and Community treasurer Jim Turbett passes along a comment on a recent O'Reilly Factor:

The topic was a Fla. supreme court decision that overturned a probation that kept the sex crime parolee from possessing porno.

Megyn Kelly, the fair and generally conservative legal analyst-- and beautiful and smart too -- said that the decision was right. She said the parolee claimed the law was vague and that she agreed.

O'Reilly says, "Sometimes the greater good of society has to prevail in these pinhead courtrooms."

Megyn comes back with: "You are so wrong. You are so wrong. You know what happens when you take that view? You get judicial activism. You get things like Roe vs. Wade. You are wrong. That is a dangerous road you are going down."

This isn't the first time that the idea of decisions being made on thebasis of law and law principles has escaped O'Reilly. He always just wants the "right" outcome. That's truly the progressive view from the early 20th century. There is nothing conservative about him except for being ultra-patriotic and kind of a societal prude.

Here's another O'Reilly story. He lambasted the head of Chevron, coincidentally also named O'Reilly, for taking home $32M a year (or thereabouts). A viewer emailed in to challenge him to reveal how much he himself makes. (Bill) O'Reilly refused, of course, saying that he worked in private enterprise, but everyone knows that the oil industry is a monopoly with five companies controlling everything (so it's not private?)

I think you could safely say that Bill O'Reilly dismissed the question by saying that the oil industry is a five company monopoly. Apparently he doesn't know that such a thing is called an oligopoly. He really hates the oil companies (and the airlines). His view is apparently that because the oil industry is a "monopoly", they can pay exhorbitant salaries without suffering new competition (while the news industry is competitive and he earns his high salary, the one he won't reveal).

Bob Barr Gives Measured Response to Fannie Freddie Crisis

Bob Barr is taking a moderate position regarding federal government intervention in the government lending debacle. His reasoning: government created the problem, so in the short run government should help band-aid the problem, but in in the long run, government needs to clean up its act.
We will have to see how libertarians respond to this. My guess is that free liberals and other pragmatists will view it as sensible politics and policy, but the Ron Paul revolutionaries will be rankled.

Watch the video below.

/KDR

Unfit for Office?

John McCain gives us another example -- with his humor -- of thoughts that rumble through his soul. Apparently, he finds it amusing that US cigarette imports to Iran kills them, and that's, to his way of thinking, a good thing.

Maybe this was just a stupid joke. Or, perhaps at least as likely, McCain harbors ill-will toward the Iranian people. We can't know, although I suspect the truth is something closer to the latter.

Gaffes often give us a window into the soul of the gaffer. This unfunny joke does not indicate to me a person stable enough to have his hands on the nuclear football. Regardless, this off-the-cuff remark does not speak well of a man who would be president.

(H/T Tom DiLorenzo)

-RC

Say you want a r3VOLution?

Many Ron Paul primary voters are split, or undecided, between the Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin, and the Libertarian nominee Bob Barr. An examination of the news as reported on October 2, 2001, three weeks after the terrifying events in New York and the Pentagon, might be instructive.

The October 2 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, drawing from a Washington Times story, reports on Congressman Barr's activities fighting the White House on the PATRIOT Act:

Washington Times's Gribben reports, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) "is siding with his ideological foes in opposing" the Bush admin's anti-terrorism proposals. Along with Jud cmte colleagues Reps. Conyers, Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Barney Frank (D-MA), Barr "demanded to know why" the WH was rushing legislation "that might affect Americans' civil liberties." Though "he made a different argument" during the cmte hearing, Barr "later told reporters that what really troubled him was the attempt to broaden federal powers" (10/2). If his position "makes for what some see as unusual alliances -- Barr and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force on the same side, for example" -- he's "not troubled." Barr: "I simply try and be consistent and leave people's characterizations to themselves."

Meanwhile, Rev. Chuck published a new column that day. Some exceprts:

Must God Apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah?
By Chuck Baldwin October 2, 2001

It astonishes the mind to realize how many professing Christians refuse to believe that acceptance of moral perversity leads to divine judgment. . .

If the Bible teaches anything, it teaches that God is sovereign in the affairs of men. America's Founding Fathers believed that to a man. Our very form of government is predicated upon this principle. . .

Since the destruction of the Canaanite empire, every nation throughout history that has repudiated the moral laws of God has fallen victim to the wrath of God. There have been no exceptions. . .

It is true that God made a special covenant with only one nation, Israel. However, it is equally true that only one nation, the United States of America, made a special covenant with God. From the earliest days of our nation, our forebears made it crystal clear that this country was founded for "the advancement of the Christian faith" . . .

For far too long, too many of these sacred principles have been violated in our country! Are we now shocked that God could be using pagan nations (as He repeatedly did with Old Testament Israel) to judge Christian America? Instead of ridiculing the brave men who attempt to call America back to God, we should be doing what God demands. That means the White House and the church house need to stop normalizing adultery, homosexuality, and other acts of sexual deviancy. . .

Listening to many modern pundits, one would think they expect God to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah; however, God owes no nation an apology. God is righteous in judgment as much as He is in blessing. The only apology owed is the one owed to God from disobedient people.

Who's the candidate of the LOVE revolution here?

Nuanced to Death

This piece by EJ Dionne caught my eye. My take is that Dionne grasps the import of nuance and, at the same time, the urgency of principle.

Unfortunately, our politics are such that both can't seem to sound hypocritical, or else one's a "flip flopper." Even with most (including me) wanting an end to the Iraq Quagmire as quickly as possible, say that and some will say "Oh, you don't support the troops, and you don't care whether Iraq descends into endless civil war."

Frankly, this counter sickens me in its obvious manipulation. In fact, exiting Iraq's the best thing the US can do for its troops, and it MIGHT even abate the civil war...US presence could be the catalyst for the civil war. It certainly started it.

It strikes me that laying out specifics of how to get out of Iraq is a detail that is premature. Any specific promise lacks credibility, as Obama and his advisors don't have access to details to determine the optimum way to get out. Yet some want specifics DURING the campaign, which seems like an unreasonable demand to me.

I look forward to the day when a candidate can say: I strive to do X, with the details to be worked out later. So, in this case, a candidate might say: The war was a mistake. It's far too expensive in terms of both blood and treasure. If elected, I will draw up a plan in consultation with Congress, the Joint Chiefs, and others. Make no mistake: My goal is to exit Iraq as quickly as possible. I wish I could give you a specific timetable, but that would be reckless. I simply don't have enough information at this time to make an informed decision. I assure you that I believe it's in the interest of all Americans and the Iraqis that our military presence there should end.

Calculating campaigns are NOT the appropriate vehicle for such wide-ranging policy decisions.

-RC

Understanding Democracy

A story from Newsbusters suggests that the Obama campaign (or its supporters) may have used Blogspot's spam control system to flag and thus shut down several anti-Obama blogs.

Apparently, this campaign merely took advantage of Google/Blogger's flawed system of finding spam blogs. So, it looks like what we have here is an Obama dirty trick to shut down political opposition.

Newsbusters remarks, "Looks like Obmatons aren't much for that whole democracy thing, eh?"

If this is indeed what happened, the Obama crew may very well understand democracy.

In a sense, flagging spam is like voting. "Spam" is a subjective classification. Spam is unwelcome, useless, or even harmful information. Who should decide what is spam and not spam? There is much discussion of the "Wisdom of Crowds" in generating knowledge, especially through the Net. Do we allow ideas that go against the crowd?

There is a false notion that by installing voting systems that aggregate preferences of the public that we get liberal protections for speech and action. In fact, it is liberal concepts and institutional protection of these concepts that defend our "rights" against the will of the majority. Democracy, in replacing autocratic regimes, may generate liberalism. But democracy has also been a force for oppression.

Obama has lovely transpartisan rhetoric, but we should recognize that many of his policy proposals will increase the power of the state and diminish liberty. We should not be surprised that rabid supporters of statist policies will violate discourse ethics in the process of getting their way.

/KDR

Goodbye Raymond Burke

The Vatican announced the promotion of pro-life Archbishop Raymond Burke to the Vatican Signatura (its Supreme Court). This means that he is effectively silenced in telling Catholic politicians who they should put on the American Supreme Court - just in time for the election. I knew I liked this Pope. Read more on my Christian Left blog.

"...in the home."

The key passage in yesterday's landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court decision is: The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

While I'd prefer the qualification be "on one's property," the point is people have the right to protect themselves and their families with potentially lethal force. Arguing the opposite seems utterly untenable, so my view is Scalia and the majority framed this issue properly.

The Supremes move glacially, with the occasional lurch and sometimes those lurches are in a virtuous direction. This is such a time. Time will tell how the Court hones this new direction in jurisprudential thinking. What CAN be prohibited, what CAN be regulated, and where CAN the State limit the carrying and use of firearms remain open questions.

-RC

2A, Kelo and Federalism

As we all wait to hear what the Supremes have to say about the DC gun ban, I'll be especially interested in the take that our paleo states rights colleagues will say. Some believed Kelo was properly decided, based on a states rights perspective.

I didn't, and I won't.

The way I see it, the Bill of Rights is a national governing law. It carves out certain rights for all US citizens, including the right to keep and bear arms, at least on one's property. That which is not carved out in the Constitution should be left to the states or individuals. Banning all firearms -- as DC has done -- is off the reservation, as I see it.

-RC

Move Over, Somalia

Liberty lovers are sometimes accused of being "atomistic," taking individualist values out to its most extreme. It's a perspective that could easily be ridiculed at its edges, even if the thrust of individualism is an American virtue.

One theorist last year suggested that modern-day Somalia is a pretty neat place, as it is a stateless geographical area. Starvation rates have declined slightly, seemed to be the nub of the observation.

Now we have a first-world experiment in extreme individualism brewing. A Shetland Island, inhabited by one tent dweller, is claiming sovereignty.

While I wish this Shetlander all the best, a society of one seems hardly to be a good experiment. Even Robinson Crusoe had Friday, yes?

-RC

Back to Square One

The fictional Tony Soprano character reported that he had a near-death experience in which the question came up: Who am I?

Simple yet vexing square-one questions may well open Pandora's Box, but they are unavoidable for adults. If we don't have a crisp answer for square one questions, how can we possibly assess beef or chicken?

Of course, we can't really answer the square-one-type inquiries, but we can't avoid them, either. Instead, we need to ask better and better questions that guide us on a path to an improved experience, perhaps even Nirvana or Heaven on earth.

But, then, maybe not. Still, my colleague Micah Tillman asks are very good square-one question: What is government?

My answer -- for now -- is a peacekeeping, conflict-resolution institution for humans. I'm open to a better answer, however.

-RC

The Most Important Question

. . . for every candidate and voter is this:

What is government?

You don't want people messing with it if they can't pick it out of a lineup. They might confuse it with a daycare center or a terrorist organization for all you know.

So, let's not even worry about the purpose of government ("What should government do?" "Why was government instituted?") for the moment. You can't have a purpose if you're not the kind of thing that can fulfill that purpose.

So every candidate for office should be asked: What is government? And every voter should be asking her- or himself: What is government?

After all, if we don't know what government is, how will we be able to tell which of the candidates has the right answer?

Veepstakes, Life and Choice

Normally – or should I say in years past – the VP candidate of the Rs and Ds do not matter too much. Maybe it can be shown to help in the VP's home state, but even that seems to be a stretch. People mostly vote for the top of the ticket, or perhaps against the other candidate.

This time could be different. McCain's age makes his VP choice more important than usual. Obama's youth and relative inexperience makes his choice important, too. The optics of "balancing" the ticket seems to be practical and of a higher priority this go 'round.

Michael Bindner's idea of pro-life Bob Casey is interesting, but I suspect unlikely. The Ds seem to have a low tolerance for pro-lifers, especially on the national ticket and platform. Ditto the Rs for pro-choicers, witness Mitt Romney's possibly-sincere-but-suspicious "change of heart" on abortion.

(The Libertarians seem to be the only party that respects this obviously gray area, having nominated pro-life and pro-choice standardbearers in recent years. Their platform recognizes that this is an issue of individual conscience. This year's ticket is balanced, with Barr being pro-life and Root pro-choice.)

If McCain wants to be bold, he'll select Carly Fiorina or Condi Rice, but my money's on Romney. Obama needs gravitas more than anything, so that suggests Joe Biden or even Wes Clark.

Like Abba vs. Garth Brooks, these R and D machinations are to me not real choices.

-RC

Obama/Casey

Mr. Casey of Pennsylvania may give Obama a double electoral punch. First, he can bring in Pennsylvania and possibly Ohio, which would be no small feat. The second advantage would be in how he and Obama handle the abortion issue. If he can convince Catholics that they can vote for the ticket and still go to communion, he will have assured a Democratic victory in November.

Cross Purposes

Bridging on Kevin Rollins point here about Obama's windfall profits tax notion, it gets worse. If the government taxes "Big Oil," or anyone, more, what happens? We'll get less oil, as the more marginal projects that are currently profitable will be scaled back or canceled.

With less oil, what happens? Hmm, if supply goes down and demand remains the same, I suspect all economists would easily predict prices will go UP! The end result is consumers still get squeezed. Government takes in more revenues. And oil shareholders lose return dollars, although profit RATES may remain the same, depending on the quality of management.

It gets worse. Most oil companies are conducting R&D projects, some for alternative energy, others to make fossil fuels more efficient and less polluting. The putatively Green Obama's windfall profits tax is at cross purposes with his desire to go green.

So, on the one hand, Obama correctly calls McCain gas tax holiday a "gimmick." But then he trots out his own gimmick.

A 'course, McCain -- alleged expert in foreign affairs -- is prone to all sorts of ham-handed, garbled thinking, such as confusing Shia and Sunni. And then there's the emotional instability....

Politicians are often criticized for breaking campaign "promises," as if the individual pol has control of collective outcomes. They of course don't, so making promises is itself a grandiose, futile effort. All they can do is promise to propose X or Y policy.

Still, this is one campaign promise we can only hope that President Obama will break. There is much to criticize about in the energy and environment areas, but mostly it's about convoluted, contradictory, counter-productive government policy. Gas prices are high mostly because of bad policy, starting first and foremost with the Iraq War, and torqued up by anti-Iran saber rattling.

All indications are that McCain has spun off into Grand Geopolitical Construct World, one that rationalizes warring for speculative greater goods. And Obama seems -- still -- to not understand the flow of economic give and take. Squeeze the balloon here, the balloon expands elsewhere.

If one of these gents is elected, we can only hope that their hidden agendas will be squelched by wiser staff.

-RC

Richardson

Mr. Obama, come here to this website. Come here to this page. Pick this man, Mr. Obama. Pick this man.

Bill Richardson for VP.

Obama/Richardson '08.

Obama has charisma.

Richardson has experience.

As his governor's page tells us:

During the 2002 campaign for Governor, Bill Richardson broke a world record. He shook 13,392 hands in an 8-hour period – shattering the record that former president Theodore Roosevelt set on inauguration day in 1907.

Aside from being impressive for a man of large stature as Gov. Richardson, his stamina and willingness to *shake hands* means he is unlikely to work against the common man. Or at least not do too much damage. His past association with "third way" Bill Clinton doesn't hurt either.

And let's get Richardson out of New Mexico to make way for Gov. Paul Gessing. Maybe not yet, but soon.

/KDR

Some voters have always thrown away their votes...

Stuart Rothenberg -- editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper – attempts to dismiss the Libertarian Party's ticket of Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root in this essay. He finds the LP standard-bearers "tone deaf."

Perhaps. Perhaps any third party candidate is tone deaf. Perhaps Ross Perot was tone deaf, although perhaps Rothenberg forgets that Perot was at one time leading in the national polls.

And, yes, perhaps voting for Perot or Ralph Nader or John Anderson or Teddy Roosevelt is a vote "thrown away." Of course, voting for George W. Bush could be characterized as a "wasted vote," too, as most of Bush's supporters are now feeling rather betrayed and disappointed by W's performance.

And perhaps the fact that the electorate is leaving the Rs and Ds to be independent voters is also a waste. Could it be that voters are increasingly disgusted with the corruption in the two "major" parties?

We know, of course, that human beings are not saints, and anyone's character could be called into question, including Barr and Root's. Heck, I sometimes wonder whether Moses was not pushing the truth with the 10 commandments. And did Jesus really have to go ballistic in the temple? And didn't Buddha leave his wife and family?

Children may have unrealistic expectations of their parents, and Rothenberg seems to gloss over his apparent preferences of John (Let's Stay in Iraq 100 Years and Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran) McCain and Barack (I Never Heard Anything Like That In the Pews of Trinity for 20 Years and I Enjoy Hanging Out with Weather Underground Conspirators) Obama.

Who exactly is delusional?

Even if in his heart he knows it's highly unlikely he'll actually win, it seems wise to me that Barr claims "he's in it to win." His resume is deeper than Obama's, and he's had the good judgment to quit the GOP for its Patriot Act and disastrous Iraq War. Is Rothenberg surprised that gas is $4 a gallon when the Middle East is still in flames? One need not agree with all of Barr's positions to see that he's qualified for the job.

Then there's Rothenberg's quoting Michael Barone:

"He [Barr] says that he has no close friends on Capitol Hill and usually sleeps in his office."

This sounds like frat boys discussing whether to induct a pledge. Call me cynical, but Barr's personal distance from the rest of Congress sounds like his best qualification of all!

Avoiding snakes seems most wise.

-RC

Splitting the Baby

Living one day at a time -- as we all do, like it or not -- can be quite liberating. Yet, try as we might, projecting forward does also seem to be the human condition. Election 08 is fraught with drama, hence the propensity to project becomes irresistable.

The latest grist for the projection mill is the DNC's decision to count half the primary voters in MI and FL. Seems kinda fair, kinda not. Obama maintains his lead, though a skinnier one. Nobody's satisfied in either camp, yet the Ds limp into Denver fractured and divided.

Paying $4 per gallon should be -- by itself -- a prescription for D triumph. The war to maintain free-flowing oil has backfired and tensions run high. Maxing out the credit cards and skipping drive-thru McDonald's this week makes for an angry electorate. Someone else must be to blame for this misery!

Straight talk gives way to Beltway agitprop. Shiite/Sunni confusion is understandable in a septuagenarian's mind, but what steps will be put in place to avoid confusion about which button to push?

"Rejoice, rejoice," we've been told, "we have no choice, but to carry on."

-RC

Barr/Paul ticket still in the cards?!

The selection of Wayne Root as the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate is in some sense a fluke. It appears so many old LP hands, upset at Bob Barr's win, walked out of the proceedings that Ruwart's endorsed VP candidate Steve Kubby lost, even though Root's VP total was noticeably lower than Barr's final tally. Had the walk-outs stayed, a "unity ticket" was in their grasp.

Now, the gossip is that many of these same disgruntled Ruwart supporters, who control their state LP's ballot line and elector candidates, are considering not running the Barr/Root ticket. Some LP elector nominees have even already declared their intent to vote faithlessly. This is not unheard of in the LP. In 2000, the LP of Arizona placed L. Neil Smith on the Presidential ballot instead of Harry Browne. The LP's one electoral vote in 1972 came from a faithless Nixon elector.

But these "walk-outs" have a chance instead to create an even better "unity ticket" ticket while not irreparably fracturing the national party. These "rogue" state parties could dump Root and place Ron Paul on the ballot as Vice-President. Root, widely distrusted as a warmonger by the old hands in the LP, just dissed Paul a month ago for Paul's lack of militarism.

Paul need not accept these rogue endorsements of course, while he continues to campaign for the GOP nomination. Root would continue to campaign and do media as the official nominee. But this move would put Paul back on the table, even if only as a spectre, and could help propel the nominee Barr up in the polls and into the debates. It would also in a very real way put Paul's name back into the mix as a possible compromise candidate chosen by a faithless electoral college and/or the U.S. House. The LP would de facto have two Presidential candidates on the ballot.

Both the DNC and RNC conventions look to be trainwrecks this year and all the rules are being thrown out the window. Unhappy state LP heads should keep that in mind and think carefully, strategically, and outside the box in the event they do feel honor-bound to offer a rebuke of some sort.

Bob Barr and the PATRIOT Act

My colleague Tim Lee, blogging over at The Atlantic, raises the oft-repeated canard that Bob Barr's record on the USA PATRIOT Act is evidence of a longstanding unlibertarian track record, rendering his libertarian "conversion" suspect. What Lee and others fail to understand is that Congressman Barr was in fact the White House's chief legislative roadblock in their barreling PATRIOT through Congress. And that for his trouble, Barr earned the wrath of White House operatives like Karl Rove, which is what ultimately cast Barr from the Congress. (Thanks to Democrat gerrymandering in Georgia, Barr had to run against another incumbent Republican Congressman in the GOP primary, one who hadn't earned the ire of Rove's powerful machine.)

In 2001, Barr was the lead figure in the GOP-controlled House in pushing back against the PATRIOT Act, and ultimately suceeded in deleteing some text and forcing sunset clauses on the bill's worst provisions. Brad Jansen explains much of the background at American Spectator. More here. So when Barr started lobbying against PATRIOT Act abuses soon after leaving Congress, it was a continuation of his previous activities, not a reversal.

And those who remember politics before Bush may recall Bill Clinton's own "9/11", the Oklahoma City bombing. Just as after 9/11, a wish list of Justice Department powers was pulled off the shelf and given to the Congress to pass as an "anti-terror" bill. Freshman Congressman Barr then, too, cut back and limiited as much of the bill as he could from his seat on the Judiciary Committee. If you don't remember this from following the news at the time, you can read Barr's book and check his wikipedia entry for references.

Start of Something Big?

With former Republican Congressman Bob Barr securing the Libertarian Party's presidential nod and former Democrat Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney seeking the Green Party presidential nod, are we poised for a sea change in American politics?

Odds are low. The Rs and Ds -- ossified and entrenched as they are -- have rigged the game for themselves. And yet, voters may be poised to begin to think outside the box. Still, Denmark by the Potomac emits that putrid stench that it does. Sunshine and the fresh air of real choice may well begin to take hold in 2008. Plausible contenders -- some might even say "turncoats"--are calling out their former teams, and speaking truth to power.

A McCain/Obama "showdown" may be -- all things considered -- the weakest field in a century. A septuagenarian who is engrained in the system as it is vs. a charismatic rookie by political standards...not much of a choice from this vantage point. A man whose very sanity and emotional stability has been widely questioned vs. man who consorts with conspiracy theorists and violent revolutionaries.

Is it really so "crazy" to be thinking about a third way in 2008?

On its face: No. Substantively: No, again.

-RC

Libertarians in Denver

Over at the Guardian, our friend Jeremy Lott has a great article on the Libertarian Party nomination fight this weekend. My favorite line is, "This ideological rigidity has drawn a self-selected group of freedom's bitter-enders who hate the Federal Reserve and fear the Post Office."

It is this group of "self-selected bitter-enders" that will oppose former congressman Bob Barr's nomination for the presidential race. These are the folks who've spent too many years making unreasonable demands and seeing nothing but failure. They may have enough votes to actually block a Barr nomination, even though it must be clear to all sane observers that Barr brings the most credibility, even if not the most extreme variety of libertarianism.

As Jeremy Lott notes, in the 2004 nomination process, Michael Badnarik beat out two bigger names, radio host Gary Nolan and movie producer Aaron Russo. Nolan was knocked out and subsequently encouraged his supporters to vote for Badnarik. Badnarik, who had never held political office (and didn't possess a driver's license), at one point emailed supporters that he had gotten word that Hawaii had just seceded from the Union. This apparently was due to a mistaken reading of an email he had received from a Hawaiian secessionist group. Badnarik is a nice person though. He became a better speaker throughout the process. And yes, he had pretty good ideological purity, too. But, no one but LP people even cared he was running.

Depending on what percentage each candidate enters with, the last-man standing voting procedure the LP uses could actually could enable Wayne Allen Root or even Mary Ruwart to win the nomination. The party would earn obscurity for this choice, a decision it has made time and time again.

/KDR

Presidential Cult?

Gene Healy of the Cato Institute doesn't like the exercise of presidential power. Nor do I. He itemizes the dangers of president-as-messiah here. I think he's largely correct.

Still, those with wonkish proclivities might want to view politics as a purely intellectual exercise. Here in the Healy Construct, logic and reason are the only legitimate arrows in the quiver of those who share political values. Squishy, subjective considerations such as appeals to emotion and political theater are verboten.

Good luck with that approach, sez me.

Charisma, style, and being telegenic seem to me to be requirements for how this game is played. Deal with it. Being a strong, silent type in the mold of Coolidge strikes me as a matter of style. A= A robots need not apply.

With any luck, excellent politician/actors will step forward in coming decades who understand that the state can and should be rolled back, but who can also inspire and motivate the nation toward a more peaceful configuration.

Think of a smaller-government Obama.

-RC

Obama: Pot Smokers' Choice?

Barack Obama has given free liberals another reason to cheer his candidacy with his humane views on medipot:

As the candidates prepare for a May 20 primary in Oregon, one of 12 states with a California-style law, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has become an increasingly firm advocate of ending federal intervention and letting states make their own rules when it comes to medical marijuana.

More here.

Ron Paul #1 on Amazon

Here's the book, and here's the top-sellers list.

A bestselling cult-leader. Whodathunk?

H/t, as usual, to David Freddoso. I hate to keep stealing his posts, but he's on top of the libertarian scene, it seems. Here are his most recent posts on the Corner.

-MT

Undercutting Collectivist Thinking, One Award at a Time

FYI:

Michael Hirsh's “How the South Won (This) Civil War” was given the inaugural "WEeding Award" today, for its misuse of the first-person plural.

Since the misuse of words like "we" (as when one speaks in the first-person of some action in which one actually had no hand) supports a distorted sense of group identity -- including the reification of The Group as something over and above the individuals which comprise it, and the portrayal of The Group as something to which individuals must bow -- it is time that such mistakes be "weeded out."

The WEeding Awards will, in a light-hearted way, bring awareness to this critical issue. It's time to stop speaking "Collectivist."

For the inaugural announcement, and to find out "How the South Won (This) Civil War"'s WEediness Quotient, visit my personal blog.

And if you find any articles that need WEeding, just send 'em my way.

-MT

Enivornmentalism Turns Against Itself *UPDATED*

After Dr. Foldvary's article (Ethanol subsidies starve poor kids) and seeing a report on Comcast News about the rising cost of "organic" and "environmentally friendly" food -- and headlines like "Era of cheap food ends as prices surge" (h/t Drudge) -- I'm beginning to wonder whether the environmentalist movement doesn't need to be a lot more centralized and coordinated.

If environmentalist causes drive up the cost of food, and that keeps people from buying "environmentally friendly" foods, then . . . . What was that about "a house divided against itself"?

Speaking of the unexpected results of environmentalism, did you see this from NPR last Fall?:

Rice fields are a major source of methane — one of the so-called greenhouse gases linked to global warming. But switching to other crops is unthinkable in Asia, where rice is the primary source of calories for many people. So scientists in Thailand are trying to find rice cultivation techniques that produce less methane.

And speaking of government subsidies (in the name of environmentalism) getting in the way of "environmentally friendly" causes, see Peter Robinson's interview with T.J. Rodgers (in five parts: One, Two, Three, Four, Five).

The centralized power of the US government evidently isn't enough to coordinate the environmentalist movement. And it would be no use appealing th the UN.

(But why use a government body at all?)

-MT

UPDATE:
Looks like it's a busy week on the ethanol/food/environmentalism front. See the following four pieces on NRO today:

Hungry Like the Ethanol Wolf [Editorial]
A New Environmentalism -Victor Davis Hanson
Global Food Riots -Deroy Murdock
Saving the world is cheaper than free -David Freddoso

And see the following recent headlines on Drudge:
Americans hoard food as industry seeks regs -Patrice Hill, Washington Times
Load Up the Pantry -Brett Arends, Wall Street Journal
Two major US retailers ration rice amid global food crisis -AFP
Run on rice makes its way to U.S. -Jerry Hirsch and Tiffany Hsu, Los Angeles Times

Hillary Hung On

Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania makes a remarkable statement about how important *strategic thinking* is and that you shouldn't give up because of a few nicks and bruises. Wait, what was his name? Oh, Mitt Romney -- the Republican who threw in the towel before the race was over.

Although a lot can be said about the ordering of the primaries governing the outcomes of the nomination races, there is still a lot to be said for those candidates who have the pluck and courage to stick it out till the bitter end. The presidency is about character after all.

Way to go Hillary! I don't support your campaign, but I admire your dedication to your cause. We can all learn from your example.

/KDR

Obama Between the Extremes of Excess and . . . Excess?

To balance out Obama's association with Ayers, Sunstein points out that Obama hung out with libertarians: (h/t Frum)

I know for a fact that Obama has actually played basketball with Richard Epstein, a libertarian on the law school faculty who has written some pretty controversial things on property rights and government regulation.

This is the new centrism, I suppose. It's nice that Aristotle's understanding of virtue as "the mean between the extremes of deficiency and excess" still has some sway in our society. But it seems to me that Sunstein's balancing attempt is like saying Obama is okay because he hangs out with both Bad Prince John and Robin Hood. Sunstein seems to think that both domestic bombing campaigns and libertarian thinking are excesses.

But there are two problems with that: First, having two forms of excessive companions doesn't make you a centrist. There is no mean at the extremes, as Aristotle himself points out. You can't commit adultery at just the right amount (not too much, not too little) says the Stagirite.

Second, libertarians are much more like pacifists than Robin Hoods (i.e., libertarianism is much more like a deficiency of action rather than an excess thereof). But if Sunstein said, "Obama hangs out with people who did too much, and with people who don't do enough" -- which would be more plausible -- the argument would lose it's force. It's always worse to be Prince John than to be an absolute pacifist; pacifism can't balance out tyranny.

And then there's the portrayal of libertarianism as being a right-wing ideology, tout court. After all, if Ayers is left-wing, we've got to balance Obama's friends with a right-winger.

I'm confused, obviously.

-MT

Obama under Attack over Patriotism at Debate

No punches are being pulled at tonight's Dem debate.

Both candidates started the evening with references to "the promise of America" (which is what Progressive patriotism is about). But after getting attacked for a while, Obama tried to position himself closer to the Conservative version of patriotism by talking (as he has before) about himself as evidence that America has actually fulfilled some of its promise already.

Evidently, Obama's campaign can't get by on "hope" alone. There's got to be something good about America now.

Hillary vs. McCain Faux Pas: Which Matters More?

By now, most readers are undoubtedly aware of Hillary Clinton's fib about her coming under fire (video here) on the tarmac in Bosnia back in the 1990s. While Clinton has been rightfully pilloried for her remarks, another candidate, John McCain, was making equally-ridiculous remarks, yet was being given a pass by the media.

McCain, an extreme hawk who has asserted that American troops might be in Iraq for 100 years, recently stated that Al Qaeda in Iraq (a Sunni organization) is receiving support from Iran (a Shiite organization). This was, unfortunately, not an isolated incident and it either shows a great deal of ignorance on the Senator's part or is an outright lie because the two sects hate each other almost as much as they hate us.

Unfortunately, the media, either not grasping the importance of McCain's gaffe, has worked to downplay the error/lie and even argued that McCain is viewed as such an "expert" on foreign policy that he should simply be given a pass. Unfortunately, McCain is only perceived as an expert by the media because he is a hawk.

Is it any wonder that the media give Democrats the advantage on economic policy issues and Republicans the advantage on foreign policy? The media by and large love big government!

You Libertarian Relativist, You

Jeffrey Rosen writes in The New Republic that Justice Scalia was concerned about the "relativism" which would occur after the Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. (h/t Ponnuru) Then Rosen says:

Watching the end of Spitzer's political career, however, I couldn't help feeling that Scalia had it entirely wrong. Despite the best efforts of some libertarians, the days of morals legislation are hardly over. Not only do the courts seem to be in no hurry to strike down these laws--the American public refuses to rush down the slippery slope that Scalia described.

One of these days, when I've finished everything else I have to do, I shall have to read Scalia's opinion. What I'm wondering right now is why we would look to the government to tell us -- through their laws -- what's right and wrong. I, for one, usually turn to other authorities when it comes to morality.

-MT

Forget Iceland 1000 AD. How's About Switzerland Now?

Free Liberals might find John Fund's piece on Switzerland hopeful.

-RC

Mad Hatter Daze

Southwestern University School of Law professor Butler Shaffer offers some big-picture insight regarding the insane asylum's zeitgeist, circa 2008. Recommended.

The only quibble I can offer is that Shaffer seems to suggest that "collective insanity" is somehow a new thing. Of course, it's been with us a long, long time. There does, however, seem to be an ebb and flow to lunacy-as-conventional-wisdom, and even crests and crashes.

Hamlet told us that "Denmark's a prison," but -- hint, hint -- "Denmark" wasn't just Denmark.

MacBeth was more on point:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

The "idiots" keep telling us what to think whilst they strut and fret. At the end of the day, we can take a certain comfort knowing that it indeed does signify nothing. Nothing at all.

-RC

Taxing v. Killing Peasants

The notion of taxing carbon (or better still negative externalities) seems to be gaining traction among the thoughtful. Can't say I agree with all of the conclusions here, but here are some data points, FYI.

-RC

Paying for It

Everybody loves to hate a sanctimonious hypocrite. Enter, stage left, Eliot Spitzer. Like Jimmy Swaggart in a different arena, Spitzer built his reputation as a "tough" -- I'd say "overzealous" -- prosecutor. Some would say a power-drunk prosecutor, whose prosecution's became all about Eliot and his manly will. He gave new meaning to prosecutorial sword fighting.

Whatever Sir Spitzer was working out when he was a prosecutor, he is now acting out the truism: What goes around, comes around. Tragically, his family is caught in the crossfire.

Yes, of course, prostitution and playing the John should not be a crime. It's merely a capitalist act among consenting adults.

That's the thing with hypocrites: They never know when and how the bad-karma boomerang's going to hit them upside the head.

Try as we might to look away from this roadside wreck, it's hard, isn't it? On some level, something deep inside of us recognizes the hypocrite in us. We hate it. Yet, we look.

So, the only appropriate response is compassion. Yes, Governor Spitzer should sort this one out in private as a private citizen. Casting stones at him will not allay our own guilt.

But you knew that.

-RC

Obama: The Best Antiwar Option Left

I remain part of the Ron Paul revolution. That said, of the three candidates left, I think Obama is the least evil. Justin Raimondo over at Antiwar.com expressed that sentiment in a new article.

Why should Free Liberals choose Obama? First and foremost, unlike Hillary he opposed the Iraq War from the outset and at least represents a somewhat different perspective on foreign policy that is not so doctrinaire and beholden to the War Party. Also, his health care proposal is not quite as repressive as Clinton's. Lastly, even though many of his supporters may be ignorant of the matter, Obama does have a major legislative accomplishment to his name (pro-freedom transparency legislation that he co-sponsored with Sen. Coburn). What has Hillary done?

Will the establishment strangle Obama's candidacy as it did Dean's candidacy 4 years ago? Only time will tell. But in my opinion, Obama is the best choice of Free Liberals at this point. That said, if former Congressman Bob Barr jumps into the race, his candidacy would be catnip to Ron Paul revolutionaries.

Not So Fast

Just when it looked like the race for the White House looked like McCain v. Obama, Hillary Clinton surges back in the last round of primaries, making the D outcome murky. Like Glenn Close's character in Fatal Attraction, this race refuses to die.

Yet, the D race generates much heat and no light. Instead, they position themselves over the tiniest of differences, mostly vague notions of style and years of experience. The differences have already been established, with Obama being slightly more anti-war and Clinton being more willing to use government force. Obama's health plan was oh so slightly less coercive, yet Clinton tries to paint this as a weakness!

As Micah Tillman notes, some conservatives like that Obama v. Clinton continues into extra innings. Yes, McCain can lay low for months, which in his case is probably a good thing. The counter is that if Obama and Clinton continue to generate all the coverage, they could transform that into strength, come November. This is especially so if they can heal this rift between them. Offering the other the VP is the easy answer.

Paraphrasing Shakespeare, this brief candle continues to burn to its base. But the D candidate will get a new candle when nominated. McCain's second candle has already started to burn, and few are drawn to the light, and even fewer enthusiastically so. He never found his base. Clinton and Obama have.

Oh, yes, then there's the little matter of the D's FL and MI delegates. Again paraphrasing Shakespeare, we can't kill all the lawyers just yet. Solving what to do with those two high-population states's delegates should prove to be high drama. Odds are high, however, that it will signify nothing.

-RC

Change in DC without "Debaathification?"

Re: Kevin's post below in which he quotes an FT piece on whether Obama's stance on free trade won't end up hurting the very international relations he's supposed to repair --

Evidently it's been reported that "Obama's senior economic policy adviser" told the Canadians that Obama's free trade talk was just posturing. (Hat tip: York)

If it's true, that sounds a lot like "politics-as-usual" to me.

And it reminds me that David Axelrod, by no means a new name in Washington politics, is Obama's campaign manager.

Not that I have anything against Axelrod (he's got a cool name), but wouldn't you need to "debaathify" DC (or at least your own campaign/administration) to really have the change Obama says he represents? Or is George Bush the only politician who's tone/policies/tactics are determined by his "architects" and "advisers" and "operatives" and "vice" presidents?

-MDT

09: Cause for Optimism?

Normally, the prospect of a President McCain or President Obama might be depressing for a Free Liberal.

McCain gets points for a pretty good fiscal track record. Bonus points for his take on torture, and probably demerits for McCain-Feingold, despite some fairly positive motivation. But we are looking at a man who seems devoted first and foremost to fighting "them" over there and apparently in perpetuity.

On balance, a fairly grim prospect, with the wild card that this is a man who would appear deeply wounded by his time as a prisoner of war. Still, the Ds are likely to hold Congress by comfortable margins, so McCain is likely to be checked-and-balanced by them. Yes, he may well participate in logrolling – perhaps war with Iran for socialized medicine – but we can at least hope that such neat "deals" won't come to the fore.

And, McCain will not be saddled with rationalizing the Bush Administration's policies. The slate won't be clean by any means, but at least he has the option to disown a series of anti-civil-liberties initiatives by Team W.

I'm persuaded that President Obama would take office with the intention of withdrawing from Iraq. That's a big plus in my book. Odds are high that it will take longer than I'd prefer, but then I don't pretend to be expert in such tactical questions. On the major issue of the day, I'm pulling for Obama to follow through on this move in the direction of more liberty.

Obama is the most rhetorically transpartisan politician in my memory, perhaps ever. He does not seem to ascribe to us-and-them thinking, perhaps because he really believes (perhaps vaguely) that them is us and us is them. A good sign, from where I sit.

Sure, his lean is for more government and less liberty domestically, but here we need a bit of faith in the remaining Rs in the Senate. Perhaps these senators will reacquaint themselves with their backbones. It's a theory.

Undoing the damage that W has wrought won't be easy and probably will be incomplete. Politics is like watching football before the invention of the forward pass – progress and setbacks happen at a glacial pace.

Chicken Little might be right, but the case is strong that the sky will be in place in 2012.

-RC

John McCain: Unfit to Lead

Sheldon Richman over at Future of Freedom Foundation has a great article about John McCain and the conservatives who oppose his nomination as the Republican Party candidate for President. I, like Richman, have major problems with McCain's candidacy and agree with him that his immigration stance is the least of our worries. As bad as Clinton or Obama may be on a variety of issues vital to conservatives, free liberals, and libertarians alike, none of them have joked about bombing Iran.

While it may be tough to discern what "conservative" means or what the Republican Party stands for, if anything, if McCain is elected and does decide to go into Iran, the concepts of limited government and individual freedom will be rendered meaningless in this country. While conservatives may oppose McCain for different reasons than we would, I hope they remain firm in what principles they have left against a McCain presidency.

Is The Path to Liberty to the North?

Here's a pattern that may be of interest to TFL readers: On Super Tuesday, Ron Paul broke double digits in four states. Part of this might simply be because the field is smaller. On the other hand, the early primaries were more jump-balls, without a clear front-runner, which McCain has become since FL.

Perhaps more interesting is that Paul bested 10% in northern tier states, and did worst in southern tier states on Super Tues. He achieved double digits in MN, ND, MT, AK, and nowhere else.

Paul's support was worst in the southern states of GA, AL, OK, along with MA, which is no surprise. Throw out the convention format in WV, and UT as a kind of Mormon pride vote for Romney, who got 90% there.

Implication? Perhaps none. But it could be that the "leave me alone" attitude is stronger in colder, more isolated places.

-RC

Obama Can Fix America's Image

So says "U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, the dean of the Minnesota congressional delegation . . . ."

I believe the largest challenge of the next president is not global warming, not restarting the domestic economy, but changing America's image in the world," he said. "For that we need a transformational president. I think Sen. Obama will be that transformational president around whom the rest of the world can rally.

Where I come from, we call that "Amero-centric Thinking." Or something like that. I thought it was Rush Limbaugh who believed in "American Exceptionalism."

The portrayal of "image" as being an important, pragmatic issue is interesting, given the traditional distinction in our culture (going back to Plato and Aristotle) between "image" and "substance."

*ponders*

-MT

Ba-Bye, Rudy and Fred

There you stood on the edge of your feather, Expecting to fly.

-Neil Young

The recent drop outs on the R side of the ledger got me thinking about Neil Young's song, "Expecting to Fly." As one who admires the seeming sloth of Calvin Coolidge over the micromanaging ways of Jimmy Carter, it pains me to say: Even if you are lazy, it pays to look like you're not. Think of the George Costanza character on Seinfeld, feigning overwork and stress whenever a colleague or superior was in earshot. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Rudy Giuliani – once angling to be the nation's first Italo-American president (HT to fellow pizanne Nick Gillespie) – has puzzled me for over a year. How could he possibly appeal to the social conservatives? He seemed to pull it off, for a while, making them forget their prudish tendencies for an even bigger fear: 9/11, or more properly, a repeat of 9/11. Still, I was shocked that he held the #1 spot in national polls for as long as he did.

But then came the actual primaries and caucuses. Rudy was a no-show. Did he not learn of the import of the Big Mo from Bush the Elder? To be a leader, you've got to look like one, act like one, win the early skirmishes, or at least artfully play the expectations game. Giuliani did none of this that I can detect.

Fred Thompson seemed relatively benign to me personally, compared with the rest of the "top tier" candidates. He all but yawned in the debates. It's one thing to strike a stately, dignified, above-the-fray pose when running for prez, another to seem numb and uninterested. It even started to appear that his young, comely wife had pushed him into running.

Seems like we Americans don't want hen-pecked, lazy dudes in the Oval Office (although I can think of far more inappropriate qualities). But the lesson learned is: If you want to fly Air Force One, you've got to at least flap your wings.

-RC

Work for a Corporation, Democrats Say

I'm watching the State of the Union and I'm appalled to see that Democrats, including Obama, are not clapping at Bush's call to reform tax law so that individuals can get their own health insurance and take it with them. In other words, keep working for the paternalistic corporations, don't be your own boss.

Very un-free-liberal.

/KDR

Camelot Gathers 'Round

It's days like today that remind me I've missed out on too much of the (relatively) recent history which is still shaping our politics (no matter how "old" I feel compared to my freshmen students . . . ). Barack Obama is the next JFK, everybody knows, and today the Kennedy Family gathered to give him one massive endorsement party.

Not to make fun of Obama, but it's like Arthur has returned to Camelot. Makes even a late-comer like me feel a tad nostalgic and excited (and I don't even like Ted Kennedy!).

Just shows you the power of myth even in our "modern" age, I guess.

Petraeus '12?

OK, punditry is officially and completely off the tracks. The yammering has reached a fevered pitch revolving around this year's presidential scrum. (We here at TFL don't "yammer," btw. We soberly and insightfully comment on the state of affairs-- ahem -- just to be clear .)

I reached this conclusion when I read this headline:

Petraeus '12

I really couldn't read all of this piece, mostly because the whole thing is so preposterous. Could happen, but the layers of speculation are so deep, betting on Petraeus in 2012 is like betting on what teams will be in the Super Bowl in 2012. It assumes, for instance, that the Ds win the White House in 08, and that seems like a reasonable guess. But it also assumes that by 2012, the Iraq quagmire will have been exited in ways that the US doesn't look Adam Sandler at his goofiest or Genghis Khan at his bloodiest. That would mean we're out, the Iraqis have a functioning government and there's relative peace in the streets.

It assumes any number of conditions come to the fore. The premise seems to be that Petraeus would follow the Eisenhower Model. Big problem: Ike was a war hero in a world war. Iraq's not WWII, and, Lord willing, it doesn't become WWIII.

It's one thing to say, Gee, Patraeus may be a man on the rise in the public consciousness. But a President Petraeus? I like the alliteration, and maybe it could happen, but this notion just seems profoundly silly to me. Perhaps the drama of Election 08 has released silly gas from the Earth's core.

-RC

Asymmetrical Information

Sometimes, we get some very thoughtful comments. Here's one by "a concerned citizen" (ACC).

ACC opined on my blog Exploding Myths. Rather offhandedly, I wondered out loud why the US has an EX-IM Bank. ACC shared the short version. This ACCism caught my eye:

Now, if you believe that all markets are perfectly efficient and that the private sector is infallible in its judgment ..., this would be a bad thing. However, in reality, markets are not perfectly efficient. Information is asymmetrical.

Obviously, markets are not perfectly efficient. Does anyone believe that? Of course information is asymmetrical.

This begs the question: Does ACC believe that the government is more efficient than the market? Does government have better, more reliable information than the market? Can the government assess that information better than the market?

Hmm, let's see. WMD in Iraq. Synfuels. Profoundly large and unpredicted unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security. Again, one needs hours to cite the list of government failure in the information game.

And while it may be sorta OK that the Ex-Im Bank contributes to the Treasury on one level, has American prosperity increased because of Ex-Im Bank? Hard to say. In fact, arrogant to say. Perhaps mitigating political risk to export is a bad idea. Maybe the market -- that is, the people -- have signaled the market that those products should not be produced, or perhaps they should be sold domestically.

Square one is generally a good place to start in any inquiry.

-RC

Endorsements

We at TFL are sometimes asked who we support in the presidential campaign. The answer is: No one. Making an endorsement in a partisan race is inappropriate, given our charter. We do comment on developments in the race that we believe will be of interest to our readers. And sometimes our writers will indicate their personal preferences.

TFL is staking out a new way to look at politics. Not non-partisan, TRANS-partisan. We constantly search for sound ideas that we believe increase liberty and community in the world, regardless of which camp the idea sprung from. We connect the dots in sometimes unconventional ways as well. We encourage people to think outside the box.

In fact, there is no box.

-RC

Giving Credit Where It Is Due

Here is a good column by Pat Buchanan asking why we are stretching the credit of the American people to pay for the defense of other nations. (Hat tip: Norm Singleton)

We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy.

He relates our foreign adventurism to our fairy tale monetary policy, where we can use the money supply to inflate our way out of debt.

I have no problem with the US trade imbalance or that our banks sell debt and equity to further their business per se. Such is free trade.

But, we do have a problem when our government engages in such fiscal extravagance that it is borne heavily by the economy such it that drives us into inefficient debt.

Pat Buchanan also rightly gives Ron Paul credit for being the only candidate to talk about these issues. Indeed Ron Paul has been the only candidate who seems to care about the details of how foreign policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy interact. The debates this year would have been much poorer without his participation.

I think it is really a shame that the voice Ron Paul has brought to these matters has been so tainted by the recent newsletter scandal. But, he deserves credit where credit is due.

/KDR

Exploding Myths

Warren Buffet, the second-richest-man in America, seems to think he’s under taxed. I for one don’t see how he can reach this conclusion, no matter how you slice it. Michael Bindner suggests here that the reason is “[h]igher income taxpayers are currently paying at a lower rate than the average American.”

Some people seem to believe that, but then people believe a lot of things that are simply not true. The most comprehensive view I’ve seen is here and I’ve previously blogged on this here.

Tax equity is a consideration, I’ll grant, but the primary issue is that taxing and spending are out of control. We’re all – rich and poor – paying way too much for this stinking war, bridges to nowhere, the Ex-Im Bank (what exactly do they do?), and give me many hours to itemize just the absurdities alone.

I suggest we keep our eyes on the prize. It’s time to unburden the people from out-of-touch elites and their cavalcade of pet projects. Along the way, we can deliberate over the wisdom of taxing dividends (a bad idea, in my book). But let’s not give Nero a pass. He’s fiddling. Put down the violin, Nero, and put the fire out.

-RC

Running and Hiding

Perhaps there's a benign explanation for this. One strains the brain, however, and cannot come up with one.

"The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel 'libertarians' for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified. Yet you claim that this man, who has worked so hard - on his own time and dollar - to open peoples' minds to the more radical aspects of freedom and free markets, is 'destroying your movement,' as if this is some juvenile brotherhood of badges, pin pricks, sworn statements, and membership cards."

Whole “thing” here. Here's a sample:

Lew doesn't use his website to promote queer marriage, gay this and gay that, Rosa Parks, MLK, or any other "hero" of the politically-correct, libertarian Kochtopus.

and

Let's define what is really meant by "homophobe." This word has always left me bewildered because it is essentially a 'tag" for those people who do not actively support queer sex; queer marriage; and special, collective rights.

For background on this “thing,” check here, here, and here. The author of this “thing” is a putative supporter of the “love revolution.” Where is the love?

It strikes me as lacking, utterly so. So much so that this "scoundrel" – that would be yours truly -- has been listed as a “war criminal.”

I ask again, where is the love?

HT Andrew Taylor.

-RC

The OTHER Open Letter

Daryl Sawyer blogs he wants more information on the matter of "who ghostwrote those hateful words in Ron Paul's name." In these days of Internet dirty tricks, anything's possible. But my research so far indicates that this latest open letter is authentic, and sheds a LOT more light on the situation:

Open Letter To Lew Rockwell - January 12, 2008

Dear Lew,

You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.

You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985

IMO, the answers coming from the Paul campaign are insufficient on many levels. Some feel the explanation is sufficient, and chide those who don't agree. I'm going to be so bold as to say that if you don't see that this matter has not been put to rest, you are simply not paying attention. The game of American politics is not played that way.

Welcome to the Big Leagues.

-RC

Racist Words vs. Racist Deeds

So you wish to improve racial equality and you have two candidates to choose from. Which of these do you choose?

Candidate A uses politically correct language, supports current civil rights laws, and otherwise supports the status quo.

Candidate B has a history of hanging out with old-time racist conservatives, questions civil rights laws, and wants to end the War on Drugs.

Objectively speaking, Candidate B is better, by an overwhelming margin. Jail time really stinks up a resume, far beyond what civil rights laws or affirmative action can repair. And I hear jail time is rather unpleasant. How many racial slurs does it take to equal one man-year in jail in terms of unpleasantness? My estimate would be on the order of many thousands at least.

So, theoretically Ron Paul is the least racist candidate running for president this year. But I cannot fault anyone who begs to differ. Those old newsletters written in Ron Paul’s name were truly vile.

True, deeds are more important than words. If Ron Paul were to win the presidency and pardon non-violent drug offenders as promised, those deeds would far outweigh the ugly words.

But the words happened while the deeds are in a future, a rather unlikely future given the polling numbers and the current scandal. My own enthusiasm for the Ron Paul Revolution has thus plummeted. I’ve removed my bumper sticker and turned over control of my local Ron Paul meetup.

And I will continue to disassociate with Paul’s campaign unless the campaign makes it extremely clear that the Ron Paul Revolution is not some covert racist operation. The tepid rationalizations to date don’t hack it. The campaign needs to:

1. Donate the Stormfront money to a Jewish charity.
2. Out and vilify – or extract a public apology from – the actual author of the offensive editorials.
3. Go on the offensive on the race issue. Spend some big bucks on ads pointing out the horrible injustices perpetrated against black communities today by the drug warriors. Promise pardons, restorations of voting rights, in your ads.

The third item will cost some social conservative votes. But such cost would constitute sufficient restitution for prior sponsorship of racists. And it would allow me and others like me to once again proudly say “I am a Ron Paul supporter.”

Haters As Cowards

Bridging on Kevin Rollins blog, Ron Paul Isn't a Racist, I agree 100%. I especially agree that the ghostwriter(s) should reveal themselves.

Were I a betting man, an act of contrition seems unlikely. Racists and homophobes are, by definition, cowards. They fear what they don’t know. Deep down, their own self-loathing is projected out onto the world. These particularly sick individuals use blacks and gays as scapegoats. They sometimes dress up their hatred in “scientific” and “pithy intellectual” language, but at root they are frightened children – dangerous ones at that.

Perhaps the real reason why Klansmen hide under sheets isn’t for anonymity. Could it be that can’t bear to look in the mirror?

Rumors have started to swirl in cyberspace as to who the ghostwriter really is. Is the movement more important than his precious reputation?

A coward – slinking into dark corners of denial – predictably would choose “reputation” over the greater good. A cozy life in the shadows, taking potshots at anyone who disagrees with his twisted worldview, is more important to the coward than moving the nation toward liberty.

Of course, confession actually is good for the soul. And the coward might be surprised that others are willing to forgive wrong-minded thinking. Of course, being in denial, the coward believes he is innocent; this is all a conspiracy, a fabrication, a smear.

As we all learned from The Wizard of Oz, even the cowardly lion can choose to be brave for once in his life.

-RC

Ron Paul Isn't a Racist

A political hit piece appearing in The New Republic today delves back into Ron Paul's past to re-reveal a stain on his record: racist diatribes published in newsletters which bore the good doctor's name.

Personally knowing Ron Paul and his staff, I can report that never have I had an inkling that this was a group of people with ties to any kind of racist or hate-filled organization. The Free Liberal would not run his columns if we believed that he was an advocate of hatred.

In fact, I have a quote pinned to my home office wall, from one of Ron Paul's speeches before Congress "Liberty is where the minority is protected."

The truth it seems, is that Dr. Paul made a very bad judgment call about whom he did business with. The person(s) who are truly responsible should step forward and apologize to Dr. Paul.

The campaign should continue to make clear that it does not buy into the craziness of the 9/11 Truthers or the Stormfront wackos. David Duke can support Paul all he wants, but that doesn't mean our favorite Texas Congressman supports David Duke.

In general, the libertarian movement doesn't need the support of any kind of hate-mongers. And I mean people who hate for any cause, not just for race or ethnicity. Let's toss 'em out.

Kevin D. Rollins
Publisher, The Free Liberal

Thoughts on New Hampshire

It has been quite an interesting week politically. Some of things I'm most interested in:

Barack Obama as a transpartisan candidate?

Obama has been proclaimed "post-partisan" which is much closer to "transpartisan" than "bipartisan." Transpartisanship is about keeping one's values but addressing the values of others, whereas bipartisanship is about compromise. A tranpartisan president could be very good. My emotional read on his personality is that he is open to talk, which makes me much more hopeful about his candidacy than Edwards or Clinton both of whom seem to have very hardened views about the need for big government to fix America's woes. Edwards presents class warfare as the central element (very Marxist!) and Clinton seems to be campaigning to be "chief bureaucrat."

I also think it would be very good for America to elect a black president, if only to put the final nail in the coffin of American racism. The fact that Obama hasn't played the race card makes this statement even stronger.

Ron Paul is Stayin' Alive?

Ron Paul can go three ways: up, down, or plod along.

If Ron Paul increases his vote share (more than 10 percent) he will appear to be on the rise and can use that to fuel bigger numbers in the next contest. It will be hard for the media to ignore him if he gets above 15 percent. If he gets less than 10 percent, he is on his way into irrelevance (or a spoiler third party candidacy). New Hampshire should be a strong state for him, being as libertarian as it is, but it is possible that many people still haven't heard about him, or don't take him seriously yet. Most likely seems that Ron Paul will get his 10 percent and continue plodding along. To break from this, he needs to go after the other candidates (as a group) for continuing to advocate failed policies. A focus on more ordinary language and less obscure comments about Austrian Economics would help him better sell liberty.

/KDR

Fox News, Ron Paul and Conservatives

Jacob Hornberger does a very effective job of explaining where modern conservatives went wrong in this piece. While I didn't have to wait for Fox to exclude Ron Paul from its "debate" in order to boycott that particular station, the greater issue is that conservatives and by extension the Republican Party really is at a loss for meaning.

After all, Democrats, while there is dissent, are basically trying to figure out how far and how fast they want to go with their agenda. Republicans, on the other hand, are genuinely divided. Can you think up three more different characters than Huckabee, and Paul?

George Bush once claimed to be "A uniter, not a divider." Not only has that turned out not to be the case nationally and internationally, but his legacy to the Republican Party may well be that he has effectively splintered the Party, rendering it fit for status in the minority for the forseeable future.

Challengers from the Mainstream

In my last blog, I may have coined the term "challengers from the mainstream." (I say "may" because nothing's new under the sun.)

Most real politics is quibbling around the center. Like it or not, that's a fact. I'd go further and say that most citizens are more or less comfortable with that. Why? As social beings, humans tend to align with the notion that there's safety in numbers.

Sure, sure, a lot of folks like to "assert their indiividuality," but even that is huddled close to the center. The wildest it gets is voting for Perot and driving a Scion for, say, 95% of the population.

It's this paradox that successful presidential politicians attempt to harness. Be of the center, yet be a change agent. Usually the "change" is vague and not really much of a change. Barack Obama seems to be the newest and best exponent of this strategy. It seems to be working for him. Indeed, regardless of the outcome, Obama has already won. He' a national figure we'll be seeing on Meet the Press for perhaps decades.

We are seeing the Insurgent Paradigm in this election cycle. Pat Buchanan used it in previous runs, and it met with modest success. This go round, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are using it. Mathematically, it's more challenging to pull together enough support to challenge the mainstream at its root. Implicitly, the Insurgent asks the mainstream to wake up, uproot and move.

Whether the mainstream wants to wake up is an open question. And whether they want to be uprooted -- even before their morning cup of joe -- is an even bigger question.

And, yet, it can happen, as it did in 1776.

-RC

Love and Hate, Iowa Style

One take – my snap take – on the Iowa caucus results:

We Americans have a love/hate relationship with “winners.” Winners in America are folks like Britney Spears, folks we like to exalt, then smack down like yesterday’s news. Or folks like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

Romney looks and acts like a president, IMO. Too much like one, apparently, according to Iowans. Clinton’s already been “co-president,” so she knows what to say and how to say it . . . perhaps all too well. Make your campaign’s sub-text “I am inevitable,” and you’re sure to hackle the ire of Iowans, and Americans generally. Sure, this is a stylistic analysis, but, then, perception in politics is reality.

Both lost the Iowa caucuses after having once had a significant lead in both Romney’s and Clinton’s case.

Americans also like “outsiders,” but don’t be too “outside.” This may be the challenge for TFL columnist and 10-term Texas congressman Ron Paul. While NH is probably the better test for Paul’s anti-war, limited government message, coming in a close fifth in Iowa may show that being too outside is a disadvantage in American politics, at least as this particular game is played.

This may be why folks like Huckabee, McCain, Obama and Edwards positioned themselves as “challengers from the mainstream.” It tends to work in presidential politics, especially in the Iowa caucuses. It may be philosophically unsatisfying, but politics is not philosophy. It’s less than that, much less, in my estimation.

-RC

[Blank] Need Not Apply

Our discussion of undocumented immigration on TFL's Free For All has stoked all sorts of comments, much of it impassioned and well stated. I recommend the dialog to all our readers.

The US is a nation of immigrants. Arguably even Native Americans (or American Indians, if you prefer that label) probably came to North America from Asia. Each wave of immigration has sparked sometimes hateful, hyperbolic rhetoric from those already in the US. Thankfully, the US is still the land of opportunity, hence a magnet for those residing in less free places.

It's also the case the our nation's abundance includes social programs designed to aid the less fortunate, and that -- to a lesser extent -- is a magnet for some immigrants.

And it's also the case that there are laws and regulations governing the appropriate process to immigrate to the US. 10 to 15 million people have disregarded those laws, and are residing in the US.

Is that a problem? Yes. Should undocumented immigration be checked in some form? Yes. Are all undocumented immigrants "criminals" like murderers and thieves? No. Do those who want to check illegal immigration sometimes sound xenophobic? Yes.

I suggest this as the parameters for civil discussion of this subject.

-RC

Welcome to 08

Wasn't it just yesterday that we were worried that all the world's computers would shut down at the turn of the millenium?

Guess not. I guess that was eight years ago.

Now is now, and now we seem to be in the midst of selecting a new Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Why anyone would want the job of president astounds me. Power may be intoxicating, but there is a serious price: No privacy. Profound pressure. Constant hassle.

Who knows what will happen over the next six weeks or so. The TV cameras have staked out each nook and cranny of this sausage factory we call the presidential election cycle, and at this point I say "Too much information."

Yet, we watch, like we rubberneck at the car crash on the highway. Don't deny it: You do look!

So, I wish you much pleasure this year. Just make sure you've thoroughly fried that sausage, knowing what's really in it.

-RC

Go Home, Ron Paul!

That's what Fox News is saying to the Ron Paul campaign regarding the planned debate on January 6th (two days before the New Hampshire primary). Only the top five candidates are invited, apparently. But who *are* the top five candidates?

Recent polls suggest there is great fluctuation in preference among early primary voters. Certainly, Ron Paul's recent fundraising (Can anyone say $19 million?) and his iconic message should earn him a seat among the anointed. Perhaps he has the wrong message?

To ensure fairness, CNN, or another major network could offer Ron Paul an hour to talk about the war and other issues on which he has major disagreements with the other candidates.

Surely, the FCC and FEC shouldn't have objection to an alternate station attempting to balance the field in the presidential race? Public policy should be geared toward helping the public be as well informed as it can be. Doesn't that make sense?

/KDR

Who Would Reagan Vote For?

The mantle of Ronald Reagan is such an important thing in conservative circles. The author of this article makes a convincing albeit brief case that Ronald Reagan himself would support Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

While it is of course impossible to determine what Reagan would think about the political climate today, it certainly seems hard to believe that the Gipper would have supported the neoconservative outlook given the fights he had with those folks when he was President.

Huckabee: The Last Whig

As reports of GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee's disturbing brand of populism become known, let's look on the bright side:

If Huckabee gets the nomination, could he become the Last Whig?

-RC

This is getting INTERESTING!

Reports from sources close to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggest that the multi-billionaire is set to make an independent run for US President. Bloomberg is a former D and a former R.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-CT, and former running mate in 2000 of Al Gore, has endorsed John McCain’s bid for the GOP nomination for president. Lieberman won re-election to the Senate as an independent, having lost in the D primaries to an anti-war businessman-turned-pol.

And, while Rep. Ron Paul all-but-denies that he’ll consider going third party should he not get the GOP nod for president, rumors swirl around the candidate, as his campaign has become a formidable fund-raising machine. His anti-Iraq-War, limited government message arguably has the most intense support in the R field, and possibly all of the major candidates.

It appears that “party discipline” is breaking down. Bloomberg is at this stage a true independent. Some suggest that McCain/Lieberman would make an ideal Unity08 ticket. Paul has already once quit the GOP to later run for President as a Libertarian.

Mathematically, the two-party “system” is the default position in American politics. Winner-take-all elections see to that. Yet, the system seems to be failing. Politicians like Paul, Lieberman, McCain, and Bloomberg sense that, and may step up to challenge the orthodoxy.

Free Liberals – with our transpartisan bias – should applaud these stirrings. Our politics have become so sclerotic that a new approach is desperately called for. Should any of these candidates go third-party, they should at minimum be in the presidential debates. Should two of these tickets be forthcoming, the case for more open debates gets stronger. All bets would be off.

Hold onto your hats. 2008 could be a watershed year.

-RC

Ron Paul Raises Record Cash

Ron Paul's campaign raised record money on Sunday, the 334th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Win or lose, it looks like Dr Paul's campaign will have money for the entire primary campaign. That is good for those of us who are embarrassed to try to explain US Foreign Policy.

Rodney King: Call Your Office

The Free Liberal’s “transpartisan” approach has many applications. Here’s one:

Two wings of libertarian thought are going at it over an article in The Nation magazine. (The Nation is a long-running progressive, left-liberal publication.)

Nation summarizes the dispute reasonably fairly and accurately this way:

The division between paleolibertarians, centered around the Mises Institute, and cosmopolitan libertarians, centered around Cato, is also a case of "culture clash…."

The article points out that the paleolibertarians have been whole-heartedly supporting Ron Paul’s insurgent run for the GOP presidential nomination. People associated with Cato, less so, or not at all. Again, a reasonably fair and accurate characterization.

But then things get personal and hyperbolic.

One DC-based libertarian--who asked not to be named because he "would like to avoid getting endless 2 am calls from nuts yelling at me for not agreeing with the gold standard"--told me he thinks [Lew] Rockwell [head of the Mises Institute] is "one of the most loathsome people ever to set foot on this continent."

The response from Rockwell:

To the other anti-Ron Cato VP who called me "one of the most loathsome people ever to set foot on this continent," I say: See you at the inauguration.

A review of the original Nation article, however, does not say that the anonymous source was “anti-Ron” nor that he is a “Cato VP.” When political discussion becomes divorced from facts, all bets are off.

Time for a Rodney King chill pill: “Can’t we all just get along?”

-RC

Ron Paul v. the Beltway Libertarians

It figures that it would take a leftist publication like The Nation to cut through the crap, but the author of this story nails the issue when he talks about the lack of support for Ron Paul among the inside the Beltway so-called libertarian crowd. I have identified the problem in the past on this board and, while I don't agree with Ron Paul 100% of the time and I do think that Cato is a great organization with a lot of great people, the beltway libertarian groups are missing out if they don't support Ron Paul.

More importantly, Brink Lindsey just comes off as a twit because libertarianism is a very difficult ideology to sell if you demand that potential converts "eat the whole cow" all at once. On the other hand, if you show a drug legalizer for example how taxes and foreign policy impact them, you have a chance of converting them over time.

Wonderful Ron Paul Article in Washington Post

It shouldn't be too surprising that Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of the libertarian Reason Magazine wrote this outstanding article about Ron Paul and his amazing success in the presidential campaign and in educating Americans on libertarian ideas. Of course, I've been less than thrilled with the response of some in the movement to the Paul campaign. The good folks at Cato still haven't been too positive, but it is good to see the folks at Reason hopping on the bandwagon.

Paranoia, self destroyer

Bridging on Carl Milsted's blog on Liberty Dollars, the bust of the Liberty Dollar operation reminds me of the old Kinks tune, Destroyer.

No Gold Bug here, in part because I am offput by Gold Bugger's tendency to spin out paranoid-sounding scenarios of the imminent collapse of the Western World. Thing is: They're been sounding this call since at least 1980. That Boy's cried Wolf just a bit too long for my tastes.

Still, the timing of the Liberty Dollar bust does seem awfully suspicious. The greenback is plunging. Sub prime slime is spreading. Wall Street's acting out at its most bi-polar.

So, the Feds swoop in now? Hmm, call me paranoid, but this "coincidence" feels awfully fishy to me.

-Robert Capozzi

Republican Rehab

Listen!

An amusing diagnosis of what ails the Republican Party these days.

-RC

"Healthy" State Seeking Perfection?

Bridging on Paul Gessing's blog Club for Growth Assessment of Ron Paul: Fair or Hatchet Job?, I agree with most of what he says there. It is odd how fiscal conservatives compartmentalize foreign and defense policy, as those are very substantial portions of the federal budget. I suppose that they are still influenced by the "Better Dead than Red" slogan from the Cold War years. Perhaps conservatives think that the world is a risky, dangerous place, and military spending is what keeps us alive.

The slogan "War is the Health of the State" is why I blog, though. While a useful concept, I avoid that rhetorical flourish. States and war are not, IMO, healthy endeavors. States seem to be necessary to keep the peace. But, to me, they are more like a flu vaccine...unhealthy, but necessary in small doses to keep the patient immune from full-blown influenza.

It is true that governments seem to revel in warring. "Great" presidents are those who were in office during wartime. This is nothing new, as victors get to write the history as they like it remembered.

In a nation that is dominated by people who call themselves Christians, there does seem to be a profound disconnect. On the one hand, "blessed are the peacemakers," on the other Americans seem to have a bloodthirsty streak. Historically, there does need to be some provocation, but once provoked, the American psyche seems to have a propensity to overreact.

So, while we can quibble with some of Ron Paul's positions, the thrust of his campaign seems to be: End the Iraq War. He is introducing the notion that fiscal conservatives need not be hawks -- and in fact should be doves -- to a nation that desperately needs to hear that message.

-Robert Capozzi

Jay Leno and Ron Paul

If you didn't see it last night, Ron Paul was amazing on Jay Leno's show. Link is here. Also, I agree with the author's analysis; while I like and respect the folks at Cato, Dr. Paul has done more in the last year to promote the ideas of liberty than any DC-based think tank or organization ever has. Ron Paul is truly a rock star (just ask the Sex Pistols!).

Missing Warren G. Harding

Mainstream rankings of American presidents always frustrate me. Like this one from US News and World Reports which ranks the 10 worst and includes some other rankings of the best Presidents, scholars don't seem to base their decisions on human freedom, rather who did the most to centralize power in the Executive Branch.

Into this debate steps Lew Rockwell with his excellent defense of Warren Harding (2nd on the US News worst list). Martin Van Buren is another President who does not get high marks from historians, but who freedom-oriented historians have given high marks.

If centralizing Executive power is the matrix preferred by historians, then George W. Bush might be considered one of the best Presidents in this nation's history. After all, FDR makes Bush look like a piker as far as abrogating the Constitution is concerned, yet historians love him.

Ron Paul on PBS NewsHour

There is a video on youtube, an excellent interview, split into two parts.

This is, by far, the best interview I've yet seen, and I hope a lot of people saw it. However, one thing that should be noted is who broadcast this video (on the air, not online): PBS. That is the Public Broadcasting System. It is somewhat ironic that PBS is among the organizations that, under a Paul administration, could see its funding cut yet further.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am an enthusiastic supporter of Dr. Paul. I am quite grateful for the coverage-so grateful, in fact, that I am probably going to convert some of the money I currently have going toward Dr. Paul's campaign to NPR when this is all over. (I'd donate to PBS, but I don't watch TV.) I hope many other Paul supporters will do the same, and as a result, PBS and NPR (both of which have done some excellent interviews) won't need government support, or will at least be even more independent.

There's government owned media and there's corporate owned media, and neither of them are all that great, when it comes to doing more than playing the same songs over and over again and selling trinkets-and the political establishment. Listener supported media is, in my mind, a very good thing.

Paul Jacob Indicted

Free Liberal columnist Paul Jacob has been indicted by the state of Oklahoma for illegally petitioning to place a taxpayers bill of rights on the ballot. He has been threatened with 20 years in prison for this offense. I fully support Paul in his fight against this injustice. Paul has spent his life fighting for our freedom and right to check the power of the state. Now he needs our help. You can show your support by joining this facebook group: Free Paul Jacob -- 100,000 Strong for Constitutional Rights.

See also: FreePaulJacob.com.

Paul's statement follows here:

What Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson is trying to do to me is wrong.

In America, we cherish the right to engage in politics, to speak our minds, to promote our candidate, to work to pass a voter initiative, without fear of reprisal.

That is why today is such a sad day, not only for me, but for all of us who love the initiative process and the right of citizens to control their government.

This indictment unsealed today is not about the law, but rather 100 percent politically motivated. This is politics – very ugly politics.

The highest legal office in the state of Oklahoma seems bent on silencing citizens through harassment and intimidation, threats and coercion. The goal is to silence me, and to frighten you, from petitioning our government.

Those who attempt to put citizens in charge of government spending decisions, through initiatives like the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or any other issue that rankles the powerful political forces of a state, can expect to face an onslaught by the full powers of the government.This is yet another round in the age-old attempt to stop ideas by force, by harassment, by imprisonment, by anything except a better idea. Oklahomans, your attorney general is not practicing democracy. He is practicing the politics of destruction.

It won’t work.

This indictment will not stand. I will fight it with every fiber of my being. And I know that, in the end, those who misuse the power of their office for political advantage, employing ugly and un-democratic tactics, will ultimately face an indictment of their own.

My life, my family, my children are being threatened here…for what? For what?

I have committed no crime. Unless the heartfelt desire to place government under the control of its citizens is now illegal. But this cannot be so. There is much bluster in this indictment. Yet what is my actual offense but that of daring to help Oklahoma voters hold an election to decide an issue?

No, I don’t deserve to go to prison for being politically active. I know that. You know that. Mr. Edmondson should know that, too.

The State of Oklahoma threatens me and others with prison to prevent our involvement in political life and to chill the speech and assembly of others who might wish to become involved. Involved in working to hold an election. To give Oklahomans a vote on an issue.

One might expect this kind of repression in Egypt or Iran or China. But not Oklahoma.

We the People will not be intimidated. We will keep fighting to turn out-of-control government into government that is under citizen control. We will defeat this vicious attempt to criminalize honest political activity. And in the end, we will win.

Background

Let me address the so-called charge against me. I’m accused of violating the Oklahoma statute requiring petition circulators to be residents, a residency requirement currently being challenged in federal court. There seems little justification for this underlying law other than to restrict and hamper the petition process. I believe it will ultimately be struck down as unconstitutional.

Twice in the last quarter century—in Meyer v. Grant and in ACLF v. Buckley—the U.S. Supreme Court struck down similar restrictions, like regulating petitioners’ pay and requiring petitioners to be registered voters. As the High Court put it in Meyer, government cannot “reduce the available pool” of people to assist citizens in communicating with their fellow citizens and petitioning their government.

But regardless of how the courts ultimately rule on the constitutionality of the residency requirement, everyone I worked with on the TABOR petition sought to follow the statute as written. As an advisor to the petition drive, I worked to help Rick Carpenter and Oklahomans in Action obtain the best petition services at the best price, and then to monitor the drive’s progress.

Oklahomans in Action contracted with a petition company called National Voter Outreach, which had worked in Oklahoma on many successful petition drives before taking on the TABOR petition. That contract stipulated that the company was thoroughly familiar with the laws of Oklahoma regarding petitioning.

As the TABOR petition drive got underway, an aggressive campaign was launched to block and harass petition gatherers. Jeannie Berg, an expert in campaigns of harassment against petition drives, was brought in from Oregon to manage the multitude of blockers—many of them brought in from outside the state, and reportedly paid $100 a day.

These “blockers” used thuggish tactics, which have been documented. For example, gangs of them would stalk a petitioner, interrupting, yelling and creating a scene whenever a voter was being asked to sign the petition. There was an organized campaign of lying to store managers, alleging rude treatment from petitioners and asking that they be removed.

In response to all the harassment, many Oklahoma petitioners left the state to petition in other states. Given the difficult environment, not enough new circulators were being recruited and retained in Oklahoma to enable the petition to reach the ballot. Under such circumstances—and under the legislature’s (not the constitution’s) draconian 90-day petition window—I suggested to the petition company that the drive be scuttled.

I was then informed that under Oklahoma’s statutory residency requirement, people could move to Oklahoma and immediately declare residency, and thus be qualified to circulate the petition. The petition company felt enough people could be recruited to move to Oklahoma to gather enough signatures to bring the question to the ballot.

When I inquired as to whether the state officials had been asked for their guidelines on what constitutes residency, I was told that the petition company had indeed sought—and received—the advice and approval of officials in the Secretary of State’s office. Indeed, two separate individuals with National Voter Outreach spoke to government officials to determine the rules on residency. They were told that people could indeed come to Oklahoma, declare residency, and begin circulating a petition.

In good faith, the company acted on this information.

I also asked the folks at National Voter Outreach whether there had been any challenges of petition drives on the basis of residency, and whether any ruling on same had been issued by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. I received a copy of the court’s decision in a challenge to an initiative to ban cock-fighting. In that decision, circulators were challenged for being “out-of-state” circulators because they had moved to Oklahoma during the petition drive and because many lived in hotels during their residence in the state. According to the information I received, every circulator in the cock-fighting ban petition who declared him or herself a resident was ruled to be qualified to circulate the petition, regardless of how long he resided in the state or whether he lived in a hotel. The only circulator disqualified had listed an out-of-state address on the petition form.

In 1994 and 1996 I monitored ballot drives in Oklahoma for term limits. During those drives, circulators were required to be registered voters. Many people moved to Oklahoma, registered to vote, and circulated the petition. Often they would live with friends or at a hotel.

As long as it could be verified that a person was a registered voter in Oklahoma, a proponent could feel comfortable that that circulator met the statutory requirements and that his petition would count. However, that voter registration requirement was subsequently struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. ACLF.

After the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in the TABOR challenge, there’s a new interpretation of the residency statute. The new standard argues that no one who moves to the state to accept a job, no matter how long the duration, is a “genuine” resident unless he is committed to remaining in the state permanently. For example, in the challenge to the TABOR petition, the court ruled that a man who had come to Oklahoma in September of 2005 to circulate the petition and then continued to live in the state for the next ten months was NOT a resident. Thus, the Oklahoma voters who signed his petitions were disenfranchised.

Under the new requirement of residency there is simply no way for petition companies to adequately determine whether a petitioner is or is not a resident. Therefore, future petition proponents and managers can expect to face criminal prosecution depending on circumstances largely, if not entirely, beyond their control. This is certain to have a chilling effect on petition activity.

The underlying state statute here is an unconstitutional attempt to deny the First Amendment rights of Oklahoma citizens. I believe it will be and should be struck down. But even so, during the TABOR ballot drive we sought to understand this statute and to abide by it.

Let me say it again: constitutional or not, we obeyed the statute.

So, why the prosecution? I am told by many friends in Oklahoma that this outrageous prosecution is, sadly, very much in character for the Oklahoma Attorney General. They inform me that while Drew Edmondson shows an uncanny ability to miss the corruption taking place right under his nose by members of his own Democratic Party—such that a federal investigation must now be conducted—he tosses decency and common sense straight out the window to persecute his political opponents.

What’s at stake? The very process by which citizens can check their government—the right to voter initiative and referendum—is under attack in these prosecutions. When the powerful in government are threaten by citizens demanding reform, they have time and again sought to clamp down on the petition process.

After term limits swept the initiatives states, something I was very much involved in, legislatures throughout these states launched a barrage of legislation to hamstring and restrict he process and hamstring citizen efforts for reform.Now we see a similar backlash from politicians afraid of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, which would give voters more control over state spending decisions.

Three-hundred thousand Oklahomans signed a petition to vote on giving citizens a veto on large spending increases. The state constitution says voters have the right to decide. But the Oklahoma Supreme Court said no.

Just months ago, the Oklahoma Supreme Court again found a flimsy excuse to block voters from considering another initiative—the so-called 65-Percent Solution. The court deemed the short statement that the legislature (not the constitution) requires proponents to place on petitions—i.e., to give petition signers simply the “gist” of the measure—to be insufficient. The voters supposedly didn’t know what they were signing.

Again, the highest legal authority in the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, tossed the petitions of hundreds of thousands of citizens into the trash.

Heresies Out Loud

I dunno. Without having looked at all the details, I have a completely different take on the two big news items of this weekend:

Iranian President Ahmadinejad wants to lay a wreath at Ground Zero. Why not take the opportunity to show him what 9/11 did to some American families? Perhaps have a few surviving families there, or some survivors of the actual attack. He's a Holocaust denier, perhaps have some tatooed Holocaust survivors there, too. Perhaps the man is hopelessly lost in his doctrinal ideology, and he can overlook the pain in the faces of those people and still harbor hate in his heart. But, then, maybe not. Wouldn't that be a positive development?

Hillary's health insurance plan seems not so bad to me. One adjustment -- allow people to opt out, with the knowledge that they can never use government funds (e.g., Medicaid) or free hospital services -- and call it a day. That Hillary has backed off her 90s-style Rube Goldberg HillaryCare is a (relative) win in my book.

-Robert Capozzi

"Don't Tase Me, Bro"

Still stunned by the videotape of Andrew Meyer being tasered at a recent John Kerry speech, we here at TFL feel the need to weigh in. Not since the brutal, unjustified beating of Rodney King have we seen how the police can over-react. Was Meyer -- like King -- out of line? Sure, a bit. Was a taser necessary to subdue him? Not even close.

Right wing radio used this opportunity to criticize John Kerry. Kerry should have taken charge of the situation, they say. Yeah, I suppose so, but one gets the sense that these radio personalities constantly monitor the news for an opportunity to diss the Ds.

Discourse in the public square continues to degenerate. Best we can do, it seems, is wait the children out, as they whine in the back seat for more candy.

-Robert Capozzi

Never Underestimate the “Power” of Denial

Bridging on Daryl Sawyer’s blog “We broke it, we bought it?”, it is quite relevant whether going into Iraq was a mistake in the first place. The premise informs the action. That is, if the premise is that Iraq was the right thing to do, that tends to imply a range of actions in the here and now. If, however, Iraq was a mistake, the range of appropriate action shifts.

Huckabee’s position might well be appropriate for a soldier. Adopting “my country right or wrong” seems motivational when one is in the thick of battle. But Huckabee’s view makes no sense to me in crafting policy. It is the worst sort of denial – to unquestioningly go forward with no moral compass.

The “cakewalk” is already a “bloodbath,” as I see it. Iraq should more properly be viewed as a triage operation. Limit further damage and get the heck out!

-Robert Capozzi

Time for fascism

Time magazine's Richard Stengel is worried that the increase in volunteerism shows people are turning their back on the welfare state in favor of the "little platoons" of Church, family, and local community. His solution? A federal "national service" program. Stengel claims the program will be voluntary since no one will be forced to participate. Of course, participation will be mandatory for the taxpayers.

Strippers for Ron Paul on Tucker

A few days ago, I made a blog posting at another site about Strippers for Ron Paul. As a result, Tucker Carlson will be interviewing Michelle, who is a former stripper, Libertarian Party activist, co-blogger in several places, and hardcore Ron Paul supporter. The interview is tentatively scheduled for Friday evening at 6:45PM EST. Additional details here.

Giuliani's Dangerous Bluster

Rudy Giuliani lost all credit with me when he denied the obvious importance of blowback as it pertains to foreign policy in this exchange with Ron Paul in one of the early presidential debates.

That said, I had not really pondered the dangerous potential of a Giuliani presidency until I read this excellent article. Bombing Iraq and invading Cuba as Giuliani appears to advocate are two acts that will do nothing to enhance our place in the world, our civil liberties, our budget situation, or, for that matter, our security. None of the Republicans (besides Ron Paul) look very good, but Giuliani may just be the most dangerous.

The Joys of Transpartisanship

Yesterday, I attended a book forum at the Cato Institute, entitled A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency. It featured the author, Glenn Greenwald, with comments by Lee Casey, Partner, Baker Hostetler.

The chatter afterward was, well, interesting. The room seemed entirely polarized, with Bush bashers and boosters. Then there was me. I fell into a conversation with boosters, and I tried my best to be respectful. These stalwarts seemed to recite the talking points one hears on right-wing talk radio. But one finally said: We had to do it (invade Iraq).

I could no longer contain myself. Had to? Like there were no other options?

Yes, he had WMD, was killing his own people, had his eyes set on Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, of course, I responded, Saddam was a bad guy. But did the US have to invade?

They backed off, half-heartedly acknowledging that “mistakes were made.” They then changed the subject to the firings of US attorneys. A president can fire anyone he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

Yes, that seems correct, I responded. But don’t you acknowledge that such politically motivated firings don’t play too well with the public? Has it occurred to you that Bush’s high-handed “style” could well lead to a Hillary Clinton presidency?

These fine gentlemen were stunned and silent about that one. It seemed my work was done there, so I slid over to talk with a young liberal. This fellow was working for a liberal lobbying group. He reported that he likes his work, even though some of their clients were “corporate monoliths.”

Last I checked, I said, those companies have competition. Has it ever occurred to you that the federal government is the biggest monolith of all?

The government does some good things, he shot back.

Perhaps, I say, but it’s still the biggest “monolith” of them all, yes?

He deflected the point.

Conclusion: Transpartisanship can be lonely, but it’s a lot of fun.

-Robert Capozzi

Is Hillary a Neocon?

Hillary Clinton has taken a "conservative" strategy throughout her campaign for president, both in style and in substance. She hasn't come out with many policy goals that could be called truly innovative, but at the same time she has tried to play both sides of the fence on a number of issues, especially foreign policy. Most recently, she pleased many hawks by refusing to sit down with some of America's enemies.

Ed Crane over at the Cato Institute recently made a compelling case that, rather than being a left-liberal, Hillary Clinton is most comfortable with the "national greatness" neocons. Read Crane's argument here.

Ron Paul and the Libertarian National Convention

A question which I've found interesting is how Libertarian Party members will respond to the Ron Paul campaign at the Libertarian National Convention. The best data I've got available to determine LP member intent indicates the following:

Once again, Ron Paul is the big winner in the latest LibertarianLists.com survey. When asked about their presidential preference, 73.5 percent of the libertarians who participated in the online survey chose Dr. Paul as their presidential preference. This is an increase of 3.9 percent from the previous LibertarianLists survey.

Among the 501 self-identified members of the Libertarian Party, 76.4 percent chose Paul, an increase of 4.2 percent from the previous survey period.

In addition to the general presidential preference question, the survey participants who identified themselves as LP members were asked two specific questions dealing with Ron Paul and the convention.

The first question asked: "Assuming that Ron Paul is no longer in the presidential race at the time of the Libertarian Party presidential nominating convention, for which Libertarian Party presidential candidate would you cast your nominating vote?"

54.7 percent of the participants answered "Undecided," 6.4 percent chose NOTA and 5 percent selected "Other," while the remaining 33.9 percent selected one of 12 LP candidates. It's assumed that the majority of the 54.7 percent and some of the NOTAs maintain support for Paul.

The other question was more telling: "Assuming that Ron Paul is running competitively as a Republican candidate at the time of the Libertarian Party presidential nominating convention, for which Libertarian Party presidential candidate would you cast your nominating vote?"

In this case, 50.5 percent said they would "Would try to change the bylaws in order for Ron Paul to receive the Libertarian Party nomination or become engaged in some sort of effort to draft Ron Paul as the Libertarian presidential nominee."

23.3 percent were "Undecided," 4.6 percent chose NOTA and 2.6 percent chose "Other." Only 19 percent actually supported one of the 12 LP candidates.

Libertarian Party bylaws clearly provide that, under current circumstances, Dr. Paul is not eligible for the LP nomination. However, with data like these, it seems quite possible that convention delegates may decide to change the bylaws in order to somehow endorse or support Ron Paul's campaign.

Full baseline data here. Related perspective on the LP presidential candidates here.

Talk to those we don't agree with? Heaven Forbid!

Barack Obama is not a believer in limited government, nor has he promised not to attack Iran, but during the recent Democratic debate, he showed me why he is much less scary than Hillary Clinton.

Obama said he would meet with some of our government's adversaries including: Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Clinton, on the other hand, would continue President Bush's policy of not talking to anyone who is not a confirmed "Bushie." If you like the way our country is being run now, you'll love a Hillary Clinton Administration.

NY Times on Ron Paul

The New York Times has always been my least favorite "leading" newspaper, but I may have to give them another chance. This Sunday, July 22, they had an incredibly thorough and very fair article about Ron Paul and his candidacy for the presidency.

While I don't agree with Ron on everything -- his approaches to immigration and trade being two of the big ones -- as the article makes clear, he is the only candidate for the presidency that actually reads and understands the Constitution. Perhaps someday we'll have several candidates of both parties who agree on the basic framework of the Constitution and someone who shares my belief in free movement of people and goods will run for office. Until then, Ron Paul is the standard-bearer for liberty.

Also, Reason had a decent article on Dr. Paul on their website recently. Since some previous criticism from myself and others, they have taken a more favorable, respectful approach to Dr. Paul's candidacy.

On the "Edge"

While I generally agree with Paul Gessing and his blog here, how we frame the war in Iraq is important. Those libertarians who support the Iraq War seem to sidestep the legal point that its declaration was -- well -- extra legal.

I generally read Barnett mostly to be saying that one can be libertarian and pro Iraq War, mistakes and all. Here I agree, although I'm anti-war. The nation was attacked by a stateless enemy, one that is causing mayhem the world over, including here in the US. Personally, I find Barnett's minimization of the "mistakes" to be understated...by a lot. I suspect history will show that Iraq will be a bigger mistake than Vietnam.

What we cannot know is what history would have found had the US restricted its response to ONLY hunting for Osama, which is Dr. Paul's view, and mine. It would be nice to have a thought-experiment machine, but we don't.

One observation: As long as the US economy continues to chug along as it has, continuing the war seems "easier." Sad to say, but the body counts don't seem to be enough to make Americans demand an end to this senseless. bloody escapade. The war remains largely an abstraction, one that people seem to grudgingly accept, even if they don't support it any longer.

-Robert Capozzi

Citizen's Dividend and Health Insurance

Tarvok, as always, provides thoughtful comments. Call it a "stopgap" or perhaps an approximation of justice, the citizen's dividend has great appeal. Combine it with the federal government offering its employee's insurance plan to all citizens, and that starts to feel like a win/win to me. The notion of the feds negotiating with private insurance companies as a kind of insurance buying club surely has some downsides, but, on balance, I'd certainly prefer that to the current mess.

One point of clarification on Tarvok's post:

"As it is, we're basically stuck with whomever our employers choose. Of course, our employers are going to choose the cheapest option, not the best (since they're not the ones that actually have to use it)."

Yes, the employee is "stuck," but no, it's not the case that companies always choose the "cheapest" option. Indeed, many corporations offer very extensive, some might say "gold plated", health insurance benefits. That may have contributed to the cost escalation over the years, as more and more users of services were disconnected from the cost of the service.

-Robert Capozzi

The Chasm of Abstraction

Yes, Tarvok, the current "systems" of health and eduction are indeed a mess, and are indeed not free market. Not even close.

Both health and education are, however, aspects of life that people hold near and dear. Free marketeers seem, however, to be stuck in the chasm of abstraction and, perhaps, in denial. They seem to fixate on why single-payer systems don't work all that well either or they make the case the the current system isn't "free market."

These cases should be made. But it should not stop there. Otherwise, it appears that free marketeers are condoning the status quo and insensitive to the plight of the uninsured. Further, I've yet to see a thoughtful response to the point Sicko makes, that insurance companies are -- as a matter of policy -- denying benefits and then hiding behind the legal system, daring poor people to challenge the denial of benefits in the courts.

Unlike education, health often involves life and death issues. With costs escalating as they are, there should be a sense of urgency here, yet I don't see it.

How do we -- as a matter of policy -- allow the uninsured to get at least SOME insurance? We can point to the reasons that health is not free market, how charity is better than force, etc., but until that problem is fixed in a tangible way, I doubt progress will be made.

-Robert Capozzi

In a free market...

Thanks to Tarvok for his comments on my blog Notes on Sicko.

Agreed. The current healthcare "system" is not a free market. But such pronouncements as "In a free market...," don't seem to address the power that Sicko harnesses. There are 46 million uninsured, so let's have universal health care. Bad idea, IMO, but simple and appealing, especially to those who don't study the matter in more depth.

I've not seen a crisp, clear free market response to the uninsured problem. One suspects that much of the funding of free market works on healthcare is coming from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which muddies the waters.

In concept, I liked Wes Clark's idea of allowing all citizens to buy the health insurance plan offered to federal employees. Perhaps that's too direct or populist. Or perhaps -- like Al Gore's carbon tax offset by Social Security tax cuts -- free marketeers are too partisan.

-Robert Capozzi

Sheehan for Congress?

Recently, Cindy Sheehan announced that she may run for Congress against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. While I have always respected her activism against the war

In her recent statement, Sheehan sounded much more like a pissed-off independent than a left-wing Democrat:

The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese concentration camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don't tell me the Democrats are our 'Saviors,' because I am not buying it...

Who knows what the future holds and whether Sheehan will actually take Pelosi on, but the fact is that if the antiwar movement wants to have an impact, unseating some pro-war politicians and spineless Democrats is the way to do it. Marching in the streets doesn't cut it.

Closed-source Ames straw poll needs paper ballots

Ron Paul supporters in Iowa are hoping to make a big showing in the Ames straw poll, run by the state GOP next month. But there's a problem. Des Moines Register reported the following on June 26:

Tickets cost $35 and allow holders to vote at one of dozens of electronic voting machines set up in and around Hilton. In the past, campaigns have bought up blocks of tickets and often bused their supporters to the event.

If you're not familiar with the dangers of electronic voting, my colleague Tim Lee has put it succinctly:

It is important that election officials, candidates, and members of the general public be able to observe and verify every stage of the election process. Computerized voting machines make independent verification of election procedures extremely difficult because important steps of the election process, including recording, tallying, and reporting votes, occur unseen inside a computer chip...

One of the important safeguards in the traditional election process is that it is extremely labor-intensive. Thousands of people are involved in the process of collecting and counting votes. As a result, stealing an election almost always requires a large, organized conspiracy that would be hard to keep secret. In contrast, e-voting can allow a single, well-placed individual to tamper with the software of numerous voting machines at once, potentially altering the outcome of an election . . .

Dr. Paul's supporters have shown an Hayekian ability to spontaneously organize, so the "Ron Paul paper ballots" need not be coordinated by the campaign per se. But someone out there in Iowa needs to spearhead such a project.

The Spy Who Didn't Love Me

Thanks to Paul Gessing for highlighting the confessed excesses of the CIA.

He wonders, however, about whether "the CIA [is authorized by] the US Constitution...."

Article I, Section 8 does allow Congress "To raise and support Armies....," so, broadly speaking, having defense intelligence seems perfectly reasonable to me. This doesn't justify CIA abuses, and perhaps it doesn't justify the current org chart that the federal government operates under. Still, the function of having intelligence on those who plot to harm US citizens seems well within constitutional bounds to me.

-Robert Capozzi

More on Iowa, Ron Paul

Thomas Woods has an excellent explanation of the absurdity of the Iowans for Tax Relief excluding Ron Paul from their Presidential forum over at Lew Rockwell's site.

Ultimately, what this boils down to is that the Iowans who supposedly preach the "gospel" of tax relief and limited government don't believe their own rhetoric. They don't even believe the straw polls taken at their own (co-sponsored) conference that put Paul in first place among declared candidates.

What does this all mean? Simply put, "conservatives," especially those in the establishment and libertarians, at least the principled kind, are political enemies. In fact, nominal liberals like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, in part because they fall outside the establishment boundaries of correct opinion, have been more friendly to Dr. Paul than mainstream conservatives (like ITR) and even some establishment libertarians.

For peace and trust can win the day, despite of all your losing.

For Led Zeppelin aficionados, this short blog’s header is the closing lines for The Immigrant Song. Apropos, methinks, for my comment on Jonathan David Morris’s insightful column here on TFL.

My goodness this immigration debate can get butt ugly. While Bush and the Establishment’s “comprehensive” approach is probably an improvement, rightwing talk radio does have a point. If the US’s borders are so porous that literally millions are here illegally, that is a problem, especially when the schools and hospitals are jammed, and some of these illegals have committed violent crimes. These are not trivial matters.

Here’s my four point plan. Who knows, maybe it breaks the ice in DC:

1. Exit Iraq, redeploying resources and National Guardsmen to the border.

2. Double the immigration quotas.

3. Double work visas.

4. For show, “stage” a few high-profile roundups of illegals.

The implicit message would be to illegals: Go home, get a visa, apply to immigrate, and come back. Or, stay and run the risk of being rounded up.

Sometimes -- often -- almost always -- simple solutions are the best. The pols don’t seem to have gotten that memo.

-Robert Capozzi

Iowans for Tax Relief But Not Ron Paul

The Ron Paul campaign just sent out an e-mail saying that the Iowans for Tax Relief will not allow Dr. Paul to participate in a debate they are co-organizing with the Iowa Christian Alliance. This seems strange, given that Paul placed second in a straw poll conducted at the NTU conference this weekend. Anti-taxers are generally pro-Paul.

The NTU conference is co-organized with Iowans for Tax Relief. My guess is that someone in Iowa doesn't like Ron Paul. Who could it be and for what reason, one wonders. Dr. Paul's position on Iraq?

/KDR

Ron Paul Making Waves on the Net

It is no secret that Internet users are more libertarian than the average person. Of course, those who have fully explored the 'net's capabilities are also more highly educated than the average person. These two factors have come to an interesting confluence as the mainstream media has begun to pick up on the Ron Paul phenomenon on the Internet. Check out the relatively complimentary article on Dr. Paul's tremendous following on the Internet in the Washington Post.

Human "Capital"?

Strong agreement with my colleague Paul Gessing on his blog A Free Market in Education? David Brooks's assertion that "the market is failing to supply enough human capital," not only fails on Gessing's point (the education "market" is almost entirely controlled by government.) But, perhaps audaciously, I'd ask, Who's to say if there's "enough" human capital? Who's to say that formal education is the optimal way to develop human "capital," a term that is utterly squishy. I suspect Brooks means something more like "skills and abilities," but whatever.

Citing dropout rates from high school and college seems weak proxies at best for developing the workforce's skills and abilities, and weaker still for productivity. Most productivity measures that I've seen are improving, so Brooks seems to be making some rather major logic leaps.

And, of course, what are the reasons why drop-out rates have increased? Funding "education" more might be a case of throwing good money after bad unless there's good reason to believe that this is a resource problem.

-Robert Capozzi

Ron Paul on the Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart

In case you missed it, Ron Paul was on the Daily Show (click for video) last night. If you are already familiar with libertarian ideas, there is nothing truly earth shattering about the video aside from the fact that those ideas are actually being spread to a wider audience. Also, unlike much of the mainstream media, Stewart actually gets past foreign policy and probes Paul about some of his domestic policy ideas.

While some may view Jon Stewart as being left of center, I am becoming more convinced every day that he is a closet -- if not outright -- libertarian. As I've previously pointed out, the Daily Show is actually a pretty good place to get your news.

Why do libertarians eat their own?

No, I'm not talking about whacko's like Eric Dondero. He's been discredited for so long that he's irrelevant and believes in limited government to about the same extent as does Hillary Clinton.

I'm talking instead about important libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute which seems to have a problem giving Ron Paul a fair shake. (Check out the May 4 podcast by Michael Tanner and his comments here, and to a lesser extent, the May 16 podcast here in which David Boaz implies that Paul's candidacy has "imploded."

I'm not saying that any organization or think tank that leans libertarian has to embrace everything Ron Paul has to say, but the fact is that if anyone at Cato really cares about the size and scope of government, their first priority needs to be preventing war in Iran and getting our troops out of Iraq, and soon.

Ron Paul is the only conservative candidate that also opposes the war and supports the limited government version Cato espouses. The rest of the Republican candidates (Giuliani in particular) haven't got a clue about the interplay between constant war and the growth of government.

Hopefully the folks at Cato will recognize that right now foreign policy is the most important battle being waged by libertarians at the moment. Only time will tell.

Did Rudy "Win"?

Frequent commenter Erid Dondero writes a letter to TFL suggesting that Rudy Giuliani "won" the last debate.

On some levels, it's hard to disagree. Watching the tape, certainly Giuliani got the most enthusiastic response from the crowd. But was it grandstanding by the Hero of 9/11? And has Dr. Paul used this event to begin a dialog about our nation's overall foreign policy?

Yes, of course to both questions.

Personally, I'd like to see Dr. Paul make his points more crisply, but, fundamentally, he has been effective in recasting the Iraq War in a more meaningful context. I'd like to see him clearly state that of course 9/11's perpetrators were a vicious, despicable act, one that should be stopped. Hunting down bin Laden and al Qaeda to thwart future 9/11s is well within the bounds of national defense. The US should do so...vigorously.

But that's not what Iraq is all about. It was, quite simply, an overreaction, yet another poke at a hornet's nest that is the Middle East. The concept of "blowback" is vital to understanding the world stage, IMO, and Dr. Paul is educating the once pro-peace (more or less) GOP faithful on this point.

Someone's got to speak the truth, and we should be pleased that Dr. Paul is giving it his best shot.

-Robert Capozzi

Fly in the Ointment?

Thus far, few seem enthusiastic about the "leading" R or D presidential candidates. All of them have major flaws for both their party's base and general electorate.

We seem to live in post-traumatic times, when the nation -- while still prosperous -- does not know what it stands for. The Iraq quagmire, once sold as a cakewalk, feels more and more like Vietnam revisited.

Few pols speak their minds, opting for poll-driven calibration for debating points that amount to nothing. Nothing changes, not even trends. Our politics are Balkanized.

So this development seems especially interesting. Hagel/Bloomberg or Bloomberg/Hagel has the potential to schism the moribund GOP especially. Real, well-spoken pros with a lot of cash makes the Perot phenomenon seem like the opening act for a major shift.

It could be that today's dull political landscape is merely the eye of the storm.

Stay tuned.

- Robert Capozzi

Stepping In It

I agree with my colleague, Paul Gessing, that Dr. Paul's point about "blowback" helps to explain a lot of the motivation for the 9/11 attacks.

However, given the nature of these debates, I'd suggest Dr. Paul stay on message more. He careens around, and leaves himself vulnerable to Giuliani's obvious misrepresentation. The point, IMO, is:

1) Iraq was a mistake.
2) Afghanistan, suppressing al Qaeda, and finding bin Laden should be the government's focus. We've taken our eye off the ball.
3) The CIA, the 9/11 Commission and others repeatedly confirm that US foreign policy has "blowback." The US's interventionist ways have made us less safe, not more, by engendering hostility in the Islamic world. We should not let 9/11 go unresponded to, but we do need to ask some very basic questions about the US role in the world. We need to stop the extremists -- forcefully -- but we need to be measured and mature about that.

Or something.

-Robert Capozzi

Ron Paul's Goldwater Moment

Justin Raimondo has an excellent column discussing the influence Ron Paul's principled ideas will have in the campaign for President. The fact is that no matter who ultimately prevails in the election, the Republican Party must embrace a more modest foreign policy, fiscal restraint, and respect for the Constitution.

The Bush years have transformed the Party into the political party that is dedicated to making government bigger. Libertarians are starting to vote for Democrats more often simply because they are not Republicans and absent Ron Paul, there is very little to appeal to libertarians among the Republicans.

New Media and Mike Gravel

With Ron Paul and Mike Gravel having each won their first debates, it will be interesting to see how they sustain their initial momentum. Despite campaign finance laws that make things ever more difficult for "outsiders", the internet continues to become a bigger factor in political campaigns. So far, Gravel has built on his early success. Thank goodness for the internet!

The GOP's Rodney Dangerfield

It is widely-acknowledged that Ron Paul won the first Republican debate. To be fair, it would have been hard for Dr. Paul not to win. All he had to say was "I was against the Iraq War from the very beginning" and watch the rest of the field stumble all over themselves trying to explain why they not only supported the war at the beginning, but continue to support this failed intervention.

That said, Chuck Muth -- a libertarian-leaning conservative -- explains why the rest of the Republican field should pay close attention to what Dr. Paul is saying about bringing the GOP back to its small-government roots.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, basing your ideas on principles is a welcome change from current politics as usual.

Strange Bedfellows

Here's a hoot: Semi-libertarian conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett is calling for right-wingers to support Hillary.

Bartlett's been around longer than I, but his logic escapes me. A former aide to Jack Kemp, Bartlett suggests that the GOP will lose the White House, no matter what. That may well be appropriate karmic payback for 8 painful years of Bush/Cheney, but it seems hardly a fait accompli. As an independent observer, it appears to me that all the top GOP candidates have more gravitas than all the top D candidates. And, if Fred Thompson gets in the race, I suspect he would crush any Democrat, even Al Gore.

(Of course, I'd prefer TFL columnist Ron Paul to catch fire, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.)

Where Bartlett perplexes me is this notion that no GOP can win, so support a D. I suppose if one gets pleasure from voting like handicapping horses, that's one thing. But, if Bartlett's still a Republican, he should probably support one, UNLESS none sufficiently reflect his values. It appears NONE of the Democrats do it for him, so he seems to have an odd methodology:

1) Figure out which party is likely to win.
2) Then figure out which candidate in that party he finds least objectionable.

It takes all kinds, but I find this thinking tortured.

I still maintain that Hillary is almost completely unelectable. Her baggage is made of titanium, filled with lead. If she were to get nominated and win, we definitely could do worse than how her husband ran the Oval Office. My sense, however, is she's far more interested in economic intervention than Bill was. Recently, she suggested "taking" some of ExxonMobiil's profits.

For me, 'nuff said.

-Robert Capozzi

Never turn your back on the family

Thanks to NY mag and the New Republic for this latest example of the similarities between the Clintons and the Sopranos:

"There are some people the Clintons consider Clinton people who have gotten behind Barack," a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary's explains to me. "And there will be total retribution if the opportunity presents itself."

Total retribution? You're joking, right?

"I'm not joking. They're not going to audit somebody's tax return or anything. But once you've been in the Clinton camp, once they think you're part of the team, once you've helped them and they've helped you and you then go somewhere else--I just think it's very hard to crawl back into their good graces. I'm not saying it won't happen. But they won't forget. They may take you back eventually, but they won't forget."'

Bill and Hillary are living proff that Rothbard was right when he described the state as a gang of thieves.

David Brooks is Wrong

Regular readers of this site will not be surprised that I find Mr. Brooks to be wrong, but a recent article of his is making waves and I feel the need to respond to his arguments. In a recent column, Brooks argued in part tha "the GOP should not return to its Reagan-Goldwater roots as the party of limited government" and that "security" is the solution not only to political victory, but to the real wants and desires of the populace.

Examples of phenomena that he considers top agenda items are Islamic Extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, and economic and social segmentation.

Of course Brooks, being a card-carrying big-government conservative believes that it is the federal government that must come up with solutions to each of these problems in the first place through misguided policies at home and abroad.

Though it is a deeply-flawed article on many levels, Brooks' biggest head-scratcher is his assertion that the Republican Party and especially those in Congress still view government as the major threat to our liberties. The current crop of Republicans both in the White House and in Congress have embraced big government philosophically and in their actions to a greater extent than even the Democratic Party has.

Hopefully both major parties will ignore Brooks' ramblings, but it seems all-too-likely that they have both already embraced the "security = freedom" line.

Giuliani and the Price of Bread

In an attempt to find out if Rudy Giuliani was in touch with “The People,” a clever reporter asked him if he knew the price of bread and milk. See here. The former mayor’s guess was off, estimating a dollar and change compared to the actual price which was about $3 (at least at the Manhattan grocery used for comparison), bringing up the spectre of George I’s unfamiliarity with everyday America.

A blogger at the Northwest Progessive Insitute took the opportunity to conjecture: “I bet there are millions of American moms and dads who can tell you exactly what they paid for milk and bread.”

Well, maybe they can. However, the NWPI doesn’t provide any data to support this. My first reaction to the story was to ponder if I could correctly name the price of bread and milk myself. After a minute or two of recollecting my own purchases, I was only able to conclude that I am definitely saving money on milk for coffee at home versus the heavily marked-up latte at Starbucks. But the exact number I couldn’t recall. Then, I realized, it does not matter whether Giuliani can name the correct price or not.

Giuliani isn’t a contestant on “The Price is Right.” He isn’t a working on tabulating the Consumer Price Index. He’s running for president. It would be absurd for him to spend his precious time knowing everything that the Average Joe knows. In fact, it would be impossible.

People said Clinton was like the “guy next door.” This was supposed to make you feel comfortable about him – that you could go and have a beer with him and talk about sports, or something like that. But, I don’t want the guy next door to be president. Do we really want someone who is average to control the greatest arsenal of power in the world? Does that make sense?

People have different sets of knowledge. I challenge the NWPI to find ANY two people who have the exact same set of knowledge on all issues and matters. Even if we consider our closest friends, we often have greatly varying knowledge sets. But, it doesn’t mean we can’t empathize with them and care for them.

This entire notion that there are some things which everyone should know is incorrect. It is good that we are able to each have our spheres of information. It allows us to specialize in focusing on what makes our lives work. In fact, it is this specialization of knowledge which enables all of us to contribute value to each other and to grow the wealth of the nation.

Thought experiment time: What if a Sushi chef had to know everything a computer programmer knows in order to log on to the Internet? Can he not value the computer programmer? What if your physician had to be an expert in the fields each of his patients were involved? Would that increase the cost of your medical care? Of course it would. Does it make him a better doctor? It seems unlikely.

Perhaps each candidate should be given a list of prices of every service and product imaginable. Then they would be scored according to how close they were to the average price of a each of those goods and services. Now, we are talking about millions (billions? trillions?) of entries. Could a voter tell which candidate "understood" her needs then? Nope. Because, the only data we have is the average prices in a certain time frame for a limited "market-basket" of goods. There isn't any way for any of the candidates to really comprehend the lives of Americans.

To turn the tables and ask the Average Joe, "Do you know the members of the House Appropriations Committee? Can you accurately describe how the Social Security Trust Fund is administered? Is the Department of the Interior doing a good job managing the National Forests?" Would Average Joe be better off knowing all that? Can he effectively understand the personalities and characters of the presidential candidates?

The questions that we face as voters are more properly stated: Is Giuliani competent in the matters facing the American polity today. Does he have policies which will favor wealth and prosperity, or will his ideas lead us down the road to serfdom? Whether he can opine on the flavor of Wonderbread, or testify to the experience of not getting his full discount on the family-sized Kool-Aid pack is completely irrelevant to whether or not he is a good candidate.

~KDR

Who says politicians are stupid?

South Carolina legislators are considering repealing the laws subjecting professional wrestling to regulation by the state athletic commission because they have just figured out that professional wrestling is scripted, unlike other sports where the outcome is not known in advance.

Expanding the welfare state for fun and profit

Or at least profit. 60 Minutes details the relationship between the pharmaceutical lobby and the GOP leadership and how that relationship resulted in the largest expansion of the welfare state in history--to the benefit of the (state-approved) drug companies. Fortunately, there is at least one presidential candidate who is not a member of the Pharma Caucus.

The loyal opposition

The heroic duel of Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair explain the lies behind the Democrats claims that a vote for the multi-billion dollar bill funding the war was a vote for peace. Just like the Medicare Prescription Drug vote showed what Republicans are serious about limited government, the vote on the Iraq funding bill shows what Democrats are serious about opposing war. In both cases, the results both a valuable object lesson about how seriously most politicians take their campaign promises to shrink either the welfare or the warfare state.

Dispatches from Bizaroworld

National Journal has labeled Ron Paul a liberal. This is not because Dr. Paul's voting record reflects the classical liberalism of the American founders and Mises. No, the Journal considers Dr. Paul a liberal because he votes against Republican proposals to expand the welfare-warfare state!

To the National Journal, conservative=Bush supporter while liberal=Bush opponent. Therefore, the National Journal considers votes against No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Prescription Drug Act, the PATRIOT Act, etc. to be votes in favor of upholding the tradition of FDR,LBJ and Truman!

If you only buy one book by a Presidential candidate this year

make it A Foreign Policy of Peace and Freedom a collection of the best of Ron Paul's anti-war speeches and articles. The collection spans his entire career and includes an introduction by Lew Rockwell, who served as Ron Paul's Chief of Staff before founding the Mises Institute.

Bush and Chavez: A Marriage Made in Hell

This excellent article points out the almost symbiotic relationship between George W. Bush and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Although he's pretty tied up in the Middle East, Bush loves to scare the American people with boogeymen like Chavez and Chavez loves nothing more than to show himself as the "independent" Latin American leader who stands up to Washington.

As three of the five writers explain in this article, engaging with Latin America by lowering trade barriers would be a good way to reduce hostilities. Relaxed immigration and streamlined visa laws might be another way to win friends in "America's Backyard."

Does War Make Presidents Great?

Just a few days removed from Presidents Day, I think the question "What makes presidents great?" is extremely important. Many think Roosevelt was great because he led the nation during WWII, but he destroyed the Constitution and his policies prolonged the Great Depression.

Lincoln and Wilson are just two of the many presidents who have had their reputations inflated by going to war. I doubt that will happen to Bush, but only time will tell. I personally subscribe to the notion that if William Henry Harrison isn't the greatest president in our nation's history (he died after being in office for only 30 days, not much harm he could do there), it is probably Martin Van Buren.

George Will on Ron Paul

George Will is pompous and self-serious, but as one of the few mainstream political commentators with an ounce of common sense, I actually respect him and think he's one of the smarter pundits in Washington. Thus, I was interested to read his take on Ron Paul's run for the White House.

While Will can't help but to belittle Dr. Paul's chances of making it to the White House, I felt that his column was relatively fair and thoughtful compared to what a Limbaugh or Hannity might say. Of course, more hard-core libertarian types had their own thoughts on Will's article, Justin Raimondo for one and Dan Phillips writing for Lew Rockwell.com as well.

Needless to say, with the likes of Giuliani (hawkish, anti-gun), McCain (hawkish, crazy), Romney (hawkish, flip-flopper), and Gingrich (armegeddonite) as the current standard bearers for the Republican Party, someone has to defend what was until George W. Bush and 9/11, the Republican Party's limited government ideology.

The on again, off again saga of global climate change

While snow slowly melts here in New Mexico, back east there is a heat wave going on and people are talking about global warming. Of course, just like warm winters and large snowstorms are nothing new, neither is talk about global climate change. In fact, as Jeff Jacoby points out, there have been apocalyptic forecasts of global weather change -- whether that be heating or cooling -- for more than 100 years.

While I am not a climate scientist, it is no coincidence that the people who want to grow government the most have also jumped at the chance to use global warming as a tool to further their agendas.

What is perhaps even more perplexing about the global warming issue is the role that apocalyptic fears have played in human society for thousands of years. There seems to be a desire on the part of many humans to be living in a "special" time, even if it means death and destruction for themselves and their species.

My favorite bureaucrat

is David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, who is trying to alert the general public to the US Government's perilous fiscal condition. Check out this excerpt from Comptroller General Walker's December 24 letter to the Washington Post:

"The largest employer in the world announced on Dec. 15 that it lost about $450 billion in fiscal 2006. Its auditor found that its financial statements were unreliable and that its controls were inadequate for the 10th straight year. On top of that, the entity's total liabilities and unfunded commitments rose to about $50 trillion, up from $20 trillion in just six years.

If this announcement related to a private company, the news would have been on the front page of major newspapers. Unfortunately, such was not the case -- even though the entity is the U.S. government.

To put the figures in perspective, $50 trillion is $440,000 per American household and is more than nine times as much as the median household income."

Of course, if a private company kept it's books the same way the government does they would be locked up for violating Sarbanes-Oxley.

Thanks to Radley Balko for bringing this to my attention.

Bruce Bartlett Takes a Hatchet to the Libertarian Party (and other third parties as well)

Bruce Bartlett has been writing about the libertarian movement a lot recently. In his most recent missive, he calls the Libertarian Party "worse than a waste of time," and claims that "for libertarian ideas to advance, the Libertarian Party must go completely out of business. It must cease to exist, period. No more candidates, no more wasted votes and no more disillusioned libertarian activists."

Despite my having dabbled in Libertarian politics and having attended the conventions in Portland and Atlanta, I tend to agree with him. We'd all probably be better off if libertarians and even the Naderites and Greens decided to work to make their own movements stronger. Perhaps an influx of Greens would lead to the Democratic Party adopting a more enlightened position on the Drug War and perhaps the Republicans would actually support smaller government once in awhile.

Jon Stewart and the 2006 Election

Did Jon Stewart push the Democrats to election victory? At least one conservative thinks so and he even called him the "Rush Limbaugh of 2006. If this is indeed the case, which I'm not sure it is -- after all, while Stewart clearly favors Democrats, he is not nearly as partisan as Rush Limbaugh -- is this a good thing? Well, at least Jon Stewart fans are a bit better informed than, say, O'Reilly's audience. We'll see if this makes any difference moving forward in Congress.

Will Triumphant Democrats Push Liberalism or Socialism?

Watching the Daily Show tonight, I was disheartened to see Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean gleefully proclaim that Democrats would push for a raise in the minimum wage and seek out universal health care. He made no mention of Iraq, the invasions of our civil liberties, the reckless spending or any of the major issues which drove the Democrats to victory. I'm in agreement with Bob Capozzi about my feelings towards the outcome of the election. As he says, "The Ds are certainly not our salvation. Their laundry list makes me cringe more than not."

The Dems are reverting to their old ways. They've obviously read victory as endorsement of all their policies rather than as a critique of Bush. And if they mistakenly pursue worn-out socialism they may miss the chance to make the changes they were hired to make. As The Colbert Report jokingly pointed out tonight, they can't really do anything, they can't even get John Kerry to shut his mouth.

Further, while it is good news that the Democrats will provide a check against the White House, I fear that their new found power will cause them to be less open to working with the libertarian community now that they no longer need the votes to get elected.

We have seen flirtation between the left and true liberalism. Let us hope it is not just a passing fancy that ended on November 7th.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

More on Libertarian Democrats

Before we get too far away from the discussion of libertarian Democrats, I want to throw another log on the fire. Justin Raimondo over at Antiwar.com recently wrote an excellent piece in which he really lays the case out for at the very least a libertarian protest vote against the Republican Party's war-mongering ways.

While I think Raimondo is a bit too hard on Nick Gillespie of Reason and the folks over at the Cato Institute I don't think that anyone who is genuinely concerned about limiting government can vote for the Republicans. So, while the Democrats may be distasteful and unpleasant to deal with once they reach power, voting for them as a replacement for the Republicans makes the most sense. Plus, in showing their independence from the Democratic Party, libertarians may put themselves in the enviable position of "swing voter" for whom so many policies still seem to be tailored.

Either way, libertarians should not let themselves become too attached to Republican Party politics as we have seen the African American voting block repeatedly taken for granted by the Democratic Party.

Libertarian Democrats: NOT

Overr at CATO, Nick Gillespie lays out the case against libertarians making jackasses of themselves and becoming Democrats. As Nick points out, the Democrats are bad on economic liberty, squishy on opposition to war, and proponents of sacrificing civil liberties to the police/nanny state.

For those still not convinced of the evils of the Democratic Party, check out CounterPunch where Joshua Franks details how Clinton pushed through an early version of the PATRIOT Act in response to the Oklahoma City bombings. In fact, many of the PATRIOT Act's most egregious provisions where items sought by Janet Reno's Justice Department, but rejected by a Congress that still understood the dangers of trading liberty for illusions of security.

Monday, I received first-hand evidence of Democratic unreliability on the question of war and peace at a left-right forum on "The Peace Voter's Dilemma." I asked the leftists on the panel about the contradiction between opposing Iraq yet calling for intervention in Darfur. One leftist said she hoped the problem could be resolved without military force, but pointedly did not rule out sending in the troops. Another leftist said his group opposed "unilateral" US military action in Darfur--meaning he has no problem with US military intervention as long as the soldiers are clad in UN blue.

For all the noise they make about opposing the GOP's war and deficits the Democrats have a long way to go before any self-respecting libertarian or free liberal could even consider joining their party.

Libertarian-Democrats?

The idea of libertarians who, when forced to choose between the lesser of two evils (Democrats and Republicans), lean Democrat, has been a founding concept of the Free Liberal from the outset. It looks like the debate is now mainstream, though, or, at least as mainstream as the Cato Institute's blog. Markos Moulitsas of "Daily Kos" fame has fired the first salvo and it will be interesting to see what people come up with.

Personally, I think the case for voting Democrat comes down to two simple words, "split government."

Re: the cult of the state

Bob I was, of course, speaking metaphorically when I refereed to the "cult of the omnipotent state." However, if you want to see people worshiping the state, spend a day on Capitol Hill and see the pilgrims who come to pray to the high priests of the state (e.g. lobby Representatives and their staffs) for solutions to all of life's problems.

Reform the LP?

Lew Rockwell discusses the Libertarian Reform Caucus and our own Carl Milsted in his recent piece "The LP's Turkish Delight." Lew Rockwell certainly has deeper roots in the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement than I do, but the thrust of his article was "libertarians and other opponents of massive state intervention into our daily lives will be corrupted by trying to gain power so they shouldn't even try."

I find his arguments naive at best and disingenuous at worst. Rockwell is a big proponent of "libertopia." That is, complete freedom, right now, and I don't want to get my hands dirty by voting or getting elected. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers of this nation (not to mention Ron Paul) didn't (don't) share this perspective. If Libertarians or any other party simply adopted genuine obedience to the US Constitution as a "platform," this would solve most of our problems and would serve as a rallying cry, not just to hard-core Libertarians, but to everyday Americans who are concerned with the road our nation is on.

True, we'd still have to contend with a monopolistic post office, but Congress could always amend the Constitution to eliminate it. Of course, if more constitutionalists (like Ron Paul) were elected to Congress we'd have had real hearings and Congressional accountability prior to the War in Iraq, most government spending and transfer programs (Medicare, Social Security, etc.) would be abolished or at least done on the state level, and we'd all be freer.

These sound like worthy goals to me! So, while the LP searches for a new identity, I think Rockwell and other "haters" should just back off.

The Vitiated Center

Reason's magazines Brian Doherty, reviewing the latest by left-wing intellectual Eric Lott and Jeffery Hart's history of National Review, points out some important lessons for libertarians. Brian finds Lott's weakness a refusal to attempt to fashion a realistic strategy for achieving his political goals, or even bother to consider if his goals are realistic in the first place.

No one could ever accuse National Review of not taking political reality into account. In fact, Hart's book illustrates how conservatives went to the opposite extreme of Lott: losing their way by becoming exclusively focused on short term gains. The result is a conservative movement which nominally holds power, but has lost sight of, abandoned, or is simply incapable of achieving, any of the goals for which it initially sought power:

"If, as Bismarck said, politics is the art of the possible, then what is possible can and will shift. To be an intellectual force in creating that shift you have to be willing to step boldly outside the existing consensus. National Review has remained respectable and, as such, has been a great success in terms of circulation and shaping an active political movement. But the modern state and the modern-liberal values of regulation, taxing, spending, and loosening of certain social restrictions (while creating new ones) have continued their march to dominance, even if the National Review team had the victories of Ronald Reagan becoming president and Buckley being published in The New Yorker.

Standing ultimately not for any firm ideological viewpoint but for some version of the “most conservative electable candidate” led the magazine to a bizarre combination of success and impotence. Even as NR’s Ponnuru acknowledged, in defense of Bush, that the GOP has never really been serious about cutting government spending (so why gripe at Bush about it?), he wrote that defeat for Bush would be a “crushing blow” for the “organized conservatism” that is his audience. The Bushism that the magazine too often bows down to these days—defending his administration’s peccadillos and power grabs, mostly standing by him through some of the biggest expansions of domestic spending in the magazine’s history—stands for little recognizable in the magazine’s ideological tradition. As Hart acknowledges, that’s true even in matters of religion. Bush’s modern evangelical Christianity is distinct from the creedal and traditional Christianity-with-authority of NR’s Catholic roots.

Back in 1965, James Burnham wrote in NR that it was absurd for the right to try to fight Medicare. Forty budget-busting years later, NR’s man Bush has expanded the program to impossible proportions. While NR’s editors complain about that on occasion, it won’t lead them to abandon their “most conservative electable candidate.” What seems more realistic not in short-term political terms but in recognition of mathematical and economic facts: Burnham’s respectable centrism or the radical libertarianism that says such programs were illegitimate and disastrous?

Lasting political change of any sort, whether good or bad—from emancipation to woman’s suffrage to Social Security to the inevitable end of Social Security—starts on the radical fringe before it rules the center. A healthy intellectual discussion should not be restrained by toeing a middle line. As Eric Lott’s bizarre views prove, being radical isn’t the same as being right. But NR’s history suggests that being a politically realistic centrist doesn’t simply mean compromising on little things. Ultimately it makes you incapable of offering a true alternative to a status quo that can range from unmanageable to evil. NR’s past positions on de jure segregation as well as de facto segregation, and its typical embrace of and shilling for GOP pols who pay little but lip service to any conservative principle nowadays other than endless war, show what those who attack radicalism too often forget: the impotence of realism."

Workers of the world unite...for liberty

Sheldon Richman suggests that libertarians may make inroads with parts of the left if we emphasize how the current corporatist "mixed economy" harms working people and is far from the libertarian vision of a free society.

Evidence that at least parts of the left may be amiable to this approach is found in this piece from the left-wing website CounterPunch which properly laid the blame for the "housing bubble" at the feet of the the Federal Reserve. In fact, outside of Mises.org and LewRockwell.com, today one is more likely to find exposes on how the Fed damages the economy and harms working people on the anti-imperialist left then on the allegedly pro-free-market right. Furthermore, if you watch the Fed Chairman testify before the House Financial Services Committee you will notice that the only members who join Ron Paul in dissenting from the cult of the Fed are leftists like Barney Frank and Bernie Sanders.

The Republicans' secret weapon

is the Democrats. Courtesy of Butler Shaffer at the lewrockwell.com blog comes the latest example: Joe Biden's comment that he can win the South since he comes from a "slave" state. Of course Biden thinks this, all good liberal Democrats know white southern Christians are a bunch of inbred racists. Biden's statement is almost as idiotic as the Democrats' plan to capture the "values" voters without changing their position on abortion by labeling a raise in the minimum wage a "values" issue.

This condescending attitude toward anyone below the Mason-Dixon line is a major reason why Dixie will remain solidly behind the party of Lincoln.

Best idea I've heard all week

Comes from Richard Wilkins at More Liberty. In commenting on how the the federal government keeps two sets of books to hide the true size of the federal deficit Wilkins suggests subjecting Congress to "Section 404 of the infamous Sarbanes-Oxley Act which would require them to personally certify the accuracy of the government's financial information or face civil and/or criminal liability if the financial information released to the public was found to be inaccurate."

The "unfree" liberal

Some libertarians and classical liberals have tended to look favorably on Joe Lieberman because he used to favor school choice, expressed skepticism about affirmative action, and at one time seemed to favor personal retirement accounts (he backed away from these positions when he was named VP candidate in 2000.) Libertarians who support global trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA also point to Lieberman's support for these agreements as a point in his favor.

However, examining the majority of Lieberman's record shows he is not a libertarian or a free liberal. Lieberman is not only a war monger, his voting record, as opposed to his rhetoric , reveal him to be a supporter of the welfare state(he has a lifetime grade of F from the National Taxpayers Union) and he is a moral authoritarian who believes politicians should play a role in determining what video games and TV shows children watch. Lieberman is also a supporter of the surveillance state.

Ned Lamont is certainly not a free liberal, but, as Paul Gessing pointed out a victory for Lieberman will be seen as a victory for the pro-war (and pro-moral authoritarianism, and anti-civil liberties) wing of the Democratic party.

Moderation Without Meaning?

Fred Foldvary and Bob Capozzi have written about the new Unity 08 party. They both make the observation that it is unclear what exactly the Unity 08 ticket would do, other than to select a mixed Republican and Democrat ticket. This says nothing about the underlying philosophy or what they would accomplish if they somehow got elected (which itself seems rather unlikely.)

Unity 08 won't accomplish much if all they are doing is summing R and D views and dividing by two. The reason the two major parties don't represent all of America is not because they do not want to, but rather because it would be entirely impossible to represent the interests of all Americans given the involvement of the federal government in so many aspects of our lives.

Government which redistributes money back and forth between different economic actors, lavishes subsidies on favored industries, and picks and chooses which companies and individuals will get tax breaks distorts the economy and makes some serfs and others slavemasters. The government's work in dictating how we live as individuals, from what we eat, to the relationships we are allowed to have, to what we may own or not own, is a constant force fueling the culture war. If it must be one way or the other, it inherently puts citizens at odds with one another. As Foldvary suggests, decentralization would allow different states and local communities to select policies which better fit the needs of their residents.

Unity 08 could achieve lasting impact if it chooses to serve principles which generally support the liberty and economic system which make America a desirable place to live. By removing some of the convoluted works of the R's and D's, rather than just splitting the difference, would truly add to the wellbeing of citizens.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Voter Participation is Not Paramount

Paul Gessing responded to an accusation by Robert Morrin of The Washington Post that Jon Stewart is "poisoning democracy." Morrin argues that Stewart's program makes young voters cynical which leads them to be less likely to vote.

If this is true, why is it important? Is voter turnout an important value? For a particular candidate to win, it may be critical for certain segment of the population to vote. However the mere quantity of people who show up at the polls says nothing about the policies and politicians for whom they will vote. In some cases, higher turnout could mean one candidate would win, in others, his opponent. Who and why are the important indicators of political outcomes, not mere numbers.

Is being cynical a bad attribute to breed in young people? If the government continues to fail to address the values of young people, or promotes destructive policies, wouldn't it speak poorly of young people to slavishly adore an entity which works contrary to their interests? We would call such people "fools."

The only value served by dedication to high voter turnout is one which holds up the state as an end in itself. The state can never be an end in itself, it is justified only insofar as it advances someone's interests. Democracy advocates should be concerned that the policies are representative of the people's interests, not in the numbers of people who are involved in the process.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Jon Stewart: Enemy of Democracy?

A fellow named Richard Morin of the Washington Post recently wrote an article questioning whether Jon Stewart was "an enemy of democracy" because his show was too cynical.

Jon Stewart's show is the most informative outlet for "news" on television today. The fact is that television is entertainment even if the content is news. Jon Stewart at least admits that his show is inherently about entertainment and not about news and does a better job exploring issues in detail and cutting through the cable news crap than anyone else.

Now, as for those who are making young people cynical about politics....that is an entire different issue having nothing to do with Stewart.

Paul Gessing

Political Whores Needed?

Perhaps the libertarians and the greens could learn a little something from Bruce Bartlett's analysis of the historical shift of the balance of power from Democrats to Republicans.

Although I can't believe Bartlett is as enthusiastic as he sounds about the fact that Republicans basically have no principles at all at this point, his analysis of the need for "party people" and ideologues to form a big-tent within any successful political party is spot-on and in accordance with Carl Milsted's repeated calls for a moderate, eco-friendly third political party.

Paul Gessing

The Milsted Strategy

Carl Milsted's article, "Where the Votes Are," which was recently posted to FMNN, is worth reading for libertarians who are looking for a strategy that can transcend the old left-right dichotomy as well as the liberty-authority dimension of the Nolan Chart. The Nolan chart, along with the World's Smallest Political Quiz, plots an individual's preference for government action in an economic and a social dimension. Carl suggests libertarians need to consider values, not just actions.

He also points out that libertarians ought to not be so fearful of the left and its concerns.

Once upon a time, the term “liberal” referred to moderate libertarians. But in many respects, these classical liberals were also liberals in the modern sense. They were greatly concerned about wealth inequality. By the standards of their time, the classical liberals were in the upper left of my chart.

And he notes that classical liberals and libertarians have the tools they need to reach the left, if only they knew they had the tools.

Today, there is no mass political movement of the upper left. Most people do not realize that an upper-left agenda is even possible today. But it is. The ideas are out there, buried in writings which few liberals find pleasant: in middle chapters of the classical liberal canon, in books filled with improbable conspiracy theories, and in the Old Testament Law. Changing minds simply requires bringing these ideas into the foreground.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Cross-posted to my personal blog.

Feingold's predecessor

Paul, while I disagree that no one besides Russ Feingold has been challenging Bush, I agree with you that Feingold has much to offer Free Liberals, despite attaching his name to the most egregious assault on the First Amendment in recent times. Your comments about Feingold's record on spending brought to mind the great William Proxmire, an anti-war Wisconsin senator who served from 1957-1982. Proxmire was famous for his "golden fleece" awards, given to the most outrageous abuse of taxpayer funds. Proxmire was also a favorite of the National Taxpayers Union and, I believe, was also one of Murray Rothbard's favorites.

More thoughts on Darfur

Thanks to Bob for his thoughtful response to my response to his piece on Darfur. I have two thoughts, first, yes the Founders did deploy troops abroad. However, these deployments where all done in the name of protecting the interests of America, not for humanitarian reasons. (Whether the interventions really were for American interests is not relevant, the point is they where not done for humanitarian purposes.) Secondly, regarding Bob's comments wondering how my arguments would be affected if 90% of taxpayers favored humanitarian intervention in Darfur, I don't see anything silly about expecting 90% of the population to obey the laws of morality and not force someone via the means of taxation to support causes unrelated to the primary function of the state. Libertarians have no problem rejecting the argument that "most taxpayers support using federal funds to help the poor" when it comes to the welfare state, so why should it be any different for the welfare state?

If you can't get enough of my thoughts on Darfur, click here.

The Other Enemy of Free Enterprise

I love Free Enterprise. The Republicans claim to be defending Free Enterprise against the socialists. So why am I not a Republican? Why am I writing for The Free Liberal?

One answer is that freedom is more than Free Enterprise. Freedom is more than freedom from the policeman or the bureaucrat. Poverty is a form of unfreedom – a restriction on personal options regardless of how small or democratic one’s government may be.

The other answer is that the political Right can be just as dangerous an enemy of economic freedom as the Left. I encountered this idea years ago when reading Adam Smith and Murray Rothbard. However, this point did not really hit home until I read a short essay in LP News by science fiction author David Brin.

This essay helped trigger a state change in my thinking which led to Holistic Politics and to the discussion with Kevin Rollins which led to The Free Marketeer becoming The Free Liberal.

Just recently, I have had the honor of publishing a much longer essay by Brin on this subject. It can be found on the Libertarian Reform Caucus web site (www.ReformTheLP.org). This essay was originally written in 1986, but only now has been published in this form. Read it and see one of the important inspirations for the modern free liberal movement.

I'm a John Mackey Libertarian

If I wanted to sum up everything I want the Free Liberal to be about, I could not do better than John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, as he has articulated his speech, " Winning The Battle of Freedom and Prosperity" posted at LibertyUnbound.com.

If you don't read anything else this year, you must read this. A snippet:

The Left entices the young with promises of community, love, purpose, peace, health, compassion, caring, and environmental sustainability. The Left's vision of how to meet these higher needs in people is fundamentally flawed. But the idealism and the call to the higher need levels is magnetic and seductive, nonetheless. The irony of the situation, as I see it, is that the Left has idealistic visions of higher human potential and social responsibility but has no effective strategies to realize its vision. The freedom movement has strategies that could meet higher human potential and social responsibility but lacks the idealism and vision to implement these strategies. I assert that the freedom movement can become a successful mass movement today if it will consciously adopt a more idealistic approach to its marketing, branding, and overall vision, and embrace a vision of meeting higher human potentials and greater social responsibility.

I'm definitely a John Mackey libertarian. Or perhaps, John Mackey is the definition of "Free Liberal."

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Hillary the failure

Turns out Madame Defarge, oops, I mean Hillary Clinton, only went into politics because she could not be an athlete, astronaut,scientist, or doctor. Of course, Hillary never lost her interest in medicine, except instead of curing people she works to deny us health care by eliminating the few vestiges of the market left in America's health care system.

A colleague remarks that this confirms his observation that most politicians are (or would be) failures in the market. Yet they feel qualified to control the lives of the rest of us.

Those who can do, those who can't do and resent it become politicians.

Five excuses cover all government errors

From the wonderful "brit-com" Yes,Minister. Thanks to my buddy Jim Boulet for letting me know this was on Andrew Sullivan's blog. For those unaware of the show, it dealt with a reform-minded minster who was constantly thwarted by career bureaucrat Sir Humphrey. The exchange between the minister (Jim) and Sir Humphrey on the five standard excuses gives you a taste of what made this show so great:

"Jim: Five standard excuses?

Sir Humphrey: Yes. First there's the excuse we used for instance in the Anthony Blunt case.

Jim: Which was?

Sir Humphrey: That there is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything, but security forbids its disclosure. Second, there is the excuse we used for comprehensive schools, that it has only gone wrong because of heavy cuts in staff and budget which have stretched supervisory resources beyond the limits.

Jim: But that's not true is it?

Sir Humphrey: No, but it's a good excuse. Then there's the excuse we used for Concorde, it was a worthwhile experiment, now abandoned, but not before it had provided much valuable data and considerable employment.

Jim: But that is true isn't it? Oh no, of course it isn't.

Sir Humphrey: The fourth, there's the excuse we used for the Munich agreement. It occurred before certain important facts were known, and couldn't happen again.

Jim: What important facts?

Sir Humphrey: Well, that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe.

Jim: I thought everybody knew that.

Sir Humphrey: Not the Foreign Office.

Jim: Five?

Sir Humphrey: Five, there's the Charge of the Light Brigade excuse. It was an unfortunate lapse by an individual which has now been dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures."

Cross-posted at lewrockwell.com.

GOP war on the Family

The Republican Party claims to be a party of family values but if their voting record shows anything it is that they for the most part have only contempt for the family. The Democrats are not off the hook but at present they are a powerless (and spineless) party that does not control the government.

What is my evidence for their alleged contempt?

The Republican spending spree only shows that they do not care for the family especially the next generation of children who are going to have to pay the dept which the Republicans have created with their wild spending orgy.

The Republicans also support the Federal Reserve System, which since its founding in 1913 ( a coup by the banking interests against the tax payers) has led to the devaluation of our money. The less that our money is worth, the more families have to work to make ends meet. That is another assault on the family.

More important than money though and much more damaging than the Republicans monetary policy is their war policy. The military industrial complex, (mostly a waste of hard earned tax payer’s money where the costs are socialized and the benefits privatized) has led to the disintegration of the family. When husbands, brothers, fathers and cousins go to fight and die in undeclared unconstitutional wars (abroad) they are not home with their families. Children need fathers, wives need husbands, parents need their children and communities need their men.

Domestically, the Republicans have also waged war but this time directly against the family. Compulsory schooling with centralized bureaucratic control from DC with a push toward universal pre-school is a frontal assault on the family. Medicare and Social Security destroyed the inter-generation bonds between children and their parents and universal compulsory schooling destroys the bonds of parents to their children. To add insult to injury the Republicans i.e. the Bush Administration through the Department of Health and Human Services are pushing for the transformation of the mental health delivery system in the United States. It is not enough that their policies help create the conditions for destruction of the family and communities but now they, the destroyers of the family, are working to help save the family via mental health interventions. That means turning our schools into psychiatric laborites and communities into dumping grounds for the latest fads from the psychiatric industrial complex.

Michael D. Ostrolenk

Sure to be Unpopular

Rick Sincere reports on the progress of a bill in the Virginia legislature which would outlaw an activity offensive to both the left and the right.

The legislation is aimed at stifling the latest practice of the Reverend Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, in which he and his flock protest the funerals of U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been killed in the service of their country. He asserts that the deaths of these brave men and women is appropriate payback for a country that tolerates homosexuality.

Sincere notes that when Phelps was only going after gay-funerals, conservatives didn't have much to say.

Now that he's taking his message to the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, they're all shocked and disgusted. I have to wonder where the shock and disgust were when Phelps' targets were "only" gay men and lesbians.

Phelps' carefully chosen slogan is, "God Hates the USA."

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Partisan Talk Show Hosts

On his blog, David Friedman notices that most talk show hosts bow to the pressure to be overly-partisan.

The experience is not encouraging. Most of the content, left and right, amounts to "our side is wise and virtuous, hooray, their side is stupid and evil, boo."

This behavior is antithetical to the idea of transpartisanship which deprecates th use of tribalistic chest thumping and childish name-calling. Transpartisans strip out the sloganeering and absolutist "us or them" rhetoric to seek understanding and truth, and to synergize the interests of both sides. To the degree that politically active individuals are unable to distinguish between rhetoric and coherent argument, we will see increased frustration on all sides of the spectrum.

Partisan attacks confuse those making them about their real goals, as the "soundbite" consumes their principles. Such attacks make the target of the attacks get a false impression of the values of the attacker. By fostering an environment of political warfare, we get further and further from achieving the outcomes which both sides would prefer.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Oppose a personality cult? You're a leftist!

Free Liberals might be interested in this post originally posted at the Lew Rockwell blog:

Glenn Greenwald comments on the new definition of liberal popular with many on the right:

"It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" --is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush."

I am sure many (most? all?)LRC contributors have been called a left-liberal, left-winger, DNC spokesman, etc. for criticizing "conservative" policies like crusades for democracy, nationalized education, warrantless wiretaps, or even budget-busting expansions of Medicare.

Greenwald has further comments on how the conservatism has degenerated:

"That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) explosion of deficit spending under this Administration – and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government’s eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush’s decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush’s ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

We have heard for a long time that anger and other psychological and emotional factors drive the extreme elements on the Left, but that is (at least) equally true for the Bush extremists. The only difference happens to be that the Bush extremists control every major governmental institution in the country and the extremists on the Left control nothing other than the crusted agenda for the latest International A.N.S.W.E.R. meeting.

A movement which has as its shining lights a woman who advocates the death of her political opponents, another woman who is a proponent of concentration camps, a magazine which advocates the imprisonment of journalists who expose government actions of dubious legality, all topped off by a President who believes he has the power to secretly engage in activities which the American people, through their Congress, have made it a crime to engage in, is a movement motivated by lots of different things. Political ideology isn't one of them."

Post 9-11 hysteria may explain a lot of the right's sacrifice of limited government principles on the alter of Bush worship. However, I believe the roots of the replacement of ideology with leader-worship is rooted in the Clinton years when to many on the right replaced their hatred of statism with hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and defined the goals of their movement strictly in terms of limiting Clinton's power instead of limiting state power in general. Since the problem was not the welfare-warfare state but the degenerate running the state, it was not so hard for conservatives to embrace the state when "their guy" was in charge, replacing their blind hatred of Clinton with blind support for Bush.

Cheney and Spin

The weekend hunting accident with Vice President Cheney has been the story of the week. One cannot turn on the TV or talk radio without it being discussed. I think it is interesting, if the story is accurate, as a story told only once. I do feel sorry for the gentleman shot but that is the extent of concern I have for the whole incident. However, there is something that I do find truly interesting that CNN discussed last night as it relates to the incident. They had a former Clinton Administration official on during the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer discussing how Cheney has done the ‘damage control’ all wrong. It was fascinating to listen to this man discuss the layered steps that are necessary in order to get ‘control’ of the story and ‘guide it’ to a planned conclusion. He was giving the American people who happened to be fortunate enough to be watching CNN at the time an inside look into public relations which is not about honesty and integrity but about control and manipulation. I hope the American people were paying attention to how ‘spin’ and ‘damage control’ works and how it is such a part of the political culture that it can be discussed so openly on TV. My concern however is that the people missed the importance of that part of the story and only used it to help them decide if Mr. Cheney handled the situation correctly.

Michael D. Ostrolenk
mostrolenk@terabolic.net

Not Very Open-Minded, Not Very Transpartisan

Last week while conservatives (and some libertarians) toasted their own at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Rep. Mark Souder was on the floor of the US House denouncing what he felt was a betrayal of conservative values.

"One can imagine a conservative's surprise to read on the CPAC 2006 agenda that a representative of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) is slated to moderate-yes, moderate-a panel Friday discussing drug policy. For those who are unacquainted with it, the pro-marijuana MPP has been funded by Soros in the past. Also represented on the panel is the Drug Policy Alliance, which is Soros' principal pro-drug arm. Incidentally, the moderator himself is a convicted drug dealer."

Evidently, Souder doesn't even think conservatives should be able to discuss the matter, even amongst themselves. Conservatives have been in favor of the drug war and therefore can't ever reconsider their position. Worse, he thought that it was sufficient to use an ad hominem attack pointing out that the moderators and panelists were on the team of a "bad guy."

Remember you are either with us or against us! It doesn't matter how reasonable an argument "the others" offer, they are the enemy.

Souder sinks especially low when tries to paint Rob Kampia of MPP as a "convicted drug dealer." Rob Kampia isn't exactly a hardened criminal. There are many upstanding people around the country who have been convicted of drug "crimes." That's why the conservatives were discussing the issue, afterall.

Such unrelenting close-mindedness will not help conservatives achieve intellectual victory over their adversaries. By being doctrinaire and dismissive of other viewpoints, they become as intellectually weak as the socialists on the left they criticize so often.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Also: You can read more outrageous outrage from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in the Media.

You Gotta Love Lawyers

"I would never join a club which accepts me as a member."
-Groucho Marx

Listening to the Laura Ingraham Show yesterday, I was reminded why I opted to not go to law school years ago.

Ingraham, a lawyer turned pundit, was interviewing a fellow who is with a city council that’s called for impeaching W for, among other things, warrantless wiretaps and fighting an undeclared war. (I believe the gentleman was from Santa Cruz, CA. I didn’t catch his name.)

At one point, Ingraham exclaimed, “Have you gone to law school?!” The councilman admitted he’d not. Ingraham dismissed his views, apparently because he was not a member of that exclusive club.

To be clear, I don’t think W should be impeached. While I was against the Iraq War, his waging of it was supported by Congress, albeit not with an outright declaration. Unfortunately, this is how wars have been waged in modern times, with resolutions, not declarations. I don’t support this trend, but to call it “impeachable” does seem to be a stretch.

The warrantless wiretaps, too, have a lot of precedent behind them. There is enabling legislation that defines what are “reasonable” searches and seizures in times of crisis or hot pursuit, at root.

I challenge, however, Ingraham’s implication. Where does it say in the Constitution that only lawyers can opine on what is constitutional and what is not? And where does it say that only lawyers can define what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are?

Imagine the ramifications of Ingraham’s “attorney-ocracy.” Somehow only lawyers can know what the law is. We unwashed non-bar members will be at the constant subjugation of lawyers in relation to government. We can’t know what the law is; we always, apparently, have to ask a juris doctor. Imagine this reductio ad absurdum: “I’m not sure I can cross the street here, better check in with a bloodsucker.” (Of course, I love lawyers, and count them as among my best friends.)

Is that what the Framers intended, Ms. Ingraham? And where exactly does it say that? Please explain it – slowly – as I’m not a member of the bar.

It’s a Groucho kinda thing.

-Robert Capozzi

Is Gore A Civil Libertarian?

Yesterday, on January 16th, 2006, former Vice President Al Gore joined the Bob Barr show and become the second, following Barr, former government official to recognize the great importance our liberties are to our way of life and to publicly call for them to be protected against the state. As a civil libertarian, I welcome Mr. Gore to the party, and hope others in both major political parties join him in his support for civil liberties against encroachment by this and any Administration. Congressman Barr recognized early that this is not about being a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Progressive but about protecting our inalienable Constitutional Rights.

It is good to see Mr. Gore realize the same. As others hopefully join the party, the transpartisan civil liberties party, I hope more and more American begin to wake up from their narcolepsy and begin to take back their lives from the State and its agents in private industry.

Michael D. Ostrolenk

To read Mr. Gore's speech go to www.libertycoalition.net

Corruption and Benefit

Responding to Jim Turbett's and Bob Capozzi's blog entries below, I would say it is possible for the corruption to be mutually beneficial to both lobbyist and congressman, even sought by the congressman, while also being insidious and ultimately destructive of both.

If I may draw an analogy, I will use that of gluttony. I had a delicious grilled cheese sandwich for breakfast this morning. It consisted of 8 pats of butter to soak into the exterior, 4 slices of extra sharp cheddar for the interior, and 2 slices of hard-crusted, organic, Whole Food's-brand, wheat bread to go in
between. I know I could eat them all day if I didn't have other things to do, or completely failed to control myself to preserve a minimum of health.

But, if I could find a cafe or diner that served inexpensive grilled cheese sandwiches, and would give me tea in the morning, soda in the afternoon, and micro-brew beer in the evening; and if they had wi-fi and good cell-phone reception, I would be prone to stay there all day long, fattening myself into oblivion.

In one sense, the cafe and I would be experiencing a mutually beneficial relationship. I go there, out of my free choosing. They take my dollars in exchange for their delicious food. A win-win situation, right? But, the longer I stayed, and the more I would eat, the harder would it be to see the wrongness of it, especially if the cafe trained their female wait-staff to flirt with me, no matter how disgusting I became. Then, seeing other colleagues sitting there, themselves lost under a pile of greasy sandwiches, it would become my cultural norm.

Meanwhile, the outside world, seeing the horde of grilled cheese eating beasts leaving the cafe for the hospital, would be shocked by our lack of self control, disgusted at the patrons for being so easily corrupted, and at the restaurant for "doing this to us." But, the restaurant did not make us do these things, but it made it easy to be gluttonous.

Similarly, I think it is unfair to blame either congressman or lobbyist for the other's poor behavior. But, neither can be excused, because as the the public's representatives, we have the right to hold them accountable.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Abramoff -- Seducer?

The title of Ron Paul's article on The Free Liberal web site, Scandals Are a Symptom, Not a Cause, counters something Al Gore said today. Gore suggested that legislators were led astray by Abramoff, but the relationship between lobbyists and legislators is mutually beneficial and sought after by both groups -- until they get caught.

Third Party Chances

Libertarians, Greens, and other third party types have looked at the Bush-Gore race in 2000 and the Bush-Kerry race in 2004 and wondered how anyone could choose between such abysmal candidates. The conventional wisdom goes that with such poor choices, a third party candidate would naturally do better than if he had to compete against widely-loved heroes of the public.

However, in the last campaign, we saw Kerry's team aggressively work to undermine Nader by emphasizing how bad Bush was. "Anyone but Bush" was the battle-cry. But, a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, or so the argument went. The hated "negative campaigning" is the modus operandi of major party politicians. The result is that people are "voting against" rather than "voting for" candidates in many cases. My grandfather even voted for Bush because he "just couldn't see Teresa Heinz as first lady."

Since the major party candidates and their respective machines are much better able to frame the debate than their third party competitors, we should expect their messages to dominate the debate. If we expect every flaw of each major party candidate to be trumpeted by the opposition, and if the greater the negativity of the campaigns causes people to vote out of fear, third party operatives should hope for the best possible candidates from the Republicans and Democrats. With good Republican and Democratic candidates, more voters may be less afraid to support third parties.

-- Kevin D. Rollins