The Center-Right on the Bailout
by neolibertarian
Regarding the bailout, it's also regretful that so many conservative and Republican commentators abandoned their free market allegiances to cautiously support the bailout. This just shows again that the majority of elected Republicans are New Dealers with some market sympathies, not Free Marketeers making some unavoidable concessions to the welfare state. The distinction was important, and that is why so many of our standard-bearers among the center-right capitulated to authority instead of sticking to their guns.
There are many strains of thought among the center-right: freedom, religiosity, morality, tradition, authority, honor. There are also different general groups of conservatives - the business conservatives, the religious conservatives, the military conservatives, the authority conservatives, and the libertarian conservatives. A lot of these overlap to a large degree. Personally, I'm not a conservative at all (go heterodoxy!) but I rely on them to advance some of the causes I favor. In this case, the usual business-freedom alliance broke down; this was an issue where capitalism and business were on opposite sides, with big businesses seeking favors and influence from the government.
Normally, the government is seen as intervening on behalf of the poor or workers, and so uniting business supporters and libertarians makes sense. But much of the time the government chooses to side with large businesses, who provide voter-friendly jobs and campaign contributions. Businesses wanted a bailout, and so the capitalists were separated from their pro-business allies.
A similar thing happened to the left, where the interventionist and utilitarian Democrats wanted to futz and meddle with the economy, but the class-warfare and activist-left Democrats didn't want to help out large finance concerns in the process. So the Democrats split up as well.
A lot of Republicans fell in line behind authority, thinking that we must do "the responsible thing" or "show leadership" by trusting one of history's largest one-time capital infusions to one mega-bureaucrat who comes from the industry he's supposedly fixing. Warning signs galore.
Som,e authority conservatives suggested that it was somehow more adult or more serious to get behind the bailout. The assumption that it's needed is barely discussed. Apparently the fact that somebody in goverment says it's needed is sufficient.
Of course, more Republicans than not voted against it, not least because the public seems to be set against it. Thank goodness for the majority of House Republicans, who managed to avoid a bullet on this one. I only hope they continue to oppose this monstrosity (even as the proponents whittle down their demands) until we can all see that the economy has not collapsed for the lack of it.
Underlining much of the debate on this issue, the proponents more or less acknowledge that voters hate the bailout, think it sounds corrupt and wasteful, and will probably vote out supporters. Yet it's needed - as though the voters are too stupid to understand, and it rests with their social superiors in a wise and knowing government to protect them. 'Forgive the voters, they know not what they do when they reject an enormous bailout of an industry that got itself into this mess.'
Bush's approval rating is down to a rump of diehard Republicans, Congress' approval is down to staffers and family members, and the finance guys asking for the money bet their companies on risky mortgages. If government is so wise, it sure hasn't earned out trust. As Jay Leno said:Here's the way a bailout works. A failed president and a failed Congress invest $700 billion of your money in failed businesses. Believe me, this can't fail.
The government is not all-knowing and cannot be trusted as a good economic steward. When it comes to small issues or longstanding issues, wavering capitalists can be won over by good free-market arguments, but as soon as something scary happens they run back to FDR and the New Deal and the "do-something-do-anything" mentality.
Frankly, I think those instincts are rather childish in expecting that there must always be a government standing buy to bail you out of perceived problems. It's too bad many Republicans currently forgetting how inept the government is at every other aspect pf intruding into the economy, because those 'principles' of his would be mighty useful now.
Here's to those Republicans who listened to their principles and/or constituents in blocking this disaster of a bailout package.
Obama and Talking to Enemies
by neolibertarian
I really like that Barack Obama was willing to go against orthodoxy and argue that America should always be willing to parley with its enemies. I disagree with the policy and the arguments for it, but the fact that he's willing to challenge conventional wisdom is commendable. The fallacy of tradition is often one of the weakest yet most sacred of logical fallacies.
Of course, I'm pretty sure Krauthammer has it right that this was not planned and was more of a spur of the moment, dogpile on Bush instance. It's also notable that all of his advisors are either hedging ('he meant mid-level representatives') or outright correcting Obama's statements - even though Obama has been both forceful and explicit in his pledge to meet with dictators, specifically mentioning Ahmadinejad.
Many of Obama's arguments for this policy are embarrassingly bad. He often uses historical examples, such as Reagan and Kennedy.
But Kennedy's summit with Khrushchev was a failure that probably encouraged the Soviets to be more aggressive, thinking that Kennedy was weak and easy to compromise. That summit is often blamed as a factor behind the Soviets putting nukes in Cuba.
And Reagan's summits with Gorbachev followed his previously critical stance toward the USSR, and even with Gorby he refused to abandon missile defense.
This doesn't mean that diplomacy and compromises are always bad, as they certainly provide countless positive results. But simply going to talk to any enemy, no matter what, is naivete or vanity.
If elected, President Obama's time would be far more productively spent supporting our allies than indulging the vanity of camera-hungry leaders like Chavez and Ahamdinejad. Instead of a Tyrants Tour, maybe Obama could spend his first year as President supporting our friends and allies around the world - meeting with reformers, dissidents, and the leaders of allied countries. It would make for a positive message that stressed the benefits of friendship with the US.
Of course, left out of the discussion is trade and commerce. For some reason, political observers find the character issue fascinating - wimp versus nuanced; courageous versus cowboy - and forget that the most important thing the US can do with other countries (except the specific ones we might go to arms against) is trade. Saying you want to forge a common bond with the world by limiting carbon emissions is one thing. Actually giving the people of the world access to the US market is far more meaningful.
While I'm sure the rest of the world is very pissy about Iraq and the US military even existing, and that a lot of diplomats and activists really care about the ABM, Kyoto or ICC treaties, the most impactful part of US-global relations is trade. Obama thinks the US should use its massive power to tilt trade in favor of itself. Even though we're by far one of the richest and most prosperous countries in human history, and even though trade creates benefits all around that are often far in excess of its temporary drawbacks, Obama still thinks that the US economy should be managed for the benefit of Americans - much to the detriment of everyone else.
Improving relations with the rest of the world is a lot more than just talking to dictators and diplomats. Ask him for the ability to compete fairly in the US market and suddenly Mr. Hope-of-the-World Obama clams up.
Why Hillary Lost
by neolibertarian
Although the campaign is not entirely over and there's still a shot at Hillary pulling an amazing upset victory in the wake of an enormous Obama scandal, it's essentially clear that Obama will otherwise be the victor and the nominee running against John McCain.
Warning, this post is a little lengthy but I have a lot to get out there.
There are plenty of factors that contributed to Hillary's loss.
- Her personality issues, including defensiveness, arrogance and entitled condescension.
- She overemphasized Iowa, possibly her weakest state, instead of spreading focus to later states.
- She didn't spend enough time doing retail politics in Iowa and other states, instead relying on ads and press.
- The Clintonian arrogance and condescension towards the press alienated journalists at a time that Obama embodied their fantasies.
- Her campaign was ridiculously managed by people who clearly didn't have the experience to manage a primary campaign (thus wasting an enormous fundraising advantage).
- The lack of central authority in the campaign management meant there was no leader to keep others accountable.
- At the same time, an obsessive focus on loyalty meant any challenge to conventional wisdom or campaign doctrine was viewed with suspicion, thus silenced.
- Hiring Patti Solis Doyle to manage the campaign on the basis of loyalty was silly.
- Letting Mark Penn both decide the strategy and then be the only pollster to poll-test the strategy was stupidity.
- Financial planning was nonexistent, from overspending in Iowa to underspending in caucus and post-February states to running the campaign into a hole.
I wasn't in the campaign, so I can't attest to all of these commonly-asserted reasons. I think most of them probably have a lot of validity. The biggest reason in my opinion was the message. Clinton just wanted to win and so her message was highly variable, changing as often as needed in order to achieve victory.
It's a bit of stereotype that female candidates tend toward wonkery instead of message, identity or leadership. I think it's very easy to overstate that stereotype, but female or not Hillary's problem was just that; she emphasize policies but not themes. She had trouble tapping into an identity or a milieu that people could easily grasp. Since she was already married to the world's most notorious liar and spinster, it didn't help when she flipped on driver's licenses for immigrants in the span of a few minutes. The sniper lie confirmed it further. She lies to be popular - which probably every national politician does regularly. But she lies with ease and without commitment to a side.
Her message was policies but no personality. Is she strong like when she voted for the war and when she (fictionally) ran from sniper fire? Is she sensitive and compassionate like when she cried? I can look at Obama and tell you something about him and his personality.
Obama is a thinker, he's a fairly deep person. He's somewhat vain and a little entitled, has an aloof arrogance that coexists with a well-meaning charitability. He values ideals and the abstract and prefers the quixotic to the mundane. His visage is melancholic or rageful while his voice is ringing, methodical and confident.
I can tell you about McCain. He's a joker, a rascal who is very comfortable with mischief. He adores above all other things honor, commitment, service and sacrifice, and his political views are largely shaped around these principles. An energetic and self-righteous anger waits just under the surface of a man who deeper down is very friendly and charitable towards others.
I could go into detail too about Reagan or Clinton. Reagan was friendly, idealistic to the utmost, simple in principles but brilliant of mind. Clinton is at his core an arrogant and self-entitled man who seeks approval through his good works and campaigns, always able to find a smile, shed a tear or unleash a tirade depending on the situation.
These leaders had definable and accessible emotions, personalities that made it possible to truly know them and to find something to admire - something to vote for, something they symbolized. Clinton empathized, Reagan inspired, etc. What is Hillary's personality? Is she truly the defensive, paranoid, entitled, closed off person? I doubt it. I'm sure even Saddam, Stalin and Hitler had positive qualities and it seems ridiculous to think that Hillary could somehow be less human than genocidal tyrants.
The problem is not that she has no personality or that she is pure evil. The problem is that she has a closed, uber-professional facade with not a lot of personality showing through. Given her penchant for lies, flipping and entitlement, how can one get to know her? How can one identify with her?
This same problem plagued previous Democrats, including Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, etc. They come of as cold, aloof, distant, condescending and policy-focused. When they then try to tell you they sympathize with your plight or that they want you to sacrifice more to the IRS it just sounds wrong. When FDR demanded lives and fortunes for the war and the New Deal, it came from a leader who emoted and had an accessible identity and personality (and FDR is far closer to a tyrant than Hillary has gotten).
The people who did identify with Hillary were the older women who saw in her a memory of their struggle against sexism. Younger people see feminism as a movement not much more relevant than abolitionism; in other words, it won and everybody sane agrees with it, so why re-fight a victorious campaign? I suspect that a lot of the voters who backed her associated her with the Clinton years of high economic growth and low unemployment - this isn't sexism, as Al Gore relied even more heavily on this bloc of voters, whom he spurned by rejecting Bill's help.
Obama's policies are a little incoherent and ill-defined - what exactly does he want to change? So far it seems he most wants to change the fact that people can criticize him (somehow 'appeasement' is a false political attack while 'cowboy diplomacy' is an insightful criticism; 'third Bush term' is a great argument but 'liberal elite' is trash politics, etc.). But at least he adheres people to him who want a movement toward some kind of sanity and bipartisanship in politics. It may be hypocritical, but he has a clear direction.
Hillary's policies are clear but her theme is nebulous and self-justifying. Vote for Hillary to fight the Republicans. The question of why or for what end we should fight the Republicans is not treated to a grand theme like 'for the poor' or 'for world peace' or even 'for the future.'
Obama is a theme in search of focus; Hillary is a mash of policies in search of a principle. When it came down to it, Democrats voted for a person they can understand with a message they liked before policies they like from a person they don't get.
MOST IMPORTANT is the voter's mentality. Once you get into the voting booth, the cost of deciding on an issue or candidate often feels remote - a tax cut 18 months away, a health care subsidy seven quarters in the future. This is especially true between Obama and Hillary, who occupy very similar ideological space. What really helps drive people to vote for one is the personality and themes of a candidate, and Obama's strong theme and personality were able to pull people away from massively-favored frontrunner Hillary, who provided people with little reason to feel anything personally at stake in her election.
Politicians give you a connection to something larger by your support. McCain and Reagan tap into feelings of national honor; Reagan and Obama appeal to your sense of idealism and the universe's perfectability; Clinton made you think he cared where things were going; Clinton and Reagan told you that whatever happens the world is basically good and things are getting better.
A vote for Obama can be interpreted by the voter as a vote for the future, for honesty and racial harmony, a vote for bipartisanship, a vote for a thoroughgoing liberal or a vote for a committed moderate - or any combination of these.
A vote for Hillary does not tie into anything grand except that a woman can be President or Bill Clinton should be President again.
CA Supreme Court Shifts Marriage Terminology
by neolibertarian
The California Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to allow opposite-sex couples to unite under the term 'marriage' and same-sex couples to unite with the same rights under only alternative names like 'domestic partnership.' This is all based on the whole San Francisco gay marriage controversy from 4 years when Mayor Newsom here allowed a few thousand same-sex couples to get licensed as married. That act of municipal civil disobedience has been rewarded and I think rightly so.
Without speaking to the legal merits specifically, reserving the term 'marriage' is clearly meant as a slight against the relationships of same-sex couples. Since we're simply dealing with a contract, why should it discriminate on what is largely an arbitrary basis? I'm not positive that this is 100% on the specific constitutional merits here, but certainly it's a rational and good decision.
Marriage should be a social and religious term, and the government shouldn't intervene and try to decide who gets to be married and who gets to be partnered. That's asking for trouble.
A dissenting Justice worried that future courts might "conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified." He tried to innoculate himself against charges of gay-bashing by saying, "In no way do I equate same-sex unions with incestuous and polygamous relationships as a matter of social policy or social acceptance." Of course, what he's really saying is that same-sex unions are less deserving than opposite-sex unions, so why not lower ourselves to even-less deserving unions like incest and polygamy.
While I agree that constitutional rights should not evolve (that implies that people in the past were morally entitled to less than all of their deserved freedom) I think that it's silly to think that removing the legal right to union is what's most important here.
It's not illegal to have incestuous or group sex (or even incestuous-group sex), and it's not illegal to cohabitate and share assets with a close relation or with more than one other person. The only thing that's illegal is combining into a marriage or partnership with full rights. The acts of incestuous or group marriage aren't illegal, only the legal recognition of the contract is illegal. Why is it any more damaging to give them the right to legally-recognized covenants and contracts?
Obviously there are dangers when it comes to the acts of incest and polygamy, not least of which is the chance that the marriage is coerced or psychologically damaging. It would seem highly suspicious to me if a father married his daughter at the very point that she reached the legal age - clearly he could have darkly influenced her into it - but does this mean we can assume that all such unions are coerced? In the same way, just because cults in the American Southwest have a penchant for marrying off young adolescent girls to potentially abusive or emotionally distant polygamous husbands doesn't mean we can assume that every union between three or more people is immoral.
The law is not the place to express our personal distaste with others' behavior. People should simply be free to contract with others.
Sidenote- It's interesting that polygamous marriage rights have been totally marginalized and ignored by the movement for same-sex marriage rights. It's similar to how the second-wave feminist movement ignored the gay rights movement, and to how the abolitionist movement largely ignored women's suffrage, and how the Jacksonian suffrage movement ignored abolitionism.
SF's Unrepentant Moralism
by neolibertarian
Coyote blog brings up the SF plan to force people to recycle or risk losing garbage services.
I agree with his point, this is stupid and wasteful from an economic perspective, especially since time is such a valuable resource. The economic justifications (more jobs, higher income from scrap sales, whatever else) are simply added to paper over the program. The idea of a practical justification offers a common-sense veneer to what is a profoundly religious-emotional policy direction; a lot of people out here have certain social preferences regarding business and consumerism and they want to see them legislated. Pretending that it makes some sort of fiscal sense gives cover to guys like Newsom (a relative moderate for SF) to advance the position. Although in SF even the moderates like Newsom and his Board of Supervisors allies tend to be pretty hawkish on the environment.
I'll add to morganovich's list the ban on using city funds to purchase bottled water (a practice they want to force on city restaurants) on the theory that: the plastic is bad, the transportation involved in shipping it is bad, dams and reservoirs like Hetch Hetchy are bad and it's morally wrong to profit off the sale of natural resources. Newsom also said city water is cleaner than bottled water, abandoning all but the last pretense of tolerance and openly admitting that the San Francisco City and County government is the ultimate arbiter in matters of economics, morality and now taste buds.
I'm a little surprised that SF business owners aren't more hesitant on these green issues. Businesses here differentiate themselves based on their greeniness (in addition to their authenticity or exclusivity) in ways that businesses in other areas pride themselves on quality products or good customer service (something clearly not native to the Bay Area). There's a pizza place in Marin County that is entirely solar-powered (well, it contributes solar to the grid during bright periods and draws power in exchange during dim periods) and tons of people go to it solely for the greeniness of it. I go because the pizza's pretty good, like Italy meets New York. But if governments around here are going to force everybody draw from solar energy, then that establishment will have lost its edge - a big loss both for the hundreds of thousands they shelled out to buy the panels and for the money they've spent on promotional boxes and other materials with the solar bragging rights printed on them.
Of course, there's something in the culture here about bossing people around. Even being on a cell phone in pbulic, especially on some form of public transportation, can bring intense stares. On several occasions I've seen people stand up on buses and literally try to stare somebody into hanging up, which usually works. One lady was so mad that every time a guy on his cell phone would say something (he was a little loud compared to the people here, who can be shy and whisper quiet) she would open her eyes wide, lift her eyebrows, and jerk up out of her seat to stare at him. It was very fluid and aggressive and she came off like some sort of psycho killer with the flaring eyes. But the point is that she felt like she needed to be the moral arbiter and boss that guy around - who does he think he is, speaking slightly louder than normal IN PUBLIC?
People are very prone to lectures here. My girlfriend, a very conscientious person, was lectured at a laundromat when she removed someone's abandoned undergarment from a dryer and it fell on the floor. The lecturer at first pretended to think that it was her garment and he was helping her retrieve, but when she denied ownership he started edging quickly into a (low-volume) lecture delivered bare inches from her face. If you let your dog chase pigeons in the City, beware the lectures from passersby defending the pigeons from your assault. Earlier this week in my parking garage I was told (while carrying a newly purchased plastic shelf set) by a very self-satisfied middle-aged woman that "I just don't do Wal-Mart."
It's a beautiful area with a nice, cool climate that suits me well, but the people here - though often polite and interactive - can be narrow-minded, moralizing busybodies with a lecture always at the ready.
Democrats Embrace Protectionism
by neolibertarian
The Democrats, being both extremely insecure against charges of insufficient patriotism and being extremely awkward in their continuing push for faux-socialism, are moving more wholeheartedly against their supposed internationalist credibility.
We're supposed to believe that, because the Democrats want to cave in to pressure on the war in Iraq and in 2003 they wanted to listen to whatever France and Germany said, they must be more popular in the rest of the world. While it seems fairly clear that leaving Iraq would earn us no friends and alienate allies in the region (now tasked with fighting Iran's influence alone), I don't see how the Democrats' protectionism is going to win friends.
Obama and Clinton both promised a few weeks ago that if they could not secure agreement from Mexico and Canada to renegotiate NAFTA, they would both use their authority (as President) to withdraw from the agreement. Of course, Mexico and Canada are both sovereign countries that can't just be forced into obligations and that have their own problems with free trade. The difference is that Canada and Mexico want to make trade freer, whereas Obama and Clinton want trade to be less free.
I recall that in 2004 John Kerry made some very xenophobic comments about opening firehouses and schools in Iraq and closing them in America. In other words, the Democrats want us to help poor people as long as those poor people are in America; foreigners can go to hell. Nobody much picked up on this line, which I think displays a severe moral and philosophical failing of the mainstream Democrats.
Well that tactic is back and stronger than ever, now amplified with a general repudiation of globalization. In complaining about a government appropriation that went to a joint US-EU partnership, Rahm Emanuel had this to say:Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans used to have...
This is a dreadfully fascinating statement that should be recognized as xenophobic, isolationist and protectionist. Any politician who uttered the same words but with 'black people' inserted for France and 'white people' inserted for Americans would be run out of national politics on a rail. Rahm Emanuel is a stirring up primal hatreds for the sake of cheap political points and the foggy prospect of a minor and temporary political gain.
LaRouche and Buchanan seem to grow ever stronger in the Democratic party's philosophy. So why are people who style themselves as cosmopolitan, international, educated and tolerant so busy trashing foreign trade, foreign outsourcing and foreign receipt of US aid? In my opinion, a few reasons.
First, leftists are insecure about having their patriotism questioned. They think it's extremely unfair (even as many of them openly admit to their ambivalence and hostility toward the US) and they nurse wounds over it. Second, leftists are already opposed to spending money on Iraq and opposed to capitalism's ever-shifting markets that sometimes result in US job losses.
Since it requires no actual policy changes, this is merely a matter of linking the issues to shore up a weak point. They turn their opposition to the Iraq war -a perceived soft spot on the patriotism front- into the REAL patriotism. In other words, "we're SO pro-America that we don't want to spend on foreigners." Then they take opposition to globalization, corporations and capitalism and turn it into patriotism as well.
The result is not at all pretty and displays both intellectual dishonesty and an arrogant disrespect for those unfortunate enough to be caught on the wrong side of their rants.
In the end, we find three things:
1. The party against angering the rest of the world thinks that all the global economy should be subverted to the whims of America, no matter how loudly they oppose that.
2. The party against forgetting the basic physical needs of the poor wants to let the foreign poor twist in the wind for domestic political concerns.
3. The party against questioning another's patriotism will impugn your patriotism if you disagree with their isolationist and socialist agendas.
Don't yell at me for painting Democrats with a broad brush. Any Democrat who doesn't think that House Democratic Caucus Chair Emanuel's xenophobia should represent the whole party can direct complaints to him at the Democratic Caucus: call 202-225-1400.
If anybody does bother to call, you might ask how the Democrats can heal wounds with the world while restricting their access to our markets and telling them that foreigners don't deserve jobs as much as Americans do.
Reactionary 'Libertarian' Ron Paul
by neolibertarian
The old Ron Paul scandal that a number of bigoted and paranoid statements were published in a newsletter bearing his name has resurfaced. Apparently this came up Monday or Tuesday, in time for the NH primary. I'd heard of this one a while back, but nobody thinks Ron Paul will win no matter how much money he raises (you can't buy a free and fair election without a good candidate - see Mitt Romney on that one) so nobody bothered to publicize it or research it.
Why trash Ron Paul? His biggest function is to sit there in debates, and (despite being earnest in trying to answer questions instead of spinning them) let the other Republicans look good by trashing his wacko beliefs. He's sort of like Don Knotts was to Andy Griffith: a loser goofball who makes you look good by comparison.
Ron Paul says he takes moral responsibility but that he never wrote it or believed it and somebody else used his name with permission, but without oversight. Whatever, I was never very comfortable with Ron Paul on race anyway; his casual way of defending his interracial appeal by saying that "blacks" and "Hispanics" come to rallies struck me as too overtly racial. But is he a racist? I don't know. Regardless if he is, I can't support the guy.
Don't get me wrong, I've always admired Ron Paul to some degree, if only because he was the lonely libertarian in Congress. Although he's probably accomplished almost nothing in his terms of office, he was at least a voice for sanity. When Congress was debating whether to pass the Patriot Act and other restrictions on freedom for four years or for five years (basically, not whether the Constitution should be suspended but for how long it should be suspended) it was Ron Paul who pointed out hwo crazy it all was.
I knew I'd have trouble voting for him, though, even though he's a pro-life libertarian. His thinking has always come from a rules-oriented, state-focused consitutionalism, rather than a freedom-oriented, individual-focused minarchism. Ron Paul might be ideologically libertarian, but his political positions are almost entirely based on his view of the Constitution. And that's great, but I'd rather have somebody who can argue why freedom is so good instead of bitching and moaning that we aren't following the rules. Ron Paul argues 98% for the rules and only 2% for why the rules need to be there.
I want a candidate with an abiding passion and faith in the Constitution and laws of the US, but I want him to be able to articulate and convince people why those rules are in place. Simply arguing that the rules are the rules is not very persuasive. It doesn't create a real constituency for freedom. It also means that if they merely managed to change the rules, you'd have no further objection to use.
Ron Paul is also overly focused on sovereignty, to the point where it's ridiculous. He wants states to have the authority to decide whether murder is a crime, he wants foreign powers to have the power to murder, rape and destroy their citizens with absolute impunity (provided they don't kill Americans or cross an imaginary line). I could chalk this up to an anarchist's purity (something I'm also afflicted by, though differently from Ron Paul-itarians) except that Ron Paul is happy to deviate from total anarchism in some rather anti-libertarian ways:
- he supports tariffs as a means of raising revenue (sure the Constitution supports is taxing foreign businesses any less immoral than taxing Americans? and Americans just have to shoulder the extra cost anyway)
- he supports clamping down on the border by 'any means necessary' because Americans are supposedly losing work (so Americans being displaced as hotel maids is a justification for a vast military presence in TX, NM, AZ and CA but the unchecked tyranny and genocide in Afghanistan and Iraq is insufficient justification for a benevolent military presence elsewhere)
- he wants to rejigger citizenship rules by amending the Constitution in order to exclude children of immigrants from the benefits and protections of citizenship, even if they are born here (if he were an anarchist, he wouldn't buy so completely into borders and he wouldn't be so gung-ho on using citizenship to exclude people with the wrong parents)
- he opposes the War on Terror, the Civil War and is shaky on World War II (Japan probably would have ignored us if not for our embargo against them)
That last one is more important than you'd think because it's an indication of a libertarian's larger views. Among libertarians, the paleolibertarians are against the Civil War - paleos don't care about the effects of the Civil War, any justifications or the fact that the South obviously and admittedly seceded simply for slavery. Most paleos just care about the size of government becuase of the war and the fight for black civil rights. They almost always judge the Civil War negatively because in a few ways the government expanded its power afterwards. Perhaps not coincidentally, a lot of prominent paleolibertarians are from the South, like Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul. Many, however, are not Southern and simply apply an isolationist or anarchist viewpoint to the Civil War.
Neolibertarians, or at least those libertarians whom I'm claiming as neolibertarian for the purpose of this discussion, are more willing to accept that, though the government did not start out with the most libertarian argument at the outset, the Civil War was decidedly about slavery and achieved many good things. The expansion of government was unfortunate but if a federal government is to exist at all, surely it must police oppression within its own border instead of merely watching for foreign armies invading.
Most paleos and other anti-Union, anti-Lincoln libertarians trend closer to anarchism than Ron Paul, though. Ron Paul is not much of a libertarian, but rather more of an extreme conservative. He ends up very close to libertarian, but he thinks the Constitution is the highest goal, not liberty.
Since almost all libertarians operate largely on the principle that people precede laws, they end up arguing one of three things:
a) freedom is morally paramount, so laws must be created to protect it
b) freedom is most utilitarian, so laws must be created to protect it
c) freedom is morally paramount, and laws must not be created as they would hinder it
Ron Paul is in a different category, which isn't strictly libertarian in the philosophical sense:
d) the Constitution exists, so we must follow it
Rather than a discussion of why, how and when the laws come into place, Ron Paul just cares that the Constitution is here. This is a conservative argument, that the rules must be followed for their own sake. While he takes it in a libertarian direction for the most part, his argument is not philosophically libertarian. It's philosophically conservative - follow the rules, follow tradition. Coupled with his reactionary (even socialist-compatible) views on immigration and globalization, Ron Paul is very conservative. He's much more reactionary and anti-trade than most of the Democrats and much more reactionary and anti-immigration than most of the Republicans.
If Ron Paul just said that the Constitution should not change, but society can change and be fluid, that would be a libertarian political stand. But Ron Paul says that he wants the Constitution AND the society to stay unchanging. That's a very conservative stand.
He's also clearly appealing to those with anti-libertarian motivations and aims. Appealing to anti-globalization, anti-capitalist, anti-trade, anti-war, anti-immigrant types is a pretty depressing and even spiteful campaign strategy. Accepting the support of 9/11 Truthers and various Bircher/neo-Nazi types with a wink is worse. This is not the kind of campaign I want to support or be associated with, no matter how good a President Paul would be on taxes or privacy.
A vote for Ron Paul will be interpreted as a vote against free trade, a vote against immigration, a vote against the war on Muslim fascists, a vote against engaging the world in a meaningful and effective way. Ron Paul is pushing some good ideas, but whenever he gets a chance to decide for himself what he wants to say and choose to emphasize, he'll always focus it in a pessimistic, anti-change, anti-status quo.
Good libertarians need to realize that Ron Paul is not our salvation or even a step in the right direction. He is WORSE on issues where's it's comparatively easy to be pro-capitalist and anti-state.
Ron Paul may be a libertarian in some ways, but he's the reactionary-conservative candidate in this race. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against modernity and against a dynamic society.
Then and Now: Progress and Stasis
by neolibertarian
In the time of John Quincy Adams' presidency and Henry Clay's candidacies, those favoring economic growth, social progress and national achievement were in favor of limited public investment to attain those goals. This included a nationally-chartered Bank of the US, investments in canals and highways (known as 'internal improvements'), tariffs set protectively higher than the level needed for basic government funds, and even endowments for science and the useful arts (like the Smithsonian, or an American astronomical observatory).
Those who opposed these measures, most notably Andrew Jackson, generally did so from a perspective of being anti-growth, anti-business, anti-paper money, anti-banks and to some degree anti-capitalist.
It's interesting and confusing to us in modern times to see that the pro-capitalism politicians wanted government intervention to help push along their economic vision and the anti-capitalism politicians wanted to limit the size of government itself. The roles are reversed today, probably because technology and capitalism have worked together so well. Those against economic change want the government to come in and slow things down, as opposed to the Clay-Adams National Republicans who wanted government to speed things up.
The tactics may have changed, but the Democrats are still much more cautious of economic freedom and change than the Republicans.
Fighting Poverty or Fighting Wealth?
by neolibertarian
The traditional self-interpretation of leftists is that they are the (only) ones who fight against systemic poverty. They condescend to help those miserable souls who are permanently mired in poverty. Without the help of their betters, how will the wretched ever survive?
Of course, more often this cover story is peeled back to display a raw, unprincipled class-warfare struggle. Rather than genuinely wanting to fight poverty, leftists often seem more fixated on fighting (or disparaging) wealth.
Unfortunately, Janna Goodrich almost completely forgot the help-the-poor talking points in this article (vie Coyote), and revealed her conflicted feelings in her hurt-the-rich efforts. Here's a substantial quote from a post about recent Democratic efforts to cut interest on student loans:Yet education is one of the best engines for upward mobility and poor students cannot afford to pay for higher education on their own. Their families don't have the physical collateral to borrow money in the private financial markets nor the savings to pay for the tuition outright. Financial markets are incomplete in the sense that a student cannot acquire a loan against the collateral of future earning power (except with the help of the government and the rules and regulations to ensure such help). Hence, poor students need either loans guaranteed and/or subsidized by someone or grants and scholarships.
The "rugged individual" would naturally just saddle the horse, ride off to college, and work full-time through his or her college (most likely a very long and often interrupted) career but such rugged individuals are few, jobs paying enough for this are even fewer, and the whole setup would cause a lot of these individuals to become rather ragged. Not exactly the best case to guarantee upward mobility.
But assuming that upward mobility is desirable in a society, who should pay for it? People with degrees earn more, on average, than those without them. It would seem sensible to have the students themselves pay back most of their financial aid as happens in a loan-based system.
On the other hand, the wealthier students often get their educational expenses completely funded by their families. It is as if we gave the wealthier students grants and the poorer students loans. But if we gave poorer students mostly grant-based aid we'd be asking for the rest of the society to subsidize those who are one day going to be wealthier than the average citizen. Two different concepts of fairness or equality are at play here and I'm not sure if both of them could be achieved at the same time.
--J. Goodrich
I'll summarize her journey for you and map out where it is in the blockquote.
A) first two paragraphs - poor people need us to help them pay for college
B) third paragraph - poor people that go to college will get money and become the enemy
C) first two sentences of fourth paragraph - they aren't rich yet, and they need our help
D) third sentence of fourth paragraph - they will become rich, they should help themselves
Newsflash: poverty is bad. If people get out of it, then we should see it as an unalloyed good, not as a mixed blessing. If you're a leftist, and think that the government should spend money and coercion on things you support, then you should like the government pushing its weight around here.
Now, as it happens, I agree with her statement that the students should pay back their own loans (or, as it happens, get family, friends, spouses or charitable organizations to help them out) rather than using government fiat to lower the rates or public funds to pay it off. Public funds added to college education just make it easier for colleges to charge more. Reducing the rate of return on college loans makes it harder to attract investors to pay for it. Don't screw with the market - especially since college loans, though often enormous in amount, are not a terrible burden on credit reports.
It's just hilarious to watch her thoughts go around in circles, thinking that in all cases she should support the poor and despise the rich. This is akin to racial affirmative action, except the protected category changes here while race is considered permanent; those poor today could be tomorrow's wealthy. God forbid we should ever see a poor person propelled to industry and prosperity. Nope. They should humbly toil along and wait for the Congress to pass more benefits mandates and minimum wage laws.
Of course, even more than opposing wealth, Democrats want to solidify the central planning power of government. Rather than let poor people get out of onerous tax burdens (it's frustrating to see even $50 taken out of a weekly paycheck for withholding when that could be groceries for a couple people for a week), Democrats want to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage hike WILL hurt the poor, whether it's through unemployment, inflation or benefits reductions. But cutting taxes that people pay (especially the Earned Income Tax Credit) would give poor people room to breath without any of those ailments. The most direct cost is simply the lost revenue to the government (assuming that ensuing economic growth doesn't offset it, to borrow from Laffer).
It's a good thing when the poor get more money. The best way to help the poor get richer is to cut the taxes and regulations that block them. That includes cutting those taxes and laws against businesses that make it more difficult to hire people, or that make it necessary to raise the cost of goods that people wish to buy (even if a poor person makes no extra dollars from one year to the next, if the costs of goods goes down, then his or her relative financial situation is improved).
Of course, cutting taxes and letting the market take effect prevents the central planner from taking the credit, so that's right out the window for lefties.
'Social Liberal'
by neolibertarian
Just how is it you can argue that the right of self-defense should be denied via gun control and then turn around claim that you respect individual freedoms as a social liberal?
Progressives Against Reason
by neolibertarian
The O'Shaughnessy Dam, constructed over 80 years ago, was controversial back then (the conservationist movement had started already) for flooding the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Today, the dam provides water and electricity to 2.4 million people throughout central California, including San Francisco. But a lot of environmentalists (here, here and here) want to un-dam the Tuolumne River to restore the Hetch Hetchy Valley of a century ago. This strikes me as interesting and illuminating on many levels.
First, it's just stupid. I mean, there are already water and power issues in California. Where is the extra water and power going to come from? This would be expensive and comes down to placing the subjective beauty of a place that doesn't even currently exist over the basic needs of several million humans. Stupid.
Second, aren't environmentalists supposed to cheer this sort of power generation? It doesn't require dependency on the Middle East (oft-blamed for our military involvement over there), it doesn't throw pollutants into the air and it doesn't involve greenhouse gases. Shouldn't they be supporting MORE dams like Hetch Hetchy? Apparently not. If we can't use fossil fuels, we can't use safe, clean and efficient nuclear and we can't use hydroelectric, are we then reduced to anemic wind power, solar and maybe geothermal? Or are we going to drop down to beasts of burden?
Third, why is it so important that we restore things to their 'natural state?'
There is no such thing as a perfect, undisturbed, natural state of the environment. Plants and animals are constantly in flux. Sometimes predators are numerous, sometimes they are less numerous. Some species die out, others adapt, some evolve away. Large, k-strategizing creatures give way in chaotic times to more nimble r-strategists, and then the r-strategists are later pushed out in more stable times by the more-suited k-strategists. Life changes, grows and evolves. It's the nature of biology; it's why understanding the theory of evolution is so crucial to way the environment works. One cannot possibly believe evolution has any value unless creatures are adapting to their environments - and if creatures are adpating then the biosphere is itself adapting, in flux.
How can anything be fixed to some 'natural state' when this is how nature operates.
Obviously, it dates back to the Romantic period, the source of environmentalism. Romanticism, coming from Europe in the late-18th to the mid-19th century, says a lot of things about life, humanity and the universe. Its main argument is the irrationality and ultimate unknowability of existence; Romanticism rejected the rationalism of the Enlightenment, and in that way Romanticism more or less rejects the founding of this country - or at least the ideology of this country's founding generation.
So the Romantics reject reason. Living in a time that was supposed to be run by reason, they embraced a previous era - feudalism. So Romantics tend to support emotional, conservative and anti-capitalist initiatives. Great starting point, right?
The Romantics rejected reason and thought that man was tragically doomed to never understand this world. The worthwhile thing, then, was to embrace some tangible part of the world and be committed to it, wholly. Sort of an amoral, Nietszchean thing. I'm painting very broad strokes, of course, in order to get to the environmentalist part.
So, in rejecting reason and rejecting modern man, Romantics often embraced nature. Before industry and capitalism and the like, before the search for reason, lay emotion-laden nature. Nature is then set up as the antithesis to modern humans; humans are rational and destructive, and in some sense cursed or doomed, while nature is irrational, protective, and lasting. This is a great philosophical precondition for environmentalism.
More disturbingly, and quite racist, was the understanding of the noble savage - the pre-modern human that still roamed the Earth. Not possessing the white curse of modernity, civilization and reason, this simple, blessed creature lives in harmony with nature. In the dichotomy between evil human and good nature, Native Americans got lumped in with non-human nature. This condescension is little more than positive racism, a theory developed by European thinkers and applied to far-away non-European tribal peoples.
We still see the side effects of this mindset. The attempt to 'protect' ANWR or 'restore' Hetch Hetchy are both strongly reminiscent of it. The cost to humans is ignored, the spread of technology is bitterly opposed, and the irrational exuberance for all things non-human is affirmed.
Everybody wants clean air and drinkable water, and most people enjoy open spaces and different aspects of nature - whether it's a hiking trail, a clean beach or an inspirational mountain landscape. But many aspects of the environmental movement go far beyond reasonable concerns or subjective wishes into little more than an anti-human and anti-technology fervor.
I find it ironic that the same people who deride creationists as un-scientific and stuck in an irrational adoration of the past are unable to embrace life-improving technologies like dams, energy exploration, or especially genetic modification of foodstuffs. It really puts a damper on the framing of the stem cell debate as one between pro-science and anto-science forces.
To some people on the left, apparently, it's poisonous to use growth hormone on cows, irresponsible corporate science to genetically modify crops, but destroying a viable embryo for research that possibly could have been performed with adult stem cells is an absolute must for any thinking society.
Think Tanks
by neolibertarian
First, I'm looking for a job. My target is think tanks and institutes, but related groups in politics are ok. Pressure groups would be fun, and I'm especially looking for work with groups that emphasize idea-development.
It's important that ideas receive attention and get worked through checking processes. This allows several different versions to be kicked around by analysts, politicians, media and others. That way when the legislators get around to passing a law they have arguments for the debate, hopefully statistics to push the fence-sitters, and the ability to anticipate the opposition's arguments. This is the area I'd like to work.
On another note, I've noticed something when working through think tanks. First, a huge number of them are dedicated to moderately-libertarian agendas, focusing on free market ideas and ignoring social-conservatives issues like marriage and the like. Second, a large helping of these groups explicitly identify themselves as being for conservatives and libertarians, or conservatives and classical liberals, or for small government ideas. While it often may seem that there are tons of issues dividing conservatives and libertarians, at the level of think tanks and policy development there's a broad institutionalized practice of cooperation - or even a dominance of mildly-libertarian goals.
I go through the websites before I consider applying, since it would be a waste of time for me to join a group I'd end up wanting to just leave over ideological differences. The words freedom and free market are very common, as well as references to the Declaration of Independence and small government principles. The organizations with a conservative element in an otherwise classically liberal agenda like to add personal responsibility because it sounds conservative even though it's really a libertarian idea.
After all the emphasis on stopping gay marriage and stopping immigration it's nice to find that the people working on ideas and policies are more interested in idealistic, freedom-oriented, affirmative agendas.
If you know anybody who's hiring, though, for a job in a political institute, think tank or other similar group, please e-mail me at neolibertarianism@gmail.com.
Protests in Iran; Press the Contrast
by neolibertarian
Iran has been experiencing a lot of protests in the last week. The US ought to act quickly to capture the initiative in the inter-disciplinary struggle with Ahmadinejad. Giving active support to the reformist groups (offering them tons of air-time, both in the US through copious press conferences about them and with them, and regionally (maybe through US-backed media like Radio Sawa and Al Hurra tv).
The theocracy's opponents ought to be directly supported, because they show the lie of Ahdmadinejad's vision of Islam as the virtuous alternative to liberal democracy. If he can't even rally his own co-nationals to support the system they've had for over two and a half decades, how can he put forth Iran as the aegis for the Islamization of the West?
Ahmadinejad is, by his own choosing and design, a figure in the War on Terror. He hopes to be the main figure (kind of how Hitler was the main figure of World War II or Napoleon the main figure of the Napoleonic Wars). And the War on Terror, before anything, is an ideological struggle on par with the Cold War and other global conflicts. The US must be the promoter of freedom, individualism, and representative government - to contrast with the apparent Islamo-fascist values of nihilism, bigotry, misogyny and of course fear.
They stand directly opposed to freedom, including freedom of religion, of speech, of protest, of occupation, of residence, and of so many other things. Our job as supporters of freedom is to press the contrast.
Pressing the contrast means we show ourselves in support of freedom and our other values like tolerance and democracy. We must celebrate democracy and democracies by rhetorically and actively supporting new and emerging democracies and by chastising and excluding nascent dictatorships. We need to show the world the contrast so that they can see what the choices are.
Either you can be led by horribly violent and hateful people that will ban music, clothing, dancing, parties and entertainment they find distasteful (as has happened recently when terrorist-affiliated groups get influence of localities) or you can live your life as you please.
We pressed the contrast in the Cold War. Berlin was the best example, and a microcosm of the East-West German split, itself a microcosm of the East-West World split. West Berlin and the FRG (BRD) enjoyed an economic 'miracle,' democratic reformation and high levels of technology, safety and luxury by the 1960s. East Berlin and the GDR (DDR) were mired in comparative depression, horribly authoritarian politics that competed with the Nazi-era for Most Repressive Ever, and effectively stagnant levels of technology and luxury. Safety was widespread in the GDR, except for the omnipresent abuses of the Stasi secret police.
Pressing the contrast between East and West was what led to a huge stream of refugees escaping East Germany into West Berlin, until the Wall went up. The Wall itself was an amazingly clear example of pressing the contrast, one the East German leaders stupidly lobbied for themselves. To paraphrase Reagan addressing the House of Commons: in Europe the West's armies faced East to defend from invasion, while the Communist forces also faced East to stop their people from fleeing to the West.
The contrast between freedom and tyranny is the motivating power of the conflict. It explains to everybody why we fight, to ourselves, to our soldiers, to the people we're fighting, and to the people we fight to save. It should always be our policy to press the contrast in the War on Terror. Being the good guys is more important than actually killing the bad guys in a conflict like the war on terror.
They're already weak, that's why they use terrorism instead of armies, and remote training camps instead of countries. We need to stem the tide of terrorist creation, and a great way to do that is to press the contrast.
If I had my way, we'd also get our allies (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.) to agree to a joint statement that any person in a Muslim-majority country that isn't making satisfactory steps toward liberal democracy can apply for refugee status to live in one of these free countries. That should put a little fire under 'em. Of course, that wouldn't happen because too many people are unable to separate the terrorists from the other Muslims (and the Japanese aren't terribly thrilled with the idea of Korean migrants, let alone other migrants). But it would be effective overall; it would show these authoritarian countries we mean business, it would show people around the world we're serious in our commitment to liberal democracy, and it would provide lives of wealth and education to countless people (many of whom could return to their countries and join the reformist movements).
Ahmadinejad's letter to the President was defining the terms of an ideological struggle. The Islamists have seen themselves on the level of a global ideology at least since Qutb argued it in Milestones. He placed Islam on par with Western democracy and Eastern socialism. He characterized Islam as an ideology and not a religious or ethnic distinction. Ahmadinejad pretends to believe the same thing, challenging Bush to convert the US to a Muslim country.
If he wants an ideological struggle, then let's give him one. Let's press the contrast. Give aid to democrats and reformers who want it; keep up a continuous rhetorical defense of freedom and democracy; publicly and loudly praise Muslim advocates of liberty; emphasize in press conferences every instance of honor killing, every small-time thug band that breaks up a coed party, every person blown to pieces by a Palestinian suicide bomb; don't let up the heat.
The difference between sides is what animates a conflict.
We knew the South was wrong, socially and economically, and we knew that slavery was the heart of it all. The conflict was easier because slavery was the degrading difference (even well before the war, the vast majority of Northerners were opposed to slavery, they just didn't want to take it from the South - but to say the strong majority of Yankees were anything less than anti-slavery is mistaken). This is the best stanza from battle Hymn of the Republic:In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
We knew the Central Powers were undemocratic, and it was in part the fall of the Czar that helped the US into World War I. The Germans were imperialist and anti-democratic, threatening peaceful, democratic countries like Belgium, France and the UK. Granted, the conflict was hardly clear-cut because it didn't seem to be about anything, but the clear moral difference was there for most Americans. Even before entering the war was a possibility, the US population was largely rooting for the republics to prevail against the empires.
The contrast in WWII was especially clear, with new democracies falling left and right before fascist tyranny. Ike had this to say in the D-Day order:The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine; the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe; and security for ourselves in a free world... The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory. I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory. Good luck, and let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
The Cold War, of course, has a great model for pressing the contrast. Reagan knew perhaps more than any other President that we had to press the contrast with the USSR, and I have tons of quotes, lengthy and articulate, of Reagan and Shultz pressing the contrast. But I think this one from Reagan is especially appropriate here:Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.
Democrats Finally Make A Statement
by neolibertarian
Pelosi, Reid, and Wesley "I Have An Unblinking, Pedophile-Like Glare" Clark, offered a security agenda in the run-up to the 2006 election. It was full of meaningless platitudes, extremely superficial and condescending cliches about patriotism, and very shallow or uncontroversial proposals.
They also tried to take the Kerry line of being cautiously and almost-ashamedly anti-Iraq War, but compensating by posturing as mega-hawks on the war on terror. Of course, as the Republicans have already noted, most of their ideas are already taking place - like moving forward in Afghanistan, undermining Al Qaeda and terror networks, and capturing Osama. Their other ideas involve measures to beef up the armed forces (what's the point if they don't have the balls to use it against super-evil terror-backers like Saddam?) and generally spend money on the domestic side of the war on terror.
They didn't offer a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, meaning they can't hammer Bush for a timetable now (unless they want to look hypocritical, which of course might happen) but they still support what they call "redeployment." So unless we want to simply run from Iraq and leave it to the Iraqis to fend off the terrorists and the influences of hostile autocratic neighbors, the Democrats have shown they're not making level-headed choices. They've been trying to get out of Iraq for a while now, and that's why they don't have any credibility when they say it's time to go.
This is just more of the same. Pelosi and Reid just plain suck. They spend all their energy in conferences trying to sound populist and so forth, but their ideas are still the same. It's almost as though Democratic press conferences are psycho-therapy to make themselves feel proletarian. Sorry Democrats, but until you can offer some solid, GOOD ideas you'll have trouble winning elections.
Mommy-State Democrats
by neolibertarian
Apparently embracing the "this is for your own good; you'll thank me later" school of government, this children's book has been authored to preach to children. Apparently the Democratic theory of politics is that the government should be our boss and protector just like our mommies. Sort of a Gyno-Confucianism.
Here are some sample pages.
Notice the poor guy in the background, the hapless, incompetent client to the Democratic-Mommy patron. He represents regular people to the Democrats; people incapable of doing much for themselves without aid from their betters.
Children have an excuse for needing help from parents - they're CHILDREN. What's this author's excuse for thinking adults still need parents to take care of them?
