President Obama

On April 16, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote the following from the Birmingham, Alabama city jail.

Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.

Today, Barack Hussein Obama II will take the Oath of Office. Just 46 years ago, the most prominent black man in America was jailed for seeking simple justice. In the space of merely two generations, the most prominent black man in America becomes the 44th President of the United States.

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. — “I Have a Dream“

Today’s inauguration represents the culmination of tremendous change and is a testament to the hope and dedication of all the millions and millions of Americans who have ever fought for equality, justice, and liberty. This moment is deservedly historical and Americans are right to be proud, but it is not the culmination of our struggle.

I hope to see more victories like this one. I hope to see the fight against intolerance, ignorance, and injustice continue apace. The first woman President. The first Native-American President. The first Jewish President. The first homosexual President. The first President to embrace sane economic policy.

We will wake tomorrow and today’s problems will persist. Our economy is stagnating, our debt is rising, growth is slowing, discrimination still exists, intolerance and ignorance remain, and we remain the target of barbarous thugs. The struggle continues.

Liberty is not seperable; it cannot be parsed into races, sexes, or categories. We cannot slice our freedom in two, extending “personal” liberty while trampling “economic” liberty. We cannot secure our borders by violating the rights of citizens, and we cannot pursue happiness if we are shackled by rising deficits and growing debt.

The struggle for the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a struggle against ignorance, prejudice and corruption. The extent to which we cherish reason, respect individual rights, and punish graft and theft, is the extent to which we succeed.

Here’s hoping for more victories.

Now, THAT’S Politics

Coin Toss Decides Goodridge, Minn. Mayor’s Race

A coin toss has determined the winner of the mayor’s race in the tiny northwestern Minnesota town of Goodridge.

Incumbent Bob Homme and former Mayor Dave Brown each got 22 votes. Instead of finding the ballots and recounting the 44 votes, they agreed to decide the winner with a coin toss.

It already was a strange race in Goodridge — population 98 — with no one filing to run for mayor. Brown and Homme were both write-ins.

How great is that? No candidate and the two write-in guys tied. I love it.

Voter apathy

Ilya Somin has a great post up at Volokh.

Voters tend to overvalue the importance of new information that supports their preexisting views or makes their preferred party look good; and they tend to discount any information that cuts the other way.

This intuition is confirmed by studies showing that people tend to use new information to reinforce their preexisting views on political issues, while discounting evidence that runs counter to them . . . Although some scholars view such bias as potentially irrational behavior . . . , it is perfectly rational if the goal is not to get at the “truth” of a given issue in order to be a better voter, but to enjoy the psychic benefits of being a political “fan.”

How do we get out of the dangerous box in which public policy is determined in elections where most voters are either rationally ignorant about even basic political information or highly biased in their evaluation of what they do know? There is no easy answer to that question. In the article linked above and in some of my other scholarship (e.g. – here), I suggest that we consider making fewer decisions through the political system and more through free markets and civil society – where people have much stronger incentives to both seek out information and evaluate it at least somewhat rationally.

It’s a great article because and I agree with it.

Constraining Leviathan

There’s an excellent article up at Cato Unbound by Anthony De Jasay. The theme, “Is Limited Government Possible?” touches on the inherent problems of attempting to limit the growth of government when every incentive exists for government to grow. De Jasay is European and his analysis seems to reflect a greater familiarity with parliamentary democracy than with presidential democracy (more on that in a bit), but his central point is perfectly sound.

Essentially, De Jasay argues that the structural limits we would like to enforce upon government are no more than speed limits. Constitutional and other structural limitations rely upon the government for their enforcement and are therefore undermined by their ultimate lack of enforcement. De Jasay likens these limits to a lady’s chastity belt. If the lady has the key, then the belt only delays the inevitable.

He says,

…self-imposed rules attempting to limit the scope of collective choices, such as constitutions, are not strong and though they may be observed if they are innocuous and only forbid government to do what it is not strongly interested in doing, they could hardly be expected to restrain government from doing what it is anxious to do or must do to preserve its tenure of power. The general absence from constitutions of restrictions of taxation lends some verisimilitude to this conclusion, though it would still have to be regarded as tentative.

The US Constitution, for example, prohibited an income tax, until it didn’t. It restrained federal spending and federal intrusion into matters unrelated to interstate commerce, until it didn’t. And famously, the Constitution was silent on the sale of alcohol, until it banned it, until it didn’t.

So what does limit the growth of government? De Jasay argues that there are only a few things: The susceptibility of the electorate to panic (The idea that things sometimes get so bad that everybody gets scared and votes for Thatcher or Reagan); Widely held beliefs (Here Jasay offers the universal, pre-Keynsian belief in the evil of deficits); and Campaign financing.

In the United States, it is still largely individuals and not parties that get elected. Party discipline is loose compared to Europe and candidates raise their campaign expenditure to a large extent by personal effort for their personal purposes. To the extent that campaign donations are sought from higher income donors, a candidate’s program must be more “conservative” and less redistributive than if donations came from all income groups in proportion to their income. If elected, a legislator has both a debt of honor to pay to his high-income donors and must establish a record that will help him gather donations on future occasions if there are any such.

Jasay argues that publicly financed campaigns result in more redistributive polices than privately financed campaigns because publicly financed campaigns tend to decrease the responsibility that a political coalition bears for its policies. It’s an interesting position, and certainly points up the problems inherent in publicly financed campaigns (unless of course, we imagine politics should be devoid of responsibility).

Is there nothing we can do to limit the growth of Leviathan? What about checks and balances? The “separation of powers?” De Jasay is not enthused,

One of the dangerously misleading phrases in this context that has penetrated political thought is the “separation of powers.” It is dangerous because it tacitly suggests that such separation can resolve the paradoxical feature of every constitution which the king enforces against himself (or a government against the mandate of its own majority). Montesquieu uses words that do not illuminate the distinction between separate functions of a government and separate repositories of power under separate control that may act independently of one another or even against each other. The latter kind of separation of what ultimately boils down to armed formations and firepower is difficult to conceive of within a single government. It is fairly obvious that Montesquieu did not mean it, and if we mean it when we use the phrase, it is that we do not really think of what the words could mean. The result is a blind belief that the separation of functions among legislature, executive, and judiciary contains within itself a solution to the constitutional paradox of real, though perhaps not logico-legal, self-reference.

This all seems a little bleak. I’m reminded of a particularly depressing conversation I once had with Robert Higgs (author of Crisis and Leviathan) in which Dr. Higgs despaired of the chances for real reform. Unfortunately, I think both Higgs’s and De Jasay’s arguments are compelling. But I’m an optimist, so I’ll keep plowing on, doing what little I can to try and increase the prospects for liberty.

I also think that De Jasay’s continental focus colors his arguments. In a parliamentary democracy, a government is literally “built” with a coalition of different parties, and aside from the entrenched bureaucracy, the ruling coalition oversees all aspects of the government (legislative and executive with the power of judicial appointment or oversight). The coalition is in complete power and is answerable only to its members and constituents. It is only limited by the degree to which it must appease competing interests within its own coalition.

In a presidential system, however, it is possible that different coalitions may control different parts of the government at the same time. (Just as Republicans control the executive branch while Democrats control the legislature.) In practice this can lead to a substantial reduction in the growth of government. Not actual reduction, mind you, just a reduction in the rate of growth. Bi-partisanism is too easy and too common.

And of course, the founders envisioned an even stronger difference: the Senate and the House were intended to represent fundamentally different interests. But that distinction has been lost for some time. Again, the constitution limited government until it didn’t.

Ultimately I think De Jasay underestimates the potential of structural limitations to slow the growth of government. I think growth may be slowed in relation to the extent that government can be divided against itself. Any successful democratic society must learn to balance interests and if those different interests can be set against each other, then we can hope for at least a kind of detente. (Perhaps akin to the adversarial system we have in law?)

We must recognize and acknowledge that the establishment of government is an inherently precarious business; eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Erecting institutional and structural checks that serve to balance competing interests may not be a panacea, but it should make radical change more difficult.

The challenge is to devise structural limits that put those interests that are least likely to join together at odds with each other. For example, a wealth qualification that would divide eligible voters; the wealthy vote for Senate, the less wealthy for the House, no one may vote for candidates in both houses in the same election. Those limits, of course, may well appear undemocratic (and decidedly materialistic!), but it may be that pure democracy is not the ultimate goal or good. A stable, healthy republic may serve its citizens better than unfettered democracy (That may sound incendiary at first, but really it’s just common sense. Unfettered democracy allows for the will of the majority to trample the rights of the minority; the central purpose and aim of a constitutional republic is to restrict the power of the majority.)

Of course, there are many difficulties inherent in any attempt to set vested interests against each other, not least of which is the possibility that it may not be possible to divide an electorate into stable interest groups. Class conflicts may not actually exist in such substantial force as to qualify as an effective distinction and it should go without saying that demarcating interests along inessential lines–such as race or sex–is deplorable. Furthermore, it may not be possible to effectively prevent cross-interest collusion–even if such stable and competing interests could be identified. After all, the incentives for coalition building would remain as strong as they are now.

Ultimately, the problem lies in the fact that power creates its own incentives. The greatest restriction on the abuse of power is an informed and principled electorate. Or in other words, ideas matter. Politicians may act to maximize their own influence and power over time, but if such activities were more scorned than applauded, the risk of a politician over-reaching would lessen. (Witness the recent reaction to earmarking.) Public opinion and popular sentiment can and does change. Witness the abolition of slavery and the extension of suffrage to women.

In any event, this analysis only serves to underscore the inadequacy of the current candidates for President. Both Hillary and Obama endorse policies that would further erode what little restrictions currently serve to keep the growth of government in check. And so does McCain.

More Gradualism

Timothy Sandefur has another post up on gradualism, commenting on my response. Sandefur clarifies his point as a criticism of the impulse of some libertarians to invest Hayek’s view of spontaneous order with too much weight. He says,

“[The point of the post] is to point out what I think is a terrible habit among some libertarians and conservatives of abusing the concept of spontaneous order or social evolution, in ways that render the concept trivial, or that just totally ignore the actual ingredients of successful social reform.”

I wasn’t so much critiquing that point as attempting to clarify my understanding of Burke’s challenge to the French Revolution–and emphasizing that grand projects to forcibly remake the whole of society are usually doomed to failure. My point isn’t that constructivist rationalism is any worse than spontaneous order (or vice-versa), only that the institutions of society are abandoned at great peril. Partly it’s a difference between the Enlightenment and the Romantic period. If the American Revolution can be seen as a sort of culmination of Enlightenment thought, the French Revolution is the culmination of Romanticism. Where the enlightenment stressed reason and political liberty, the romantics emphasized emotion over reason and were consequently more concerned with material well-being and egalitarianism than with political liberty. The result was the very romantic notion that both social structures and human nature are mere plastic to be reformed at will by benevolent governors. The problem wasn’t that the French revolution elevated “constructivist rationalism” over “spontaneous order” it was that it destroyed any semblance of spontaneous order and submitted the general will to the constructivist rationalism of a few. It didn’t attempt to make men free, it wanted to make men better–and that’s always a dangerous prospect.

The French Revolution wasn’t bad because it was sudden, it was bad because it didn’t make anybody free. Sandefur says,

“the point is that it is dishonest for Burkeans/Hayekians to use it as an example of the alleged inevitable failure of constructivist rationalism, without also keeping in mind that if nothing had been done—if “gradualism” had been the word of the day—the result would have been more and more death, more and more poverty, more and more oppression.”

But all it resulted in was “more and more death, more and more poverty, more and more oppression.” It was the mere substitution of one tyranny for another. It wasn’t a failure of constructivist rationalism for having been planned, it was a failure of constructivist rationalism because it substituted the command of the tyrant for judgment of the individual. In contrast, the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement represent projects that resulted in greater liberty–they were planned, they were organized, but their goal was to allow the kind of decentralized liberty that gives rise to spontaneous order.

I take Hayek and Burke to imply that social reform must be conducted with deep concern over the freedom of the individual to make his own decisions. Neither Hayek nor Burke suggest that we abandon conscious decision making or forsake deliberate efforts to reform society, rather they remind us that we cannot substitute our own desires and prejudices for the people we purport to set free. In this sense, the indictment against constructivist rationalism is the indictment of the tyrant.

A quick aside: Sandefur quotes my comment about the civil rights movement: “the civil rights movement, while violent, was conducted entirely within the constraints and confines of the law [which is definitely not true, but let's put that to one side].” Just to clarify, I should not have said “entirely within the constraints and confines of the law.” Sandefur is correct in pointing out the absurdity of that claim. If I could amend my claim, I would say that the movement was conducted largely within the constraints and confines of the law. The movement was at heart a movement of reform, not revolution, it sought a change in the law not a complete destruction of the law.

Sandefur and Gradualism

Timothy Sandefur has an interesting piece up on the “Romance of Gradualism.” His thesis is essentially that while knowledge problems may make central planning more difficult, they do not, by themselves, invalidate the efficacy of central planning initiatives. Or more precisely, his point is that sudden radical, engineered change can accomplish a great deal despite the knowledge problems inherent in central planning.

As evidence of the success of radical change, he contrasts the American Civil War with Jim Crow and Reconstruction, and again with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The Civil War and The Civil Rights Movement, he argues, were engineered changes, brought about through sudden and violent means. They stand in contrast to the failed gradualism of the intervening period. To further illustrate the danger of gradualism, he contrasts the traditional Burkean view of the French Revolution against a quote from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Twain’s a great writer, and the quote deserves copying:

There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

The Burkean view has it that the French Revolution was a failure because it attempted to remake the entire fabric of society and ignored the accumulated wisdom of the ages. Rather than impose radical and sweeping change, it is better to approach the problem of social change gradually — by working within existing systems, especially the law. Twain’s point makes a different point. The Reign of Terror may have been bad, but it put to death the horror of the previous evil. While the cost of revolution may have been high, it was not as high as the price paid through centuries of oppression and failed attempts at gradual change. Or at least, that’s where Sandefur is going.

The problem is that you can’t really compare the insidious horror of the relatively brief Reign of Terror to centuries of Royal oppression. Had the Reign of Terror lasted as long, the cost would have far exceeded what had come before. But even that is really beside the point. The French Revolution wasn’t a failure simply because of Robespierre’s short and brutal rule. Had France endured that and then emerged free and whole and vibrant, the point–and the comparison to the American Civil War–might be valid. But the Reign of Terror gave birth to Napoleon, not freedom. The French Revolution failed utterly–not because of a madman and a few months of horror–but because it failed entirely to achieve the least of its ambitions. The French Revolution guillotined a king and crowned an emperor.

As for the American examples, the civil rights movement, while violent, was conducted entirely within the constraints and confines of the law. That, I think, makes it a “gradual” movement by the definition of the Burkeans. Rather than throw aside the corpus of the law as the French Revolution did, the movement worked within the law. The Civil War was a tad more…. disruptive. Although I think one could make an argument for the fact that the Civil War was a legal response to a radical and “revolutionary” rebellion and, in a sense, was still conducted within the confines of the law. (Burke’s point about the French revolution applies to the manner in which the revolutionaries abandoned the entire body of society–in a manner decidedly different than the American revolutionaries who went to great pains to preserve existing civic institutions and the English Common Law–including the entire body of precedent.)

The Day After

So, after Super Tuesday, Obama and Clinton remain effectively tied. No surprise there. It does look like the Democratic Convention should be interesting.

McCain has taken a decisive lead in the Republican race, and we’ll now see whether or not the anti-McCain forces can leverage enough votes for Romney in the coming contests to force a brokered convention. There has been a ton of anti-McCain vitriol pouring out of all corners of the Republican party, including this piece by Robert Bidinotto.

I sympathize with Robert’s position — McCain is not a positive choice for the country. But I don’t fear for the soul of the Republican party. A party that seriously entertains presidential bids from both Mike Huckabee and John McCain is not a party worth supporting.

Robert is right that McCain represents a progressive vision at odds with the individualism that both he and I support. But individualism has never been the unifying vision of the Republican party. The Reagan coalition included the “small-government” American conservative bloc, but that was only one part of the coalition. The other pillars of the coalition, the evangelicals and the socially conservative progressives, are inherently inimical to liberty.

The Republican party has sold its soul for votes. That’s done. It’s over. Any serious commitment that the Republican party had to Federalism and Individualism has long since expired. After three terms of Bushes, the failure of the Contract with America, and the viability of the Huckabee and McCain campaigns, we should have the grace to pull the shroud and put away the defibrillator.

As for the Democrats, well…. they’ve been on a downward spiral since Thomas Jefferson. They opposed the abolition of slavery and the adoption of F.D.R.’s New Deal sundered the last vestigial connections they had with the ideas and ideals of their founders (not to mention the Constitution). Far from taking principled positions on individual liberty, personal choice, and economic responsibility, the Democratic party now represents the worst kind of statism and populism.

Much has been made lately of the latent fascism in the American left (universal health care, the Americorps, progressive taxation, etc… etc…). But much attention should also be paid to the fascist ideology that underlies many of McCain and Huckabee’s favorite projects. The point is simple and it should be plain: both parties now represent the ascendancy of populist fascism in modern America.

We need a new party. (To put it mildly.)

I know I have been promising some thoughts on a platform, and I’ll get to that, I promise. Tomorrow or the next day at the latest.

Bill Quick has also set up a site, The American Conservative Party, to address some of these issues, and has invited people to help him. Check it out!

Libertarian Loonies

In the wake of my Ron Paul posts, I received a message from from the George Phillies campaign. What? You haven’t heard of his campaign? Me either. Mr. Phillies is the Chair of the Libertarian Party in Massachusetts, and he’s running for the Libertarian Party Nomination. Of course… he’s not mentioned on the LP website as a candidate for the nomination. And that can’t be a good thing… especially when the bar appears to have been hung pretty low: Jim Burns is listed as a candidate for the nomination and the site proclaims that Jim has raised a grand total of $40 for his campaign. (This is the national site, mind you. Lp.org.)

My message was from Carolyn Marbry, and Carolyn has the best title ever for a campaign worker. She’s the “National Mobilization Facilitator for Electronic Operations.” Wow. I was almost prepared to support George based solely on his ability to hand out cool titles. Just think, instead of a poor, drab, Secretary of State we could have the National Master for Advice and Counsel in Matters Pertaining to the States, Various.

Cool titles aside, I checked out George’s website. (Did that mean I was being electronically facilitated? Maybe I was electronically mobilized….)

Now, George is a smart guy. He’s a professor of Physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. According to the website, Professor Phillies, “has attained international recognition for his scientific studies of light scattering, soaps, and polymer solutions.” Cool. I like science. And I’m glad that we have smart, liberty minded people teaching 19 year olds how light scatters, what the heck polymers are, and why soap is important. But I’m not prepared to support Mr. Phillies in his presidential aspirations.

Let’s see where Dr. Phillies stands on the issues:

If elected, I will immediately end our occupation of Iraq. Our forces with their supplies and equipment will move as rapidly as possible through peaceful Kuwait to await shipment home.

Ahhhhh….. naturally! We’re tired, let’s go home. Oh… what? The Iraqi people? Screw ‘em.

George has already lost me. George isn’t a career politician, so I’ll be kind enough to assume that this isn’t mere political pandering, but rather a deeply held belief. Of course that fact that an immediate withdrawal would be catastrophically stupid, would further destabilize an already unstable region, would stand as an engraved invitation for Iran to invade, would ignore our moral responsibility to support the Iraqi government that we created, and… oh to the hell with it. If Prof. Phillies doesn’t get this, then he’s confusing people with polymers. We’re not plastic and neither are the Iraqis.

But let’s move on:

George says,

Our only hope is a President who points at Federal program after Federal program, corporate welfare scheme after corporate welfare scheme, and says the same four words “We can’t afford that.” Those words got our grandparents though the Great Depression. Those are the words that will restore fiscal sanity to our Republic.

Well, I was hoping for a president who would do a little more than point and whine, but hey…. maybe it would work. You know, in the same way that FDR decided in the 1930′s that we just couldn’t afford to start any new government prog…. Wait, what the f**k is George talking about?

I will order all Executive branch employees to comply enthusiastically with all Congressional requests for documents and testimony.

Your smile isn’t wide enough, buddy. Wider! Be more enthusiastic!

Uncle Sam has no legitimate role in the abortion issue, and neither does your state government.

What? Then who does? I don’t care where you stand on the issue, pro-life or pro-choice, George’s position is just nuts. Unless George actually has an uncle named Sam, in which case… I still don’t get it. Either it’s a federal right or it’s not. If it’s not, then it’s up to the States. Sorry, George but the local zoning board doesn’t get a say.

At times, Professor Phillies is maddeningly vague. On energy and the environment, he’s long winded and says virtually nothing. When discussing health care he has this howler, “Cost transfers should be made illegal: Your insurance should only pay for your care.” Which, of course, would mean that it’s not insurance…. “cost transfer” is just a weird way of saying “spreading risk.” The problem isn’t that the insurance companies spread the risk around (what else would they do?) it’s that the government requires them to include extremely high risk populations in the pool, thus increasing the cost of everyone’s premiums.

When he starts in on immigration he’s just plain evasive (or horribly populist, take your pick):

All too often, we hear claims that we must import foreign workers because Americans won’t do those jobs. ‘Those jobs’ in question are hard, physically demanding, outdoor work that require constant, careful attention to detail. Those jobs should be receiving a wage premium, not be barely-minimum-wage sources of employment. There are jobs that Americans won’t do, notably in the sciences and engineering; we allow foreigners to come here to study, but then require them to leave. Mr. Bush’s foreign guest worker scheme is a corporate welfare deal at the expense of the American worker.

OK…. So… your solution is… what again? Is he saying that the government should impose a minimum-wage on farm work? How else are we to interpret “Those jobs should be receiving a wage premium” in this context? And what are those jobs in science and engineering that American’s won’t do? Really? Won’t?

To be fair, Prof. Phillies is correct on some issues, but like the major parties, his is a shotgun approach to policy. Some hits and some misses. There’s no consistent and principled line of argument here. It’s a hodge-podge of surrender, price controls, abdication, and populism. I think I’m most frightened by his call for a more enthusiastic bureaucracy….

Ms. Marbry emailed me to convince me I shouldn’t take Ron Paul as representative of mainstream libertarianism. But her implication is that Prof. Phillies is that representative. If that’s true, we’re no better off.

But is he representative?

I checked out Wayne Allyn Root’s website (he’s listed first on the LP homepage as he’s raised a whopping $14K).

First off I’m struck by this:

Libertarian Presidential hopeful Wayne Allyn Root will appear on many of Europe’s biggest TV and radio stations during his UK media tour this week.

OK… so…. Wait a minute, I’m still processing this. OK… I would have thought this would be obvious, but here goes: It’s helpful to campaign in this country if you want to win. I’m just saying….

As I begin scanning, Wayne seems OK on the issues, but that might be only because he’s not saying much at all. The devil is always in the details, and as soon as we get a detailed plan we get one of those odd, counter-productive reforms that so many libertarians are fond of:

I will ask Congress to give the Government Accountability Office real power by elevating its chief, the Comptroller General of the United States, to a cabinet-level executive branch officer, with oversight over all federal programs and agencies. Under my plan, the Comptroller would have the ability to take government agencies to court to compel their efficient performance and to forcibly remove waste and pork.

Separation of powers, checks and balances… they’re so antiquated. “…compel their efficient performance and to forcibly remove waste and pork,” sounds an awful lot like a line-item veto for the executive branch. This is nothing more than a disgusting power grab. He wants to take the independent and non-partisan GAO and make it part of his cabinet. Who needs oversight? Don’t you trust him? Come on… trust him! Trust him!

A few lines down we get the actual statement:

I support the Line Item Veto. I will push relentlessly and tirelessly to make this a crucial part of the President’s arsenal to fight the deficit, cut waste, and balance the budget.

So much for the Constitution.

I support Voting ballots in English-only. My goal is to reduce the cost of government. Therefore we must stop wasting taxpayer money by printing ballots and administering elections in multiple languages.

Federalism stinks! More power to the Federal government! This is one of those absolute howlers… elections aren’t run by the feds, Wayne. At some point, the Constitution should actually matter.

I will sign a pledge to NOT raise tax rates-PERIOD!

I support Internet Freedom. I support the legalization, regulation & taxation of Online Gaming (just like U.K.). Prohibition has been proven a failure. Let’s legalize, regulate and tax this growing industry- thereby bringing in billions of dollars in new tax revenues that we can use for deficit reduction, homeland security, or the war on terror.

He said he wouldn’t raise taxes. He didn’t say anything about new taxes. (He’s also clearly pretty fond of the U.K….)

It’s not flip-flopping. It’s nuanced. Like this:

I believe abortion is a matter of personal choice and not intended for federal government intervention. Let’s get the federal government out of a woman’s right to choose what to do with their own body- this will prevent the death of innocent women at the hands of butchers in back-alleys.
BUT I also support common sense limitations on abortion- no late term or partial birth abortion (unless a mother’s life is endangered)…no federal funding of abortion…and I support Parental Notification for underage girls.

Get the Feds out!Well, OK, not out so much as deeply involved. This kind of stuff drives me crazy. Just say what you mean. Saying things like this means that you think voters are stupid and gullible.

I am opposed to Yucca Mountain- I do not think nuclear waste should be transported across the country, thereby posing a greater security, accident or terrorist threat. I also believe the choice of a nuclear storage site near Las Vegas is completely irresponsible and reckless. Yucca Mountain was chosen at a time when Las Vegas was a small anonymous town. It is downright foolish, shortsighted and dangerous to risk a nuclear disaster near any booming metropolis.

Wow! Now that’s a new one! I haven’t seen any candidate talk about Yucca Mountain. I wonder what Phillies thinks about this, he’s a physicist after all. This is one of those issues where it would be really great to have an independent, non-partisan agency to do some fact checking. You know, like the GAO. Oh… right.

Let’s show our true colors by requesting that the Iraqi people vote on America’s role in Iraq. We are supporters of Democracy. We went to Iraq to build a Democracy. Let’s support an Iraqi national vote on whether the Iraqi people want U.S. troops to stay or go. If they vote “Go” we should leave. PERIOD.
If the Iraqi people vote for U.S. troops to stay, we should still make plans to get out of Iraq as soon as possible- but first make sure our friends and allies in the Iraq government can defend their young Democracy. We cannot punish our Iraqi partners and allies who took our word and stood by us- or America’s word will mean nothing in the future to our allies.

Wayne manages to squeeze a little waffling in on this issue too. I think Wayne’s just trying to cover his bases. I mean, cover his cricket wickets… sorry old chap.

Wayne is a candidate who takes a lot of hard, line-in-the-sand positions. Well, you know…. sort of.

Next I went to Michael Jingozian’s website. Clarity isn’t his strong suit. “Reset America” is his campaign slogan. It’s catchy and it’s hip. It conjures images of a violent and catastrophic change, a sudden loss of work, a painful period while we wait for the system to reboot…. Oy.

“Do over!” is not an inspiring political message.

Mike doesn’t seem to take any clear stand on the issues but he’s big on five year plans and prosecuting political opponents for war crimes. That’s not usually a good combination.

Oh… he also likes “integrity” and “sustainable” political practices. And there’s a picture of him thinking deep thoughts. You know he’s thinking deep thoughts because he’s rubbing his chin. Or maybe he has a pimple. Either way, he has a bunch of charts. Like this. Enough said.

Next up, Bob Jackson. I start out liking Bob. Bob’s a family man. Bob’s an Eagle Scout. Bob was an engineer. Bob knows how “things” work. (More on “things” later.) He has this to say on energy policy:

The most important scientific advancement facing us is the development of totally pollution free Fusion reactors. This requires the development of room temperature electrical super conductive materials to make the powerful magnets needed to harness the fusion process.

Oh great.Again, I find myself wishing Prof. Phillies were around…. Bob goes on,

The country needs a president with an energy plan, environmental concern and personal ethics of an Eagle Scout. Bob is the only candidate with such credentials and plan.

Bob’s an Eagle Scout. Not just a cub, or a bear, or any other piddling kid-stuff scout. We’re talking eagle. Bob has the chops. He knows all about fusion. He’s prepared. Bob will get those scientists in line. (You listening George? We’re talking to you!) Maybe he’s going for the fusion merit badge.

Bob’s Iraq plan looks better than some of the other candidates. But only in comparison. Bob’s a fan of the three-state plan. I can see it’s attraction, but I think it’s probably too late in the game to scrap the current Iraqi government and try to start over with three separate ones. (This raises a question…. Saying “I told you so” isn’t a helpful political position. Does Bob actually think this is a workable policy? Can you imagine the meeting with the Joint Chiefs? “OK… So here’s the plan. We’re calling it, Operation Do-Over. Mike Jingozian here will fill you in on the rest.”)

Bob’s also big on sealing the U.S. border. Most of the candidates are. When did this become mainstream libertarianism? I’m just asking…. Did I miss the memo on xenophobia?

Bob’s pro life and wants to devolve abortion to the States and he’s consistent about it. None of this, you get to decide, so long as you decide the way I want you to stuff. Points for sticking to principle, Bob.

So far, I like Bob the best. He seems the least off-kilter of the candidates I’ve checked out. Of course, Bob’s a libertarian, so there’s this:

Our standard of living is based literally on two factors, emotions and a multitude of “things”. Emotions (thoughts, love, hate, greed, values, religion, etc) are actually free. All humans since caveman days have all, and sometimes more, emotions that can be handle rationally. All “things” that form our physical standard of living must be produced and that requires energy.

I like “things.” Religion is an emotion? What about the Boy Scouts? Are they an emotion? And what about that knock on our paleolithic ancestors? Did they not have emotions? I know they didn’t have the Boy Scouts, but I think they probably had some emotional life. But maybe not. Maybe they were different. Maybe their standard of living was based figuratively on stuff.

The last website is for Daniel Imperato. Things get weird here. Dan’s not real big on the whole “individual” part of individual liberty, he likes “we the people.” Apparently as in, “We, the people, know better than you. Get stuffed.”

He wants to restrict your charitable donations (so you can give more to Social Security).

I propose a new charity system, where the only charity that can receive unlimited contributions is the Social Security 501(c)3 Charitable Fund. That way, wealthy Americans, who wish to have the largest tax deductions through charitable donations, will donate back to the American people and the Social Security Charitable Fund that will be run by we the people.

And then,

I propose an approval fee on all FDA approved drugs to be contributed by the drug companies to the US healthcare system. In addition, a percentage will be added to the wholesale costs of the drugs that are sold around the world that will be contributed back to the healthcare system.

Hmmm…. what’s his party affiliation? Libertarian? This can’t be right. Hey, wait! He has more new government programs!

One of my major initiatives will be a US online education system, which I have already began to develop, with an education platform that will be supported by a shared computer portal of educational courses and content. It will be provided by a large number of universities, one program at a time. These programs and classes will be installed on our educational portal, and it will represent a gesture of moral and social responsibility by and between all universities. This will collectively create the greatest online free education system in the world, for the people who can’t afford education run by we the people.

It will be provided for by a large number of universities (not all, just a “large number”). It will be great. It will “represent a gesture.” What does that mean? Could anything be more vague? Which gesture is he thinking of? I know which gesture I’m thinking of….

I propose joint manufacturing programs, expansion of labor unions and organized labor into Latin America. This will help the people, teach the people, and organize the people, to compete around the world for a Better Americas.

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin with that one. Dan is starting to look a lot like a fascist.

My strategy for Iraq is to implement an immediate cease fire, strengthen our troop base, and join with the Arab states for a long-term peace solution.

You know, because we’ve been refusing so many requests for a cease fire. Day after day we have terrorists coming to us with reasonable and rational pleas for a cease fire. Let’s just stop all the shooting already! Can’t we all just get along? We can join hands with Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Sudan and sing songs of solidarity.

Dan wants to, “bring back his country — The United States of America — to the straight and narrow.” What with Wayne off campaigning in Britain, Dan seems to think we need to reminded about which country is his. There’s no indication that he means “straight and narrow” as a stand for family values… his website crashed so I couldn’t delve any deeper. But I saw enough, Dan’s not an advocate of individual liberty. He’s not even close.

The problem, of course, is that they all claim to be libertarians. Because being a libertarian can mean anything. More subsidy, less subsidy. Raise taxes, lower taxes. No nukes, more nukes. Open the borders, close the borders. Out of Iraq, stay in Iraq. More freedom, less freedom.

It’s a mess and it’s absurd. Of all these candidates, I liked Bob Jackson, Eagle Scout the best. But that’s only because Bob doesn’t really say that much. Bob’s also the only one who didn’t seem to descend into rank populism (although none were as bad as Imperato).

These are the people that represent libertarianism. But they don’t represent me.

On the Nature of Government

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

– The Declaration of Independence

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness Positively by uniting our affections, the latter Negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one…. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

– Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

– The Constitution of the United States of America.

Security is the true design and end of government. To this end we seek to establish Justice above all else. Government is at once the author and the arbiter of law. That we place such terrible responsibility in the hands of an elected body is a testament to the trust we place in our fellows. That we continue to do so, despite the accumulated evidence of the years, is a testament to the power of hope over wisdom. And yet, we do not believe that we are irretrievably lost.

The government–at all levels–has become too profligate with the law. For as much as the law is a necessity, if the law is to serve the aims of justice then it must be constrained: as small and as lean as possible. When the law strives to govern the whole of human action, the law ceases to be a tool of justice and becomes instead a monument to caprice and extortion.

There is, to be sure, a wide range of vice and wickedness that we seek the law to punish, but as the government must, by its necessity, be a public body, the law too should seek only to criminalize whatever wickedness is also a public vice. For just as we regard a private government, obscure and hidden from the public eye, as a danger to Society, so too must we consider a government that seeks to invade personal privacy as inimical to the interests of Society.

We seek to restrict the actions of government to the public sphere. Just as we close our bedroom windows to the prying eyes of intrusive and prying neighbors, so too we close our privacy to the scrutiny of the government. What is purely personal must remain purely personal: the conduct and content of our spiritual lives, the nature and habit of our intimate loves, and the health and condition of our individual bodies.

Security is the true design and end of government. To this end we entrust government with the responsibility to insure domestic tranquility. As much as we wish to preserve our privacy from unwarranted intrusion, we recognize that Justice demands that the government protect the rights and privacy of our neighbors as well as our own. We seek equal treatment before the law, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, or language. To that end we seek the law to criminalize any actions that deprive any person of life, liberty, or property–and only those actions.

We do not desire that the government establish Society nor that it mold or promote a particular vision of Society but only that it ensure that Society can flourish free from the disruption of violence, theft, fraud, and coercion. Accordingly, we entrust the government to protect private property from thieves, brigands, and its own grubbing hands. We require that the government provide just compensation for the property it confiscates and we should likewise demand that the government publicly account for every expenditure of tax revenue, including who sponsored, approved, sought, and benefited from the expenditure. In all cases, confiscation and spending must be radically curtailed.

Furthermore, we recognize that it is–in all places and at all times–more difficult for distant governments to remain accountable to their constituents. Accordingly, we look for the law to devolve itself, as much as possible, to as local a level as possible. As government is not the answer to all–or even most–of Society’s problems, the federal government is the answer to even fewer. Federalism is the bedrock upon which our government is founded and the further we build away from that foundation, the softer the sand upon which we stand becomes.

Security is the true design and end of government. To this end we empower the government to provide for the common defense. But such a responsibility does not end with the formation of a standing army, nor is it a responsibility that ends at our shores. A secure national defense demands a vigorous attention to all aspects of international relations. It demands that we attend to the health of the international community. It demands that we encourage and promote liberty and democracy throughout the world using intelligence, diplomacy, persuasion and free trade wherever possible. Where all other options fail, we will use force if we must.

A secure national defense requires that we deal with honorably with our neighbors, respecting treaties, free trade, and national sovereignty. But respect cannot mean that we ignore brutality and oppression nor that we concede our own interests to maintain a false hope of peace. A secure national defense requires that we resist terror in all of its forms. Whether a repressive fascist regime or a band of fanatical thugs, evil must be acknowledged and it must be opposed.

The United States is unique among the nations in the modern world. We have power and military might that no other country possesses. We must use that power judiciously and with care and restraint. It is a sad truth that although the world harbors much oppression, our power is still finite. We must act judiciously and with restraint. And when we bring our arms to bear, we must act with resolve and commitment.

Security is the true design and end of government, and there can be no end more important than that we secure the Blessings of Liberty . We secure these blessings–our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property–so that we might engage productively in a healthy Society. We form attachments with our neighbors, our friends, and our communities so that we might create a world of peaceful, joyful, prosperity. Such is the aim and hope of Society, and the responsibility of government is nothing more than to allow Society to flourish.

Government secures the liberty of its citizens–by protecting one fundamental right above all others: the right to associate. Whether that association is undertaken for monetary gain, personal edification, public instruction, or private pleasure is immaterial. Whether it is a faceless electronic transaction flashing across a continent, a published a work of political opinion, an invitation to a religious service, a lesson that helps teach a child, or a marriage, free association is the essence and cornerstone of public life. Government exists to protect the rights of its citizens so that they might associate freely–and that in their association they might find joy.

Security is the true design and end of government, but the government may, where it can and when it is able, promote the general welfare. But we should remember that when government seeks to promote the general welfare, it should do so only by restraining public vice. The government cannot promote the general welfare by granting largesses or favor upon some select body of the polity, for whenever it seeks to take from some and give to others, the government ensures invidious distinction, manufactures inequity, and promotes the welfare of only the select and the few.

The Pursuit of happiness–the most cherished of all American political ambitions–demands a healthy Society. Happiness may spring from a well within the soul, but it would be a shame beyond measure if our joy were only and always private. We are a gregarious people, we band together for all manner of activities. Our public life–where our aims and desires intersect and join with others–is our Society. But if the government favors some at the expense of others, then Society fractures and divides. If our relations are strained, if our commerce and association is proscribed, watched, regulated, hampered, inspected, and nannied at every moment, then our Society will in turn become crimped and withered: a small and petty thing, impotent and mewling.

We do not seek to confuse society and government. We seek to separate them. We seek to distinguish between the private and public spheres. We seek to restrain the power of government so that a free people might exercise their own.

We do not seek the dissolution of the government. Nor do we seek the dissolution of society. Indeed we believe that the dissolution of Society has come largely because it has withered in the face of encroaching government. That government must be reduced we acknowledge with determination. That Society must be invigorated and renewed we acknowledge with equal resolve.

A Free People demand a Free Society. We do not believe that we must pander to special interests, nor do we believe that people are blind, stupid, or gullible. We are a radically diverse nation, but we remain united by our shared heritage and our vision for the future. Our shared heritage is our commitment to the ideas and ideals that America embodies. Every child born in America–and every immigrant to this nation–shares in the American dream: a dream of personal prosperity and fulfillment. We are committed to the American Experiment. We believe it can still be saved. We believe it can succeed.

The Radical Whigs

A friend of mine cautioned me against using the term “radical” in my new political moniker. I think he has a point, but I also think that any political party that takes individual liberty, autonomy, and responsibility seriously is–at heart–a radical party. Furthermore, I am increasingly convinced that contemporary political culture is so overwhelmingly and systemically corrupt that only radicals have any hope at effecting change.

To those who urge restraint, that we don’t need yet another term, yet another movement, yet another political party…. I must disagree.

It is true of those in this broad movement that we are all, generally speaking, classical liberals. But the term “liberal” has been so degraded as to be effectively meaningless. A catalog of the errors and policy atrocities of so-called liberals in the 20th century would fill the remainder of this post, and as much fun as it might be to beat a dead donkey, I simply don’t have the time. It should be readily apparent that the term “liberal” has been irretrievably lost.

So too has conservative. The fiscal profligacy of this administration should shame the Republican party. I am troubled by the terror that homosexuality seems to instill in the Republican party. Why the party of Lincoln should so oppose the enforcement of the 14th amendment is a mystery to me. Furthermore, I am deeply dismayed by the extent to which the Republican party has worked to erode the fourth and fifth amendments. If the Democrats ignore the Second Amendment, the Republicans give short shift to the Fourth. The Bill of Rights is not a buffet.

I am not a Republican and I am not a Democrat. The process of Congress has been compared to sausage making, and that’s apt. But the pork has gone rancid and is spilling from its casing. Despite the growing stench, both parties are still busily feeding the grinding chute. There’s too much pork to process and our legislators are wallowing in the fat–and both parties stink. The simple truth is that just as the sheer scale of Congressional spending defeats any attempt at fiscal reform, so too does the sheer scale of vested interest defeat any attempt at reforming the major parties.

Neither am I a libertarian. The concern over the candidacy of Ron Paul is simply the latest in a long series of problems that have plagued both the libertarian movement and the Libertarian party. If you wish to hang to the term libertarian, you may. But I will have no more of it. I am tired of patiently explaining why teaching evolution matters, why terrorism should be opposed, and why although marijuana use should be legal, it should probably not be encouraged. I am tired of suffering the pretentious pomposity and bigotry of men who intone on the evils of the Civil War and I have grown weary of discussing the merits of using ancient druidical rituals in modern political campaigns. As a political force, the Libertarian Party is a mess.

But don’t misunderstand me. Hidden among the crazies and the loons, there are men and women of integrity, principle, intelligence, and worth. There are Democrats who would delight in sound fiscal policy–and there are a few Republicans who would as well, I’m sure of it. There are Republicans who are tolerant and respectful–and I’m sure there are a few Democrats who are as well. There are libertarians who believe that not all that should be legal must be condoned, there are Democrats who believe that not all that should be condoned must be mandatory, and there are Republicans who believe that not all that should be opposed must be be illegal. There are; I’m sure of it.

If you agree, let me know. Post a comment. If you don’t, let me know that too. If you like the name “Radical Whigs” Let me know. If you hate it, let me know that as well.