The official blog of the Libertarian Party

« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 30, 2007

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; GOP is Liberty.

Another long time Republican has become fed up with the "Security leads to freedom" mentality, divorcing himself "from the Republican Party, and keeping my distance from any group that doesn't place the defense of liberty as the prime goal of the political system."

Columnist and senior editorial writer and columnist for the Orange County Register Steven Greenhut wrote those words to describe the increasing frustration he's been feeling for the neocons. Here's more:

Now even the rhetoric of freedom is mostly gone. Most "mainstream" Republicans don't talk about liberty anymore. The advocates for this emerging New Republican Party are becoming surprisingly outspoken. A good example is New York Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks, a former editor at the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that shilled vociferously for war in Iraq. (Hint: The results of that policy might offer some warning to Republicans before they jump too quickly on his latest advice.)

In a column reprinted today (beginning on Page 1 of Commentary), Brooks rebutted those of us who argue that "in order to win again, the GOP has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states' rights. This is folly."

Obviously unaware of the ever-growing Leviathan around him, Brooks claims that the old days of oppressive government are over. The idea of limited government - that silly, fuddy-duddy notion advanced by our Constitution, and ensconced in the Bill of Rights - is so 18th century. Time for something more appropriate for our time!

He's got a new idea (actually, the oldest of ideas, the one that says that government and power are what matters, and that freedom and individualism are outdated). And he's even got a catchy slogan for it. He calls it, Security leads to freedom.

Forgive me a Dave Barry moment, but I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. Doesn't this sound like something out of an Orwell novel? War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Security is freedom. Brooks argues that the "liberty vs. power paradigm" is passe. Government doesn't necessarily mean less personal liberty, he writes. Modern voters aren't worried about an overweening state. Instead, the public wants to be protected from the complex modern threats to their existence: "Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation."

This seems like a fairly accurate assessment of the people in power within the GOP heirarchy. The Freedom Movement would like to welcome you as you escape the clutches of the Leviathan, Steven.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 12:56 PM | Comments (12)

April 27, 2007

War Hawks Circle Above Democratic Debates

Last night, the Democratic presidential contenders held their first debate. Let's look at some of the highlights.

Clinton, 59, a New York senator, held her own last night, repeating her explanation that, had she known then what she knows now about Iraq, she wouldn't have made the same decision.

"If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I'm president, I will," Clinton said.

Not that I'd place too much stock in Hillary's attempt to maneuver out of her track record of voting for the war in the first place. Even following her alleged epiphany, her hawkish ambitions still come shining through:

Democratic presidential candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that it might be necessary for America to confront Iran militarily, addressing that possibility more directly than any of the other presidential candidates who spoke this week to the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Clinton first said that the US should be engaging directly with Iran to foil any effort to gain nuclear weapons and faulted the Bush administration for "considerably narrowing" the options available to America in countering Iran.

Still, she said, all avenues should be explored, since "if we do have to take offensive military action against Iran, it would be far better if the rest of the world saw it as a position of last resort, not first resort, because the effect and consequences will be global."

Since Obama seems to be running more on a cult of personality than on issues, it was refreshing to see Dennis Kucinich challenge him on foreign policy.

The sharpest exchanges came between Kucinich and Gravel on one side and Obama on the other. Kucinich challenged Obama for saying he would take no option off the table in dealing with Iran, saying the Illinois senator was setting the stage for war.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran," Obama replied. "But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region."

A few minutes later Gravel picked up the attack, "Tell me, Barack, who do you want to nuke?"

"I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise," Obama said to laughter in the audience.

John Edwards had to go into confessional mode over his Iraq vote, as well.

Edwards, who also initially backed the war, set himself apart from Clinton by confessing that his vote was a mistake.

"I was wrong to vote for this war," said Edwards, 53, of North Carolina. "Senator Clinton and anyone else who voted for this war has to search themselves and decide whether they believe they've voted the right way."

The quote of the day came from someone who the Democratic Machine certainly won't support.

"After standing up with them, some of these people frighten me," the former U.S. Senator from Alaksa said about his Democratic rivals at the debate held at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg. "They frighten me. When you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran. That's code for using nukes."

Asked by moderator Brian Williams to clarify who exactly he had in mind, Gravel said the "top-tier" candidates. He then fingered Sen. Joe Biden specifically. "You have a certain arrogance," he said to the Delaware lawmaker. "You want to tell the Iraqis how to run their country. I gotta tell you, we should just plain get out."

My prediction is that the more authoritarian and/or socialistic Democratic candidates will continue to get the support, donations and media coverage from the Democratic powers-to-be, while the more libertarian Democratic contenders will continue to be marginalized. Once again,the only place freedom-loving Democratic voters have to turn is the Libertarian Party.

A Libertarian remake of the "Daisy" advertisement showing the eventual Democratic nominee ready and willing to nuke Mideastern countries could be pretty powerful stuff, though.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 12:41 PM | Comments (26)

April 26, 2007

Supersized Rights

Yesterday's Boston Globe has an article about various "gay-rights proposals in Congress." One interesting aspect of the article is that it seems that Democrats (and some Republicans) don't want equal rights for gays, but a supersized set of them. Here's an example:

Also, a bipartisan group of House members introduced a bill yesterday that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Does this mean that a fundamentalist Christian bookstore would have to hire an obviously gay clerk? Would a trendy gay bar be required to hire an obviously straight fundamentalist Christian as a bouncer or bartender?

"We have had an affirmation in the last election that the American people support fairness," [Representative Barney Frank] said.

Fairness is one thing, but they've forgotten that little part about being fair to the business owner, in this case. What impacts the business owner also impacts the employment of countless people. When people stop visiting the gay bar because of the homophobic bouncer or shopping at the Christian bookstore because of the flamboyount gay person at the checkout counter, everyone loses. I'm certainly not suggesting that most fundamentalist Christians are homophobic or that most gay people are flamboyount, but there certainly are examples of both. What matters is that the business owner should have some reasonable choice in his or her hiring practices.

They are also pursuing hate crimes legislation. While Libertarians have long opposed such tripe (we hate the crime, but find our mind-reading abilities somewhat limited), here's an interesting twist:

A group of African-American clergy members rallied on Capitol Hill yesterday against the hate crimes bill, which they said was akin to granting special legal protections to a class of "sinners."

Several of the ministers said they feared the measure could lead to prosecution of church leaders who preach against homosexuality if, for example, a church member were to commit a hate crime against a gay man or a lesbian after listening to a sermon that denounced homosexuality.

"Courts have an interesting way of interpreting laws, and once this can of worms is open, it will be very hard to close," said Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church in Detroit. "This step of recognizing homosexuality as a protected class would be a huge advancement in this nation toward adopting and condoning this behavior as natural."

There is only one solution which makes sense, which is to take the Libertarian approach of treating all people equally under the law, while not passing laws which strip any person's individual rights.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 11:54 AM | Comments (15)

April 25, 2007

Iraq Budget Debate Exposes Hypocrites on Both Sides of the Aisle

Over the next few days, we'll be hearing a lot more about the supplemental appropriations bill. One level of argument pits Republicans and Democrats arguing over whether the executive branch should set military policy in our ongoing unconstitutional war in Iraq. Here's one of many samples of the discourse we can expect to continue hearing:

Vice President Dick Cheney singled out comments made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) as "uninformed and misleading" increasing tensions over President Bush's expected veto of the Iraq spending bill that mandates U.S. troops leave Iraq by a date certain.

In an April 23 address at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Reid said that "winning the war is no longer the job of the U.S. military."

As most of use are aware, the Democrats greased the congressional tracks with billions of dollars of pork drippings. Here's a more liberal accounting:

Billions of dollars more are for other federal responsibilities that have been chronically neglected during the Bush years, including $1.3 billion to pay for post-Katrina levee repairs in Louisiana, $750 million for the state and federal health care partnership that insures poor children and roughly $500 million to help the poor pay for heat in the winter. And on it goes, money for homeland security, wildfire suppression, avian flu preparedness and other national issues.

I'm still trying to determine how avian flu preparedness helps our soldiers in the field or gets us out of Iraq.

Of course, some Republicans are arguing about the pork in the bill.

Our very own U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, who asked: So why are we going through this exercise of heaping pork on the backs of our men and women in uniform?

This would be the same Trent Lott who just last year helped pass a supplemental budget request containing $15 billion in domestic spending, including $4 billion for farmers, $1.1 billion for Gulf Coast fisheries and $1 billion in grants to states.

And who was the king of pork in that supplemental? Why, of course, Trent himself and his notorious $700 million "railroad to nowhere" in our home state, reportedly the largest earmark ever.

Conservatives are complaining about pork now to distract from their real problem with the Iraq legislation: the fact that it forces President Bush to change course. Sen. Lott wants to give Bush a blank check to wage a war without end; he just doesn't want to admit it to us.

Isn't it about time to let the hypocrites take a breather?

It doesn't seem that the Democrats want to end the war or the gravy. It seems the Republicans like the war and the gravy, too.

Perhaps the hypocrites from both sides of the aisle need to take a breather on both the pork and the rhetoric and concentrate on getting us out of the quagmire both parties created in Iraq.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:01 PM | Comments (10)

April 24, 2007

Bring Our Troops Home Now (from Europe, that is)

We won World War II 62 years ago and it has been a full generation since the Cold War ended. Nonetheless, we still have a significant military presence in Europe.

Some are now debating whether we should reduce the number of US soldiers deployed on the continent:

US defense officials in Europe are reconsidering a plan to dramatically cut the number of US forces there - a potential change that illustrates how the war in Iraq and other threats are forcing the military to revisit a broader transformation that was to redefine its strategy overseas.

Many senior defense officials are concerned that the plan to cut by nearly half the number of forces in Europe could make it difficult to support American interests in the European theater. The troop reductions, they say, go too far.

"I am very apprehensive about how low we are taking capabilities of the US Army in Europe," says one senior defense official in Europe, who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the ongoing discussions.

One wonders how many decades it will be before the last US soldier leaves Europe.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:21 PM | Comments (31)

April 19, 2007

Business as Normal in the Senate

Napolean Bonaparte is credited with, "Passions change, politics are immutable."

This certainly seems to be the case in the Senate, as told by Robert Novak in the Washington Post:

The Senate's Democratic leadership has a political problem with earmarks. Ever since Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" captured the public's imagination last year, they have been on record against the practice of pet spending projects being slipped stealthily into legislation. But most senators, from both parties, want to keep earmarks. An ingenious effort to reconcile those conflicting political desires created a remarkable tableau at the Senate on Tuesday.

Novak's final paragraph suggests what we all intuitively know:

This is no partisan struggle. The word in the Republican cloakroom was that a GOP senator would derail the DeMint rule if the Democrats did not. The Republican leadership is not enthralled with DeMint and Coburn and would like them to go away. They won't. They are determined to bring into the open who sponsors and who benefits from earmarks.

There may not be a proverbial dime's worth of difference between the two parties, but their collective efforts will cost us, our children and our grandchildren billions.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 03:10 PM | Comments (19)

April 18, 2007

In the Midwest, All Politics Is Local LP Wins

Here are three things I've learned about politics.

1) It can be entertaining to watch from the sidelines.
2) It's fun to actually play in the game.
3) It's even more fun to win a game.

We posted an article on April 4 stating that Libertarians are "Batting .500 in Missouri April Elections." Doug Burlison won a four year term on the Springfield City Council, but former Mayor of Chillicothe Jeff Foli lost his bid to regain that position.

That article was followed by some more good news. Missouri Libertarians Mike Ferguson and Joel Stoner also won local races. Ferguson now has a seat on the Jackson County Water Supply Board, while Stoner will serve as an Alderman in Macks Creek.

Next door in Kansas, voters elected Mike Wilson to the United School District Board of Education in Salina and Larry Manes to the Allen County Community College Board of Trustees. Unfortunately, a few candidates lost, but LP Heartland candidates were now batting .556 in April local elections.

Today, we had the pleasure of adding a third article in the series of local LP wins in the Midwest:

Chalk up two more Libertarian victories in the Heartland. On Tuesday, April 17, 2007, David Kelley was re-elected to a second four year term to the Rockford (IL) Board of Education, Seat G. Kelley defeated two candidates with 1021 votes, for 44.3 percent.

Up the road in Round Lake, W. Guy Finley won his re-election bid for a two year term on the Round Lake Area Unit D116 Board of Education. He was one of two candidates for two seats, coming in first with 888 votes according to early returns.

Winning is indeed fun. Batting .636 is even more exciting.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:17 PM | Comments (15)

April 17, 2007

No Potential New Taxpayer Left Behind

Once again, our wonderful and benevolent IRS is providing a most valuable service to the children of our great land. On the IRS website, there is a Student Home, which offers such features as Student Lessons, Activities, Tax Tutorials and Simulations.

Fortunately, the taxpayers are depicted in a good light. Believe it or not, virtually all of the people pictured seem happy to pay their taxes.

My all-time favorite is the lesson which shows our children how to raise taxes at a local level. Here's a sample:

Imagine that you are the town manager of a city named Springville. This year Springville received a $60,000 grant from the federal government to help support certain public services. Congress has recently voted to reduce this funding to $45,000 next year. One of your primary goals as town manager is to avoid cutting services. Together, you and several city council members have proposed various ways to raise additional revenue. Some have proposed increasing property taxes. Others want to increase the local sales tax from 1 percent to 2 percent. Another proposal is to charge individual income taxes at a flat rate of 2 percent. How will each proposal affect the taxpayers of Springville?

It is important to note that this valuable educational resource apparently surfaced under a Republican watch. Let's be sure to get out and vote to thank them on Election Day.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:22 PM | Comments (21)

Pelosi's "The most ethical Congress ever" continued

From The Examiner:

Congress is keeping Andrews Air Force base plenty busy this year ferrying lawmakers all over the globe at taxpayers' expense. [snip]

All told, the military flew at least 13 congressional delegations to various destinations during the Easter recess -- at an estimated rate of $10,000 or more per flying hour.

The congressional delegation trips, known as CODELs, are paid for by taxpayers. They are supposed to be directly related to members' official duties...

Here's where some of our congresscritters are traveling:

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi took his wife, nine Democrats and two Republicans - Reps. Dan Lungren of California and Mike Rogers of Alabama - on a whirlwind tour of the Caribbean last week. After stops in Honduras and Mexico, they stopped in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the delegation stayed at the five-star Caneel Bay resort.

In a separate trip to the Caribbean last week, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York squired his wife and four Democratic members to Grenada and Trinidad.[snip]

Traveling with Engel and his wife were Reps. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Tex., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who went to Belgium in a delegation led by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., earlier in the week, also joined Engel's Caribbean trip. She brought her husband with her.

At least they are frugal, realizing that the taxpayers are covering their expenses:

At the Caneel Bay resort, where room rates reach $1,100 per night, the spokeswoman said Thompson and his wife paid the "government rate." But, according to the reservations department, Caneel Bay doesn't "offer any government rates."

But keep in mind, it's all for important "official duties":

Thompson's office said he toured the Caribbean because he now chairs the Homeland Security Committee and wanted to see vacation hot spots to "examine border security and port security." Three other members of the delegation also brought along their spouses. [snip]

After Caneel Bay, the group headed to Key West, Fla., for a "classified briefing on inter-jurisdictional agency task forces," a Thompson spokeswoman said.

The Caribbean trip led by Engel, who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, explored the "best practices for emergency disaster relief" and energy policy, according to his office.[snip]

The trip, which also included Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., was designed "to further understand the interrelationship between various issues related to the financial services regulatory structures" of the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union, according to Frank's office.

Quotable:

"We're at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, but apparently our members see Belgium as our most urgent international destination," scoffed one Republican member of Congress.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 11:50 AM | Comments (10)

April 16, 2007

Bush Admin Under Increasing Fire

The Time Magazine headline reads "Conservatives to Bush: Fire Gonzales."

The two-page letter, written on stationery of the American Freedom Agenda, a recently formed body designed to promote conservative legal principles, is blunt. Addressed to both Bush and Gonzales, it goes well beyond the U.S. attorneys controversy and details other alleged failings by Gonzales. "Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances," it declares. "He has brought rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm." Alluding to ongoing scandal, it notes: "He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice."

The letter concludes by saying, "Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country... The President should accept the resignation, and set a standard to which the wise and honest might repair in nominating a successor..." It is the first public demand by a group of conservatives for Gonzales' firing. Signatories to the letter include Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Reagan Justice Department, who has worked frequently with current Administration and the Republican National Committee to promote Bush's court nominees; David Keene, chairman of the influential American Conservative Union, one of the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative groups, Richard Viguerie, a well-known GOP direct mail expert and fundraiser, Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia and free speech advocate, as well as John Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative non-forit active in fighting for what it calls religious freedoms.

Here's one side of the story:

Only weak-kneed cons who wouldn't stand behind our President in his time of need would do that. Bush enjoys a lot of support from conservatives and I and many others would be offended if Bush dumped Gonzales simply because the Libs were able to trump up some lame charges.

This battle must be won. Bush stood by this nation and had confidence we could pick ourselves up after the hits we took on 9-11. He put all his personal capitol on the line to bring us back to economic stability, beat Islamo Fascism and protect us from attack. In the process he protected fetuses from being experimented on and brought us the much needed Parental Notification laws.

Here's the other side:

As the Journal explained it, Domenici wanted Iglesias to pursue some alleged corruption controversies involving Democrats in New Mexico. Iglesias resisted the pressure. By the spring of 2006, Domenici was fed up and told AG Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out. Gonzales refused and said he'd only take orders from the president.

So, Domenici went over the Attorney General's head and called Karl Rove, asking him to take his concerns about Iglesias directly to the president. The New Mexico senator and the president reportedly discussed the U.S. Attorney on the phone at some point after the midterm elections but before the Dec. 7 purge. (Iglesias' name first showed up on a Nov. 15 list of federal prosecutors who would be asked to resign. It was not on a similar list prepared in October.)

You'll also recall, of course, that Domenici called Iglesias shortly before the election, asking the U.S. Attorney if he would indict New Mexico Democrat Manny Aragon. When Iglesias declined, Domenici replied, "I'm very sorry to hear that," and then hung up on him.

So, what exactly was the president's role in directing this firing?

With the missing e-mails and increasing sunlight exposing this potential scandal, it is beginning to appear more and more Nixonian as the details sort themselves out.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 10:20 AM | Comments (11)

April 13, 2007

Income Tax Weekend Open Thread

I'm not sure of the original source, but here's something I received in my e-mail:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a@@

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me
to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Happy Tax Weekend, America!

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 10:35 AM | Comments (53)

April 12, 2007

More Evidence of Failed Foreign Policy

Here's how well the war in Iraq is going:

Extending combat tours for Army soldiers to 15 months was a "difficult" step, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday, but it was essential to give other units time to recuperate after fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The announcement affects only soldiers in the active-duty Army, who now serve 12-month combat tours. Deployments for the Army Reserve and National Guard will remain at 12 months. Marines will continue to serve seven-month tours.

Gates said he extended the tours to give active-duty soldiers one year home to rest between combat stints.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the extension will be a hardship. "Is it an additional strain to go from 12 months to 15 months? Of course it is," Pace said.

Perhaps it's time to take another look at the famous George W. Bush quote:

"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 01:32 PM | Comments (15)

April 11, 2007

2008 Democratic Convention Already in Trouble

It's hard to feel very sorry for Republican and Democratic convention planners when they charge American taxpayers tens (or even hundreds) of millions of dollars to create publicly-funded coronations of their respective presidential nominees. Unlike the 2008 Libertarian National Convention to be held in Denver, Democratic politicos are actively seeking money which they didn't earn to pay their convention bills.

Therefore, I don't feel too guilty when watching them squirm with convention problems. To begin, The Hill reports that delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention may have to walk through union picket lines, unless DNC Chairman Howard Dean can untangle the mess on his visit to the Mile High City.

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean will fly to Denver today to try and put out a political fire that has led labor groups to threaten to withdraw support from the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

In urgent meetings with union leaders and members of the convention host committee, he will attempt to take action to head off the threat that Democratic delegates attending the convention next year will have to cross picket lines to get in.

The dispute, which tarnishes Dean's first visit to Denver since the party selected the city to host the convention, arises from labor's fury over what it sees as a betrayal by newly elected Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter.

Ritter vetoed pro-union legislation just weeks after Democrats selected Denver as the convention's host city. His decision outraged and surprised national and local unions, whose members believe they were influential in Ritter's successful election last fall. The veto led to suggestions by national leaders of the AFL-CIO and Teamsters that the convention be moved, and it provoked a confrontation in Washington between Ritter and the Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa.

It doesn't stop there, though. Another organization, Recreate '68, plans to protest Dean's visit to hopefully stop the union protest.

There will be a protest on April 12th in regards to Howard Dean's visit and rally for the DNC at the Denver Convention Center at 700 14th Street in Denver at 10:30 am . The Dean rally starts at 11 am. We want people entering the rally to see us, so please bring props and signs.

And there's more. It looks like Recreate '68 already plans to protest the convention, too.

During the Convention, there will be four major protest, one each day. Each protest will focus on a symptom of the disease of an Imperialist, Capitalist, Rascist system as seen in our communities. As the themes and actions develop, we will post more information!

In 2004, there were protests of both the Republican and Democratic Conventions -- but no protests of the Libertarian National Convention. One reason might be that it's pretty darned hard to mobilize people to protest against freedom.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 01:17 PM | Comments (17)

April 10, 2007

Just a Thought...

Remember the Lost Liberty Hotel? In retaliation for the Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court decision, Logan Darrow Clements attempted to use eminent domain to take the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter and build a hotel on the property.

Everyone I know found this concept funny. A few disagreed with the tactics on grounds of principle. No matter how one feels about it, it serves as a great example of using their rules against them.

Currently, we are engaged in an unpopular war in Iraq. While many congressional Democrats say they are opposed to this war, their actions indicate that they may not really wish for the war to end. As a matter of fact, Thomas Sipos has suggested that the left may be "more interested in exploiting the antiwar movement as a recruiting drive for its other efforts."

The only major congressional attempt to end the war in Iraq since the Democrats took over both houses has been to put a timeline for withdrawal into the supplemental defense apporpriations bill. This measure would attempt to defund the war while giving Congress the ability to micromanage the constitutional responsibilities of the Commander in Chief.

By adding billions of dollars of pork (actually spinach, peanuts, sugar cane, lamb, fish and dairy products) to the bill, they ensured that any principled congressman could vote against it. In a war where family members have had to intervene to insure that troops on the ground had sufficient body armor and boots, and at a time of major headlines about the poor care our veterans receive in VA hospitals -- any defunding of the military is, at best, a poor PR move.

Let's take a look at how we got into this quagmire, though. The Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" without even attempting to pass a formal Declaration of War as required in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The casus belli presented by then Secretary of State Colin Powell was based upon information which turned out to be incorrect. This misinformation is presented throughout the "Whereas" section of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Many other reasons for going to war dealt with the regime in power in Iraq at that time. Saddam Hussein is now dead and that regime is history.

While most of us have a problem with the constitutionality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Bush clearly uses it as his "legal authority" to commence nation-building operations.

What the Democrats could do, as opposed to decreasing funding for our soldiers while passing out billions in pork, is to take a look at the Authorization Bill many of them supported. They could eliminate the "sanction" that Congress provided the president.

Most of the reasons stated for going to war turned out to be false or are no longer issues. If the Democrats are really serious about leaving Iraq, they could get behind a resolution which repeals the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."

But don't count on it.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 08:05 AM | Comments (50)

April 09, 2007

GOP/Dem Presidential Hopefuls Ignore Solving Fiscal Issues

David Yepsen wrote a column over at the Politico which suggests that all of the major presidential hopefuls are ignoring very key economic problems:

One of the biggest problems facing the country in the next 50 years is an explosion of government debt.

Experts call it a "tsunami" of red ink that will swamp the country as it borrows more and more to pay for all the obligations it has incurred for health care, retirement and other federal programs. The multibillion dollar cost of the war in Iraq is but a small part of the problem.

This projected debt is calculated in the trillions. Bringing this planned spending into line with forecasted revenues will make for some of the most difficult political choices the country has faced in years.

Yet so far in the 2008 presidential campaign, the issue has received little attention from the candidates or voters. Perhaps the pain of it all makes it too risky or too complicated. Perhaps discussion about the war crowds it out. Experts say it's a mistake to ignore what looms ahead.

Yepsen then asked "Where are leaders?" and closed with:

He added: "We cannot afford a president - male, female, Republican, Democrat or Independent - who doesn't make this a top priority and who is not willing to make tough choices, because the future of the republic is at risk."

His most pertinent question took this form:

What should Iowans who want to solve the problem be asking presidential candidates?

Probable responses to this softball question would be telling enough: Will you pledge to veto any bill which increases federal spending or raises taxes until such time as the deficit has been eliminated?

If at a presidential forum in Iowa, what budget/fiscal questions would you ask?

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 09:30 AM | Comments (27)

April 06, 2007

No Experience Required

A while ago, I posted about an article which suggests that voters are more interested in the character of a candidate than in the issues on which that candidate runs. There's new data out that suggests that elected experience may play less of a role this election cycle. From the Washington Times:

Attention presidential hopefuls, campaign managers and speechwriters: America is ready for a straightforward, no-nonsense leader who can ultimately unite the country.

Military service, insider status, business acumen and charisma? They're in the also-ran category, according to a Gallup poll released yesterday that defines the "absolutely essential" qualities the nation seeks in its 44th commander in chief.

"Americans are looking for an honest person who has strong leadership skills above all else," said Gallup analyst Jeffrey M. Jones, adding that managerial competence plays a close second.

"A majority also say it is essential that the next president focuses on uniting the country. Americans assign far less importance to the candidate's experience, including whether they have served in Washington," Mr. Jones said.

One can only wonder if these data will remain the same in November 2008.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 10:20 AM | Comments (34)

April 05, 2007

LPedia

LPedia is a resource some of you may not know about. It's a great tool, but needs some volunteers to help create and update the information contained inside of it. For instance, there is in-depth material about the history of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, but little about other state affiliates.

From my personal perspective, I'd love to see more entries about Libertarian candidates and elected office holders from around the country.

LPedia is an online community endeavor. It would be nice to see the Libertarian community getting behind this worthwhile project.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 04:05 AM | Comments (2)

April 04, 2007

The Decoy Effect

I generally hear three reasons why Libertarians run for office:

1) To become elected.

2) To educate the electorate.

3) To move public policy (or push the other candidates) in a more libertarian direction.

According to this Washington Post article, there may now be a fourth reason: Pushing voters to elect the most libertarian of the leading candidates.

"Many people lavished hate on Ralph Nader for presumably taking votes away from the Democratic front-runner in the 2000 presidential election," said Scott Highhouse, who has studied the decoy effect at Bowling Green State University. "Research on the decoy effect suggests that Nader's presence, rather than taking votes away, probably increased the share of votes for the candidate he most resembled."

Suzanne Fogel, head of the marketing department at DePaul University, conducted a study of the 1992 presidential election, where Ross Perot provided the psychologist with a third candidate and a national laboratory. She and colleagues Yigang Pan and Robert Pitts found that, contrary to the conventional wisdom about which candidate Perot would hurt, undecided voters who focused on different qualities of Perot tended to gravitate toward George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Here's an explanation of how the theory works:

Huber asked people whether they would prefer to eat at a five-star restaurant that was far away or at a three-star restaurant nearby. As with many choices in life, each restaurant had different advantages. If the better restaurant was also nearby, there would be no dilemma. But the question forced people to compare apples and oranges -- trade off quality against convenience -- which ensured no automatic answer.

The human brain, however, always seeks simple answers. Enter the third candidate. Huber told some people there was also a choice of a four-star restaurant that was farther away than the five-star option. People now gravitated toward the five-star choice, since it was better and closer than the third candidate. (The three-star restaurant was closer, but not as good as the new candidate.)

Another group was given a different third candidate, a two-star restaurant halfway between the first two. Many people now chose the three-star restaurant, because it beat the new option on convenience and quality. (The five-star restaurant outdid this third candidate on only one measure, quality.)

It's easy to see how dominant party candidates could use this concept to their advantage. My question is how can we best combat this effect, and more importantly, exploit it.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 12:36 PM | Comments (34)

April 03, 2007

Who Visits This Blog?

Welcome to YourTurn!

Unlike the government, we aren't asking for your name or SSN. We don't need your REAL ID or even real name. No RFID chips will be involved, either.

We would like to know a bit more about who stops by our blog, though. If you don't mind, please leave us a quick comment letting us know:

1) Do you consider yourself a libertarian, conservative, progressive, socialist, etc.?

2) Are you a member of a political party? If so, which one?

3) How often do you stop by this blog?

4) If you are a libertarian, do you think of yourself as a reformer, radical, constitutionalist, mainstream, anarcho-libertarian, Objectivist, etc.?

5) What prompted you to visit our site?

Thanks.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:54 PM | Comments (113)

April 02, 2007

Radicals for Capitalism: Reviewing the Reviews of the Reviewer

For those of you not aware, Reason's Brian Doherty has written Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. I've read the first 551 pages of the historical tome and attended two (1-2) events related to it. In my opinion, it's an incredibly great read, especially for anyone with an interest in the history of the libertarian movement. While the book provides comprehensive detail about the key players and events in the libertarian movement, it shows how much we've accomplished over the years. To paraphrase Cato's David Boaz, Brian's book will serve as the definitive history of the libertarian movement for years to come.

Apparently, everyone isn't as thrilled by the book as I am. David Leonhardt review of the book for the NY Times was not flattering of the book or of the history of the movement. And sometimes it was disinginious, to say the least.

Here's how a few people reviewed the review. Never much for many words, Glenn Reynolds wrote:

I LIKED BRIAN DOHERTY'S RADICALS FOR CAPITALISM. David Leonhardt, in the New York Times, wasn't so crazy about the book. David Boaz, on the other hand, wasn't so crazy about the review.

Andrew Sullivan was equally brief. His title: "Fisking the NYTBR."

Classically Liberal hasn't even read the book yet, but still was able to write over 2,000 words in rebuttal. Here's a sample:

I have no doubt there are deficiencies in libertarianism. Just as there are in conservatism, socialism and every other human ideology. That is the problem of not being omniscient, there are flaws. But when stacked up against the other ideologies it actually does quite well for itself. And even if a few authoritarian types smuggled themselves into the movement it isn't as if libertarians need to apologize half as much as the political Left has to for the tyrannies of Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Stalin, Mugabe, et al. Nor do libertarians need to apologize to the world the way conservatives do over the coronation of King George.

Sure Rand had her personality quirks and could be a real bitch sometimes. Rothbard did do some strange and odd things but justifying genocide wasn't one of them - something the Left did repeatedly. And as Boaz points out the New York Times doesn't have a spotless record on that count. As he notes the notorious Times writer Walter Duranty used the paper to falsify, knowingly, the tyranny in Stalinist Russia. Compared to that the worst temper tantrum of Ayn Rand is nothing.

Over at Cato-at-Liberty, David Boaz rhetorically ripped Leonhardt a new one. He started by defending against accusations of being a "fringe" movement:

Fair enough. Most movements are small, even those that have big effects. "Fringe" is a subjective issue; if a movement produces several Nobel laureates and a chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and plays a role in such policy reforms as the end of the draft, deregulation, sharply reduced taxes, and freer trade, is it still on the fringe?

Boaz cleared the inaccuracy contained in this statement: "Libertarianism has its roots in the writings of a pair of major 20th-century Austrian economists, Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek."

"Libertarianism is often seen as primarily a philosophy of economic freedom, but its real historical roots lie more in the struggle for religious toleration." Key libertarian ideas emerged out of the struggles for religious freedom in the late Roman Empire, the Middle Ages, and the early modern period.

Leonhardt:

Doherty, a senior editor at Reason magazine, acknowledges he has written "an insider's history," but it is also a sloppily written history. In a single chapter, Milton Friedman is described both as an active writer at Stanford University and, accurately, as deceased.

Boaz:

Well, sloppy is a subjective term. But if this is Leonhardt's only example, it's not very convincing. On page 469, at the end of several pages on Friedman, Doherty writes, "Friedman died at age ninety-four in November 2006, just as this book went to press." Get it? The book was written, edited, typeset, and on its way to the printer when the sad news of Friedman's death was announced. The publisher managed to squeeze that fact into the book, and Leonhardt pounces. If that sentence had not been included, would Leonhardt have called the book sloppy for not being up-to-the-minute?

There is a whole lot more and Boaz left no stone unturned. I'll add what several others already have. If one is to review a book, he or she should at least be familiar with the general topic matter and at least try to be factually correct. One need not be a libertarian; E.J. Dionne certainly isn't, but he comprehended the material quite well.

By the way, the book contained quite a bit of LP history. However, there is no way a book can contain some of the historical video we have available. Fortunately, a History of the Libertarian Party is available on YouTube.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 05:08 PM | Comments (8)