Original at the Center for Libertarian Press Information:
President Barack Obama entered the Oval Office brandishing promises to close the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, shut down CIA "black sites" around the world, and bring cleansing sunlight to bear on human rights abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration in the name of a "Global War On Terror." On Friday, Libertarians called on Obama to quit stalling and get with the program.
"Every time it looks like justice will make it out of the woods, Obama falls off the wagon," says Starchild, coordinator of the national activist group Grassroots Libertarians. "Less than four months into his presidency, we're back to kangaroo courts at Gitmo, covering up crimes with a constitutionally baseless state secrets doctrine, and hiding evidence by deeming it 'classified.'"
Earlier this week, President Obama reneged on his administration's pledge to publicly release photos depicting abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday, after months of stalling on closure of Guantanamo Bay, he announced a return to the policy of trying terror cases by military commission instead of in the courts, as required by the Constitution. Obama's White House has repeatedly sandbagged even his own party's efforts to prosecute, or even expose, those responsible for the previous administration's policy of torturing prisoners.
The Libertarian Party's platform holds that "the Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law."
To Marc Montoni, secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, Obama's policy shifts smell of politics as usual. "America voted for change we could believe in," he says. "What we're seeing so far looks more like Bush's third term."
Contact: Thomas L. Knapp | media@clipr.info | 314-721-3960
PRLog release version w/PDF: Click here
Showing posts with label Libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarian. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2009
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Announcement of candidacy
Fellow libertarians,
I initially planned to announce my 2012 candidacy for the presidency of the United States on April 6th, 2009, from the steps of the Old St. Louis Courthouse (history buffs shouldn't have too much trouble figuring out why), and I still intend to conduct a campaign event of some kind at that time and in that place.
I see, however, that others are already lining up with formal announcements or at least clear indications of their own intent ... and when a fight's brewing, I prefer to get in early.
It is therefore my distinct pleasure to announce that I will seek the 2012 presidential nominations of the Libertarian Party and the Boston Tea Party.
Why run for president -- and why, especially, for the presidential nominations of two parties which together usually account for less than one percent of the popular vote in presidential elections?
I could give you lots of reasons, but I'm going to stick with three for the moment: There are some hard truths that need to be told, I'm interested in telling them, and they're most effectively told from a bully pulpit.
Among those those hard truths are that the political wing of the libertarian movement will never make substantial progress toward its goals so long as it clings to the apron strings of the failed movements and parties of the past, remains in orbit around the present political "center," or falls prey to cargo-cultish notions of what constitutes "serious" politics.
If we want a libertarian future, we must create that future, not hope that our political opponents drag us along to it. They won't. They're not going in the direction we want to go in, they have no desire to go in the direction we want to go in, and to the extent that they're interested in us at all, they regard us either as fuel to be consumed or ballast to be dumped overboard at the earliest opportunity. I don't blame them. We haven't yet given them reason to regard us as a true threat to their power. It's time to change that.
As my friend and mentor L. Neil Smith once observed, "great men don't move to the center, they move the center." It's a big center, folks. Moving it will require a long lever, with us at the far end. I don't claim to be a great man ... but I hope to be part of a great movement, and to help that movement get further out on the lever and put some weight on it.
Insofar as cargo-cultism and "seriousness" are concerned, rest assured that I have nothing against suits and ties, friendly media interviews and the other requirements of realpolitick. What I do oppose is the absurd notion that waving around "mainstreamism" like some kind of voodoo fetish will magically boost us to competitive stature versus our older, more established opponents. It won't.
The future of the libertarian movement, if it is has one, requires a principled populist approach rooted in class theory. Not the theory of the socialists (labor versus capital) or of the liberals and conservatives (ad hoc identity politics adjusted to appeal to society's phobias du jour), but rather the theory of the productive class (those who make their living through work and voluntary exchange and cooperation) versus the political class (those who siphon off as much of that productive activity as they can get away with, using the coercive apparatus of the state, for their own ends).
For these reasons, the first phase of my campaign will largely be internal to the parties and the movement; as we move on, it will become more outwardly focused, of course, but first things first.
My fundamental goal in seeking the nominations of the LP and the BTP is not to achieve those nominations or to be elected President of the United States. It is to help the libertarian movement outfit itself for a journey yet to begin -- a journey which that movement has stood stock still at the starting point of for nearly four decades now. If I achieve that goal, the nominations and the election results are of secondary importance, as I'm certain others are at least as qualified as I am to march at the front of the column. If I do not achieve those goals, then the nominations and the election results will resemble John Nance Garner's description of the importance of the Vice Presidency of the United States: "Not worth a bucket of warm spit."
I look forward to an exciting campaign, and I humbly request the support of all who value the future of freedom.
Yours in liberty,
Thomas L. Knapp
Knapp2012.Com
I initially planned to announce my 2012 candidacy for the presidency of the United States on April 6th, 2009, from the steps of the Old St. Louis Courthouse (history buffs shouldn't have too much trouble figuring out why), and I still intend to conduct a campaign event of some kind at that time and in that place.
I see, however, that others are already lining up with formal announcements or at least clear indications of their own intent ... and when a fight's brewing, I prefer to get in early.
It is therefore my distinct pleasure to announce that I will seek the 2012 presidential nominations of the Libertarian Party and the Boston Tea Party.
Why run for president -- and why, especially, for the presidential nominations of two parties which together usually account for less than one percent of the popular vote in presidential elections?
I could give you lots of reasons, but I'm going to stick with three for the moment: There are some hard truths that need to be told, I'm interested in telling them, and they're most effectively told from a bully pulpit.
Among those those hard truths are that the political wing of the libertarian movement will never make substantial progress toward its goals so long as it clings to the apron strings of the failed movements and parties of the past, remains in orbit around the present political "center," or falls prey to cargo-cultish notions of what constitutes "serious" politics.
If we want a libertarian future, we must create that future, not hope that our political opponents drag us along to it. They won't. They're not going in the direction we want to go in, they have no desire to go in the direction we want to go in, and to the extent that they're interested in us at all, they regard us either as fuel to be consumed or ballast to be dumped overboard at the earliest opportunity. I don't blame them. We haven't yet given them reason to regard us as a true threat to their power. It's time to change that.
As my friend and mentor L. Neil Smith once observed, "great men don't move to the center, they move the center." It's a big center, folks. Moving it will require a long lever, with us at the far end. I don't claim to be a great man ... but I hope to be part of a great movement, and to help that movement get further out on the lever and put some weight on it.
Insofar as cargo-cultism and "seriousness" are concerned, rest assured that I have nothing against suits and ties, friendly media interviews and the other requirements of realpolitick. What I do oppose is the absurd notion that waving around "mainstreamism" like some kind of voodoo fetish will magically boost us to competitive stature versus our older, more established opponents. It won't.
The future of the libertarian movement, if it is has one, requires a principled populist approach rooted in class theory. Not the theory of the socialists (labor versus capital) or of the liberals and conservatives (ad hoc identity politics adjusted to appeal to society's phobias du jour), but rather the theory of the productive class (those who make their living through work and voluntary exchange and cooperation) versus the political class (those who siphon off as much of that productive activity as they can get away with, using the coercive apparatus of the state, for their own ends).
For these reasons, the first phase of my campaign will largely be internal to the parties and the movement; as we move on, it will become more outwardly focused, of course, but first things first.
My fundamental goal in seeking the nominations of the LP and the BTP is not to achieve those nominations or to be elected President of the United States. It is to help the libertarian movement outfit itself for a journey yet to begin -- a journey which that movement has stood stock still at the starting point of for nearly four decades now. If I achieve that goal, the nominations and the election results are of secondary importance, as I'm certain others are at least as qualified as I am to march at the front of the column. If I do not achieve those goals, then the nominations and the election results will resemble John Nance Garner's description of the importance of the Vice Presidency of the United States: "Not worth a bucket of warm spit."
I look forward to an exciting campaign, and I humbly request the support of all who value the future of freedom.
Yours in liberty,
Thomas L. Knapp
Knapp2012.Com
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Blast from the Past: Deus ex (Goldberg) Machina
Everybody want to go up to heaven
but none of them, none of them want to die
Peter Tosh, "Equal Rights"
Which pretty much sums up the "conservative" position on bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "We're gonna do it, but gosh darn, wouldn't it be nice if someday someone didn't?"
McCain's on board. Video here -- sorry, embed is disabled on it. Here's the back-and-fill Dixiecrat edition, though:
Apropos of which, a piece I wrote a few years back:
Deus ex (Goldberg) Machina
by Thomas L. Knapp
01/16/02@Rational Review
A visitor from another planet, dropped into the typical American living room, in front of the typical American television, would surely leave convinced that public policy is contrived, debated, adopted and implemented by a gaggle of talking heads who spend 24 hours a day in rotation between shopping for the most stylish double-breasted suits, commuting by limousine from one talk show studio to the next, and hobnobbing at White House receptions.
The truth, of course, is both more prosaic and more horrifying.
The typical American politician, at the federal level, is a harried hack, jetting back and forth between Washington and his fiefdom ... er, constituency ... to raise funds, whip recalcitrant allies into line, raise funds, shake hands, kiss babies and, of course, raise funds.
This typical politican, when in Washington, is too busy paying off favors to those donors and recalcitrant allies to accomplish much relating to the ideas that probably inspired his entry into politics in the first place.
Yes, he was a young idealist once. He had priorities. He wanted to help people. He wanted to make his country a better place, restore a sense of honor to its highest institutions, work with the statesmen he saw nightly on CNN to guide the great ship of state safely over the waves of the uncertain sea of policy.
Now, he scurries.
He scurries to the House chamber to cast a vote on a bill he's never read, because his party's leadership wants it. And those who don't "work with" the party leadership end up with the last office in the Rayburn building: the one behind the door marked "Custodian."
He scurries to the studio for a talk show appearance, prepared to mouth some lines whipped up by his staff, because the media demands it. And those who don't "work with" the media find themselves the targets of investigative reports, coverage custom made to benefit their next opponent for election or, worst of all, simply ignored.
He scurries to dinner with a major donor who happens to be in Washington, because money is the mother's milk of politics. He can't afford to lose that donation. Moreover, he can't afford to lose that donor's support.
At the end of the day, he scurries off to the White House in bow tie and cummerbund, works his way through the reception line, and stands around drinking weak cocktails and being ignored. If he's lucky. If he spills his martini on the envoy from Sierra Leone, there'll be hell to pay. If he doesn't show up at all, well, the president may not have time to campaign in his district this fall.
If he scurries adroitly enough -- zigging across the floor of House America to avoid the great boots of media oppobrium, political desertion and financial insolvency, zagging to catch the crumbs that fall from the randomly piled plates of power -- he can one day look forward to similarly corrupting his nemesis: the next young idealist to take a tentative step into the corridors of power.
This is the life of one cog -- the typical U.S. Representative -- in the machine called "hyperpluralism," that American governance has become.
The surprising thing about hyperpluralism isn't that it creates a divide between legitimate public purpose and actual public policy. It isn't that it chews up, digests and assimilates even the most honest public servant, making him just another extension on a conveyor belt moving toward the incinerator of totalitarianism . It isn't even that it can produce only centralization of power and deliver that power only to those least likely to either eschew it or exercise it with extreme caution.
The surprising thing about hyperpluralism is that it works at all.
When I began to write this piece it was, surprisingly enough, intended as a rebuttal to Jonah Goldberg's critiques of libertarianism. That's still my intent, but I've found another Goldberg in the woodpile. His name is Rube, and his presence shines some light on my discomfiture with Brother Jonah's ponderings.
Jonah Goldberg is the current golden boy at National Review, journal of record for "conservatism" in the Day of Dubya.
Rube, of course, is the cartoonist whose wonderful images of complex machines designed to accomplish simple tasks engaged and delighted an audience of millions.
"Conservatism" in the Day of Dubya is Jonah's application of Rube's ideas to politics.
That, of course, is the nut of the matter. Goldberg's problem with libertarians isn't that we're thin-skinned. It isn't that we're simplistic or that our ideas aren't relevant to the debate at its root.
It's that a polity based on libertarian ideas would not need an army of "liberal" Rubes to design it or a horde of "conservative" Jonahs to crawl over its superstructure, continually tightening bolts, checking welds and adding kitchen sinks, mousetraps and bathtubs to its bewildering assortment of features.
Or to explain what the hell it is that they've built.
National Review prides itself for "standing athwart history yelling stop." That pride is misplaced. All too often, the "conservatism" of Goldberg and Company is more reminiscent of the prayer of Augustine: "Give me chastity and continence -- but not just yet."
History, thus far, is the record of continuing state encroachment on individual liberty -- with occasional interruption due to technical difficulties. The piercing "STOP!" of the modern American "conservative" movement is invariably followed by a throaty, whispered "but not just yet" as "conservatives" rush to assimilate the latest development, make it their own and defend it to the death.
Contra Goldberg (Jonah, not Rube), libertarians don't suffer from "accumulated resentment at being in the backseat of the right-wing coalition." No such coalition exists, nor can it exist except on libertarian terms. The backseat of American politics is already occupied by the "conservatives," busily engaged in making babies with the "liberals."
The libertarian malady is more physiological and less petty than resentment. It's called nausea.
Monday, June 30, 2008
PSA
Sunday, August 12, 2007
WSPP, version 1.1
Yes, I am a comma and "and/or" nitpick. Here's the new version of The World's Smallest Political Platform. Future users of the WSPP should use this one, not the previous version (the Boston Tea Party is stuck with the old one, having unmodifiably codified it in its bylaws ... my bad):
World's Smallest Political Platform by
Thomas L. Knapp is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
[Name of organization] supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose."
World's Smallest Political Platform by
Thomas L. Knapp is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Survey says ...
Steve Gordon and LibertarianLists just completed their first survey of libertarian attitudes toward the 2008 presidential election. The results are being fed out in chunks at various places on the Internet, including (so far):
- Gordon Unleashed
- Last Free Voice
- The Free Liberal
The good news:
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The bad news:
- Ron Paul commands overwhelming support from the survey pool. 69.62% of respondents list him as their presidential preference ... and support for Paul is higher among self-identified Libertarian Party supporters than among Republican respondents. From the total pool, 67% of respondents identify themselves as Badnarik 2004 voters.
For the record no, I don't think that Paul supporters "stuffed" or "slammed" the poll. The situation really is that ugly.
- Paul's support level relegates all LP candidates to single-digit percentages, such that even the "pack leaders" -- George Phillies (2.71%), Steve Kubby (2.01%) and Wayne Allyn Root (2.01%) are scrunched within 0.7% of each other. Christine Smith trailed the pack, coming in at just under 1%.
In raw votes, George Phillies was the "winner" by 14 votes, but it's hard to make a case that any of the LP candidates did better than miserably or that any of them stood out. None of them received as many votes as Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or "other."
Kubby did excel the other LP candidates in name recognition and "favorability" numbers -- the former by a good margin (Kubby's name recognition was nearly 50%, Phillies's just short of 40%, and Root's less than 20%). On "favorability," the candidates were once again clustered very closely.
As a Kubby supporter, I can't say that anything in the survey comforted me greatly. At this point in the campaign, I'd hoped to see him positioned as the clear front-runner (at least in the LP field), not bogged down in a cellar mud-wrestling match with two other contenders.
The bottom line:
The LP and the libertarian movement are in deep trouble. None of the LP's candidates have made a significant impact yet, large segments of the party are defecting to a conservative Republican dark horse with no chance of winning the GOP nomination and every chance of continuing to damage the freedom movement in the process of failing to do so, and this trend looks likely to continue through at least next spring.
Even if Paul drops out of the GOP race in February or March -- not a safe assumption, as he seems like the type to go all the way to the Republican Party's national convention as an ineffectual protest candidate, draining libertarian support from productive activities all the while -- there will likely be a reasonably effective "draft Paul" movement in the LP.
And even if that movement is unsuccessful, there may be an organized "NOTA" campaign prompted by Paul's GOP campaign but going on after that campaign ends.
And even if by some chance the LP does manage to nominate a libertarian presidential ticket (as opposed to a Paul ticket or NOTA) despite these obstacles, it looks likely to be a badly underfunded campaign in a year when a well-funded LP campaign with the right candidate (cough ... Kubby ... cough) would almost certainly mean real gains for the party at the polling place and in the public sentiment.
There are bright spots, existing and upcoming, that the survey doesn't reflect, but I'm not terribly optimistic that they'll be enough to break the Ron Paul cult's death grip on the freedom movement's throat. Unless we (or others) find a way to do that, and soon, 2008 is going to go down as a year of lost opportunities.
Gordon's/LibertarianLists' next survey is available here. Weigh in!
- Gordon Unleashed
- Last Free Voice
- The Free Liberal
The good news:
The bad news:
- Ron Paul commands overwhelming support from the survey pool. 69.62% of respondents list him as their presidential preference ... and support for Paul is higher among self-identified Libertarian Party supporters than among Republican respondents. From the total pool, 67% of respondents identify themselves as Badnarik 2004 voters.
For the record no, I don't think that Paul supporters "stuffed" or "slammed" the poll. The situation really is that ugly.
- Paul's support level relegates all LP candidates to single-digit percentages, such that even the "pack leaders" -- George Phillies (2.71%), Steve Kubby (2.01%) and Wayne Allyn Root (2.01%) are scrunched within 0.7% of each other. Christine Smith trailed the pack, coming in at just under 1%.
In raw votes, George Phillies was the "winner" by 14 votes, but it's hard to make a case that any of the LP candidates did better than miserably or that any of them stood out. None of them received as many votes as Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or "other."
Kubby did excel the other LP candidates in name recognition and "favorability" numbers -- the former by a good margin (Kubby's name recognition was nearly 50%, Phillies's just short of 40%, and Root's less than 20%). On "favorability," the candidates were once again clustered very closely.
As a Kubby supporter, I can't say that anything in the survey comforted me greatly. At this point in the campaign, I'd hoped to see him positioned as the clear front-runner (at least in the LP field), not bogged down in a cellar mud-wrestling match with two other contenders.
The bottom line:
The LP and the libertarian movement are in deep trouble. None of the LP's candidates have made a significant impact yet, large segments of the party are defecting to a conservative Republican dark horse with no chance of winning the GOP nomination and every chance of continuing to damage the freedom movement in the process of failing to do so, and this trend looks likely to continue through at least next spring.
Even if Paul drops out of the GOP race in February or March -- not a safe assumption, as he seems like the type to go all the way to the Republican Party's national convention as an ineffectual protest candidate, draining libertarian support from productive activities all the while -- there will likely be a reasonably effective "draft Paul" movement in the LP.
And even if that movement is unsuccessful, there may be an organized "NOTA" campaign prompted by Paul's GOP campaign but going on after that campaign ends.
And even if by some chance the LP does manage to nominate a libertarian presidential ticket (as opposed to a Paul ticket or NOTA) despite these obstacles, it looks likely to be a badly underfunded campaign in a year when a well-funded LP campaign with the right candidate (cough ... Kubby ... cough) would almost certainly mean real gains for the party at the polling place and in the public sentiment.
There are bright spots, existing and upcoming, that the survey doesn't reflect, but I'm not terribly optimistic that they'll be enough to break the Ron Paul cult's death grip on the freedom movement's throat. Unless we (or others) find a way to do that, and soon, 2008 is going to go down as a year of lost opportunities.
Gordon's/LibertarianLists' next survey is available here. Weigh in!
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Against Stockholm libertarianism
We should repeal all of America's 20,000-odd "gun control" laws. But of course, we can't do that ... until we've eliminated homicide.
We should close down the war on drugs. But of course, we can't do that ... until we've scourged away every last vestige of the human desire for intoxication.
We should eliminate Social Security. But of course, we can't do that ... until all its current and future payees lie a-mouldering the grave, having never missed a monthly check.
If I put any of these propositions up for debate, my fellow libertarians would make short work of me. They'd have my head on a platter. It would be easy, because all three of the propositions are ridiculous on their faces.
Sound familiar? That's George Phillies, candidate for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination.
Heard something like that somewhere before? That's Wayne Allyn Root, candidate for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination.
Ring a bell? Hey, it's Ron Paul, Republican presidential nomination candidate. I'm including him because despite his recent born again hard claims to represent conservativism, most libertarians regard him as one of our own.
It's not just presidential candidates, of course.
-- Ilana Mercer, "The work open-border libertarians won't do," at Free Market News Network
-- Tibor R. Machan, "Welfare state and illegal immigration," in the Orange County Register
-- Brian Holtz, "Iraq Exit, Social Security, and Immigration," Knowing Humans
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a hostage situation.
It's a neat scam, this holding of one positive reform hostage, while around the corner your political enemies hold its counterpart hostage as well. You won't let your hostage go until they let their hostage go. And they won't let their hostage go until you let yours go (and they'd really rather you didn't).
No muss, no fuss -- you've both successfully avoided responsibility. They've avoided doing something they don't want to do anyway, you've avoided doing something you claim you want to do but are looking for an excuse not to advocate. It's the pleading prayer of St. Augustine -- Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo! -- cleverly disguised as practical political necessity.
There are probably as many extant definitions of libertarianism as there are libertarians (even "Zero Aggression Principle" libertarians often disagree on what course that principle dictates in various circumstances). Among the strangest of those definitions is this "I stand for freedom -- just as soon as those other guys do, and not a moment before" nonsense.
As popular as Know-Nothing bullshit -- festooned with "I'd love to advocate immigration freedom, but first you have to convince that guy over there to give up his food stamps" hostage-taking camouflage -- seems to have become in what passes for a libertarian movement these days, I'm surprised we're not all running into each other at Stockholm Syndrome Survivor conventions. Fortunately, there's a cure.
We should close down the war on drugs. But of course, we can't do that ... until we've scourged away every last vestige of the human desire for intoxication.
We should eliminate Social Security. But of course, we can't do that ... until all its current and future payees lie a-mouldering the grave, having never missed a monthly check.
If I put any of these propositions up for debate, my fellow libertarians would make short work of me. They'd have my head on a platter. It would be easy, because all three of the propositions are ridiculous on their faces.
Under the present welfare system, a vote for open borders is a vote for higher taxes for all. Someday, the Libertarian message of peace, liberty, and prosperity reach [sic] the entire world. All people will then enjoy the freedom and high standard of living we take for granted. In that day, immigration and open borders will be non-issues.
Sound familiar? That's George Phillies, candidate for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination.
We must secure our borders before we can deal with the issue of how to deal with illegal immigrants already in our country.
Heard something like that somewhere before? That's Wayne Allyn Root, candidate for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination.
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. ... taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Ring a bell? Hey, it's Ron Paul, Republican presidential nomination candidate. I'm including him because despite his recent born again hard claims to represent conservativism, most libertarians regard him as one of our own.
It's not just presidential candidates, of course.
The problem with so many libertarian formulations is that they do not respect reality. Rather, they hold up the libertarian ideal, lament its unattainablility, and refuse to debate the issue until the ideal is achieved. That's intellectually lazy. It's also an affront to reality, the rational man's anchor.
And the reality is that the American welfare state is accreting, not shrinking. The reality is that the more libertarians support the importation of impoverished minorities, with a tradition of aggressively manipulating the political apparatus to obtain property not theirs --the more intractable the welfare state will become.
-- Ilana Mercer, "The work open-border libertarians won't do," at Free Market News Network
This is what is evident in the current debate about illegal immigration: The welfare state is the underlying fundamental problem. Until that system is abolished, until a revolutionary change occurs and no Peter is looted for the sake of any Paul -- whether poor, rich, legal or illegal -- there will be no solution to the illegal immigration problem.
-- Tibor R. Machan, "Welfare state and illegal immigration," in the Orange County Register
In a world with radically different levels of economic freedom (and thus of economic prosperity), relatively free and prosperous nations cannot allow completely unrestricted immigration without risking serious socioeconomic disruption.
-- Brian Holtz, "Iraq Exit, Social Security, and Immigration," Knowing Humans
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a hostage situation.
It's a neat scam, this holding of one positive reform hostage, while around the corner your political enemies hold its counterpart hostage as well. You won't let your hostage go until they let their hostage go. And they won't let their hostage go until you let yours go (and they'd really rather you didn't).
No muss, no fuss -- you've both successfully avoided responsibility. They've avoided doing something they don't want to do anyway, you've avoided doing something you claim you want to do but are looking for an excuse not to advocate. It's the pleading prayer of St. Augustine -- Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo! -- cleverly disguised as practical political necessity.
There are probably as many extant definitions of libertarianism as there are libertarians (even "Zero Aggression Principle" libertarians often disagree on what course that principle dictates in various circumstances). Among the strangest of those definitions is this "I stand for freedom -- just as soon as those other guys do, and not a moment before" nonsense.
As popular as Know-Nothing bullshit -- festooned with "I'd love to advocate immigration freedom, but first you have to convince that guy over there to give up his food stamps" hostage-taking camouflage -- seems to have become in what passes for a libertarian movement these days, I'm surprised we're not all running into each other at Stockholm Syndrome Survivor conventions. Fortunately, there's a cure.
Update: My friend Caryn Ann Harlos, who found this piece helpful and informative, tells me that I should replace that final link (which is to a defunct web site, Steve Kubby's 2008 presidential campaign site) with something more informative. She suggests this one. I'm both in agreement with her on that, and flattered by the suggestion.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Straight from the horse's mouth
A number of my friends have stated that they are supporting Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign because "even though he's running in the Republican primaries, he's running as a libertarian."
Today, I received a letter from someone who disagrees with that take on Ron Paul's campaign. You may recognize the writer's name -- he calls himself "Ron Paul."
The outside of the envelope bears the slogan "Time for a real conservative."
In the letter inside the envelope -- it's a fundraiser, of course -- Congressman Paul refers to himself and his supporters as "conservative" no less than eight times, according to my quick count. According to the same quick count, he uses the word "libertarian" a grand total of zero times.
Other inclusions and omissions may also be of interest to Paul's libertarian supporters:
- Paul gives two paragraphs of the letter to foreign policy, but conspicuously omits the word "Iraq."
- Paul's position on immigration -- which may well be "conservative," but can't by any stretch of the imagination be described as "libertarian" -- gets five paragraphs.
- I know that there are principled disagreements among libertarians on abortion (I'm pro-life myself), but when Paul mentions "overturning Roe v. Wade" -- without elaboration as to why that might or might not be a good idea -- he does so with the clear intent of portraying himself as more conservative, not more libertarian, than his opponents for the GOP's presidential nomination.
I believe that it is fair to describe Ron Paul as a libertarian, our disagreements on what that label entails aside. However, being a libertarian and running for president as a libertarian are two different things entirely.
Ron Paul isn't running for president as a libertarian. He's running for president as a conservative. He says so himself, repeatedly and unequivocally. If you're supporting Ron Paul for president, you should be very aware that you are supporting a conservative campaign, not a libertarian campaign. If you want to support a candidate who's running as a libertarian, well, I've repeatedly pointed you at one of those.
Today, I received a letter from someone who disagrees with that take on Ron Paul's campaign. You may recognize the writer's name -- he calls himself "Ron Paul."
The outside of the envelope bears the slogan "Time for a real conservative."
In the letter inside the envelope -- it's a fundraiser, of course -- Congressman Paul refers to himself and his supporters as "conservative" no less than eight times, according to my quick count. According to the same quick count, he uses the word "libertarian" a grand total of zero times.
Other inclusions and omissions may also be of interest to Paul's libertarian supporters:
- Paul gives two paragraphs of the letter to foreign policy, but conspicuously omits the word "Iraq."
- Paul's position on immigration -- which may well be "conservative," but can't by any stretch of the imagination be described as "libertarian" -- gets five paragraphs.
- I know that there are principled disagreements among libertarians on abortion (I'm pro-life myself), but when Paul mentions "overturning Roe v. Wade" -- without elaboration as to why that might or might not be a good idea -- he does so with the clear intent of portraying himself as more conservative, not more libertarian, than his opponents for the GOP's presidential nomination.
I believe that it is fair to describe Ron Paul as a libertarian, our disagreements on what that label entails aside. However, being a libertarian and running for president as a libertarian are two different things entirely.
Ron Paul isn't running for president as a libertarian. He's running for president as a conservative. He says so himself, repeatedly and unequivocally. If you're supporting Ron Paul for president, you should be very aware that you are supporting a conservative campaign, not a libertarian campaign. If you want to support a candidate who's running as a libertarian, well, I've repeatedly pointed you at one of those.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Bob Barr, Renaissance man
The NRA is holding its national convention or some such in St. Louis this week, and that brought former Congressman Bob Barr (L-GA) to town. Congressman Barr graciously made himself available for a reception/speech/meet-and-greet with the Missouri Libertarian Party last night at the Renaissance Grand Hotel downtown.
I had my own reasons for attending, of course. Congressman Barr's decision to take out a life membership in the LP, and his subsequent elevation to a vacancy on the Libertarian National Committee, raised some eyebrows a few months back. Having never met the man, I wanted to "take his temperature" and decide for myself whether or not his conversion from GOP enfant terrible to Libertarian elder statesman is for real.
Short version: Yes, I believe it is.
Long version:
I didn't quite know what to expect. Libertarians have had a long-term love-hate relationship with Congressman Barr over several key issues, and for years he was one of the media's favorite Republican bogeymen. If I expected anything, I guess it was the pompous, insincere "snake-oil salesman" routine that I associate with televangelists and full-time pols, especially when they've recently taken a big turn in a new direction.
In real life, Barr is far from that. He's relaxed, cordial and friendly -- and he seems to mean what he's saying, without gimmicks or tactics designed to win over his audience. He passed the "kid test" with flying colors. My sons can spot a fake or a liar a mile away -- it's some kind of sixth sense that kids have -- and when they do, they won't have anything to do with the guy. They cozied right up to the Congressman, playing at his feet while he stood and chatted with a group of Libertarians after his speech. They posed with him for a photo, something they'd never do with someone they thought wasn't a good guy. Liam gave him a drawing ... and then sold him another one for two bucks. Barr is obviously on the opposite end from most politicians of the vacuum cleaner salesman routine.
At no point did I feel like Congressman Barr was being less than entirely candid about his motives in affiliating with the Libertarian Party. He wasn't trying to sell himself to us -- he really has decided that he's one of us. And no, I'm not addressing "ideological purity" matters here. We can argue those all we want, and I'm sure we will, but that just goes with the territory. I was mainly interested in the sincerity of his new self-identification, not in the details of his positions.
Some details of interest:
- Naturally, one of the big questions is on Barr's dramatic change of views with respect to drug policy. During the Q&A, I had the opportunity to ask him if there was any particular thing that changed his mind on that issue. His answer was straightforward: The attacks on liberty since 9/11 have been so many, so strong, and so intertwined with each other, he said, that he experienced an "epiphany" on the need for a total, rather than partial, defense of freedom. I hate to paraphrase rather than quote, but I wasn't recording or anything. All I can tell you is that the answer seemed to me to be honestly tendered.
- When asked if he had noticed any potentially credible presidential candidates in the LP, he was reasonably gentle, but not evasive. He noted that he'd met several of the nomination candidates at an LP event in Florida last month, and that while they were all very likeable, (quoted as best as I can remember) "none of them really rose to the level of impressive." [NB: I'm not sure exactly which candidates were at that event; I know that Christine Smith and Steve Kubby were not; Barr alluded to looking forward to meeting Smith, as someone in the audience had talked with him about her before the event; naturally, I put in a word for Kubby afterward as well.]
- When asked if he would consider running for president himself, his answer was, and I quote: "Next question, please." If you think that means what I think you probably think that means, I think that you and I are probably thinking it means the same thing. I would not cross Barr off the list of potential candidates.
I had my own reasons for attending, of course. Congressman Barr's decision to take out a life membership in the LP, and his subsequent elevation to a vacancy on the Libertarian National Committee, raised some eyebrows a few months back. Having never met the man, I wanted to "take his temperature" and decide for myself whether or not his conversion from GOP enfant terrible to Libertarian elder statesman is for real.
Short version: Yes, I believe it is.
Long version:
I didn't quite know what to expect. Libertarians have had a long-term love-hate relationship with Congressman Barr over several key issues, and for years he was one of the media's favorite Republican bogeymen. If I expected anything, I guess it was the pompous, insincere "snake-oil salesman" routine that I associate with televangelists and full-time pols, especially when they've recently taken a big turn in a new direction.
In real life, Barr is far from that. He's relaxed, cordial and friendly -- and he seems to mean what he's saying, without gimmicks or tactics designed to win over his audience. He passed the "kid test" with flying colors. My sons can spot a fake or a liar a mile away -- it's some kind of sixth sense that kids have -- and when they do, they won't have anything to do with the guy. They cozied right up to the Congressman, playing at his feet while he stood and chatted with a group of Libertarians after his speech. They posed with him for a photo, something they'd never do with someone they thought wasn't a good guy. Liam gave him a drawing ... and then sold him another one for two bucks. Barr is obviously on the opposite end from most politicians of the vacuum cleaner salesman routine.
At no point did I feel like Congressman Barr was being less than entirely candid about his motives in affiliating with the Libertarian Party. He wasn't trying to sell himself to us -- he really has decided that he's one of us. And no, I'm not addressing "ideological purity" matters here. We can argue those all we want, and I'm sure we will, but that just goes with the territory. I was mainly interested in the sincerity of his new self-identification, not in the details of his positions.
Some details of interest:
- Naturally, one of the big questions is on Barr's dramatic change of views with respect to drug policy. During the Q&A, I had the opportunity to ask him if there was any particular thing that changed his mind on that issue. His answer was straightforward: The attacks on liberty since 9/11 have been so many, so strong, and so intertwined with each other, he said, that he experienced an "epiphany" on the need for a total, rather than partial, defense of freedom. I hate to paraphrase rather than quote, but I wasn't recording or anything. All I can tell you is that the answer seemed to me to be honestly tendered.
- When asked if he had noticed any potentially credible presidential candidates in the LP, he was reasonably gentle, but not evasive. He noted that he'd met several of the nomination candidates at an LP event in Florida last month, and that while they were all very likeable, (quoted as best as I can remember) "none of them really rose to the level of impressive." [NB: I'm not sure exactly which candidates were at that event; I know that Christine Smith and Steve Kubby were not; Barr alluded to looking forward to meeting Smith, as someone in the audience had talked with him about her before the event; naturally, I put in a word for Kubby afterward as well.]
- When asked if he would consider running for president himself, his answer was, and I quote: "Next question, please." If you think that means what I think you probably think that means, I think that you and I are probably thinking it means the same thing. I would not cross Barr off the list of potential candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)