With just three months to go before the long national nightmare that is Election 2016 transmogrifies into a either a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump presidency(!), let’s take a late-summer moment to squeeze some lemonade from lemons. Whatever happens in November, all of us who have political perspectives that are routinely discounted or dismissed by the Republican-Democratic duopoly should thank Donald Trump for creating a blueprint to power for us. […]
There has been much hand-wringing among the right on where Republicans go now that Trump has “destroyed” the party. They complain that the Republican Party has left them, while millions of Trump voters and libertarians believe party leaders and professional pundits left them decades ago. Regardless of whether the #NeverTrump crowd has valid points, it is clear that Trump has done libertarians a favor in busting the Old Guard of Republican kingmakers. The Old Guard isn’t mad that Trump doesn’t represent their principles, but that they no longer hold any power in picking the top of the ticket. The proof is that rather than get behind Gary Johnson, they’d rather trot out a candidate with zero name recognition or campaign infrastructure.
[…]
“A dumpster fire on steroids, with a hit of crack”… Heh!
The problem I have with Ms. De Pasquale’s argument is this: how many reasonably libertarian figures have Trump’s name recognition (or decades of self-aggrandizement)? I can’t think of any, aside from Penn Jillette. And offhand, I don’t think Penn has the personality to be a successful politician.
But maybe what Trump has done proves me wrong. Need someone who’s outspoken and has opinions not generally accepted by establishment figures? That’s Penn, idnit?
Hmmm… I’d probably vote for him. And Teller’s a pretty committed libertarian too… That’s it: Penn/Teller in 2020!
I got $100 says they’d win both Austin and Anchorage.
Update 8/31/16
But perhaps I spoke too quickly. Here’s a recently-published clip of Penn talking about libertarianism and US politics. It takes a few surprising turns.
I’m not fan of the Crony Capitalism Penn gets on about, but I’m even less fond of Crony Government. And that’s what socialist governments frequently end up being. I’m not sure why Senator Sanders’s implementation would be a whole lot different than Hugo Chávez’s.
This article by Noah Feldman appears at Bloomberg.com. The EEOC complaint he describes is practically a reductio ad absurdum of political correctness, IMO. Where does this stuff end?
Is it racial harassment in the workplace to display the yellow “Don’t tread on me” flag? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says that it could be, depending on the context. The commission acknowledged that the Gadsden flag, which dates back to the era of the American Revolution, did not have racist origins. But it called for a careful investigation to see whether recent uses of the flag have been sufficiently “racially tinged” that it could count as harassment.
A strong argument can be mounted that this EEOC decision is a threat to the First Amendment — and that’s exactly the argument made by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh on his blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, in reporting on the commission decision. But on closer examination, I think the commission got this one right. When it comes to the meaning of symbols, social context is everything. Even symbols that have no direct historical connection to racism can change meaning over time. And if we’re going to have laws against workplace harassment, we have to prohibit all harassing behavior — including harassment that’s overtly political.
The Gadsden flag […] is said to have been designed or at least promulgated by Christopher Gadsden, a politician and patriot from Charleston, South Carolina. He was a member of the Marine committee of the Continental Congress; the newly formed Marines were reported to have used some version of the image and logo on their drums in 1775. […]
Gadsden made his money as a merchant in South Carolina, and both owned and sold slaves. As it happens, in common with other slaveholding members of the founding generation, he also sometimes spoke against slavery. In a 1766 speech, he referred to slavery as a “crime,” while observing that “slavery begets slavery” and predicting that South Carolina would see more of it.
But there seems to be no dispute that the flag, as used by the Marines and others in the Revolutionary War, was a message to King George, and had nothing to do with slavery or racism per se.
In his complaint to the EEOC, the anonymous writer objected to a co-worker wearing a hat bearing the flag “because the flag was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a ‘slave trader & owner of slaves.’”
On its own, that’s a pretty weak argument. The fact that a slave owner created a symbol doesn’t mean that symbol is racist. The Constitution itself, after all, was designed in large part by slave owners.
Needless to say, I disagree with Feldman’s conclusion (my emphasis above) and I agree with Eugene Volokh’s opinion; Volokh’s post is worth reading.
If we accept Feldman’s conclusion, where’s the stopping point? If the goal is to eradicate any historical reference that over time may be seen as racist in some social context, then there’s no limit to it. Will somebody, somewhere, someday be offended by something innocuous? It’s a sure bet.
Now… who wants decisions like those made by EEOC bureaucrats in Mr. Trump’s administration? Raise your hands.
My suspicion is that maybe the complainer associates the Gadsden flag with the Tea Party and this is really an attack on what the complainer regards as offensive political speech. See this story from 2013. In that case, the EEOC’s decision is even more troubling.
Rumors are spreading that Gary Johnson is joining to receive support from some previous presidential hopefuls. (Getty)
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate might be getting public support from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, both Republicans who have unsuccessfully run for the White House. […]
I ran across a couple of opinion pieces in the last couple of days about Libertarians in national politics. This first one’s by Kevin Williamson. I usually enjoy his pieces even when I don’t agree with them – but I have no big argument with this one. (My emphasis below.)
As the presidential campaign season kicked off, many of my friends and colleagues insisted that the United States was having a “libertarian moment.” I thought otherwise, and argued (in Politico) that the admirable Senator Rand Paul, the closest thing to an out-and-out libertarian with any currency in mainstream political circles, would have a hard time seeking the Republican nomination not in spite of his libertarianism but because of it. The idea that Americans are closet libertarians who desire a regime of economic liberalism and a hands-off approach to social questions is not supported by the evidence. […]
I am writing from FreedomFest, the annual Las Vegas gathering of libertarians ranging from those we’d recognize as ordinary conservatives to the Libertarian-party types, goldbugs, marijuana obsessives, and the rest of the merry liberty-movement pranksters. The discussions have ranged from libertarianism in the Islamic world to Black Lives Matters to New Hampshire secession, a subject that may be of some interest to my fellow Texans.
The conversations here are familiar: The proponents of free people and free markets have a “branding problem,” and, if we could only figure out the right words to say in the right order, then people would flock to our banner. At the Planet Hollywood hotel and casino, a famous libertarian activist sweeps his hand over the adult video games, the burlesque dancers at the Heart Bar, the people wandering around with foot-high daiquiri glasses and says: “Hopefully, the whole world will soon look like this.”
And we libertarians wonder why we’re losing. […]
The complexity of the real world exceeds what can be adequately addressed by our ideologies, and the variety of real human beings — and real human experience — means that there are real differences in basic, fundamental values. Most people do not want their values to be tolerated — they want their values to prevail. The terrorists in Nice and Orlando are not fighting for toleration. Neither are the neo-socialists now migrating from the Sanders camp to the Clinton camp or the Trumpkins who are sure that their frustrations and disappointments are being artificially and maliciously inflicted on them by a nefarious elite. And that’s why we are not having a libertarian moment, but a nationalist-socialist moment.
I told you so.
Yep. The "let live" part seems to be a lot harder for many than the "live" part.
This second one’s by Kristin Tate, who has a different take on the cause of Libertarians’ problems.
As purveyor of The Libertarian Chick, I have discovered that it is impossible to please all of my fans. Over the years I have gotten cranky emails from readers who call me “The Tea Party Chick,” “The Republican Chick,” “Democrat Chick,” “hippie chick,” among others (some are too mean to include here — my mommy reads this blog!)
It is no different on my Facebook page. When I post an article about government welfare I am a “heartless neocon”; when I express support for Ted Cruz, I am “bought out by the Republican Party”; when I post about legalizing hemp I am a “left-wing nut job.”
All this capricious griping has become the norm among the libertarian community. The mindset seems to be that if you don’t agree with every aspect of the Party platform, then you are not really a libertarian.
This stubborn purism became especially real to me after I was blocked from the official Libertarian Party Facebook page. (Yes, they blocked the Libertarian Chick! Isn’t that ironic?) After expressing an opposing opinion *GASP* to one of their vocal Admins, he kicked me off the page. Just like that.
The Libertarian Party has a big problem on its hands. The exclusive nature of the group — requiring litmus tests on such topics as immigration, tax policy, government spending and social issues — is largely why we have been unable to affect major change.
We libertarians are principled people. We have strong convictions, which is what led us to break out of the the two-party system in the first place. But clinging to these convictions without allowing any dissent is what often hinders us from actually getting anything done. […]
I don’t get too excited by political scandals. The large majority of them seem to be much ado about very little. But there are exceptions proving this rule, of course. I recall the day Richard Nixon left the White House. He wasn’t tarred and feathered… maybe because it would have been too good for him.
I’ll be very surprised, though, if the way Secretary Clinton and her staff handled e-mail correspondence was even a tenth as serious as Nixon’s crimes. Barring a revelation that the Clinton Foundation has profited from information Ms. Clinton leaked via insecure servers (always possible, I suppose) or some foreign government publishing emails that had been hacked from her servers (also possible), this looks like a bad decision made by a technically illiterate boss. And that’s hardly news; I mean, how many times does that happen?
Nonetheless, what the Secretary & staff did are accused of doing (and have kinda, sorta admitted doing) violated Federal law. Clinton rebuts FBI charge of recklessness, by the way.
So the contrast between how Ms. Clinton’s case has been handled and how Federal prosecutions of ordinary citizens are handled is striking. Innocent-until-proven-guilty applies to politicians too, so we’d need to wait for a judge or jury to convict her before we could say she’s guilty. But that can never happen if she’s never prosecuted, can it? The process was short-circuited in her favor.
For our money, the most revealing words in FBI Director James Comey’s statement Tuesday explaining his decision not to recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information were these: “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
So there it is in the political raw: One standard exists for a Democratic candidate for President and another for the hoi polloi. We’re not sure if Mr. Comey, the erstwhile Eliot Ness, intended to be so obvious, but what a depressing moment this is for the American rule of law. No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful. […]
Yep. Secretary Clinton violated the letter of the law in several occasions… no biggie. But don’t you dare get caught doing that.
Here’s a clip called the Email Scandal Supercut from Reason TV. Nice juxtaposition.
For reference, FBI Director Comey’s full press conference.
But the best question I saw about this was Warren Meyer’s. (My emphasis again.)
Yesterday, the FBI said that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted because, though she clearly violated laws about management of confidential information, she had no “intent” to do so. Two thoughts […]
If politicians are going to grant each other a strong mens rea (guilty mind or criminal intent) requirements for criminal prosecution, then politicians need to give this to the rest of us as well. Every year, individuals and companies are successfully prosecuted for accidentally falling afoul of some complex and arcane Federal law. Someone needs to ask Hillary where she stands on Federal mens rea reform.
If you’re not familiar with the term mens rea, follow the link at the end of that snippet. Basically, los Federales can prosecute you for crimes without having to show that you intended to commit a crime or that you were even aware that you’d committed one.
Here’s a pretty nicely done ad from Team Johnson-Weld. #youin.
As I’ve said earlier, the Libertarians look like the best bet in November.
I’m not sure I’d be saying how "easy" good government is, though. A recalcitrant Congress could change that tune pretty quickly. (But I Am Not A Politician.)
The good news is that Donald Trump has finally spouted enough nonsense that I can tune him out completely with the knowledge I won’t be missing anything worthwhile. He’s said something so incredibly obtuse that he’s hit the firewall: no more packets allowed from that address.
Here’s a report about a recent Trump speech in Pennsylvania.
MONESSEN, Pa. — While attacking Hillary Clinton and other career politicians, Donald Trump took aim Tuesday at two other prominent election targets: globalization and free trade.
“Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy … but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache,” Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.
In a speech devoted to what he called “How To Make America Wealthy Again,” Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called “failed trade policies” — including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary. […]
Trump’s remarks on free trade are pretty unequivocal evidence he should never be president. He shouldn’t even be mayor of a major U.S. city. Dogcatcher? Maybe.
The man would be a positive danger to the global economy. And as economic questions go, so go political questions. See Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act if you need an historical reminder.
Mr. "Art of the Deal" thinks the global economy is a zero sum game? Bzzt! Sorry, Don, but the 18th century is long gone, my man.
Mr. "Think Big and Kick Ass" supposes he has a better handle on NAFTA than Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Clinton – plus, of course, the U.S. House and Senate? He’s ready to reverse the Republican party’s policy of 30-plus years?
Yeah, right… what a maroon. Not meaning to insult anybody, but I sincerely hope that no one I know votes for Trump.
Somebody should send Mr.Trump a copy of The Wealth of Nations – or, better yet, read it aloud to him to make sure he hears it.
Maybe there’s an illustrated version that he’d understand.
NOLAND, Mary Anne Alfriend. Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Mary Anne Noland of Richmond chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God on Sunday, May 15, 2016, at the age of 68. […]
One incidental impact of a Trump presidency: mainstream law professors would develop a sudden, strange new respect for constitutional law concepts such as separation of powers and federalism, which tend to serve as checks on the power and ambition of the President and his backers. [Paul Horwitz, PrawfsBlawg]
Donald Trump crushed it in the Indiana GOP primary last night, winning more than 50 percent of the vote and causing Ted Cruz to drop out. Although John Kasich is still in the race, he has only won one state so far while Trump is less than 200 delegates from securing the nomination.
That led to a surge tonight in searches for “Libertarian Party,” as this chart from Google Trends showing searches for “Libertarian Party” over the last 24 hour period:
Libertarians will choose their candidate at their convention in Orlando over Memorial Day weekend. […]
How many “Never Trump” Republicans look at the Libertarian Party instead of supporting Hillary Clinton remains to be seen. Mark Selter, a senior aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, has already indicated he’ll be supporting Clinton. Other Republican establishment types may do the same, providing a poignant illustration of how the Trump phenomenon became a thing in the first place.
Almost one in five Americans say they’d consider a third party candidate if the nominees were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Forget about which major party is the "lesser evil." The choice between the Democratic candidate — whichever socialist-know-it-all that turns out to be — and the likely Republican candidate — a turd called itself a Republican, so the GOP is rallying ’round to polish it — is no choice at all.
It’s Hobson’s Choice is what it is. We’re like people with both an abusive spouse and an abusive boy/girlfriend. The only reasonable option is to avoid both of them.
If any election ever illustrated that U.S. politics tend to be the Coke Party vs. the Pepsi Party, this is the one.
So vote for the least of the evils: Vote Libertarian.
A Libertarian vote helps establish an alternative to Coke or Pepsi. Do it For The Children: does anyone want another 50 years of Donkeys vs. Elephants?
Not being a wide-eyed naïf, I expect that a third-party vote for President will mean that Ms. Clinton will win this election. But I expect she’ll win it anyway. Just check Iowa Electronic Markets or Election Betting Odds.
And here’s how to counter that Clinton presidency (or that Trump presidency): put your time and financial support into seeing that limited government representatives and senators win elections. The downstream elections are just as important as the Presidential election. Check out the Club for Growth. They’re not Libertarians but they’re very practical in their endorsements of low-regulation, low-tax candidates.
Political gridlock can be our friend. So think carefully about your votes for congress members.
Last week, Megan McArdle wrote about a group of attorneys general and about one in particular, who had served a subpoena to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is getting subpoenaed by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands to cough up its communications regarding climate change. The scope of the subpoena is quite broad, covering the period from 1997 to 2007, and includes, according to CEI, “a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information.”
My first reaction to this news was “Um, wut?” CEI has long denied humans’ role in global warming, and I have fairly substantial disagreements with CEI on the issue. However, when last I checked, it was not a criminal matter to disagree with me. It’s a pity, I grant you, but there it is; the law’s the law. […]
Speaking of the law, why on earth is CEI getting subpoenaed? The attorney general, Claude Earl Walker, explains: “We are committed to ensuring a fair and transparent market where consumers can make informed choices about what they buy and from whom. If ExxonMobil has tried to cloud their judgment, we are determined to hold the company accountable.”
That wasn’t much of an explanation. It doesn’t mention any law that ExxonMobil may have broken. It is also borderline delusional, if Walker believes that ExxonMobil’s statements or non-statements about climate change during the period 1997 to 2007 appreciably affected consumer propensity to stop at a Mobil station, rather than tootling down the road to Shell or Chevron, or giving up their car in favor of walking to work.
State attorneys general including Walker held a press conference last week to talk about the investigation of ExxonMobil and explain their theory of the case. And yet, there sort of wasn’t a theory of the case. They spent a lot of time talking about global warming, and how bad it was, and how much they disliked fossil fuel companies. They threw the word “fraud” around a lot. But the more they talked about it, the more it became clear that what they meant by “fraud” was “advocating for policies that the attorneys general disagreed with.” […]
No matter how likely you may think catastrophic global warming might be (and Ms McArdle thinks it more likely than I), I’m hoping you’ll think this move by the group of A.G.s sets a bad precedent. And that’s a point McArdle makes later in her column.
And it’s a bad precedent regardless of your opinion about the CEI. Say that you think the CEI is a tool of greedy oil companies; it’s still true that the antidote to "bad speech" is free speech and not censorship.
Today, I ran across Glenn Reynolds’ column on the same topic. He puts a much finer point on the A.Gs’ actions and press conference.
Federal law makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).”
I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they’re doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, I am sure they each have it somewhere in their offices.
Here’s what’s happened so far. First, Schneiderman and reportedly Harris sought to investigate Exxon in part for making donations to groups and funding research by individuals who think “climate change” is either a hoax, or not a problem to the extent that people like Harris and Schneiderman say it is.
This investigation, which smacks of Wisconsin’s discredited Putin-style legal assault on conservative groups and their contributors, was denounced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader as unconstitutional. Bader wrote:
Should government officials be able to cut off donations to groups because they employ people disparaged as “climate change deniers?” … Only a single-issue zealot with ideological blinders and a contempt for the First Amendment would think so. …
The First Amendment has long been interpreted as protecting corporate lobbying and donations, even to groups that allegedly deceive the public about important issues. … So even if being a “climate denier” were a crime (rather than constitutionally protected speech, as it in fact is), a donation to a non-profit that employs such a person would not be.
Nope, but conspiring to deprive “deniers” of their free speech rights would be. […]
But here’s what happened next: After Bader’s critique, Walker, the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general, subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s donor lists. The purpose of this subpoena is, it seems quite clear, to punish CEI by making people less willing to donate.
This all takes place in the context of an unprecedented meeting by 20 state attorneys general aimed, environmental news site EcoWatch reports, at targeting entities that have “stymied attempts to combat global warming.” You don’t have to be paranoid to see a conspiracy here.
Not everyone believes that the planet is warming; not everyone who thinks that it is warming agrees on how much; not everyone who thinks that it is warming even believes that laws or regulation can make a difference. Yet the goal of these state attorneys general seems to be to treat disagreement as something more or less criminal. That’s wrong. As the Supreme Court wrote in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” […]
If there was ever an example of a Chilling Effect, this is one on steroids.
I don’t consider myself a Republican, so I haven’t written much about how Donald Trump has managed to piss all over the Republican primary process this year. (That is, aside from mentioning how he torpedoed Rand Paul’s chances. That was reason #1 for me to say #NeverTrump.)
Although Trump’s campaign is the scariest, simplest-minded nonsense I’ve ever heard from a presidential candidate, I didn’t think I had a dog in that fight. And in that vein, it will be interesting to see how the smaller political parties do if Trump is the Republican nominee. He could make it awfully easy for people to vote Libertarian this year.
But I can see the attraction of the There-Ain’t-No-Way-In-Hell movement. Since I sometimes vote Republican when there’s no good Libertarian alternative, my opinion of any Republicans who endorse this bozo suffers. (Lookin’ at you, Gov. Christie.) There’s reason #2.
Finally, I consider Trump to be too much concerned with his personal benefit and too little concerned with the details of how our divided government works (or is supposed to work). Reason #3.
Erick Erickson wrote this at The Resurgent a couple of weeks ago.
I will not vote for Donald Trump for President of the United States even if he is the Republican nominee.
He is an authoritarian blending nationalist and tribal impulses, which historically has never worked out well for the nation that goes in that direction or the people in that nation.
He will not win in November. He will not win because he turns off a large number of Republicans; he turns off women; he turns off hispanic voters; he turns off black voters; and the blue collar voters who support him are not a sufficient base of support to carry him over the finish line. […]
Trump is a liberal who has supported big government, interventionist policies. He defends Planned Parenthood, says he can cut deals in Washington, and believes in a socialist government run healthcare scheme.
At a time when so much is on the line for people of faith and conservatives, Donald Trump believes judges sign bills. He said so himself in the Houston, TX debate, while lying about the jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito.
Trump is also a con-artist and the media, which has built his campaign is going to destroy his campaign. After he secures the Republican nomination, the media will trot out every victim and perceived victim of Trump’s actions. All the people hurt by repeated strategic bankruptcies, all the people swindled by Trump University, and anyone who got food poisoning from Trump steaks will be in a 24/7 cavalcade on national television.
By the time the media and Democrats, but I repeat myself, are done with Trump, he will be radioactive.
Donald Trump will not win in November. Period. End of story.
But, on the off chance Satan pulls a grand slam out of hell and Trump were to do it, he would be an authoritarian despot, deeply destructive to the ideals of this nation and the constitutional principles of the republic, and he would destroy the remains of the Republican Party and much of the conservative movement as conservatives whore themselves out to be close to power. […]
Today I ran across this interview with Sen. Rubio and I thought he made his case pretty well. Unfortunately, he didn’t come right out and say that people with hopes for the presidency have a responsibility to speak in a way that demonstrates leadership (i.e., rationally & inclusively rather than divisively). But Rubio did say that candidates can’t "say anything they like," which I took to mean the same thing.
It’s a real pity that Sen. Rubio didn’t declare that he’d never support Trump as the party nominee. It sure looked like he wanted to say that.
Based on an article that Sen. Claire McCaskill wrote last August, it occurred to me late last year that perhaps Ms. Clinton was doing something similar with Donald Trump: that is, she’s scheming to set up a Republican nominee whom she knows she can beat.
The idea made me wonder whether my tinfoil hat was a little too tight, frankly. I usually don’t have much patience for conspiracy theories. But what Sen. McCaskill claims she did for a Senate seat might not be beyond what Ms. Clinton would do for the White House, eh?
Not long after that I came across this post by Mona Charen at National Review. (Maybe her hat was also too tight?)
He couldn’t help the Democrats more if he were trying. Wait, maybe he is…
The dictionary defines “bogeyman” as “an imaginary evil spirit, referred to typically to frighten children.” Hello, Donald Trump. It’s not clear whether he set out intentionally to elect Hillary Clinton, but there is little question that he could not be fulfilling the role of Republican bogeyman to greater effect. […]
From Obamacare to terrorism, from the economy to climate change, and from guns to free speech, progressive policies have proven deeply disappointing when not downright obtuse and dangerous. Clinton promises more of the same while trailing an oil slick of corruption in her wake. And yet swinging into the frame, week in and week out, the orange-maned billionaire bogeyman dominates the discussion.
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-Hispanic bigots, Trump (a lifelong Democrat) is supposed to confirm. Just look at the way he talked about Mexican “rapists” and vowed to build a wall that Mexico will fund.
Hell yes, Republicans want to fight a war on women. Did you hear what Trump said about Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina?
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-handicapped, anti-Jewish, and anti-Muslim. Line ‘em up and Trump will offend. Not cleverly, mind you, but crudely. Donald Trump is fond of saying that our political leaders are stupid, constantly outmaneuvered at the bargaining table by shrewder Chinese, Mexicans, and Japanese. No one can accuse him of stupidity, provided his goal is to elect Hillary Clinton.[…]
As Mr. Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
Update
Here’s Randy Barnett talking briefly about Trump and Ted Cruz in the course of a lengthy interview with Nick Gillespie.
Prof. Barnett says exactly what I’ve been thinking: basically, why does anyone trust Trump? As the professor said, "Just listen to what the man says." Because he’ll say anything.
It’s no secret that I backed Rand Paul’s presidential campaign (both here and financially). So naturally I was disappointed when he decided to end his campaign last week while I was traveling for business.
Not that I need another reason to despise Donald Trump, but I’ll add this one to the pile anyway. Thanks, Donald.
I think Nick Gillespie nails in it in this column, and that includes the parts about Rand trying to pass himself off as a conservative. Gillespie writes:
The short version of what went wrong is neither complicated nor difficult to explain.
Donald Trump happened, bending virtually all the light to him like a black hole for most of the past six months or more. […]
His [Rand’s] campaign was lackluster at times or, even worse, a conservative repudiation of the “libertarian-ish” tendencies that had earned him sobriquets such as “the most interesting man in the Senate” and “the most interesting man in politics.”
The guy whose 13-hour filibuster forced President Obama to promise not to drone-kill American citizens drinking coffee at Starbucks and who said the GOP needed to be “white, we need to be brown, we need to be black, we need to be with tattoos, without tattoos, with pony tails, without pony tails, with beards, without” rarely hesitated to jump on the anti-Planned Parenthood and anti-Syrian refugee bandwagons along with all the other GOP candidates.
I don’t regard a conservative as someone who necessarily wants to conserve liberty. Some want to conserve American political heritage; others just want to conserve their idea of a “good social order.” I’m with the first; the others can take a hike.
That’s why I talk, write, and vote libertarian: I don’t trust conservatives (as a group) to maintain liberty in any consistent, principled sense. And I was disappointed when Rand jumped on the very bandwagons that Gillespie mentions.
But to paraphrase an old saying in the software business: good marketing beats good principles any day.
All that said, I still think Rand was the best choice for those of us who want liberty to be conserved and expanded. So I liked Rand’s farewell video last week.
Over the winter break, I finally got around to binge-watching Parks and Recreation. In case you missed the show’s seven-year run, it’s about a fascistic small-town councilwoman who believes it’s a politician’s job to impose her notions of morality, safety and decency on everyone, no matter what voters want or what the system dictates. She is justifiably recalled by the people of her town after attempting to regulate portion sizes at fast-food restaurants but ends up running a federal office where she can do big things without the consent of the people.
Now, I realize that most of the show’s fans see the narrative in a vastly different light and the protagonist, Leslie Knope, as the sort of idealistic, compassionate and principled politician Americans should love. […]
When I got back from my winter vacation, America was still being run by a two-term president who believes it’s his job to impose his notions of morality, safety and decency on everyone, often trying to work around the limits the system places on him. This week, Barack Obama is going to institute new restrictions on Americans unilaterally—expanding background checks, closing supposed “loopholes” and tightening the process for law-abiding gun owners—because Congress “won’t act” and also because he believes it’s the right thing to do. Neither of those is a compelling reason to legislate from the White House.
Perhaps no post-World War II president (and maybe none before) has justified his executive overreach by openly contending he was working around the lawmaking branch of government because it had refused to do what he desired. Whether a court finds his actions constitutional or not, it’s an argument that stands, at the very least, against the spirit of American governance. Today many liberals call this “leadership.” […]
But more consequential—and this may be the most destructive legacy of the Obama presidency—is the mainstreaming of the idea that if Congress “fails to act,” it’s OK for the president to figure out a way to make law himself. Hillary Clinton’s already applauded Obama’s actions because, as she put it, “Congress won’t act; we have to do something.” This idea is repeated perpetually by the left, in effect arguing that we live in a direct democracy run by the president (until a Republican is in office, of course). On immigration, on global warming, on Iran, on whatever crusade liberals are on, the president has a moral obligation to act if Congress doesn’t do what he wants.
To believe this, you’d have to accept two things: that Congress has a responsibility to pass bills on issues important to the president and that Congress has not already acted.
In 2013, the Senate rejected legislation to expand background checks for gun purchases and to ban certain weapons and ammunition, and it would almost certainly oppose nearly every idea Obama has to curb gun ownership today. Congress has acted, just not in the manner Obama desires.
If President George W. Bush had instituted a series of restrictions on the abortion industry—seeing as it has a loud, well-organized and well-funded lobby that wants to make abortions “effortlessly” available—without congressional input, would that have been procedurally OK with liberals? You know, for the children? I don’t imagine so.
G.W. Bush was guilty of this too but Mr. Obama seems to be more brazen about it. And I don’t know which is worse, someone who does it on the sly or someone who rubs your nose in it.
Executive fiat isn’t a “party thing”: many politicians will try to work the angles regardless of their party affiliations. IMO, it’s an “uphold your oath of office thing.”
The scariest notion, as Harsanyi hints at, is that this type of thing is popular with the people who support the sitting president. It’s as though many people don’t get (or don’t care about) the way the U.S. Constitutional system was intended to work.
In lieu of the usual complex regulation larded with special-interest favoritism, here is a simple mortgage rule that could and probably should be adopted: No federally regulated financial institution shall make a mortgage loan without the borrower’s making a down payment of at least 20 percent derived from his own savings.
Period, paragraph, next subject.
Instead of doing that, we are sprinting flat-out in the opposite direction, with government-sponsored mortgage giant Fannie Mae rolling out a daft new mortgage proposal that would allow borrowers without enough income to qualify for a mortgage to count income that isn’t theirs on their mortgage application.
The Committee to Re-Inflate the Bubble strikes again: We’ve just legalized mortgage fraud. […]
In his article, Williamson refers to an op-ed at Investor’s Business Daily that Jeff G passed along last week.
Subprime 2.0: The White House is rolling out a new low-income mortgage program that for the first time lets lenders qualify borrowers by counting income from nonborrowers living in the household. What could go wrong?
The HomeReady program is offered through Fannie Mae, which is now controlled by Obama’s old Congressional Black Caucus pal Mel Watt. It replaces the bankrupted mortgage giant’s notorious old subprime program, MyCommunityMortgage.
In case renaming the subprime product fails to fool anybody, the affordable-housing geniuses in the administration have re-termed “subprime,” a dirty word since the mortgage bust, “alternative.”
So HomeReady isn’t a subprime mortgage program, you see, it’s an “alternative” mortgage program.
But it might was well be called DefaultReady, because it is just as risky as the subprime junk Fannie was peddling on the eve of the crisis.
At least before the crisis, your income had to be your own. But now, as a renter, you can get a conventional home loan backed by Fannie by claiming other people’s income. That’s right: You can use your apartment roommate’s paycheck to augment your qualifying income. Or your abuela.
You can even claim the earnings of people who are not occupants, such as your parents, under this program. […]
This program is brain dead. I don’t even rent to people with a 45% debt-to-income ratio; it’s too risky. And FNMA wants to write mortgages for them at that ratio? And with only 3% down? And based on income from who-knows-where?
I’d say this is some kind of spoof but it appears to be legitimate news. Ready for the next bail-out, bro?
I wonder who really said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
At least, if you use the rule of thumb that any time you ask a question in a headline then the answer is always going to be ‘no:’ “The government has spent a lot on electric cars, but was it worth it?” And the answer to the question is no in this case, too. There are three ways that the Washington Post (note that I am not criticizing WaPo article author Charles Lane, here: he’s obviously figured it all out already) could have worked that out ahead of time, in fact; all it had to do was look more closely at the title. […]
Read the whole thing; it’s brief. Better yet, follow the link the to WaPo article.
When electric cars get charged from solar cells or from zero point energy (assuming that’s practical), then I’ll buy one.
But to buy an electric vehicle which is charged by coal-fired generation (as mine would be) is just adding another step, with its particular inefficiencies, to the total energy use. TANSTAAFL applies to engineering as well as to politics. That’s why engineers won’t shut up about it.
It’s tough to beat the energy density in petroleum. Unless you’re willing to burn hyrdrogen or natural gas, or you’re willing to use nuclear sources, then you should burn petroleum. You don’t have to be an engineer to look this stuff up.
My view is that people should convert their vehicles to natural gas. It’s cheaper and it’s better in terms of emissions. If you’re one who worries about catastrophic warming, look at what the switch from coal to natural gas has done for US carbon emissions. They’ve fallen since 2007.
I always think that the example of places like Cuba, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the old ‘Eastern Bloc’ in Europe, und so weiter, would be enough to convince anyone that governments have no business trying to run markets.
But I’m learning not to be surprised when those examples aren’t convincing.
We’re now in month eight or so of Trumpmania. He has a core of support, and the media can’t get enough of him. The effect he has on people is fascinating. But it’s also remarkably annoying. Every casual utterance by Trump leads the news cycle until the subsequent outrage. And everyone flips out. Trump flips out. His fans flip out. His enemies flip out. The media flip out.
It’s enough to make you hate everyone. In fact, it does make me hate everyone. That probably includes you. Here’s a list of everyone in the Trump saga who is awful. […]
When driving on treacherous roads, guardrails are useful. If you fall asleep or maybe you’re just a bad driver, guardrails may prevent you from going off a cliff.
Recently, The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel used the phrase “no political guardrails” to point out how many of today’s politicians seem to lack any constraints, any safeguards against their use of power. She’s onto something.
“Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law,” Strassel writes. “If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway.”
Hillary Clinton does it too. In fact, she promises that once she becomes president, that is how she will govern. If Congress won’t give her gun control laws she wants, she says she’ll unilaterally impose them. Likewise, if Congress rejects her proposed new tax on corporations , “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority, if that’s what it takes.”
Whatever it takes. So far, the public doesn’t seem to mind.
Donald Trump’s poll numbers go up after he promises “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” says that “there’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am,” says that he’ll make Mexico “pay for that wall” and so on.
Apparently lots of people like the idea of a big, strong mommy or daddy who will take control of life and make everything better. Constitutional restraints? They’re for sissies. We want “leadership”—someone “strong” to run America.
I don’t. I’m an adult. I don’t want to be “led.” I will run my own life. Also, a president doesn’t “run America.” The president presides over just one of three branches of government, and there are strict limits on what he can and should do.
The Constitution was written to limit political authority. Those limits left individual Americans mostly to our own devices, which helped create the freest and most prosperous country in the history of the world.
Now, advocates for both parties are off the rails. Some Republicans demand that the IRS audit the Clinton Foundation. Part of me wishes that it would. I suspect their foundation is largely a scam, a pretend charity that props up the Clintons’ egos and pays Hillary’s political flunkies. Heck, in 2013, it raised $144 million but spent only $8.8 million on charity!
Shut it down! But where are the guardrails here? As Strassel put it, “When did conservatives go from wanting to abolish the IRS to wanting to use it against rivals?”
Today, politicians act as if guardrails are just an annoyance. And they get rewarded for that. […]
I think Mr. Stossel nails it with the last two sentences above. Constitutional limits? Who needs ’em?
I’ve dropped most of this op-ed in the quote below but if you want to know why Donald Trump is a blight on the political scene (for any party) read the whole thing. It’s brief and you don’t need to be a Republican to appreciate his points.
I think Mr. Gabriel puts his finger on the issue in his final line.
The 2016 election was the grand battle conservatives had been hoping for since Ronald Reagan left the Oval Office. The roster of candidates was to be a who’s-who of smart, proven, center-right leadership. […]
It would be obvious to the electorate that Republicans were the only party with the vision, with the heart, and with the intelligence to lead the nation. […]
We aren’t discussing America’s $18.4 trillion national debt and our insolvent social programs. The stagnant economy and an expansionist China, Russia, and Islamic State. Burning cities at home and burning countries abroad.
Instead we’re trading GIFs of a reality show star on “The Tonight Show,” giggling about menstruation, and wondering if the most impressive GOP field in a generation are a bunch of “dummies” or if they’re a bunch of “losers.”
These are serious times. We are not a serious people.
It continues to amaze me how people continue to talk about Trump as though he were worthy of their time and consideration. Pfft!
No Truce With Kings 