No Truce With Kings

On second thought, make that "the funniest thing I’ve seen this week".

(If you don’t get the honey badger reference, see this clip.)

Here’s an attention-getting ad from Gary Johnson’s campaign. It’s pretty well done, I think (and I liked the audio).

I won’t nitpick ‘The People’s President’ claim, though I’m not real sure what that’s supposed to mean. Nor will I ask how ‘the people’ are somehow distinct from ‘them’ (the politicians).

The Libertarian Party picked its candidates for President and VP yesterday at its convention in Las Vega. They’re former Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico and former Judge Jim Gray of California.

There are press releases at the LP’s site, of course, but I got the news (and the photo above) from Reason’s Hit & Run, where they’ve been following the LP convention all weekend.

Gov. Johnson started this year’s race running for the Republican nomination before switching to run for the Libertarian nomination. I still don’t understand why Johnson was excluded from the televised Republican debates. Johnson has a pretty impressive record from his two terms as governor of New Mexico, when he earned the nickname ‘Governor Veto’.

So why wasn’t Johnson in the debates? Was his record as a governor somehow less legitimate than Herman Cain’s record as a businessman? Right.

Here’s a campaign ad Johnson published last fall.

Judge Gray is a well-known critic of the Drug War and I’ve mentioned him earlier. He wrote a book about the War on Drugs in 2001. He ran as the Libertarian candidate for US Senate against Barbara Boxer in 2004.

The LP press release about Gray’s nomination claims that he’s ‘the chief proponent of a California ballot initiative called “Regulate Marijuana Like Wine“‘. Here’s his ‘elevator speech’ on that topic.

I think this pair is a good choice for the Libertarians, even though Johnson is (in some senses) a renegade from the Republican party. It gives those looking to avoid the Coke or the Pepsi party a reasonable alternative.

Here’s a somewhat frightening report by Kimberly Strassel in the WSJ. Read the whole thing.

Strassel: The President Has a List

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I for one have had enough of The Cult of the Presidency.

I thought this was amusing.

Via TigerHawk

Here’s a good column by Robert Samuelson at RealClearPolitics that reflects some of my thoughts on the budget cliff the U.S. seems to be determined to drive over. I think there’s a lot to the argument that the problem is too much spending, rather than not enough revenue; so I’m on the no-tax-hike side of that debate rather than the no-spending-cuts side.

But despite my view of the arguments pro or con, I’ve been wondering about the big picture: how the course of spending and taxes will be changed to avoid a government financial melt-down. There are many ways the situation might be resolved and some of them, as Mr. Samuelson hints at, could be pretty unpleasant.

A Country in Denial About Its Fiscal Future

WASHINGTON — There are moments when our political system, whose essential job is to mediate conflicts in broadly acceptable and desirable ways, is simply not up to the task. It fails. This may be one of those moments. What we learned in 2011 is that the frustrating and confusing budget debate may never reach a workable conclusion. It may continue indefinitely until it’s abruptly ended by a severe economic or financial crisis that wrenches control from elected leaders.

We are shifting from “give away politics” to “take away politics.” Since World War II, presidents and Congresses have been in the enviable position of distributing more benefits to more people without requiring ever-steeper taxes. Now, this governing formula no longer works, and politicians face the opposite: taking away — reducing benefits or raising taxes significantly — to prevent government deficits from destabilizing the economy. It is not clear that either Democrats or Republicans can navigate the change.

Our political system has failed before. Conflicts that could not be resolved through debate, compromise and legislation were settled in more primitive and violent ways. The Civil War was the greatest and most tragic failure; leaders couldn’t end slavery peacefully. In our time, the social protests and disorders of the 1960s — the civil rights and anti-war movements and urban riots — almost overwhelmed the political process. So did double-digit inflation, peaking at 13 percent in 1979 and 1980, which for years defied efforts to control it.

When I was a kid of 12, delivering the Peoria Journal Star to the people on my route, I started reading Ann Landers’ advice column. I recall something she often said to advice-seekers: "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

That’s the first thought that popped into my head when I read the article quoted below.

Obama: Something is wrong with country’s politics

HOLLAND, Mich.

Seeking to align himself with a public beleaguered by economic uncertainty and frustrated by Washington, President Barack Obama declared Thursday: “There is nothing wrong with our country. There is something wrong with our politics.”

His toughly worded message — he said there was frustration in his voice, in case anyone missed the point — came amid a series of polls showing that people are disgusted with political dysfunction and are dispensing blame all around, including on Obama.

I think you’re absolutely right, Mr. President. There is something wrong with our politics.

What could that be?

Maybe it’s because your administration has been asserting control over more and more segments of the economy and those have become politicized? Health care, auto makers, large investment banks all come to mind as examples of the crony capitalism you espouse – where the businesses being bailed out or subsidized start to spend their efforts seeking political favors instead of focusing on their customers and markets. Of course, a lot of this started during the Bush administration but you’ve had three years to change course. And haven’t.

Maybe it’s because your administration uses the political system to pay for political backing by labor unions? Here’s an interesting chart I ran across this week.

Maybe it’s because all levels of government continue to impose relatively minor but annoying regulations — like those on light bulbs and lemonade stands? This isn’t your personal responsibility, of course. On the other hand, it fits right in with the leadership example your administration sets.

Maybe it’s because the way your administration has expanded the political sphere over more and more areas of peoples’ lives means that you’re going to see a lot of resentment of that expansion?

Or maybe it’s your party’s never-ending spending increases in the face of record deficits and debt levels? All the debt ceiling deal did was make some promises about slowing the rate of increases in spending in the future. It didn’t actually reduce current spending. That was a great compromise, wasn’t it? Yep, just what a bad balance sheet needed.

I think what’s wrong with our politics, Mr. President, isn’t that the Congress won’t stop wrangling about toeing your administration’s line.

The problem is that your administration has an unreasonable line that many of us aren’t at all interested in toeing. I hope my representative continues to vote to obstruct your policies.

God bless gridlock.