Dear Mr. President:
Have you thought of negotiating a cross-nomination deal with
the Libertarian National Committee?
I am a lifelong supporter of Libertarian Party candidates. I have since concluded that you can do more
to further the cause of freedom than the LP can, so I will support and have
been supporting you and the NRCC over the past couple of years. Why not negotiate the LP's cross nomination of
you in 2020?
The following chart shows that the LP won 2.2% to 4.15% in
the six battleground states, more than enough to put you well over the top.
Battleground States/ LP Percentage
Florida / 2.20%
Wisconsin /
3.60%
Pennsylvania /
2.40%
Michigan /
3.60%
New Hampshire / 4.15%
Nevada / 3.30%
Although I have not been active in the LP since 1983, I can
imagine at least two bargaining chips that can result in mutual gains for both
parties: first, an agreement to abolish a set of government agencies and
programs that you don't mind abolishing (they want to abolish everything) and,
second, an offer of placing Libertarians in powerful agency posts in which they
can gut government programs. In
exchange, they would throw you the percentages that secure a win.
For example, if you offer to abolish the Department of
Education and a list of fluff that Rand Paul or Citizens Against Government
Waste provides in exchange for LP support and/or offer them a dozen positions
in areas like the NLRB, and EPA, they may be willing to make a deal. You would
likely have an additional benefit by having people in positions of power who
are hostile to the deep state and have little to lose in attacking it.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Showing posts with label Libertarian Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarian Party. Show all posts
Sunday, December 22, 2019
Thursday, November 8, 2012
I No Longer Support Ron Paul
I just sent this e-mail to the Campaign for Liberty:
I’m not a Republican because, as a libertarian, I consider the
Republican Party to be the worse of two evils. I have decided not to
continue to support Ron Paul because of his cheap, opportunistic refusal to
support Gary Johnson. I appreciate all he has done for the libertarian
movement, but in the end he’s just another Republican. I have removed my name
from your mailing list, and I do not support you.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Johnson Threatens Romney's Viability
Gary Johnson may prevent Mitt Romney's election in November. Real Clear Politics says that Johnson aims to utilize increasingly important social media; if the strategy is successful and Johnson wins 15% in three national polls, he will participate in the national debates. This will be an important step to ending the two-party system, which has led to increasing corruption and ever bigger government. Politico notes that an Arizona survey found that Johnson will receive nine percent. The poll, published by Public Policy Polling on May 23, notes that, in a head-to-head race, Romney leads Obama by 50 to 43 percent in Arizona. Although 80% of Arizona voters say that they are not sure of their opinion of Gary Johnson, question 11 indicates this:
11. If the candidates for President this year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 41%
Mitt Romney................................................... 45%
Gary Johnson ................................................. 9%
Undecided....................................................... 6%
According to The New Mexico Watchdog, also based on a Public Policy Polling poll, Johnson was polling at seven percent in a three-way race among himself, Obama, and Romney. Obama wins against Romney in a two-way race, but wins by a 75 percent larger margin (48-44 versus 46-39) if Johnson is included.
Johnson says that he has an eight percent support level nationally. Public Policy Polling is a Democratic poll. Unfortunately, the Republican Rasmussen poll so far has excluded Johnson. Its results may therefore be distorted in Romney's favor. If Johnson is polling more than five percent, polling firms should include him. Their margin of error (confidence interval in percentage terms) is smaller than Johnson's support. In other words, they can't argue that Johnson's effect will be overwhelmed by random noise. It is bigger than random noise, and it will hurt Romney.
It is unfortunate that the GOP has chosen to pursue a big-government strategy. I would like to see Obama unseated, but the cycle of pitting a corrupt, big-government Republican against a corrupt, socialist Democrat needs to end. Those who oppose the expansive state that Romney advocates will be drawn to Johnson. His name recognition is still low, so six to eight percent may be significantly less than his ultimate support. The law suits being planned against the Romney campaign by Lawyers for Ron Paul (h/t Mike Marnell) may add to Johnson's support. Lawyers for Ron Paul alleges significant voter fraud and criminality in the Romney campaign. If these allegations are extended over the next five months, they may raise the support level for Johnson. The 15 percent target means that anyone who favors less government wastes their vote by supporting Romney.
11. If the candidates for President this year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 41%
Mitt Romney................................................... 45%
Gary Johnson ................................................. 9%
Undecided....................................................... 6%
According to The New Mexico Watchdog, also based on a Public Policy Polling poll, Johnson was polling at seven percent in a three-way race among himself, Obama, and Romney. Obama wins against Romney in a two-way race, but wins by a 75 percent larger margin (48-44 versus 46-39) if Johnson is included.
Johnson says that he has an eight percent support level nationally. Public Policy Polling is a Democratic poll. Unfortunately, the Republican Rasmussen poll so far has excluded Johnson. Its results may therefore be distorted in Romney's favor. If Johnson is polling more than five percent, polling firms should include him. Their margin of error (confidence interval in percentage terms) is smaller than Johnson's support. In other words, they can't argue that Johnson's effect will be overwhelmed by random noise. It is bigger than random noise, and it will hurt Romney.
It is unfortunate that the GOP has chosen to pursue a big-government strategy. I would like to see Obama unseated, but the cycle of pitting a corrupt, big-government Republican against a corrupt, socialist Democrat needs to end. Those who oppose the expansive state that Romney advocates will be drawn to Johnson. His name recognition is still low, so six to eight percent may be significantly less than his ultimate support. The law suits being planned against the Romney campaign by Lawyers for Ron Paul (h/t Mike Marnell) may add to Johnson's support. Lawyers for Ron Paul alleges significant voter fraud and criminality in the Romney campaign. If these allegations are extended over the next five months, they may raise the support level for Johnson. The 15 percent target means that anyone who favors less government wastes their vote by supporting Romney.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Romney Outpolls Obama
The Rasmussen Poll finds that Romney noses out Obama 46%-45%. I'm trying to figure out whether that's good or bad. Rasmussen also finds that in a national generic congressional poll the Republicans are leading by 46% to 36%. The difference is volatile, though; last week it was less than half that.
The numbers may result from Obama's unpopular health care law. Rasmussen finds that 53% of the public favor its repeal. If 53% favor repeal and 45% favor Obama, either almost all the 9% undecided presidential voters favor repeal, or some Obama supporters do. That makes sense because we're talking about American voters. It would be interesting to know whether a few percent both favor Obama and favor repeal of Obamacare. Also, the public is skeptical of Obama's economic program. Rasmussen finds that only 49% of Americans say that their home is worth more than when they bought it, and only 27% think that the country is headed in the right direction.
All of this raises the specter of a double-breasted Republican victory: Republican control of congress and the presidency. On the one hand, that may have the effect of repeal of the health care law. Also, it would slow the environmental initiatives of the Obama administration: the attacks on energy development, the local initiatives like Smart Growth and LEED, and the concomitant attacks on home rule and democracy. Unfortunately, the Republicans have backed erosion of home rule and land rights too, but to a lesser degree. It is not clear that government will shrink under double-breasted GOP control; rather, the Republicans have previously consolidated Democratic expansions of state power and big government. If they do, in fact, repeal Obamacare, it will be a first.
At the same time, the Republicans have been good at causing inflation, expanding military spending, and government tyranny. All of this goes goes back to the Progressive era, with the establishment of the Fed (under Democrat Wilson, who was elected with the aid of Republican Roosevelt), the FBI, and the Palmer Raids. (Incidentally, if you haven't seen Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar starring Leonardo DiCaprio, I recommend it.)
The Bush administration accented the problems with Republican government: crony capitalism, pork barrel waste, and monetary expansion. In other words, the problems with electing Republicans are about the same as the problems with electing Democrats. The difference is that the Republicans bloat government to subsidize Republican special interests while the Democrats bloat government to subsidize Democratic special interests. Both subsidize Wall Street.
I am in favor of a third party, either the Libertarian Party or a new party if Ron Paul chooses to establish one. Governor Gary Johnson would be a first-rate candidate on the Libertarian ticket. He is more moderate and more competent than either Obama or Romney. Unlike Romney, who is a crony capitalist who has made his living through connections and monetary expansion, Johnson built a real business from scratch. He did not expand government in New Mexico; he fought a Democratic legislature to restrain government. In America, now, a third party candidate like Johnson is a more moderate choice than either a Democrat or a Republican.
The numbers may result from Obama's unpopular health care law. Rasmussen finds that 53% of the public favor its repeal. If 53% favor repeal and 45% favor Obama, either almost all the 9% undecided presidential voters favor repeal, or some Obama supporters do. That makes sense because we're talking about American voters. It would be interesting to know whether a few percent both favor Obama and favor repeal of Obamacare. Also, the public is skeptical of Obama's economic program. Rasmussen finds that only 49% of Americans say that their home is worth more than when they bought it, and only 27% think that the country is headed in the right direction.
All of this raises the specter of a double-breasted Republican victory: Republican control of congress and the presidency. On the one hand, that may have the effect of repeal of the health care law. Also, it would slow the environmental initiatives of the Obama administration: the attacks on energy development, the local initiatives like Smart Growth and LEED, and the concomitant attacks on home rule and democracy. Unfortunately, the Republicans have backed erosion of home rule and land rights too, but to a lesser degree. It is not clear that government will shrink under double-breasted GOP control; rather, the Republicans have previously consolidated Democratic expansions of state power and big government. If they do, in fact, repeal Obamacare, it will be a first.
At the same time, the Republicans have been good at causing inflation, expanding military spending, and government tyranny. All of this goes goes back to the Progressive era, with the establishment of the Fed (under Democrat Wilson, who was elected with the aid of Republican Roosevelt), the FBI, and the Palmer Raids. (Incidentally, if you haven't seen Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar starring Leonardo DiCaprio, I recommend it.)
The Bush administration accented the problems with Republican government: crony capitalism, pork barrel waste, and monetary expansion. In other words, the problems with electing Republicans are about the same as the problems with electing Democrats. The difference is that the Republicans bloat government to subsidize Republican special interests while the Democrats bloat government to subsidize Democratic special interests. Both subsidize Wall Street.
I am in favor of a third party, either the Libertarian Party or a new party if Ron Paul chooses to establish one. Governor Gary Johnson would be a first-rate candidate on the Libertarian ticket. He is more moderate and more competent than either Obama or Romney. Unlike Romney, who is a crony capitalist who has made his living through connections and monetary expansion, Johnson built a real business from scratch. He did not expand government in New Mexico; he fought a Democratic legislature to restrain government. In America, now, a third party candidate like Johnson is a more moderate choice than either a Democrat or a Republican.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Gingrich, Like Cagney, Is Better than Romney
Newt Gives It to the Taxpayers
The Economist was ebullient when Romney was winning. Now that Gingrich has trounced Romney in South Carolina, our financial overlords in the City of London and on Wall Street may be may be a bit less, but almost as, content. The difference between Romney and Gingrich is like the difference between Cary Grant and James Cagney. Romney, the debonair aristocrat, an opportunist beneath his manly charm, Gingrich, the thug who twirls around in a ménage à trois before mashing a grapefruit in taxpayers' faces (see Cagney's Gingrich-like performance in The Public Enemy above). These are two dogs out of the Council on Foreign Relations' kennel.
Of the four standing GOP candidates Romney is the most accomplished, having achieved impressive business success. In contrast, Gingrich's chief achievement, his appointment to speaker of the house, led to quick failure due to his incompetence. Romney is a stable and cautious friend of global financial interests while Gingrich is full of big ideas, each one more destructive than the last. In the last debate, Gingrich's proposal for a government subsidy to build a port in Charleston was an example. Gingrich seems to have planned a massive pork barrel project for each city in which a debate is held.
Romney blows with the winds; Gingrich proves that 180-year-old tax-and-spend Whig socialism is alive and well. Romney is in the centrist, globalist, and corporatist tradition of Richard Nixon; Gingrich is in the Whig tradition of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln practically bankrupted Illinois with frivolous infrastructure projects, and, now that Illinois's credit rating has been reduced, what better expression of the GOP's big government Whig tradition than to nominate Gingrich?
Presidents don't usually win or lose because of ideas. Lyndon Baines Johnson fought Goldwater over the New Deal, but Kennedy had just been shot. Perhaps Ronald Reagan fought a campaign of ideas, but would he have won without his actor's charm? And did he really believe that government was the problem? He didn't act like it. Rather than ideas, Nixon's half-day-old whiskers are the kind of issue that America's increasingly impoverished electorate emphasizes. America was once the richest and freest country in the world, but television news has led it to its favoring candidates, like Gingrich, Romney, and Obama, who are bleeding them, diminishing their freedom, and creating a paper money aristocracy at their expense.
That said, Gingrich is better than Romney for one reason: Gingrich can't win. He can't win because his image is tarnished, he is fat, his ideas are ridiculous, and he is an imaginative sexual virtuoso. That makes him preferable to Romney, who can win.
The most important thing in this election is a strident protest vote. The greater and more explicit the vote against the Federal Reserve Bank, the greater a threat to its political security, the sooner the Ron Paul revolution will win. In the event that Paul loses the primary race (and his 13% showing was better than in '08, but discouraging), a vote for the Libertarian Party in the general election will speak more loudly than one for the GOP candidate. There is more likely to be a stronger protest vote with a Gingrich than with a Romney candidacy.
As well, a Republican Congress coupled with a Democratic presidency is unlikely to achieve much. That is the best we can hope for. If the Republicans win both branches, we will see plenty of ports and plenty of pork in Charleston and every other hurricane-prone city in the country, if not the world.
The Economist was ebullient when Romney was winning. Now that Gingrich has trounced Romney in South Carolina, our financial overlords in the City of London and on Wall Street may be may be a bit less, but almost as, content. The difference between Romney and Gingrich is like the difference between Cary Grant and James Cagney. Romney, the debonair aristocrat, an opportunist beneath his manly charm, Gingrich, the thug who twirls around in a ménage à trois before mashing a grapefruit in taxpayers' faces (see Cagney's Gingrich-like performance in The Public Enemy above). These are two dogs out of the Council on Foreign Relations' kennel.
Of the four standing GOP candidates Romney is the most accomplished, having achieved impressive business success. In contrast, Gingrich's chief achievement, his appointment to speaker of the house, led to quick failure due to his incompetence. Romney is a stable and cautious friend of global financial interests while Gingrich is full of big ideas, each one more destructive than the last. In the last debate, Gingrich's proposal for a government subsidy to build a port in Charleston was an example. Gingrich seems to have planned a massive pork barrel project for each city in which a debate is held.
Romney blows with the winds; Gingrich proves that 180-year-old tax-and-spend Whig socialism is alive and well. Romney is in the centrist, globalist, and corporatist tradition of Richard Nixon; Gingrich is in the Whig tradition of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln practically bankrupted Illinois with frivolous infrastructure projects, and, now that Illinois's credit rating has been reduced, what better expression of the GOP's big government Whig tradition than to nominate Gingrich?
Presidents don't usually win or lose because of ideas. Lyndon Baines Johnson fought Goldwater over the New Deal, but Kennedy had just been shot. Perhaps Ronald Reagan fought a campaign of ideas, but would he have won without his actor's charm? And did he really believe that government was the problem? He didn't act like it. Rather than ideas, Nixon's half-day-old whiskers are the kind of issue that America's increasingly impoverished electorate emphasizes. America was once the richest and freest country in the world, but television news has led it to its favoring candidates, like Gingrich, Romney, and Obama, who are bleeding them, diminishing their freedom, and creating a paper money aristocracy at their expense.
That said, Gingrich is better than Romney for one reason: Gingrich can't win. He can't win because his image is tarnished, he is fat, his ideas are ridiculous, and he is an imaginative sexual virtuoso. That makes him preferable to Romney, who can win.
The most important thing in this election is a strident protest vote. The greater and more explicit the vote against the Federal Reserve Bank, the greater a threat to its political security, the sooner the Ron Paul revolution will win. In the event that Paul loses the primary race (and his 13% showing was better than in '08, but discouraging), a vote for the Libertarian Party in the general election will speak more loudly than one for the GOP candidate. There is more likely to be a stronger protest vote with a Gingrich than with a Romney candidacy.
As well, a Republican Congress coupled with a Democratic presidency is unlikely to achieve much. That is the best we can hope for. If the Republicans win both branches, we will see plenty of ports and plenty of pork in Charleston and every other hurricane-prone city in the country, if not the world.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Vote Libertarian in 2012
The Obama presidency has worsened the Bush administration's mismanagement of government and the economy. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama aims to extend the profligate spending that he and the Democratic Congress budgeted in 2008 and 2009 with only slight reductions. Although the Republicans have pushed for modestly greater reductions in spending, even the most conservative budget this year will exceed the Bush administration's bloated budget by ten percent. Moreover, contrary to his campaign claims, Obama has extended military involvement overseas and has continued the Patriot Act.
Today, The Wall Street Journal reports that the GOP's 2012 presidential playing field is blurry. That is, no candidate can command much support. Astonishingly, 16% of Republicans support Donald Trump, a dishonest, eminent domain socialist who was born on third base and cannot figure out how to reach home plate without government subsidies, looting of private property, cheating contractors and repeated bankruptcy. Someone needs to investigate whether Trump has received financing from organized crime in connection with his Atlantic City investments. Trump exemplifies the failure of the American economy under Progressivism, and he is a product of the stupid Federal Reserve Bank policies that led to the 2008 financial meltdown, have stopped the growth of the real hourly wage and guarantee that future generations of Americans will be much worse off than previous ones.
With 16% of Republicans supporting Trump, an additional 13% support Governor Mitt Romney. Romney implemented a failed socialist health plan in Massachusetts, and his policies are largely the same as Barack Obama's. As a presidential candidate for 2012, his first impulse was to aim to attempt to win financial backing from the same socialist Wall Street slime that finances Trump, that supported Obama in 2008, that received trillions in welfare payments in 2009, and that would not exist without ongoing welfare subsidies from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Now, Americans are loyal to the two party system for a good reason. If a third party were to be elected they might do some bizarre, radical things. They might:
-Start three wars at a time
-Quintuple the nation's money supply and hand the printed money to cronies, commercial banks and incompetently run Wall Street stock jobbers.
-Encourage the Fed to hand between $12 and $25 trillion to the same incompetently run financial firms at the expense of taxpayers
-Repeal Americans' sacred liberties by legalizing unconstitutional searches and seizures under pretext
-Borrow nearly a trillion dollars and give it out to politically connected friends, claiming that it is a "stimulus," ignoring that the only justification for "stimulus" is that private savings rates are high so that government spending is needed to stimulate the economy.
-Declare that a firm like Boeing doesn't have the freedom to open a plant in a new state because it has labor troubles in the state in which it currently does business
-Replace the education system with an ideologically driven, politically correct indoctrination system that does not teach reading, writing and arithmetic
-Pass a cap and trade law that would condemn and loot a large portion of Americans' private homes
-Declare morality to be dead and then claim that on moral grounds they have the right to tell Americans what to eat, what kind of light bulbs to use, and that they should be servile to a United Nations dominated by tyrants.
Wait, that's what the Democrats and Republicans have done. I really don't see how a third party could be worse. So why don't Americans want to vote for third parties? It's because they're bloody morons who cannot think for themselves and do what the even bigger morons in the legacy media tell them to do.
Therefore, libertarians have to engage in damage control. The best way to limit both parties' ability to do harm is to split the government into a Republican-dominated Congress and a Democratic Party-dominated presidency.
The six percent of Republicans who are Ron Paul supporters can and might consider doing just that by voting for the Libertarian Party should Ron Paul fail to win the GOP nomination.
Today, The Wall Street Journal reports that the GOP's 2012 presidential playing field is blurry. That is, no candidate can command much support. Astonishingly, 16% of Republicans support Donald Trump, a dishonest, eminent domain socialist who was born on third base and cannot figure out how to reach home plate without government subsidies, looting of private property, cheating contractors and repeated bankruptcy. Someone needs to investigate whether Trump has received financing from organized crime in connection with his Atlantic City investments. Trump exemplifies the failure of the American economy under Progressivism, and he is a product of the stupid Federal Reserve Bank policies that led to the 2008 financial meltdown, have stopped the growth of the real hourly wage and guarantee that future generations of Americans will be much worse off than previous ones.
With 16% of Republicans supporting Trump, an additional 13% support Governor Mitt Romney. Romney implemented a failed socialist health plan in Massachusetts, and his policies are largely the same as Barack Obama's. As a presidential candidate for 2012, his first impulse was to aim to attempt to win financial backing from the same socialist Wall Street slime that finances Trump, that supported Obama in 2008, that received trillions in welfare payments in 2009, and that would not exist without ongoing welfare subsidies from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Now, Americans are loyal to the two party system for a good reason. If a third party were to be elected they might do some bizarre, radical things. They might:
-Start three wars at a time
-Quintuple the nation's money supply and hand the printed money to cronies, commercial banks and incompetently run Wall Street stock jobbers.
-Encourage the Fed to hand between $12 and $25 trillion to the same incompetently run financial firms at the expense of taxpayers
-Repeal Americans' sacred liberties by legalizing unconstitutional searches and seizures under pretext
-Borrow nearly a trillion dollars and give it out to politically connected friends, claiming that it is a "stimulus," ignoring that the only justification for "stimulus" is that private savings rates are high so that government spending is needed to stimulate the economy.
-Declare that a firm like Boeing doesn't have the freedom to open a plant in a new state because it has labor troubles in the state in which it currently does business
-Replace the education system with an ideologically driven, politically correct indoctrination system that does not teach reading, writing and arithmetic
-Pass a cap and trade law that would condemn and loot a large portion of Americans' private homes
-Declare morality to be dead and then claim that on moral grounds they have the right to tell Americans what to eat, what kind of light bulbs to use, and that they should be servile to a United Nations dominated by tyrants.
Wait, that's what the Democrats and Republicans have done. I really don't see how a third party could be worse. So why don't Americans want to vote for third parties? It's because they're bloody morons who cannot think for themselves and do what the even bigger morons in the legacy media tell them to do.
Therefore, libertarians have to engage in damage control. The best way to limit both parties' ability to do harm is to split the government into a Republican-dominated Congress and a Democratic Party-dominated presidency.
The six percent of Republicans who are Ron Paul supporters can and might consider doing just that by voting for the Libertarian Party should Ron Paul fail to win the GOP nomination.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
To Bolt or Not to Bolt: the Cognoscenti Speak
I had written several friends about the question of whether to bolt the Republican Party because of the bailout and vote Libertarian instead. I had picked up Contrairimairi's response earlier today. They're all good answers. So far, only one of six responses has been anti-Republican. But the GOP has got to wake up. Carl Svensson, founder of the New York Republican Liberty Caucaus makes a number of good points about wedge issues, running candidates and appealing to minorities.
Candace de Russy:
8 years of O. would be dreadful...better to try to influence Mc
Lenny Rann:
I have never been so sickened in my life. You know this bailout is going to go down a giant rat hole. Can you imagine that foreign banks, UBS and Barkley's, will be part of the bailout? That is what I have read anyway. Do you know if that is a fact? Phil Gramm, on the board of UBS must have been up lobbying all night. It's like the more a politician is waving the flag, the more likely he is a foreign agent. Really, this collapse of the investment bank gambling casino must have been looked on as a tremendous opportunity to make money, now that the opportunity of credit swaps is played out. I am sickened and disheartened beyond belief. My useless prediction: Gold is gonna go to $1200 pronto. We are gonna be wheeling f...ing wheelbarrows to the store.
Pinni Bohm:
I think a factor that is being underestimated is Sarah Palin. As Governor of Alaska, she did cut spending by 80% and is described as a libertarian on the economy. (I am assuming there is no evidence to the contrary.) Since McCain's pick was meant to select his successor, if McCain wins this election, Palin will likely win the election in 2012 and we will have a libertarian-minded person in control of the white house.
Additionally, even if it can be argued that Palin cannot win in 2012, she will be in the white house with McCain over the next four years and she will be a strong influence. She has already proven she is not afraid to go against the establishment if she disagrees, as evidenced by her "taking on the good old boy network in Alaska" (who are now trying to erase her from Alaska politics with this troopergate scandal), so I have no reason to believe that she will be afraid of going up against McCain if necessary. However, as VP, she would also have the ears of the powerful liberal press, who will have an interest in hurting McCain in retaliation for him overthrowing their chosen one.
Therefore, my conclusion is that McCain is the better of the two candidates, if only for the above reasons. (Of course there are the foreign policy reasons and the argument that Obama was the most liberal person in the Senate before he officially announced his run for president.)
Carl Svensson:
" I am not sure that I can continue to support the Republican Party....they have become a socialist party".
They have not, albeit key elements of the Republican leadership seem to be taking us in that direction. The GOP, like the Democrats, continue to be coalitions of various factions, and it appears that that will be the case in the foreseeable future. I am still confident that the vast majority of the GOP leadership and rank-and-file continue to be pro-limited government and pro-free market, and that a majority, hopefully, support personal freedoms too.
".....the Republicans may be more socialist than the Democrats."
I don't think so. The leadership of the Democrats, on most levels, are much more left that the leadership of the Republicans, and you all know that to be true. That is also true of the Democratic rank-and-file viz a viz the Republican rank-and- file.
" election of McCain at this point may be too much of an affirmation of George Bush's socialism".
Whether this is true or not, it is a moot point. "We" do not have the power or influence to determine whether or not Obama or McCain get elected. Indeed, here in NYS, Obama will coast to victory no matter what we do. The election will be determined in a handful of states, and the only impact that "we" can have -----and a very nominal impact to say the least -- is by contributing financially to
one campaign or the other.
I believe that all of us share your very real concerns about precedents and the like; I know that I do.
So what can we do to have an impact this election cycle? Nothing tangible I'm afraid, and I would be loathe to marginalize myself, and have any of you marginalize yourselves, by publicly supporting Obama or a third party candidate which would have zinch impact anyway.
The question should be, can we, acting together with others, steer the GOP and the country in a more positive direction? Hopefully, that is the case provided that we take a realistic assessment of the political situation in NYS, and that we attempt to do something to accomplish this.
A few of the facts (as I see them):
1. To be successful, we must organize "ourselves" on a state-wide basis.
2. Libertarians can not win an election on their own; there are too few of us.
3. Republicans can not win elections, in most cases, on their own, we are outnumbered.
4. You can not win elections without candidates.
5. You can not establish and build 'local political organizations" without candidates.
6. We must pursue "wedge issues" to split off a portion of the Democrats from their base.
7. We must recruit black and brown candidates if we are too have long-term success.
The only 'universal' wedge issue that I am familiar with is "Term Limits". These have the support of more that 70% of all voters accross all parties. 'Our" candidates should be supporting these, and the possibility of establishing a "Term Limits Party" should also be investigated. School choice is a good wedge issue in some "minority districts" but it works against "us; in suburban districts.
Republicans make up about 40% of the electorate state-wide, and less than that in our cities. We must cultivate alliances with the Conservatives, Independence, and Libertarian Parties, and make inroad with Democrats too.
We need to run candidates. You all know that we are not contesting several dozen state offices, and hundreds of local offices even in those areas where the party has an enrollment advantage.
One of our goals, I believe, should be for us to contest every State Senate and Assembly race in 2010 to garner some attention from the media and are base, and begin to 'grow' local Republican organizations. This should be easy! It takes a maximum of 500 valid signatures to get an Assembly candidate on the ballot, and we can use piggyback petitions to get our Senate candidates on the ballot. I know that Robert is planning on running for City Council in 2009, and we should be able to recruit and get on the ballot a near full slate for these races if we begin now.
Candace de Russy:
8 years of O. would be dreadful...better to try to influence Mc
Lenny Rann:
I have never been so sickened in my life. You know this bailout is going to go down a giant rat hole. Can you imagine that foreign banks, UBS and Barkley's, will be part of the bailout? That is what I have read anyway. Do you know if that is a fact? Phil Gramm, on the board of UBS must have been up lobbying all night. It's like the more a politician is waving the flag, the more likely he is a foreign agent. Really, this collapse of the investment bank gambling casino must have been looked on as a tremendous opportunity to make money, now that the opportunity of credit swaps is played out. I am sickened and disheartened beyond belief. My useless prediction: Gold is gonna go to $1200 pronto. We are gonna be wheeling f...ing wheelbarrows to the store.
Pinni Bohm:
I think a factor that is being underestimated is Sarah Palin. As Governor of Alaska, she did cut spending by 80% and is described as a libertarian on the economy. (I am assuming there is no evidence to the contrary.) Since McCain's pick was meant to select his successor, if McCain wins this election, Palin will likely win the election in 2012 and we will have a libertarian-minded person in control of the white house.
Additionally, even if it can be argued that Palin cannot win in 2012, she will be in the white house with McCain over the next four years and she will be a strong influence. She has already proven she is not afraid to go against the establishment if she disagrees, as evidenced by her "taking on the good old boy network in Alaska" (who are now trying to erase her from Alaska politics with this troopergate scandal), so I have no reason to believe that she will be afraid of going up against McCain if necessary. However, as VP, she would also have the ears of the powerful liberal press, who will have an interest in hurting McCain in retaliation for him overthrowing their chosen one.
Therefore, my conclusion is that McCain is the better of the two candidates, if only for the above reasons. (Of course there are the foreign policy reasons and the argument that Obama was the most liberal person in the Senate before he officially announced his run for president.)
Carl Svensson:
" I am not sure that I can continue to support the Republican Party....they have become a socialist party".
They have not, albeit key elements of the Republican leadership seem to be taking us in that direction. The GOP, like the Democrats, continue to be coalitions of various factions, and it appears that that will be the case in the foreseeable future. I am still confident that the vast majority of the GOP leadership and rank-and-file continue to be pro-limited government and pro-free market, and that a majority, hopefully, support personal freedoms too.
".....the Republicans may be more socialist than the Democrats."
I don't think so. The leadership of the Democrats, on most levels, are much more left that the leadership of the Republicans, and you all know that to be true. That is also true of the Democratic rank-and-file viz a viz the Republican rank-and- file.
"
Whether this is true or not, it is a moot point. "We" do not have the power or influence to determine whether or not Obama or McCain get elected. Indeed, here in NYS, Obama will coast to victory no matter what we do. The election will be determined in a handful of states, and the only impact that "we" can have -----and a very nominal impact to say the least -- is by contributing financially to
one campaign or the other.
I believe that all of us share your very real concerns about precedents and the like; I know that I do.
So what can we do to have an impact this election cycle? Nothing tangible I'm afraid, and I would be loathe to marginalize myself, and have any of you marginalize yourselves, by publicly supporting Obama or a third party candidate which would have zinch impact anyway.
The question should be, can we, acting together with others, steer the GOP and the country in a more positive direction? Hopefully, that is the case provided that we take a realistic assessment of the political situation in NYS, and that we attempt to do something to accomplish this.
A few of the facts (as I see them):
1. To be successful, we must organize "ourselves" on a state-wide basis.
2. Libertarians can not win an election on their own; there are too few of us.
3. Republicans can not win elections, in most cases, on their own, we are outnumbered.
4. You can not win elections without candidates.
5. You can not establish and build 'local political organizations" without candidates.
6. We must pursue "wedge issues" to split off a portion of the Democrats from their base.
7. We must recruit black and brown candidates if we are too have long-term success.
The only 'universal' wedge issue that I am familiar with is "Term Limits". These have the support of more that 70% of all voters accross all parties. 'Our" candidates should be supporting these, and the possibility of establishing a "Term Limits Party" should also be investigated. School choice is a good wedge issue in some "minority districts" but it works against "us; in suburban districts.
Republicans make up about 40% of the electorate state-wide, and less than that in our cities. We must cultivate alliances with the Conservatives, Independence, and Libertarian Parties, and make inroad with Democrats too.
We need to run candidates. You all know that we are not contesting several dozen state offices, and hundreds of local offices even in those areas where the party has an enrollment advantage.
One of our goals, I believe, should be for us to contest every State Senate and Assembly race in 2010 to garner some attention from the media and are base, and begin to 'grow' local Republican organizations. This should be easy! It takes a maximum of 500 valid signatures to get an Assembly candidate on the ballot, and we can use piggyback petitions to get our Senate candidates on the ballot. I know that Robert is planning on running for City Council in 2009, and we should be able to recruit and get on the ballot a near full slate for these races if we begin now.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Bob Barr Is Gunnin' For John McCain
Newsmax just released this report:
Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr is seen as the Libertarian Party’s most likely presidential candidate — and he could wind up torpedoing John McCain’s White House hopes.
“Given the recent fundraising prowess of a kindred spirit — Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican nomination siphoned up $35 million, mostly off the Internet — libertarians are feeling their oats,” political analyst George F. Will writes in Newsweek.
“Come November, Barr conceivably could be to John McCain what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000 — ruinous.”
“Given the recent fundraising prowess of a kindred spirit — Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican nomination siphoned up $35 million, mostly off the Internet — libertarians are feeling their oats,” political analyst George F. Will writes in Newsweek.
“Come November, Barr conceivably could be to John McCain what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000 — ruinous.”
I am not a huge fan of Bab Barr on a personal level (he reminds me of a meaner Elmer Fudd) but I respect his candidacy on the Libertarian ticket should he decide to run. I am of two minds about it. On the one hand, if he increases the probability of a Democratic win in November 08, that will have been unfortunate (although understandable given the Republicans' big-government turn under the Bush administration). On the other hand, if he pushes John McCain a little bit further in the libertarian direction without deflecting McCain's win in November, God bless him.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Libertarians Rising: The 2007 Annual Report of the Libertarian Party
I received the annual report of the Libertarian Party in the mail a few weeks ago and read it. It is entitled Libertarians Rising: The 2007 Annual Report of the Libertarian Party. The report starts:
"Never before has the mood of the American electorate been so negative to the two-party system..."
As well, it points out that President Bush's approval rating is among the lowest in history, and Congress's is worse.
Interestingly, Bob Barr, the Republican Congressman who was involved in the Clinton impeachment about ten years ago, is now the Region 4 Representative of the Libertarian Party. Barr reports that Privacy International ranks the United States along with China, Russia, Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia and the UK as "endemic surveillance societies".
I don't really see privacy as a crucial issue. Much of the increase in surveillance is probably targeted at terrorism suspects. The report omits that consideration. The report also omits any plan or coherent strategy for dealing with terrorism. Why bother with reality when you get 2% of the vote? It's more fun to talk about the grave risk due to training firefighters as spies than it is to think carefully about how to fight terrorism.
The report terms the war in Iraq a "disaster". It states:
"There is no doubt that a free and stable Iraq is something from which the world would benefit. However, as Libertarians we believe there are other ways to achieve this goal...So we continue to lose America's finest young men and women in a war that should never have been started..."
I would have preferred to hear a coherent anti-terrorism strategy that is consistent with Libertarian principles. The Libertarians oppose surveillance and oppose the War in Iraq but do not suggest how to eliminate further terrorist attacks, which have not occurred on US soil in seven years. From the 1990s to 2001 there were several terrorist attacks, namely, the World Trade Center I, the Cole, the African Embassy, 9/11. Since 2003 there have been no attacks. The Libertarians not only do not ponder this. They do not discuss any approach to dealing with terrorism.
I do, however, like the LP's position on the national debt. The report notes that:
"2007 saw the national debt reach an all-time record of $9 trillion...it was reached during a time when the Republican Party, the party that used to at least pay lip service to fiscal conservatism, was in power. As William Redpath, National Chairman of the Libertarian Party put it: The fact that the national debt has risen by more than 800 percent in an era dominated by Republican presidents will be the obituary of fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party."
I happen to agree with Mr. Redpath. I think that the Republican Party has repudiated fiscal conservatism. Unless it does a 180 degree turn and reverse the spending it has initiated in the past 27 years, it has to be known as the biggest government party, although when compared to the Democrats they are "biggest" in the same sense as the McDonald's specialr special: the Republicans are the biggest spenders and the Democrats are the supersized biggest spenders.
The report notes that Congress has illegalized the incandescent light bulb by 2014. The replacements, compact flourescent bulbs, cost six times as much. I agree that this is an inappropriate incursion into private decision making.
The LP notes that its membership has increased 28 percent in 2007. Given the Republican Party's abandonment of limited government rhetoric, this is not surprising. However, there is always the prospect of either of the current Democratic candidates' being elected. What a pleasant thought.
The report ponts out that "59 percent of Americans describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal." The LP might ask itself why, given this percentage, its vote count is usually around 2%. Perhaps an ounce of reality is worth an additional percentage point of the vote, and a pound might put them in the running.
The report is optimistic. They will be on the ballot in 2008 in at least 48 states. In Texas, 210 Libertarian candidates are running. The LP will hold its convention in Denver in May 2008.
But I won't be there. I attended the 1980 LP convention in Los Angeles when I lived there. I support much that the LP has to say, but they lack realistic defense, counter-terrorism and foreign policies. Also, the LP's cliquishness is a turn-off. I have been told that many of the rank and file believe that the US government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This sort of fringe, crackpot element has a loud voice in the LP. They need to focus on a few issues and leave group-think to academics and theology to pastors, priests and rabbis.
"Never before has the mood of the American electorate been so negative to the two-party system..."
As well, it points out that President Bush's approval rating is among the lowest in history, and Congress's is worse.
Interestingly, Bob Barr, the Republican Congressman who was involved in the Clinton impeachment about ten years ago, is now the Region 4 Representative of the Libertarian Party. Barr reports that Privacy International ranks the United States along with China, Russia, Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia and the UK as "endemic surveillance societies".
I don't really see privacy as a crucial issue. Much of the increase in surveillance is probably targeted at terrorism suspects. The report omits that consideration. The report also omits any plan or coherent strategy for dealing with terrorism. Why bother with reality when you get 2% of the vote? It's more fun to talk about the grave risk due to training firefighters as spies than it is to think carefully about how to fight terrorism.
The report terms the war in Iraq a "disaster". It states:
"There is no doubt that a free and stable Iraq is something from which the world would benefit. However, as Libertarians we believe there are other ways to achieve this goal...So we continue to lose America's finest young men and women in a war that should never have been started..."
I would have preferred to hear a coherent anti-terrorism strategy that is consistent with Libertarian principles. The Libertarians oppose surveillance and oppose the War in Iraq but do not suggest how to eliminate further terrorist attacks, which have not occurred on US soil in seven years. From the 1990s to 2001 there were several terrorist attacks, namely, the World Trade Center I, the Cole, the African Embassy, 9/11. Since 2003 there have been no attacks. The Libertarians not only do not ponder this. They do not discuss any approach to dealing with terrorism.
I do, however, like the LP's position on the national debt. The report notes that:
"2007 saw the national debt reach an all-time record of $9 trillion...it was reached during a time when the Republican Party, the party that used to at least pay lip service to fiscal conservatism, was in power. As William Redpath, National Chairman of the Libertarian Party put it: The fact that the national debt has risen by more than 800 percent in an era dominated by Republican presidents will be the obituary of fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party."
I happen to agree with Mr. Redpath. I think that the Republican Party has repudiated fiscal conservatism. Unless it does a 180 degree turn and reverse the spending it has initiated in the past 27 years, it has to be known as the biggest government party, although when compared to the Democrats they are "biggest" in the same sense as the McDonald's specialr special: the Republicans are the biggest spenders and the Democrats are the supersized biggest spenders.
The report notes that Congress has illegalized the incandescent light bulb by 2014. The replacements, compact flourescent bulbs, cost six times as much. I agree that this is an inappropriate incursion into private decision making.
The LP notes that its membership has increased 28 percent in 2007. Given the Republican Party's abandonment of limited government rhetoric, this is not surprising. However, there is always the prospect of either of the current Democratic candidates' being elected. What a pleasant thought.
The report ponts out that "59 percent of Americans describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal." The LP might ask itself why, given this percentage, its vote count is usually around 2%. Perhaps an ounce of reality is worth an additional percentage point of the vote, and a pound might put them in the running.
The report is optimistic. They will be on the ballot in 2008 in at least 48 states. In Texas, 210 Libertarian candidates are running. The LP will hold its convention in Denver in May 2008.
But I won't be there. I attended the 1980 LP convention in Los Angeles when I lived there. I support much that the LP has to say, but they lack realistic defense, counter-terrorism and foreign policies. Also, the LP's cliquishness is a turn-off. I have been told that many of the rank and file believe that the US government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This sort of fringe, crackpot element has a loud voice in the LP. They need to focus on a few issues and leave group-think to academics and theology to pastors, priests and rabbis.
Monday, March 31, 2008
My Letter to Ralph Nader
Dear Mr. Nader:
I saw your interview on Bloomberg television a few days ago and was favorably impressed. However, I do not believe that you identify ultimate causes. You attribute corporate influence to the corporations. But corporations, like human beings, will always be greedy. Hence, you campaign against human nature and do not seriously aim for reform.
In order to eliminate corruption, the power of the state to engage in corruption needs to be limited. Human impulses will not change, but human institutions can be made more or less conducive to moral behavior. Limitations on the ability of corporations to influence the state require a limited state.
Your point about the Bernanke Fed is a good one. However, to limit the Fed's subsidy to big banks and Wall Street would require a limitation on the Fed's ability to create money. Such a limitation existed until 1932, when Roosevelt eliminated the gold standard. If you continue to support the current fiat money system, you continue to support Wall Street, the commercial banks and income inequality.
As your argument stands now, you are supporting corporate corruption. Illogical arguments in favor of the impossible are simply arguments for the status quo. One way to limit corruption is to limit the power of the banking system to subsidize the stock market by transferring value from dollar holders to stock holders. Another way is to limit the power of the federal government.
I would urge you to look for a compromise with the libertarian position and to combine forces with or coopt Ron Paul. There is enough common ground that you could retain your anti-corporate posture but also adopt a libertarian posture that would be compatible with both "right" and "left" positions, which could double or triple your vote count.
Please see my blog here.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
I saw your interview on Bloomberg television a few days ago and was favorably impressed. However, I do not believe that you identify ultimate causes. You attribute corporate influence to the corporations. But corporations, like human beings, will always be greedy. Hence, you campaign against human nature and do not seriously aim for reform.
In order to eliminate corruption, the power of the state to engage in corruption needs to be limited. Human impulses will not change, but human institutions can be made more or less conducive to moral behavior. Limitations on the ability of corporations to influence the state require a limited state.
Your point about the Bernanke Fed is a good one. However, to limit the Fed's subsidy to big banks and Wall Street would require a limitation on the Fed's ability to create money. Such a limitation existed until 1932, when Roosevelt eliminated the gold standard. If you continue to support the current fiat money system, you continue to support Wall Street, the commercial banks and income inequality.
As your argument stands now, you are supporting corporate corruption. Illogical arguments in favor of the impossible are simply arguments for the status quo. One way to limit corruption is to limit the power of the banking system to subsidize the stock market by transferring value from dollar holders to stock holders. Another way is to limit the power of the federal government.
I would urge you to look for a compromise with the libertarian position and to combine forces with or coopt Ron Paul. There is enough common ground that you could retain your anti-corporate posture but also adopt a libertarian posture that would be compatible with both "right" and "left" positions, which could double or triple your vote count.
Please see my blog here.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Libertarian Party Should Become a Voter Block Brokerage Organization
I would like to bring a crucial point about strategy to the attention of Ron Paul voters, libertarians and especially members of the Libertarian Party. The LP might reconsider its three-decade old strategy and adopt an interest group approach that worked well for the Mugwumps, or independent Republicans, in the 19th century.
David Tucker has written an excellent book on the Mugwumps. The name Mugwumps comes from a term that Algonquin Indians used for young chieftain. They were upper-class north easterners, many of whom had been abolitionists. Many died just before World War I, and their last major battle involved opposition to US imperialism and the Spanish-American War, which the early progressive-liberals, such as Theodore Roosevelt, supported.
The Mugwumps were the first industrial age libertarian movement. The chief issues with which the Mugwumps were concerned were:
1. Sound money and reestablishment of a pure gold standard
2. Free trade
3. Elimination of corruption from government by establishment of civil service
The Mugwumps have not always received favorable press from left-wing historians. In spirit, they were the American branch of the anti-Corn Law movement of Cobden and Bright. Several of them corresponded with John Stuart Mill.
1. The Mugwumps constituted a smaller percentage of the population than the Libertarian Party reflects today, but their effect on American politics was much larger than the combined Libertarian and conservative movements of the past 40 years.
2. It is true that the Mugwumps had far greater media support, namely Harper's Weekly, the Nation, the New York Post and the New York Times as well as several other publications than today's libertarians.
3. In that period, voters were more committed to party-line voting than today, so although the Mugwumps could leverage greater publicity, their ability to influence voting was smaller as a percentage of the vote than the Libertarian Party's today. If you add Ron Paul's Republican followers, then the total number of today's libertarians would be many times greater than the votes that the Mugwumps could leverage
4. The Mugwumps ran separate presidential candidates only twice: Horace Greeley in 1872 and John M. Palmer in 1896.
5. The Mugwumps' greatest success came in 1884, when they refused to back the Republican candidate, James Blaine, and instead backed the hard money, free trade Democrat Grover Cleveland.
6. Because the race in New York was decided by less than one percent, some credited them with winning the 1884 election for Cleveland.
7. They saw many of their ideas accepted. These included official de-politicization of the money supply; free trade and reduction of the tariff; and the civil service.
8. They failed circa 1900 because economists trained in the German historical school came to dominate university economics departments, depriving them of universities' imprimatur, and because of widespread support for imperialism in the 1890s. Imperialism and government economic intervention were more attractive to turn of the century Americans, especially the generation born after the Civil War. The loss of academia to the progressive-liberals caused the Mugwumps to die. They have been largely forgotten because of the loss of continuity, but they were prominent in my grandfather's lifetime.
9. The Mugwumps were repeatedly successful when they brokered between the political parties and served as a special interest group. They were repeated failures when they ran third party candidates.
The Libertarian Party has served an important educational function since the 1970s in education in the principles of free markets and civil freedom. Although classical liberalism has numerically and percentage-wise a greater base now than it did in 1884, it has not succeeded anywhere near as much as the 19th century movement succeeded. The problem has been tactical.
The Mugwumps believed that the Republicans were the "party of principle", but they were willing to broker deals to support either party, as they did with the Democratic candidacy of Grover Cleveland. They did this because in their view the Republicans failed to live up to its promise and did not support liberal principle following the Civil War.
Conservatives and libertarians today have been dismayed at the choices that the mainstream parties present. But with five to ten percent of the vote, and possibly more, believers in classical liberalism constitute a powerful voting block.
The Libertarian Party is making a mistake by not offering compromise deals to the major parties, and going with the better of the two (not necessarily one or the other).
The Mugwumps were able to leverage say 100,000 votes by brokering between parties. There is no reason why classical liberals, libertarians and free market conservatives, who may represent 20 to 45 million votes, cannot do the same.
Partisan support for the Republicans and/or the third party approach has failed. The time has come for a change in strategy.
David Tucker has written an excellent book on the Mugwumps. The name Mugwumps comes from a term that Algonquin Indians used for young chieftain. They were upper-class north easterners, many of whom had been abolitionists. Many died just before World War I, and their last major battle involved opposition to US imperialism and the Spanish-American War, which the early progressive-liberals, such as Theodore Roosevelt, supported.
The Mugwumps were the first industrial age libertarian movement. The chief issues with which the Mugwumps were concerned were:
1. Sound money and reestablishment of a pure gold standard
2. Free trade
3. Elimination of corruption from government by establishment of civil service
The Mugwumps have not always received favorable press from left-wing historians. In spirit, they were the American branch of the anti-Corn Law movement of Cobden and Bright. Several of them corresponded with John Stuart Mill.
1. The Mugwumps constituted a smaller percentage of the population than the Libertarian Party reflects today, but their effect on American politics was much larger than the combined Libertarian and conservative movements of the past 40 years.
2. It is true that the Mugwumps had far greater media support, namely Harper's Weekly, the Nation, the New York Post and the New York Times as well as several other publications than today's libertarians.
3. In that period, voters were more committed to party-line voting than today, so although the Mugwumps could leverage greater publicity, their ability to influence voting was smaller as a percentage of the vote than the Libertarian Party's today. If you add Ron Paul's Republican followers, then the total number of today's libertarians would be many times greater than the votes that the Mugwumps could leverage
4. The Mugwumps ran separate presidential candidates only twice: Horace Greeley in 1872 and John M. Palmer in 1896.
5. The Mugwumps' greatest success came in 1884, when they refused to back the Republican candidate, James Blaine, and instead backed the hard money, free trade Democrat Grover Cleveland.
6. Because the race in New York was decided by less than one percent, some credited them with winning the 1884 election for Cleveland.
7. They saw many of their ideas accepted. These included official de-politicization of the money supply; free trade and reduction of the tariff; and the civil service.
8. They failed circa 1900 because economists trained in the German historical school came to dominate university economics departments, depriving them of universities' imprimatur, and because of widespread support for imperialism in the 1890s. Imperialism and government economic intervention were more attractive to turn of the century Americans, especially the generation born after the Civil War. The loss of academia to the progressive-liberals caused the Mugwumps to die. They have been largely forgotten because of the loss of continuity, but they were prominent in my grandfather's lifetime.
9. The Mugwumps were repeatedly successful when they brokered between the political parties and served as a special interest group. They were repeated failures when they ran third party candidates.
The Libertarian Party has served an important educational function since the 1970s in education in the principles of free markets and civil freedom. Although classical liberalism has numerically and percentage-wise a greater base now than it did in 1884, it has not succeeded anywhere near as much as the 19th century movement succeeded. The problem has been tactical.
The Mugwumps believed that the Republicans were the "party of principle", but they were willing to broker deals to support either party, as they did with the Democratic candidacy of Grover Cleveland. They did this because in their view the Republicans failed to live up to its promise and did not support liberal principle following the Civil War.
Conservatives and libertarians today have been dismayed at the choices that the mainstream parties present. But with five to ten percent of the vote, and possibly more, believers in classical liberalism constitute a powerful voting block.
The Libertarian Party is making a mistake by not offering compromise deals to the major parties, and going with the better of the two (not necessarily one or the other).
The Mugwumps were able to leverage say 100,000 votes by brokering between parties. There is no reason why classical liberals, libertarians and free market conservatives, who may represent 20 to 45 million votes, cannot do the same.
Partisan support for the Republicans and/or the third party approach has failed. The time has come for a change in strategy.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Alexander S. Peak Responds to Allegations of Libertarian Anti-Semitism
I have previously blogged about anti-Semitism, the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul. My blogs on this topic responded in part to a column in the New York Sun and as well my own recollections of past events, which may not be generalizable to today. Alexander S. Peak, a Libertarian Party activist in Maryland has responded carefully and thoroughly to my concerns. His e-mail follows:
>"Allow me to apologise in advance for the somewhat rambling nature of this letter.
"I, like you, admit that I'm not an expert in Middle East issues. I like to think of myself as more familiar with what is going on there than the average American, but that isn't saying much. I'm also not an expert on European history, but I believe you are irrefutably correct that there has been a long history of anti-Semitism in Europe.
"I also can't comment on what was going on with the Free Libertarian Party seven years before I was born. I would like to think it was, as you put it, one rotten apple. I had not heard of the Liberty Lobby prior to your letter, but having skimmed over the Wikipedia entry thereon, it indeed appears that it was anti-Semitic, cloaked in a veneer of constitutionalism and fiscal conservatism. (It even states the founder created a group known for publishing books that denied the Holocaust!)
"I cannot comment on the New York affiliate party from three decades ago, but I can speak of the current Maryland affiliate. And, I can say I've never seen a hint of racism or anti-Semitism from these people.
"In 2006, the Libertarian Party of Maryland endorsed a third-party coalition candidate who was running for the Libertarian, Green, and Populist nominations. (He got all three. Looking back, it may have been a mistake to endorse him, but I digress.) The two other candidates for Senate were Ben Cardin (D) and Michael Steele (R). The Libertarian Party of Baltimore had a table at a festival, and I was there talking to people as they walked by. One guy, whom I presume was a Republican, started talking to me about our candidate for the Senate. He said to me that he can't possibly vote for Steele (he made no mention of Cardin) because "if he gets elected, he might eventually go on to the White House." I paused, hoping that all he meant by that was that he didn't like Steele's policies. He continued, saying, "Gotta keep the White House white." At that, I turn away from the guy a walked back under the tent, wanting nothing more to do with him. (I actually gave thought to voting for Steele just to counter-balance this guy's vote. After all, the candidate we were endorsing wasn't a libertarian anyway.)
"When one of my fellow Libertarian Baltimorians, Lorenzo Gaztanaga, came back under the tent, I told him of the incident. He verbally applauded what I had done, saying, "Good for you! Good for you!" He later told me that, on his census report, he and his wife list their race as "human."
"When I think of libertarian activists with regard to tolerance, I think of this incident. I like to think that most libertarians--the vast, vast majority--are as disgusted by xenophobia as am I. Surely, I'm under no illusion that there are no people out there espousing libertarian views yet who make us look bad by holding such views on race, gender, religion, et cetera, but I believe from my experiences with fellow libertarians that such people are in an extremely small yet vocal minority.
"You ask, "Does the Libertarian Party have a position on aid or support to Israel and not aid or support to Egypt or Kuwait?"
"I'll address the question directly in a bit.
"In search for an answer, I used the following Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jews+OR+jew+OR+jewish+OR+israel+site%3Alp.org+-yourturn
"Nothing from this search actually answered the question you posed, so I employed the search to seek out examples of anti-Semitism.
"The closest thing I saw to what could possibly be described as anti-Semitic upon doing this search was an article from California Freedom in which an author points out that the existence of Israel may be a factor in the decision among terrorists to commit terrorist acts--the author does not, however, make the claim that this means that Israel should not exist:
http://ca.lp.org/cf/CF-200707.pdf
"(My personal position, being the ultra-radical that I am, is that no nation-state should exist. But I know that I'm not likely to get my way, and consider the two-state solution the second-best option for the Israel/Palestine conflict.)
"I did find a link on the Libertarian Party of Delaware site to the Liberty For All blog, which has this rambling paragraph in one of its posts:
"This tells me that one ignorant atheist who has the right to believe as he does because of the blood spilled from our Christian founding, has more power than millions of Christians demanding their rights. Why does he? Because his agenda matches exactly the agenda of the US Government, its pseudo Christians - including Bush, Ash-Kraut, and the most of the officials at every level - and the Jewish controllers (does not include all the Jewish people, just the Jewish tyrants who do the controlling) who are intent on destroying Christianity in this country" ( http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=1024 ).
"I can't figure out what "Jewish controllers" he's talking about, but the guy obviously has issues with anyone outside of Christianity.
"Upon my search, I did find many statements made that were very positive about Jews and even Israel. One quote I found just a few minutes ago from Ron Paul was:
"Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous."
"But none of this directly answers your question. The short answer is, I actually see nothing from the Libertarian Party stating a position on aid to Israel specifically.
"The 2006 platform states:
"Freedom of Religion:
"Issue: Government routinely invades personal privacy rights based solely on individuals’ religious beliefs. Arbitrary tax structures are designed to give aid to certain religions, and deny it to others.
"Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.
"Solution: In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.
"Transitional Action: We call for an end to the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service through threats to deny tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to disclose massive amounts of information about themselves.
"The platform actually mentions nothing about foreign aid currently. But, it's worth noting that the platform was gutted in 2006 thanks to the efforts of the Libertarian Reform Caucus. 80% of the platform was deleted, and I strongly believe that there will be an effort in 2008 to bring back the 2004 platform.
"The 2004 platform stated, in its short answer on foreign aid, "We support the elimination of tax-supported military, economic, technical, and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations." It also stated, in its short answer on foreign intervention, "We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. We make no exceptions."
"The actual 2004 plank on foreign aid stated:
"The Issue: The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of influencing the policy of other sovereign nations under the guise of aiding needy people in those nations. This forces American taxpayers to subsidize governments and policies of which they may not approve.
"The Principle: Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into funding a foreign nation or group.
"Solutions: All foreign aid should be voluntarily funded by individuals or private organizations.
"Transitional Action: Eliminate all tax-supported military, economic, technical and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations. Abolish government underwriting of arms sales. Abolish all federal agencies that make American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the Export-Import Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. End the participation of the U.S. government in international commodity circles that restrict production, limit technological innovation and raise prices. Repeal all prohibitions on individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to any foreign country or organization, unless such provision constitutes a direct threat to the people of the United States.
"The actual 2004 plank on foreign intervention stated:
"The Issue: Intervention in the affairs of other countries has provoked resentment and hatred of the United States among many groups and nations throughout the world. In addition, legal barriers to private and personal aid (both military and economic) have fostered internal discord.
"The Principle: The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.
"Solutions: End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. Individuals should be free to provide any aid they wish that does not directly threaten the United States.
"Transitional Action: Voluntary cooperation with any economic boycott should not be treated as a crime. End all limitation of private foreign aid, both military and economic. Repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws, which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments. End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.
"I also checked the first official Libertarian Party platform. The 1972 platform had a much shorter foreign aid plank. It read simply, "We support an end to the Federal foreign aid program."
"So, in answer to your question, no, the Libertarian Party does not have a position on foreign aid that deals only with Israel. It has no position dealing with foreign aid, and when it did, it's only position on foreign aid was one that applies to all countries, including Egypt and Kuwait; not merely Israel.
"You also ask, "Has Ron Paul made public statements about the 'Muslim' or 'Arab' lobby as he has with respect to the 'Jewish lobby'?"
"To my knowledge, he has not.
"But then, I have never heard Dr. Paul refer to a Jewish lobby, either. I see no mention of such a lobby on his congressional website:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22jewish+lobby%22+site%3Ahouse.gov%2Fpaul
"I also see no such reference on RonPaulLibrary.org:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aronpaullibrary.org+%22jewish+lobby%22
"Perhaps you meant "Israel lobby" or "Israeli lobby." I can't say whether or not he's made reference in public to such a lobby. Nor do I see any mention of an Israeli lobby or Israel lobby on either of those sites mentioned above. But I'll defer to you and assume he indeed make such a reference in a public speech.
"I really can't say what sort of lobbying Congresspersons deal with, or if there are people who actually go to Washington so as to lobby for aid for Israel. If such lobbying efforts actually exist, then I would argue there's nothing offensive about addressing it. If no such lobbying efforts exist, then I would definitely have to question his intent with that statement.
"You ask, "Is there a Libertarian position about the treatment of Jews in Iran?"
"There is a small-L libertarian position, namely that the government in Iran is corrupt, abusive, and oppressive to Jews, homosexuals, women, etc.; and that its powers must be dramatically limited or eliminated.
"But there is no big-L Libertarian position on the matter, just as there is no big-L Libertarian position on what's going on in Darfur or elsewhere.
"Prior to the platform purge in 2006, the Libertarian Party platform had a position on human rights, which read as follows:
"The Issue: We condemn the violations of human rights in all nations around the world. We particularly abhor the widespread and increasing use of torture for interrogation and punishment. The violation of rights and liberty by other governments can never justify foreign intervention by the United States government. Today, no government is innocent of violating human rights and liberty, and none can approach the issue with clean hands.
"The Principle: We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. Only private individuals and organizations have any place speaking out on this issue.
"Solutions: We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty.
"Transition: Until a global triumph for liberty has been achieved, we support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights. In keeping with our goal of peaceful international relations, we call upon the United States government to cease its hypocrisy and its sullying of the good name of human rights.
"Once again, allow me to apologise for what I fear will sound like rambling. I hope I've also answered your questions satisfactorily.
"I hope I've presented a balanced picture with my reply. The only other instance I recall of libertarianism being in any way associated with anti-Semitism was in a very misleading and skewed book review from the New York Times. Although, David Boaz points out why the author was wrong to make that implication here:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/03/31/nyt-clueless-on-libertarianism/
"Thanks for your questions. If you have any more, I'll again be happy to answer them.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Peak
MLangbert@hvc.rr.com wrote:
If I may, I'll post your thoughts on my website.
I appreciate your thoughts. There has been a tinge in the Libertarian movement. When I belonged to the Free Libertarian Party (the NY Libertarian Party) in 1978 I began receiving mailings from the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby and as well recall seeing anti-Semitic literature in the offices. Whether that's due to one rotten apple in the office or not I can't prove. But the Libertarian Party seems to have been more eager to criticize aid to Israel than to other countries, such as Egypt.
My questions for you: (1) Does the Libertarian Party have a position on aid or support to Israel and not aid or support to Egypt or Kuwait? (2) Has Ron Paul made public statements about the "Muslim" or "Arab" lobby as he has with respect to the "Jewish lobby"?
I am well aware that many libertarians were Jews, to include Rothbard and von Mises (and Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman) but that doesn't change the dynamic. Nor does it prove that Rothbard wasn't anti-Semitic. There are many left-wing Jewish anti-Semites. Karl Marx's "On the Jewish Question" is anti-Semitic (Marx's closing argument that the real Jew is the capitalist does not change the article's anti-Semitism). Of course, Marx was ethnically Jewish.
I'm not so much criticizing the anti-Israel-support (I oppose all foreign aid myself) but rather that Israel is is singled out when Egypt gets a similar amount of support as did Kuwait get much more in terms of military spending, etc. Also, the exodus of almost every Jew from the Arab countries, the treatment of Jews in Iran, the absence of Jews (as well as any other religion) from Saudi Arabia, the discrimination, intolerance and oppression throughout Arabia of other religions gets no attention. Is there a Libertarian position about the treatment of Jews in Iran? At the same time, is there one about religious intolerance in Arabia that led to the exodus of nearly half the Israeli population to Israel?
To pretend that there isn't a very long history of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Muslim world and in populist movements in the US is disingenuous. To pretend that the focus of state violence in much of European history beginning with the Crusades was not against Jews, and that the Jews had nowhere to turn during the 1930s because of the American Populist movement is also disingenuous. I'm not overly expert in Middle East issues but I do not believe that anything Israel has done, especially given that it is a country of 2 million people that one billion Muslims want to destroy, entitles it to be singled out the way that the Libertarians have. As well, references to the "Israel lobby" are reminiscent of the Populism of Father Coughlin that led to the refusal to permit Jewish immigration in the 1930s, hence the holocaust.
You can take a purist argument and oppose aid to Israel, which is fine with me. In fact, I agree that foreign aid is a mistake. But then take an equal position in opposition to Egypt, Pakistan, Kuwait, etc. But again, my questions for you: (1) Does the Libertarian Party have a formal, officially stated position on one and not the other? (2) Has Ron Paul made public statements about the "Muslim" or "Arab" lobby?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander S. Peak"
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:53 am
Subject: Regarding Rothbard, Paul, anti-Semitism, and the LP
To: mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
> Mr. Langbert:
>
> Sorry to be emailing you, but I was unable to post a reply on
> your blog, so I figured I would email you directly. This email is
> in reply to this post, titled In Praise of NOTA:
> http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2007/10/in-praise-of-nota-
> none-of-above.html
>
> Indeed Paul was a student of Rothbardian economics, and agreed
> with probably 90% of Rothbard's political agenda; but that would
> hardly imply any anti-Semitism on the part of Paul. I'm fairly
> sure that Rothbard, an agnostic Jew, was not anti-Semitic. And
> how can I be sure he wasn't simply a self-hating Jew? Because his
> teacher and mentor, Ludwig von Mises, was also Jewish.
>
> As for Paul, true, he's not also Jewish. But, he is a
> libertarian and, as such, an opponent of collectivism. He has
> specifically called racism collectivist, reflecting a similar
> opinion presented by Rand in her great essay, "Racism."
>
> (You can read that essay here:
>
> http://tiger.towson.edu/~apeak1/writtenwork/otherworksworthreading/racism.html )
>
> As for Israel, infering that one's opposition to the Israeli
> government (which receives a tremendous amount of welfare from the
> U.S. taxpayer, more than any other government) somehow amounts to
> anti-Semitism is no different than infering that opposition to the
> minimum wage (which creates unemployement, raises costs for
> consumers, and lowers the general standard of living) is somehow
> anti-poor.
>
> Finally, just because some nut started sending you anti-Semitic
> literature while you were in the LP doesn't make the LP anti-
> Semitic, nor does it prove that the sender even knew that you were
> in the LP, and moreover doesn't prove that the sender had any real
> clue about libertarianism even if he/she/they did know you were in
> the LP. After all, if someone starts sending communist literature
> to Smith while Smith is on the Robinson diet, that doesn't mean
> Robinson is a communist.
>
> Perhaps your perspective is different from mine. I'll be happy
> to listen to your argument if you believe there is any anti-
> Semitism in the LP or the broader libertarian movement.
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Alex Peak
>
> P.S. I grant you permission to publish this letter, or any
> portion thereof (so long as no quote is taken out of context, of
> course), if you wish.
>"Allow me to apologise in advance for the somewhat rambling nature of this letter.
"I, like you, admit that I'm not an expert in Middle East issues. I like to think of myself as more familiar with what is going on there than the average American, but that isn't saying much. I'm also not an expert on European history, but I believe you are irrefutably correct that there has been a long history of anti-Semitism in Europe.
"I also can't comment on what was going on with the Free Libertarian Party seven years before I was born. I would like to think it was, as you put it, one rotten apple. I had not heard of the Liberty Lobby prior to your letter, but having skimmed over the Wikipedia entry thereon, it indeed appears that it was anti-Semitic, cloaked in a veneer of constitutionalism and fiscal conservatism. (It even states the founder created a group known for publishing books that denied the Holocaust!)
"I cannot comment on the New York affiliate party from three decades ago, but I can speak of the current Maryland affiliate. And, I can say I've never seen a hint of racism or anti-Semitism from these people.
"In 2006, the Libertarian Party of Maryland endorsed a third-party coalition candidate who was running for the Libertarian, Green, and Populist nominations. (He got all three. Looking back, it may have been a mistake to endorse him, but I digress.) The two other candidates for Senate were Ben Cardin (D) and Michael Steele (R). The Libertarian Party of Baltimore had a table at a festival, and I was there talking to people as they walked by. One guy, whom I presume was a Republican, started talking to me about our candidate for the Senate. He said to me that he can't possibly vote for Steele (he made no mention of Cardin) because "if he gets elected, he might eventually go on to the White House." I paused, hoping that all he meant by that was that he didn't like Steele's policies. He continued, saying, "Gotta keep the White House white." At that, I turn away from the guy a walked back under the tent, wanting nothing more to do with him. (I actually gave thought to voting for Steele just to counter-balance this guy's vote. After all, the candidate we were endorsing wasn't a libertarian anyway.)
"When one of my fellow Libertarian Baltimorians, Lorenzo Gaztanaga, came back under the tent, I told him of the incident. He verbally applauded what I had done, saying, "Good for you! Good for you!" He later told me that, on his census report, he and his wife list their race as "human."
"When I think of libertarian activists with regard to tolerance, I think of this incident. I like to think that most libertarians--the vast, vast majority--are as disgusted by xenophobia as am I. Surely, I'm under no illusion that there are no people out there espousing libertarian views yet who make us look bad by holding such views on race, gender, religion, et cetera, but I believe from my experiences with fellow libertarians that such people are in an extremely small yet vocal minority.
"You ask, "Does the Libertarian Party have a position on aid or support to Israel and not aid or support to Egypt or Kuwait?"
"I'll address the question directly in a bit.
"In search for an answer, I used the following Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jews+OR+jew+OR+jewish+OR+israel+site%3Alp.org+-yourturn
"Nothing from this search actually answered the question you posed, so I employed the search to seek out examples of anti-Semitism.
"The closest thing I saw to what could possibly be described as anti-Semitic upon doing this search was an article from California Freedom in which an author points out that the existence of Israel may be a factor in the decision among terrorists to commit terrorist acts--the author does not, however, make the claim that this means that Israel should not exist:
http://ca.lp.org/cf/CF-200707.pdf
"(My personal position, being the ultra-radical that I am, is that no nation-state should exist. But I know that I'm not likely to get my way, and consider the two-state solution the second-best option for the Israel/Palestine conflict.)
"I did find a link on the Libertarian Party of Delaware site to the Liberty For All blog, which has this rambling paragraph in one of its posts:
"This tells me that one ignorant atheist who has the right to believe as he does because of the blood spilled from our Christian founding, has more power than millions of Christians demanding their rights. Why does he? Because his agenda matches exactly the agenda of the US Government, its pseudo Christians - including Bush, Ash-Kraut, and the most of the officials at every level - and the Jewish controllers (does not include all the Jewish people, just the Jewish tyrants who do the controlling) who are intent on destroying Christianity in this country" ( http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=1024 ).
"I can't figure out what "Jewish controllers" he's talking about, but the guy obviously has issues with anyone outside of Christianity.
"Upon my search, I did find many statements made that were very positive about Jews and even Israel. One quote I found just a few minutes ago from Ron Paul was:
"Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous."
"But none of this directly answers your question. The short answer is, I actually see nothing from the Libertarian Party stating a position on aid to Israel specifically.
"The 2006 platform states:
"Freedom of Religion:
"Issue: Government routinely invades personal privacy rights based solely on individuals’ religious beliefs. Arbitrary tax structures are designed to give aid to certain religions, and deny it to others.
"Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.
"Solution: In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.
"Transitional Action: We call for an end to the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service through threats to deny tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to disclose massive amounts of information about themselves.
"The platform actually mentions nothing about foreign aid currently. But, it's worth noting that the platform was gutted in 2006 thanks to the efforts of the Libertarian Reform Caucus. 80% of the platform was deleted, and I strongly believe that there will be an effort in 2008 to bring back the 2004 platform.
"The 2004 platform stated, in its short answer on foreign aid, "We support the elimination of tax-supported military, economic, technical, and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations." It also stated, in its short answer on foreign intervention, "We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. We make no exceptions."
"The actual 2004 plank on foreign aid stated:
"The Issue: The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of influencing the policy of other sovereign nations under the guise of aiding needy people in those nations. This forces American taxpayers to subsidize governments and policies of which they may not approve.
"The Principle: Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into funding a foreign nation or group.
"Solutions: All foreign aid should be voluntarily funded by individuals or private organizations.
"Transitional Action: Eliminate all tax-supported military, economic, technical and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations. Abolish government underwriting of arms sales. Abolish all federal agencies that make American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the Export-Import Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. End the participation of the U.S. government in international commodity circles that restrict production, limit technological innovation and raise prices. Repeal all prohibitions on individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to any foreign country or organization, unless such provision constitutes a direct threat to the people of the United States.
"The actual 2004 plank on foreign intervention stated:
"The Issue: Intervention in the affairs of other countries has provoked resentment and hatred of the United States among many groups and nations throughout the world. In addition, legal barriers to private and personal aid (both military and economic) have fostered internal discord.
"The Principle: The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.
"Solutions: End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. Individuals should be free to provide any aid they wish that does not directly threaten the United States.
"Transitional Action: Voluntary cooperation with any economic boycott should not be treated as a crime. End all limitation of private foreign aid, both military and economic. Repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws, which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments. End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.
"I also checked the first official Libertarian Party platform. The 1972 platform had a much shorter foreign aid plank. It read simply, "We support an end to the Federal foreign aid program."
"So, in answer to your question, no, the Libertarian Party does not have a position on foreign aid that deals only with Israel. It has no position dealing with foreign aid, and when it did, it's only position on foreign aid was one that applies to all countries, including Egypt and Kuwait; not merely Israel.
"You also ask, "Has Ron Paul made public statements about the 'Muslim' or 'Arab' lobby as he has with respect to the 'Jewish lobby'?"
"To my knowledge, he has not.
"But then, I have never heard Dr. Paul refer to a Jewish lobby, either. I see no mention of such a lobby on his congressional website:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22jewish+lobby%22+site%3Ahouse.gov%2Fpaul
"I also see no such reference on RonPaulLibrary.org:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aronpaullibrary.org+%22jewish+lobby%22
"Perhaps you meant "Israel lobby" or "Israeli lobby." I can't say whether or not he's made reference in public to such a lobby. Nor do I see any mention of an Israeli lobby or Israel lobby on either of those sites mentioned above. But I'll defer to you and assume he indeed make such a reference in a public speech.
"I really can't say what sort of lobbying Congresspersons deal with, or if there are people who actually go to Washington so as to lobby for aid for Israel. If such lobbying efforts actually exist, then I would argue there's nothing offensive about addressing it. If no such lobbying efforts exist, then I would definitely have to question his intent with that statement.
"You ask, "Is there a Libertarian position about the treatment of Jews in Iran?"
"There is a small-L libertarian position, namely that the government in Iran is corrupt, abusive, and oppressive to Jews, homosexuals, women, etc.; and that its powers must be dramatically limited or eliminated.
"But there is no big-L Libertarian position on the matter, just as there is no big-L Libertarian position on what's going on in Darfur or elsewhere.
"Prior to the platform purge in 2006, the Libertarian Party platform had a position on human rights, which read as follows:
"The Issue: We condemn the violations of human rights in all nations around the world. We particularly abhor the widespread and increasing use of torture for interrogation and punishment. The violation of rights and liberty by other governments can never justify foreign intervention by the United States government. Today, no government is innocent of violating human rights and liberty, and none can approach the issue with clean hands.
"The Principle: We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. Only private individuals and organizations have any place speaking out on this issue.
"Solutions: We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty.
"Transition: Until a global triumph for liberty has been achieved, we support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights. In keeping with our goal of peaceful international relations, we call upon the United States government to cease its hypocrisy and its sullying of the good name of human rights.
"Once again, allow me to apologise for what I fear will sound like rambling. I hope I've also answered your questions satisfactorily.
"I hope I've presented a balanced picture with my reply. The only other instance I recall of libertarianism being in any way associated with anti-Semitism was in a very misleading and skewed book review from the New York Times. Although, David Boaz points out why the author was wrong to make that implication here:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/03/31/nyt-clueless-on-libertarianism/
"Thanks for your questions. If you have any more, I'll again be happy to answer them.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Peak
MLangbert@hvc.rr.com wrote:
If I may, I'll post your thoughts on my website.
I appreciate your thoughts. There has been a tinge in the Libertarian movement. When I belonged to the Free Libertarian Party (the NY Libertarian Party) in 1978 I began receiving mailings from the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby and as well recall seeing anti-Semitic literature in the offices. Whether that's due to one rotten apple in the office or not I can't prove. But the Libertarian Party seems to have been more eager to criticize aid to Israel than to other countries, such as Egypt.
My questions for you: (1) Does the Libertarian Party have a position on aid or support to Israel and not aid or support to Egypt or Kuwait? (2) Has Ron Paul made public statements about the "Muslim" or "Arab" lobby as he has with respect to the "Jewish lobby"?
I am well aware that many libertarians were Jews, to include Rothbard and von Mises (and Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman) but that doesn't change the dynamic. Nor does it prove that Rothbard wasn't anti-Semitic. There are many left-wing Jewish anti-Semites. Karl Marx's "On the Jewish Question" is anti-Semitic (Marx's closing argument that the real Jew is the capitalist does not change the article's anti-Semitism). Of course, Marx was ethnically Jewish.
I'm not so much criticizing the anti-Israel-support (I oppose all foreign aid myself) but rather that Israel is is singled out when Egypt gets a similar amount of support as did Kuwait get much more in terms of military spending, etc. Also, the exodus of almost every Jew from the Arab countries, the treatment of Jews in Iran, the absence of Jews (as well as any other religion) from Saudi Arabia, the discrimination, intolerance and oppression throughout Arabia of other religions gets no attention. Is there a Libertarian position about the treatment of Jews in Iran? At the same time, is there one about religious intolerance in Arabia that led to the exodus of nearly half the Israeli population to Israel?
To pretend that there isn't a very long history of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Muslim world and in populist movements in the US is disingenuous. To pretend that the focus of state violence in much of European history beginning with the Crusades was not against Jews, and that the Jews had nowhere to turn during the 1930s because of the American Populist movement is also disingenuous. I'm not overly expert in Middle East issues but I do not believe that anything Israel has done, especially given that it is a country of 2 million people that one billion Muslims want to destroy, entitles it to be singled out the way that the Libertarians have. As well, references to the "Israel lobby" are reminiscent of the Populism of Father Coughlin that led to the refusal to permit Jewish immigration in the 1930s, hence the holocaust.
You can take a purist argument and oppose aid to Israel, which is fine with me. In fact, I agree that foreign aid is a mistake. But then take an equal position in opposition to Egypt, Pakistan, Kuwait, etc. But again, my questions for you: (1) Does the Libertarian Party have a formal, officially stated position on one and not the other? (2) Has Ron Paul made public statements about the "Muslim" or "Arab" lobby?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander S. Peak"
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:53 am
Subject: Regarding Rothbard, Paul, anti-Semitism, and the LP
To: mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
> Mr. Langbert:
>
> Sorry to be emailing you, but I was unable to post a reply on
> your blog, so I figured I would email you directly. This email is
> in reply to this post, titled In Praise of NOTA:
> http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2007/10/in-praise-of-nota-
> none-of-above.html
>
> Indeed Paul was a student of Rothbardian economics, and agreed
> with probably 90% of Rothbard's political agenda; but that would
> hardly imply any anti-Semitism on the part of Paul. I'm fairly
> sure that Rothbard, an agnostic Jew, was not anti-Semitic. And
> how can I be sure he wasn't simply a self-hating Jew? Because his
> teacher and mentor, Ludwig von Mises, was also Jewish.
>
> As for Paul, true, he's not also Jewish. But, he is a
> libertarian and, as such, an opponent of collectivism. He has
> specifically called racism collectivist, reflecting a similar
> opinion presented by Rand in her great essay, "Racism."
>
> (You can read that essay here:
>
> http://tiger.towson.edu/~apeak1/writtenwork/otherworksworthreading/racism.html )
>
> As for Israel, infering that one's opposition to the Israeli
> government (which receives a tremendous amount of welfare from the
> U.S. taxpayer, more than any other government) somehow amounts to
> anti-Semitism is no different than infering that opposition to the
> minimum wage (which creates unemployement, raises costs for
> consumers, and lowers the general standard of living) is somehow
> anti-poor.
>
> Finally, just because some nut started sending you anti-Semitic
> literature while you were in the LP doesn't make the LP anti-
> Semitic, nor does it prove that the sender even knew that you were
> in the LP, and moreover doesn't prove that the sender had any real
> clue about libertarianism even if he/she/they did know you were in
> the LP. After all, if someone starts sending communist literature
> to Smith while Smith is on the Robinson diet, that doesn't mean
> Robinson is a communist.
>
> Perhaps your perspective is different from mine. I'll be happy
> to listen to your argument if you believe there is any anti-
> Semitism in the LP or the broader libertarian movement.
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Alex Peak
>
> P.S. I grant you permission to publish this letter, or any
> portion thereof (so long as no quote is taken out of context, of
> course), if you wish.
Friday, October 5, 2007
In Praise of NOTA (None of the Above)
I have a project in which I believe: None of the Above. I had a long conversation with Bill White on Tuesday. Bill founded Voters for NOTA in Massachusetts and introduced bills in both legislative houses to permit voters to register a vote for "none of the above". The bill isn't going anywhere in Massachusetts, but it's worth a college professor's try in New York as well. Back in the 1960s, Howard Jarvis, a 1962 California primary Senate candidate didn't see Proposition 13 pass until 1978, eight years before his death in 1986. I envision a similar bill being proposed in NY, and I think I will be the one to propose a bill to my legislators. Bill White has done all the heavy lifting, and NOTA is an idea whose time has come in New York State.
This is a good year for NOTA. There's very slim pickings among the presidential candidates in both parties. Newsmax reports that James Carville believes that the Democrats are stronger than the Republicans only because of the "complete implosion" of the Republican Party, not because of enthusiasm for the Democrats. Even so, reports Newsmax, Carville still believes that the Democrats "could still lose focus". One reason might be the way the candidates look. I still believe that, ugly as Carville is, he is still better looking than Hillary, although both are better looking than Rosie O'Donnell.
On October 3, the Sun reported that growing evidence that conservatives are concerned about the choices shaping up in the Republican primary race, and Mike Huckabee's increasing popularity among voters in caucus states, offers the former Arkansas governor a rare opportunity to become a serious contender. Instead, social conservatives are thinking of running a third party candidate.
Speaking as an advocate of hard money, limited government and the common man, I feel the same way. Candidates just aren't interested in the erosion of the dollar, presumably because they assume that since voters have been educated in American public schools, the subject is difficult for them.
Last week in Kingston, NY, a shopper on line behind me in Hannaford's Supermarket claimed that grocery prices have gone up six percent since July. At dinner on Monday night, my aunt, Norma of Manhattan, a retired bookkeeper, mentioned that she believed that the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics has been misleading the public by publishing inflation statistics that do not include food prices.
The only candidate who grasps the inflation issue is Ron Paul, but his views on Iraq are silly and his use of the phrase "Israel lobby" concerns me. Ryan Sager covers this matter here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
